Circumcised men may soon be able to REGROW their foreskin!

a reply to: Nyiah
What don't US men know how to wash?
Cutting is a minority in the UK and not part of our culture yet we don't have higher rates of penile cancer.
If you are just talking about lazy blokes who don't wash as justification to mutilate their bodies as infants then it would appear you cannot entertain a logical discussion.
I'll leave you to it, my points stand.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
Wow, so you advocate cutting infant males to appease your own aesthetic preference. I'm kind of disgusted with you to be honest. I'll leave you to it as well. Such a shallow reason.
I wonder if you advocate the removal of dangly labia on women to appease the preferences of some men.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Wow, so you advocate cutting infant males to appease your own aesthetic preference. I'm kind of disgusted with you to be honest. I'll leave you to it as well. Such a shallow reason.
I wonder if you advocate the removal of dangly labia on women to appease the preferences of some men.

I don't much care that you make assumptions about my regard to aestheticism or that you're disgusted with my not caring for foreskin. That's my reality. You go ahead and live with yours. And I advocate nothing but allowing people/their parents to decide for themselves.

How Circumcision Broke the Internet

Like most fringe groups, the anti-circumcision faction is almost comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia. The intactivists also obsess about sex to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd. The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)

Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost cultic devotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexless existence.

a reply to: Anyafaj

Angry ? What for, skin? I'm not angry.
In fact, take into account how this world is run and by who?
I'm happier than a gay wedding with what they did leave me.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Nyiah
What don't US men know how to wash?
Cutting is a minority in the UK and not part of our culture yet we don't have higher rates of penile cancer.
If you are just talking about lazy blokes who don't wash as justification to mutilate their bodies as infants then it would appear you cannot entertain a logical discussion.
I'll leave you to it, my points stand.

Obviously it must be something other than circumcise, or uncircumcised that is causing penile cancer. Because apparently, according Wiki, Jews have the lowest rate in the world. Ok. So can we stop fighting now. Everybody happy? Can we get back to the topic before we drift?

Infections

HIV infection—HIV-positive men have eight-fold increased risk of developing penile cancer than HIV-negative men.
Human papillomavirus—HPV is a risk factor in the development of penile cancer. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HPV is responsible for about 800 (about 40%) of 1,570 cases of penile cancer diagnosed annually in the United States. There are more than 120 types of HPV.
Genital warts—Genital or perianal warts increase the risk of invasive penile cancer by about 3.7 times if they occurred more than two years before the reference date. About half of men with penile cancer also have genital warts, which are caused by HPV.

Hygiene and injury
Poor hygiene—Poor hygiene can increase a man's risk of penile cancer.
Smegma—Smegma, a whitish substance that can accumulate beneath the foreskin, is associated with greater risk of penile cancer. The American Cancer Society suggests that smegma may not be carcinogenic, but may increase the risk by causing irritation and inflammation of the penis.
Balanitis and penile injury—Inflammation of the foreskin and/or the glans penis (balanitis) is associated with about 3.1 times increased risk of penile cancer. It is usually caused by poor hygiene, allergic reactions to certain soaps, or an underlying health condition such as reactive arthritis, infection, or diabetes. Small tears and abrasions of the penis are associated with about 3.9 times increased risk of cancer.
Phimosis—Phimosis is a medical condition where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans. It is considered a significant risk factor in the development of penile cancer (odds ratio of 38–65). Phimosis may also be a symptom of penile cancer.
Paraphimosis—Paraphimosis is a medical condition where the foreskin becomes trapped behind the glans. It is considered a risk factor for the development of penile cancer.
Circumcision—Some studies show that circumcision during infancy or in childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer, but this is not the case when performed in adulthood. It has been suggested that the reduction in risk may be due to reduced risk of phimosis; other possible mechanisms include reduction in risk of smegma and HPV infection.

Other
Age—Penile cancer is rarely seen in men under the age of 50. About 4 out of 5 men diagnosed with penile cancer are over the age of 55.
Lichen sclerosus—Lichen sclerosus is a disease causing white patches on the skin. Lichen sclerosus increases the risk of penile cancer. As the exact cause of lichen sclerosus is unknown, there is no known way to prevent it.
Tobacco—Chewing or smoking tobacco increases the risk of penile cancer by 1.5–6 times depending on the duration smoking and daily number of cigarettes.
Ultraviolet light—Men with psoriasis who have been treated using UV light and a drug known as psoralen have an increased risk of penile cancer.

Circumcision during infancy or in childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer. Several authors have proposed circumcision as a possible strategy for penile cancer prevention; however, the American Cancer Society points to the rarity of the disease and notes that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I advocate nothing but allowing people/their parents to decide for themselves.

So should parents be allowed to remove labia from female infants if they wish for aesthetic reasons?
Why are you avoiding answering the same question for female infants?

This article just made me LOL....Mostly the website names where people " congregate " to mourn the loss of their foreskin....Is this really a thing ? I would NOT undergo this procedure....a reply to: Anyafaj

a reply to: ~Lucidity
Nope, this is an open forum and the discussion is about men who had their body mutilated as infants having the potential chance to restore the damage. You passionately expressed your preference for this cutting and I questioned it using the equivalent for female infants. You now refuse to share your thoughts on such a comparison, and I find such a position to be strange.
Your refusal says it all to be honest though, and yes such a position held by anyone (based on aesthetics and discriminating on gender) disgusts me. If you do not support parents rights to remove labia from female infants for aesthetic reasons then all you have to do is say it, simple really.
Otherwise I shall assume you do.

I haven't bothered to read this entire thread (or the OP), but I just wanted to point out that regrowing foreskin after a life of being circumcised seems pointless. By then, all of the ultra-sensitive nerve endings have been completely weathered by rubbing against fabric and being out in the open air and it will be less smooth i.e. hard and jagged. So if the purpose is to be more appealing and sensual for the ladies, I don't think it will work...

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Nope, this is an open forum and the discussion is about men who had their body mutilated as infants having the potential chance to restore the damage. You passionately expressed your preference for this cutting and I questioned it using the equivalent for female infants. You now refuse to share your thoughts on such a comparison, and I find such a position to be strange.
Your refusal says it all to be honest though, and yes such a position held by anyone (based on aesthetics and discriminating on gender) disgusts me. If you do not support parents rights to remove labia from female infants for aesthetic reasons then all you have to do is say it, simple really.
Otherwise I shall assume you do.

This is not a discussion about the female hood or labia.

Circumcised men may soon be able to REGROW their foreskin!

So get off my ass.

I knew some guys were "attached" to their penis' but who knew this would such a "touchy" subject. Ba da bum! Nothing guys? Nothing? Oh come on!

a reply to: Shepard64

You still have the chance to get circumcised now if you'd like and if you have the money. My significant other had it done as an adult and he said it didn't hurt too bad (though it wasn't pretty right after, trust me) , it has about a two month heal time, and you get a lot of fun pain pills.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
The discussion was not about you praising the aesthetic reasons you want male infants to be mutilated for either, but you passionately did so.
I'll duck out now, I've made my point well enough and as this is a platform for debate it is now clear you struggle to do so in a logical or manner without needless emotion.
Your lack of words also speaks more than anything you could have said though, it is always good to learn something new about fellow members of ATS.

I would really like to have mine back but I wouldn't go through this operation.

Really ticks me off that I was snipped. I hope this isn't too much info but during erection I run out of skin and I worry Im going to burst out of myself one day. They robbed me of my full potential

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ~Lucidity
The discussion was not about you praising the aesthetic reasons you want male infants to be mutilated for either, but you passionately did so.
I'll duck out now, I've made my point well enough and as this is a platform for debate it is now clear you struggle to do so in a logical or manner without needless emotion.
Your lack of words also speaks more than anything you could have said though, it is always good to learn something new about fellow members of ATS.

I didn't say aesthetic. YOU did.

I didn't bring women's parts into it. YOU did.

You are creating strawpeople to try to debate people simply statiing their opinions and experiences, which 1.) is allowed and 2.) I did. If that hurt your feelings, that's your issue, not mine.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
...so exactly why did you get a healthy part of your son's body cut off when there was no evidence that it was a problem if washed like most British blokes do?
You raised it in the thread as a positive example to support this cutting so it is a valid question.

*Edit*
I see your edit and assume you do not understand the strawman fallacy very well.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ~Lucidity
The discussion was not about you praising the aesthetic reasons you want male infants to be mutilated for either, but you passionately did so.
I'll duck out now, I've made my point well enough and as this is a platform for debate it is now clear you struggle to do so in a logical or manner without needless emotion.
Your lack of words also speaks more than anything you could have said though, it is always good to learn something new about fellow members of ATS.

You asked if Lucidity or I prefer (or rather, outright assumed) that we advocate circumcising for aesthetics reasons. You're so hung up on the circumcising part that you're failing to see what at least I'm saying, and probably Lucidity, too.

As far as hygiene goes, I'm all for it since it has a proven track record. As far as medical reasoning goes, I'm also all for it if it reduces the prevalence of STDs & cancers (it does. like it or not) As far aesthetics goes, I'm a fan of it as the side effect. If it's a main objective of consenting people, I'm also all for it. Aesthetics are not typically the main reason parents circumcise, get that through your thick British skull.

Bottom line is, don't tell parents what to do with their kids when it's something this mundane with such preventative benefits. That doesn't bode well for the arguer. Good luck with your stance.