Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?

[incal11]

As well as its obvious religious significance being circumcised is healthier [http://www.billgothard.com/news/circumcision] and more hygenic [http://index.healthboards.com/menshealth/build-up-under-foreskin/1/]. In terms of health, there are many studies which demonstrate that circumcision lowers the risk of many infections and grants practical immunity to penile cancer. However noone has concluded that the benefits are as a whole significant enough to outright recommend "all boys should have it".

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
Personally I am very distrustful of religious websites as scientifical sources, and the icky aspects of smegma buildup are easily solved with a regular shower or bath, as you say yourself.
Circumcision only lowers the risks of some type of infections while increasing the risks of other types.

There is one other "benefit" that's argued equally for and against which is practically impossible to measure.(...) Some women prefer one and others prefer the other which makes that judgement personal and will vary between partners.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
There is evidence of the role of the prepuce, it can be safely surmised that circumcised men experience less pleasure than they otherwise could. I know it's a painful fact, and that's why this topic is such flamebait, but really this traditional stupidity has to stop.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Please allow me to make another statement, this time on behalf of all males everywhere: this is not an enjoyable topic for anybody. This is one big thread full of statements like "if you were circumcised, you're being robbed of the pleasure you should be feeling during life's best moments because your parents were stupid, IT'S SCIENCE" and "if you weren't circumcised, your willy is a smegma volcano loaded with STDs, and women hate it, IT'S SCIENCE". Honestly, this is like a thread weighing the pros and cons of having a small or large labia, because there's fuck-all that any of us can do about it, and we really don't really need our genitals analyzed by anyone that isn't going to stimulate them.

Seriously, this conversation is about as useful as asserting that your parents' decision to name you something starting with K had a deep psychological impact that negatively impacted your confidence and sexual attractiveness for your entire life, because even if you can tell it's bullshit, is there any way to not get mad at that if you're a Kevin or a Karen? Is there any way to read one big thread about how your penis is lesser or greater for reasons beyond your control, and remain neutral? It automatically backs a significant portion of the population against a wall and forces them to wonder "what if there's something wrong with me" even though they've been doing absolutely fine beforehand, which causes them to get defensive and start spewing ridiculous shit as fact. That's beyond unnecessary.

It's a troll topic. Congratulations on getting your replies and spawning a plethora of flamewars, OP, mission accomplished. Enjoy your shiny little badge.

Why thank you for that unneccesarily aggressive response! I really needed to be called a troll and insulted to get your point, thank you for that. Also, insinuating i only care about badges, WOW, just wow, you are beyond classy, i see why i should take your points into careful consideration when you post such classic responses as this.

Anyway, this isn´t about wheter circumcised is better or not(In fact, i said in the opening post it´s 50/50!) But it´s about if it should be legal to perform on babies. Next time you insult someone, get your facts straight.

EDIT: Oh dear. I´ve checked through the thread, and i see it now basically just amounts to "My Penis is better then your penis!" arguments.

I´m sorry about this. Please know that this was not my original intention.

 

[KwaggaDan]

BONUS DISCUSSION: I find it quite amusing how many people there is that say: "Male circumcision is fine, but Female circumcision is EVUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLL!" I want to ask them a question. Do you believe in equality towards both genders? If yes, shouldn´t male/Female circumcision be just as bad/good as the other?

(For the record, i am aware that female circumcision has MUCH more severe consequences, and i believe it is just as wrong as male circumcision, but this just bugs me. Why scream out for equality when you don´t want it?)

That's because it transcends base equality. It's not about working as a miner, it's about grievous bodily harm to a female. Also, frequently FGM is an involuntary practice, done in the same view as corrective rape. Women, in Africa and Asia, do not get the choice that is discussed here, and further there is no proven benefit, unlike in the male case..

 

[KwaggaDan]

Please allow me to make another statement, this time on behalf of all males everywhere: this is not an enjoyable topic for anybody. This is one big thread full of statements like "if you were circumcised, you're being robbed of the pleasure you should be feeling during life's best moments because your parents were stupid, IT'S SCIENCE" and "if you weren't circumcised, your willy is a smegma volcano loaded with STDs, and women hate it, IT'S SCIENCE". Honestly, this is like a thread weighing the pros and cons of having a small or large labia, because there's fuck-all that any of us can do about it, and we really don't really need our genitals analyzed by anyone that isn't going to stimulate them.

Seriously, this conversation is about as useful as asserting that your parents' decision to name you something starting with K had a deep psychological impact that negatively impacted your confidence and sexual attractiveness for your entire life, because even if you can tell it's bullshit, is there any way to not get mad at that if you're a Kevin or a Karen? Is there any way to read one big thread about how your penis is lesser or greater for reasons beyond your control, and remain neutral? It automatically backs a significant portion of the population against a wall and forces them to wonder "what if there's something wrong with me" even though they've been doing absolutely fine beforehand, which causes them to get defensive and start spewing ridiculous shit as fact. That's beyond unnecessary.

It's a troll topic. Congratulations on getting your replies and spawning a plethora of flamewars, OP, mission accomplished. Enjoy your shiny little badge.

Why thank you for that unneccesarily aggressive response! I really needed to be called a troll and insulted to get your point, thank you for that. Also, insinuating i only care about badges, WOW, just wow, you are beyond classy, i see why i should take your points into careful consideration when you post such classic responses as this.

Anyway, this isn´t about wheter circumcised is better or not(In fact, i said in the opening post it´s 50/50!) But it´s about if it should be legal to perform on babies. Next time you insult someone, get your facts straight.

In awesomeClaw's defence it was an opinion question, and your reaction is pretty extreme considering... Maybe you have issues you should deal with?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Personally I am very distrustful of religious websites as scientific sources

The site lists a bibliography of medical journals and other scientific publications at the bottom of the page from which it drew the summarised statements. It presents medical findings, not religious doctrine. And even in religious texts, it is only described for the significance of Abraham's covenant with the Big Guy, not for any medical reasons.

There is evidence of the role of the prepuce, it can be safely surmised that circumcised men experience less pleasure than they otherwise could. I know it's a painful fact, and that's why this topic is such flamebait, but really this traditional stupidity has to stop.

The page presents arguments and observations but there is nothing conclusive either way. The problem with this particular argument is that having even a fraction of a percentage of men experience greater pleasure before or after circumcision, or having women who prefer intercourse with partners one way or the other means that there can be no conclusion. As I mentioned, a baby will never know any differently as an adult and adult men who are and those who are not circumcised have both suffered (and will continue through the ages to suffer) every condition listed on that page. There is no definitive answer to this question, scientific or subjective nor can there be. Some will get less pleasure, others more, most likely there is as little difference as there is a way to measure it.

As such, saying it's a painful fact is perhaps wishful thinking on your part because it quite simply is not, it is at best speculation and at worst, a suggestion. And calling male cirumcision "stupidity" is an opinion which you're absolutely entitled to, but it is just that...an opinion and as I suggested above opinion on the ethics of circumcision will vary based on culture, perhaps irrespective of its medical or religious significance. And regardless of anyone's opinion, it has been practiced for thousands of years and will continue for thousands more. It isn't just a "tradition" as you suggest but does have religious and medical reasons as well.

Further, your statement about it increasing chances of infections...there aren't any studies to demonstrate that it it adds risk of any infection, only speculation while there are many that show that cases of urinary tract infections are significantly higher in uncircumcised men than there are in those who are circumcised. You are quite right that it is only some infections however, not all and only a lower risk, not zero risk. But having lower risk of many common infections and seeming immunity to penile cancer is a significant health benefit.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

but if a few can be convinced in the middle of the flames then it is useful.

"Honey, should we circumcise our little boy when he's born?"
"I dunno, let me go ask a bunch of opinionated people with no medical background on a video game forum."
"You're really going to base a decision of that magnitude based on a flamewar?"
"It's time we faced the facts, honey, we're gonna be horrible parents. Might as well start screwing up now."

 

[MelziGurl]

I guess it sucks then that until the they reach such an age the child's business IS their parents which is 18-21 depending on where you live. Therefore, whether I circumcise my children or not will be my business.

True, but I argue it will also be your mistake. Circumcision is pointless and damageable, the point about sexual pleasure is all but ridiculous, and it is not the only one :
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

You argue it all you like, but I am yet to meet a grown adult who was circumsized at birth complain that they wished it was never done.

\

I would be preeeeetty mad at my parents if they had circumsiced me. i hate how all these myths about circumsicion are taken as facts. ._.

America is just about the only country tho, in europe it's not really that common. unless it's for religious reasons.

If you were circumsized as a baby then you wouldn't have known anything different to be able to actually say that.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

Should be 100% mandatory. Uncircumcised penis looks like a dog penis.

An uncircumcised penis is also a NORMAL penis... since we're all born to have one - fully equipped n all. Funny how you've been looking so closely at uncircumcised penises and thinking about dogs at the same time... hmmmm.

Also... I don't know what kind of dogs you've been looking at - but I'm sure my penis looks like a human penis and not one of those strange phallic mushrooms. You know, the ones that look like circumcised penises .

Hey jackasses, if you actually were smart enough to do a little research, they look almost exactly the same erect. The fact you have to both act like children is pathetic.

This thread has become trash.

My penis doesn't look circumcised when erect. The skin is still there... (I mean, I can pull it back, but it's still there)

Don't know what YOU'VE been researching .

 

[GrimSheeper]

I probably have to follow the consent here. I don't see a reason to impose that upon children without medical reasons, no matter the gender. Especially not for any religious belief. Those practices have no place in a modern, secular society.

It's also only really common in the US from what I've heard. Not saying that the States' are the only country it's done in, just that the amount of circumcisions is a lot higher there compared to Europe. You can blame Mr. John H. Kellog for it. Yep, the K-cereals dude.
He wanted to stop the vile evil of masturbation in the quickest way, circumcising small boys. Of course without any anaesthestics because that would teach themthat all sexuality means pain. For Girls he was promoting the use of acid to remove the 'unnatural arousal'.

I highly oppose the view that circumcision is useful for anything except medical reasons. It is an obsolete practice, be it based on the spirit of Industrialisation or ancient scripture.

 

[MelziGurl]

Should be 100% mandatory. Uncircumcised penis looks like a dog penis.

An uncircumcised penis is also a NORMAL penis... since we're all born to have one - fully equipped n all. Funny how you've been looking so closely at uncircumcised penises and thinking about dogs at the same time... hmmmm.

Also... I don't know what kind of dogs you've been looking at - but I'm sure my penis looks like a human penis and not one of those strange phallic mushrooms. You know, the ones that look like circumcised penises .

Hey jackasses, if you actually were smart enough to do a little research, they look almost exactly the same erect. The fact you have to both act like children is pathetic.

This thread has become trash.

My penis doesn't look circumcised when erect. The skin is still there... (I mean, I can pull it back, but it's still there)

Don't know what YOU'VE been researching .

I wouldn't go as far as to say they 100% the same, but they are very close in appearance when erect, there is very little in the way of appearance to seperate them.

 

[Normalgamer]

Should be 100% mandatory. Uncircumcised penis looks like a dog penis.

An uncircumcised penis is also a NORMAL penis... since we're all born to have one - fully equipped n all. Funny how you've been looking so closely at uncircumcised penises and thinking about dogs at the same time... hmmmm.

Also... I don't know what kind of dogs you've been looking at - but I'm sure my penis looks like a human penis and not one of those strange phallic mushrooms. You know, the ones that look like circumcised penises .

Hey jackasses, if you actually were smart enough to do a little research, they look almost exactly the same erect. The fact you have to both act like children is pathetic.

This thread has become trash.

My penis doesn't look circumcised when erect. The skin is still there... (I mean, I can pull it back, but it's still there)

Don't know what YOU'VE been researching .

First off, the "" in your posts are making you look 12, secondly, the skin pulls back to the point it's retracted fully and the skin is now on the shaft, resembling the shaft itself. Or maybe your wang is small and the skin covers even when your erect.

 

[incal11]

was how you were all "You can start hating your parents now." Tell me, oh ye the sensitive one,

I agree that was ill though, anyway I take the lesson for this one, we all have our stupid moments. Still does not take away the truth behind what I said.

but if a few can be convinced in the middle of the flames then it is useful.

"Honey, should we circumcise our little boy when he's born?"
"I dunno, let me go ask a bunch of opinionated people with no medical background on a video game forum."
"You're really going to base a decision of that magnitude based on a flamewar?"
"It's time we faced the facts, honey, we're gonna be horrible parents. Might as well start screwing up now."

Oh my. Did I struck a nerve ?
I was referring to people who stop and think about things, not you.

You argue it all you like, but I am yet to meet a grown adult who was circumsized at birth complain that they wished it was never done.

One did in this thread. Searches for foreskin restauration are surprisingly popular too.

If you were circumsized as a baby then you wouldn't have known anything different to be able to actually say that.

But looking at the studies I've linked to I would have understood, if I wanted to that is.

Personally I am very distrustful of religious websites as scientific sources

The site lists a bibliography of medical journals and other scientific publications at the bottom of the page from which it drew the summarised statements. It presents medical findings, not religious doctrine. And even in religious texts, it is only described for the significance of Abraham's covenant with the Big Guy, not for any medical reasons.

That's a problem in this kind of topic, it's possible to draw sources from any number of sites who put together chosen studies and make the whole mean anything they want.It's just that the site you use as source having a religious background is not encouraging to me. Because, let's face it, religion and scientificity don't go well together.
You're right though, I can't dismiss it all just because of that, just as you can't dismiss my own sources because they may not suit you. To get around that we could each look at individual scientific articles provided by the other to acknowledge, and so get an overall unbiaised view of the subject.

Some will get less pleasure, others more, most likely there is as little difference as there is a way to measure it.

The prepuce does have a proven crucial role in sexual stimulation, that's why it is not just subjective. If some think they can have more comfort without it they should be able to decide once they are adults, circumcision is unfair to those it most probably make less comfortable.

And regardless of anyone's opinion, it has been practiced for thousands of years and will continue for thousands more. It isn't just a "tradition" as you suggest but does have religious and medical reasons as well.

Yeah, people have been believing the earth was flat for thousand of years after all.

Further, your statement about it increasing chances of infections...there aren't any studies to demonstrate that

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
Here's a list of examples, in any cases if proper hygiene is enough to prevent infections in general then circumcision is still not necessary .

 

[Carlston]

I'm not, I get full feeling during sex, why is it easier to clean? I wash it fine every time with skin.

It's a lame old outdated practice to bow down to a god, and if your not snipped the lies about disease or infection run up which is sad since people then bathed once a year and today we can shower many times a day....or if your non circumcised your just dirty or something stupid...

In the end it's pointless and to me gentile mutilation for a baby for lame religious reason which every "pro" is based on myth and every con is based on the same myth.

In other words some sicko god wants you to snip your dick, no real reason but if you don't your some freak who doesn't bathe.

Yeah mature view that one.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Oh my. Did I struck a nerve ?
I was referring to people who stop and think about things, not you.

I dunno about that bro, I'm not the one that's mad.

 

[incal11]

I dunno about that bro, I'm not the one that's mad.

I'm not mad either, so we're even.
You are good at horripilation, should have known looking at your avi

 

[bobknowsall]

If done for medical reasons (i.e. There's an actual problem with the foreskin), I'm totally cool with it. If done for any other reasons, it's bullcrap.

There are reasons for it to be done, but those reasons are rare. It shouldn't be done nearly as much as it is currently being done.

 

[Verlander]

I swear this thread comes up every other month.

My answer is now streamlined through experience:

A lot more people than you think, are actually circumcised. Many babies have circumcision for medical reasons. That way it cannot be banned. If you want it banned in religious ceremony, you're going to have to square that with your own conscience, but religious circumcision only accounts for a small percentage of European procedures. It is far cleaner than a hooded penis, and (trust me on this one) sex is no different for the man if they've had a circumcision (honestly, if you are worried about this, then stop wanking, as that is one thing that DOES impact the quality of sex). I've found that women generally prefer it as well.

There are hundreds of bullshit facts floating around, generally created, and then believed by over sensitive men who haven't had one themselves. There are probably loads on this thread, but I'm not reading through 12 pages of ignorant "fact" slinging. At the end of the day, the foreskin is a throwback to an earlier age, a vestigial organ if you will, like the vermiform appendix, parts of the coccyx and ear muscles.

/thread

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

CONS:
Loss of about 40-50% pleasure during sex.

Prove it.

Seriously.

Prove there is a loss of pleasure during sex.

How would you even design an experiment to test that?

 

[MikeBrownYo]

My woodie wears a hoodie and I'm stoked on it.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I'm not, I get full feeling during sex, why is it easier to clean? I wash it fine every time with skin.

But when you wash, you use soap, right? And that soap can dry out the skin, which causes it to crack. Cracked skin is an entry point for bacteria.

The AMA said there is a medical benefit, but it is not significant enough to recommend everyone do it.

As such, I think it should be left to the parents, who are routinely asked to make medical choices for their kids. It seems like the only logical choice.