Poll: Circumcision

[Skalman]

I think that It's a fully legitimate cause to perform a circumcision if there's a medical motivation behind it, such as an existing infection or the foreskin being too tight.
What I am strongly against is circumcising very young children "just because".

Ah, my bad - I thought you meant *all* cicumcision (since you said "no medical benefit". Sorry.

Nope, sorry if I wasn't clear.
I have nothing against circumcision, just as I have nothing against tattoos or piercing or whatever other body modification you could think of.
I do have very strong feelings against involuntary circumcision however.
It should only be preformed on a non-adult if there's a legitimate cause for it. Such as an infection or to tight foreskin etc.

 

[Elim Garak]

what? have you actually been to russia? do you realize that it is larger than the US in square meters than the US? what you said would be the equivalent of saying "yeah the US is a pretty antisemitic place".

Umm... I am FROM Russia. Of course it is ginormous, but there was only one Communist government. And this was virtually a policy - unofficial, but policy. Plus there is a ton of history of pogroms in large regions of Russia - pogrom is a Russian word, in fact. In some places it was better, in some worse, but it was pretty widespread.

 

[Spacelord]

I am circumcised, while there are no medical drawbacks currently, it's always safe for the precaution.
I can't stand however the social stigma affiliated with circumcisions. However you're a youngin' one day you'll look back and face palm at the ideas you had about all this. I know I face palmed about a lot of the ideas I had when I was in high school.

I've never heard of any social stigma associated with circumcision. What kind of preconceived notions are raised?

Also: not circumcized myself. Not that it matters to me either way: it's your dick.

 

[Jerious1154]

I feel the need to clear up the whole Jewish circumcision thing because a lot of people here seem to have misconceptions. Circumcision probably did originate out of a desire for cleanliness, however the "official" reason, and the reason why people continue to do it today, is that its sort of a "mark" that connects you to the rest of the Jewish people and to God. The removal of the foreskin, even if it has no medical advantages, is completely harmless, and when it's done to a baby it's almost painless.

all though there is nothing wrong with it it still is kinda gross, and the baby/jewish 13yr old doesn't get a say in the matter.

It's not performed on Jewish 13 year olds, it's performed on Jewish babies.

 

[Doug]

BABIES. CAN'T. CHOOSE.

And yes, parents DO have the right to choose, and should.

And you're wrong. Circumcision is reversible.

Ok, babies can't choose. But they grow up into adults and are either stuck with your decision or have to have surgery. And your an aggronant sod if you think parents have the right to mulitate there children. This isn't like vaccines or so forth.

Sweden. Male. Uncircumcised.

Why fix what isn't broken?
Circumcision does not have any real advantages in this day and age. It does, however cause a lack of sensitivity in and around the area in question.
The fact that people circumcise their children pushes my rage buttons. Because the child in question gets no say in the matter. If they'd want to be circumcised they can choose to have it done when they grow up. It isn't up to the parent's to decide.
I'd even go as far as saying, people who have their children circumcised are unfit to be parents.
Yeah, I went there.

EDIT:

I'm against the forced circumcision of baby boys because you are removing the choice from the kid in the first place. For example, you had no choice if you wanted to be circumcised or not. You were, and hence are stuck like that. These guys who had it done: tis their choice - their adults and presumably willing and able to research something like this, weigh up any pro's or con's, and decide for themselves. Thats fair enough. But inflicting on a baby, whether they'll want it later or not, isn't right.

BABIES. CAN'T. CHOOSE.

And yes, parents DO have the right to choose, and should.

And you're wrong. Circumcision is reversible.

Circumcision is reversible?
Well not entirely, It'll never be the same as if a circumcision hadn't been preformed in the first place. And the partial loss of sensitivity to the glans will never recover either.

I'm serious. It's the discussion itself that is laughable.

Let's propose that there exists procedure A, which is totally reversible in later life and is customarily given to children who don't remember or care and which makes no real difference outside the aesthetic and cosmetic fields.

Read my above comment. Not entirely reversible.

Thanks for the support. Also, is it me or does he seem ridiculously angry about this?

EDIT:

I'm serious. It's the discussion itself that is laughable.

Let's propose that there exists procedure A, which is totally reversible in later life and is customarily given to children who don't remember or care and which makes no real difference outside the aesthetic and cosmetic fields.

If its no big deal, why do it in the first place? Seems like a waste of money and time to me, given there is no benefit from it.

And how is this discussion laughable? Because we don't all agree with your point of view?

 

[Maze1125]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

Which, although being a perfectly reasonable argument for getting yourself circumcised, it's completely irrelevant argument for circumcising babies who, last time I checked, weren't getting much sex.

Not saying that you were making that argument, but a hell of a lot of people do...

 

[Doug]

Circumcision please!!!
Its better in the long run, how many of you circumcised dudes can remember the pain?

As for Female circumcision, some claim there is a need for some women....
but i know that there is a difference between Mutilation and Circumcision

How is it better? And why do people reckon there is a 'need' for some women to get circumcised? Aside from medical conditions.

Exactly!, the need is medical, otherwise, Crap.

For the dudes, i have heard a lot of nasty stories linked to not being circumcised, i dont wanna go there

......? You do realise most of the world doesn't practise male circumcision, right? What "horror stories" have you heard?

I actually thought most of the World's male are circumcised,

The horror stories include...general ugliness of the male organ, infections which are transferable to the female, a high likelihood to contact Aids or any other STD. ..

I'd call that propaganda, but then I'd look like a paranoid conspiracy theorist or something.

Anyway, the vast majority of the world are not circumcised. ("vast" is open to interpretation.)
The only countries I know of that do practice circumcision as the norm is the US and the Islamic countries.

Nah, call it progranda or advertising (by the doctors who get business for circumcisions), because that is what it is.

And Gamine? Seriously, when its "at attention", they all look the same, or so I'm told. And given that it'll be "at attention" when the (future?) Mrs Gamine see's it, 'ulgyiness' isn't an issue.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yes my penis was clipped thus leading to severe mental trauma.

 

[Goldbling]

I kind of wish I wasn't, unless the need arose to get it done. I'm Christian so I have no idea why my parents decided to get it done

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Meh, I'm not so sure about those studies. I was circumcised at the age of abouttt...9 I think. It obviously wasn't my choice as I wasn't aware that such a procedure even existed at that age. It was the choice of my mother due to the fact that I kept getting urine infections, and, as anyone whos had one of those before will tell you, urine infections sting like a *****.

 

[Cheesebob]

Isn't female circumcision deadly?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Isn't female circumcision deadly?

If they were both done in the U.S, they would both have the same complication rate,
which is rather low, but it happens.
It is because Female Genital Mutilation are mostly done with filthy instruments and by untrained people that it is so deadly now.
The same as Male Genital Mutilation would be if done the same way.

 

[Skalman]

BABIES. CAN'T. CHOOSE.

And yes, parents DO have the right to choose, and should.

And you're wrong. Circumcision is reversible.

Ok, babies can't choose. But they grow up into adults and are either stuck with your decision or have to have surgery. And your an aggronant sod if you think parents have the right to mulitate there children. This isn't like vaccines or so forth.

Sweden. Male. Uncircumcised.

Why fix what isn't broken?
Circumcision does not have any real advantages in this day and age. It does, however cause a lack of sensitivity in and around the area in question.
The fact that people circumcise their children pushes my rage buttons. Because the child in question gets no say in the matter. If they'd want to be circumcised they can choose to have it done when they grow up. It isn't up to the parent's to decide.
I'd even go as far as saying, people who have their children circumcised are unfit to be parents.
Yeah, I went there.

EDIT:

I'm against the forced circumcision of baby boys because you are removing the choice from the kid in the first place. For example, you had no choice if you wanted to be circumcised or not. You were, and hence are stuck like that. These guys who had it done: tis their choice - their adults and presumably willing and able to research something like this, weigh up any pro's or con's, and decide for themselves. Thats fair enough. But inflicting on a baby, whether they'll want it later or not, isn't right.

BABIES. CAN'T. CHOOSE.

And yes, parents DO have the right to choose, and should.

And you're wrong. Circumcision is reversible.

Circumcision is reversible?
Well not entirely, It'll never be the same as if a circumcision hadn't been preformed in the first place. And the partial loss of sensitivity to the glans will never recover either.

I'm serious. It's the discussion itself that is laughable.

Let's propose that there exists procedure A, which is totally reversible in later life and is customarily given to children who don't remember or care and which makes no real difference outside the aesthetic and cosmetic fields.

Read my above comment. Not entirely reversible.

Thanks for the support. Also, is it me or does he seem ridiculously angry about this?

Well people tend to get ridiculously upset when someones opinion clashes with their own. Kind of a natural reaction.

EDIT:

I'm serious. It's the discussion itself that is laughable.

Let's propose that there exists procedure A, which is totally reversible in later life and is customarily given to children who don't remember or care and which makes no real difference outside the aesthetic and cosmetic fields.

If its no big deal, why do it in the first place? Seems like a waste of money and time to me, given there is no benefit from it.

And how is this discussion laughable? Because we don't all agree with your point of view?

But I've gotta agree with you there. It's a valid discussion really, as is any discussion where the opinions of the opposing parties don't get along. As they tend to do.

 

[kawligia]

The foreskin removed in circumcision has almost 40% of the nerve endings that create sexual pleasure. It also increases pleasure in the woman. You know those ribbed condoms? Those are designed to mimic the feel of an uncircumcised male. So circumcision makes both you and your woman miss out on a lot of fun. Seriously, fuck that.

The only "benefit" is aesthetic. But the thing is, when its erect the uncircumcised one looks exactly the same as a circumcised one, except with a little more girth. If loosing all that pleasure for you and your woman is worth a minor cosmetic alteration that's only noticable when you are not excited, well, to each his own. I'll pass.

 

[Skalman]

The foreskin removed in circumcision has almost 40% of the nerve endings that create sexual pleasure. It also increases pleasure in the woman. You know those ribbed condoms? Those are designed to mimic the feel of an uncircumcised male. So circumcision makes both you and your woman miss out on a lot of fun. Seriously, fuck that.

The only "benefit" is aesthetic. But the thing is, when its erect the uncircumcised one looks exactly the same as a circumcised one, except with a little more girth. If loosing all that pleasure for you and your woman is worth a minor cosmetic alteration that's only noticable when you are not excited, well, to each his own. I'll pass.

Actually, an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one doesn't look exactly alike when erect. Or so I heard. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrSoIHeard]

 

[Ignignoct]

Isn't female circumcision deadly?

Well, if you're talking about cutting out the clitoris or sewing shut their genitalia then yes, those can lead to death via infection. Usually because the ritual is practiced in such backwards areas of the world that can't handle treating it.

And to the OP, I am the only one of my 5 brothers that isn't snipped, thankfully due to a nurse recommending against it when I was born.

I say thankfully, because that choice should be left to the individual, and it's a barbaric ritual rooted in a medically irrelevant religion.

"But what of infections?"

I've never had one, urinary or foreskin wise.

If I'm f*cking anyone that might have HIV, I'm using a condom.

Hell, I'll be using a condom till I'm married with my distrust of women in general.

 

[chimmers]

I don't understand people's infatuation with mutilating themselves for cosmetic purposes. The same goes for earrings, although I'd be willing to bet most babies would choose a lump of metal through their ear than someone cutting off something they won't get to use for about 12 years

 

[Jumplion]

I'm circumcised for Judaism. Nothing negative about it so far, me and Mr. Penis have been good friends regardless if he got a liposuction.

The foreskin removed in circumcision has almost 40% of the nerve endings that create sexual pleasure. It also increases pleasure in the woman. You know those ribbed condoms? Those are designed to mimic the feel of an uncircumcised male. So circumcision makes both you and your woman miss out on a lot of fun. Seriously, fuck that.

Heh, that reminds me of something I said before when my workshop teacher said that Jews work harder (he's a cool teacher, and I was the only jew in the class),

"Jew may have to work harder, but they last longer."

Take that of what you will

 

[kawligia]

The foreskin removed in circumcision has almost 40% of the nerve endings that create sexual pleasure. It also increases pleasure in the woman. You know those ribbed condoms? Those are designed to mimic the feel of an uncircumcised male. So circumcision makes both you and your woman miss out on a lot of fun. Seriously, fuck that.

The only "benefit" is aesthetic. But the thing is, when its erect the uncircumcised one looks exactly the same as a circumcised one, except with a little more girth. If loosing all that pleasure for you and your woman is worth a minor cosmetic alteration that's only noticable when you are not excited, well, to each his own. I'll pass.

Actually, an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one doesn't look exactly alike when erect. Or so I heard. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrSoIHeard]

When erect, the uncircumcised penis will have the foreskin fall back around the shaft, revealing the head. The only difference is that the shaft will have the foreskin around it, giving it more girth. When flacid, the foreskin will usually surround the head (fully in some males and only partially in others) since it doesn't expand and contract with the rest of the penis.