Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[tkioz]

It is done for health reasons. In the mid 20th century it was discovered that circumcision reduces the likely hood of a number of health issues for both men and their sexual partners. This lead to a mojor push to make cirumcision as norm. Many men were reluctant, until their significant others said, no snip, no sex... circumcision became the norm.

Considering it is done as a preventative health procedure, I can't imagine why anyone would want to ban it. It's like a getting your tonsles out, get it done young and get it overwith.

And they've since found out that the medical benefits are very very small, something like a fraction of a percentage or something if I remember the recent studies, there is the cleanliness argument, but honestly that's bullshit, if a dude doesn't wash his junk it's his own damn fault if he gets an infection, and if a woman (or dude) lets some dude with a smelly dirty horrible penis stick it inside them, that's their own damn fault too.

Oh and on the subject of tonsils and the appendix, recent studies have shown that both provide a valid service and the vast majority of removals are unneeded and have a negative effect, in the case of tonsils it can increase the chance of getting infections.

 

[Valksy]

Female circumcision is illegal in the UK but male is not. I am not sure that I understand why. I have a real problem with people making that choice for their children without their consent and believe it should be banned. Other than for medical reasons, it should be an issue of choice for the individual.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If you're worried about it, it can be reversed.

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

 

[Gigano]

I believe it should be banned to submit your child to an unnecessary medical procedure long before it is mentally and legally able to give consent to such an irreversible thing. Inflicting unnecessary physical pain (and disfigurement if later on if it comes to resent the physical change, or the unnecessary operation goes awry) upon your own child is barbaric.

If any adults want it, that's entirely their choice, provided they pay the expense themselves since there's no medical reason for the procedure.

 

[Aurgelmir]

You would not operate on a childs healty nose, to make it look different.
So cosmetic circumsision is a no no in my book.

I also know there are girls out there that think uncut penises are "eeewww"
To them I say: I think natural breasts are eeeew

I don't dislike natural breasts But the point stands the same. If there is one common cosmetic surgery that seems to be socially accepted it is circumsision. And I dislike that in some countries you are "abnormal" for being normal

I am glad it is not a common practice to cut off part og boys manhood here in Norway.

 

[tkioz]

Personally I'm not a big fan of any forced circumcision, religious or otherwise. Let them hit 18 and see if they want it.

But more than that, people (religious or not) need to take a good step back and ask themselves why they're doing it. Okay so if you're Jewish you get it cut early, but what purpose does that serve? I'm sure there was some perfectly valid reason 2000 years ago, perhaps to do with their concept of hygiene or even chastity (nip the tip and they'll be less tempted to touch it, maybe), but is it still even relevant? Is there some passage in the Jewish Bible stating "Thou shalt slit thy johnson because God demands it"? Because if there isn't (and even then) I think it needs a serious re-examination as a tradition.

I don't think it's so much to do with 'their concept' as it is to do with good old regular hygiene. A surprising amount of the Jewish religious restrictions make perfectly good sense when viewed in the context of where and when they lived.

A lot of taboos make a great deal of sense if you step back and think about them.

The probations against "the ingestion of blood" that the Jehovah's Witness get mocked about today makes a massive amount of sense if viewed in context of the time, drinking human blood or eating human flesh is a very very bad idea, you can catch normally non-transmutable illnesses that way (famous case of prion disease that kept getting passed down in the same tribe because when someone died their family would eat their brain in a ritual).

The taboo against eating pork also has a very good reason behind it if viewed in context, undercooked pork is a great way to get very sick.

There are many other religious taboos that make more sense if you view them in context of the time when they came into effect, a lot of them started off as practical daily rules that just became dogma over time.

 

[Valksy]

Female circumcision is illegal in the UK but male is not. I am not sure that I understand why.

Female circumcision causes permanent damage, whilst the Male variety only causes temporary pain and risk of a botched operation/infection, but afterwards the genitals function normally.

Erm. I don't actually possess the tackle in question so excuse my ignorance (I'm also gay so have never had any hands on either) but... isn't there an argument that tactile function is better for non-circumcised males? And therefore the pleasure function is better?

Or am I getting that wrong completely?

Plus the risk of botching or infection should be enough to warn people off. But then hell, I don't like seeing babies/toddlers with pierced ears either, let alone chopping bits off.

 

[Wutaiflea]

I think cosmetic circumcision is a personal choice. I don't see why parents would make their choice for their kids.

On the medical front, I have known two guys who chose to be circumcised for health/comfort reasons.

 

[Koroviev]

Eh, the choice should the person's own, not their parents, their neighbor, or their honourable chairman/other leader.
All I have to say on the matter, really.

Yes, exactly. I've known guys who defend it, not because they believe in the practice, but because they say it doesn't bother them and that it's not a big deal. Well, that's good for them, but that doesn't help the people who didn't want it. And if it's really a trivial matter, then why can't parents just leave their kid's genitals alone? It seems like a fairly reasonable request /:

(This post is protected against appeals to tradition. Don't even try.)

 

[Koroviev]

If you're worried about it, it can be reversed.

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

Or, parents could just not be permitted to do it in the first place /:

 

[Hateren47]

It is done for health reasons. In the mid 20th century it was discovered that circumcision reduces the likely hood of a number of health issues for both men and their sexual partners. This lead to a mojor push to make cirumcision as norm. Many men were reluctant, until their significant others said, no snip, no sex... circumcision became the norm.

Considering it is done as a preventative health procedure, I can't imagine why anyone would want to ban it. It's like a getting your tonsles out, get it done young and get it overwith.

Edit: I though I should expand on that a bit. Health issues were related to the buildup of bacteria, persperation, dead skin, etc. under the foreskin.

There is no conclusive evidence that circumcision has any health benefits other than thicker, less sensitive skin. I'd rather just shower daily and use condoms when engaging in random encounters of the sexual kind if it means I can keep the turtle-neck and the accompanying sensitivity. I can't imagine having regular skin down there.

I'm with the ban genital mutilation on children-crowd on this one.

Also you should hold on to you tonsils as long as you can. Functions of palatine tonsils [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_tonsils#Functions_of_palatine_tonsils] on wikipedia.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

There are many medical conditions that affect the foreskin, but almost none of them require full curcumcision. It used tho have benefits for hygene but that was back in the day when people didn't shower everyday, so now it's pointless if not for a religious reason. There shouldnt be a ban on it, but let them decide for themselves whe they're old enough.

 

[Koroviev]

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.

This is actually an appeal to tradition, and it's illogical, mmkay? No, we should not allow something to continue just because our scientifically retarded ancestors thought it was a good idea to appease the gods or something. Think of all the shit there would be if we just let appeals to tradition slide. We'd still be lynching common folk, drawing and quartering the aristocrats, and having righteous duels for a woman's honor XD

 

[aseelt]

Circumcision slows the spread of HIV as the foreskin is prone to tearing and thus allowing entry of HIV. So no, it shouldn't be banned.

Also cut dudes get more blowjobs (true story!)

 

[manythings]

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?

I honestly don't know if there is any medial reason for it. Wait I tell a lie I recall a vague story about a French King from High School whose foreskin could not be retracted, he go err go number 1, but not any of his "Kingly Duties" to his wife, it was only after some nasty and horrible primitive version of it was he able to provide an hair.

But as I said that's only a vague memory, so I could be totally wrong. It's past 1am here and I'm so not going on a wiki hunt that will keep me up until dawn.

However I'm not talking about banning it if there is a real medical reason, I honestly don't think that's is what is being proposed by the legislators, but for what basically boils down to cosmetic reasons.

Speaking for myself, while I can't imagine myself with a foreskin, I doubt I'd have chosen to have it done to myself. I also can't imagine myself with blue eyes or smaller feet, it's just something I so use to.

There are medical reasons for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanitis as two.

I don't believe it should be banned at all. I agree with not performing it on children provided there is no medical reason or religious tradition - but the same goes for any and all cosmetic surgery. You can do what you please with your own body, provided you can be certified as being in a healthy state of mind by a medical professional.

The "medical" reason was invented in the late 1800's-early 1900's by puritan douchebags, like Kellogg(as in Kellogg's cereal) and Graham(Gram? as in Graham crackers), who wanted guys to wank less and go to church more. Yes it was an obsession of Kellogg to stop masturbation because he blamed it for all the woes of the world. He LITERALLY believed cereal would basically ruin the human sex drive and thusly we would only have sex to procreate and never masturbate again.

They gloss over that fact in histories controlled by the PR department.

But Wiki is ever our friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
And another for luck: http://www.nndb.com/people/018/000133616/

 

[Kenko]

Every christian who gets a circumcision goes to hell. ENJOY THAT FACT. You think you know better then god? He made you in his own image and his image is not good enough for you? Haha, burn in your own hell.

 

[manythings]

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.

This is actually an appeal to tradition, and it's illogical, mmkay? No, we should not allow something to continue just because our scientifically retarded ancestors thought it was a good idea to appease the gods or something. Think of all the shit there would be if we just let appeals to tradition slide. We'd still be lynching common folk, drawing and quartering the aristocrats, and having righteous duels for a woman's honor XD

We could always do with fewer aristocrats...

 

[Koroviev]

It is done for health reasons. In the mid 20th century it was discovered that circumcision reduces the likely hood of a number of health issues for both men and their sexual partners. This lead to a mojor push to make cirumcision as norm. Many men were reluctant, until their significant others said, no snip, no sex... circumcision became the norm.

Considering it is done as a preventative health procedure, I can't imagine why anyone would want to ban it. It's like a getting your tonsles out, get it done young and get it overwith.

Edit: I though I should expand on that a bit. Health issues were related to the buildup of bacteria, persperation, dead skin, etc. under the foreskin.

There is no conclusive evidence that circumcision has any health benefits other than thicker, less sensitive skin. I'd rather just shower daily and use condoms when engaging in random encounters of the sexual kind if it means I can keep the turtle-neck and the accompanying sensitivity. I can't imagine having regular skin down there.

I'm with the ban genital mutilation on children-crowd on this one.

Also you should hold on to you tonsils as long as you can. Functions of palatine tonsils [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_tonsils#Functions_of_palatine_tonsils] on wikipedia.

I don't think circumcision is good for anyone, really. WHO found that circumcision is about 40% effective in preventing STD transmission. And it's not like it protects women from contracting the disease. It's just an incentive for trying to get by with a calloused phallus in lieu of a using a condom. I don't think we should encourage that.

 

[Eisenfaust]

meh? as far as i can tell, not alot of guys go around saying "damn, i wish i had foreskin". While sure, it's "cosmetic" in the sense that it isn't (necessarily) required, i don't really think that it's cometic in the same realm as boob jobs and face lifts, given that it's not really vanity if it's attributed by another party, etc, etc. Parents decide on the method of raising the child, in terms of schooling, beliefs, practices and traditions, and there exists the potential to (easily) cause far greater harm than the removal of an inch of skin that doesn't really serve a (dramatically relevant) purpose. sure, the arguement that there are worse things out there isn't really one for it's legitimacy, but nevertheless, it doesn't really seem like THAT big an issue that's affecting THAT many lives...

essentially, banning circumcision is a waste of legislation, although the parliamentary arguements would make for hilarious times... ultimately, people will listen to the doctor's normally anyway, so just let it go... there's no need to be the Penis Protectors...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If you're worried about it, it can be reversed.

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

Or, parents could just not be permitted to do it in the first place /:

I think there's probably better things to legislate against parents doing first.

Like child abuse, emotional abuse, beatings, divorcing or many of the other things that we're still powerless to avoid.

But, if you want to legislate against all the things parents could do wrong, you'd have to include smoking, drinking, taking time off, working, hanging babies out of windows, smacking, shouting, sleeping...

Perhaps, and this is just a thought, its up to the parents to bring up their own child? Given that they brought them into the world? Rather than a group of "concerned" citizens who just want the child protected in anyway.

Coz that really doesn't seem to have worked.