Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Deseptiron]

I say, remove everything that may cause any dangerous situations to arise.
Appendix, they burst and get you killed.
Sexual Organs, they transfer STDs and cause rapes.
Arms, they can be flailed around or used to operate weapons and vehicles.
Legs, if you can walk, you can run, if you can run, you can stumble and die (especially without your arms).
Teeth, you can chew wires with them and get electrocuted.
Or perhaps you could just stop banning everything and let people use their brains for a change.

 

[gillebro]

I'm relieved to hear that.

What do you mean they don't go into shock? they start falling asleep. that's shock.

i know people have circumcisions and go on to have normal lives and all that. i'm not going to tell somebody they're a total moron for choosing to have it done. I might question why they would want to lose half the nerve endings on their penis, but whatever... maybe they find they're oversensitive, or that sex is far too pleasurable for them, or something.

as for uncircumcised penises being harder to wash, well... i guess. extra folds and all, but heaps of us have to make do with our bits that are harder to wash than most other people's. i, for instance, am fat. those folds are a ***** to get clean, but i manage it. i apologise if that's tmi, but you hear what i'm saying. i don't think the fact that it's easier to clean is grounds enough to do it. i do however think that the fact that it sends babies into shock (sorry, i'm not going to agree with you on that matter. i've seen footage and it was alarming), it cuts off half the nerve endings down there, it was promoted by fundamentalist christians whose aim was to stop boys from touching themselves, it's unnecessary surgery and, hello, it makes your dick smaller!! is enough reason NOT to do it.

They don't go into shock though! I go to sleep every night, that isn't going into shock!

From a family of surgeons and doctors, I can assure you that in western countries, like the UK, babies are anesthetized like is standard procedure in all surgical operations. When my little brother was circumcised, he was bouncing up and down and a plastic toddler bike the very same night! He had a nappy on, and was on mild painkiller medication, but beyond that it's nothing.

As for personal hygiene, it's just that. Personal. I can't say that one guy had better hygiene than another, just because of a circumcision. I can only really go with the average

As for stopping the nerve endings that give you pleasure in sex, that's close to impossible to prove. Circumcised men have never complained about not enjoying sex, or have lost their sex drive because of it. Unlike a vasectomy or castration, nearly all of the organ and it's hormones are still there.

It's not unnecessary either. Some people need to do it, when they are born. Some have deformed foreskins, some catch them, some have too small a hole to pee through, or one that will rip the foreskin when the child becomes erect. All are very good reasons to remove it. There is no tangible benefit to keeping it, while there are several reasons a person might need to loose it.

Finally, it doesn't make your dick smaller. When you are erect, it is exactly the same size, as your foreskin retracts, and when it is flaccid, there may be only a couple of millimeters different, max. I don't know who you're trying to show off to with your flaccid penis, a lot of women aren't interested in them like that

Haha! I'm a bit too female to impress anybody with my penis, flaccid or erect, I'm afraid.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's getting late in this country and I don't want to go to bed all pissed off.

One more thing I will say though. Someday I want to be a mother. Call me a stereotypical GIRL, but I really want to have children one day. And the thought of subjecting them to that procedure when they're barely an hour old... I just couldn't do it. No baby deserves to go through that sort of pain, whether they'll remember it or not.

I'm actually kind of amazed that people are quite divided on this issue. I expected to be in the minority with me strong anti-circumcision views. just goes to show, hey?

 

[loremazd]

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.

That is completely untrue. Heck, Jesus was circumcised. In the end though, no, even in the old testament circumcision is mainly just a traditional thing. Essentially the whole thing was made to stop common infections of the foreskin back in those days and has been adopted as a tradition. Noe it isn't needed, but 2000 years of practice doesn't just vanish in a few decades.

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

Friction during intercourse is iscreased, which in turn increases the chance of microcuts, and the transmissal of STIs, unless I'm wrong.

You're wrong about friction being a medically valid reason for circumcision, not because what you said is medically inaccurate, but because there are better ways of reducing friction during intercourse than CUTTING OFF PART OF YOUR PENIS.

I've got two letters for anyone who thinks this is a medically valid reason for circumcision: "K" and "Y". Put 'em together.

And if you're worried about STIs or STDs, you should wear a rubber. Cutting off your foreskin won't prevent STDs, and even if it does help, it's still no substitute for wearing protection.

And if you're worried about keeping your dick clean, apparently you've got a serious mental handicap because you can't figure out how to pull back your foreskin and scrub out all the filth that collects under there.

This isn't quantum physics, people. There is no need for circumcision, and any of the medical "reasons" for circumcision can be easily circumvented by being conscientious and taking care of yourself (and your partner).

 

[Madara XIII]

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

Its not circumcision. Thats just a pretty word for "GENITAL MUTILATION". Its a sick and twisted act commited by demented and sick religious types.

Um, I got a circumcision and, despite their flaws, my parents are definitely NOT "demented and sick religious types."

And it is WAY better to get one as a baby than as an adult. It won't hurt nearly as much and you'll forget the pain anyway.

I don't really understand why people call it "mutilation". I mean, a foreskin is really just a useless extra layer of skin. If it were on ANY OTHER BODY PART no one would think twice about removing it. Of all the problems I have in my life, I don't think a single one can be traced back to not keeping my trouser snake's turtle neck.

^ This...

Jesus motherfucking christ though! Does every arrogant full of himself prick have to draw back to religion to blame rather than the choices of the people....

*Sigh* Sooner or later now a days it's going to be to the point where you're a flipping joke because you have a religion...FML

 

[Bobsonnn]

It should be a personal decision.

Personally, I wish I had been, just because having to 'yank' it down, or having it done so anyway, during sex, is a bit of an annoyance. But other than that, it's your penis, do whatever you want. So long as it's not a Lorena Bobbet.

 

[Sir_Tor]

I dislike it, it should be the person in question to decide wether or not to cut his foreskin. That's why I'm against it. (Yes even religous)

 

[persopolis]

how is cutting of your foreskin cosmetic ?

 

[zelda2fanboy]

The child abuse argument is also pretty weak. The reason I'm circumcised is because my grandfather wasn't. He didn't like having a foreskin and his brother had to have his painfully removed as an adult. Therefore, he decided my dad should be circumcised at birth so he didn't have to deal with it later on. Conversely, you could argue in that case that NOT getting his child circumcised is child abuse. He knew the risks and didn't like it, so he thought he was doing the best thing for his kid.

The human body isn't perfect. Thousands of years of evolution give us a lot of weird and strange quirks that may or may not be useful. Again, I would not have my son circumcised. I'm just saying that bans on things are bullshit. Change minds, not laws.

 

[Stephanos132]

I also agree, as with other posters, that the primary reasons are hygiene-based. If you have one, you have to clean under it really well, or there is a definite smell that women just don't like. Not only will sex be out of the question, but so will oral sex.

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

 

[Madara XIII]

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"?

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, this opens some rather interesting societal questions, and comes down to the rights of families. Speaking for the US there is no "easy" solution because it gets down to the desire to protect children against the right for parents to rear their own children.

I don't think singling out circumsician is a good idea, if you make policies on just that one thing it opens up all kinds of questions about discrimination and the like. On the other hand, it might not be a bad idea to put more rules on child rearing in general. Doing things like banning home schooling, prohibiting religious indoctrination of children, requiring American cultural indoctrination, and similar things might not be a bad idea.

When I say "American Cultural Indoctrination" that doesn't sound good, but right now I think one of our big problems is that we have immigrants coming into this country and then raising their kids as if they were members of the culture they came from, which leads to the conflicts with the rest of society. You have kids being raised in this country who don't speak or understand english very well, and who don't believe in American principles. The problem has gotten so bad that we have had issues with kids attaching flags to their bicycles that they are going to ride to and from school:

The latest on this (but there is tons of stuff if you check out the backround)

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/NorCal-Student-Gets-Special-Flag-Escort-to-School-108209819.html

The point here being that this became an issue because a school was concerned that it's students... who are apparently citizens, attending school paid for by American tax dollars, were offended by someone flying the US flag in the US, while they themselves were flying Mexican flags. The whole thing tied into the "Cinco De Mayo" celebration.

The problems here are both in terms of liberals being taken seriously on things like this for long enough to make it an issue to begin with, and also the very fact that we've allowed things to get so out of control that we have citizens who don't consider themselves Americans!

It's an all or nothing equasion however. If you prevent circumsician which is by and large a religious thing since apparently the medical benefits have been disproven, your effectively discriminating against specific religions. If your going to do it, you have to pretty much declare a universal ban to religious child rearing to everyone. You also need to define American standards because one of the first arguements is also going to be "cultural discrimination" and people making big deals about how things like this have been going on for centuries, or thousands of years. A point need to be made than when you come here as a citizen your no longer a member of that culture, your now an American, if you don't want to be an American you shouldn't be here.

Attached to this I also believe we need to have a mechanism to remove citizenship and deport people who have not adapted to life in the US, even if they have been here for a couple of generations.

Speaking for myself I pretty much feel that if you won't say "The Pledge Of Alligience" for any reason (it's a cultural thing, and if the religious line bothers you, consider it an anachronism like a lot of other odd cultural traits from other civilizations), you don't belong here. If you think of yourself as a Mexican, get upset over the US flag, and want to fly "your own" you shouldn't be a citizen. I don't much care if you were born here or not in a case like that, it's time for you to leave. If Mexico won't accept you, well then there is a whole globe for you to live on, just don't come here until your ready to be an American.

Such are my thoughts, though it goes well beyond circumsician.

That said I've been circumsized myself, and have no real issues with it. When I was a baby there were supposedly medical benefits to doing it. Today they claim there aren't. I haven't put enough thought into it to have a solid opinion on that.

The bottom line is that if it can be defended medically, then it's fine. If it can't be, then it needs to be stopped. But as I ramble on above about, that is going to involve addressing much bigger issues at the same time.

Even for religious reasons, you shouldn't need to have it done at birth. Just have the kid go through the procedure after becoming an adult. Let it be their choice what to do with their bodies... and what religious practices they want to go along with.

Sorry I'm picking out only one aspect of your argument to comment on, but it's the only one I had something to say about.

 

[Sporky111]

I would say absolutely ban it. If it's not for religious purposes, then what's the point? You are mutilating your child's genitals for no good reason. This point always confuses me: if you have a child who is uncircumcised, they will tell you NOT to try and pull back their foreskin before it does so on it's own. Because doing so can cause damage to the glans. And yet that's exactly what they do to an infant.

For the record, I was circumcised for non-religious reasons. And while nothing serious, I do have some feelings betrayal by my parent's. Mainly because I would NEVER chosen to do it if I had been given the choice, but I wasn't given the choice and now it's irreversible.

Medical, yes. Religious, fine. Cosmetic, please don't.

 

[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?

 

[Knusper]

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

O.T. There isn't usually a health risk attached, so I think it should only be strongly discouraged and people should be educated that it has no health benefits.

 

[WOPR]

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

Its not circumcision. Thats just a pretty word for "GENITAL MUTILATION". Its a sick and twisted act commited by demented and sick religious types.

I agree, and want to kill my dad for doing it to me for "medical reasons" (which were later proven false)

I feel like I was half-amputated!

and anyone who thinks this is fine to do to your kids, either hasn't had it happen, or should be burned at the stake!

 

[Verlander]

Haha! I'm a bit too female to impress anybody with my penis, flaccid or erect, I'm afraid.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's getting late in this country and I don't want to go to bed all pissed off.

One more thing I will say though. Someday I want to be a mother. Call me a stereotypical GIRL, but I really want to have children one day. And the thought of subjecting them to that procedure when they're barely an hour old... I just couldn't do it. No baby deserves to go through that sort of pain, whether they'll remember it or not.

I'm actually kind of amazed that people are quite divided on this issue. I expected to be in the minority with me strong anti-circumcision views. just goes to show, hey?

Ha, no worries As a male who's had one, I've had much more painful scraped knees. It doesn't hurt at all.

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.

Friction during intercourse is iscreased, which in turn increases the chance of microcuts, and the transmissal of STIs, unless I'm wrong.

That's not a problem as long as you don't hump concrete or wood With a circumcised person, the sex is little to no different to a non circumcised person. In fact, with less loose skin flopping about, I'd go so far as to argue the other way, as foreskins can get painfully caught in both oral and vaginal sex (anal too, probably).

 

[loremazd]

I'm relieved to hear that.

What do you mean they don't go into shock? they start falling asleep. that's shock.

i know people have circumcisions and go on to have normal lives and all that. i'm not going to tell somebody they're a total moron for choosing to have it done. I might question why they would want to lose half the nerve endings on their penis, but whatever... maybe they find they're oversensitive, or that sex is far too pleasurable for them, or something.

as for uncircumcised penises being harder to wash, well... i guess. extra folds and all, but heaps of us have to make do with our bits that are harder to wash than most other people's. i, for instance, am fat. those folds are a ***** to get clean, but i manage it. i apologise if that's tmi, but you hear what i'm saying. i don't think the fact that it's easier to clean is grounds enough to do it. i do however think that the fact that it sends babies into shock (sorry, i'm not going to agree with you on that matter. i've seen footage and it was alarming), it cuts off half the nerve endings down there, it was promoted by fundamentalist christians whose aim was to stop boys from touching themselves, it's unnecessary surgery and, hello, it makes your dick smaller!! is enough reason NOT to do it.

They don't go into shock though! I go to sleep every night, that isn't going into shock!

From a family of surgeons and doctors, I can assure you that in western countries, like the UK, babies are anesthetized like is standard procedure in all surgical operations. When my little brother was circumcised, he was bouncing up and down and a plastic toddler bike the very same night! He had a nappy on, and was on mild painkiller medication, but beyond that it's nothing.

As for personal hygiene, it's just that. Personal. I can't say that one guy had better hygiene than another, just because of a circumcision. I can only really go with the average

As for stopping the nerve endings that give you pleasure in sex, that's close to impossible to prove. Circumcised men have never complained about not enjoying sex, or have lost their sex drive because of it. Unlike a vasectomy or castration, nearly all of the organ and it's hormones are still there.

It's not unnecessary either. Some people need to do it, when they are born. Some have deformed foreskins, some catch them, some have too small a hole to pee through, or one that will rip the foreskin when the child becomes erect. All are very good reasons to remove it. There is no tangible benefit to keeping it, while there are several reasons a person might need to loose it.

Finally, it doesn't make your dick smaller. When you are erect, it is exactly the same size, as your foreskin retracts, and when it is flaccid, there may be only a couple of millimeters different, max. I don't know who you're trying to show off to with your flaccid penis, a lot of women aren't interested in them like that

Haha! I'm a bit too female to impress anybody with my penis, flaccid or erect, I'm afraid.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's getting late in this country and I don't want to go to bed all pissed off.

One more thing I will say though. Someday I want to be a mother. Call me a stereotypical GIRL, but I really want to have children one day. And the thought of subjecting them to that procedure when they're barely an hour old... I just couldn't do it. No baby deserves to go through that sort of pain, whether they'll remember it or not.

I'm actually kind of amazed that people are quite divided on this issue. I expected to be in the minority with me strong anti-circumcision views. just goes to show, hey?

I think it's the idea that it's the -penis- and it happens to be the biggest pressure given to males. Most of us in the western world are circumcised, and thus it's a normality to us. For the most part, the tradition of it means less than a desire to have your children be "normal" during a time when it's relatively safe and any pain is beyond affecting them. Personally I think too much of a hubub is put into this. I've always felt that if you feel strongly about it, dont have circumcisions performed on your children.

Also, wanting children is not a stereotypical girl, that's a stereotypical human.