What are the pros and cons of circumcision? What are the pro and cons of being u!
Question: Circumcised:
Pros: Looks better, for one! They don't need to clean under the skin, easier to put on condoms, a lowered risk of urinary tract infections, lower chance of cancer on there, lowers risk of HIV and some other STDs.
Cons: Guys who are cut need extra lube for masturbating and sex, decreased sensitivity to the head, may be risks with circumcising that could damage the penis in alot of ways, very painful for babies =(, is dry, hard, and not as good for sex as a natural uncut one-for the woman at least.
Uncircumcised:
Pros: Leaving it as nature intended, better for sex, more stimulation, more moving room, more sensitive no need for extra lube, and the guy's probably going to be more gentle with his woman.
Cons: Doesn't look as good as a circumcised one that shows the whole head, have to keep it clean, may be more susceptible to infections.
I think all the stuff about locker room comments and about all girls preffering circumcised and about UTIs and cancer are almost a myth like it's some huge thing. If a boy/guy just keeps it clean under there and practice safe sex, then there won't be any problem. Unless there's some medically necessary circumstance, there really is no need to circumcise anyone.
Answers: Circumcised:
Pros: Looks better, for one! They don't need to clean under the skin, easier to put on condoms, a lowered risk of urinary tract infections, lower chance of cancer on there, lowers risk of HIV and some other STDs.
Cons: Guys who are cut need extra lube for masturbating and sex, decreased sensitivity to the head, may be risks with circumcising that could damage the penis in alot of ways, very painful for babies =(, is dry, hard, and not as good for sex as a natural uncut one-for the woman at least.
Uncircumcised:
Pros: Leaving it as nature intended, better for sex, more stimulation, more moving room, more sensitive no need for extra lube, and the guy's probably going to be more gentle with his woman.
Cons: Doesn't look as good as a circumcised one that shows the whole head, have to keep it clean, may be more susceptible to infections.
I think all the stuff about locker room comments and about all girls preffering circumcised and about UTIs and cancer are almost a myth like it's some huge thing. If a boy/guy just keeps it clean under there and practice safe sex, then there won't be any problem. Unless there's some medically necessary circumstance, there really is no need to circumcise anyone.
Pro is easier to keep clean. Con is about 3 million pleasure nerves go bye-bye, so sexual pleasure gets reduced.
I think having the extra bit for my partner to fiddle with is important not to mention all those wonderful nerve endings my foreskin contains that give me pleasure from their fiddling. Not to mention my glans/head is less dried out and more sensitive than one that has been exposed to the elements and friction for years.
Cleaning has never been an issue. I learned about soap and water and how to retract years ago.
Coming from a woman who has recently done her homework on circumcision, keep the foreskin. It has some sexual functions that are very enticing, and no longer is suggested by any medical organization. At least not any that matter! Less and less insurances are covering the procedure. Why? Because the supposed benefits of it don't outweigh the risks.
If a woman is for some reason turned off by this, it's because she's uneducated and not used to the idea of an intact penis. I do not mean that women may not honestly have a preference by this. We've been taught over the years that they are "dirty" right along with the men.
If kept clean, the intact penis requires very little more care than a circumcised one. How hard is it to pull back a bit of skin to rinse it when you shower?
When erect, the average intact penis looks pretty much the same as the cut one. I don't know why any woman would really care what it looks like when soft...it doesn't matter. If you see it, it'll probably be erect in about 5 seconds anyway!
If you would rather circumcise, go for it. Those are good too! I just believe that people should be informed before making that kind of decision.
There is no benefit to circumcision. It was started as a means to desensitize the penis to prevent boys from masturbating. Many false benefits have been claimed in an attempt to keep the practice alive. Male Circumcision is now illegal in most European countries because it is sexual child abuse.
CIRCUMCISION HISTORY IN THE USA:
1832: prevents nocturnal emissions
1845: prevents masturbation
1855: prevents syphilis
1865: cures epilepsy
1870: cures epilepsy
1870: prevents spinal paralysis
1871: Jews are immune to masturbation
1873: cures bed wetting
1875: cures curvature of the spine
1875: cures paralysis of the bladder
1875: cures clubfoot
1879: cures nocturnal seminal emissions
1879: curse abdominal neuralgia
1881: cures eye problems
1886: prevents crossed eyes
1888: prevents masturbating
1890: cures blindness
1890: cures deafness
1890: cures dumbness
1891: "foreskin constitutes a harbor for filth"
1891: "foreskin is a constant source of irritation"
1891: conduces to masturbation
1891: adds to the difficulties of sexual continence
1894: circumcising Blacks prevents them from raping White women
1894: cures urinary incontinence
1894: cures rectal incontinence
1900: needed to desensitize the penis
1901: needed to desensitize the penis
1902: foreskin causes epilepsy
1914: Dr. Abraham L Wolbarst demands compulsory circumcision
1914: prevents tuberculosis
1926: prevents penile cancer.
1930: Dr. Norton Henry Bare claims that he has cured a boy of epilepsy by circumcising him
1932: prevents penile cancer
1935: promotes chastity
1941: blunts sexual sensitivity
1941: foreskin must be forcibly retracted and scrubbed daily
1942: prevents prostate cancer
1949: prevents venereal disease
1949: prevents cancer of the tongue
1949: elimination circumcisions in the United Kingdom
1951: Abraham Ravich invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women.
1953: creates immunity to all physical illness
1953: creates immunity to all mental illness
1954: prevents cervical cancer in women
1969: cures masturbation
1969: cures nervousness
1971: prevents cancer of the bladder
1971: prevents cancer of the rectum
1973: "all who disagree with circumcision are mentally ill"
1985: prevents urinary tract infections
1986: prevents AIDS
1988: prevents strept throat
1989: Edgar J. Schoen declares circumcision is necessary
1991: Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision.
1991: Aaron J. Fink declares mass circumcision is necessary to prevent sand from getting under soldiers' foreskins.
1993: Gerald N. Weiss declares that Langerhands cells in the foreskin lead to HIV infection.
1997: Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails once again to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision.
2003: Edgar J. Schoen steps up pressure on American Academy of Pediatrics to reverse its policy on circumcision, claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS.
Wow, I'm impressed with most of the comments, especially Eva's and Princess's.
As they said, some say pros of cutting is looks, though that is changing as more and more guy are not getting circumcised. Cons of cutting are the reduced sensitivity, as well as scarring that can occur, and also the absolute necessity of lubrication when doing any for of sexual activity, from masturbation to sex.
Pros for uncut are the normal sensitivity, as well as the fact that you do not need a lube, unless you want to use one.
There are really no cons of uncut, other than some shallow people who think it looks ugly.
Now, myths around being uncut, which are utter tripe, are the facts of cleanliness and disease vulnerability. It literally takes only a few seconds to clean an uncut penis, just retract the skin, rinse it under the water, wipe off any grime, and release. As simple as that. Nothing as time consuming as people seem to think it takes. As for disease vulnerability, this is utter tripe. Cutting off your foreskin offers no added protection from any disease, because if you have sex with an infected person, a lack of skin isn't going to prevent you from getting a disease, no mater what it is. Common sense can tell you that much. So I hope this helps.
I agree that circumcision isn't necessary and it can have many cons. Like the complications, loss of sexual sensation. The foreskin is a natural part of the penis and has many benefits for both partners. Not to mention the actual circumcision and healing process is rather painful and horrible and definitely not a nice welcome into the world for babies.
Wow, there are some very impressive answers that I don't think I could add to anything that I may have felt was left out or should be known other than we need more experienced and educated women such as Princess and Eva. I've encountered my share of inexperienced and un-educated circ happy women that made me think about getting myself circumcised. Finally I have found my own Princess and Eva but I know there are still a lot more vulnerable men out there dealing with the same stuff I had dealt with.
In my opinion, the pros of being uncircumsized far outweigh those of being cut.
Being uncircumsized means your penis is 100% intact, just the way you were born; The foreskin protects the sensitive helmet of the penis from exposure and rubbing against clothes ensuring pleasure during sex and masturbation; No requirement for lube; Extra bit of fun during foreplay; Outside of the US it is actually the norm. Worldwide only about 15% of men are circumsized.
The only reason it is still prominent in the US is because of tradition, religion and conformity, very stupid reasons to chop of an integral part of the genitals, IMO.