Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Something Amyss]

Can people make their own decision? I mean, is there a medical reason that if it is going to happen it should happen early in life. Also, you might not be able to imagine it any different... but would you not like the choice to have it natural?

In the States, doctors try and foist it on parents before they take the baby home. I don't know about Australia, but they certainly don't seem to be very big on waiting to make the decision.

 

[Uncreation]

I think it makes the most sense to let each person decide for themselves. I mean, like others have said, in the end it's their body. Just because their parents mean well, and think it's the best thing for their kids does not necessarily mean it actually is. Some people like it, or have nothing against it, while other would prefer not to have it.
I am quite thankful i was not raised in a culture where this sort of thing is done, either for religious reasons or for tradition. I'm not sure i would try to have it reversed if i would have been circumsized, but i am happy i wasn't. I don't see it as a necessary surgery nowadays. One of the biggest reasons people keep yammering about is hygiene. From my point of view, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE SOAP AND RUNNING WATER, THAT IS NOT A REASON. If you wash properly, hygiene is not an issue, foreskin or no foreskin.
Personally i will not circumsize my kids. If they want to do that when they are old enough, fine, it's their right. if that's what they want, no problem. But i will not take that decision for them, if it's not necessary.

 

[Disaster Button]

The amount of vehemence in this thread is weird.

If someone has to have it done, or chooses to have it done, or is a child and their parent decides from them I don't see a problem. I'd much prefer my parents decided to get it done to me when I was a kid instead of me having to bring it up at 15. Not everyone knows they're going to need it done for medical reasons until they're teenagers, like me, and they may be too embarassed to bring it up. It took me a good while to finally broach the topic.

And all the outcries of it being a religious monstrosity is just insane.

 

[ultimateownage]

No. Although I never understood circumcision for the sake of circumcision it's not really harming anyone, and it's often part of their beliefs. Plus, it can have medical reasoning behind it, sometimes the person's foreskin can be too tight and they require it, which happened to my friend.

 

[mike1921]

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.

My thoughts on women's circumcision is the same as man's. It should be illegal to do it to anyone too young to consent unless for serious medical problems (don't know if any exist for the clitoris but if there are) and once your 18 you can get anything you want chopped off.

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.

I sorta assumed that you were going to try to justify why it's worse to have it done later than sooner?

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Once you're eighteen, screw up your penis as much as you want, but for goodness sake stop slicing up children!!!!

As for female circumcision, apart from the hymen there's nothing to slice! Simple mutilation, and it's disgusting!!!!

 

[loremazd]

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).

Mostly because your parents wanted you to look like everyone else. That and there are quite a few females that are a little freaked out by foreskin for the same reason that males are a little freaked out by thick pubic hair on women. Essentially, they thought it would cause problems down the line socially and it was really safe to do it when you were a kid.

Also, FYI, the only religion that practices circumcision is the Judaism and it's just a tenant for cleanliness. MOST circumcisions performed are for cultural or medical (however misinformed you think that is) reasons.

 

[newfoundsky]

I'm 16 and the deed was done when I was born. I haven't looked back and said "I miss my foreskin." Let em' be. Besides, it's apparently much easier to keep clean.

I takes 3 seconds in the shower man, you dont need to be double jointed with a degree in high-energy physics to do it.

Can you clean your taint? can you wash you're friggin balls?

if yes then you can clean under your foreskin.

I fail to see you point. My main point was that while it may be somewhat painful, and it may very well be, you won't remember it. It's kind of like getting gassed at the dentist. Honestly, how many here, at the Escapist that is, honestly miss the part of the penis they had for a short time after they were born?

I personally don't, because I don't remember even having it. So why ban the damn thing?

 

[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).

Mostly because your parents wanted you to look like everyone else. That and there are quite a few females that are a little freaked out by foreskin for the same reason that males are a little freaked out by thick pubic hair on women. Essentially, they thought it would cause problems down the line socially and it was really safe to do it when you were a kid.

Also, FYI, the only religion that practices circumcision is the Judaism and it's just a tenant for cleanliness. MOST circumcisions performed are for cultural or medical (however misinformed you think that is) reasons

That's depressing. Oh well, my mom is agnostic and actually acted like it was a sad thing that I'm an atheist as opposed to religion so it's not that surprising.
Really it makes no difference to me whether it's religious or cultural. Tradition isn't an excuse to mutilate an infant.

If the risk of something worse than getting the foreskin chopped off later was significant I would be ok with it being performed for medical reasons at a young age.

 

[Veritasiness]

If it's not a religious choice, I don't think it really matters. However, I am a Jew, and I don't understand how people can view something as simple as a circumcision as "mutilation" or "sick" - it's no sicker then shaving pubic hair or removing an offensive mole, just done for different reasons.

To those who don't understand why in religion the children aren't given time to make their own choice, there are three reasons (at least in Judaism; I'm not sure about any other religion that does this):

1. When you're older, it hurts way more, and nobody wants to force their kid through that at puberty. That simple.

2. The actual religious basis in Judiasm, at least, is that circumcision is a sign of the Jewish people's covenant with God, stating that we accepted the Bible (Old Testament only) as His word and that we agreed to teach it to our children.

3. Even if a child grows up and does not wish to remain observant, being circumcised does not "force" them to remain so. A Jewish person who decides to convert or stop observing can't be prevented from doing so, and the act is not a sign of their personal acceptance of the covenant, but their parents'.

 

[Stephanos132]

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.

Those women must've been dating some dirty fellas is all I can say to that.

As for STD's, a better way of reducing STD's is not having unprotected sex with anyone offering. And keeping clean, obviously, which is, as I've stressed before, quite easy.

Incidentally, could you cite those particular studies? Its all well and good saying these things without backing them up, but don't expect me to be entirely convinced.

 

[thebreadbinman]

dude are you serious?
of course it's cleaner.

if a guy with a foreskin didn't wash his dick for a week he'd get fucking smeg under his foreskin
if a guy without one didn't, it'd just stink, that's why a majority of porn stars do it, and thats why people did it in the first place, because it might not be cleaner, but it's EASIER TO MAINTAIN GENITAL HYGINE

My dad had his done because his dad was religious, but I had it done because it's just cleaner, and you don't get the pain of have it pulled from a shit hand job

my gf has seen both with and without the helmet, and she prefers the latter...

 

[esperandote]

Persnoal opinion, only for phimosis and other conditions. But people can do with their own pennises what they want.

 

[Veritasiness]

If the risk of something worse than getting the foreskin chopped off later was significant I would be ok with it being performed for medical reasons at a young age.

Mutilation is defined as "to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of" or "to alter so as to make imperfect." The foreskin is not essential to life, and removing it does not cause lasting pain or injury that I'm aware of - of course, I can't remember having mine, so I can't really compare. It is not "mutilation" any more than having your appendix taken out is mutilation.

It should also be noted that at least in Jewish ritual, the person performing the circumcision (called the mohel) is required to have training in hygiene and surgical procedure.

 

[Baldry]

It shouldn't be banned and instead it should be optional to the owner of the genitalia and the child shouldn't be allowed to choose until later in there life unless of course it's for religious reasons in which case they can circumcise away.

So, if it's for religious purposes mutilating children is ok?

I say no one under 18 is allowed to be circumcised unless they have a serious medical reason to and when they're 18 they can do it for whatever reason they want whether it's religious or not.

BASICALLY! Yes. This is a old tradition that we've got to respect, it may not be the most humane thing but it's a old tradition.

 

[flying_whimsy]

There are good reasons, from hygienic and aesthetic standpoints, for men to have circumcisions; and it's an easy operation to perform on a baby (something about a bell method). I don't think it's necessary, but I don't see why it shouldn't be done.

For women, well, there's a lot of reasons that's wrong.

 

[mike1921]

If it's not a religious choice, I don't think it really matters. However, I am a Jew, and I don't understand how people can view something as simple as a circumcision as "mutilation" or "sick" - it's no sicker then shaving pubic hair or removing an offensive mole, just done for different reasons.
.

Lots of nerve endings there. I can't say the same thing about pubic hair or a mole. Especially since pubic hair comes back.

It shouldn't be banned and instead it should be optional to the owner of the genitalia and the child shouldn't be allowed to choose until later in there life unless of course it's for religious reasons in which case they can circumcise away.

So, if it's for religious purposes mutilating children is ok?

I say no one under 18 is allowed to be circumcised unless they have a serious medical reason to and when they're 18 they can do it for whatever reason they want whether it's religious or not.

BASICALLY! Yes. This is a old tradition that we've got to respect, it may not be the most humane thing but it's a old tradition.

No, no, no, no ,no , no. There is no need to respect abuse just because it's old. Things should be judged by their real merits, not age. Why should something being a tradition justify it? Man, I've never heard someone admit their logical fallacies so blatantly

 

[mirasiel]

I fail to see you point. My main point was that while it may be somewhat painful, and it may very well be, you won't remember it. It's kind of like getting gassed at the dentist. Honestly, how many here, at the Escapist that is, honestly miss the part of the penis they had for a short time after they were born?

I personally don't, because I don't remember even having it. So why ban the damn thing?

My point is that 'its easier to clean' isnt a valid reason for removing a part of someone elses body when the cleaning it requires is so minute as to be unnoticable in their daily routine.

If the hygiene defense is easily avoided by .2 seconds of thought and the STD issue sidestepped by a condom then all you are left with as a justification (outside of individual medical issues) is an appeal to tradition and I'm sorry that isnt good enough to mutilate people without their consent.

 

[Fwee]

... Because I'm COLD!!!