Wednesday, June 3, 2009


In The Age today here's a piece about male circumcision and the law.

The article states that "...circumcision might abuse the rights of a child" and that, "...circumcision might be considered an assault or a wounding... There is uncertainty as to whether the consent of a parent for the circumcision of their child is sufficient to allow a circumciser to legally perform the procedure."

It infers that it is possible, perhaps, for someone who has been circumcised to sue his parents and/or the circumsiser.

I know that some people put female and male circumcision in the same category, but, personally, I really don't see it that way. Though it's only 12% of male babies getting circumcised these days, I am circumsised, as many of us (a lot more than 12%) Gen-Xers were in those days, and I have no problem with it. I have a penis, simply lacking some foreskin. Female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris and I would say that's a whole other topic.

The article also states that risks of circumcision include, "...surgical mishap or complications and decreased sexual pleasure."

Well, there was no mishap or complication in my own case, and I do feel sexual pleasure (even if Melba disapproves). Whether or not I would feel more sexual pleasure if I wasn't circumsised is something I'll never know, but for the meantime, I don't inted to sue anyone, and I am content and satisfied with the genitalia I carry and the sexual pleasure I feel. It functions, it's smegma free, easy to clean, and indeed, I have come across women who much prefer a circumcised dick than not.

But, matters such as these are coming to a head (pun intended), and the operation I guess will become rarer and rarer in the coming years to the point, I predict, that it will be illegal in Australia. I suppose it doesn't matter except for Jews and Muslims with their Abrahamic traditions, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that it really doesn't bother me. It's a non-issue.

Over to you, parents: Did you consider it for your kids?
And to you, male readers of TSFKA: Are you? Is it an issue?


Ramon Insertnamehere said...

I'm circumcised but The Boy isn't.

Most doctors in Victoria won't circumcise unless for a religious reason although there is some evidence that it can reduce HIV transmission.

Good post, BTW.

Cath said...

Oh God. don't start on this argument here! I get enough of it at home from the man of the house!

As a Gen-X'er, I was brought up with men not having foreskins and frankly thought that that was the way that God SHOULD have made men. Personally I like a snipped man. But, and here's the thing... the man isn't. And he is very ANTI. He puts female and male circumcision together in the same category. And he isn't snipped. (He is also borderline Gen-Y...).

There are a myriad of reasons for and against the whole thing. Unfortunately once it is done, you can't go back, so Perseus and Ramon will never know what it would have been like without the snip, and my dear Mr Subtle would never submit, at this age, to undergo the procedure for the scientific process.

Apparently any future progeny of ours will remain as they were born - unless someone can find some irrefutable scientific evidence to present to him!

wari lasi said...

Am I brave enough to post?


I'm the same as Ramon. I'm done, we didn't do our son. He's 19 and doesn't seem to complain, but his penis doesn't come up often in discussions, funnily enough. I've read the same about HIV transmission.

I don't think it should be done routinely to babies. Certainly NOT for religious reasons, you don't start hacking bits off your kid because of some fantasy you have a liking for. If he wants to do it himself at a later stage then it's his choice.

Female circumcision is done ONLY for religious and flagrantly sexist purposes. By cunts with the sole intention of reducing sexual pleasure.

oldeboots said...

I am with wari lasi.

As I understand it, the health argument is a bit of furphy -- while there are some benefits associated with circumcision in developing countries, the benefits all but disappear in developed countries.

Circumcision is quite a cruel, barbaric and generally unnecessary practise. Maybe it should just be left up to teenagers to decide whether they want to chop bits off.

(btw. for the sake of disclosure, and in case you were wondering, I am whole).

Perseus said...

See that's the thing oldeboots, I don't feel like I have been a victim of cruelty.

I don't think it matters either way, so if parents want to do it or not do it, what does it matter?

It would be different I suppose if a male who is circumcised had a massive problem with it.

Pepsi said...

The idea of a lawsuit like this has been floating around for some time, it would be interesting to see what happens when (not if) it is instigated.

I also see the point he is making about the operation became an important part of their identity being bollocks, isnt it just another form of tagging ?

I have trouble putting the female / male circumcision into the same group though.

Male circumcision doesnt really do much other than snip a bit of useless skin off and in my experience (men with and men without) it doesnt make any difference what so ever, its just being comfortable with what you are used too (the men that is), its made no difference to me from a performance/pleasure/aesthetic point of view.

Female circumcision - cutting out one of the most important organs in a females body... this is complete madness.

I think they are both barbaric, just to differing degrees (slight v extreme).

I think some of humanities ancestors were insane. Who in their right mind came up with the idea of snipping a blokes foreskin off, then decided to cloak it in a cloud of religious piety anyway.

Probably the same sort of tosser who came up with the idea of forcing a group of women to cover their heads/faces/full bodies in black cloth cause he didnt want people gawking at his birds, and cloak it also in a cloud of religious piety.

I think they were all stark raving mad.

Theres definitely no way I'd ever do that to a boy-child, regardless of what religion their father is.

Fad MD said...

I'm a helmet-wearer but my son is a beanie.

I can see the point of snipping in the "olden days" when cleanliness left a bit to be desired and infection was a real problem, but now not so much. It's supposed to be there so why chop it off?

I'm not particularly fussed by being snipped an don't feel I've missed out on anything other than dickcheese.

Mr Subtle said...

Ramon Insertnamehere: "there is some evidence that it can reduce HIV transmission."
Complete rubbish. It was "considered" that the foreskin "could be" a location where infected HIV cells would "hide" and then be "ready" to infect the next person that "interacted" with the penis. I'd say if the person has "HIV infected cells" under their foreskin, they themselves have HIV. It's not the sort of disease that "hides out" under something ready to spring out and yell "SURPRISE!".

Cath: "I get enough of it at home from the man of the house!"
Yup and you will until you understand the unnecessary procedure that a baby is put through.
Cath: "As a Gen-X'er"
Actually, but the Gen-X stage the numbers were dropping rapidly. Unless you were experimenting with baby-boomers? They had the highest circumcised rate ever (recorded I think).
Cath: "Unfortunately once it is done, you can't go back"
So you'd force your child to go through with something this drastic (yes, it's slight but still) before they can even make the sort of decision that will be with them the rest of their life?
Cath: "Apparently any future progeny of ours will remain as they were born"
Unless it's life threatening, I'd prefer any progeny to remain as close to "natural" as I can possible manage.

oldeboots: "Circumcision is quite a cruel, barbaric and generally unnecessary practise."
Hear! Hear!

Perseus: "I don't feel like I have been a victim of cruelty."
As I'm sure the little Japanese girls didn't feel like a victim either when their feet were bound for fashion reasons.

Humanity has done many, many horrible and wonderful things in it's past. Sometimes we get to a point in time when we look at something we've "always done" and reconsider it. Plastic bags jump to mind right now, I'm sure there are others. Things that we had always considered "the way things are" when really they are damaging, or just totally unnecessary. Yes, I am "whole" (seems odd to have to specify what I "am") and no, none of my children will have any unnecessary procedure done because "that's what other people are doing" (or I think it "looks better") - until someone comes out and says unequivocally that having a foreskin will kill you, all penises (penii?) will remain whole and away from sharp implements.

If we were to remove all "unnecessary" parts of the body why do most of us still walk around with an appendix and tonsils?

wari lasi said...

BTW. Even though I think it's unnecessary I have no problems with my parents wizzing mine off.

I was born at the Mater hospital in Sydney (I think it's closed now) and at the time (1964) I don't think any foreskins were getting out of there alive.

patchouligirl said...

I was against circumcision for my son as my dad always called it pointless mutilation and none of the men in our family were circumcised so I'd kind of grown up with that mentality. My husband hummed and haahed a bit as he was circumcised and wondered if Jack should be the same but in the end he could barely stand to see him get his vitamin K shot so that ended that discussion. Anyway he'll be the same as most of his friends and wont get teased for being different I suppose.

patchouligirl said...

Sorry for the double post but Dad also used to say that babies had died from infections caused by circumcision. While this and other complications may be rare I don't think I would risk it knowing that it is a possibility.

Melba said...

We considered it. If Princess had been born a boy, she would have been circumcised. My ex was adamant and I didn't feel strongly enough against it to care either way really. Sounds harsh, but I didn't. For him, it was religious and cultural reasons. My brother and father were circumcised. It was, as Perseus says, common in those days.

Personally, I prefer a cut dick. Aesthetically, for me, they are much prettier.

Just want to say. Female circumcision is a cultural practice, not religious. There is nothing in any religious text that prescribes it. Also, if you do a search, you will find men who are growing back their foreskins as a form of empowerment.

You heard me. Go look.

Puss In Boots said...

My partner is not circumcised, but has considered doing it as an adult as the extra foreskin causes problems with condoms (they slip off because of the foreskin moving back and forth, and generally he worries so much about it that sex ends in a flop [pun intended] a lot of the time). The only thing stopping him from doing it now is that he's worried about the pain.

If I ever did have male children, I would have them circumcised. I can't really justify my reasons past aesthetics and the 'hygiene' issue that is being debated. And also because I'd like them to avoid the condom-issue that my partner has, as such an issue can really only lead to unsafe sex and thus potentially other issues.

Also, the condom issue with uncircumcised men is one I have encountered before, so I think it's valid point.

I don't think it's a barbaric practice, but again I can't really justify that. My views are probably clouded by my cultural background. But I also don't think female circumcision is the same thing. One is removing "useless" skin, the other is removing something essential for sexual pleasure.

Anonymous said...

Would you give a newborn baby a tattoo?

Would you pierce a newborn baby's ears, nose, bellybutton, etc?

So why chop off bits of their skin that ~you~ consider useless, for cosmetic reasons?

The Semitic peoples of old did it because in a low-water desert environment, it had distinctive hygiene purposes, as did all their myriad dietary laws. Typically, they turned them all into religious edicts that survived long after they were no longer needed.

I'm not circumcised. I told my partner that under no circumstances would I do that to my sons. It gives you an idea of the type of woman that she is, that she went and had it done to them behind my back when they were 2 years old. At least at that age they got general anaesthesia, unlike newborns.

Fact of the matter is, it's painful cosmetic surgery, and if it wasn't already a cultural practice, most people would think you were sadistic and mad if you suggested starting to chop baby boys' foreskins off en masse.

The argument that it's "useless" skin doesn't play. Let the child grow to 18 and then decide if they'd like to remove that bit of "useless skin" if they really wanted to. Do you really think there'd be many men volunteering?

Personally, I prefer a cut dick. Aesthetically, for me, they are much prettier.

Ergo Melba, you'd be cool with a circumcised female, provided her husband thought it was aesthetically prettier?

And Puss, that condom argument must be the weakest thing I've ever heard. I've never had any problems with them slipping off. Maybe your bf is using the wrong size? If it's really a problem, use the female contraceptive pill, or IUDs, etc. There's a male contraceptive pill in development - it'll be widely available by the time any male child of yours became sexually active anyway.

Lewd Bob said...

There is evidence to suggest that circumcised males are less prone to various sexually transmitted diseases. But I'm not sure whether the increase in the likelihood of disease is justification enough to support circumcision.

Perhaps it would be akin to removing the appendix at birth because of its tendency to increase both morbidity and mortality. A slightly more serious operation sure, but the best parallel I can conjure.

Maybe childhood immunisation is another good comparison. It's an unnatural process which causes pain and discomfort in children, and is performed to reduce the incidence of disease. But it doesn't result in anatomical change.

For the record, I'm Gen X (1970) and I'm cut.

Melba said...

Sorry Boogeyman. I don't care that yours isn't, I don't care either way if they are or they aren't. Not really. But my preference is for cut. I guess it's what I've been used to. Doesn't mean that I would condone female circumcision, because the reasoning behind that practice is completely different to what's behind male circumcision. And you'll find more people saying that it's definitely wrong than you will male circumcision.

And any heat in your argument is clearly to do with your personal experience with your partner. (Or ex?) I have no emotion around it whatsoever. Admittedly, I don't have a penis and I didn't give birth to a son, so I have no strong feelings about male circumcision. I do have strong feelings against female circumcision or infibulation or any other practices that clearly are to do with prevention of sexual pleasure or indeed sexual activity. You can't say the two are the same.

Really interesting topic. But fuck I'm sick of typing "circumcision."

patchouligirl said...

Aesthetically, for me, they are much prettier.

When they're up or down? I mean, doesn't the foreskin pull back with an erection? They all look the same 'up' dont they?

Condoms are used more as protection for HIV than pregnancy nowadays I think Boogey but its the first time I've heard of a foreskin causing a problem with condoms. I'm sure the men can comment on how trouble-free condoms aren't whether they have a foreskin or not!

Anonymous said...

Melba, the majority of my statement was directed at the main article, not your comment.

My response to you (the single paragraph after your comment) was simply to point out that your statement implied that you having an aesthetic preference for circumcised males made it an acceptable practice, and you could by extension apply that same argument to any sort of bodily mutilation of a child, including female circumcision, even though I agree it is an abhorrent practice.

Patch, I've used them for nearly 20 years and haven't had such problems. Perhaps Puss's bf is wearing the wrong size?

Leilani said...

God, hasn't this circumcision debate been put to bed already? I didn't have it done to my son and I've never understood that argument that the dads want their boys to match. Father and son penis stylings - definitely cosmetic surgery.

And it matters so little to me, and I'm sure to a lot of women, that I couldn't even tell you if any of my old boyfriends were cut or not. I'm with Patch - when they're ready they all look the same.

patchouligirl said...

Are your boys twins Boogey? That was not a very nice thing for your ex to do and I can imagine how upsetting that would be - not so much the loss of the foreskin but for her to do something so apparently calculated to hurt you. It would have hurt you a lot more than the boys.

Anonymous said...

Yes, they're twins, and no, she didn't do it to hurt me, but rather because she decided she wanted it done, and be damned if I thought otherwise.

social disaster said...

The argument that it's "useless" skin doesn't play. Let the child grow to 18 and then decide if they'd like to remove that bit of "useless skin" if they really wanted to. Do you really think there'd be many men volunteering?

There probably would be. Plenty of men get all sorts of piercings down there and I've been told by men with high pain thresholds that it's not exactly the best experience. I've had a female piercing down there and yeah, it hurts. So there are many adults who already go through painful experiences to modify their bits. I'm sure there are many adult males who choose to get circumsised.

I personally have never given the issue much thought although I have discussed it with my boyfriend and if we ever have a son he'll get circumsised. My boyfriend's son had it done as a newborn about two years ago. I think it's up to the father to choose.

squib said...

And I suppose it's obvious, right? Like you'd have to be seriously stupid if you'd been married for 7 years and you didn't know if your husband had been done or not?

Perseus said...

Oh dear, Squib.

Desci said...

Squib, maybe you've just only seen cut or uncut ones without realising, so you're unsure of the aesthetic differences? Perhaps turn safe search off and do some google image (re)search.

You know, I don't have a preference. I like a nice shape is all. Though I haven't seen many cut ones, since most of my partners have been young Xers and old Yers.

patchouligirl said...

This generation of babies is the foreskin generation - if ladies prefer cut they will be severely limiting their options in the future.

Melba said...

Squib, if the end of his dick when flaccid looks like the end of one of those emperor gum moth cocoons, then he's uncircumcised.

If, when soft, you can see the head, and there's a shape to it, and you can see the ridge underneath which defines the helmet, then he is cut.

If your hubby's always hard when you look, then maybe you wouldn't see a difference.

kitten said...

Interesting article at the US CDC on circumcision. Conclusions, it does signficantly reduce HIV transmission, and also reduces transmission of other diseases such as chlamydia, syphilis, and HPV (cervical cancer).
Men who were circumcised as adults reported the same or increased sexual pleasure.
It also reduces infant unrinary problems, penis cancer, and a variety of other diseases.
In 1999 the US health authority removed circumcision as a medical procedure due to lack of benefits, but more recent research showing it does have some, has meant that that decision is now under review.

I am for circumcision. Blowjobs on uncircumcised dicks arent as easy as going down on a circumcised one, and if the guy hasnt immediately cleaned his dick beforehand, it is really gross. If you are not circumcised dont complain about the lack of head (pun intended).

Plus in my experience uncircumcised guys dont last as long in the sack.

Perseus said...

I'm starting to like Kitten now, despite the emoticons.

And of course Mr.Squib is always hard when he sees Squib. She's hot stuff.

shitbmxrider said...

As an owner/operator of a foreskin (Born in 84)...

That comment from Puss about it slipping off...? WTF?

Either hes doing it totally wrong, using the wrong size or something, I know my foreskin is down below the helmet when I am erect, and I have never had any trouble with condoms apart from how much less you can feel vs. au natural

Fad MD said...

As an owner/operator of a foreskin

Now there's something you don't read every day...

Melba said...

I agree with Kitten's second para there apart from the final line.

Mr Subtle said...

I've re-written my first couple of paragraphs in response to the latest comments a number of times. Each time I got angrier and angrier. So I'll keep it tight and even.

But there is one I'd like to ask questions of:
kitten said...
" Interesting article at the US CDC on circumcision. Conclusions, it does signficantly reduce HIV transmission, and also reduces transmission of other diseases such as chlamydia, syphilis, and HPV (cervical cancer)."

I'm sorry, what?? How does a flap of skin increase these problems and other health issues? I'd like to see the number of people in the test before I'd leap to cutting into a baby. Also, how were the tested conducted? From other "studies" of similar findings I've noticed a greater option for comparing generations not specifics. In this case I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say they have 2 columns in a spreadsheet - one with the percentage of uncut males in a given year and the other being the number of infections of the year. Oh, lookie there's a similarity between a flap of skin and the dangers to the population's general health.

Let's take it another way - if one believes in "god" or if one believes in "evolution". If the foreskin was bad - "god" wouldn't have put it there - "evolution" would have removed the foreskin many, many generations ago.

But strangely enough - it's still there. Whether one believes in "god" or "evolution", all penises come with a foreskin before it is removed. Strange that nature thinks differently to us humans. Hell, people jump up and down about dog's tails being docked - but not their son's pride and joy. People are strange.

One final note, I really can't stand by and listen to the hygiene "argument" any longer. Seriously, having a foreskin DOES NOT MAKE IT DIRTY. Does having labia make the vagina dirty? If a man doesn't know how to wash his body, that's his own stupid fault - not the flap of skin he was born with.

On another note kitten - not giving head to a guy with a foreskin, that's your own choice - he'll be better off without a girl like you.

Cath said...

As an owner/operator of a foreskin

Best comment line ever. Ever.

Melba said...

Mr Subtle, Kitten said that if a foreskinned man hasn't washed just prior to oral sex, it's not a pleasant experience. In fact it's unpleasant. I agree with that. But a cut cock is still tasty even unwashed, in my opinion. So explain that. Not sure that you can comment on it really, unless you've sucked a dick. But you did agree that if some bastard doesn't know how to wash, that he's an idiot. I guess it would be the same then, for a man going down on some rancid cunt.

Perseus said...

"...some rancid cunt"

Like, Andrew Bolt?

Cath said...

Does having labia make the vagina dirty?

Second best comment line. Ever.

And yes, this is the man I am marrying!

kitten said...

Here is the article, with all the statistics and medical details:

By the way, in one study in Africa they suspended the study halfway through as the results meant that it would be unethical to continue on and leave the control group uncircumcised!

Just think how popular a circumcised boy is going to be in the future, when all his mates are not circumcised. Women will be lining up around the block for him!

Perseus said...

Just think how popular a circumcised boy is going to be in the future, when all his mates are not circumcised. Women will be lining up around the block for him!

Lewd Bob already posted that yarn.

Anonymous said...

Kitten, perhaps you need to ask your men to wash themselves down below?

Most of us are aware of basic hygeine, but I can't speak for the men you bed.

I might add that it's equally disgusting going down on an unwashed cunt, but it's never occurred to me to suggest they excise their labia to rectify a problem more easily addressed with soap and education.

Mr Subtle said...

Melba said..."I guess it would be the same then, for a man going down on some rancid cunt."
I agree wholeheartedly with this comment Melba, anyone who has bad hygiene is NOT going to be nice to play with in the sack. Saying that, I am not able to give an opinion of orally pleasuring a penis (aside from being pleasured) but I can say that a "rancid cunt" is NOT something that is nice at all.
You asked me to explain your opinion, as it is impossible for me to do this I won't even try. Instead I will let you in on a bit of a secret - different people have different tastes. Even when it comes to sex.

kitten said..." Here is the article, with all the statistics and medical details:"
Strange, appears all the "evidence" is from 3rd world countries - and the "threat of infection" is due to the "foreskin has less keratinization". So what they are saying is that ANY skin that has less kerantinization could be susceptible to some form of infection. Ever looked at your tongue?
Also the study is confined to "penile-vaginal sex", which from what people have said is harmful to one's health? Or just with a foreskin? Oh wait, UNPROTECTED "penile-vaginal sex" is harmful to one's health.

kitten said..."By the way, in one study in Africa"
Africa - does the rest of the world have the same hygiene as Africa? Do we also have the same problems with access to fresh water? Come on let's be just a little smart about this shall we. Africa is in serious trouble with all sorts of health issues. I'm not even going to go into this further - if you want to assume Africa is a good cases study for the rest of the world, I really do hope you aren't propagating.

kitten said..."Women will be lining up around the block for him!"
I suspect what you'll find is a reaction similar to that in Arthur C. Clark's "3001: The Final Odyssey" where the "natural" reaction of people was horror at the mutilation done to a man.

Melba said...

OK, I'm just going to put this out there, considering we are now getting pretty far away from keeping it nice.

Boogeyman, Mr Subtle and any other blokes with foreskins who are happy to comment. When you shower, do you pull back the foreskin and wash there? With soapy water? If so, fantastic, but I would really like to know how many actually do, each and every time. If you don't, it's rancid baby, rancid. When I wash, I wash my vulva, lips - min. and maj. - with soap.

Am I really writing all this?

Mr Subtle said...

Melba said..."When you shower, do you pull back the foreskin and wash there? With soapy water?"

As often as I can. It's a part of the body that needs cleaning and I was instructed from a young age to keep my body as clean as possible. If people don't keep their own hygiene levels up, then it's a hygiene issue and not a cause for mutilation.

social disaster said...

Do any of the circumcised men here feel mutilated?

Mr Subtle said...

small disclaimer - the use of the word "mutilation" is only my opinion, not the thoughts of those who have had the procedure.

social disaster said...

It'd be interesting to know how many circumcised men are so strongly against it as some uncut men seem to be.

Anonymous said...

Melba, yes, I do.

I find odd the notion that a circumcised guy would taste nice even when he hasn't washed - maybe air-dried urine develops ages well? Who knew?

As to your other question, how many wash, I don't know. A lot of men don't even bother washing their hands after using the toilet.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Do any of the circumcised men here feel mutilated?


I have far more important things to worry about than my dick.

Perseus said...

It's true SD. Us circumsised guys don't really care about the issue.

I feel decorated, not mutilated.

Melba said...

Stale pee and inside pant-aroma tastes way better than whatever can hide inside the unwashed foreskin. I guess that's the smegma Perseus was talking about earlier.

My argument is not pro-circumcision, I should have said this earlier. I'm not even making an argument here, I don't feel that strongly one way or the other. I was just stating my preferences, aesthetically and otherwise. I think this will be my last comment. I have to go and cook dinner. It's been a charming conversation, thanks everyone.

Pepsi said...

Foreskins give me something else to play with, but if its not there, I'm not fussed. I cant recall a foreskin (absent/present) contributing much to any of my orgasms.

But a dirty dick is a dirty dick - skin or no skin - if its whiffy, I'm not going there.

I also expect Pepsi to maintain a certain standard of cunt-cleanness too.

Oh happy day !!

Fad MD said...

When you shower, do you pull back the foreskin and wash there? With soapy water?

Although circumcised I will often wash myself vigorously.

... and... I'm spent.

Fad MD said...

I have far more important things to worry about than my dick.


squib said...

Thanks Melba, it is true I only see it in a happy state. I emailed him but he won't tell me

But I will get to bottom or the tip of this

Thank you TSFKA for being so educational. (I feel like I'm writing to Dolly magazine)

Puss In Boots said...

I don't have time to read all of the comments, so I'll just reply to Boogey's - I had my ears pierced as a baby, and I didn't suffer any harm from it.

Also, he is not using the wrong size. And as I said, I have encountered this before in other uncut males. Not all, but most. So I don't think it's a condom size thing. I think the skin just slides up and down too much, and takes the condom with it, and then it keeps slipping, so that he either has to continually hold it down at the base, or it comes off (and I have had the unfortunate experiencing of having to retrieve a slipped one - it's not fun, and rather difficult).

And to suggest not using condoms and just using female birth control in this day and age is very irresponsible of you Boogey. How on earth are female contraceptives going to protect against HIV or other STDs??

Anonymous said...

I'm not suggesting them for all, Puss - just your boyfriend's condom problem. I just assumed you were in an exclusive relationship.

So far, the reasons I've heard in support of circumcision - the debatable sexual health benefits, the sexual aesthetics, condom slippage, etc don't really support circumcising infants. Guys could do it at 18 just like some adults get bodily piercings.

eat my shorts said...

I've heard the condom slippage argument more than once, but I haven't heard the blame being located squarely at the foreskin.

(There's a sentence I never thought I'd type.)

I'd honestly struggle to see the reason behind circumcision if I had boy babies. I just know I'd be really uncomfortable with the idea. I think it's completely unnecessary. That's just my opinion.

As for an aesthetic preference with a partner? Personally? Don't care.

I'm with Boogs and Mr Subtle, all the arguments for circumcision are refutable.

kitten said...

I wipe myself with toilet paper each time I go to the toilet. Which is several times a day. Do men wipe under the foreskin several times a day? I doubt it. Men dont care if they are dirty, and just expect women to put up with it. Nice.

Louche said...

Nope, F. hasn't been done. The Nerd has, like most boys in the '70s were, but we read a little bit before F's birth and decided against it. The thought of putting a newborn through a hideous procedure WITHOUT ANESTHESIA was too much.

Also, I think the foreskin must serve some purpose. Maybe we just don't know what it is yet. I've heard it's better for wanking?

Please confirm, guys!

Louche said...

Oh, and Boogey, if I ever meet your ex-wife I'll slap her across the face for you.

How dare she have surgery performed on your children without yours - or their - consent.

Anonymous said...

Do men wipe under the foreskin several times a day? I doubt it. Men dont care if they are dirty, and just expect women to put up with it.

You give head several times a day, Kitten, or mostly just after toilet breaks?

Louche - be my guest.

shitbmxrider said...

Melba: "When you shower, do you pull back the foreskin and wash there? With soapy water?"

Yes, every time I shower, so 2, sometimes 3 times a day

Puss In Boots said...

I'm not saying the arguments against circumcision can't be refuted, and I wasn't really trying to justify myself that hard. But I do think that if I'm with an uncircumcised guy who thinks the benefits of being circumcised outweigh the 'cruelty' argument enough to say he would definitely have his male children circumcised, then that's a compelling argument to me. If an uncut guy thinks it's a good thing, considering the issues he faces himself, then since I have no first hand knowledge of it, it's a lot easier for me to go along with it.

Besides, I think it's a cultural thing. I don't think it's quite been bred out of us yet. Maybe the children currently being born will abolish it completely, since there's only 12% of them that are being circumcised.

patchouligirl said...

Do any of the circumcised men here feel mutilated?

Those who died from associated infections/complications can't answer that one.

homesick said...

Dad and both brothers have been circumcised.

None remember it happening.

None of then would go into detail (phew)but all three are more than happy with their lot.

They never felt embarressed but then again they were in the majority for their age group.

Spouse is done... but his was at 14as the tip of his cock outgrew the foreskin... "Fuckin painful after surgery but no worse that the pain of the too small foreskin".

BF before spouse was cut in his late teens for medical reasons. He said he wished his parents had done it at birth.

Gay cousin will not "suck on an anteater unless the guy showers first... shit gets up there" His words no mine.

Kiwi mate I wroked with in London had to get it doen at 25. Poor bastard ahd to sit on a rubber ring for a week and wear tracky dacks to work. After one day seeing him in pain I sent him home (boys in the office told him to HTFU)

Eldest daughter had to have 10 stitches across her forehead just above her eyebrow without anesthetic.. sure she screamed the place down and it took three rather large Jamaican nurses to hold her down, but she has no memory of it other than the red ice block they gave her for being "brave".

So, if you wnat it done on your son do it. If you don't, then great... don't. Either way he'll still have a working fully functional dick that will both pleasure his partner and won't impinge on his orgasms either. If he gets it done as a baby he won't remember a thing And for those that compare male foreskin removal to that of a woman having her clitoris removed with a rusty knife so she won't stray from her husband.. GET FUCKED CUNT-CUNT.

That is all.

Louche said...

"Either way he'll still have a working fully functional dick"

Unless something goes wrong. Sure, the risk is small, but is it worth it?

homesick said...

I agree Louche but that is the choice for the parents.

Some argued the same point when it came to my birth choice.... I say whatever floats your boat.

It is your choice at the end of the day and you them must live with the consequences be they good or bad.

Anonymous said...

Homesick, when surgery with potential risks (as all surgery has) is proposed on an infant, where the alternative (do nothing) has no risks, you really need a compelling argument for the child's health and welfare to agree to that surgery.

"Parental preference" doesn't really cut it. If the operation goes wrong, and they remove part of the penis itself (as has happened before), or too much foreskin causing lifelong problems for the child, are you happy to say to that child, "blame your parents, they chose this unnecessary surgery."

kitten said...

I think that more adult males should be circumcised in order to provide aesthetic and sexual pleasure to women. And for no other reason.

That way I will feel better about all those women who think they have to have breast implants in order to be sexually attractive. Or who get their labia removed so they look the models in porn magazines.

Equality cuts both ways (pun intended again).

eat my shorts said...

Ahhh. So *this* is the sarcasm of which you speak.

Mr Subtle said...

kitten said..."I think that more adult males should be circumcised in order to provide aesthetic and sexual pleasure to women. And for no other reason."

I'm not even sure I know where to being with statements like these. Seriously, can't you (people?) think of better options that "tit for tat"? (no pun intended). Breast augmentation and vaginal surgery is also wrong, why oh why "should" one group do this (circumcision) because another group does that (breast augmentation)? Really ... what the fuck?

If a man (or a woman) decides to do something to their body - more power to them. I support freedom of choice right to the hilt - when it comes to one's own body. But when it's for "prettiness" or "the way things have always been", then it's time to jam it where the sun doesn't shine.

On that logic kitten - all women should get vaginal surgery to tighten their vaginas for their partner's pleasure? Or is that going too far???

Anonymous said...

Mr Subtle, you really need to recognise obvious flame-bait.

Kitten may be many things, but Ms Subtle, she is not.

WitchOne said...

My partner and I created the perfect baby boy and I was most offended when people started asking me if I was going to have bits of him cut off. How horrid!!!!!!

I prefer a circumcised penis, my partner is circumcised but cutting ANYTHING off my baby without it being an absolute medical necessity seemed barbaric, cruel, insulting, unnecessary and just plain rude. We are teaching him proper hygiene, it goes along with manners, courtesy and respect.

A friend of ours had to get circumcised at 18 because of a medical issue, that is my only concern. But it's a slight one.

kitten said...

Update on Australian medical position on circumcision:

Perseus said...

The one thing that study fails to mention is your theory of increased headjobs, Kitten.

Also, this post is edging towards 100 comments, which may be a record on TSFKA. The topic is 'penises'. And Caz thought we were highbrow...

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

That's the trouble with The Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Not enough thought given to increased headjobs.

Perseus said...

You could graph the decline of headjobs on the y axis and the rate of circumcision on the x axis and observe a slope steeper than Everest.

Anonymous said...

But you'd still have to show some kind of causal link. Which would probably require some form of controlled testing.

kitten said...

It has been considered and studies done. Not good news for the uncircumcised I'm afraid.

So, would you consider circumcising your sons if you knew it would give them a sexual advantage in later life?

Anonymous said...

In my humble submission, I put it to you that most men will need more than just a circumcised penis to get as far as a possible headjob.

Exhibit A: Perseus, how's your love life lately?

Your Honour, I rest my case. I'll be out back chatting up the paralegals.

Anonymous said...

So, would you consider circumcising your sons if you knew it would give them a sexual advantage in later life?


If they felt it was going to help their chances, they could have it done as adults. As Boogeyman said, I wouldn't tattoo a child and I wouldn't circumcise one either. Adults can make up their own minds what they do with their bodies.

Sharon's Stone said...

Circumcision is like abortion. Personal choice. It has nothing to do with anyone else. And like abortion, it's a big decision to make but once it's made, that's it. If anyone out there has an opinion about it, GET FUCKED. What's more abusive to a child? Getting him circumcised or sending him to some prattish school like Scotch College?

Sharon's Stone said...

Alex, how can you compare tattooing to circumcision? They come under totally different categories. Parents circumcise for the well being and hygenic purpose of their off spring and because they just want to. Think about that for a while.

Anonymous said...

If anyone out there has an opinion about it, GET FUCKED. 

Presumably, you don't actually want to here this, but since you asked; here's my reasoning. 

Parents circumcise for the well being and hygenic purpose of their off spring  

1. Hygiene: Perhaps this is an issue in the developing world, but it shouldn't be for anyone who has regular access to soap and water. 

2. Disease: Unless someone can produce a study that shows it to be more effective than condom use, I can't see any reason to champion circumcision in the fight against STDs. 

3. Medical complication: People don't have parts of the body with higher rates of complication (appendix, tonsils) pre-emptively removed. And while a small number of people may have foreskin related problems in later life, the procedure itself carries the small risk of infection, genital mutilation and even death. 

and because they just want to 

Yeah, that is the point. I see circumcision basically as an unnecessary, painful, permanent body modification that an adult is forcing on a child for no real reason other than culture and aesthetics. Hence the tattoo comparison. 

Circumcision is like abortion. Personal choice. 

I would argue that a woman's right to choose becomes more limited once the pregnancy is over. For instance, I don't believe that a mother should have the right to terminate a child after it has been born, even if she decides that she doesn't want it. 

What's more abusive to a child? Getting him circumcised or sending him to some prattish school like Scotch College? 

I don't know anything about Scotch College but you may well be correct. In any event, two wrongs hardly make a right.

Anonymous said...

You're a twit, Sharon. The choice to abort a foetus is a pretty final decision - if you choose to do so, there is no more child to argue that you screwed up their life. Therefore it is a choice for the mother, and possibly also the father. The aborted foetus will never get a say in it.

Circumcision however, like tattooing, is an invasive surgical procedure, with all the potential risks of such, on a child that will grow up and potentially wish you had chosen otherwise - especially if something went wrong, and you screwed up their life because of it.

Why anyone would want to perform unnecessary surgery (ie. all but that for definite medical needs) on a newborn to satisfy aesthetics or outdated religious practices is beyond me. If no harm be done by doing nothing, then do nothing, and leave it till the child is an adult.

If people had been removing infant's earlobes since the days of ancient Levant, you could sure bet there'd be plenty of modern "scientific studies" into its so-called benefits just to give some validity to a ridiculous and unnecessary religious practice.

If anyone out there has an opinion about it, GET FUCKED.

Goodness, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?


On a side note, I find it rather inconsistent of Perseus to rail against every outdated and unnecessary religious practice with such vigour, from the shaving of eyebrows, to nibbling on transubstantiated crackers and wine in church, to using god as a get-out-of-guilt-free card, and yet is quite comfortable with a religious practice hailing from the Old Testament that involves taking a sharp blade and cutting into an infant barely a few days old.

Way to champion the Age of Reason there, old boy.

Perseus said...

If you re-read my post Boogeyman, you will note that I said that I didn't care either way, but I am content with my own circumcision and bear no grudge against my parents.

They are not religious, and so my circumcision had nothing to do with the Old Testament.

I do however it is more aesthetically pleasing to be circumcised.

But if they made it illegal tomorrow, I wouldn't care.

Anonymous said...

My point was that you will get very heated in argument about the other activities - those of new age wankers, ex-treasurers thanking god for a wife's recovery, so on and so on - which are largely harmless (if not a little annoying to sensible people), yet be quite ambivalent about one practice quite arguably more harmful to an innocent infant.

Perseus said...

Male circumcision is harmful?

Anonymous said...

Ask this boy.

Then there's the others who've had too much foreskin removed, causing lifelong problems with urination and sex.

And others who've accidentally had part of the penis head itself removed.

Think about it - it's surgery on a tiny piece of skin (for infants, anyway) around a sensitive, vital organ - so of course it can go wrong. Which is why I say unless there's a compelling medical reason to have it done, don't do it. 'Parental choice' isn't an acceptable justification. Why take the risk? Leave it till they're 18.

Perseus said...

You're sending me to an article based on a botched operation in England in 1965?


My point is still valid. Us men who have been circumsised don't feel as though we are victims of anything. We find it bemusing that people who aren't circumsised feel so strongly about it. That was the only point of my article. Stop arguing. It's giving me the irrits*.

*I haven't heard that word since about 1978.

Anonymous said...

I offered that link as an example of what can happen.

I'm not suggesting you should feel violated. Nothing went wrong with yours, I'm guessing.

Sharon's Stone said...

Boogeyman, I need more scientific evidence to suggest that male circumcision is wrong. I've come across too many young school aged boys with urinary tract infections who are uncut.

Anonymous said...

Sharon, this might be a good place for you to start.

Beyond that, though, I'm not sure how many studies I could supply you with that would change your apparent availability bias.

And how exactly do you have practical experience of so many school-aged boys, circumcised and not, with UTIs to offer an anecdotal statement like that with such conviction?

So far, no one has supplied sufficient scientific evidence that en masse penile surgery for infants is better than the risks of doing nothing. I should think that any good doctor would want to be convinced of the medical necessity for surgery before operating, not the other way around.