Honestly, why don't people circumcise their sons in D.C.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circumcision improves aerodynamic function.

+1
If you want your son to be a competitive swimmer or biker it's really a must.

Never knew this. I will remember this post when I watch the next tour de france

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circumcision improves aerodynamic function.

+1
If you want your son to be a competitive swimmer or biker it's really a must.

I am never going to look at a competitive swimmer or a biker the same way again.

You can tell by how a guy walks. Circumcised ones are .0001 faster, because there is less drag.

[Anonymous]

Move it to explicit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circumcision improves aerodynamic function.

+1
If you want your son to be a competitive swimmer or biker it's really a must.

If one competes in the nude perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circumcision improves aerodynamic function.

+1
If you want your son to be a competitive swimmer or biker it's really a must.

I am never going to look at a competitive swimmer or a biker the same way again.

You can tell by how a guy walks. Circumcised ones are .0001 faster, because there is less drag.

Those slow dirty intact guys.... LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you have not ever seen the subject of this "discussion". The "sensitive head" is quite far from being esposed to "daily abrasions." Do you homework, then judge.

So in your VAST experience with both circumcised and intact penises (peni?), you think that the intact penises were not softer and more sensitive? I've only dabbled in the subject myself, but have found intact penises to be much much softer and seemingly more sensitive given that they are protected 90% of the time.

Yuck, who wants a soft penis!

And in my experience uncircumcised penises are stinky, even when carefully washed right before sex. But that's just my experience. Unlike some of the PPs, I realize that my experience is not universal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And in my experience uncircumcised penises are stinky, even when carefully washed right before sex. But that's just my experience. Unlike some of the PPs, I realize that my experience is not universal.

Yeah, not universal-dh is intact and has never had a smell. He knows proper hygiene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:now that the Peds have changed their views---^^^

You know the AAP "changed their views" based on no new information, right? No information that was not available when they issued previous press releases. They "changed their views" (sort of not-not endorsing circ) because insurance had sometimes stopped covering it. That's all. Not because it somehow became clear via studies, etc. in the intervening years that circ was better than not. Because that never happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you have not ever seen the subject of this "discussion". The "sensitive head" is quite far from being esposed to "daily abrasions." Do you homework, then judge.

So in your VAST experience with both circumcised and intact penises (peni?), you think that the intact penises were not softer and more sensitive? I've only dabbled in the subject myself, but have found intact penises to be much much softer and seemingly more sensitive given that they are protected 90% of the time.

Yuck, who wants a soft penis!

I think this refers to the skin not a flaccid penis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to say about other people's penises, but I would like to correct something:

aesthetics...this is how it is spelled.

I never considered the aesthtics of penises, but I guess we all have different priorities. Obviously, I value correct spelling over beautiful penises.

No no no, OP is referring to ascetics -- "practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline; austere in appearance, manner, or attitude." I think she is inadvertently correct when it comes to circ'd penises being austere in appearance! Self-denial -- well, the men will have to speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I can't vouch for any sensitivity issues, because I am a girl (i.e. I don't have a penis.)

If you have experienced HAVING a circ-ed AND an uncirc-ed penis, feel free to elaborate. If not, go away troll.

Uh, you don't have to actually have one to see the difference in men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a common practice in the rest of the United States, and not just for Jewish people. I'd say 80% of families have their sons circumcised for the health benefits and ascetics. Yet here, I guess it's just in the "holier than thou" mentality that people don't. It is a personal choice, but I see so many parents attack other parents for doing a routine and SAFE procedure.

I just don't understand the hippy ant-medicine trend.

It's a fad not to circumcise. It's already turning back around, not that the Peds have changed their views and insurance is paying again.

We looked into not circing, but nurses we talked to told us that they were seeing too many boys circumcised at 10, 11, 12 due to infections.

Since we ended up having a child with a disability, I'm REALLY glad we did it. Otherwise I would be in charge of cleaning and hygiene even now that he is a teen. Moms should think about that, especially with the high autism rates and other disabilities.

This is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you have not ever seen the subject of this "discussion". The "sensitive head" is quite far from being esposed to "daily abrasions." Do you homework, then judge.


So in your VAST experience with both circumcised and intact penises (peni?), you think that the intact penises were not softer and more sensitive? I've only dabbled in the subject myself, but have found intact penises to be much much softer and seemingly more sensitive given that they are protected 90% of the time.


Yuck, who wants a soft penis!



And in my experience uncircumcised penises are stinky, even when carefully washed right before sex. But that's just my experience. Unlike some of the PPs, I realize that my experience is not universal.

You need to get your external genitalia removed. It's a quick and easy process and will change your experience.

[Anonymous]

Ignorance, people really need to look at the recent medical findings, it's not just cosmetic and cultural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you have not ever seen the subject of this "discussion". The "sensitive head" is quite far from being esposed to "daily abrasions." Do you homework, then judge.


So in your VAST experience with both circumcised and intact penises (peni?), you think that the intact penises were not softer and more sensitive? I've only dabbled in the subject myself, but have found intact penises to be much much softer and seemingly more sensitive given that they are protected 90% of the time.


Yuck, who wants a soft penis!



And in my experience uncircumcised penises are stinky, even when carefully washed right before sex. But that's just my experience. Unlike some of the PPs, I realize that my experience is not universal.

You need to get your external genitalia removed. It's a quick and easy process and will change your experience.

That doesn't make sense, they take the skin not the entire thing. Maybe you need to learn a little more about it before passing ignorant judgments.