• Boy's penis removed during a botched circumcision
    292 replies, posted
Perhaps I don't fully understand? I really don't see a reason to argue for or against this circumcision debate unless it has to do with child abuse. I'm cut and I really don't care. It hasn't affected any of my relationships, it hasn't caused me any issues with masturbation. No, I don't need lube to get off by any means. No it doesn't cause me any pain. And most of the time, a cut dick looks just about the same as an uncut dick when they're erect. Other than having a botched surgery, I guess I just don't understand why we're talking about masturbation and sex and how it looks, because the main issue is that the child didn't get to choose. Which in that case, show me a child who would think it's a good idea to cut his foreskin.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;42867897]Perhaps I don't fully understand? I really don't see a reason to argue for or against this circumcision debate unless it has to do with child abuse. I'm cut and I really don't care. It hasn't affected any of my relationships, it hasn't caused me any issues with masturbation. No, I don't need lube to get off by any means. No it doesn't cause me any pain. And most of the time, a cut dick looks just about the same as an uncut dick when they're erect. Other than having a botched surgery, I guess I just don't understand why we're talking about masturbation and sex and how it looks, because the main issue is that the child didn't get to choose. Which in that case, show me a child who would think it's a good idea to cut his foreskin.[/QUOTE] It's because the internet and this forum no less love to have arbitrarily retarded arguments about dumb shit like being cut or uncut. Both sides attempt to reason with each other until heated arguments arise, then finally a mod decides to close the thread to prevent such a stupid topic from getting to 20 pages.
I hate that people indirectly call me a bad father because I had my son circumcised when the doctor basically told me that he was going to have infections his whole life if I didn't. Fuck you guys man.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;42869041]You should've researched it yourself, saying you're going to get infections all your life because of some skin is crazy, it's a flap of skin not an infection magnet. All you gotta do is practice basic hygiene and you're fine.[/QUOTE] Well sorry that I trust my doctors opinions over the internet. all the internet research in the world isn't as good as a PhD. Again I know now that the US is known for it's bias towards circumcision, but you can't blame me for following doctors advice. I was just trying to give him the best life possible, devoid of what I believed to be a source of infection. Every male in my family is circumcised, how was I supposed to know that it was BS? It seems that you are suggesting that I should go against what my doctor tells me when it comes to the care of my son. I guess you tell the family of people who die from cancer "you should have researched it yourself and skipped chemo to go with coffee enemas" right?
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42869066]Well sorry that I trust my doctors opinions over the internet. all the internet research in the world isn't as good as a PhD. Again I know now that the US is known for it's bias towards circumcision, but you can't blame me for following doctors advice. I was just trying to give him the best life possible, devoid of what I believed to be a source of infection. Every male in my family is circumcised, how was I supposed to know that it was BS? It seems that you are suggesting that I should go against what my doctor tells me when it comes to the care of my son. I guess you tell the family of people who die from cancer "you should have researched it yourself and skipped chemo to go with coffee enemas" right?[/QUOTE] I would always take a doctor's opinion over that of some teenager that thinks he/she already knows everything about the world. Which is extremely common on the internet. You're already a good father for looking ahead and making sure your son has the best life possible. Don't let some asshat on here or any other spot on the internet let you think that you're a child abuser or some weird shit for following a doctor's recommendation.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42868956]I hate that people indirectly call me a bad father because I had my son circumcised when the doctor basically told me that he was going to have infections his whole life if I didn't. Fuck you guys man.[/QUOTE] "fuck you guys" yeah, it's only like you cut off part of his penis and ruined a good lot of pleasure later in life. Good father.
What's this bull I'm hearing about needing lube to get off if your cut. I'm circumcised and I've never used any form of lubricant when masturbating. Not even lotion. Never had a relationship problem, either. Probably because I've only been in one sexual relationship. [editline]15th November 2013[/editline] And I'm pretty sure I cum the same as everyone else. It's not like I don't feel anything or like it's a slight feeling. It's the same as everyone else.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;42869414]Uhm you do realize that medical research is done by professionals right? I wasn't asking you to go look up random message boards, I was asking you to look up studies and make an informed opinion. You shouldn't blindly believe the opinion of a single doctor, always get a second opinion before putting your child through something that's permanent. Also what's with the rude attitude? Calm the fuck down dude. [/QUOTE] Well it's just that people are saying that parents who have it done are child abusers, that's pretty serious. Like I said everyone in my family has had it done and the doctor told me to do it. It's like, you wouldn't get a second opinion if your doctor prescribed antibiotics for a flu would you? Just to make sure that they are using the right one. Comparing me to a child abuser is offensive, and warrants a rude response. In fact before this thread I had no idea that people even held opinions like that. I just thought it was like... accepted as a surgery that prevents infection. No one I know holds these opinions. It didn't even occur to me for a second that there was something wrong with doing it, that's why I didn't feel the need to research something so trivial. You keep saying that the infection is incredibly rare, and that pleasure is decreased, but I see no clear evidence of either of those, nor any conceivable way to test it. I guess what I mean is that you are telling the world that I am abusing my child based on unfounded opinions, and that is something that causes me to be "rude" Sorry
[QUOTE=notlabbet;42861577]did the doctor remove the foreskin or half of the baby's penis?[/QUOTE] Only the foreskin but the cut was started uneven so he bled for a few minutes more than he was supposed to or something along those lines.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42869820]Well it's just that people are saying that parents who have it done are child abusers, that's pretty serious. Like I said everyone in my family has had it done and the doctor told me to do it. It's like, you wouldn't get a second opinion if your doctor prescribed antibiotics for a flu would you? Just to make sure that they are using the right one. Comparing me to a child abuser is offensive, and warrants a rude response. In fact before this thread I had no idea that people even held opinions like that. I just thought it was like... accepted as a surgery that prevents infection. No one I know holds these opinions. It didn't even occur to me for a second that there was something wrong with doing it, that's why I didn't feel the need to research something so trivial. You keep saying that the infection is incredibly rare, and that pleasure is decreased, but I see no clear evidence of either of those, nor any conceivable way to test it. I guess what I mean is that you are telling the world that I am abusing my child based on unfounded opinions, and that is something that causes me to be "rude" Sorry[/QUOTE] According to no study ever done does a foreskin in any major way negatively affect a child.
[QUOTE=katbug;42867663]Jerking off is pretty much the only thing this surgery affects.[/QUOTE] Right. Sure. Okay. It keratenizes the glans making it look like it is rotten, leave it unprotected from disease, increase the chance of tearing the womans membrane because there is no foreskin to cushion when pulling out the penis, increases chance for the penis to be deformed because of the lack of skin while growing, increase chance of having issues with premature ejaculations as the glans is constantly being stimulated even if the person doesn't realize it as he does not feel it because of the dead nerve endings (also lasting shorter time during sex because of this), scars the penis, reduce amount of preseminal fluid produced if not stop it completely for some people [I]and more[/I]. But hey, what do I know? I just studied this when I went to a medical healthcare college. Clearly a biased person (someone most likely circumcised) knows more than an educated person on the subject. [B]All parts on the human body, is there for a reason. It is not to be removed.[/B] (I believe you are biased in the same way that most people who have endured a type of suffering is more okay with others suffering the same way, such as children who have been abused ending up as child abusers when they have children of their own. This is why you would think circumcision is fine because you were circumcised.) And of course, there are social things too, not just medical defects. I know a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend because she was just too disgusted by his penis and was really uncomfortable being with him, she just couldn't get any pleasure from it. This is of course personal taste, some girls have a fetish for ONLY guys who are sliced as well but those aren't exactly as common as girls who prefer a natural penis.
[QUOTE=CaptainHijacks;42870072]Right. Sure. Okay. It keratenizes the glans making it look like it is rotten, leave it unprotected from disease, increase the chance of tearing the womans membrane because there is no foreskin to cushion when pulling out the penis, increases chance for the penis to be deformed because of the lack of skin while growing, increase chance of having issues with premature ejaculations as the glans is constantly being stimulated even if the person doesn't realize it as he does not feel it because of the dead nerve endings (also lasting shorter time during sex because of this), scars the penis, reduce amount of preseminal fluid produced if not stop it completely for some people [I]and more[/I]. But hey, what do I know? I just studied this when I went to a medical healthcare college. Clearly a biased person (someone most likely circumcised) knows more than an educated person on the subject. [B]All parts on the human body, is there for a reason. It is not to be removed.[/B] (I believe you are biased in the same way that most people who have endured a type of suffering is more okay with others suffering the same way, such as children who have been abused ending up as child abusers when they have children of their own. This is why you would think circumcision is fine because you were circumcised.) And of course, there are social things too, not just medical defects. I know a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend because she was just too disgusted by his penis and was really uncomfortable being with him, she just couldn't get any pleasure from it. This is of course personal taste, some girls have a fetish for ONLY guys who are sliced as well but those aren't exactly as common as girls who prefer a natural penis.[/QUOTE] [citation needed] x3359 There's nothing but anecdotes there, even if you did go to med school.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42869820]Well it's just that people are saying that parents who have it done are child abusers, that's pretty serious. Like I said everyone in my family has had it done and the doctor told me to do it. It's like, you wouldn't get a second opinion if your doctor prescribed antibiotics for a flu would you? Just to make sure that they are using the right one. Comparing me to a child abuser is offensive, and warrants a rude response. In fact before this thread I had no idea that people even held opinions like that. I just thought it was like... accepted as a surgery that prevents infection. No one I know holds these opinions. It didn't even occur to me for a second that there was something wrong with doing it, that's why I didn't feel the need to research something so trivial. You keep saying that the infection is incredibly rare, and that pleasure is decreased, but I see no clear evidence of either of those, nor any conceivable way to test it. I guess what I mean is that you are telling the world that I am abusing my child based on unfounded opinions, and that is something that causes me to be "rude" Sorry[/QUOTE] Aside from my indifference on whether or not you had your son circumcised (Really, I don't care on a case-to-case basis but hope the trend/tradition declines over time), I would ABSOLUTELY be getting a second opinion (and a new doctor) if my G.P. tried to throw antibiotics at a virus. I don't think it is child abuse in the slightest, because it is largely pushed in the name of 'tradition' and maintaining a well-established status quo in American society. I can't fault you for sticking with what literally the vast majority of the country is doing. For it to be child abuse it has to be done with the intent of neglecting or harming the child. Being led to believe the current medical spiel on why it should be done is not your fault, nor the fault of other parents who opt to have it done. The fault is more with the doctors for not equally weighing the pros and cons and presenting them in a realistic, unbiased manner to the new parents who are no doubt ready to leap off of a bridge if a doctor told them it would help their child get ahead in life.
[QUOTE=SataniX;42870154][citation needed] x3359 There's nothing but anecdotes there, even if you did go to med school.[/QUOTE] These are the most common and known side-effects, they're actually quite obvious. That's like requesting source if I say cutting of your eyelid can lead to your eye being dry. Also it's mildly amusing seeing some people get really mad when they hear about children being sold away/married to someone 40 years older so the family can get some money, claiming the parents should go to jail and that it's horrible etc. They do it because it's tradition, it's been done for hundreds of years and it's not too uncommon for 'em. Yet you defend cutting off a part of a persons genitals without their consent and with no benefit (I'm not talking about those who do it because they have a mutation, I'm talking about all those who do it by routine) and defend it by calling it tradition and that everyone is doing it and it's common.
0[QUOTE=FreakyMe;42870210]Aside from my indifference on whether or not you had your son circumcised (Really, I don't care on a case-to-case basis but hope the trend/tradition declines over time), I would ABSOLUTELY be getting a second opinion (and a new doctor) if my G.P. tried to throw antibiotics at a virus. I don't think it is child abuse in the slightest, because it is largely pushed in the name of 'tradition' and maintaining a well-established status quo in American society. I can't fault you for sticking with what literally the vast majority of the country is doing. For it to be child abuse it has to be done with the intent of neglecting or harming the child. Being led to believe the current medical spiel on why it should be done is not your fault, nor the fault of other parents who opt to have it done. The fault is more with the doctors for not equally weighing the pros and cons and presenting them in a realistic, unbiased manner to the new parents who are no doubt ready to leap off of a bridge if a doctor told them it would help their child get ahead in life.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I don't blame my parents for it. They had absolutely no clue. It was the early 90s. Their doctor WAS their only source for medical advice. Short of going to a library looking up books about it which may even agree that circumcisions are necessary. I would probably place more blame on the doctor and medical education.
[QUOTE=CaptainHijacks;42870072]Right. Sure. Okay. It keratenizes the glans making it look like it is rotten, leave it unprotected from disease, increase the chance of tearing the womans membrane because there is no foreskin to cushion when pulling out the penis, increases chance for the penis to be deformed because of the lack of skin while growing, increase chance of having issues with premature ejaculations as the glans is constantly being stimulated even if the person doesn't realize it as he does not feel it because of the dead nerve endings (also lasting shorter time during sex because of this), scars the penis, reduce amount of preseminal fluid produced if not stop it completely for some people [I]and more[/I]. But hey, what do I know? I just studied this when I went to a medical healthcare college. Clearly a biased person (someone most likely circumcised) knows more than an educated person on the subject. [B]All parts on the human body, is there for a reason. It is not to be removed.[/B] (I believe you are biased in the same way that most people who have endured a type of suffering is more okay with others suffering the same way, such as children who have been abused ending up as child abusers when they have children of their own. This is why you would think circumcision is fine because you were circumcised.) And of course, there are social things too, not just medical defects. I know a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend because she was just too disgusted by his penis and was really uncomfortable being with him, she just couldn't get any pleasure from it. This is of course personal taste, some girls have a fetish for ONLY guys who are sliced as well but those aren't exactly as common as girls who prefer a natural penis.[/QUOTE] I'm going to disagree with you. First of all, the benefits of circumcision are numerous. [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23592260"]It lowers the chance of getting or spreading infectious diseases like UTIs or HIV due to a decreased load of bacteria present on the member[/URL], [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21695385"]it helps prevent penile cancer[/URL], [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309"] and it has no effect on sexual pleasure, arousal, dysfunction or sensitivity[/URL]. I see no data regarding tearing of the women's membrane, becoming deformed easier, making it unprotected from disease (quite the opposite in fact), making it easier to be premature (opposite of the truth), or reducing the amount of preseminal fluid. I don't see how a circumcised member would look "rotten," or look "deformed." Concerning all parts of the human body being there for a reason, what about armpit hair, the appendix, wisdom teeth, and the tailbone? Concerning bias, how can you be without bias, assuming you are uncircumcised? Social effects are culturally bound, and here where I live it's common to see women prefer circumcised guys. Some more links: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24111891[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24111891[/url] Honestly, other than the rare botched procedure like this story, circumcision is safe and the pros outweigh the cons.
I'm honestly struggling to see why this is causing such a vitriolic response (from likening circumcision to forced marriage to accusing another member of being a terrible father, stay classy facepunch!). Did people without foreskins burn down your village or something
[QUOTE=Atlascore;42873696]How did you even find this out? Do you go around asking random women about this stuff?[/QUOTE] Funnily enough I've had conversations with friends, both male and female, gay men and straight men, who have told me their preference. It's not like I took out a notepad and questioned random people on the street asking "cut or uncut." It's not a large participant survey but the point is the user I was replying to made a similar claim in the opposite direction and I provided an opposing view.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42840708]Sucking 37 dicks.[/QUOTE] why does it matter who are you to judge who.?
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;42872854]I'm going to disagree with you. First of all, the benefits of circumcision are numerous. [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23592260"]It lowers the chance of getting or spreading infectious diseases like UTIs or HIV due to a decreased load of bacteria present on the member[/URL], [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21695385"]it helps prevent penile cancer[/URL], [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309"] and it has no effect on sexual pleasure, arousal, dysfunction or sensitivity[/URL]. I see no data regarding tearing of the women's membrane, becoming deformed easier, making it unprotected from disease (quite the opposite in fact), making it easier to be premature (opposite of the truth), or reducing the amount of preseminal fluid. I don't see how a circumcised member would look "rotten," or look "deformed." Concerning all parts of the human body being there for a reason, what about armpit hair, the appendix, wisdom teeth, and the tailbone? Concerning bias, how can you be without bias, assuming you are uncircumcised? Social effects are culturally bound, and here where I live it's common to see women prefer circumcised guys. Some more links: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24111891[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24111891[/url] Honestly, other than the rare botched procedure like this story, circumcision is safe and the pros outweigh the cons.[/QUOTE] You really shouldn't use an american website as a source in this situation.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;42873970]You really shouldn't use an american website as a source in this situation.[/QUOTE] That's a bigoted statement, first of all. Americans can't make objective scientific studies because...? Not everyone in America is circumcised, so whose to say the researchers have a personal reason to skew objective facts? Second, look at the universities these articles were published by. Sydney. London. Not all are American. There's studies done in African nations showing the benefits of circumcision too. Most importantly, a few of these are review articles, which contain articles from various parts of the world, as a meta-analysis of the trend of research in the field of urology, which shows the positive benefits to circumcision. Stop trying to be zingy and look at the facts. Hell, give me some full-text articles against circumcision and I'll show you the holes in the studies. You don't absolutely need to be circumcised, but it's not some inhuman tragedy to be circumcised, in fact there are benefits to being cut. [editline]15th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;42873759]People are dumb and take this way too far. I'm against this is because cutting off a natural part of a person's body for no good reason without their consent is a really fucking awful thing to do, your intentions don't matter.[/QUOTE] Would you be against vaccinations as well, because you're injecting something into a child without consent? If it's to prevent disease, why does the manner of application matter?
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;42872854] [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21695385"]it helps prevent penile cancer[/URL][/QUOTE] Let me stop you right there. Penile cancer is beyond rare. Why not lop off women's tits as soon as they come in? There's a much, MUCH larger chance of breast cancer. Even when people say things about phimosis, circumcision is the last option you want to take. And I don't even understand the STD one. If your dick is clean, the foreskin is the protection for the glans on your penis, how does taking that away affect the chances of of them? In the end, it all comes down to proper hygiene.
[QUOTE=deckief;42874790]Let me stop you right there. Penile cancer is beyond rare. Why not lop off women's tits as soon as they come in? There's a much, MUCH larger chance of breast cancer. [/QUOTE] That's an incorrect analogy. It's not comparable unless circumcision would be chopping the dick off entirely. And people do mastectomies if they're at risk of developing cancer. So that's a moot point. Besides, the foreskin, unlike breasts is basically vestigial in that there's no real use for it anymore. We're not running around naked where we need a cover over the glans to protect from mosquito bites or kicks to the dick, we have underwear for that. It's more of a liability than anything. You're right about penile cancer being rare, but there are tons of rare diseases that people get vaccinated for, at the risk of complications with a similar rate of failure, and it's not like losing your foreskin is going to haunt you for the rest of your life or cause problems later in life. I'm not condemning anyone who refuses to have their children circumcised, and I certainly hope people wouldn't condemn others for going forward with circumcision, but I'd recommend circumcision to any parent that would ask me about it. [QUOTE=deckief;42874790] Even when people say things about phimosis, circumcision is the last option you want to take. [/QUOTE] Circumcision isn't primarily about treating phimosis, first of all. There's other benefits that I've described in my post above. I'm not saying we should force people to have circumcisions, it's honestly up to the parents to weigh the pros and cons, and in my opinion the pros are more convincing than the cons. [QUOTE=deckief;42874790] And I don't even understand the STD one. If your dick is clean, the foreskin is the protection for the glans on your penis, how does taking that away affect the chances of of them? In the end, it all comes down to proper hygiene. [/QUOTE] There are [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8786894"]certain cells in the foreskin in which STDs like HIV can target and disseminate through easily, and these cells are found in abundance in the foreskin[/URL]. Removing the foreskin makes less surface area for these diseases to infect. And you can't have good hygiene 24/7, with your dick underneath layers of clothes you're going to sweat, bacteria is going to grow in the damp, moist crevice created by the foreskin, and you'll be more likely to develop a UTI compared to having no foreskin where bacteria can grow more easily. Look, I understand if you enjoy having an uncircumcised penis. But don't call other people mutilators because they want to protect their children from possible harm with a procedure that has very few drawbacks.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;42869414] He put his kid through a very common & minor procedure, [b]stop treating him like a messiah because of it.[/b][/QUOTE] I'm not? You're the one being arrogant here buddy.
[QUOTE=CaptainHijacks;42870072]Right. Sure. Okay. It keratenizes the glans making it look like it is rotten, leave it unprotected from disease, increase the chance of tearing the womans membrane because there is no foreskin to cushion when pulling out the penis, increases chance for the penis to be deformed because of the lack of skin while growing, increase chance of having issues with premature ejaculations as the glans is constantly being stimulated even if the person doesn't realize it as he does not feel it because of the dead nerve endings (also lasting shorter time during sex because of this), scars the penis, reduce amount of preseminal fluid produced if not stop it completely for some people [I]and more[/I]. But hey, what do I know? I just studied this when I went to a medical healthcare college. Clearly a biased person (someone most likely circumcised) knows more than an educated person on the subject. [B]All parts on the human body, is there for a reason. It is not to be removed.[/B] (I believe you are biased in the same way that most people who have endured a type of suffering is more okay with others suffering the same way, such as children who have been abused ending up as child abusers when they have children of their own. This is why you would think circumcision is fine because you were circumcised.) And of course, there are social things too, not just medical defects. I know a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend because she was just too disgusted by his penis and was really uncomfortable being with him, she just couldn't get any pleasure from it. This is of course personal taste, some girls have a fetish for ONLY guys who are sliced as well but those aren't exactly as common as girls who prefer a natural penis.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I don't know a single guy that's not circumcized in real life, and none of this has ever happened. Also this whole "girls prefer one or the other" thing is bullshit and comes down entirely to women and the area you're in. Acting like you have some ability to say "well women find this weird cause I know someone who does" is stupid and wrong.
[QUOTE=CaptainHijacks;42870072] And of course, there are social things too, not just medical defects. I know a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend because she was just too disgusted by his penis and was really uncomfortable being with him, she just couldn't get any pleasure from it. This is of course personal taste, some girls have a fetish for ONLY guys who are sliced as well but those aren't exactly as common as girls who prefer a natural penis.[/QUOTE] You honest to god don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
A lot of the time, the skin taken from circumcision is used in facial creams for women. its a very lucrative business! "One foreskin can be used for decades to grow $100,000 worth of fibroblasts."
Hey guys What if I told you It doesn't make a difference
[QUOTE=CaptainHijacks;42870072] [B]All parts on the human body, is there for a reason. It is not to be removed.[/B][/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.innerbody.com/image/dige03.html"]what is an appendix[/URL] [QUOTE=katbug;42869258] yeah, it's only like you cut off part of his penis and ruined a good lot of pleasure later in life.[/QUOTE] if your only/main means of obtaining pleasure is tugging your snake I think you need to rethink your life.
[QUOTE=lxmach1;42879691][URL="http://www.innerbody.com/image/dige03.html"]what is an appendix[/URL] if your only/main means of obtaining pleasure is tugging your snake I think you need to rethink your life.[/QUOTE] It's the only way of pleasure you can get by yourself
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.