Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?

[maninahat]

Circumcision is something that can't be undone and is highly personal. No-one should tell you how your genitals should be, so making the decision on behalf of a child is just wrong in my opinion - the exception being medical reasons of course.

That's an interesting view, because of its applicability to many other areas. Parents will always presume to know what is right for their child, and will make decisions on its behalf, even when the child adamantly doesn't want it. If my kid really didn't want me investing in premium bonds for him (instead wanting me to buy him more toys), should I do what the kid says? He doen't know what is best for himself to make the right decision. But perhaps I feel it is necessary to do that on his behalf (by the time he is old enough to understand what premium bonds are, I might have already blown the cash I would have spent on them buying myself a pool table).

The issue for me isn't letting the child make a decision: it's the irreversible nature of any 'mistakes' or misjudgements that are made. Using your example, if you blew your money away you certainly would not be able to get it back immediately, but over time you could. Circumcision does not work like that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think kids should have the say-so over their genitals particularly either. It would difficult to say when exactly it would be best to 'ask permission' from a child or indeed ask their opinion, but this is still a much more preferable option to just doing it.

To me, it would be like tattooing my baby with a rock-band logo from birth.

I think more research should be arranged to study the potential benefits of a baby Iron Maiden tattoos before we can write that off.

 

[PunkyMcGee]

snip

snip

I never said it would outright traumatize you, I said it could.

Also, your subconscious mind is largely out of your perception and control, that's why it called SUBconscious . It's quite possible for something to greatly effected your subconscious mind when you don't even remember it.

If I asked you, why is X your favorite food, why do you like the color X, could you come up with a thorough description of what goes on in your mind when you experienced said thing?

I still don't see your point. As far as I can tell your talking about insignificant differences. So what if my favorite color is green instead of red, or if I play the drums but not the piano. I still live a healthy life.

I will say this, yes your subconscious can file away things that memory can't. I apparently almost drowned as a baby, and might be why I never learned how to swim. However, not having a flap of at the end of my penis has no baring on me at all, even if it could grow back I wouldn't want it to. The idea of it just sounds gross to me.

 

[Nemitri]

I've never been circumcised, and I don't plan on ever having it done. I can't stand the idea of the pain... But everyone I know is circumcised, and it makes it weird. I'm considered a freak...

You are a freak for not having an unnatural procedure done to you? Irony is a cruel mistress...

 

[Ham_authority95]

I'm circumcised. Don't remember a damn thing about it either. Doesn't matter to me one bit.

Yet another person stealing my response! Damn you!

 

[nothinghere]

the penius is often refered to as your third leg right? Well lets say when you were born they decided to chop of your toes so you were more like everyone else, how would you feel? Of course now you'll lose a bit of balance but look, You don't have to clean inbetween your toes no more? Now that its not there anymore it can't get infected, and plus look at how good it looks, instead of all these bony little twigs coming off your feet its nice and rounded, doesn't it look wonderful!?

^ great argument huh /sarcasm

 

[Varya]

...hygiene is DECREASED by circumcision, because you cut away the protective foreskin.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Does that mean my skin in general is less hygienic because it lacks a loose layer of skin on top? The "increased hygiene" of circumcision refers to the lack of a need to clean beneath the foreskin, where dirt can get trapped. It isn't something which can't be helped by just taking the time to wash down there though (unless you have the forementioned problem of tightness...like I once had).

On another note, why does circumcision always erupt into massive debates online? Why is it such an attractive topic? Are people just predisposed to argue about dicks for dozens of pages?

How doesn't that make sense? It's soft tissue, it shouldn't be exposed to the elements,would you cut off your eyelids? Basically the same thing, if a bit more extreme. The foreskin protects against foreign elements like dirt, but of course you have to clean it, but it really isn't that hard to do. No difficult motions or anything, most of us know how to pull our foreskin back and forth, just have to remember to give the little bugger a scrub. BOOM no cancer, still got your skin.

 

[Ham_authority95]

EDIT: Wait... That might be a good thing. What about all those men who buy those numbing-gel condoms so they don't come as fast and last longer? That's a point in favor of the loss of sensation I never thought of before, and it's a strong point.

For me, having less sensation is better because I cum way too fast(to the point of needing to masturbate before I have sex so I won't blow my load too fast), so this argument carries more weight than most in this thread.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

No it isn't - unfortunately, because it is in fact a topic worthy of debating. However, no guy wants to admit that their manhood is 'inferior' to someone else's so both sides have a massive bias.

My "bias" is particularly massive. Heh heh.

Ok, sorry about that.

But seriously, there is one difference in the bias. Circumcised men are stuck with what they have. Uncircumcised men are not.

Maybe all blokes should leave this thread and leave the debate to the women who can be more objective...

Isn't that sort of like leaving the debate about female circumcision solely up to men? I mean, isn't it sort of a *problem* that they don't have a stake in it?

 

[BringBackBuck]

There are risks associated with circumcision. It is an operation, and all operations have risks. *Occasionally* it goes wrong.

There was a case recently in NZ where it all went horribly wrong and some kid ended up in hospital. I'll see if I can find it.

Here we go:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3139627/Four-year-old-hospitalised-after-botched-circumcision

 

[Varya]

snip

snip

I never said it would outright traumatize you, I said it could.

Also, your subconscious mind is largely out of your perception and control, that's why it called SUBconscious . It's quite possible for something to greatly effected your subconscious mind when you don't even remember it.

If I asked you, why is X your favorite food, why do you like the color X, could you come up with a thorough description of what goes on in your mind when you experienced said thing?

I still don't see your point. As far as I can tell your talking about insignificant differences. So what if my favorite color is green instead of red, or if I play the drums but not the piano. I still live a healthy life.

I will say this, yes your subconscious can file away things that memory can't. I apparently almost drowned as a baby, and might be why I never learned how to swim. However, not having a flap of at the end of my penis has no baring on me at all, even if it could grow back I wouldn't want it to. The idea of it just sounds gross to me.

It matters not because of what happened to you per se, but what could happen. A child should not be deprived of a choice, exposed to a risk, go through pain, (no, not even if the child wont remember) for a procedure with no proven benefits and several proven risks.

 

[Nova Helix]

There is no damage done in the process so its not exactly like hacking off a toddlers digits. Besides, it doesn't affect your life enough to justify bitching. Now if my parents had the tips of my fingers shaved... I would certainly let the bitching commence.

There is damage done. That has one of the highest densities of nerves in your body and mutilates the child, it is also suppose to make sex less pleasurable for the woman (that is anecdotal but still makes sense-less to stimulate the woman). If you had you pinky tip cut off it would not impair your ability to function and would have the same benefits of circumcision.

Besides if the grown man wants one later for cosmetic reasons he can have it done, there is no reason to do it to babies.

 

[Ishadus]

Well, it's no skin off my nose....

lol that's awesome.

Anyway regarding my opinion, I don't believe in unnecessary surgeries ever, least of all in children. Aesthetic arguments are pointless as people will have different opinions on what looks better.

You think circumsion is awesome? Then great, go and cut stuff off. However, people for circumsion never seem to have a counter argument to the importance of choice. It's not YOUR body, so why should you choose how to alter it? I think people with dozens of piercings/tattoos are gross, but it's their body to do what they want with.

The loss of sexual sensitivity is also fact, although the numbers of 40-50% seem rather contrived to me. I'd have to see a lot of primary source research in peer-reviewed journals before I'd believe something like that. This can either be a pro or a con depending on the individual, however. So, again, the importance of choice.

I never understood the cleanliness argument. Exactly how lazy are people? It's a small extra bit of surface area to wash. The fact that people take this and run with it to the point of horror stories about increased chance of disease is ridiculous. Not washing increases chance of infection - news at 11.

 

[WolfThomas]

I'm uncircumcised, my father was circumcised as a baby and he was pissed off that his parent's did it to him with out his consent. So he left it up to me. I've had two friends who both had to be circumcised for medical reasons (one for an acute para-phimosis, the other just tore his foreskin during rough sex), both of them haven't really noticed a difference except that masturbation is more difficult (requires lubricants, while previous the skin move well enough by itself).

I've remained uncircumsied. I don't really see the point, cleaning is easy. I feel that it should be a man's choice, not his parents.

I've known way too many women who balk at an uncircumcised penis. I don't want my son to go through that.

This I've personally never understood, an erect uncircumised penis looks the same as an erect circumised penis. It's only in the flaccid state the difference is noticeable.

 

[Gibboniser]

I don't think you can really expect a reasoned discussion, circumcised men are going to defend it to the death, they have it, and they can't change it, and the opposite applies, well, even if uncircumcised males can change it.

 

[nothinghere]

I advise people to watch the penn and teller episode of circumcision. I cant link it for obvious reasons, but google "penn and teller bullshit episode list" go on tv blinx and its season 3 episode 1.

Watched. I felt kind of ill watching those snipping scenes. Ugh my stomach still feels bad. And... yeah. Pretty shitty to be circumsized. Maybe I should try that... tugging... method hahaha.

I hated the opperation, I mean holding people down so they dont move, and they are hypewrsensitive. Just wrong.
You could probablly find a way to do that method and get it back though if thats what you want, so on the brightside atleast its reversable.

the operation isn't exactly reversable, you can get foreskin restoration but that means it takes skin from another part of the body and gafts in onto the penius, so it usually doesn't match up, and natural restoration can take years. It wouldn't be a complete recovery but it helps quite a bit, theres still pernament effects from the original operation.

 

[PunkyMcGee]

EDIT: My opinions are my own. I don't want to keep cleaning my inbox for a topic that isn't any fun. So I have deleted this.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Over here (South UK) its pretty very(?) rare to hear of circumcised people. I remember back in school (good few years ago now)in my whole school of about 300 people (not sure of the girl:guy ratio as it varied per year) 3 people were "known" to have it due to escapades in the sports showers. The knowledge found out that is, not that they were doing something in the shower that caused them to be circumcised...

These people were treated with equal parts revulsion and curiosity by the rest of my school. We were taught in school that the only good reason to be forced to have a circumcision would be if there was an underlying medical condition. Of course they also said it was ultimately down to personal preference. This was at a (primarily) Catholic School

We don't have such a large Jewish community as a lot of Western(?) American states though, as I understand it those that strictly follow certain (all?) sects of it are traditionally required to have it performed on their child at a coming of age ceremony. I theorise that due to the prevalence of this religious tradition it also seeped into secular society. After all if the minority are uncircumcised then girls are used to those who are circumcised. This is how behaviour generally spreads.

On an unclear point such as this the usual behaviour is that both sides point to studies carried out by their researchers. As the researchers have a personal stake in the matter they bias the results even if unintentionally.

We both devolve into a semi-tribal style of arguement where flawed evidence and illogical arguements are used on both sides. There is no way to gather completely unbiased data on this matter. Even if we asked an all female team of researchers to study it for us they would be biased by what country they are from and what they have seen all their life as normal.

This arguement will never probably be "solved" as it is Socially Sensitive Research. If one side is right then its not a big problem as guys can go have the operation done if they choose. If, however, the other side is right then there is a subsection of society out there who have had their sensory apparatus purposefully and irrevocably (currently) damaged. They will likely not be very happy.

After all nobody likes to hear that they are inferior in any way except maybe those who like a bit of BDSM.

Female circumcision is a whole new can of worms and is on a whole different level.

 

[Ultrajoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

Read.

No sure what to take from that. Seemed that unlike the examples I offered, certain important aspects of the practice of marriage, including the expectation of maintaining tradition for tradition's sake, or even the letter of the law, were omitted sheerly to provide an example that seems by it's nature to favor one perspective (female) over the other (male). I feel my examples are much more base and free of contextual biases.

Example: They injure a man in his reproductive organs in a movie and it's a comedy, the do likewise damage to female reproductive organs (and not just an outward strike, since male sexual organs are external and female internal, so an external blow would not be nearly the same thing) and you're making a horror/thriller/drama.

Media paints all women as fragile and weak, and all men as goofs and hard asses. We know this, gender roles are everywhere. And, sorry to act the pit-bull, but what about the examples provided in the blog are biased contextually? Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it's pretty much the perfect sounding board of equality issues. Childbirth, being all about the innards of a lady, is about as contextually biased as it gets.

Furthermore, ask a woman what it feels like to get kicked in the ****. It bloody hurts, and can do more damage than even a boot to the balls. Forget internal injury, kick a vagina and you can tear far more vital things than the relatively 'tank' testicles. But, as you say, this is always something done to a woman for shock value (often by a male) rather than something endured purposefully (see; casino royale). I know you think this example is a bastion of male victimization, but in truth it displays objectification of women and hardmful gender stereotypes far more blantantly

We are not societally perceived as equals. If that was the point I agree, but the slant still favors women by a broad majority.

It does not. You see equality, and because of male privilege think 'I'm being done over here!', re-read the blog. It rather carefully explains this. Try some of the other links on 'female priveledge' and 'PHMT'.

I'll even give them to you.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/faq-ive-got-nothing-against-equal-rights-for-women-but-weve-got-that-so-isnt-feminism-nowadays-just-going-too-far/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/

 

[RatRace123]

I was circumcised as a baby so, I don't really have much to say other than I'm still fine.

So, I don't see anything wrong with it,

 

[EvilPicnic]

No it isn't - unfortunately, because it is in fact a topic worthy of debating. However, no guy wants to admit that their manhood is 'inferior' to someone else's so both sides have a massive bias.

My "bias" is particularly massive. Heh heh.

Ok, sorry about that.

But seriously, there is one difference in the bias. Circumcised men are stuck with what they have. Uncircumcised men are not.

Maybe all blokes should leave this thread and leave the debate to the women who can be more objective...

Isn't that sort of like leaving the debate about female circumcision solely up to men? I mean, isn't it sort of a *problem* that they don't have a stake in it?

Heh, I was just being flippant

My point was that with this being such a personal (and charged) issue, lots of responses will end up being emotional rather than factual.