How do you feel about circumcision?

[Riff Moonraker]

It is child abuse, plain and simple.

No, its not... plain and simple.

 

[epikAXE]

There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.

Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?

You forget that a tattoo and piercings are choices.
Its like the fact that I was never christened or circumcised, because my parents felt that if I, later in life became a born again Christian, or wanted a 'better looking penis' I would decide for myself.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

If it's part of your religion, I don't see the problem, as long as it's done properly.

from a religion stand point, it's doing what it normally does and forces itself on offspring.

The issue is it's unfair to let religious groups get away with it, while normal people cannot.
It's got to be one or the other and I for one suggest not allowing parents to put their child at risk.

Everyone should be allowed to do it, if that's what they want. Sure, parents shouldn't FORCE their children into anything, but if it's their religion and they believe it's right and thus should do it.

If it's just a personal choice, it has less credibility but is still valid.

 

[DSQ]

for the simple reason that it is a better-looking penis. Seriously, uncircumcised penises look like a worm trying to escape from mud.

Maybe where you are from but where i'm from (uk) it is the other way round. Personally I can hardly look at a circumsized penis. It looks like an open wound but without the blood... ugh.

(full disclosure: I'm a girl.)

 

[weker]

they believe it's right and thus should do it

Just because they believe it to be right doesn't mean it is, If its about hair colour or something as a child fair play but this is removing a part of the body which can greatly effect things like sexual pleasure. It is also a mark of a religion. So not only are they forcing their beliefs on how the body should look on the child but also a sign that they are part of the religion (if their american not as much it seems)

 

[Amphoteric]

Circumcision does have medical benefits.........

If you live in Africa where water is extremely limited

 

[Blaster395]

Circumcision does have medical benefits.........

If you live in Africa where water is extremely limited

And even this is disputed and has conflicting evidence.

 

[Bobbety]

]That's like saying "I never want to go through having an ingrown toenail again, so I wish I had my feet chopped off instead". Obviously that's a more extreme example, but the principle holds.

Recovering from an ingrown toenail doesn't require your feet to be chopped off... That and it doesn't tie in with the sexual awkwardness that many teenagers have to deal with. So yes that is an extreme example. I'm not saying the rest of your post is wrong (not at all), I'm just saying the topic is far less black and white and more debatable than some people seem to think. In fact, I used to think that circumcision was a disgusting mutilation to do to anyone, but after fully recovering I see it isn't that bad. I'm still somewhat on the fence on whether I would have it done to my kids, I guess it depends on the mothers opinion on the matter.

Way to beg the question. A circumcised male can't be opposed to circumcision without being "irrational"? Please.

Why not? A man could wish that his parents never "mutilated" him as a child and not do the same to his kids, and would therefore be opposed to the practice.

Why do you prefer it, if you don't mind me asking? Anything apart from the relief of whatever your health problem was?

I dislike the way the foreskin moves during sex/masturbation. For a long time I wasn't even aware this was how it worked as mine was "stuck" (ie. couldn't ever pull it back, which was a big part of why I was forced to get it removed).

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

If mine were any more sensitive, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem. So, I fail to see the logic in that comment.

oh how true this is, good god sometimes the right pair of pants with the right pair of boxers causes my third leg to shoot out like a whack a mole in an arcade

 

[Verp]

No surgical operations should ever be conducted on another person for non-medical reasons without their consent. This includes circumcision of all genders and "corrective" aesthetic surgery on ambiguous genitalia. Not your junk, therefore not altered according to your aesthetic preferences, end of story.

 

[Vivi22]

It's not wrong. It's a perfectly fine, culturally acceptable thing.

Something being culturally acceptable does not prevent it from being morally wrong. All I really need to do is point to the middle east and sharia law. Unless you want to argue that because subjecting homosexual's to the death penalty is culturally acceptable in places like Iran that that makes it ok?

And it's irrelevant if a baby can't consent because the benefits from keeping it are negligible.

So let me get this straight. Because there is no real benefit to cutting it off and some, marginal in your opinion, benefits to keeping it, we might as well perform the painful and completely unnecessary procedure on babies without their consent. This is absurd. If a doctor tried to use that argument for performing the procedure on an adult without their consent, they would not only get sued, but they would lose their medical license and be in prison. The only difference between that and doing it to a baby is that the baby can't speak for itself to say no and they won't remember it. Neither of which is justification for performing a circumcision.

The only rational argument is that if there's no benefit to circumcision and some benefits to not doing it, even if they are marginal, then it shouldn't be done.

It's not morally reprihensible.

Actually, I'd say performing unnecessary and painful procedures on any human being without their consent, regardless of age, is reprehensible and immoral.

You silly westerners and your philosophic, liberal thought... ya'll amaze me. You only make these statements because you don't know what true abuse and mutilation is.

This is a poor argument to say the least. Just because something isn't as bad as things like genocide or any of the myriad of human rights violations and disgusting crimes that take place all over the world does not mean that this issue somehow doesn't matter, or that it is right to circumcise someone. But then you don't actually have a valid argument for circumcision as I think we've already seen throughout your posts. If the best you can do is say that other things are worse then there's no point arguing with you, because you clearly aren't willing to debate it rationally.

 

[Vivi22]

EDIT: double post

 

[Balvale]

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree on this. As a circumcised male, it hasnt reduced my pleasure in the slightest. Also, I know for a fact my parents didnt have it done to "reduce" my pleasure to keep me from straying.

Given that you mentioned your parents had this procedure done, I'll assume you were a child when it happened. Think about this logically for a second, how would you have any way of telling whether genital cutting decreased your pleasure if you've never had a chance to experience sex with a foreskin?

 

[The Gnome King]

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis. It is most commonly performed on newborn males (obviously).
I personally approve of it it (but don't disagree if parents or whatever opt not to) for the simple reason that it is a better-looking penis. Seriously, uncircumcised penises look like a worm trying to escape from mud.
Yes it is painful for the baby, possibly more painful than an adult would experience. However, I don't remember any pain from when I was circumcised because I can't remember anything before age 5. I'm grateful that my mother wanted me to have a good-looking penis.
I don't care about the health advantages/disadvantages or any religious practice of it but I personally approve. What about my fellow Escapees?

I don't support it. Would you support doctors cutting off labial tissue in females to create a "good looking vagina" at birth? Personally I believe we should force genital integrity on people; let their children decide if they want their genitals altered when they are older.

For the people that say that it's different in women, why the outcry over the "clitoral nick" offered as a "compromise" for Muslim parents in the US? The clitoral nick does no overall harm to the clitoris nor does it remove any nerve tissue. Removing a foreskin removes a LOT of nerve tissue. The clitoral nick is just that - a small, ceremonial pinprick of a girl's clitoris; that's it. It has been proven that men lose much more nerve endings through foreskin removal than a woman loses through this, but we're much more protective of our baby girls here.

As a bisexual man who has been with cut and uncut men I can simply say that there are many, many advantages to being uncircumcised. Most women I have been with report that sex is more pleasant with a un-circumcised man because there is less pain and friction - the "sheath within a sheath" action of a foreskin and vagina moving naturally together causes less vaginal dryness, etc.

I think Patrick Rothfuss said it best in one of his blog posts:

http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2010/04/concerning-circumcision/

Circumcision was started by a religious people as part of a covenant with their God, just as certain Muslim and African tribes consider clitoris removal/"nicking" part of a covenant with THEIR God. This was done, in both cases, to reduce the amount of pleasure taken during sex for both men and women.

People saying that a foreskin is "useless" and has "no sexual effect on pleasure" obviously don't know what they're talking about - it's tissue full of nerve endings.

Please educate yourself:

http://www.intactamerica.org/

Also consider that in America circumcision was relatively rare until Dr. Kellogg advocated it as a WAY TO GET MEN TO STOP MASTURBATING - it didn't get men to stop masturbating, of course, but it made it more difficult and reduced pleasure gained from such.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

If you are going to claim circumcision has no effect on sexual pleasure please back up your claims like I have with evidence. I know one man who got circumcised late in life to please his new Jewish family - surprise, surprise - he has erectile dysfunction now and claims that it was the worst thing he ever did for his sex life.

These aren't decisions we should be making for small children. Let them grow up and choose if they want thousands of nerve endings hacked off their penis.

For the record, I'm against the "clitoral nick" too - which causes no actual damage to the clitoris but caused an outcry in America.

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010/05/just-a-nick-american-doctors-recommend-female-genital-cutting/

Enjoy the links for those who actually care to learn and not just take an ideological position and dig their heels in. I used to believe circumcision was "no big deal" until I learned the truth.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree on this. As a circumcised male, it hasnt reduced my pleasure in the slightest. Also, I know for a fact my parents didnt have it done to "reduce" my pleasure to keep me from straying.

Given that you mentioned your parents had this procedure done, I'll assume you were a child when it happened. Think about this logically for a second, how would you have any way of telling whether genital cutting decreased your pleasure if you've never had a chance to experience sex with a foreskin?

I was a newborn, so I dont recall it at all. Until I became wiser, I thought all guys were born like that. So, it had no traumatic effect on me at all, and I am glad they did it.

As far as the pleasure side of it, I wasnt kidding. I couldnt imagine it being any more sensitive than it is. I'm not saying it couldnt be, but I am completely happy with how it is. Beyond that, you just have to take my word for it, because any descriptions beyond this point would require getting alot more graphic, and I'm not going there.

 

[Balvale]

Problem is, in the context of this conversation, you wouldn't be able to tell us if any pleasure was lost. Sort of voids the doesn't-reduce-pleasure argument.

But you could definitely be hypersensitive. It's a possibility.

 

[Dexiro]

I'm usually against it but since my sex life has kicked off I must say, circumcised penises are leagues better. They look better, are often more hygienic and you steer clear of any problems with foreskins being too tight which seem surprisingly common.

To be honest I actually kind of wish I was circumcised, but I wouldn't want the procedure done as an adult.

1. Uncircumcised penises look better,

2. masturbating properly without tearing your bloody skin off.

3. The foreskin protects against filth. Circumsised penises quickly become unclean.

4. Too tight foreskin is a common problem with alot of simple solutions.

1. No they don't :3

2. I don't see how masturbating without foreskin tears your skin off? That's actually a fear I have with uncircumcised penises, some guys foreskin are so tight I'm always scared of doing damage. I can pull mine back with no effort at all and that's what I'm used too.

3. This makes sense but you can also argue that it keeps filth in as well. Circumcised penises pretty much get cleaned whenever you take a shower, but with uncircumcised who knows when they last cleaned down there o: Some people can't even pull their foreskin all the way back, who knows what could be under there.

4. I never said circumcision was the only solution, but it's still a positive :3

 

[Sentox6]

Exactly this, I am circumcised and I didn't suffer any trauma, hell I know kids who weren't circumcised who went through hell in high school 'cause they were different. People get so up in arms about something that doesn't harm you in anyway and need to stop trying to fuck it up for the rest of us. I plan on having any boys I have circumcised, as do most of the guys I know even the ones who weren't circumcised plan on having it done to their kids.

Yes, how dare we want to interfere with your ability to mutilate your children and impair the sexual function of their genitals just so they can "fit in".

What horrible, horrible people we are.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Exactly this, I am circumcised and I didn't suffer any trauma, hell I know kids who weren't circumcised who went through hell in high school 'cause they were different. People get so up in arms about something that doesn't harm you in anyway and need to stop trying to fuck it up for the rest of us. I plan on having any boys I have circumcised, as do most of the guys I know even the ones who weren't circumcised plan on having it done to their kids.

Yes, how dare we want to interfere with your ability to mutilate your children and impair the sexual function of their genitals just so they can "fit in".

What horrible, horrible people we are.

Exactly, as a parent it is my choice what to do with my child, it doesn't hurt them and it has no negative affects on them then or in the future as an adult, so why should you have a say in what I do with my child?

Oh and I can use words to spin things badly too, like
Why should you be allowed to corrupt and permanently damage your child's ability to accept view differing from their own by teaching them that the bible is the word of god.

See I can do it too

 

[Sentox6]

Exactly, as a parent it is my choice what to do with my child, it doesn't hurt them and it has no negative affects on them then or in the future as an adult, so why should you have a say in what I do with my child?

Oh and I can use words to spin things badly too

Except that it's not spin. You're removing thousands of nerve endings and the glide function of the penis, increasingly the everyday exposure of the glans to stimulation (reducing its sensitivity). Anyone who thinks that this is a fair practice on the basis of helping their child to fit in to their perceived social norms shouldn't be allowed to have children, period.

Why should you be allowed to corrupt and permanently damage your child's ability to accept view differing from their own by teaching them that the bible is the word of god.

See I can do it too

It would work a hell of a lot better if you could do it well. I'm not really sure what to say to someone who thinks that the teaching of a theological viewpoint is a valid comparison to amputating part of the child's body. Also, how does teaching one idea "permanently damage" the child's ability to accept other viewpoints? Teaching them evolution must have the same effect then.

It hardly seems like it can be as permanent as chopping off something that won't regrow.