Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[mike1921]

If your culture (religious or otherwise) has reasons for performing them, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
But since circumcisions have absolutely no medical benefits, doing it for no reason shouldn't be allowed.

Religion isnt a good enough reason to mutilate a newborn baby. Its sick and immoral. Because the child might not grow up to be part of whatever cult his parents belong to.

Well Jesus aren't you quite the fearful conspiracy theorist that believes religion is nonsensical brainwashing...It's apart of a person's culture and honestly who the fuck is going to look back on their life and go

"If only I wasn't circumcised"?

Someone who had a medical complication from circumcision? Someone who realizes that they would be able to feel down there a lot better with the foreskin?

Also, that's ignoring the fact that it really hurts the baby?

 

[Xojins]

I'm pretty sure circumcision greatly reduces any chance of infection due to poor hygiene. Those who are uncircumcised must pull back the foreskin to clean it properly, and if you think about young children, they aren't very likely to clean themselves properly most of the time. So I can definitely see why parents would choose to circumcise their kids. My parents did it, and I don't see any benefit whatsoever from not being circumcised. It's a matter of preference.

 

[PoliceBox63]

It should be banned for <18years and then one can make their own adult decisions on what to do with thier body after they become a legal adult.
Everyone should have free choice and the ban that I propsed would extend to protecting children's free choice.

 

[manythings]

Uhm. While those are interesting facts, that an awful lot of people are aware of due to them being fun facts that relate to sex (everyone's favourite topic), they have little to no bearing on the actual medical reasons for circumcision.

If you read the articles, or any related case studies, there are various treatments for both conditions, circumcision merely being one of them. Some parents choose this for their children, some men choose it for themselves. It's risky, of course, any surgical procedure is, but it's an accepted treatment and has absolutely nothing to do with maize.

Last time I checked medical procedures were performed by doctors. So they have medical reasons for performing them, now stick with me here, if the medical reasons are in fact fraudulent then it should be something to worry about.

...yes, you're right. If medical professionals are lying to you/your child/the world health organisation about effective treatments for conditions such as phimosis, there is an awful lot to be concerned about. Mostly because we've got a bunch of doctors taking some sick pleasure in removing a man's foreskin (I assume for voodoo purposes?).

But let's assume these medical professionals are actually sticking to the Hippocratic Oath.

It's a repeated lie that became truth because some assholes decided they knew what was best for everyone even though it is unnecessary and potentially damaging. Hell there are guys rendered impotent because they fucked up their circumcisions and it didn't matter till they went through puberty.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

I wasn't circumsised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.

Gross story, my penis got infected. I don't remember all the details, but yeah. The doctors said it was because of the foreskin, so I had to get it snipped two days before Christmas. Tell you what, that was an interesting Christmas. Got extra presents. Overall, it was worth it. Plus the health and whatnot.

Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumsised, no matter what the mother says.

You have to got to be kidding me. You're going to remove a part of your kids' body because something went wrong with yours? Are you going to remove every other part of their body something might g owrogn with?

Also, please tell me you washed under your foreskin so at the very least you're not punishing your kids for your past bad hygiene?

Totally. If my arm ever so much as feels numb, I'm chopping off my sons as soon as he comes out of the womb. That's just the way I roll.

I'm just not going to let my son risk the same issue I had.

Why risk it when medically, its more beneficial to remove the foreskin anyway.

Lots of nerves on there, cutting them off would make sex much less fun when they're older. Also the chance of medical complications. And that doctors don't seem to think it's necessarily worth it?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686 ? Oh, and that all you had to do after your infection was get it cut off? Really, you're cutting it off early just so there is no chance you have to get it cut off later?

Seriously, if doctors don't even unanimously agree the kid should get it, why can't you wait until he's old enough to decide on his own?

Hmm. I still enjoy sex just fine.

And no, I didn't just have to get it cut off. Lots of pills and ointments accompanied it, and very thorough washing (that quite frankly, hurt like hell I'll admit). But that was the first step that had to be taken.

Every doctor I have talked to on the issue has either said they believe circumcision is the way to go, or said it doesn't make a difference. At most, 5% have said its better to leave it alone.

I'm going to assume you have not been curcumcised and was somehow offended by what I posted. If thats the case, I'm sorry. I've lived a good number of years both with and without being circumcised, so I can speak from experience that I prefer circumcision. It is what I feel is best for my hypothetical son, and you aren't going to change my mind on that. Sorry.

 

[Sovereignty]

As someone who was cut when I was an infant, I can say... I don't remember the event and I don't care. I'm glad it is this way, I mean come on... If a person is crying over the years missing out on having extra skin on their yahoo, well they're crazy and need more help then a decision on to cut their e-peen or not.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

What Xojins said. I was under the impression that circumcision was often about a hygiene/cleanliness thing. Also, for those who are yelling angrily at Jewish tradition, you know there's a specific time in the baby's life when he was supposed to get circumcised -- and this time was the best for surgery because there was the lowest chance of heavy bleeding and other health complications. You don't see Jews dying en masse from circumcision.

And that brings up the flaw in "Let the man pick." Problem is, it's way easier and a much smoother/healthy procedure to do when the guy is a baby than when he's 18. It's just spare skin. For those who are comparing it to female genital mutilation, females don't have useless spare skin.

I don't think this should be banned. I think that, as the rate of complication from circumcision is stupidly low compared to any other procedures.

Also, some of you are being big hypocrites -- I'm sure all the people who are like "Religion is stupid and tradition is stupid and no one should care about it and you guys are all cults" are also the types that like to say, "Hey, you should respect my freedom of belief and let me do what I want with my atheist/agnostic/whatever life."

So let them circumcise their kids, at least for religious reasons. It's not like they can't change their belief system later, and I doubt they'll be mourning their lost scrap of skin because their parents were people of faith.

 

[mirasiel]

Call me ignorant, but I didn't know you could circumcise a girl...

You cant, its the removal of clitoris, clitoral hood*, labia minora (inner lips), parts of the labia majora (outer lips) all in varying combinations but clitoridectomy seems to be common to all fem genital mutilation practices. Its much more extreme, invasive and damaging than a male cicumcision but I still look at them both in the same when forced upon someone without a good medical reason.


*Incidentally is this not the same tissue as the male foreskin?

 

[SageSteven]

I would first like to start with "Why the fuck am I discussing this?"

Anyhow...

There are a few medical benefits of male circumcision. The first is cleanliness. With less skin, there are fewer "nooks and crannys" for filth to hide in. Secondly, it prevents a common problem later in life, later being 50+, which is a hardening of the foreskin. The only known preventions for this is circumcision and regular masturbation.

As for early circumcision, that is the ideal time to have it done. When you are young, like less the one year of age, you don't have to worry about blood flow to that part of your body. When you get it done later in life, as in thirteen years of age or greater, you run the risk of tearing the stitches simply by day dreaming and letting your body take it from there. Yeah, bleeding to death from your penis, fun.

There is also the aesthetics of male circumcision. There are people that like the way it looks.

 

[FinalGamer]

If by cosmetic circumcision you mean the circumcision performed by numerous doctors unto newborns across the USA, then yes, I am absolutely against it. It is a horrible practice to perform to a baby, when you're essentially cutting the top of their dick off without a shred of any medical evidence supporting it, all because of some kind of weirdly disturbing stigma of American society.

Religion, fine, because as far as I know, they don't do it to boys when they're babies, the only religion I know that does this is Judaism and they do it when the boy's about to become a man, fine. That's at least 2000 years of a weird-ass tradition I'm not even going to touch.

But this is about cutting skin from a newborn's penis. It is sick, it is wrong, it is nothing but sadistic abuse to a newborn that causes dangerously high pain and stress levels in them just after birth, and all because of Mr John Harvey Kellogg the cereal magnate, who was a twisted fucker thinking how boys shouldn't be masturbating or touching their dicks at all and basically just cut their dicks wantonly without anaesthetic.

There's nothing supporting anything beneficial from circumcision, just as there's nothing supporting anything beneficial against it, it's a completely pointless thing to do, nothing good or bad comes out of being circumcised, so why even bother causing so much pain to your newborn just because his dick looks A LITTLE BIT MORE PRESENTABLE?
If he wants to be stupid enough to cut his own dick, he can damn well do it as an adult himself, it should NEVER be the decision of the parents, and I don't know what kind of parent would willingly allow someone with a scalpel anywhere near their baby's cock, but I can't blame them for being ignorant.

Besides, no medical authority in the world recommends it as a course of action, mainly because it's just pointless, all it does is cause pain and waste money. Fuck you Kellogg. Fuck you and your sadistic abuse of the laws of healthcare.

 

[mike1921]

I wasn't circumsised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.

Gross story, my penis got infected. I don't remember all the details, but yeah. The doctors said it was because of the foreskin, so I had to get it snipped two days before Christmas. Tell you what, that was an interesting Christmas. Got extra presents. Overall, it was worth it. Plus the health and whatnot.

Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumsised, no matter what the mother says.

You have to got to be kidding me. You're going to remove a part of your kids' body because something went wrong with yours? Are you going to remove every other part of their body something might g owrogn with?

Also, please tell me you washed under your foreskin so at the very least you're not punishing your kids for your past bad hygiene?

Totally. If my arm ever so much as feels numb, I'm chopping off my sons as soon as he comes out of the womb. That's just the way I roll.

I'm just not going to let my son risk the same issue I had.

Why risk it when medically, its more beneficial to remove the foreskin anyway.

Lots of nerves on there, cutting them off would make sex much less fun when they're older. Also the chance of medical complications. And that doctors don't seem to think it's necessarily worth it?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686 ? Oh, and that all you had to do after your infection was get it cut off? Really, you're cutting it off early just so there is no chance you have to get it cut off later?

Seriously, if doctors don't even unanimously agree the kid should get it, why can't you wait until he's old enough to decide on his own?

Hmm. I still enjoy sex just fine.

And no, I didn't just have to get it cut off. Lots of pills and ointments accompanied it. But that was the first step that had to be taken.

Every doctor I have talked to on the issue has either said they believe circumcision is the way to go, or said it doesn't make a difference. At most, 5% have said its better to leave it alone.

I'm going to assume you have not been curcumcised and was somehow offended by what I posted. If thats the case, I'm sorry. I've lived a good number of years both with and without being circumcised, so I can speak from experience that I prefer circumcision. It is what I feel is best for my hypothetical son, and you aren't going to change my mind on that. Sorry.

I assume you've never had sex before the circumcision?

........Pills and ointments? You're not seriously acting like that's a justification?

That really doesn't go against my point. They're not unanimous on whether to do it or not.

No, I have been circumcised and would really rather have those nerves back and take my risk of infection and it saddens me that it's going to happen to even more people as a preventative measure before they are even in diapers.

 

[Cgull]

It's a personal decision really.

I don't understand the cosmetic element of it at all but some people obviously do and they should be free to do whatever they want to do.

Would anyone advocating a ban also do so if it was recommended for a medical reason (yes there are some, no I'm not going into detail, yes I speak from experience)?

 

[mirasiel]

By the by everyone saying 'oh think of the children who cant clean themselves' you do realise that the foreskin and glans are more or less attached until around about puberty*?

Again is surgery a sensible alternative to telling your son btw little dude, be sure and clean under the hood too?


*lets call it 10 or 11 yeah?

 

[Knusper]

Call me ignorant, but I didn't know you could circumcise a girl...

You cant, its the removal of clitoris, clitoral hood*, labia minora (inner lips), parts of the labia majora (outer lips) all in varying combinations but clitoridectomy seems to be common to all fem genital mutilation practices. Its much more extreme, invasive and damaging than a male cicumcision but I still look at them both in the same when forced upon someone without a good medical reason.


*Incidentally is this not the same tissue as the male foreskin?

*shudder* right, I made up my mind - circumcision should be banned.

 

[nilus2k]

Where are people getting the idea that it's difficult to wash under there?

Woman mostly. I know a lot of woman who generally dislike uncircumcised men because there shit stinks down there. Sure you can wash it but its another fold of skin for sweat and grim to get into.

Like others have said there are debates about it but in the end its suppose to be a preventive measure to reduce risks of STDS as well as infections. The debate that the health benefit is minor doesn't really hold up since there is absolutely no health benefit for keeping it(studies have shown that people with foreskin do not have better sex lives or better sex at all). I'm glad my parents snipped me when I was 3 days old, rather then having to do it when I was older and more aware of it.

 

[Kenko]

If your culture (religious or otherwise) has reasons for performing them, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
But since circumcisions have absolutely no medical benefits, doing it for no reason shouldn't be allowed.

Religion isnt a good enough reason to mutilate a newborn baby. Its sick and immoral. Because the child might not grow up to be part of whatever cult his parents belong to.

Well Jesus aren't you quite the fearful conspiracy theorist that believes religion is nonsensical brainwashing...It's apart of a person's culture and honestly who the fuck is going to look back on their life and go

"If only I wasn't circumcised"?

Thats bull and you know it. Ofcourse someone may realise that they didnt want to get circumsized and wouldve wanted the choice themselves. Rather then being forced as a baby to get their ding-dong chopped to bits. Conspiracy? Its common fact that religious leaders brainwash their cults. And a culture is immoral if it brings harm to children in any shape or form. Go back to the bronze age please. You'd fit that timeperiod better.

 

[mike1921]

And that brings up the flaw in "Let the man pick." Problem is, it's way easier and a much smoother/healthy procedure to do when the guy is a baby than when he's 18. It's just spare skin. For those who are comparing it to female genital mutilation, females don't have useless spare skin.

I don't think this should be banned. I think that, as the rate of complication from circumcision is stupidly low compared to any other procedures.

Yet again, LOTS OF NERVES THERE. Also, even if all it is useless spare skin, why should you be allowed to mutilate it for no reason?

Also, some of you are being big hypocrites -- I'm sure all the people who are like "Religion is stupid and tradition is stupid and no one should care about it and you guys are all cults" are also the types that like to say, "Hey, you should respect my freedom of belief and let me do what I want with my atheist/agnostic/whatever life."

Yes, I have freedom over MY life, not my theoretical future childrens' lives. I shouldn't have freedom to have useless surgeries performed on them for non medical reasons.

So let them circumcise their kids, at least for religious reasons. It's not like they can't change their belief system later, and I doubt they'll be mourning their lost scrap of skin because their parents were people of faith.

I am (although my parents aren't people of faith so I don't even have a clue why I'm circumsized).

 

[mirasiel]

There are a few medical benefits of male circumcision. The first is cleanliness. With less skin, there are fewer "nooks and crannys" for filth to hide in. Secondly, it prevents a common problem later in life, later being 50+, which is a hardening of the foreskin. The only known preventions for this is circumcision and regular masturbation.

I'll keep posting it...THREE F*CKING SECONDS YOU DONT NEED ACCESS THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER TO CLEAN IT!.

for the latter part given the choice between cutting off part of my dick or spanking the monkey, I'll take some spank material and be in my bunk.

Also just a thought but wouldnt you know...sex have the same effect?

"Honey we gotta shag tonight, if we dont I could develop a serious medical problem, look I have evidence to support it. Maybe just some head if you're to tired "

this is a win win situation man.

 

[Xerosch]

Medical reasons yes. But otherwise it should be illegal until a person is 18.

I agree, the guy should be able to decide for themself.

In case of women's circumcision: There's no discussion at all, it's a barbaric act that needs to die as fast as possible.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

I wasn't circumsised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.

Gross story, my penis got infected. I don't remember all the details, but yeah. The doctors said it was because of the foreskin, so I had to get it snipped two days before Christmas. Tell you what, that was an interesting Christmas. Got extra presents. Overall, it was worth it. Plus the health and whatnot.

Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumsised, no matter what the mother says.

You have to got to be kidding me. You're going to remove a part of your kids' body because something went wrong with yours? Are you going to remove every other part of their body something might g owrogn with?

Also, please tell me you washed under your foreskin so at the very least you're not punishing your kids for your past bad hygiene?

Totally. If my arm ever so much as feels numb, I'm chopping off my sons as soon as he comes out of the womb. That's just the way I roll.

I'm just not going to let my son risk the same issue I had.

Why risk it when medically, its more beneficial to remove the foreskin anyway.

Lots of nerves on there, cutting them off would make sex much less fun when they're older. Also the chance of medical complications. And that doctors don't seem to think it's necessarily worth it?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686 ? Oh, and that all you had to do after your infection was get it cut off? Really, you're cutting it off early just so there is no chance you have to get it cut off later?

Seriously, if doctors don't even unanimously agree the kid should get it, why can't you wait until he's old enough to decide on his own?

Hmm. I still enjoy sex just fine.

And no, I didn't just have to get it cut off. Lots of pills and ointments accompanied it. But that was the first step that had to be taken.

Every doctor I have talked to on the issue has either said they believe circumcision is the way to go, or said it doesn't make a difference. At most, 5% have said its better to leave it alone.

I'm going to assume you have not been curcumcised and was somehow offended by what I posted. If thats the case, I'm sorry. I've lived a good number of years both with and without being circumcised, so I can speak from experience that I prefer circumcision. It is what I feel is best for my hypothetical son, and you aren't going to change my mind on that. Sorry.

I assume you've never had sex before the circumcision?

........Pills and ointments? You're not seriously acting like that's a justification?

That really doesn't go against my point. They're not unanimous on whether to do it or not.

No, I have been circumcised and would really rather have those nerves back and take my risk of infection and it saddens me that it's going to happen to even more people as a preventative measure before they are even in diapers.

No, I had not had sex yet. And I guess I just don't understand where you're trying to go with on the "Oh, and that all you had to do after your infection was get it cut off?" argument you tried to make, because from how I read it, I was supposed to tell you what else I had to do along with cutting off the foreskin, but I was apparently supposed to justify something... I don't know.

And from my experiences, it was pretty unanimous. And it looks like you're just going to have to be saddened even more, because I've got my opinions and you've got yours. When/if you have children, you can do things your way, but I'm going to do them mine. I don't think removing that tiny extra bit of skin is going to hurt him.

Maybe if you had been infected and I hadn't, we'd be on opposite sides of the argument here, but whatever. I need to end this debate (that I honestly never saw coming) here and now. I'm currently working, and I actually need to do work. Good day.