Email a Friend
Print Article
One More Reason Not to Circumcise
I've been in favor of leaving male penises intact for many years.
I wrote an article about it for the San Francisco Examiner in 1993. My emphasis then was on sexual functioning, pleasure and health. It was also on the psychological health of males.
What must it be like to be just days old and be strapped to a board and have part of one's genitals removed? As a woman, I'll never know. (Female genital mutilation is another topic altogether that I will address at another time.)
The topic of male circumcision stirred up much emotion for many reasons. For example, while preparing for a radio show on which I had been a frequent guest, I was told by the producer not to bring up the topic of circumcision because the host did not want to discuss it. Even though it was the host's pattern to discuss the recent articles I had written in my weekly newspaper column, he wanted no part of that discussion. (Luckily, it was a somewhat frequent topic by another host, a physician, on that same station -- so there was some airing of the issue for that station's listeners.)
Over the years, I've urged parents to seriously consider leaving their male newborns intact. I've asked them to resist the weak argument that "we want him to look just like his dad" and leave what isn't "broken" alone.
Then I came across even one more reason to stop a surgical procedure which most of the rest of the world does not practice. Here's the story.
In 2004, the New York City Department of Health received reports of three newborn, male babies who contracted herpes simplex virus (HSV-1). All of them required weeks of hospital care and intravenous injections of powerful antiviral medication. Tragically, one of them died from the infection. Unlike a mere cold sore or bothersome genital blisters, herpes for a newborn is a matter of life and death. The herpes virus can destroy a newborn's brain rapidly.
The New York City Department of Health figured out that all of these babies contracted herpes shortly after undergoing a ritual circumcision by the same mohel, the religious figure in the Jewish faith charged with conducting the longstanding ceremony called a bris.
Under Jewish law, the mohel is required to draw blood from the circumcision site, to remove what the Old Testament refers to as "impurities." The thought, back then, was that a flow of blood away from the circumcision site would carry these potentially dangerous entities away from the baby.
But the traditional way to do this, a practice called Metzizah bi peh, calls for the mohel to use his mouth and suck out the blood.
Make no mistake, this method of viral spread is rare. But, there have been eleven cases of male babies who contracted herpes following circumcisions that included Metzizah bi peh reported over the past five years in New York, Canada, and Israel. In 2005, there were four infected babies in New York City. They were all circumcised by the same New York-based mohel (who only recently was persuaded to stop).
According to New York City's Commissioner of Health, coincidence does not explain this. There is no doubt that the practice of Metzizah bi peh has infected several infants in New York City with the herpes virus, including one child who has died and another who has evidence of brain damage.
Since more than 70% of all adults 40 years of age or older are infected with the herpes simplex virus; the mouth is the most common site of HSV-1 infection; and most adults with oral herpes typically do not have symptoms, but can still spread the infection to others -- one can begin to understand the potential public health problems associated with such a tradition.
Indeed, this is why the Chief Rabbinate in Israel and the New York-based Rabbinical Council of America, began urging all mohels to avoid the potential spread of infection by using a tiny, sterile glass tube to draw the blood instead of putting their mouths directly on the circumcision wound. The overwhelming majority of mohels working today follows this manner of keeping the custom.
Yet the ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish community insists in maintaining this practice. No one can deny that this practice presents a real and serious health risk. And, equally upsetting is that there have been Jewish parents who, while less Orthodox in their religious practices, hired ultra-Orthodox mohels without knowledge that they practiced the potentially risky Metzizah bi peh procedure.
Taking one giant step back from the specifics of this situation, I'll offer my viewpoint in just a few words: "A foreskin is not a birth defect."
Related Topics: Rare Circumcision Ritual Carries Herpes Risk, American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement
Technorati Tags: circumcision, HSV-1, metzitzah
I wrote an article about it for the San Francisco Examiner in 1993. My emphasis then was on sexual functioning, pleasure and health. It was also on the psychological health of males.
What must it be like to be just days old and be strapped to a board and have part of one's genitals removed? As a woman, I'll never know. (Female genital mutilation is another topic altogether that I will address at another time.)
The topic of male circumcision stirred up much emotion for many reasons. For example, while preparing for a radio show on which I had been a frequent guest, I was told by the producer not to bring up the topic of circumcision because the host did not want to discuss it. Even though it was the host's pattern to discuss the recent articles I had written in my weekly newspaper column, he wanted no part of that discussion. (Luckily, it was a somewhat frequent topic by another host, a physician, on that same station -- so there was some airing of the issue for that station's listeners.)
Over the years, I've urged parents to seriously consider leaving their male newborns intact. I've asked them to resist the weak argument that "we want him to look just like his dad" and leave what isn't "broken" alone.
Then I came across even one more reason to stop a surgical procedure which most of the rest of the world does not practice. Here's the story.
In 2004, the New York City Department of Health received reports of three newborn, male babies who contracted herpes simplex virus (HSV-1). All of them required weeks of hospital care and intravenous injections of powerful antiviral medication. Tragically, one of them died from the infection. Unlike a mere cold sore or bothersome genital blisters, herpes for a newborn is a matter of life and death. The herpes virus can destroy a newborn's brain rapidly.
The New York City Department of Health figured out that all of these babies contracted herpes shortly after undergoing a ritual circumcision by the same mohel, the religious figure in the Jewish faith charged with conducting the longstanding ceremony called a bris.
Under Jewish law, the mohel is required to draw blood from the circumcision site, to remove what the Old Testament refers to as "impurities." The thought, back then, was that a flow of blood away from the circumcision site would carry these potentially dangerous entities away from the baby.
But the traditional way to do this, a practice called Metzizah bi peh, calls for the mohel to use his mouth and suck out the blood.
Make no mistake, this method of viral spread is rare. But, there have been eleven cases of male babies who contracted herpes following circumcisions that included Metzizah bi peh reported over the past five years in New York, Canada, and Israel. In 2005, there were four infected babies in New York City. They were all circumcised by the same New York-based mohel (who only recently was persuaded to stop).
According to New York City's Commissioner of Health, coincidence does not explain this. There is no doubt that the practice of Metzizah bi peh has infected several infants in New York City with the herpes virus, including one child who has died and another who has evidence of brain damage.
Since more than 70% of all adults 40 years of age or older are infected with the herpes simplex virus; the mouth is the most common site of HSV-1 infection; and most adults with oral herpes typically do not have symptoms, but can still spread the infection to others -- one can begin to understand the potential public health problems associated with such a tradition.
Indeed, this is why the Chief Rabbinate in Israel and the New York-based Rabbinical Council of America, began urging all mohels to avoid the potential spread of infection by using a tiny, sterile glass tube to draw the blood instead of putting their mouths directly on the circumcision wound. The overwhelming majority of mohels working today follows this manner of keeping the custom.
Yet the ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish community insists in maintaining this practice. No one can deny that this practice presents a real and serious health risk. And, equally upsetting is that there have been Jewish parents who, while less Orthodox in their religious practices, hired ultra-Orthodox mohels without knowledge that they practiced the potentially risky Metzizah bi peh procedure.
Taking one giant step back from the specifics of this situation, I'll offer my viewpoint in just a few words: "A foreskin is not a birth defect."
Related Topics: Rare Circumcision Ritual Carries Herpes Risk, American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement
Technorati Tags: circumcision, HSV-1, metzitzah
47 Comments:
The practice of Metzizah bi peh is very rarely used these days. I have witnessed several circumsisions, and they mohel has never engaged in anything of the kind. This should not be used as a case against circumsision. The prevelant health benefits from circumsision clearly outweigh the rare risks. Circumsision helps protect against urinary tract infections, prevents cervical cancer in women who are married to men with circumsized penises, avoidance of penile cancer, and decreases harmful bacteria. There is also no doubt that circumsision greatly enhances hygiene.
As a psychology instructor it recently has been found men whom are circumsized have a 60% chance of preventing HIV transmission than if they were not circumsized.
Also, genital hygiene was a factor in HIV transmission. Both are factors due to the way the virus tranfers. In addition, the so- called mental effects of the circumsion act has no merit as I do not remember nor know of any way it affected me mentally or anyone else.
I read a study on women who had uncircumsized partners, and the incidence of cervical cancer was much lower than average.
It's like coffee- it's good! It's bad! It's OK! It's good!
Circumcision isa pretty damn good idea, unless your brain is stuffed up with the milk cow blues.
A man is responsible for his own hygiene, circumsized or not. I am not, and have never been afflicted with a STD; 55 years old, in very good health and so is my wife of 28 years.
First off, I'm circumsized and I wouldn't have it any other way. Secondly, You said you are a female, in that case, I don't see any reason why you should be able to make a case for circumcision in the first place. Another thing is how many guys do you know that remember the pain they felt while being circumcised? I sure as hell don't.
To the fella who posted above that a woman has no place to make a decision on circumsision....(she has three sons and a husband) I can't help but to think of the horror of female "circumsision" done because men don't want women to enjoy sex. Not at birth, not with anestesia, just a sharp object and someone to hold the little girls down.
This is a pain YOU will never know.
Male genital mutilation will one day be looked on with the same horror as female genital mutilation. Do I want my son to be more promiscuous because he knows he has a 50 percent less chance of catching HIV if circumcized? No.
My comments are on health and only health, nevermind what it looks like. I know a lady whose son was not circumcized and as a result had such a bad infection that he could barely walk while it was healing. She used to cry because she couldn't stop the pain he suffered. The doctor urged her to have it done, but her husband wouldn't allow it because he wanted his son to look just like him. His father was the one who cared about appearances more than his son's health. I know part of it was that no one (his father should have) took the time to show him the extra care needed to properly clean an uncircumcised penis. Now I know why she always complained of discomfort in her nether regions: her husband didn't clean himself either.
As for the Jewish practice that passed herpes on to those children, that is a religious thing that has nothing to do with what trained medical professionals do in hospitals using sterile tools. As a baby girl, I had my ears pierced and don't remember a thing. So unless circumcision is done when a boy is older, how can it be traumatizing? I'm sure being born would be much more traumatizing if anyone could remembered the experience.
The only reason someone uncircumsized would be more likely tp spread any infection is if he was never taught safe-sex or proper hygiene. I would never consider mutilating my baby. What if something went wrong and he was deformed? It may not happen often, but what if it happened to YOUR son? Whose fault would that be? No one but your own. And if a doctor damaged your baby during a botched Not like he can grow a new one....
I think if every man would rathr be circumsized, then lt him do it as an adult...I daresay there would be A LOT fewer circumsisions.
I also wouldn't poke holes in my baby, she can get her ears pierced when she's old enough to understand what she's doing.
60% lower chance of spreading HIV? I have looked and looked on every website and I cannot find that figure anywhere.
Please post the study that proves these numbers so we can make an informed decision. The websites I have visited have posted that 1% of uncircumsized men are more likely to spead HPV to a female partner, but that is far from 60% and relates only to the human papiloma virus. Please post where this information was gained.
I can't agree more with the not circumcising baby boys. My husband isn't and neither is my son. My husband's father and all of his brothers were left uncircumcised. None of them have had any issues as far as I know. The higher incidence of infection in uncircumcised men, if there really is any at all, is probably due more to the men not cleaning themselves properly. My sons need not have a more traumatic experience right after being born. If, when he's older, he wants to get it done, as long as he's aware of the risks and subsequent pain, he can do what he wants.
Newborn circumcision should be very illegal. A man should be able to choose for himself later in life.
You know, i have to disagree. My son was circumcised two days ago. The reason: my father. He is a nearly 60 year old man and now is have the worst problems you could ever think of.. He told me that it needed to be done now not later cause of all the problems that come up later in life.
I just had my little boy circumcised about a week ago. I think that it's a good idea beacuse of the health reasons. I head that the risk of infection is greater when left uncircumcise. And I had it done at a Docters office so they didn't do any of that religious stuff. I think it's better to do it when their young instead of waiting until they are older. My little boy won't have a cule what happened, and it's better that way.
Well after reading all these articles and comments left my countless people i have never felt better about being uncircumsised.i hate the idea of having a piece of my penis removed for the simple fact that "probles MAY arise in the future". no. i make my own decisions about what i do and dont do to my body.and having that choice make me feel uplifted and i could never understand how this can be done against a babys will at such a young age. when i was at school i was picked on in gym and what not but i realize now that i was normal, not mutalated by some doctor, religious figure and or parents who think its in my best intrest. i would never put my own child through that because i know deep down that he would want to have a choice just like you and me. and while an circumsized boy will never know what its like to be fully "intact" i want to thank everyone who posted a comment supporting or disagreeing what everyone has to say.again thak you for making me feel like i rilly do have a choice sometimes
I will be having my second child in 2 weeks and we have not found out if it is a boy or girl, so I am trying to get as much info as I can on the topic, I have heard that on a newborn they do not give anestesia, I don't agree with mutalation but my husband thinks that it is important to do for hygene reasons.
Penn and teller did a show on this. the same things came up. there is research that proves that it is both a benifitial to be uncircumsized, and other reasearch that says its no good to have a uncircumsized penis. if he keeps it clean, it will likely not get infected. and even if a male with a uncircumsized penis has a greater risk of HIV's why is it important when hes not even a year old? most people lose there virginity in the late teens. so sex IS NOT AN ISSUE for a newborn.
on top of that, i would like to see the statistics of the number of uncirumsized men/ number with a STD. if a man is circumsized and wants to "renew" his foreskin, i have heard that buy stretching the skin 2-3 times a day for 10-15 minutes, the foreskin will be restorede
Well 19 years ago when my son was born my wife and I decided not to circumsize our son (his choice we felt) and guess what when he turned 18 I asked if he wanted one of course we would pay for it. He said no. He told me about 35% of his gym class was uncircumsizd and he was quite secure. I remember when I was in school only about 10% in my class were uncircumsized and though I was made fun of I was glad to be different. My dad taught me as I my son on how to pull back and keep clean. It's just hygene.
Hey this is America! We buy huge SUV's, live in McMansions buy wide tv's and in the same me-too, lemming mentality, we circumcise our sons. It is so stupid. Did anyone ever ask why we cut up penises?? It is ludicrous!
To use the argement that "the baby doesn't remember the pain" has always seemed ludicris and cruel . He wouldn't remember either if you punched him in the face but how many loving, sensitive and logical parents do that?
If men weren't meant to have the foreskin, they wouldn't have it in the first place. And all this "Better hygiene" crap, is stupid. Teach your son to clean himself, and you won't have the problem. Duh.
I am 50 years of age, am not circumcised, and have never had a problem with infections due to proper cleaning under the foreskin during showers. The women I have been with have all enjoyed the different look of my penis, the new feeling given them by the extra skin, and the uniqueness of how it looked. One woman even told me, "If I had known that you were uncircumcised, I would have taken you home, ravaged you, and had you in bed--on our first date!"
I am pregnant with my first child and after finding out that I am having a boy I was dead set on having him circumcized... until I read an American Baby magazine that had a small advertisement about a website called NoCirc.org. As soon as I saw the advertisement I decided I needed to ask questions and do some research.. immediately I called the number displayed in the advertisement and was told of the horrific damage that is circumcision.
I will NOT have my son circumsized.. it is brutal and terrible and I am so glad that I saw that advertisement. He isnt born yet, but already I have saved him from the torture of the procedure and many other things.
God created man in his own image. God created man the way man should be.
If men were meant to have less sensitive, mutilated penises.. God would have made them that way.
I am not really religious, I have always been more about the science, the facts.. and speaking non religiously, I can say I have read the facts and I wont dare torture my son like that. There is NO medical reason for a newborn baby to be circumcized.. just because he MIGHT have complications later in life.
My fiance is circumsized and after learning everything that I have (Dozens of websites and books both for and against circumsision), I feel sad for him.. that he was not given the chance to experience manhood as it was NATURALLY meant to be and that he was not given the choice, but we will not make that mistake with our son!!!
Before, I was sure I was going to have my son circumsized because I didn't know jack squat about it in all reality.
Now, I have done a lot of research and asked many questions and am thankful that I did.. my son will come home from the hospital complete in every way that nature meant him to be!!
im barely 13 and im wondering if uncircumsision is normal. OOh and how long can it get, just curious because im scared if a girl doesn't want to sleep with me just because its small and uncircumsized?????
as far as the arguement goes i feel that it is a personal choice for the parents...some may choose to leave it up to their child and some may not i on the other hand will not the procedure will be done on all of my son's if God chooses to bless me with some. i think that this procedure is no more cruel then having ur baby girl's ears pierced health problems can arise from almost anything in life so i dont think that is a valid arguement...are u not going to feed ur children chicken because they could have health problems later on in the future due to eating chicken..see wat i mean are u not going to let them play wit toys becuase there are germs on them and they could get sick...NO...im not against people not having it done to their sons...i think thats great u decided wat u did but i have my own ersonal opinions
I think its the parents choice if they should circumsise thier son.I personally think it's a great idea!!!!!!!!
It's really noones buissness if someone has been circumcised. Its a choice. Leave someone alone if they have been. Female genital mutilation is FAR worse than male "mutilation." The men aren't mutilated, the women are. Female circumcision is painful, bloody, and performed without anestesia. Shut up about male mutilation, and focus on the REAL problem... FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION!
The comment "First off, I'm circumsized and I wouldn't have it any other way.." sadly sums up the entire controversy. There's nothing wrong with deciding to have part of your penis cut off. But it's entirely different when you chop off sexual tissue from another, without his consent. Indeed, this clueless poster never will have it another way.
Daniel says that death of boys should not be used as a case against circumcsion. Wow. And then he lists the same reasons it might be good to amputate sexual tissue from your daughter. Vulvar cancer is just as rare as penile cancer. Neonatal vulvectomy provides the same protection, and the pain is not remembered. And, removing the redundant folds of skin improves hygiene (just count the number of "feminine hygiene" products at your pharmacy.) Reduction of urinary tract infections is one of the reasons given by Indonesians for the safe and effective removal of the prepuce covering the clitoris.
Both of these posters have been blinded by their culture and their circumcisions. Billions of intact men will never read these posts. Why should they care? The circumcision debate is carried on by cut men, and their female proxies, some of whom are furious that sexual tissue was amputated from their bodies with consent, and some of whom insist that sexual tissue be amputated for an incoherent litany of reasons.
I think that circumcision should by all means be done. It's a lot cleaner and it looks better. I know because I've been with men who were and who were not. I'm actually married to a man who is not circumsized and he hates the fact that he's not. He now wishes his parents would have had him circumsized as an infant. A sexy penis is a circumsized penis. I love my husband very much, but I believe it's absolutely discusting that he's not circumsized. Sexual activity is awkward because of it
circumcision is just cleaner and sexier. I have been with both men who are and are not and i prefer ones who are circumsized. it looks better and smells a hell of a lot better. i have 2 sons and both are circumsized whereas my husband is not. he hates that he isn't and is planning on having it done here next month.
to whomever said it was there for a reason that God put it there and leave it alone. guess what the bible says to have it done so it's not inhumane and mutalating the body. it's doing what's supposed to be done as ordained by god
i am expecting my first child any day now and feel lucky to know that is going to be a boy. my husband and i are at odds over getting the baby circumcised and am still undecided about wether to have the procedre done. if anything i have found the information useful in helping to weigh the pros and cons of the decision.
I am almost 16 years old, and uncircumsised. I always felt a little insecure, since I knew it wasn't quite the norm, but now I realize that I would much rather remain uncircumsised. Hygiene has never been an issue for, and frankly, I doubt sex will be either. Being circumsised also seems like something that would be uncomfortable; there's no skin separating the head of the penis from other materials.
If trying to decide whether or not to circumcise your son, I would urge you not to.
Yeah, it's interesting. The circumcision in the bible was a pact between the Jewish people and God, and we are not held to that pact anymore. But let's not make this into a religious debate.
It makes sense that circumcised men don't remember their circumcision, the human mind blocks painful memories as a defense mechanism. And mutilation is mutilation, it means "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts", and I don't know about you, but anything that cuts into my skin and removes pieces is what I consider mutilation.
Either way, I think it's up to people to decide. God gave us free will, we should use it.
Also, I'm not gonna trust the words of a "psychology instructor" that remains anonymous. Anyone ever hear of "Essjay"?
I agree that circumcision was originally a pact between Jewish people and God, at time when good hygiene made the difference between life and death.
After ready a study comparing the sexual nature of circumcized and uncircumcized penis-and my personal experience with both- the natural formation of an uncircumcized penis allows for a more pleasurable experience for both partners. A circumcized male must penetrate at an angle that can damage a females vagina. The lack of sensitive foreskin requires a harsh penetrating angle. The uncircumcized penis' penetration contours to the vagina.
I also agree with other bloggers that it is a personal choice for every man to make on his own. And every father and mother must make a conscious effort to practice good hygiene on their infant sons and eventually teach them how to properly care for themselves; JUST AS WOMEN MUST DO!!
I came to this site looking for some feedback to men that are not circumsized. What i found was many different opinions that ranged from health reasons, to biblical reasons, and personal preferences.
I am a 57 year old woman who happens to be having personal issues with a man i fell in love with who is 53 and NOT circumsized. Over the 4 years i have been with this man i have tried to overcome the fact he is not circumsized. It has definately put a damper on our love life. More for me than him. I am not impressed at all to seeing what i think looks like a "deformed" penis. The "forskin" is not sexy to me. Performance is not the same compared to a man that is circumsized. I find in having actual intercouse is rather painful due to the fact the forskin has to pass through first which causes me vaginal pain. I wish i didn't feel this way. I am just at my wits ends over this and was looking for some kind of help. If any one has any similiar feelings i'd love to hear what they are. I'd hate to think i am the only woman that feels this way.
Also i'd like to state the fact that it doesn't help that he has never been with any other woman so he really doesn't have a clue that there could be a problem. I am at a loss.
I will and my children will never be circumcised by my choice. As a medical student, the research I have done has proved to me that circumcision is harmful to my child. And as a good parent that I hope to be, I'd rather die than permanently hurt my child. It makes as much sense to me as cutting off their eyelids. Both have very similar functions, and your eyes will work without your eyelids but not as good. I feel the same can be said about your foreskin. But by many peoples logic: "what you never had, you never miss." Maybe one day someone will prove regular infant circumcision is very beneficial, but as no one can prove that it's "benefits" outweigh it's problems today, I will not base a permanent decision on my child's health based on sick, dark-aged theories.
But as a logically thinking person who thinks about the future, one day people will read in history books about the ignorant horrors of circumcision, and I hope that that day comes soon for the sake of our children. In short: Do what you want to your body, don't mess around with other people's.
my bf is uncircumsized and if was to have bateria from it.. and we have sex could i catch it too??
Anyone who is unsure as to circumcise or not should watch one being performed. Sure, the baby doesn't grow up remembering it but if a parent had to watch what their infant son is being put through, they would never consider it ever again. I speak from experience.
My husband is uncircumcised it has been a problem for awhile because of the fraenum would pull when his penis was fully erected. It caused him significant discomfort and sometime after we were married actually began to tear.
I have no pros or cons against it I couldnt care either way but I know my husband wishes it was done at a time when he couldnt remember the pain lol.
I was hit by a speeding truch when I was 2 I dont remember it. I doubt anyone remembers anything from a few days after birth so trauma is a rediculious argument for being against it.
I was very uncomfortable about being uncircumcised the majority of my adolescent life. Until joined the military and realized very quickly while in boot camp how many other recruites penis looked like mine. Since then i've been proud and even outspoken about not having the procedure done. Women do not really care, atleast that's been my experiences. I WILL NOT have any son of mine disfigured.
I will leave you with this piece of advice out of 2 of my boys 1 is circumsized and never had any problems using the bathroom or any other problem with his genitals. my other boy was not circumsized and by 3 years old he had his first urinary tract infection that brought him to the hospital at 12 a.m. in the morning and not to mention his forskin was so tight we could not retract it enough.We always keeped him in good hygiene. now he needs an emergency circumsition. I feel it would help most boys to have one early on to avoid this painfur expierience.
I didnt feel like it was right to circumsize my son, who is now almost 2. It is a cosmetic sugery, as was explained to me by the doctor. Just because he doesnt "need" foreskin doesn't mean we should remove it. Infant boys don't need nipples either, but we don't go cutting those off.
Don't get me wrong, if he wants a circumsision later in life, it is his choice. I don't feel like it is mine. My husband is circumsized and it wasn't done correctly. It has caused him embarassment and problems.
As for the religious aspect, that was required under Old Testiment law that we are no longer bound to. The apostle Paul preaches in Galations that God cares more about a man's faith, than the condition of his penis.
I would highly recommend anyone considering this procedure for their child to visit nocirc.org and get some facts prior to making such a big decision.
iam 19 years old...ive always felt like an outcast for never getting circumsized. I feel that i have been held back from something so simple but instrumental enough to change my life for the better. it makes your penis look bigger and what is more important to a mans self-esteem than that. i have also noticed seldom pain and swelling for no reason. not being too sexualy, i seriously doubt its an STD. i eventually plan on getting one when i find time away from school and work. i just wish my parents would have considered it at birth. especialy my father, he didnt think for a second; hey, when i was young i always wanted to be circumsized. i guess not, but at least i now know that my sons without question will be circumsized. but one question for any competent human being posting on this subject; does it add inches or just look bigger?
uncircumsized is not as appealing as circumsized. circumsized has endless sexual variety. The odor can be unappealing (uncircumsized). Not a turn on for me. Sorry.
It is true that Christians are not bound to that covenant, but Jews still are bound by the covenant with God that is circumcision. I'd rather deal with being circumcised rather than deal with not being accepted by everyone of my religion.
Post a Comment