How do you feel about circumcision?

[Fangface74]

Gotta go with the facts;

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/262125/detail/

about 30 mins long but it's an important study.

 

[Vivi22]

it is not, by literal definition, abusive.

Abuse: "to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way"

How is cutting off part of a child's body not causing injury? That it's done for no good reason makes it worse.

Mutilation, yes, though I would say it's based on a very loose interpretation of mutilation (mutilation typically involves the severing of an essential part of the body... but you know, if you wanna use it your way, it works too).

Taking the definition of mutilation from wikipedia: "Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death."

Or a dictionary definition of mutilate for you: "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:"

It most certainly is mutilation to circumcise a child, and not by some imagined loose definition that only exists in your head.

But I don't care about the definitions. The REAL question is: is it a problem? my answer: unequivocally no.

It is the removal of a part of a child's body without their consent without a valid reason (except when performed out of medical necessity, but that's not the question at hand). There are no proven health benefits to it. And even if the health claims were valid, soap and water in the shower and condoms while having sex do a better job of accomplishing the same goals. And the argument for aesthetics isn't a valid reason to cut off part of a child's body without them ever being given the choice. Particularly when it does have known negative effects such as reduction of pleasure during sex, for both the man and the woman.

Circumcision without the child ever even being given the chance to consent is most certainly mutilation and abuse. A baby can't consent, and if they're circumcised, will never be given the opportunity to choose to do it on its own. To remove part of another persons body in such a way without their consent is immoral if it isn't being done for their benefit. As plenty of people have established, there is no significant benefit to doing it. Therefore it is wrong. Whether you're okay with it or not.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

I'm a bit biased with the whole subject. There is NO medical proof that it's a benefit (I was considering getting it done, im 20, and it's technically now called a "body enhancement" or mutilation. depending what way you go)

The thing I hate most though is because of the public generalization, It actually damages men emotionally who's parents didn't circumcised them, because everyone now assumes ALL men have it done, and anyone who didn't is a freak. It's that damn common in Aus, I'm the only one of my mates who wasn't cut. Although it does make using condoms fucking annoying which is why I got the shits with my Ex's because they'd not use them with their prev' boy but will with me "just in case"


....YOU'RE ONLY MAKING THIS LAST LONGER THEN IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE! (and cutting off 80% of the feeling)

 

[Jovlo]

I was born with a foreskin that was to tight.
It would have caused lots of pain from puberty on.

My parents had two options: remove or plastic surgery.
They picked the more expensive option, the plastic surgery.
I was three at the time, and I remember how much that hurt for weeks after the procedure every time I had to pee.
But honestly, I'm very happy my parents decided to let me keep it and choose for myself when I was old enough.
I'm glad to have it.

(Before you ask, it looks perfectly natural. OK, it looks even better than natural. None of that to much skin/worm business... The surgeon did a great job.)

(I'll just stop describing my penis to you now... This is awkward...)

 

[Raideh]

Cleaned.

 

[DaJoW]

I consider it to be a horrible practice and I'm happy it is so rare here. Mutilating infants is a pretty bad thing imo. If they want to have it done when they're adults, fine, but removing a part of the body from an infant is just awful.

 

[Marmooset]

Well, I'm pro-abortion, and i'd rather be circumcised than aborted, so-

 

[meepop]

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.

I'm sorry. Do you want to scar your child for life (Figuratively speaking)? If the child decides, around the age of 5-8, and undergoes the procedure, then it's probably going to be more painful than it was as a baby. Besides, if you had a child and let them choose wouldn't you just make it seem bad so that they didn't do it? As an infant, circumcision means minimal bleeding and little to no pain. Plus, those that are un-circumcised have more chance of getting diseases because it's more difficult to clean.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

To everyone saying "cut" people have less sensation:

In spite of being a woman who is an avid supporter of uncut, I have to say one thing: Stop talking about being less sensitive like it's a bad thing! Any of you ever been to a sex store, or actually, you know, had sex?

They have a massive lineup of condoms and lubricants designed specifically to reduce your pleasure so that you last longer. The more sensitive you are, the quicker you'll pop!

Unless you practice lots.

There was a link in the last thread about this saying uncircumcised people do not last longer in bed and god damnit if I ever find that thread I will post all those articles along with the ones to do with penetration harder and increased erectile dysfunction and more fun things. Less sensitive in this case just reduces the pleasure not increase the duration.

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.

Spoiler: pic of the difference if you want to know

Being in locker rooms and such, you get an eyeful...and I have yet to meet a uncircumcised fellow, and I've had this exact talk with some friends(females) of mine, and they all prefer the aesthetics of the circumcised over uncircumcised

for my children? If my wife randomly refuses to have it upon them than no big deal, but i'll be doing it to my male children when the time comes, it's a useless part of the penis that according to people i know who like it, prefer it circumcised, so for my male's future girlfriends (or boyfriends) i will probably get them the snip.

It looks the same erect and it is obviously not useless or else it would not be there and god damnit I will find that thread for proof.

beyond the fact of having a slightly more sensitive dick (which honestly i can do without, i get so damn horny as is, i'd blow a load every day randomly if i had any more sensitivity) I don't see or know of much more purpose to having it there, someone said earlier on with some link to it that it keeps your dick moist, which no offense i HATE having my dick wet/moist, it is the most annoying thing in the world, and is why at home i constantly have a fan shooting right at my nutsack to keep it cool and dry.

Circumcision increases chances of erectile dysfunction, does not prevent STDs or Cancer, makes penetration and masturbation harder and uncircumcised penises do not get wet as you think it does. It keeps the glands lubricated but not dripping wet.

makes penetration and masturbation harder..? how? just by logical reasons you have less skin, therefore slightly smaller object trying to enter in the vagina, how does it make it harder?

and that still counts, idk about you but when something is on or touching my body, especially if its even the slightest bit lubricated/damp, you bet your ass i'm thinking about it and annoyed.

like i said, fan on my nutsack, 24/7 at home, i like that shit dry and cleaned

The foreskin provide natural lubrication which does not make it wet in the way you are think of and are ignoring. The foreskin then folds back during penetration allowing the penis to enter the vagina more easily. Size is not an issue for vaginas since they expand to a degree to accommodate larger penis so no a small big extra will not make a difference.


Now to go back to masturbation the natural lubrication and movement of the foreskin makes this easier you should be able to logically reason that. Also given that circumcision was advertised for 1 reason to make masturbation harder around or before the 70s I think that would make my point if I ever find the links.

eh idk about that, i don't know how its lubricated in a way that i am ignoring..please express what i'm ignoring?

" The foreskin then folds back during penetration allowing the penis to enter the vagina more easily."

how does that make it easier than a circumcised penis?

and yeah i was never debating the masturbation thing, i'm sure it is easier to masturbate, but that probably would be a problem for me, as i said earlier if i got any hornier than i am now i'd be blowing loads 2-3 times daily with no control over it, so i'm pretty sure me being circumcised gave justice to alot of tissues/tube socks from being used...

I really don't see that making you hornier but I digress. Since you are circumcised there is no way for you the experiment with this yourself as I have and it is easier.

Any lubrication first. You seem to think that any moisture on your dong is bad as it makes you feel uncomfortable. The lubrication is natural like having a wet mouth as a bone dry mouth and throat would feel uncomfortable harder to swallow etc. A similar idea holds with the penis.The foreskin allows easier penetration when it folds back now without foreskin I can not think of any other way to experiment with something like this to prove it to yourself.

Right so I'll give this one more shot at explaining. A circumcised penis in normal sex(ie no condoms, lubs or other variants) has to rely fully on the natural lubricants of the woman's vagina along with it expanding to enter and penetrate it during sex right? Well the foreskin aids in this by moving forward and back.

Just read these two [http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/](this one has further citations) articles [http://www.historyofcircumcision.org/tag/male-infants] that I found using google and try google around for stuff yourself if you don't believe me.

....................

Also given that circumcision was advertised for 1 reason to make masturbation harder around or before the 70s I think that would make my point if I ever find the links.

Interesting. That sounds like the kind of social attitude back in mid and late 20th century USA. reminds me sort of like those stranger danger advertisements forbidding you to talk to other people and always be scared of others. What i mean is, every stranger was a pedophile (except for holy men...of course), and everybody had to buy American, and everyone had to have their phalluses (phalli?) snipped, everyone had to be a straight, women were carers and men providers, and all the boys played football and the girls played dollies.

I guess the whole snipping stigma helped push the sale of products like moisturisers and petroleum jelly too. $mart thinking. But this rant might be getting a little off topic now..

hehe, i just lol'd when i realised i'd 'snipped' that quote...ohh the irony

As far as I remember it was something like that why it was pushed. I still have 20+ pages to go through for links which I will later.

 

[crepesack]

Circumcised here. I was born when it was very very common and medically suggested. Will my kids get circumcised? Yes. For the simple matter of if my kids are like me they will be this much easier to raise. Go ahead sue me.

 

[Sjakie]

It's mutilation for religous beliefs trust upon children who can not have a say in the matter, which makes it indoctrination.

And i think that is a bad idea!

 

[gunmun]

Personally I'm circumcised and didn't know until I was thirteen. So I really have no problem with circumcision

 

[Blaster395]

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.

I'm sorry. Do you want to scar your child for life (Figuratively speaking)? If the child decides, around the age of 5-8, and undergoes the procedure, then it's probably going to be more painful than it was as a baby. Besides, if you had a child and let them choose wouldn't you just make it seem bad so that they didn't do it? As an infant, circumcision means minimal bleeding and little to no pain. Plus, those that are un-circumcised have more chance of getting diseases because it's more difficult to clean.

As an infant it means so much pain that they often enter a state of neurological shock and faint from it. There are few other things in the world that can do that to you.
Infants have an overdeveloped pain receptors and typically experience 3 times more pain than anyone older.

 

[Triscut900]

I was recently circumcised because of my phimosis (not going to bother explaining it) and i am fine because of it (besides the fact of stitches down there) and i am all healed

 

[TitanDrone]

Genital mutilation in the name of superstition is one of the last bastions of the truly retarded among us. "Hey there little friend, I'll just chop off a bit of your reproductive organ since not doing so will land you in hell."

Your penis/vagina will look like a small wrinkly worm when you hit forty anyway. Apart from trying to cure certain medical conditions like Paraphimosis and Phimosis, there should be no reason to make alterations.

Some religious people may claim differently, but it can be argued that God created us in his own image and who are we to undo his creation by performing cosmetic surgery on newborns. When examined properly by proper people, it is found that genital mutilation is just that. No matter what you call it, it is a revolting habit born out of a primitive set of cultures that are no longer relevant.

Penis-enhancements on children... you guys are sick!

 

[Suicidejim]

My attitude is that it's a choice, but the key thing to remember is that once it's gone, it's gone. Personally, I wouldn't advise parents to make that kind of decision for their children, mostly for that whole permanence aspect. And the aesthetic thing is really just subjective. Medically, people tend to be divided on the benefits, there's probably some benefit, but I'm not really sure it's going to be the end of your child's life if you don't circumcise him. As far as sexual pleasure goes, I've generally heard a consensus that the foreskin does act as an erogenous area (not to mention first-hand experience).
In summary: Hey, I'm not you. Make your own choice on this one. But, if you're a parent, maybe consider the fact that your son might like that same privilege too.

[Although, I forgot to mention that I have no issue with circumcision of an infant if there really is a decent medical reason for it. Thought that went without saying, but people can be kind of nitpicky sometimes]

 

[sergnb]

Pain.
[Insert random whatever in here so I don't have "low content post" etcetera]

 

[dagens24]

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?

If you have sex with a drunk person who doesn't remember it it's still rape and wrong; so that point is invalid. As for the 'a better looking penis', that's a matter of opinion.

At the end of the day circumcision is a parental point of view that that physicaly alters and is irreparable and forced upon a young child that cannot defend themselves. If a parent got 'democrat' or 'republican' tattoo on their child we would be mortified and would take that child away from the parents immediatly; circumsision is no different.

If you want to cut pieces of your penis of then that is your business, you can do that when you're of legal age but DO NOT force it upon your child.

 

[warprincenataku]

Remove a perfectly good part of my penis for no apparent reason, that would be dandy.