koooky

Member
Hey man. The wife and I are going to be discussing having kids soon and I am sure to cut or not to cut will come into the discussion as well. Do you have any really good links to shoot me concerning the number of circs that are fucked up every year as well as some pics of a circ being performed?

Thanks

kooky
 
Sorry it took so long. I am having a family crisis right now and will not be able to respond in a timely manner for a while. I have copied some links for you to peruse, but the honest and sad truth is that there are so many documented cases of botched circumcisions that all you really have to do is bring up google and type "botched circumcision" and you will have access to thousands of cases spanning the globe. The best thing I could suggest to you is to look through them yourself and pick the ones you think your wife would respond to most on a personal level. Remember, you are trying to save your future male children from an unnecessary and possibly dangerous cosmetic procedure.

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm

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

http://www.parkerscheer.com/injury-botched-circumcision.html

http://Bathmatej.Bathmatejjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7260/529/b

http://www.infocirc.org/cl032599.htm

http://www.cirp.org/news/lawyersweekly12-08-03/

And videos, if you have the stomach for it:

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/video.html
 
Why do you need pics...so you wont get him circumcised? Obviously the pics will make both you and your wife lean towards not getting it done. What about the number of circumcisions that are performed successfully every year? Too many people dwell on the negative aspects of what COULD happen. I ride a sport bike, I go fast most of the time (highway). People always tell me that I shouldnt ride because of all the motorcycle crashes each year, but I still ride because I love it.

BTW, Im sorry if I came across in a derogatory manner. I dont support circumcision, nor do I support non-circumcision, I am "neutral" if you will. Also, I like you kooky. You are sexy.
 
Actually, I am trying to get her to agree that if we have a son not to get him cut. Even though I am happy with my own circ, and the wife has told me that it is exactly what she wants, I don't think I want my son cut just for the fact that I think he should make that decision on his own when he is old enough. I do not have any of the problems that Kong has spoke of and I suppose I have a "normal" to loose cut.

"Also, I like you kooky. You are sexy."

What the heck did you mean by this???? ;)
Are you a male or female??? ;)

kook
 
I am biased. I know that.

However, being "nuetral" I would think that you would have to weigh the advantages of having it done versus the possibility that your son could be damaged or resent you later in life for not giving him a choice. He will know. He will come across all this info. It is out there and there's no taking it back or suppressing it again. It's called the internet.

What are the advantages?
 
I have one son that is cut, kind of botched. a small amount of freneum, have become fused to the glad, I wonder what kind of problem this will create once he hits puberty.

I was watching a show, on thw W network, stating that 2/3 of the nerve endings in the penis are removed during the curcumcision..That leaves 1/3 for us cut guys, a bit of a rip-off I'd say.

We plan on having 2 more children, If i have another boy, i will leave his foreskin intact.

One thing my wife says, is that intercourse with uncut, leaves her lubication intact.ie..im not stealling it for my onw lubrication. Since the skin moves independant to the hard shaft uderneath, the lube stays where it should.

When i began pumping, she noticed that she stayed wetter longer, I think the idea of having a extra 1/4 to 1/2 of lymph girth, creates the same effect, as foreskin...i'm sure the extra girth doesn't hurt!!!!
 
I am curious if anybody has been around a boy who has just been circumsized. When it is done they are now given enough pain medication in order for them to have it done without pain. BUT, after you get them home and the meds wear off, THEY SCREAM like, well someone just cut their penis off. It usually takes them a couple of days in order for them to be comfortable again. EVERY parent Ive ever heard discussing around the time they had the circ done felt awful for putting their child through that much pain. That alone makes me think twice about ever having it done to my child.

Food for thought

PS Im circumsized and dont have any intentions of restoring.
 
Koooky wrote:
>> good links to shoot me concerning the number of circs that are fucked up <<

I'd say ALL OF THEM. It's permanant pleasure-reducing cosmetic surgery done on an unconsenting minor. What could be more fucked up?

NO NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL organisation in the world recommends cutting infants for any medical reason.

It's HIS choice because it's HIS.

-Ron Low
www.TLCTugger.com

FREE Your-Skin Cone to expectant fathers.
 
Kooky I am both male and female. I have small breasts, a small penis and a smaller vagina.

I dont think ANY son would resent their father for having them circumcised. Kinda makes me laugh a little bit, "Dad I fvcking hate your lazy bitch ass I hope you die a horrible death and rot in your grave...because you had me circumcised". Maybe I am wrong for one instance...kong?
 
aares,
A lot of us resent being circumcised. Not towards the father in most cases though.

Even today, the people at many hospitals try to convince you circumcise even after you tell them no. My wife had to tell them no three or four times after our son was born, after telling them no before he was born. If she had said yes once, he probably would have been strapped to the board and mutilated within minutes.
 
I can name many people including myself who feel hate towards there parants for being ignorant to the damage of putting me through such a needless surgery.
 
The thing is Aares, why should I take even a small percentage chance that something could go wrong? Let's say only 1% of circs in the world are botched somehow. That is still A LOT of hacked penises that could have been avoided. I also agree with Kong that it is almost completely cosmetic and unnessesary. Why put your new born son under a knife when there is no good medical reason for it? When my daughter was born, she had many problems and it was being suggested she may have to have immediate surgery to save her life. Even though I worried like hell, I was for it if it was going to save her life.

I would be the first one here to call Kong out for stating various claims about FR. But to say he is wrong about circumcision I just can't do. Before reading Kong's post about circ, I was all for it and never gave it a 2nd thought. Now, I am almost completely against it and could not think of putting my son through that and taking even a 1% chance that it may damage him forever.

kook
 
Even a few minor problems like maybe some light scarring or a snipped nerve or an adhesion, in exchange for what...?

So it smells better, I guess. :D That seems kind of trivial in comparison to losing 60% of the errogenous nerves and surface skin of the penis.

As far as resentment...well, I resent that it was done to me, but I don't resent my parents, because they didn't know better. We can't say the same for ourselves now...and the more we learn, the more insane and useless this custom looks. We're basically just lining the pockets of a few doctors in exchange for a damaging and totally useless cosmetic procedure.
 
kong1971 said:
As far as resentment...well, I resent that it was done to me, but I don't resent my parents, because they didn't know better.

That's called ignorance my friend. If you was to undergo a cosmetic surgery for yourself would you do it without reading into it or reasearching first? I can't think of anyone who would, and I can bet my parants would research any cosmetic surgery that they were going to undertake.
Wether something is a 'routined' surgery or not it still deems research accepted and tried/tested by the docs or not and especially on such an important body part.
Thanks to them they now have a son 18 years of age on anti-depressants, I think it would have been worth the research, don't you? Or even better leaving it for me to decide.
Fucking bastards......
 
Last edited:
koooky said:
Let's say only 1% of circs in the world are botched somehow.

im pretty confident that the percent of botched circs would be significantly under 1%. i can't remember the stats but in the medical industry there is a huge success rate before somthing is considered a safe/legal operation. i can't remember this success rate, and im sure it varies a lot, but i remember when i was hearing about it i was shocked at how high it was.

kong1971 said:
That seems kind of trivial in comparison to losing 60% of the errogenous nerves and surface skin of the penis.

Kong, your shooting stats around again, kooky just did the same but he made it perfectly clear that he's only guessing. and 60% of ALL of the nerves of the penis in a forskin is a pretty big claim, care to give a link?
 
I agree Shithead. I agree that the % is most likely less than 1%. I was just using it as a figure and I actually have no idea what the numbers are for the states or the world. It also would not surprise me if it was ranked as one of the highest % surgeries for success rate. That does not make me feel any better about it nor would it help matters any if I happened to be the father of the .001% of the kid they screwed up on.

To make it clear again. I have no basis at all where I got that 1% and was only using it as a number to go on. My only thought is that if my future son is taken out of the equation, then there is 0% chance that his will be screwed up by a procedure he did not medically need in the first place.

kooky
 
Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of accidents is from 1.5% to 15%.

I tend to think that it is toward the higher end of the estimate by the BALTIMORE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY...

Sit down, shithead!

:D
 
The "Lost" List

Many people think circumcision removes nothing more than a little extra skin. However, the fact of the matter is that circumcision removes several critical components of male sexual anatomy. This list enumerates everything currently known to be lost when one is circumcised. Included are notes on whether these losses can or cannot be amended by foreskin restoration.

The information contained in this list may be upsetting to some, but we feel it is important and necessary for those considering restoration to understand as fully as possible the anatomy/biology/neurology of what has been removed and/or destroyed.

It should be pointed out that circumcisions performed in North America may be more severe than those done elsewhere. In the United States, most hospital circumcisions are done to the Bris Periah standard of removing every ounce of foreskin and, in a large percentage of cases, some shaft skin.

Although several of the items in this list are not restorable, there are many significant gains to be realized by restoring one's foreskin. For information on these gains, please see the Benefits page.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that although circumcision and foreskin restoration involve issues of physical health and well-being, nothing appearing on this website is intended to be medical advice. If you want medical advice or have a medical problem, contact a doctor.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreskin The foreskin comprises roughly 50% (and sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches - the size of a three-by-five index card. This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (also called keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds.
Click here to view an animated graphic illustrating foreskin mobility.

We refer to the process we undergo as foreskin restoration but we don't actually grow new foreskins. What we do instead is to extend the remaining skin on the shaft of the penis. The non-surgical techniques we use induce the skin to grow additional cells, and over a period of time the shaft skin will gradually extend to cover the glans. The extended skin looks and behaves and functions much like a natural foreskin.

[Sources: 1. M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 79-81. 2. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of the Foreskin," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.]



Frenar Band, or
Ridged Band The frenar band is a group of soft ridges near the junction of the inner and outer foreskin. This region is the primary erogenous zone of the intact male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response.
There is no known method of restoring the frenar band.

[Source: Taylor, J. R. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.]



Gliding Action The foreskin's gliding action is a hallmark feature of the normal, natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of its own shaft skin facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, making artificial lubricants necessary for comfortable intercourse.
The return of this natural gliding action is one of the primary benefits of foreskin restoration. In many cases, wives of restoring men were initially doubtful about restoration but came to value it highly when their husbands had grown enough new skin to effect greater levels of comfort and pleasure during intercourse.

[Source: P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]



Meissner's Corpuscles Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture.
There is no known method of restoring Meissner's corpuscles or other specialized sensory nerve cells. However, restoring and restored men almost universally experience tremendous increases in sensitivity, in part because the highly sensitive nerve cells in the glans are no longer buried under several layers of keratinized skin.

[Sources: 1. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959): 39-47. 2. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.]



Frenulum The frenulum is a highly erogenous V-shaped structure on the underside of the glans that tethers the foreskin. During circumcision it is frequently either amputated with the foreskin or severed, which destroys or diminishes its sexual and physiological functions.
If the frenulum is amputated, there is no known method of replacing it. If only a small portion of the frenulum is left, it is probably no longer functional as a tethering structure. There is no known method of attaching it to a restored foreskin, but some men have reported stretching the frenulum remnant as they stretched their foreskin.

[Sources: 1. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44. 2. Kaplan, G.W., "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.]



Dartos Fascia Circumcision removes approximately half of this temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the corpus cavernosa.
There is no known method of restoring amputated portions of the dartos fascia. However, the new skin may duplicate dartos fascia muscle tissue if it is present in the remnant skin that is being stretched.

[Source: Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): Plates 234, 329, 338, 354, 355.]



Immunological System The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.
Once removed with the foreskin, there is no known method of restoring this immunological defense system.

[Sources: 1. A. AHydromaxed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901. 2. P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.]



Lymphatic Vessels The loss of these vessels due to circumcision reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.
While some lymphatic vessels remain, there is no known method of restoring those that were removed during circumcision.

[Source: Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 379.]



Estrogen Receptors The presence of estrogen receptors within the foreskin has only recently been discovered. Their purpose is not yet understood and needs further study.
There is no known method of restoring the foreskin's estrogen receptors.

[Source: R. Hausmann et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.]



Apocrine Glands These glands of the inner foreskin produce pheromones - nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been studied.
There is no known method of restoring apocrine glands to the penis.

[Source: A. AHydromaxed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901.]



Sebaceous Glands The sebaceous glands may lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, which is normally a protected internal organ. Not all men have sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin.
There is no known method of restoring sebaceous glands if they were present.

[Source: A. B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's Glands: Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.]



Langerhans Cells These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system in the penis.
There is no known method of restoring Langerhans cells to the penis.

[Source: G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.]



Natural Glans Coloration The natural coloration of the glans and inner foreskin (usually hidden and only visible to others when sexually aroused) is considerably more intense than the permanently exposed and keratinized coloration of a circumcised penis. The socio-biological function of this visual stimulus has never been studied.
The glans ranges from pink to red to dark purple among intact men of Northern European ancestry, and from pinkish to mahagony to dark brown among intact men of Color. If circumcision is performed on an infant or young boy, the connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together is ripped apart. This leaves the glans raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. Over a period of years the glans becomes keratinized, adding additional layers of tissue in order to adequately protect itself, which further contributes to discoloration.

Many restoring men report dramatic changes in glans color and appearance, and that these changes closely mirror the natural coloration and smooth, glossy appearance of the glans seen in intact men.

[Source: P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]



Length and Circumference Circumcision removes some of the length and girth of the penis - its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is removed. A circumcised penis is truncated and thinner than it would have been if left intact.
Many men have kept detailed records of their measurements before, during, and after restoration. There is an increasing consensus that foreskin restoration enhances penile length and circumference.

[Source: R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis, "Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.]



Blood Vessels Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, are removed in circumcision. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.
There is no known method of restoring arteries and vessels that were removed during circumcision. However, many restoring men have noticed that the new skin is more richly vascularized than the older skin of their penis. We have no medical explanation for this phenomenon.

[Sources: 1. H. C. Bazett et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517. 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plates 238, 239.]



Dorsal Nerves The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision. If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be almost completely without sensation.
There is no known method of restoring dorsal nerves.

[Sources: 1. Agur, A.M.R. ed., "Grant's Atlas of Anatomy," Ninth Edition (Williams and Wilkins, 1991): 188-190. 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 380, 387.]



Other Losses • Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development. Additionally, an infant's self-confidence and hardiness is diminished by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of "learned helplessness" or
"acquired passivity" to cope with the excruciating pain which he can
neither fight nor flee. The trauma of this early pain lowers a circumcised boy's pain threshold below that of intact boys and girls
[Sources: 1. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997), 139-175. 2. A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.]


• Every year some boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infections. They are then "sexually reassigned" by castration and transgender surgery, and are expected to live their lives as females.

[Sources: 1. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989):799-801. 2. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-Term Review and Clinical Implications," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 298-304.]


• Every year many boys in the United States and elsewhere lose their lives as a result of circumcision - a fact that is routinely ignored or obscured.

[Sources: 1. G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549. 2. R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View," Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.norm-socal.org/lost.htm
 
The info above is from the first link Kong gave me as a resource point. I would think that
a 13.5% is a huge swing in numbers. I have no clue and I can only state that to think my son would be strapped down as he is cut up would greatly bother me.
Again, if my son is removed from the equation then there is 0% chance of something bad happening to him.

ALso, as a small side note....

C'mon Kong. I know you tire of going back and forth with some guys here but to be fair Shithead was only asking for the link where you got that info and "Sit down, Shithead!" seems overly aggresive and not at all helpful in a thread that is becoming very interesting and maybe a few eyes besides mine will be opened by a clear discussion of what I(we) are trying to stop our future sons from going through.

kook
 
Last edited:
Sorry. I like shithead. I was just joking around. My kids say "Sit down, so-and-so," when they are playing Halo 2 and outgun someone else. Shithead challenged me with the tried-and-true "where's your sources" and I responded in kind. If you fail to see the humor, I apologize. I will try to not kid around in the future. :D
 
PS-- sorry to add this, but of the 10 people who responded to this thread, 1 (myself) was the victim of a bad circ and another (smackmybitch) has a son with a skin adhesion from circumcision. That puts the percentage of known bad circs just in this thread's respondents at 18%. Unless you count Ex, who seems to have some problems with his circ, too. Counting Ex, we could put the percentage of botched circs in this discussion at 27%-- if he thinks he's included in this. I'm not sure. Just an interesting tidbit to think about. Anyone smell that? I think it's coffee. :D j/k
 
Thats some good info Swank. Let's run with that a minute. What I have been able to find, there were 3.94 million babies born in the US in 98. For sake of argument, let's say exactly half of those were boys....now we have 1.97 million baby boys born that year. The math gets real easy...4138 botched circs in 98 alone. Wow. That's a large number no matter how you slice it (pun intended) Ok...back to the argument. Let's use Kong's lowest number from a medical journal of 1.5% Then of course the number leaps signifcantly to 29550. Either way there is a lot of preventable damage to penises going on in just this country.

Look. I was real lucky and I have never had a problem with what was done to me. And even though like most males my age(35) I have had my share of sexual problems. Non of which I can link to my cut. However, there are thousands of babies born every year who will have some sort pf problem. That's all I am saying. And I don't want my kid to be one of them. From now until the wife and I decide to have kids, I am going to try and give her as much info on the subject that I can to see if we can remove an entirely cosmetic proceedure from the equation. Like most fathers, when my daughter was born all I hoped for was 10 fingers and 10 toes and completely healthy. I will hope for the same if I have anymore. If your child is born healthy and completely "normal", why complicate matters by throwing something completely uneeded into the mix?

kooky
 
Oh, I don't think so either Shithead...he was just adding some info here as to what he had found and he injected no opinions one way or the other. Since we had two numbers from two guys who are 'usually' at odds here, I just used both numbers. I was the one who used an entirely 'made up' number of 1% to begin with. My point was that whether you use Kong's or Swank's number, you still have a lot of damage going on that could be eliminated.

kooky
 
This is my personal opinion, and I label it as such so there is no confusion. I suspect that the number of actual fucked up, "Oops, I just cut off the head" circumcisions is extremely low. Lower than swank's number, even. I think the number of plain, not-so-good "a little too much off the top" circumcisions is closer to my larger figure. It's not a black and white thing. It's shades of gray. Some worse than others, and alot of them not so bad that medical treatment is needed but still some aggravating shit like turkey neck, tight erections, loss of some sensation. There is a adult entertainment photo model with an extremely noticeable skin bridge from the c-scar to the glans. Have you ever seen him? I wonder how many guys are out there with adhesions, bridges, nerve damage and etc. and they just think that's the way it is?
 
That's interesting as well Kong and needs to be said. It makes me wonder how "bad" one has to be to be labeled "botched" and how many are of the "oops, it's acceptable" variety. There is one thing that one can be 100% sure of. If you take your child out of that equation, it won't happen. Even though I have myself read cases where the circ was done without parental consent. In those cases, I honestly think the doctor should be completely stripped of his liscense, serve jail time, and get his ass sued for big time crazy money.

kook
 
Good for you Koooky. Glad to see you've done you homework and will try to convince your wife as best you can. If I'd known then what I know now, I never would have allowed my three sons to be circ'd. And I would have talked to my oldest son before my grandson was born.
Like you said, he can make his own decision later in life.
KOT
qd
 
I confess that both my sons are cut, too. Most young men just don't know the facts. Sadly, circumcision is presented to young parents as the normal thing to be done. I put up a little bit of a fight with my youngest-- just cause I thought it would be more "natural" if he was uncut-- and the doctor sneered and told me "Well, it's not really your decision, is it?" My wife had signed the papers already, without my presence. I myself didn't start to have real problems (erectile and sensitivity) until my thirties, and that's when I began my investigation and got educated. Now I want to make sure everyone knows!
 
I am part of the partly botched jobs although I never thought about it until Kongs last post.

I have a piece of skin that is right along the circ discoloration ridge(not sure of the name). This piece of skin runs along the line there and is about a half inch long and 2-3 mm wide. I can grab this piece of skin and literally see daily through it. It looks like a VERY tame version of a stretched earlobe when stretched. When not stretched it just falls flat and is not really thought about.

Hmmm. Didnt realize I was a slightly botched job.
 
Eww...! j/k, jakb

That puts it to 36% just of the respondents of this thread...Now that I think about it, my brother has four sons and one of them had a problem with infection and an adhesion that had to be fixed...41% now! Anyone else?
 
I don't think a thread in the FR forum of a Penis Enlargement website is very valid sample group for the male population at large . . .

I think the figure I quoted does take into account all reported instances if it's derived by standard means. This would include any minor things the parents notice to the very serious conditions that have an incidence rate into the one in millions level. There is, however, definately something to be said for the idea that some men may have had a less than perfect operation but didn't report it.

The chances that anything will happen are low Koooky, but that's not a good reason to have it done. I've never said once on this forum that I thought it was something that should be done, just that I think parents should still have the choice.

If you don't want it done, I'd explain to your wife that they can easily have it done later on if they want it. They're not going to be encountering any locker room situations are judgemental women for quite a while, so what would be her objection to any sons not being circed when they're younger? That seems reasonable to me anyway.
 
I agree that the chances of something happening are low Swank. I said earlier that I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't one of the most successful % wise of all 'common' procedures. That being said, I am sure nose jobs are way up there as well but I wouldn't consider having one of those for a new born baby either. Poor analogy I know but I don't think there is any fair comparisons.

I think my wife is like most women in this country and have very little knowledge of it and I am sure many are 'sold' right before or right after birth. I also have no clue and it's honestly none of my business of her experience with uncut men. I am sure she thinks it is easier to keep clean and that their are lower chances of problems if a baby is cut. All of which could be debated and maybe she will have second thoughts.

kooky
 
quakedaddy said:
Good for you Koooky. Glad to see you've done you homework and will try to convince your wife as best you can. If I'd known then what I know now, I never would have allowed my three sons to be circ'd. And I would have talked to my oldest son before my grandson was born.
Like you said, he can make his own decision later in life.
KOT
qd



Honestly, all the negative info I have picked up on it can be directly linked to this section and to Kong for the most part. When my daughter was born, my ex and I had decided that were it a son, we would have had him cut no question asked. Now I have a lot more to go on and I would never forgive myself if something bad were to happen and I could have stopped it.

kooky
 
Swank said:
I don't think a thread in the FR forum of a Penis Enlargement website is very valid sample group for the male population at large . . .

I didnt know mine was a botched job before reading this forum. Not that it has effected me in any way. It is still interesting to know.

In all actuality it is probably the best place to find out about what other mens penis' are about. The only detriment to this is that the numbers are limited here. I know I wouldnt bring up 95% of these discussions with my friends outside of here. I have never brought up botched circumsion with your friends. So with knowing that this is probably the best place to get advice and viewpoints. And yes foreskin botches.
 
By that comment I meant that guys replying on a thread on this topic, in a FR forum, on a Penis Enlargement site, aren't exactly what a scientist would consider a random sample that is representative of the population at large. 9/10s of the guys could chime in on this thread and say "I think I had a rotten circumcision" but that doesn't mean the figure has any connection to the general public.

It's kind of like a thread at a European cars forum (just an example) where 50% of the guys chip in and say "I had a bad time with my American or Japanese car." Doesn't mean 50% of non-Euro cars are bad, it means there are some compromising factors created by the nature of the forum itself.
 
Ok Swank. I don't think Kong is trying to use those who have chimed in here as a scientific study. He is only adding the numbers up and keeping score. That's it.
This thread was originally started by me asking Kong for some info. That's it. I did not intend it to start yet another FR/circ debate. Kong keeping score in this thread is no worse than me using a made up number earlier. He is not putting forth his own opinions as facts and he has clearly stated within his post when he was speaking of his opinions. He has also provided plenty of references and links as well. I see nothing wrong with him keeping score in a thread about screwed up circs when the numbers clearly show that the percentages here do not reflect either of percentages you two spoke of. This has been a pretty good thread so far and really the nit-picking is a little much. Why can't we just keep to the topic and try to develope the conversation more in that direction?

kooky
 
kong is not simply keeping score, he's pushing his biased opinion by using misleading stats he has made from a forum thread.

im sick of beating around the bush in these debates, its pretty simple, some people in this thread are saying botched circs are a huge thing, and others are saying its not as big as you think.

im sure anyone could find dozens reports that give stats up to 5% of circs are botched, and im sure someone else could find another heap of reports that all give stats under 0.5%

but as i said before, saying stats like 41% is just misleading.
 
OMG Shithead....you guys really have a hard on for Kong huh? In his last post on the matter, he clearly states, "just of the respondents of this thread". If you or anyone else
is interpreting this as Kong trying to use it as a scientific study of some kind then that is on you. You are putting words or attaching ideas to his post that I find just don't exist.
Saying "41% just of the respondents of this thread" is only a fact that Kong has chosen to keep score with. Where does he present this percentage as a scientific study or try to use thie number as a national average? If that is what you are interpreting, then maybe you could use an exact quote where Kong does try to use this % as a scientific study. Yo guys have coninually asked Kong to onyl use acceptable facts or studies and to privide a reference to those. He is providing an "up to date" fact with this % of those who have responded to this thread. Can you deny this?

kook
 
Last edited:
Chill guys. I wasn't trying to start a ruckus. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. I was basically just pointing out (in a thread about botched circs) that there were, in fact, several known botched circs just among the respondents. Food for thought? Yes. Scientific proof? Not unless you're stupid. :)

I stated my opinion earlier in very clear terms. I think the number of actual horrifyingly messed up circs is extremely low. I think the number of not-so-good circs is higher.

I really don't think anyone here takes what I say as gospel truth, so let's quit the nitpicking. It's just annoying, and isn't going to convince anyone one way or the other. Just makes you look like griping ninnies! :D
 
Good lord . . . I just wanted to clarify! I think that we can all agree that all people have different levels reading comprehension. Somebody might read through the thread and think whoa! 1/3 of circs could be botched?! Nobody is arguing, nobody is using rough language.

I just wasn't sure what the point of tallying up a percentage of guys posting on this thread with bad circs was in the first place, I was just making it clear that it doesn't mean much of anything.
 
Swank,
That depends on the meaning of "botched". If you mean imperfect, like uneven, then mine is surely botched. A very high percentage of infant circs are "botched" using this definition. A much lower percentage of adult circs would.

If botched only includes those that require additional medical care, like infection, reconstructive surgery, or other minor surgeries due to complications, then the number is much smaller, but not insignificant.
 
That's a good distinction to draw MDC. My own scar isn't perfectly symetrical, but I wouldn't say anything went wrong with my circumcision.

What I think the statistics generally reflect is circumcisions that had a complication or caused a problem.

One of the dangers I see in all this propaganda that circulates around is that men are obliged to link up almost any problem they have with their penis to a supposedly poorly performed circumcision.

Shaft is hairy? It's the circumcision.

Penis not as big as you'd like? It's the circumcision.

Women aren't responsive enough during sex? It's the circumcision.

You're not responsive enough during sex? It's the circumcision.

Turkey neck a problem? It's the circumcision.

Ejaculating too fast? It's the circumcision.

Got a bend? It's the circumcision.

Not making Penis Enlargement gains? It's the circumcision.

Obviously that's just a goof-off, but my point is along those lines. When all these symptoms are always loosely associated with all these supposed bad jobs out there, men are inclined to always think they've had a rotten circumcision when they buy into the propaganda.

I'd be willing to wager that all thsoe problems are just as pervasive in Europe and other largely uncircumcised parts of the world as they are in mostly circumcised regions. I don't even think there's sufficient evidence besides hearsay to show the oft-discussed "tight circumcision" can be linked to any specific problems. With this perception, like so many others, the nature of internet information is a distorting lens.

Most data shows a small percentage of circs cause problems - the number of men on the internet complaining of difficulties appears to indicate the percentage is higher. But we have to ask, if they're on internet sites discussing it and worrying about it in the first place, are they really representative of the overall male population? Point of fact no, as probably only a small percentage of men get online and research, discuss, and decide to complain online about their particular circumcision.
 
Last edited:
I think we all understand that circumcision is not the cause of all male sexually related problems. No one is trying to dupe anyone else into thinking that. However, there are cases in which circumcision is the cause...but if we aren't educated about it, the men who are suffering may not realize what their problem really is and be able to fix it, if possible. I didn't realize some of my problems were circumcision related until I stumbled into it by accident. Skin expansion has increased my satisfaction with my penis and sex in general by making intercourse more pleasurable and more comfortable for both me and my partner. I have a larger, extremely loose cut and more sensitive peter. What is the problem with wanting to share that with other men?
 
Kong, I wasn't really addressing you or your posting. I'm speaking in general terms about a general trend. If you want to apply it to yourself you're more than welcome to, but that's your decision.

Raffiki, everybody else on the forum is pretty much being constructive and adult now, and all you do is shell out insults when somebody posts something you don't like. All it does is feed negativity into the forum and it's useless. If somebody posted like you do but from another perspective you all would be screaming "troll" and PMing the moderators.

If you've got an opinion or idea express it like an adult.
 
Back
Top