Comments on: Tuesday questions

By: Chartles II

Chartles II — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:32:02 +0000

There is an alternative to surgical circumcision that works for MANY boys and men, yet is seldom considered. It can make the more common surgery unnecessary, so the anti-circ crowd should be first in line to get behind it. Yet they are not. Most of these people claim to “defend” boys’ rights to decide for themselves, but in truth work to keep boys in ignorance about it, and deprived of the choice until they are no longer BOYS under the control of their parents.
By age 3 - 5, most normal, properly functional foreskins are fully retracted for 90% of all boys. By age 10, about 99%. The idea is simply this. As soon as they are, they should be. Permanent foreskin retraction eliminates ALL of the same foreskin problems, now and in the future, that real circumcison does. If this practice is made a regiment early enough, the penis can grow and devlop the same as if cut at an early age or at birth, leaving the foreskin behind with the rest of childhood.
You don’t wait until boys are, say, 14 to decide that it’s about time they learn to take their socks off and wash their feet, and pull their skins back and wash their penises. If they still have them, that is. And if they do still have them, they won’t be able to touch them for all the rawness, irritation, hypersensitivity and possibly infections.
It’s possible that only a minority of boys have excessively long or loose foreskins that can’t be trained to stay retracted, if the practice is regimented early enough.
There is no risk whatsoever in doing this IF the foreskin is normal and not not phimotic or has other problems already. So for those of you that can’t decide about circumcision, or want to postpone the decision until the boy can intelligently participate in it himself, consider this option.

By: Siel

Siel — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:51:48 +0000

An interesting news article via Jasmine: Male circumcision protects women from AIDS -study!

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 03:41:46 +0000

Some women are freaked out by uncircumcised guys? Wow, I guess the two notches in my proverbial bedpost don’t really qualify me to comment on issues of sexuality. But yeah, I don’t buy the nature argument either. I find piercings and tattoos generally attractive although they’re far from natural. But finding natural genitalia “freaky”, and surgically mutilated genitalia normal does seem a bit odd.

Oh, and I have heard that getting circumcised as an adult is a real bitch. Post-pubescent guys can’t help but get erections in their sleep. And if one’s circumcision is still fresh, this apparently means awakening in the middle of the night in screaming, writhing pain …

By: Siel

Siel — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:23:11 +0000

WHAT? I’ve known lots of women who’re freaked out by uncircumcised guys. “What do I do with it?” they’ll ask. If they like the guy enough, they get over it, but it’s still an issue.

I guess in general, I feel the “natural” argument’s a lil out there, considering the fact that I’ve decided to get piercings here and there, and many of my friends have gotten tattoos. I might be convinced by an argument saying that it’s cruel to cut the foreskin off of, or pierce the ears of, a baby who doesn’t get a say in the issue — quite another to say that our bodies should remain “intact” — i.e. the way they were when we were born. I think people should have the right to modify — To me, circumcision is more of an issue of people having the right to make the choice for themselves.

Weirdly, while driving down from San Fran, I listened to part of a radio show about a guy who’s finally getting circumcised at age 30. The concensus on the show was that it sucks that the guy has to go through the painful experience at 30, when others were so young when they got it done that they don’t remember. Of course, this kind of concensus can only come out of a country that considers circumcision the norm –

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:39:11 +0000

Circumcision is barbaric. Naturally the U.S. is waaaaay behind the rest of the modern world in continuing this practice. I’ve never known a single woman who was repulsed by the idea or the actual experience of being with an “intact” man. The male body arrives perfectly set up for life on planet Earth … who are we to say “Oh, Nature made a mistake and actually meant for us to CUT THIS PART OFF”???????? I get particularly fired up about this issue because it’s so cruel and ridiculous. It harkens back to our Puritanical roots, no matter what “hygienic” or cosmetic reason people fabricate for it. Should we schedule our baby daughters for their breast implants as soon as they’re born?

By: Siel

Siel — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:54:13 +0000

The circumcision Q for me has nothing to do with medical or religious stuff or whatever. My main concern is that my poor imaginary son might have trouble getting laid because some women in the US are frightened — even repelled — by foreskin, mainly cuz they’ve never had to deal with the stuff before.

Of course, if we’re gonna change that reaction, we’re gonna have to have more sexually active guys with foreskins intact so it doesn’t seem so unusual.

Interesting article, Brian. In my experience, I can’t say I’ve noticed a pleasure difference between cut/uncut men — I’m guessing that using condoms alters the stats somewhat? But the uncircumcised def. seem to have more complaints about their sexual history, ranging from how sometimes it hurts when they have sex WITHOUT a condom (the guys that don’t fully retract), to how they feel they have v. little sensitivity while wearing a condom due to their foreskin.

Anyway…

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:35:19 +0000

We all reminisce fondly about The City (San Francisco) but most folks I know have never lived there. Like me they were everywhere but (San Anselmo for me). I loved working and playing the San Francisco but would never ever live there. Especially the Richmond where the trains go rumble rumbling by.

I loved living in Studio City (does that count as L.A.?). If the ground never moved, I would probably be there still. I have not been back since the metro was put in, can one survive without a car if you live near a station?

As for cut or not, this question has been difficult to answer. It is making me think. You tend to do that, make me think that is…

By: Jasmin

Jasmin — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:14:01 +0000

Circumcision just seems more hygenic, but I’d probably need more information before I decide, when and if I have kids.

I didn’t spend too much time in LA when I was there a couple of years ago, but I think I like S.F. a lot better because of the bay, green-friendly atmosphere, and the lovely Victorians.

By: beev

beev — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:11:00 +0000

I’m in for a Gmail invite, please.

From what I’ve heard, I think I’d prefer the people of SF to those of LA. Of course, weather sounds much better in LA; though I’m finally starting to appreciate the erratic nature of the Scottish climate. Makes life more interesting.

As for circumcsion: don’t cut up your children’s knobs! Why would you do that?

By: aleta

aleta — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:42:12 +0000

On the question of circumcision, I see no reason to circumcise. The supposed health benefits have since been debunked by scientists, and it seems like a really cruel thing to do just for the sake of tradition. So unless I convert to orthodox Judaism before I decide to have a kid (and I have to admit that the concept of having a kid is so foreign to me that it may take a significant life change like that before I decide to have one), I say no to circumcision.

On the subject of LA vs. SF, I like the atmosphere and people in SF better, although both cities get big thumbs down for me in regards to their cost of living and traffic problems. My ideal West Coast city is actually Portland, OR, where public transportation is fantastic, living costs are cheap, and everything is green, including the political climate. ; ) Someday I’ll move back. Someday.