Circumcision

[diapered_doug]

So not really sure where to post this but this seems as good as any. A week ago on Tuesday I had to be circumcised, now this being what it is and everything that lead up to that point and what's happened since. I was wondering if other people have been through it and willing to discuss what their experience was in the first few weeks. Mine to say the least haven't been great at all and just urinating into the toilet has been worse if anything than before. The hospital has assured me that it's normal in the initial stages of it. Also how soon did people return to wearing nappies/diapers. I ask this as I'm fed up with how much of a mess I'm leaving and the fact that I could very well on my return to work just soak my trousers. 

[diapered_doug]

Due to tight foreskin that didn't retract, got infected earlier this year. Then from there referred to urology who referred me for surgery. 

[dlsafrica]

I was circumcised as a baby at I don't know.. 2 months? It was how my internal bleeding due to no clotting factor in my blood, was discovered. 

[Wet Knight]

A welsh friend of mine was about 60 when he decided to have it done.  It was about a month before he was back in nappies.  He was advised to Pee in a potty by the surgeon.

Who ever did it, made a nice job;  his cock was really beautiful.

[Dprczyone]

I had it done just before I turned 30. It was a very very uncomfortable thing to have done to a penis at that age. Of course my wife thinks she knows more than the doctor and told me I should just lay around with it in the open. I relented and it was not smart. After a day of that I covered it back up again so it could heal. In total I was laid up about a week but was able to go back to work. I don't know what a baby feels when they do it to them but it can't be good. Back then I wasn't wearing diapers that often so i can't really say how long you should stay out of them. Guessing, I'd say at least 2 weeks if not 3. Good luck.

[rusty pins]

My pediatrician was Jewish, don't know if that had anything to do with it, but I was circumsized when I was born.  When my mom paid the doctor she said, "Keep the tip".

[Cute_Kitten]

I'm a woman so I can't speak from personal experience, and all the males in my family are circumcized, and the few men I've dated have all been circumsized (it's a standard practice in my neck of the woods). A lot of my female friends/ acquaintances prefer circumsized men (could just be a local thing? It's not a topic talked about that much amongst women but sometimes it just comes up in conversation like on a girls' night out at a bar and they start talking about men/ dating/ love lives etc) and I'm sure there's a lot of women out there who either don't care or prefer not-circumsized. 

[le Hollandais]

I too was circumcised as a baby. Back in the '50s I think that was pretty much SOP and no one questioned it.

[Gaylange]

You will find studies that will tell you the opposite but PLEASE forget all the positive aspects of circumcision. They lie to you.

I was cut at the age of 2 for no reason like tens of thousands of little boys in my country in the 60, 70 and 80. Less than six months later, my parents tried to potty train me ?

Even cut guys don't know what's happening. What do you think ? Someone cuts a part of your penis, the more sensitive and important organ for the society, and nothing will happen ? The part of the body you know it's sensitive. You never see naked people walking dsown the street for example.

It made a mess of all my life if you want to know but I know now why I am an abdl and bottom. It's not my fault but since doctors dont admit all this, it just doesnt' exist.

I don't feel anything down there but I think I somewhere remember what it was before AND it sometimes wakes up when I have urges. I'm not impotant, I still have erections but we, cut guys, don't feel anything. When made when young, you can adpat your body and your brain but careful boys: the older you're cut, the more impotant you'll be. Believe me, doctors who cut are cut themselves and are jealous of intact people. That's the world they use while talking about not cut guys. Intact and cut !

It's always preventable but doctors chose the more easy way. Don't ask me why.

I'm in a post-traumatic stress disorder like many of us. I was cut at the age of 2, I'm 47 now and believe me it has huge consequences. I have tons of links but I'm too bad when I open them and I can't at the moment. Take a look by yourself.

I'm sure lots of us are abdl for this reason. This is our way to live this trauma to calm down. Much better than all the pills they give you.

It would last too long to explain everything here. Thinking about to post a video on youtube in the future. Stay tuned if you want.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

[zzyzx]

25 minutes ago, Gaylange said:

You will find studies that will tell you the opposite but PLEASE forget all the positive aspects of circumcision. They lie to you

....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

@Gaylange:  Interesting psychology paper.....  I'm not sure I agree with it, but it does give a high enough percent of issues to make one pause and think.  Some of the claims in the paper I don't agree with for my case.  Yes, I was circumcised shortly after birth, by a doctor in a hospital.  How long after birth I don't know.  I'd have to pull out the "baby book" my parents kept to see if they listed when it was done.  In any case, it was within the first year, and I suspect within the first few days or weeks.  Considering the area I was born at had a higher % of Jewish population, the doctor was "proud" of the *clean" cut he made vs what some of the Rabbi's did, and didn't get the chance to practice this procedure that much.

As to pain, I am one with a (significantly) higher threshold before I feel "pain"....  I don't know how much that impacts what this paper was based on.  I do know the tip of the penis is one of my more "sensitive" areas for where I do feel things.

Anyway, interesting read....

[Gaylange]

12 minutes ago, zzyzx said:

@Gaylange:  Interesting psychology paper.....  I'm not sure I agree with it, but it does give a high enough percent of issues to make one pause and think.  Some of the claims in the paper I don't agree with for my case.  Yes, I was circumcised shortly after birth, by a doctor in a hospital.  How long after birth I don't know.  I'd have to pull out the "baby book" my parents kept to see if they listed when it was done.  In any case, it was within the first year, and I suspect within the first few days or weeks.  Considering the area I was born at had a higher % of Jewish population, the doctor was "proud" of the *clean" cut he made vs what some of the Rabbi's did, and didn't get the chance to practice this procedure that much.

As to pain, I am one with a (significantly) higher threshold before I feel "pain"....  I don't know how much that impacts what this paper was based on.  I do know the tip of the penis is one of my more "sensitive" areas for where I do feel things.

Anyway, interesting read....

@zzyzx There are many papers. Some with the "positive aspects" but there is none. Hygiene maybe ?

https://scholar.google.be/scholar?q=psychological+consequences+circumcision&hl=fr&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

[square_duck]

The cringe factor of this is off the scale!!!!!! ????

[Gaylange]

19 hours ago, zzyzx said:

@Gaylange:  Interesting psychology paper.....  I'm not sure I agree with it, but it does give a high enough percent of issues to make one pause and think.  Some of the claims in the paper I don't agree with for my case.  Yes, I was circumcised shortly after birth, by a doctor in a hospital.  How long after birth I don't know.  I'd have to pull out the "baby book" my parents kept to see if they listed when it was done.  In any case, it was within the first year, and I suspect within the first few days or weeks.  Considering the area I was born at had a higher % of Jewish population, the doctor was "proud" of the *clean" cut he made vs what some of the Rabbi's did, and didn't get the chance to practice this procedure that much.

As to pain, I am one with a (significantly) higher threshold before I feel "pain"....  I don't know how much that impacts what this paper was based on.  I do know the tip of the penis is one of my more "sensitive" areas for where I do feel things.

Anyway, interesting read....

@zzyzx You also have answered ypur question. You're cut because de doctor was. Cut doctors tend to cut more.

Cut people are jealous of intact males. I don't pretend it, it's the true.

You don't feel anything anymore but yu don't know it. You don't even masturbate. You stroke a bit but you don't masturbate. Your organ is defect.

Your life is ok ? Let me talk one hour with you and I'll find something.

Look at the countries at war, mass murders, terror attacks,... Don't they share something ?

[Dubious]

Norway is against cutting, but hospitals has it as an option, cause we rather have them do it in a safe place by skilled people, than for people to do it at home. 
As an adult you can just tell your doctor you want to get rid of the foreskin and they usually make it happen.
But, I doubt many choose to remove the foreskin, as it has a purpose and as long as you clean your body regularly its not anything negative with a foreskin.

I had tight foreskin, but they just made a cut in it, and now its fine.  Can't even see that they did anything.
This was a long time ago, so I don't remember how long I was in bandages.

[Mars.inDiapers]

I did have some issues with my foreskin in my childhood that I vaguely remember, perhaps tight foreskin or maybe frenulum, and some doctors visits and procedures because of it, but luckily it didn't come to require circumcision and I'm glad for it. I think that would have been a last resort. Which is what it should be.

My opinion is firm, unless there's a specific medical necessity, don't do it.
However, if you feel like you really want a circumcision for any other reason (ease of hygiene, aesthetics, religious reasons, lowering risk of STI, ...), that's ok, as long as:

a) you have the mental capacity to make an informed decision about it, 
b) it's your own dick that you're making the decision about. Not your child's, or anyone else's.

The only acceptable reason to have your child circumcised is where not going ahead with it would cause them significant health issues that significantly and unequivocally outweigh the disadvantages of being circumcised. That's it.

If you have your child circumcised because of religious reasons, or because you think it's better, or because "that's how it's always been done", etc., then you are an asshole parent and a child abuser. No excuses. No exceptions.

"easier hygiene" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. It's not a valid reason to have your child's teeth pulled, or hair epilated permanently, so why should it be a reason to remove a significant part of a reproductive organ? Consider teaching your child how to clean their body properly. Ain't that an idea?

"religious belief" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. It's your religious belief, not your childs, no matter how much you try to force it on them. Your child is their own person, not an empty vessel to fill with your dogma. If your indoctrination won't work, they'll hold it against you that you made a (practically) irreversible decision about their body, especially at an age where they could do nothing about it, and rightly so. If your indoctrination will work, they won't question your decision, in which case congratulations; you turned your child into a follower without personality of their own.

"girls/women like it/prefer it" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. This has to be the silliest one. First of all, this is completely subjective and specific to some cultures. Second, you don't what kind of women your child will encounter in future and what their preferences will be. Hell, you don't even know your child will want to have women (or anybody, for that matter) as sexual partners; you just assume it.

"it lowers risk of STIs" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. You know what else lowers risk of STIs? Condoms. Comprehensive sex education. Accessibility of PrEP/PEP. Widespread availability and easy accessibility of testing for STIs. Education about STIs. Practicing safer sex. Funny enough, none of these things require anyone to forfeit their foreskin, or any other part of their body.

"that's the way it's always been done around here", "it's standard practice", "doctors just do it after the birth, it's not even questioned", ... are NOT a valid reasons for circumcising your child. That it's always been done like that, that it's just standard practice, that doctors just do it and no one bats an eye about it?

Well it's about fucking time to do away with that "standard practice", because it's unnecessary and it's wrong.

[feralfreak]

7 hours ago, DiapersOfTheStorm said:

I did have some issues with my foreskin in my childhood that I vaguely remember, perhaps tight foreskin or maybe frenulum, and some doctors visits and procedures because of it, but luckily it didn't come to require circumcision and I'm glad for it. I think that would have been a last resort. Which is what it should be.

My opinion is firm, unless there's a specific medical necessity, don't do it.
However, if you feel like you really want a circumcision for any other reason (ease of hygiene, aesthetics, religious reasons, lowering risk of STI, ...), that's ok, as long as:

a) you have the mental capacity to make an informed decision about it, 
b) it's your own dick that you're making the decision about. Not your child's, or anyone else's.

The only acceptable reason to have your child circumcised is where not going ahead with it would cause them significant health issues that significantly and unequivocally outweigh the disadvantages of being circumcised. That's it.

If you have your child circumcised because of religious reasons, or because you think it's better, or because "that's how it's always been done", etc., then you are an asshole parent and a child abuser. No excuses. No exceptions.

"easier hygiene" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. It's not a valid reason to have your child's teeth pulled, or hair epilated permanently, so why should it be a reason to remove a significant part of a reproductive organ? Consider teaching your child how to clean their body properly. Ain't that an idea?

"religious belief" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. It's your religious belief, not your childs, no matter how much you try to force it on them. Your child is their own person, not an empty vessel to fill with your dogma. If your indoctrination won't work, they'll hold it against you that you made a (practically) irreversible decision about their body, especially at an age where they could do nothing about it, and rightly so. If your indoctrination will work, they won't question your decision, in which case congratulations; you turned your child into a follower without personality of their own.

"girls/women like it/prefer it" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. This has to be the silliest one. First of all, this is completely subjective and specific to some cultures. Second, you don't what kind of women your child will encounter in future and what their preferences will be. Hell, you don't even know your child will want to have women (or anybody, for that matter) as sexual partners; you just assume it.

"it lowers risk of STIs" is NOT a valid reason for circumcising your child. You know what else lowers risk of STIs? Condoms. Comprehensive sex education. Accessibility of PrEP/PEP. Widespread availability and easy accessibility of testing for STIs. Education about STIs. Practicing safer sex. Funny enough, none of these things require anyone to forfeit their foreskin, or any other part of their body.

"that's the way it's always been done around here", "it's standard practice", "doctors just do it after the birth, it's not even questioned", ... are NOT a valid reasons for circumcising your child. That it's always been done like that, that it's just standard practice, that doctors just do it and no one bats an eye about it?

Well it's about fucking time to do away with that "standard practice", because it's unnecessary and it's wrong.

i have to disagree on the religion thing, in the bible parents were told by God to do it, just as they are and were expected to bring them up in their faith, if He tells you to do it, you do it. it was done to me as a baby(not for religion, i dont know why and i dont care why, i dont even remember it), it didnt harm my life at all.

[Dubious]

1 hour ago, feralfreak said:

i have to disagree on the religion thing, in the bible parents were told by God to do it, just as they are and were expected to bring them up in their faith, if He tells you to do it, you do it. it was done to me as a baby(not for religion, i dont know why and i dont care why, i dont even remember it), it didnt harm my life at all.

Some men wrote a book...

God or Jesus would never tell you to molest someone. 

[Mars.inDiapers]

2 hours ago, feralfreak said:

 in the bible parents were told by God to do it, just as they are and were expected to bring them up in their faith, if He tells you to do it, you do it.

I stand corrected. The "women like it" is not the stupidest 'reason' for circumcising one's child.

This is.

Are you really that brainwashed by religious indoctrination, that you'll just blindly follow whatever is written in some book without giving it a proper thought? 

What if it said that instead of cutting the foreskin, you have to cut off their pinky toes? Would you do it without question? Would you argue that it's not like you need your pinky toes, that actually for the good because you can't break a pinky toe if you don't have any, that the worsened stability when standing or walking (see parallel to diminished sensitivity of circumcised penis) is a necessary "sacrifice to god"?

Or what about one of the ears? Or eyes? You've got two, you can afford to lose one, right? It's not like you need to have an accurate 3-dimensional audible perception, or stereoscopic vision thanks to having a pair of ears or eyes, right? Not if "god says you don't". 

If god is good (as far as I'm concerned, he's neither good or bad, because he's not there at all), he shouldn't tell you to maim people! Especially not your own children.

[feralfreak]

6 minutes ago, DiapersOfTheStorm said:

I stand corrected. The "women like it" is not the stupidest 'reason' for circumcising one's child.

This is.

Are you really that brainwashed by religious indoctrination, that you'll just blindly follow whatever is written in some book without giving it a proper thought? 

What if it said that instead of cutting the foreskin, you have to cut off their pinky toes? Would you do it without question? Would you argue that it's not like you need your pinky toes, that actually for the good because you can't break a pinky toe if you don't have any, that the worsened stability when standing or walking (see parallel to diminished sensitivity of circumcised penis) is a necessary "sacrifice to god"?

Or what about one of the ears? Or eyes? You've got two, you can afford to lose one, right? It's not like you need to have an accurate 3-dimensional audible perception, or stereoscopic vision thanks to having a pair of ears or eyes, right? Not if "god says you don't". 

If god is good (as far as I'm concerned, he's neither good or bad, because he's not there at all), he shouldn't tell you to maim people! Especially not your own children.

and with that you just insulted an entire faith, its required in jewish faith, its commanded when one is 8 days old as a covenant between man and God, its been done for thousands of years, as for God existing, you are free to believe that if you want, but not to try to tell me he isnt, because i believe in Him, and history backs his existence, from the flood, to the giants existing, to bible prophesy, its called respect for others beliefs, just because you dont believe dont mean you get to try to tell anyone else they cant or shouldnt.

[Mars.inDiapers]

I don't care if I insulted someone's beliefs or not. One, this is not the Littles of Faith safe space where religious beliefs are not allowed to be criticized. Two, it's not my fault if said beliefs are illogical, irrational, nonsensical, unreasonable, misleading people to make incorrect conclusions or immoral decisions, or otherwise plain silly.

And I'm also not telling anyone that they are not allowed to have such belief. 

I'm saying that they should not be allowed to maim other people because of their beliefs. 

If you don't see a difference between having a belief, and maiming (or otherwise mistreating) other people because your belief tells you to - if those are one same thing to you, and not two separate things, you have a serious problem. One that could land you in prison, unless you live in a theocracy where your religious belief reigns supreme.

And the scary thing is that people like you are trying real hard to turn the very first secular country ever created to just that - a theocracy.

[Dubious]

1 hour ago, feralfreak said:

and with that you just insulted an entire faith, its required in jewish faith, its commanded when one is 8 days old as a covenant between man and God, its been done for thousands of years, as for God existing, you are free to believe that if you want, but not to try to tell me he isnt, because i believe in Him, and history backs his existence, from the flood, to the giants existing, to bible prophesy, its called respect for others beliefs, just because you dont believe dont mean you get to try to tell anyone else they cant or shouldnt.

Again, its a book written by men and everyone interpret it differently.

Just cause something has been done for many years, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
We got rid of slavery, and woman got more or less equal rights as men, in most of the world. 

[feralfreak]

3 hours ago, DiapersOfTheStorm said:

I don't care if I insulted someone's beliefs or not. One, this is not the Littles of Faith safe space where religious beliefs are not allowed to be criticized. Two, it's not my fault if said beliefs are illogical, irrational, nonsensical, unreasonable, misleading people to make incorrect conclusions or immoral decisions, or otherwise plain silly.

And I'm also not telling anyone that they are not allowed to have such belief. 

I'm saying that they should not be allowed to maim other people because of their beliefs. 

If you don't see a difference between having a belief, and maiming (or otherwise mistreating) other people because your belief tells you to - if those are one same thing to you, and not two separate things, you have a serious problem. One that could land you in prison, unless you live in a theocracy where your religious belief reigns supreme.

And the scary thing is that people like you are trying real hard to turn the very first secular country ever created to just that - a theocracy.

i dont care that this isnt the littles of faith forum, its not my fault you lack the maturity to respect faith, even if you dont have it yourself. grow up. its not maiming to be circumsized, and im sure that parents even if its not for faith have carefully weighed the deciscions to do it or not. it was done to me as a baby, i function just fine, and not having a foreskin has not done me a bit of harm. this nation has never been a strictly secular country, its called freedom OF religion, not FROM religion, you can choose whatever belief you want, athiesm, catholism, judaism, christianity, pagan beliefs, islam, hell you can worship the flying spaghetti monster if it floats your boat and no government entity can order you not, as long as you arent sacrificing people or some such shit. if you dont want to have faith, that is your call, i do have faith, and when judgement day comes i know what side ill be on, you, i wont say, that would be judging and its not my job.

2 hours ago, Dubious said:

Again, its a book written by men and everyone interpret it differently.

Just cause something has been done for many years, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
We got rid of slavery, and woman got more or less equal rights as men, in most of the world. 

man may have entered the words, but God GAVE the words to be written.

[Firefly 35]

It's ironic that many people don't consider it controversial to circumsize infants but those same people take offense to a lot of things that consenting adults do in private.

Also, the main reason why Christianity/Judiasm stipulates for males to be circumsized at infancy is to reduce sex drive.  Those who don't think for themselves don't realize what others are imposing on them.

[feralfreak]

1 hour ago, Firefly 35 said:

It's ironic that many people don't consider it controversial to circumsize infants but those same people take offense to a lot of things that consenting adults do in private.

Also, the main reason why Christianity/Judiasm stipulates for males to be circumsized at infancy is to reduce sex drive.  Those who don't think for themselves don't realize what others are imposing on them.

ill stick with the thought that its a covenant between God and man, and on sex drive, i was VERY horny as a teen, couldnt get enough of my uncles playboys, catching episodes of real sex and turn on tv on hbo, any boob on tv i could see, and up until about 2 and a half months ago i had a big problem with watching pornography, if it being done to me lowered my sex drive any i couldnt tell, it was bad enough already(thank God i never got into actually having sex, who knows what kind of trouble i might have been in), and that point in time was not even related to porn viewing habits, it was strictly about what at the time was my latest gun purchase, and events surrounding it, my heritage .22 revolver, and the issues around that time frame, i felt i needed to do an annointing on it, for my peace of mind, and while i was at it, i did one where mom sits, to kick out anything negative in the house(she had also been having feelings like something was sitting on the bed, or brushing against her, scaring her, i could hear her screaming from it a few times, and no, she has no idea that i did this annointing, since then no feelings like that, and part of the annointing was that she felt like doing some exercise, and she has been, not much but ill take what i can get because she will build up). i think God gave me a bonus that night, i havent wanted to watch pornography since, i get maybe a slight itch to watch but its enough that i can just go on youtube and watch something interesting, or some old show on tubi, do some research for my book or log on to star trek online or runescape instead.

[Mars.inDiapers]

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

its not my fault you lack the maturity to respect faith

Funny that you should accuse me of lack of maturity, when you're the one who perked up immediately when I stated that I don't accept someone's religious belief as valid reason to mutilate someone else's genitals without their consent, and then got triggered when I dared to criticize the notion that someone should mindlessly follow what their religion tells them to do (mutilate someone else's genitals without their consent), calling it an insult to faith. 

As for respect to someone's beliefs, faiths, opinions or whatever you call it, I already stated it here in other discussion, and now I'll do it again:

I respect your right to have belief, faith or opinion and to express them by words or by actions as long as those actions do not cause harm to others.

That does not mean that I will respect the belief, faith or opinion itself. Are you able to discern the difference? Respect for other people's rights is one of the main values of modern western civilization, and I'm all for it, and while you have the right to your beliefs and opionions, what you don't have is a "right" not to have your beliefs or opinions criticized, insulted or even ridiculed. Let alone a right to have other people respect those beliefs and opinions. That would not even be a right, it would be a privilege.

So, when it comes to respect, the very basic respect of your rights is all you get from me automatically.
You want more respect than that? You'll have to earn it. It's not granted.
If you want me to respect not just your right to your beliefs, but your beliefs themselves, then they better be worthy of my respect.
And yes, I'll be the one to determine what's worthy of my respect and what isn't, because I don't see how anyone else could be determining it for me.
And no, the way I see it, your beliefs you have presented here do not get my respect, because all I've seen so far is a bunch of nonsense, and I can not, and will not respect that.

Don't like it? Well, there's about grand total of three things you can do about it. You can ignore it, you can continue being salty about it, or (and this is the one option that will make me give you most respect) you can think about it. Perhaps if you think about it well and hard, you may come up with some better, more reasonable conclusions that just might gain you other people's respect.

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

its not maiming to be circumsized

It absolutely is. It is an unnecessary (unless there is severe health condition that requires it; I've talked about this exception) mutilation of a healthy, functional, non-redundant body part that, even if done in under local or general anaesthesia, in sterile conditions, by medical professionals, using scientifically sound surgical procedures, will cause pain and suffering during recovery (and possibly later on in life), will result in acceleration of gradual loss of sensitivity in one of the most sensitive of all body parts, can result in lowering of sex drive, and will not ever grow back to its original state (and while the advances of modern medicine have made reconstructive surgery of foreskin possible, it is not, and hardly will ever be, the same as an intact foreskin).

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

im sure that parents even if its not for faith have carefully weighed the deciscions

I very much doubt that, because if they have, they would probably have come to the same conclusion that people have come to in most of the developed world where there's quality healthcare and good hygiene standards - that conclusion being that it is not beneficial and not necessary. And even if they didn't, that still doesn't change the fact that their son's foreskin is not theirs to cut off!

And if it's the case that there isn't good healthcare and good hygiene standards where they are, what they should then do is work towards changing that; not just take some a shortcut instead (like cutting your son's foreskin off). 

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

it was done to me as a baby, i function just fine, and not having a foreskin has not done me a bit of harm.

So what? That's your personal experience and view, and not some generally applicable data. The fact that you may be fine, content or happy with the fact that you were circumcised as a baby, does not negate the experiences of other men and boys who were circumcised without their consent, and are not fine, content or happy with it. The fact that there's not much that can be done about it after the fact, maybe works more in favor of those who, like you, are okay with it rather than those who aren't okay with it, but that only makes it more of a reason not to do it to your son, because then he won't be forced to either "deal with it and be okay", or be miserable about it. 

See this is the same kind of fallacy like advocating for beating of children with the arguement that "my parents did beat me and I turned out fine". Maybe you did (did you really though?), but that doesn't make beating children a right thing to do.
Or defending smoking tobacco with "I smoke pack a day and I don't have cancer." That does not mean smoking does not cause cancer.
Or "I eat three Big Macs every day and I'm in good shape and I don't have high cholesterol". That does not mean three Big Macs a day is a healthy diet.

What is or isn't good/healthy/beneficial can only be objectively determined by a scientific review of exhaustive, properly collected data that account for all plausible factors, exceptions, anomalies etc., and are as much detached from personal biases as is possible. And your personal report is not that.

Speaking of "being fine, no harm done". It's not like you have a comparison of what it's like to live with a foreskin and without it; all you've ever experienced (consciously enough to remember, anyway) is being without it, so how would you even know that you're not worse off without it, than you might be with it?

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

this nation has never been a strictly secular country,

It has been a strictly secular country from the moment the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and will be till the moment religious nutjobs hijack it and change the Constitution. The Trump crowd was dangerously close, and the current composition of the Supreme Court of the United States (legacy of Trump), is slowly but steadily clawing away legal precedents that were a clear reminder that USA is indeed, a secular country, and not a theocracy, and are replacing them with precedents that suggest the opposite, which is very alarming.

Anyway, it looks like there's a problem here with understanding what secular means, so let's clear up some definitions.
Whether country is secular or not has no bearing on how many people in that country are religious or not, and what kind of religion they follow.
Secular country is the kind of country where there is no official religion (a.k.a established religion or state religion) , and the United States of America are strictly just that, as is clearly defined by the U.S constitution. United Kingdom, for example, is not a secular country, because there is an official religion - the Church of England, despite there being lower ratio of religious people than in the USA.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

   - First Amendment to the United States Constitution

If you have a problem undestanding what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually means in practice, like many religious fanatics do, let me explain it to you. In order for a specific religion to be officially prefered over another religion (or lack thereof), that specific religion would have to be established by law, because if it wasn't established by law, such official preference it would be discriminatory and illegal. And that law would have to be made by the Congress. And the first amendment prohibits the Congress to do just that.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States

   - Article Six of the United States Constitution

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

its called freedom OF religion, not FROM religion

Freedom of religion must necessarily include freedom from religion, (no one being allowed to force their religion on someone else), otherwise it would be very a half-assed freedom, and not a real freedom.

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

you can choose whatever belief you want, athiesm, catholism, judaism, christianity, pagan beliefs, islam, hell you can worship the flying spaghetti monster if it floats your boat 

Amazing, you managed to contradict yourself in the very next sentence you wrote.
Do you know what atheism is?
It is, by definition, a lack of belief in god or gods. Thereby, it is not a religion or faith, and if I can "choose" it (poor choice of words on your part, people don't "choose" what they believe. People are presented with a claim, and based on how gullible or skeptical they are, on how plausible or inplausible the claim is, on how good or bad the evidence is, and other factors, they will either be convinced, or they will not. But it is not a matter of choice; if it was, it would not really be a belief, but rather a make-believe), that has to mean that I not only have a freedom OF religion, but also the freedom FROM religion.

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

no government entity can order you not

At least you got one thing right. 

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

as long as you arent sacrificing people or some such shit

Uh huh. So cutting off perfectly healthy foreskin from newborn boys for religious reasons, that's okay with you, but "sacrificing people or some such shit", that's step too far? 

And If the religion required that instead of foreskin, the sacrificed body part should be a pinky toe, or the middle finger, or maybe the left ear would  you defend it just as vehemently as you do now? I bet you probably would. 

The only reason why in the bible it's the foreskin that you should cut off, and not some other body part, is because the people who came up with it were obsessed with controlling the masses, and a very easy (if not the easiest) way to control the masses was to control people's sexuality - make sex taboo, make non-reproductive sex or just enjoying sex even more taboo, make a bunch of strict rules about it, threaten people into conformity with the usual methods, sanction draconian punishments for disobedience, etc. 
Firefly 35 hit the nail on the head with this.

Also, what does "some such shit" exactly entail? Blood sacrifice? Body mutilation? Circumcision? 
Not the last one, huh?

By what logic does cutting off a healthy piece of someone else's skin (that will not grow back to its original state) and a spilling non-zero amount of blood in the process for religious reasons not belong in the category of "sacrificing people or some such shit" ??

Just because you don't die from it? Or because you can live "fine" without it?
Guess what, you can live "fine" without one eye. You can live "fine" without one of your limbs. But the quality of such living will be diminished. Maybe you don't feel like your quality of life has suffered from not having a foreskin since shortly after birth, but that does not make it a valid argument to do it to anyone else.

So where then, do you draw the line between what is (sacrificing people) "or some such shit", and what isn't "some such shit"?

You don't have to bother answering. I already know the answer.
You didn't draw a line. You let someone else draw it for you - that someone being whoever came up with the religion that you follow (christianity) or respect (judaism) - you say, and, apparently also believe, that it was god who came up with it, not a person. Well that's your opinion, and I don't share it, nor respect it, because there's not an shred of evidence, logic or sense backing it up.
If you don't see that as a problem, you do you, but do not involve anyone else in it without their consent.