How do you feel about circumcision?

[Wertbag]

There are enough medical stuff ups with circumcisions to make me never want to risk it. This site has quite a few examples: http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html
From badly done operations leaving the penis deformed, to an infection which led to brain damage to death, all for a surgery that was not necassary (sure it is in some medical cases, but those are very rare and was not the case in any of the examples here).
I thought the quote "No national or international medical association in the modern industrialised world, or indeed anywhere in the world, endorses routine circumcision of healthy boys." says it all really.

 

[Harlief]

Male circumcision increases sexual sensation. Or so I've been told by men who've been circumcised.

Unless they were circumcised after they became sexually active, I'm gonna call BS on that on the grounds that it's baseless conjecture.

 

[weker]

]agreed with the OP that circumsized is prettier, and i'm jewish so of course any boys i produce will be circumsized. but i don't think it's terribly important-clearly the foreskin is not necessary for any function, so i don't much think about it unless i'm asked. (this could also be because i'm a girl.)

It's needed for sexual pleasure and also a protective shield from my knowledge.
This topic will always be high debate because the pro see it as the equivilant as a tattoo while the anti see it as mutilation

 

[NoeL]

If you don't want to do it to your kids that's fine, but leave the rest of us alone.

I want to chop off my child's ear lobes - they're just useless skin. Also, I want to subject them to electrolysis or whatever so they never grow hair, because I prefer smooth skin. And I'll tattoo their whole body - it's not going to harm them at all, just make them look "better".

The "it's my kid" argument DOES NOT EXTEND TO PERMANENT MUTILATION! So no, I'm not going to leave the rest of you alone - you're permanently mutilating innocent children without their consent, and that is badong.

 

[NoeL]

From badly done operations leaving the penis deformed, to an infection which led to brain damage to death

I know this isn't a joking matter, but I really can't resist making a pun about him thinking with his dick.

/shot

 

[WolfThomas]

Female circumcision is a barbaric activity usually performed on fully conscious teen girls with anything from a knife, to glass, to even a sharp rock. It usually ends in mutilation and disfigurement. (so help me God do not say male circumcision is mutilation or disfigurement, I can send you photos of what happens during female circumcision if it will make you see the difference and shut you up)

Not to denigrate female circumcision in any manner I agree it's a barbaric practice. But if western society decided overnight that it was acceptible, it would be performed aseptically with appropriate anaesthetic and a minimum of trauma. Likewise if a male circumcision was done with glass in unsanitory condition the result would likely be traumatic and disfiguring also.

 

[photog212]

Female circumcision is a barbaric activity usually performed on fully conscious teen girls with anything from a knife, to glass, to even a sharp rock. It usually ends in mutilation and disfigurement. (so help me God do not say male circumcision is mutilation or disfigurement, I can send you photos of what happens during female circumcision if it will make you see the difference and shut you up)

Not to denigrate female circumcision in any manner I agree it's a barbaric practice. But if western society decided overnight that it was acceptible, it would be performed aseptically with appropriate anaesthetic and a minimum of trauma. Likewise if a male circumcision was done with glass in unsanitory condition the result would likely be traumatic and disfiguring also.

Than my opinion of it would change.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.

The short answer is that if the head of your penis has a skin-cover, then you are uncircumcised, and if it doesn't or you are 'unsure what a skin cover is meant to be' then you are circumcised (it's one of things where if you are uncircumcised, you'll know exactly what I mean).

OT: I'm uncircumcised and grateful. Not because it looks better (looks are subjective), or because it will allow me to enjoy sex more (I am a virgin so I don't really know, and even if I wasn't, how am I to compare that sort of thing?), but because my parents left it like it was. If I want to get circumcised later in life, I have that option, and I should have that option because it is my body. My parents did the right thing by not violating that right (my dad was for circumcision, but my mum is a very stubborn and strong-willed person, and for that I am grateful).

 

[Odysseous2]

I'm seeing a theme here. Everyone who's been circumcised approves of circumcision (including myself). Most people who haven't been circumcised are irrationally opposed to it. It's funny how the people who know the least about the topic at hand are the most strongly opinionated on it.

That proves my theory. Humans are afraid of the unknown.

 

[Kennetic]

Female genital mutilation is done to remove a woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure - it isn't merely decorative. The male version would be smashing the testicles to create a eunuch.

How is slicing off part of the nerve system and exposing the rest to get numb, and doing so at an age where the child is unable to make the decision himself or defend himself? You're mutilating the child's genitalia to reduce sexual pleasure for religious reasons. There is no difference.

They really aren't comparable. FGM's equivalent for males would be castration, not circumcision.

They're still able to procreate, the purpose is to reduce sexual pleasure to reduce the likelihood of adultery, just as with males.

<Now the other post un-disappeared, please delete this one mods>

This is a legitimate thread and all you have to do is post your opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, but no sense in overreacting.

Nono, you don't understand, I reposted my first one because it didn't appear in the thread. I assumed the escapist had eaten it but then it appeared along with my new one.

Oh ok I see it now lol. Sorry about that, I completely misunderstood and got all defensive and shit.

 

[Kennetic]

I'm seeing a theme here. Everyone who's been circumcised approves of circumcision (including myself). Most people who haven't been circumcised are irrationally opposed to it. It's funny how the people who know the least about the topic at hand are the most strongly opinionated on it.

That proves my theory. Humans are afraid of the unknown.

You may be onto something here....

 

[WolfThomas]

Than my opinion of it would change.

Well that's essentially the point of those who compare the two. They feel that just because a medical practitioner does something safely doesn't make it right.

 

[Sentox6]

maybe my boys won't be jewish, but i'm sure they'll thank my disgusting religious upbringing when their risk for contracting and transmitting much more disgusting STDs to their sexual partners is sharply decreased.

Good news! You can reduce their STD risk even further by having them castrated.

 

[Mathak]

Just glad I live in Europe, where such barbaric practises aren't a common thing.

 

[NoeL]

You are an idiot.

It's ironic how you could completely miss my point then call me an idiot. How is an earlobe biopsy or a tattoo any different to a circumcision? You think people should be allowed to cut off part of their child's penis, so on what grounds do you oppose parents that want to "change" their children in other ways?

If you want to make an argument stick to facts: "mutilation" is a loaded word with an inherent judgment. No one who has said they are for circumcision has agreed that it is a mutilation, just the opposite, so you can't simply state that as your argument.

Whether or not you call it "mutilation" is inconsequential. Semantics. Let's call voluntary surgical biopsies "fun cuts". Happy now?

The "it's my kid" argument DOES NOT EXTEND TO PERMANENT "fun cuts"! So no, I'm not going to leave the rest of you alone - you're permanently "fun cutting" innocent children without their consent, and that is badong.

Also be so kind as to not force your own petty world view on others.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise personal liberty and the right to one's body was a petty world view. Forgive me. -_-!

As much as I am sure you want to put your underwear on over top of your other clothes and run around "righting wrongs" it really isn't any of your damn business. If someone asks for help then by all means get involved, otherwise keep your opinions to yourself.

I am part of a society that allows male circumcision. I think male infant circumcision is wrong. I am entitled to voice my opinion on the matter, as are you. Don't tell me I can't.

 

[photog212]

Than my opinion of it would change.

Well that's essentially the point of those who compare the two. They feel that just because a medical practitioner does something safely doesn't make it right.

You lost me...but I'm too tired to play this game anymore. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[NoeL]

I'm seeing a theme here. Everyone who's been circumcised approves of circumcision (including myself). Most people who haven't been circumcised are irrationally opposed to it. It's funny how the people who know the least about the topic at hand are the most strongly opinionated on it.

That proves my theory. Humans are afraid of the unknown.

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