Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Koroviev]

Why ban it? It's quick and clean, done at a time when the child will not feel pain, helps keep the kid healthier when they get older and (despite so may people saying it) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DETRACTS FROM SEXUAL PLEASURE!

That one is the big one, the eroneous belief that a man feels LESS sensation when he's circumsized than if he weren't. For one....prove it. Two, circumsized men still are capable of reaching climax, still capable of pleasing their partners, and ladies.....do you really want men to have a MORE sensitive penis?

Male circumcision is nowhere near tha same as female. Female circumcision's SOLE PURPOSE is to prevent women from feeling pleasure. It's mutilation with malicious intent.

Infants don't feel pain? What? /:

 

[Koroviev]

There are medical reasons someone may need to have a circumcision, and at the end of the day there are health benefits to it as well. There are plenty of medical studies stating that the likelihood of STD's drop dramatically among circumcised men. Obviously that's dependent on lifestyle choice, but also majorly because it's easier to keep clean.

Also sounds like the anti semetic brigade to me. I kinda want to get rid of Jews, just so we can get rid of anti semites (jk)

I'm sure I disagree with virtually everyone about something. A religious creed is no different. I can disagree with an aspect of something and not despise it. If I were to say I wanted to ban the Jewish faith, then I'd really be throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

And the medical benefits really aren't that significant. If we really want to slow the spread of AIDS, we need to promote condoms, which protect both genders, not calloused penises that haphazardly protect men up until they very likely don't.

There are other medical benefits. Some children are circumcised at birth or at a young age for a different reason. At the end of the day, it's just a piece of skin. People have moles removed because they have a high tendency to become cancerous, and that's a potential problem. It you are born with an actual problem or an abnormality, it may need to be removed.

The problems arising from circumcision are almost non existent. Scrap what I said about the anti semetic brigade-this sounds like threatened men panicking. Oh noes, they chop bits off of our bits! People need to grow up and deal with it. It's pathetic how some men set so much store by this, when in this day and age, a real man is determined by other factors. I'm surprised this is happening in San Fran, because I've heard arguments like this for ages, and they are all very right wing arguments.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about condoms and suchlike though. Although calloused? Have you ever seen a circumcised penis?

I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, but I am now having trouble locating it. It was something about scar tissue, not callousing. However, I cannot find the source at present; you have complete justification to ignore it. Also, I'd like to edit an earlier comment in which I said that circumcision is 40% effective at blocking STD transmission. It should have been 60% [http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html]. That will teach me to think I can remember things from past online discussions -__-;

Edit: Finally found a source on scarring from circumcision. Wikipedia: circumcision scar. Not linking it; don't want to be banned. The article has valid sources.

 

[cobra_ky]

There was a Jewish doctor who was circumcising babies with his teeth (as part of a particular religious doctrine, I'm not saying all Jewish people do this. My reference is the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens so yes biased by this is not just some rumour) and this lead to some of the children catching Herpes, not the strictly true "herpes" which is transmitted through sexual intercourse but the type which normally forms cold sores on lips. Practises like this I say should go.

you've been misinformed. There is a practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction, in which the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. Traditionally this was done as an attempt to avoid complications, but as you say this has been linked to the transmission of herpes. Only the most Orthodox Jews practiced this to begin with, and the ones that still do are advised to use a sterile glass tube.

the bottom line is that rabbis aren't going around biting the foreskins off of infants.

Oh I was never suggesting they were and I do apologise if it read as such, I was brining up one example that I know of. I was not making a blanket accusation of the Jewish people or faith. And if I have been misinformed I do apologise, like I say the text was biased and biting off does sound worse then sucking out blood.

I still stand by that this practise should stop, no matter how uncommon it is.

Honestly, even as a (Reform) Jew, I'd never even heard of the practice until a thread like this one with someone shouting "THEY'RE BITING DICKS OFF!!!!!11". you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just wanted to make sure it was based on actual facts.

 

[Verlander]

I think as an adult you should be allowed to do whatever you damn well want (also i think fellas, if you were to chop part of your junk off, neither you nor your lady partners would thank you), but circumcising baby boys is cruel. it hurts them so much that they go into shock.

No they don't

And there are many many women who prefer it. You don't loose any size to your penis, you realise this? Maybe a could of millimeters when it's flaccid

it has no medical benefits at all (what is this crap about circumcised penises being cleaner? seriously? it's called WASHING)

You'd be amazed how many people can't do it properly. Other than that it's very difficult to keep a hooded penis as clean as a circumsised one

and it's just inhumane! i'm so glad that in australia and england it isn't as practiced as it is in america.

You may surprised, but it's done loads. The only differnece between the US and the rest of the world, is that there are more circumisions done for religious reasons.

i dunno, yanks... i heard somewhere that you have to request not to have your child circumcised now. please tell me that's not true...

It's not true. Don't feel all threatened about circumcisions, it's absolutely nothing. Generally people feel squeamish about them because they are uneducated, or they believe silly rumours. I suppose if you relate the concept of circumcision to castration, it can be scary, but the reality is far from it. The foreskin is rather like the human tail-useless thanks to evolution, but with no reason to loose it fully. Thousands of people (perhaps millions) have circumcisions, and have very very normal lives. There is nothing wrong or humiliating, or mutilating about it, not unless you are a very shallow and simple human being. Female circumcision, now that's a different matter altogether

I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, but I am now having trouble locating it. It was something about scar tissue, not callousing. However, I cannot find the source at present; you have complete justification to ignore it. Also, I'd like to edit an earlier comment in which I said that circumcision is 40% effective at blocking STD transmission. It should have been 60% [http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html]. That will teach me to think I can remember things from past online discussions -__-;

Ha, no worries my friend

 

[JaredXE]

Infants don't feel pain? What? /:

Sorry, I immediately went back and edited it to don't REMEMBER pain, but you must have quoted me before that happened.

 

[Kirch Libre]

Okay call me evil but the last thing I want to see on a grown man is "Mr. Baldy with his turtleneck still on."

Also, dick cheese.

 

[Boba Frag]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

 

[Justank]

I apologize for this, I do need to provide a source. I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, and yes, I am aware of WHO's stance on male circumcision, at least as it concerns developing nations. I have a feeling I should have said scar tissue, but until I locate the source, you can disregard my comments.

All good man, I was just curious. I'd never heard of it before, and my current girl was actually surprised at how soft the skin is, so I just wanted to know.

 

[Sandernista]

Don't ban it!

It looks better

 

[Koroviev]

Infants don't feel pain? What? /:

Sorry, I immediately went back and edited it to don't REMEMBER pain, but you must have quoted me before that happened.

Okay, that's a lot different XD

 

[Eisenfaust]

meh? as far as i can tell, not alot of guys go around saying "damn, i wish i had foreskin".

To be perfectly honest most of us that had it done, had it done as babies, you grow up thinking it is "normal" until you start high school and sharing showers after PE. I think I was about 11 or 12 before I saw a dude who had foreskin and I thought he had a deformity. Boy that was an embarrassing conversation with my teacher. If I actually knew the difference between sensitivity during sexual encounters I might be pretty damn pissed off with my parents, but I don't, so I'm rather indifferent when it comes to my own bait and tackle , but when considering it's future as a practice I don't see why it should continue really.

Parents decide on the method of raising the child

Using that logic we shouldn't ban female circumcision either, after all they can still reproduce, what does it matter if they enjoy it or not... Like it or not we have a great many laws that limit the amount of choices parents can make regarding their children, we have compulsory education, standards of care that must be met or they child is taken away, etc.

in... fairness, that was entirely not what i meant... actually put the whole point i made in next time... which was that that the parental role has far more potential for impact (even within the pervue of legality). I was not simply saying that parents get to decide what happens, the end, go home, but rather that there are bigger influences than the removal of an inch or two of skin that may or may not have any effect in the long run, and thus more important things to focus on, legislatively. As for confusion caused by seeing someone different to yourself, surely that's part and parcel with a much wider range of issues than JUST circumcision, and not all of them as easily explainable either...

beyond that female circumcision is obviously a *tad* more severe, given it's robbing them of staisfaction of a base human physiological and psychological drive, rather than merely possibly affecting sensitivity to a unknown degree in an unknown direction through a procedure that has been practiced in one form or another without grand incedent for thousands of years.

 

[astrav1]

I prefer uncircumcised penises, both visually and sexually.

I think circumcision on infants for no medical reason should be banned, yes.

I thought you said you were a lesbian. On another note, I say there's not a whole lot wrong with it. I was circumcised for no reason and happy with it.

Not really sure what I am.

Don't care too much, to be honest. I just go with what I like at the time.

Oh. Well that clears things up then.

 

[Koroviev]

I apologize for this, I do need to provide a source. I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, and yes, I am aware of WHO's stance on male circumcision, at least as it concerns developing nations. I have a feeling I should have said scar tissue, but until I locate the source, you can disregard my comments.

All good man, I was just curious. I'd never heard of it before, and my current girl was actually surprised at how soft the skin is, so I just wanted to know.

It's actually called a circumcision scar. You can look it up through Wikipedia, which provides sources for further information. I'm pretty sure that tissue has something to do with preventing HIV transmission, but I don't want to dig myself deeper by stating as fact right now XD

 

[blackwind14]

My personal opinion is to ban it outright, with the provision for a medical need. I feel I must make it clear this makes religious circumcision illegal as well. Religion should not factor into any medical procedure. I'm looking at you, Jehovah's witnesses.

 

[Lusty]

Unnecessary surgery on babies = bad.

 

[Koroviev]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Koroviev]

Unnecessary surgery on babies = bad.

It's not a fact. Based on the circumstances in developed nations, I think it's an unfair practice, but I can't say with any authority that it is unequivocally bad.

 

[Diligent]

People who are circumcised always spout the same argument for circumcision, and I don't get it.
I'm pretty sick of all the misconceptions about it. There is absolutely no reason to do it "just because".
I've lived 27 years uncircumcised and have not had any issues with cleanliness. It absolutely does detract from sexual pleasure, weather you know it or not, because there are TONS of nerve endings in the foreskin, which also protects the head of the penis and keeps it more sensitive. Also, it is not simply a bit of extra superfluous skin "like a finger nail" as an earlier post said, circumcision involves removing half the surface area of the penis.

Watch this video, listen to the baby screaming, then shut the fuck up.
WARNING, REALLY GRAPHIC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuDhkiDdns

 

[messy]

There was a Jewish doctor who was circumcising babies with his teeth (as part of a particular religious doctrine, I'm not saying all Jewish people do this. My reference is the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens so yes biased by this is not just some rumour) and this lead to some of the children catching Herpes, not the strictly true "herpes" which is transmitted through sexual intercourse but the type which normally forms cold sores on lips. Practises like this I say should go.

you've been misinformed. There is a practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction, in which the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. Traditionally this was done as an attempt to avoid complications, but as you say this has been linked to the transmission of herpes. Only the most Orthodox Jews practiced this to begin with, and the ones that still do are advised to use a sterile glass tube.

the bottom line is that rabbis aren't going around biting the foreskins off of infants.

Oh I was never suggesting they were and I do apologise if it read as such, I was brining up one example that I know of. I was not making a blanket accusation of the Jewish people or faith. And if I have been misinformed I do apologise, like I say the text was biased and biting off does sound worse then sucking out blood.

I still stand by that this practise should stop, no matter how uncommon it is.

Honestly, even as a (Reform) Jew, I'd never even heard of the practice until a thread like this one with someone shouting "THEY'RE BITING DICKS OFF!!!!!11". you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just wanted to make sure it was based on actual facts.

Cheers, in all honesty (although odds are this comes off as sarcastic). No point going into this sort of debate without all the facts.

 

[Koroviev]

My personal opinion is to ban it outright, with the provision for a medical need. I feel I must make it clear this makes religious circumcision illegal as well. Religion should not factor into any medical procedure. I'm looking at you, Jehovah's witnesses.

Religious people are not the only ones who support it, though. There are plenty of people who opt to have it performed on their children for cosmetic reasons. Either way I disagree with the practice.