EA Forums

Anyone else notice how the younger a man is, or the more recent his circumcision was done, the more skin is being removed past the penis head and cut off way down his penis shaft ?

I notice circumcisions in the USA seem to be cutting off the penis skin way beyond just exposing the glans head of the penis. Now more circumcisions are cutting off skin far below the rim of the penis head and up to half way down the penis shaft toward the scrotum.

That s a lot more skin now being taken off than in most past American circumcisions I ve seen. When I was young, it was unusual to see circumcision scars more than an inch or so below the crown of the penis head. Most circumcisions just cleared the foreskin off the head of the penis only and did not cut off skin farther down the shaft of the penis.

Now young men and boys have lots of cut scars half way down their entire penis shaft. That s a huge difference in the amount of penis skin cut off each penis.

Are drs cutting more skin off each of the penises to make more money selling the foreskins for skin grafts and other uses of circumcised foreskins ?

Are they trying to cut more skin off the fewer cut penises to make up for fewer Americans getting circumcised, and that decrease in cut dicks causing less foreskin sales for skin grafts ?

What do you men think and see different in more the recent circumcisions compared to past circumcisions ?

Getting circumcised cut half way to your balls was really rare when I was a boy and a teen. Now that seems common in those ages and in younger men s penises compared to their father s and grandfather s circumcision cut locations on the penis shaft skin!

Sounds for me more like they leave more sensitive foreskin intact and cut instead the outer skin, what shlould be extremely better for the feelings and so more healthy.

Generally it's still a stupid thing to cut the childs foreskin preventively (That it's only a cashcow for doctors!). It's absolute senseless but in the US anybody still mutilate his childs without thinkover the sense and what they are doing.

This is the mainly bad thing on it!

Yeaaaah! A circumcision topic!

As Jojo said, now the circumcision is high and tight, the inner skin is left 'cause it is more sensitive

As a general rule it depends on if you are talking about a loose or tight circumcision. A tight circumcision shows the scar more prominently when flaccid. A loose circumcision allows the scar to move towards the glans when flaccid even if it is high.

A High Circumcision scar (near the body) indicates more inner -and thus sensitive- foreskin remains. If tight the scar will show when the penis is flaccid. If the circumcision is loose even a high circumcision will bunch up against the glans.

A Low Circumcision scar (near the glans) indicates more outer skin was left and thus more inner -sensitive skin - is missing. Since the scar is so near the glans it is normally not visible when flaccid and just visible when erect.

My scar is about half way up when erect, but is bunched up with flaccid - thus "high and loose". My circumcision, as one of aprox. 170million circumcised men still alive who were caught up in the great 'Murican foreskin round up of the 1950s to 1990s.

What has also happened is the instruments hospitals prefer to clip the coupon attached to a baby boy have changed over the years.

In the 1930s to 1940s. Most circ's were done "by hand" using a "de-gloving" method.

By the 1950s to 1960s reusable stainless steel clamps were being used. The two most common were the mogen and the gomoco clamps. The results were almost always high (as the doctor was being very cautious about the glans not being snipped off by mistake). How loose the circ was depended on how much skin was pulled through the clamp.

It's not a new product at all. But, around the 1970s and 1980s hospitals starting telling new mother's that they had a "new way to circumcise that doesn't even use a knife, just a string". The plastibell (which by that point was already 30 to 40 years old, is a one time use product. Thus the medical manufacturer can sell a new one for every circumcision done with it. Unlike the gomoco or mogen clamps which can be sterilized and reused over and over.

Today the vast majority of circumcisions done in the United States are done with the plastibell. It's a lie when they tell the parents that the procedure does not use a knife. First the foreskin is ripped from the glans (at birth the foreskin and glans are attached with the same kind of membrane that attaches the finger nails to the nail bed), then the fore skin is cut with a pair of scissors to make the plastic bell fit into the foreskin to protect the glans. Then the string is tied around the ring at the base of the glans to strangle the foreskin. How high or low the circumcision scar will be depends on where the doctor puts the plastic protector. The next step after the string is tied around the foreskin is that the scissors are used to cut off the foreskin. Last step is the plastic bell is snapped off leaving the string tied around the ring. This falls off in 7 to 14 days. Many new mothers think that the foreskin is just that tiny piece of skin that falls off with the ring and have no idea how much is actually removed. The lie hospitals tell parents is that they don't even use a knife in the plastibell process. Last time I saw a pair of scissors it was two knives held together by a joint. Then, they lie and tell the parents the baby slept through the procedure. No, the baby went into neurological shock and stopped crying - that's not sleep. The last lie is that they numbed the baby up. Think about the dentist. He injects you and waits about 15 to 20 minutes to come back and make sure you are numb. In the hospital it take about 15 minutes to do the circumcision with a plastibell. If you add the 20 minutes to make sure the baby is numb, then add in 10 minutes to get the baby ready and 10 minutes to make sure the baby isn't bleeding to death (they actually give the baby a shot of vitamin K before the circumcision to make him bleed less - but still 1 once of blood loss can kill a new born). Plus travel time and prep time (strapping the baby down in a four point restraint using velcro strips) the baby should not come back to the room in less than an hour. But, most mothers report that their "sleeping" newborn infant son is brought back in 20 to 30 minutes. That means the hospital lied about numbing the poor kid up and just counted on him being in shock when the procedure was over.

Money.

Money.

Can't say it enough. A hospital charges about $500.00 for a circumcision (even if the doctor is on staff and therefore doesn't get a per circumcision fee - the hospital gets the money and uses it to pay the doctor's salary). Then after charging you to "give" your infant circumcision the hospital can sell the foreskin to pharmaceutical companies for atou $1,500.00 each. Google: skin grafts made from foreskin, and wrinkle cream made from foreskin. Seriously, they actually call this "donated" foreskins. Donated, because part of the "informed" consent the parent signs says the hospital owns the foreskin after it is removed.

So, yes, scars change.

The very latest circumcision bullshit is in Africa. The makers of a product called PrePex (their website just adds the dot com), paid for studies to see if circumcison with the prepex device stops the spread of HIV. Amazing, with PrePex in control of which study results were published and which were never seen by the public or doctors, the published studies showed a 60% reduction is the spread of HIV if a man were circumcised by PrePex.

Now, one of the big "problems" with circumcision is the "two tone look" if the scar is high (near the body). This problem is more apparent in people with darker skin because the inner part of the foreskin is pink. So, PrePex is a device that can be put in place by a nurse or tech. No doctor. They put a ring inside the foreskin very very near the glans (to solve the aesthetic problem of the two tone look), then a tight rubber band is clipped in place with an outer band. The patient (ie poor soul who has not yet been told he still needs to use a condom after his circumcision because circumcision only reduces his risk by 60%) leaves with the clamps and rubber ring still in place. The foreskin dies from lack of blood and the patient comes back in a week to have it cut off by a pair of scissors. Then the rubber band is removed and the plastic ring is taken off. A pat on the shoulder, a hand shake and some sincere good wishes for future health and the patient is never seen again.

So, the push from the $40,000,000,000.00 a year circumcision industry is now that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV. Now, they are pushing circumcision among adults in Africa - there is big money in that because of grants from charities. But, infants who may come of age in a world where HIV is curable are being circumcised here in the United States of 'Murica, to prevent HIV (based on a flawed study done by the company that makes a circumcision device).

By the way at the PrePex website under "media" you can watch a video of the procedure. Beyond scary.

I was circumcised at birth in 1970, as most American males were at the time. My scar was visible 1/3 of the way down the shaft when flaccid and between that and half way down when erect.

No worries for me then, and a lot fewer worries now as I had the entire penis removed a couple years ago. I didn't see my scar as anything unusual or different from other men around my age.

Just quickly browsing this thread it would be nice if Parents and the medical profession would leave this till the patient is old enough to make the decision for themselves.

That way you would be get the choice of if and how you want it done.

I left mine till adulthood before getting cut and was happy that my parents didn't make the decision for me.

ambiguous (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:01 am Just quickly browsing this thread it would be nice if Parents and the medical profession would leave this till the patient is old enough to make the decision for themselves.

That way you would be get the choice of if and how you want it done.

I left mine till adulthood before getting cut and was happy that my parents didn't make the decision for me.

I agree with you, so nobody makes mistake and no one is to blame for the wrong choice. Plus, adult circumcisions yield better results and the man gets what he wants.

Losethem (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:01 am I was circumcised at birth in 1970, as most American males were at the time. My scar was visible 1/3 of the way down the shaft when flaccid and between that and half way down when erect.

No worries for me then, and a lot fewer worries now as I had the entire penis removed a couple years ago. I didn't see my scar as anything unusual or different from other men around my age.

Has circumcision played a role in your castration or penectomy ?

It has in my own desire. By the way I'm pro choice too, of course

Circumcision devices such as Gomco clamps and Tara Klamps were designed to remove a maximum of skin, so the men later on wouldn't regrow their foreskins. I lost 85% of my penis skin by the Gomco device which left my scrotum attached less than 1 inch from the glans. No wonder I hate my scrotum and testicles so much. This is no birthday present to do to a boy, it's a curse. Infants circumcision should be forbidden by law.

paring (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:51 am Infants circumcision should be forbidden by law.

It is. Infant circumcision in the United States of American, Home of the Free and Land of the Brave, is a violation of Federal Law.

Specifically, if you circumcise an infant in the United States it's a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 116 and you can go to prison. The punishment is 5 years in federal prison. Even if you transport the infant to a country where circumcision is legal you are in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 116 and can spend five years in prison.

Here is the link to the Cornell Law School website where the code is listed https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/116 (my virus checker says the Cornell Law School site is virus free). You can read the black letter law yourself.

Did I mention that the US law forbidding the removal of any part of an infant's genitals applies only to females?

Sad isn't it?

TopManFL (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:21 am Did I mention that the US law forbidding the removal of any part of an infant's genitals applies only to females?

Sad isn't it?

Indeed it's sad. I was aware of this, I should have written boy

paring (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:51 am s circumcision should be forbidden by law.

It's too bad that boys and girls aren't granted the same rights for genital integrity. It's the same in Canada.

I try to dont't be self-pity, be here and enjoying the stories in the archive is my way to rebuild a sexuality after my circumcision. I was done at 12 years old, it was a surprise circumcision, but something gone wrong. Esthetically my dick is ok, is just tiny and supertight, but all my sensitivity is gone

What was the reason of your circ with 12 years???

It's a absolute horrible time because it's the age where boys explores himself and the sexuality.

Tight foreskins was discovered around 8. Since that my parents tried to make it looser. Circumcision was rappresented like an awful thing, like a proper amputation and they tried to avoid it in every way. I was terrified about that, my parents threaten me often to cut the tip if I wouldn't make it looser. Indeed when it was time my parents decided to planned it at my back. They explained me just after the procedure.

I have mixed feelings now, I could be both sad and horny, but I choose to be just horny. I'm sick to be sad! Now I just want be happy and enjoy the good side of it: wanking on San Carlos Island stories!

I was circumcised recently, just for fun, I had a very tight high circ. My scar is about 1 cm from the body when errect. I just love it.It took a little persuading the doc to cut that high as you get more bleeding at the time and it takes a little longer to do.

I can understand, being circumcised is fun somehow

I had a circumcision done a couple weeks ago. Not sure on the tightness of it, certainly tighter than it was before, but the cut line is very nearly under the glans. I'm looking forward to things being fully healed up and giving everything a good go at it.

I've been with a few guys that have had extremely tight cuts, and some that have been very loose. The best and worst guys I've slept with have both been uncut. I guess the end sytle of the cut depends on the skill of the individual, and the tool that was used.

Yeah men s dicks can look all different circumcised depending on the tools used and where he is cut. Plus different men will show different kinds of cut scars and have different kinds of tight, loose, or medium skins all along the whole length of their dicks. But one thing is for sure, and that s how drs are harvesting way more inches of foreskins than are medically necessary to uncover the glans head of the penis. Now its more like drs wanting to cut the maximum length and amount of skin off penises to get that $1500 plus bounty paid for men sdick skins. That s quite a bounty on our dick skins tempting drs and hospitals to cut every dick they can. I agree with Top man Fl on how its a huge and easy profit maker to cut any aged dicks to sell the foreskins. Every 1000 dicks cut is $500,000 in cutting fees and another $ 1, 500, 000 in selling those foreskins ! And millions of uncut dicks in countries all around the world to harvest for that kind of money !

No wonder its a brutal surgery in search of any excuse as a reason to cut dicks to make all that money every year so easily !

I never knew women were putting ground up men s foreskins on their faces as anti wrinkle creams ! That s like a wild story straight out of this forum s fiction archives ! Its scary our dicks are being used for things like that ! Cutting dick skins off for burn victim s skin grafts is admitable and a valid good use of men s cut foreskins. But making women s makeup to get cosmetics companies rich from cutting men s dicks is crazy ! Scary crazy !

If that much money is available, I am surprised that doctors are not willing to perform penectomies. Look how much more skin would be harvested.

I bet they do harvest and make a lot of money on cutting off whole sets of very healthy dicks and balls from transgender operations. And I bet someone is pushing for any excuses to circumcise as many penises as possible wirldwide to harvest and sell all those intact foreskins, just like this recent push to circumcise as many men in Africa as possible, and soon the rest of the world s men, as a false AIDS suppression method.

Any excuse will do to cut men and boy s dicks.

Thousands of years ago and around the world, long before people even knew of any medical or science excuses, circumcision was sold to men and boys as a rite to prove you are a full man and as a religious event to get men willing to let people cut their dicks. Now, science and medical reasons are made up and falsely invented to get us men and boys lined up to be circumcised and make billions of dollars of profit by cutting millions of penises.

What happens when someone invents a profitable use for our balls to be cut off and used in some way ?

cutnbulls2ox (imported) wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:11 am I bet they do harvest and make a lot of money on cutting off whole sets of very healthy dicks and balls from transgender operations. And I bet someone is pushing for any excuses to circumcise as many penises as possible wirldwide to harvest and sell all those intact foreskins, just like this recent push to circumcise as many men in Africa as possible, and soon the rest of the world s men, as a false AIDS suppression method.

Any excuse will do to cut men and boy s dicks.

Thousands of years ago and around the world, long before people even knew of any medical or science excuses, circumcision was sold to men and boys as a rite to prove you are a full man and as a religious event to get men willing to let people cut their dicks. Now, science and medical reasons are made up and falsely invented to get us men and boys lined up to be circumcised and make billions of dollars of profit by cutting millions of penises.

What happens when someone invents a profitable use for our balls to be cut off and used in some way ?

All the skin is used in a transgender operation and only the balls get disposed. If a foreskin is available, it is used to hood the clit and make the labia minora.

There is a big money market for foreskins as they are sold to burn units for skin transplants. So in essence, somebody is wearing our foreskins on their body.

bimale4fun23 (imported) wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:34 am All the skin is used in a transgender operation and only the balls get disposed. If a foreskin is available, it is used to hood the clit and make the labia minora.

There is a big money market for foreskins as they are sold to burn units for skin transplants. So in essence, somebody is wearing our foreskins on their body.

The corpus cavernosa, aka as the shaft of the cock, is also disposed of.

As for using the skin for grafting onto a stranger... not without that stranger using anti-rejection drugs. Skin, organs, other tissues... body will reject all as foreign without assistance from anti-rejection drugs.

Only infant foreskin is used to make skin grafts.

As far as rejection is concerned it's not an issue. In the process of making the layer of skin graft from infant foreskins, all genetic material is washed out.

But you are correct, if adult material were used, it would not have the same rapid growth potential.

Adult foreskins are medical waste.

I m sorry to hear so much tissue goes to waste. What a terrible waste of so much fine man meat ! Treating male genital tissues like medical waste to be thrown out or burned up is a shame and that s no way to treat such miraculous organs. Its too bad it can t be more productively re used to benefit other men, especially since so many transexual and eunuch men often are possessing impressive male sex organs that other men would be proud to have as transplants if the rejection problems could be solved.

You don t hear of many female to male surgeries to provide female transplant sex organs for males to use going to female bodies. .

It does make me wonder if infant ciircumcisions contribute to later urges in males to modify male sex organs more often than females who are never circumcised in western cultures ?