Conquer Club

Who here was circumcised?

STOP MAKING ME THINK THESE ARE HAIRCUT THREADS







Oh, and yes. The tip of my penis was cut off.

I was not.

To those of you who haven't been: Do you wish you had been? Is it an issue down there to have the extra skin?

I had one when I was 10, it was bloody painful!

I don't understand why people still do that to their kids.

If the only real reason is for religious reasons, then it's no different than those few tribes who mutilate their wives genitalia, so they can't enjoy sex (so that they won't cheat on them).

That's not the real reason. The health benefits of it have been discussed many times over.

I had to have it for medical reasons.. nothing religious at all.

There are proven health benefits to it anyway.

It really shouldn't be done without the consent of the guy being circumcised, or a definite and direct health benefit. Infant circumcision is pretty wrong.

I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.

tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.

I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).

Symmetry wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.

I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).

Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.

If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.

Plus, if you don't have it done when you're an infant, then you can't grow up with a german army helmet on your penis. That means no axis vs. allies in the bathtub...

nagerous wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.

I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).

Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.

If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.

Hmm- I'm pretty sure infants don't get it done. Not their decision, which was kind of my point.

Symmetry wrote:

nagerous wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.

I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).

Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.

If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.

Hmm- I'm pretty sure infants don't get it done. Not their decision, which was kind of my point.

I got it done when I was baby. Strangely enough, I don't remember whether it hurt or not...

The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.

There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).

safariguy5 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nagerous wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.

I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).

Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.

If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.

Hmm- I'm pretty sure infants don't get it done. Not their decision, which was kind of my point.

I got it done when I was baby. Strangely enough, I don't remember whether it hurt or not...

Same. I've been looking at my penis for a long time and I honestly can't remember it before I was circumcised. Actually, I thought my peepee was normal and circumcised penises were flat at the end (hahaha the first time I heard the word was during Robin Hood Men in Tights when I was like 5 and still think of the image of the guillotine every time I hear the word).

Symmetry, Idk what you're talking about. It had to have been done when I was an infant because I don't remember it AT ALL. And honestly I think I would like it uncircumcised. It looks like a fucking hobo uncircumcised.

saxitoxin wrote:The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.

There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).

Diseases aren't usually contracted from the skin under the fingernails.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.

There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).

Diseases aren't usually contracted from the skin under the fingernails.

Diseases aren't usually contracted from the foreskin either.

Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.

Fortunately, after being eliminated from the rest of the developed world, circumcision in the U.S. and Australia have dropped to the 50% mark from the 8X% high it reached in the '70's through '90's and, by the advent of the next generation, will be a surgery performed on a statistical minority of newborns.

The cut-off in Canada is pretty dramatic. I used to hang-out in a lot of gym locker rooms all over Canada and it's remarkable to note that everyone over 30 is most usually circumcised whereas those under 30 are most usually uncircumcised (with the exception of Ontario). (Can't do those kind of observational studies anymore, though, after I got a chain-wide ban from GoodLife gyms due to member complaints.)

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.

There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).

Diseases aren't usually contracted from the skin under the fingernails.

Diseases aren't usually contracted from the foreskin either.

Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.

Fortunately, after being eliminated from the rest of the developed world, circumcision in the U.S. and Australia have dropped to the 50% mark from the 8X% high it reached in the '70's through '90's and, by the advent of the next generation, will be a surgery performed on a statistical minority of newborns.

The cut-off in Canada is pretty dramatic. I used to hang-out in a lot of gym locker rooms all over Canada and it's remarkable to note that everyone over 30 is most usually circumcised whereas those under 30 are most usually uncircumcised (with the exception of Ontario). (Can't do those kind of observational studies anymore, though, after I got a chain-wide ban from GoodLife gyms due to member complaints.)

hahahahahahaha....only you Saxi.

saxitoxin wrote:Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.

I didn't mention HIV. I was referring to all STDs, not just the rare ones.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.

I didn't mention HIV. I was referring to all STDs, not just the rare ones.

I'm unaware of any recent medical literature that says circumcision arrests or mitigates the spread of STDs at a significant level. However, there is a wealth of literature that shows circumcised children are between 400%-600% more likely to get a MRSA infection, which is much more problematic. (That said, on the counter-point, we know that HPV incidence is decreased in the circumcised.)

There are very few body parts that exist for no reason at all. Surgical body modification should not be performed in the absence of an immediate medical reason. (Which, in some rare cases, like paraphimosis, can justify circumcision.) Body modification whose genesis was originally conceived not for medical reasons but for ritual purposes (as in Judaism and Islam) or ethical purposes (to stop masturbation, as in the U.S.) should be evaluated especially critically. This is as true for circumcision as any other style of body modification, including foot binding in China, Mayan head flattening, neck elongation in some African tribes, etc.

Fortunately, the fight over circumcision has been won in the developed world and this type of initiation surgery has effectively ended (or is on its way out as in the case of the US/Australia).

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.

I didn't mention HIV. I was referring to all STDs, not just the rare ones.

I'm unaware of any recent medical literature that says circumcision arrests or mitigates the spread of STDs at a significant level. However, there is a wealth of literature that shows circumcised children are between 400%-600% more likely to get a MRSA infection, which is much more problematic. (That said, on the counter-point, we know that HPV incidence is decreased in the circumcised.)

There are very few body parts that exist for no reason at all. Surgical body modification should not be performed in the absence of an immediate medical reason. (Which, in some rare cases, like paraphimosis, can justify circumcision.) Body modification whose genesis was originally conceived not for medical reasons but for ritual purposes (as in Judaism and Islam) or ethical purposes (to stop masturbation, as in the U.S.) should be evaluated especially critically. This is as true for circumcision as any other style of body modification, including foot binding in China, Mayan head flattening, neck elongation in some African tribes, etc.

Fortunately, the fight over circumcision has been won in the developed world and this type of initiation surgery has effectively ended (or is on its way out as in the case of the US/Australia).

If that is why they perform circumcision, then they have failed utterly.

At least in my case.

saxitoxin wrote:I'm unaware of any recent medical literature that says circumcision arrests or mitigates the spread of STDs at a significant level. However, there is a wealth of literature that shows circumcised children are between 400%-600% more likely to get a MRSA infection, which is much more problematic. (That said, on the counter-point, we know that HPV incidence is decreased in the circumcised.)

Should have opened with that, bro

You have a lot of nerve clusters in the part that gets the snip. The top 7 for sex are cut out. That's what I heard from a Doctor that I had this convo with. Why were we having this convo?
Another Doctor performed a circumcision on my baby cousin and did it wrong.