Circumcision

[blitz]

Recently at school in Health class we've been discussing the matter, that some males are circumcised and others simply aren't. We didn't really go very far on the subject, as different students could feel different or offended but I took personal interest after I heard that my cousin, who recently reached one month of age, was circumcised not more than a few days ago.

 

Like I previously said, I thought this was an interesting matter seeing as many males aren't circumcised. I've heard of a theory that recalls that the foreskin in uncircumcised male's penises tend to cause certain STD's such as HIV or AIDS. Here is an interesting kind of recent article on Harvard University's Sarah McCusky talking about how males in Africa are currently being circumcised to reduce the amount of STD's in the area.

 

Even though this is a stable theory, there are still other theories that state otherwise. Most recall that is you keep the foreskin clean then there shouldn't be any problems, and sure, I get that.

 

However, I do think it's okay to circumcise a baby. I understand other point's of views, saying that it's not okay to simply cut off a baby's part of the skin in a delicate area, plus when it's completely involuntary. I still think that parents do have a choice there, wether it's for religious purposes or not the child is obviously not old enough to make such decision and that leaves it up to the parents.

 

I personally do want to circumcise my child, if I do ever have a male, because it's always been a tradition in my family and being raised this way has caused me to believe that it is healthier. My dad, brothers, uncles, and cousins are all circumcised and I feel like it would be appropriate for my own child to be circumcised too.

 

I'd also like to add that yes, I am aware that there is already a discussion topic on this subject but it was from '06 or '07 and I feel like it is appropriate to open a new topic.

 

So, forumers, what do you think?

[Mike Tequeli]

Circumcision based on tradition is a pretty weak argument, especially if you come from a Christian background because then there is no tradition to it. In North America it's something that caught on in the mid to late 1800s for dubious reasons like trying to prevent masturbation, hardly a noble tradition.

 

As for preventing AIDS, well for some reason it's a technique that resonated with the local populace in Africa much more than actually using protection. The fact that they're doing it in droves doesn't make it a correct choice, a slight statistical correlation with lower HIV rates is not the same as the nearly universally effective use of condoms.

[Dingdongs]

You'll find that here in NY circumcision is common. I'm catholic and I'm circumcised as are the Jews here. Protestants, at least my friends, tend not ti be. I think it's the parents' call if they want it done or not based on religios tradition. But please, don't even argue that in the richest country in the world, with a .910 on the HDI, we need to circumcise to prevent AIDS.

[blitz]

Circumcision based on tradition is a pretty weak argument, especially if you come from a Christian background because then there is no tradition to it. In North America it's something that caught on in the mid to late 1800s for dubious reasons like trying to prevent masturbation, hardly a noble tradition.

 

As for preventing AIDS, well for some reason it's a technique that resonated with the local populace in Africa much more than actually using protection. The fact that they're doing it in droves doesn't make it a correct choice, a slight statistical correlation with lower HIV rates is not the same as the nearly universally effective use of condoms.

True, tradition is in fact a weak argument. The reason why I do want to circumcise my baby, like I stated above too, is because I think it's more hygenic, and healthier. For example, if I didn't circumcise my child I bet no harm would be done, but I still want to do it because I believe it's more hygenic.

 

 

[Tryst]

I was circumsized as a child, it does not affect my daily life what so ever. Hell if no one told me it was cut I would never know it was cut.

I've been told both ways by girls as far as looks go, but over all they don't really care in the end.

 

Its perfectly okay to do if it happens to be your preference/part of your culture to do. I'm no worse for the wear than a girl who gets a peircing at a young age. If there is any truth to the health benfits then bonus.

[Saggy]

In my opinion it's pretty much tantamount to mutilation and no different from the practices of vaginal circumcision found in some parts of the world. The research concerning it being more likely to spread STDs is pretty lofty, and in fact there's some research that suggests a circumcised penis more likely to spread STDs because it causes damage to the vaginal walls. There are several conditions where the dermal crown of the circumcised penis becomes hard and rigid, and causes many small scrapes which are more prone to becoming infected. In conjunction tot his, because the uncircumcised penis has a sleeve to move in and out of, there is less friction for both partners.

 

I think male circumcision is a pretty extreme "ritual" in the Western world that really show cases that we're not that far removed from other cultures that we typically look at as barbaric or bizarre. On top of this, I do think the aspect that it is involuntary is extremely important, as not all circumcision procedures go as planned and some males have some pretty serious problems later on. On top of that, there's also an extremely diminished sensitivity which is proven because the sensitive glands of the penis are not well protected by the foreskin as they should be.

 

The reason that men with uncircumcised penises ( penii? ) were more prone to infection in the times where it was adopted in the West, is because washing one's genitalia was tantamount to masturbation, and masturbation ( especially childhood masturbation ) was much more heavily discouraged. So for one thing, you had a lot of boys that would develop phimosis because their foreskin was not stretched and exercised enough, and then because it was painful for them to unsheathe it they would not properly wash it which would lead to ailments.

 

I really think that the practice should be halted, even with parental consent. There is quite the indication that people later in life are "traumatized" ( though that's kind of a dramatic way to phrase it ) and resent that it was done, see it as mutilation, and there's actually a great number of them that try to "restore" their foreskin--some that have done this successfully have even reported increased sensitivity. I have to admit I was kind of curious about it as well and that I am one of those people that resents the diminished sensitivity the procedure causes.

 

I just don't see tradition or cultural rituals as being a reasonable excuse for this and once again I do find it tantamount to female vaginal mutilation that is performed in Africa (and some other parts of the globe, just can't recall where else in particular). The only difference is that in the Western world ( more precisely in America ) there is still a lot of resistance to the idea that it is wrong, and it is still often performed at birth and even worse sometimes without the consent of the parents. The fact that people would on one hand condemn the same type of ritual practices in Africa, but support it here really frames a modern hypocrisy.

[Dingdongs]

Comparing female genital cutting , which causes childbirth/urination complications (like the people doing it have any f*cking clue what they are doing) has absolutely no medical reason, is forced onto prepubescent girls (92 million in Africa over 10 years old), and probably kills millions of girls a year from complications to circumcision is absolutely insane. Why should parents not be able to make their own decision? To be honest with you, I've never met a circumcised person (as I mentioned, I live in NY and most people are circumcised here) who wants his foreskin back.

 

(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/)

 

 

[Saggy]

 

Comparing female genital cutting , which causes childbirth/urination complications (like the people doing it have any f*cking clue what they are doing) has absolutely no medical reason, is forced onto prepubescent girls (92 million in Africa over 10 years old), and probably kills millions of girls a year from complications to circumcision is absolutely insane. Why should parents not be able to make their own decision? To be honest with you, I've never met a circumcised person (as I mentioned, I live in NY and most people are circumcised here) who wants his foreskin back.

 

(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/)

What medical benefit does circumcision have? How are the reproductive defects of a woman any different from a male's penis whose circumcision was botched and is unable to perform both sexual and natural biological functions--because that does happen, even with trained medical professional that know what they're doing Your post is a great demonstration on the ignorance of the matter. Personally I feel people like you who cannot see the parallel are the ones who are insane. How is it any different at all from female genital cutting?

 

- It is involuntary

- It does cause defects and chronic problems later in life

- It also causes sexual disfunction in both cases

- In both cases it is defended with with ritualistic or "traditional" justifications

- In our culture in particular, the medical benefit is a complete myth

- As pointed out, it was also partially intended to curb masturbation, as female genital cutting ( stitching, cutting of the clitoris) is done to eliminate the ability to have sex before marriage or sexual pleasure at all

 

It is not insane at all to compare the two. If you cannot see that, I don't know what to tell you. The only reason people still find it acceptable is because it has become so common place and so indoctrinated in our culture.

 

Please, explain to me...

 

Why is cutting off a piece of your male child's penis for unfounded medical reasons, religious reasons, culture significant, etc. any more justifiable than mutiliating your daughter's gentials? Forget the fact that the female modification is done by untrained professional, because to be honest how much medical training do you think a Jewish moil has? Then despite being medically trained, as I said before, hundreds of circumcisions are botched every year by surgeons in hospitals. Go do some research on the types of defects that can be caused by circumcision, it isn't pretty.

 

Edit:

Birth defects changed to reproductive defects

Edited November 29, 2011 by SagaciousKJB

[Heisenberg]

In the grand scheme of things, males have a very low risk of genital infection. Women in all parts of the world contract some form of an infection on a regular basis, it's very obvious to see why when we consider the circumference of the opening... something as little as cold air can cause a urinal infection, for example.

 

But are we ever going to suggest to remove the labia of a woman's vagina for the sake of health? It makes as little sense as circumcision.

 

The way I see it, is vaginal mutilation and circumcision has always been a tool to restrict masturbation and nothing more. Circumcision especially was widespread on the founding of Western civilisation. In order to find more support Christianity removed the necessity of circumcision, and that greatly explains why circumcision never spread beyond to Europe.

[T.Rez]

As Sagacious said its mutilation, in this day and age there is no need for it except for cases of phimosis. Also it removes certain nerve endings in the penis making sex less pleasurable for those who are circumcised.

[Tryst]

I dunno where you heard that, but sex is still quite pleasurable for me.

Could be a case of ignorance is bliss, but does it really matter when it really is bliss?

[Typhus]

 

Why should parents not be able to make their own decision?

It's not their decision to make. Not when the child has to live with what they decided to do to his body.

I agree with Sagacious, I see it as mutilation. More than that it is another sign of the disgusting way in which organised religion has often demonised sexuality.

Slicing and dicing your penis is not holy, worthwhile or good. It is depraved, utterly depraved. Subjecting an innocent child - who does not have the wits to protest - to that ritualistic act of sadism is utterly inhumane.

 

Why on Earth has it been going on for so long?

 

To tell you the truth, I care less about the violence than the arrogance of a parent who makes that decision for their offspring. A decision based on ignorance, superstition and faulty reasoning.

We all have a right to be our own man. The idea of having such a thing done to you without even being consulted is the most sickening thing about it.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Typhus

[Emhyr]

Why should parents not be able to make their own decision?

It's not their decision to make. Not when the child has to live with what they decided to do to his body.

I agree with Sagacious, I see it as mutilation. More than that it is another sign of the disgusting way in which organised religion has often demonised sexuality.

Slicing and dicing your penis is not holy, worthwhile or good. It is depraved, utterly depraved. Subjecting an innocent child - who does not have the wits to protest - to that ritualistic act of sadism is utterly inhumane.

 

 

We're talking about a little skin here...not arm,leg or other body part.Anyway I'm circumcised and don't see a problem.It seems that people who aren't see that as something horrible.My "pleasure" is great so I guess man who circumcised me did a bad job or something.Circumcision can't hurt in any way,and if that's hygienic and healthy why not..

[Typhus]

Why should parents not be able to make their own decision?

It's not their decision to make. Not when the child has to live with what they decided to do to his body.

I agree with Sagacious, I see it as mutilation. More than that it is another sign of the disgusting way in which organised religion has often demonised sexuality.

Slicing and dicing your penis is not holy, worthwhile or good. It is depraved, utterly depraved. Subjecting an innocent child - who does not have the wits to protest - to that ritualistic act of sadism is utterly inhumane.

 

 

We're talking about a little skin here...not arm,leg or other body part.Anyway I'm circumcised and don't see a problem.It seems that people who aren't see that as something horrible.My "pleasure" is great so I guess man who circumcised me did a bad job or something.Circumcision can't hurt in any way,and if that's hygienic and healthy why not..

The fact remains that you should have had a say in the matter. Who are your parents to make such a big decision on your behalf? You're not some toy, some little doll to be dragged around and dressed up as if you had no feelings or opinions of your own.

I just can't stand the idea of someone cutting up my body without so much as a 'please'.

[K^2]

It really has to be a personal choice. Circumcising infants is wrong for no other reason that they did not get a choice. If you choose for yourself to be circumcised, whether for reasons of religion, tradition, aesthetics, or health concerns, it's fine. Even if most of these reasons are bullsh*t, it is still an entirely valid choice.

[Tryst]

Not to play the devils advocate and run completly off topic, but where does the point of you should be able to choose for yourself stop?

 

Religion and circumcision sure, thats a choice you should make your self.

 

But what about something less innocent?

A tie died mohawk at age 7, sure thats innocent enough; Maybe you want to drop out of school and pursue music instead at 15, okay thats your schoolin I'm your daddy I know best; a beer/glass of wine at 10, hmmmm just one nooo noo thats wrong it could damage your liver or something. Oh your 16 and want a tattoo of a dragon on your face? No way in hell.

 

I mean its all be personal choice right? At what point did you cross the line between mama knows best and personal choice? I do realize that one of those things is permanent and the rest are fads at best, but my question isn't about that, its when are we old enough to actually know best?

What age do you say okay son, you want your penis cut lets do it! At that same age you should also be okay with all the rest of the personal choices right?

[Emhyr]

Why should parents not be able to make their own decision?

It's not their decision to make. Not when the child has to live with what they decided to do to his body.

I agree with Sagacious, I see it as mutilation. More than that it is another sign of the disgusting way in which organised religion has often demonised sexuality.

Slicing and dicing your penis is not holy, worthwhile or good. It is depraved, utterly depraved. Subjecting an innocent child - who does not have the wits to protest - to that ritualistic act of sadism is utterly inhumane.

 

 

We're talking about a little skin here...not arm,leg or other body part.Anyway I'm circumcised and don't see a problem.It seems that people who aren't see that as something horrible.My "pleasure" is great so I guess man who circumcised me did a bad job or something.Circumcision can't hurt in any way,and if that's hygienic and healthy why not..

The fact remains that you should have had a say in the matter. Who are your parents to make such a big decision on your behalf? You're not some toy, some little doll to be dragged around and dressed up as if you had no feelings or opinions of your own.

I just can't stand the idea of someone cutting up my body without so much as a 'please'.

I forgive them. lol

[*MURDOC*]

As Sagacious said its mutilation, in this day and age there is no need for it except for cases of phimosis. Also it removes certain nerve endings in the penis making sex less pleasurable for those who are circumcised.

Well thankfully I'm circumcised, if sex felt any better, I think I'd have a heart attack.

 

 

 

At least I'd die happy.

[A J]

I'm British and not circumsised, andI don't think circumcision is that common here or the rest of Europe, I don't check these things though

 

I'm glad I am the way my body was intended to be, circumcision to me is like mutilation being forced on by parents, if the kid grows up and decides he wants it done, so be it, but I think its really unfair to force that upon them without choice.

 

It's almost the same for religion, my family are christian, so whilst my grandparents longed for me to be christened as a child, my mum refused, and said he'll decide for himself what religion or faith he'll believe in, I'm glad she did this.

 

why do so many non-jewish families circumsise then?

[K^2]

Not to play the devils advocate and run completly off topic, but where does the point of you should be able to choose for yourself stop?

It stops where you are in a situation to do yourself long-lasting harm. There are some slippery-slope decisions regarding that. Things like specializing education in this or that, for example. But I think it's pretty safe to say that circumcision is very far removed from one of these.

[Tryst]

I think its the same level of choice as tattoos, peircings, drugs(booze included), and quitting school. If you okay one at one age, you should okay the others. And at just what age is it okay for any of these choices.

Every one of those choices can cause long lasting harm at any age, be it 3 years old or 67 years old.

 

If you want circumsicion to be a choice you must decide on an age where all of those are okay too, preferably not arbitrarily. (sex 16, draft age 18, cigs 18, booze 21?)

[Ad Rem]

But your argument is completely backwards, this is not a situation where the child is asking to get a piece of his dick cut off. Do you think the parents also have the right to decide whether or not their baby should get a tattoo?

 

 

Never mind, I seem to have misunderstood your first reply.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Ad Rem

[El Zilcho]

 

it's not okay to simply cut off a baby's part of the skin in a delicate area, plus when it's completely involuntary.

This. I know it's out of context, but still it matches my opinion. Evidence linking circumcision to less STDs isn't exactly confirmed you admit that yourself. I'd reconsider what you do, don't circumcise your son (if you have one) simply because it's family. I would be pretty pissed if my parents did so, consider yourself in that position.

 

It's such a barbaric, ancient practice I'd liken it to slicing off the front of your nose just after birth - why would you do so? If no health risks are involved then it's a permanent procedure.

[GTA_stu]

I don't personally see too much wrong with it. Comparing it to female genital mutilation in Africa is a bit much. You could argue there is much more trauma associated with the practice of female genital mutilation for lets say as an example a 10 year old girl than there is for a 10 year old boy. The procedure is more complex for FGM, carries more health risks, and has more of an overall impact on functionality. The reasons are also much less justified for FGM.

 

I think it's also a view shared by governments that FGM is far worse than male circumcision, which is represented by the fact that many western countries have completely outlawed the practice of FGM, yet very very few have outlawed male circumcision and then only in certain exceptional circumstances.

 

The "choice" argument also seems a bit flawed. What about when a child has a severe medical problem. The parents may have to make a very tough decision on whether or not to go through with an operation, one which will have far greater consequences than that of a simple circumcision. Is it against a childs human rights to put it through an operation it didn't consent to?

 

You could argue that an operation is "necessary", but what if it's not life threatening? What if the child simply has a birth defect that doesn't hinder it in any way and will have absolutely no impact on it's health? Is that deemed "necessary" then? Where do you draw the line?

 

I think there is a lot to be said for tradition and culture. Why should something that has deep meaning to a particular group of people, something which they have done for millenia be stopped? Well obviously there are perfectly good reasons for stopping something, but really is circumcision THAT terrible? I don't know of many people who even have much of a grievance with the fact that they were circumcised. There is no real call for it to be ended, nor has there ever been. Who are we actually pleasing by stopping this act? Not the people who undergo the procedure it would seem.

 

Imo it's unnecessary to end it; there's no real substantative reasons for ending it and in fact it has some advantages.

 

[K^2]

I think its the same level of choice as tattoos, peircings, drugs(booze included), and quitting school. If you okay one at one age, you should okay the others. And at just what age is it okay for any of these choices.

Every one of those choices can cause long lasting harm at any age, be it 3 years old or 67 years old.

 

If you want circumsicion to be a choice you must decide on an age where all of those are okay too, preferably not arbitrarily. (sex 16, draft age 18, cigs 18, booze 21?)

Does having foreskin seriously harm you? No. Does not having it seriously harm you? No. It's a choice to be made by individual. I'd say tattoos and piercing are the same way, yes. But trying to compare it to drugs and school? You're off your rocker. If you quit school, you're a scum of society. A refuse. A dead end. There is an age at which I won't try to prevent you from doing so, but it's also the point at which I no longer care whether you live or die. In fact, dying would be preferable, so that you'd stop draining resources. Drugs are a separate discussion all together, but if you've gone the route of the dark side, all the same applies.

[Tryst]

There are plenty of usefull things you can give to society with out school. If you think that all people who don't finish school are illiterate dunces who are scum and need to die you are way off your rocker.

Musicians, actors, poets, artists all can live just fine with finishing school. (some of them doing things that most educated people can only dream about)

Then there are those jobs that just simply need to be done, and don't really require much education the so called dirty jobs of the world. Some one's gotta do them.

There are also a rare few who manage to do exceedingly well with out much school, Sir Richard Branson comes to mind.

And there are perfectly fine functioning drug users in the world, good chance you know a few.

 

But this is an entirly different argument than the one at hand. Choice, how old are you before your old enough to choose and what is wrong with society/your parents making one for you.

[Dingdongs]

It really has to be a personal choice. Circumcising infants is wrong for no other reason that they did not get a choice. If you choose for yourself to be circumcised, whether for reasons of religion, tradition, aesthetics, or health concerns, it's fine. Even if most of these reasons are bullsh*t, it is still an entirely valid choice.

So my parents shouldn't choose for me? Parents make life choices all the time for thirst kids, especially infants. If I have a 3 week old kid and I choose where our family should live, that's a major life choice. What about baptism? Should baptism now be at what? 12?

 

The pleasure argument is a myth. You cannot argue that, you just can't. What do you measure how many "f*ck yeah baby" those with foreskin vs without says? You cannot prove that someone without one gets less sexual pleasure.

[*MURDOC*]

I'm glad I got it before I could remember, that sh*t would hurt like a f*cksh*t now.

 

 

 

If you quit school, you're a scum of society. A refuse. A dead end.

 

I'm not saying quitting school is awesome or anything, but that's a pretty stupid generalization in my eyes.

Not everyone needs to have some kind of superior intelligence to succeed and have a great life, and just because someone doesn't have as much education as you doesn't make them "scum", or a "dead end".

Edited November 30, 2011 by *MURDOC*

[Saggy]

It really has to be a personal choice. Circumcising infants is wrong for no other reason that they did not get a choice. If you choose for yourself to be circumcised, whether for reasons of religion, tradition, aesthetics, or health concerns, it's fine. Even if most of these reasons are bullsh*t, it is still an entirely valid choice.

So my parents shouldn't choose for me? Parents make life choices all the time for thirst kids, especially infants. If I have a 3 week old kid and I choose where our family should live, that's a major life choice. What about baptism? Should baptism now be at what? 12?

 

The pleasure argument is a myth. You cannot argue that, you just can't. What do you measure how many "f*ck yeah baby" those with foreskin vs without says? You cannot prove that someone without one gets less sexual pleasure.

So, are you just basing that off your logic of, "You can't possible know how sensitive it is for me" or did you actually do any research into it? Here's a simple "logic" argument for you... You're cutting off nerves and skin, and removing a part of the organ that keeps the glans of the penis moist. Over years of being exposed, it becomes more conditioned (abrasion, micro-lascerations, etc) than an uncircumcised penis does, and on top of this that's ignoring the fact that parts of the foreskin itself may be erogenous. To cap it all, not all circumcisions are performed well, many of them are botched.

 

It's not a very large movement of people who want to stop circumcision, because it's also just simply dismissed as not being important by a society who at large is circumcised. Go take a look at the countries of people in this thread who don't see it as a problem with those who do, and you'll see that for the most part those that live in the U.S. don't see it as a problem. Why would anyone want to admit that their penis was not the way it was supposed to be? How could anyone believe that they don't get pleasure from it when clearly circumcized men do?

 

The point is there's this denial of any adverse effects of circumcision, and I think it's largely due to those who are circumcised just wishing to trivialize it. Even putting aside the diminished sensitivity aspect of it, to suggest that there are not people who are resentful the modification was made without their wishes is ridiculous, it's just that it's treated as a non-issue by our society. On top of that, while mistakes and other medical complications ( such as infections ) are not as common with male circumcision since it is usually performed in a supervised, sterile and medical environment, there are still mistakes made. How can a person even be sure of how many of these mistakes go reported with a large segment of the male population simply being influenced to not complain to a doctor about it, being embarrassed about it, or simply being told it's not a problem by a medical profession that's simply accepted it as standard procedure?

 

The matter of personal choice is a huge one and you can go into several tangents especially when it comes to ones genitalia at birth. Do you realize how many transgendered people there are out there who were born with a fully functional penis, but with no developed scrotum that simply had their penis cut off, and a mock vagina surgically implanted? This was done by the parents in hopes they could lead a "normal" life. Who the hell am I to say what the right decision is to make in that context, but I think something as simple as a piece of skin on the end of their penis should be something we could agree should be left alone.

 

Simply put, there is just no good reason for it, and to me anyone that wishes to defend any kind of use for it sounds just as ridiculous and are every bit as much a lunatic as those who would defend other inane ritualistic mutilation. The only difference is that it is not considered to be an outrage by a significant amount of people. On the other hand, how many of those in Africa do you think consider the female genital mutilation to be wrong or immoral? What do you think other cultures would think of this practice?

 

The research isn't really clear cut either way... Is a circumcised penis less or more likely to spread STDS? You'll find research suggesting both. Just as you can find research suggesting both diminished sensitivity as well as research suggesting increased sexual pleasure from circumcision--literally the information is so clearly biased, you can pretty much predict the outcome based on whether the information is coming from a proponent or an opponent.

 

Now, if the idea here is that, none of the people who are circumcised care enough to be in an outrage, then where is all this interest in it coming from? Who are all these people coming up with foreskin restoration/rejuvination techniques? It's not that there's not people out there who care, it's that people don't care about those who do care about this.

 

[Dingdongs]

Prove to me that pleasure is reduced. You can't. You can pretend to have simple logic on yoir side all you want, but it ain't there. There is no actual scientific way to verify that stance.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that Americans are more likely to support it because we are more likely to be circumcised? And furthermore are you trying to say we are jealous because each of our dicks isn't "the way it should be"?