IchStrafenDich said:
I'm an American (cut), but I was educated in a properly archaic English boarding school. None of my housemates were cut, and the girls we knew seemed to prefer cut guys for reasons many and varied. At some point in my senior year, before going off on a road trip, all the other lads in my year did the research, read the scary stories and laughable outrage and en-masse decided to have the procedure. Two years on, none of them regret it. Is the foreskin really such a massive inconvenience?
I find it hilarious how many people are commenting on the nature of subjective experiences they personally do not have (Dirk Gently). I've been circumcised since before I can remember, and my genitals lack no sensitivity, but I wouldn't have the arrogance to describe what it feels like to have a foreskin. Human feelings and sensation being tricky to quantify or discuss objectively, it seems like everybody should pause a moment before opening their gobs, because you can't just read an article and assume you have reliable, or even substantial, knowledge of an issue like this. You can only really know what you experience, and even then you have to account for what you are used to, so unless you've possessed multiple penises of varying degrees of foreskinned-ness and have been able to compare their relative sensitivity your entire life, you don't really have sufficient epistemological qualifications to weigh in on this topic. All anybody can contribute is another opinion, at which point it becomes a matter of counting 'Yea' and 'Nay' votes, which is great for democracy but crap for meaningful discussion.
TL;DR stfu.
Oh, and hi. I'm new.
I thought most of the topic was about whether it prevented STDs, especially HIV. I personally haven't commented on the different between cut/uncut - some books and articles have opinions, but those are opinions.
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.
Ok, if clear, strong scientific evidence comes out that it protects kids from STDs very well, and this is confirmed, repeatable, and so forth, then it'll be ethnical to make a call like this.
As for religious circumcision:
* Islam doesn't require it - its a myth from tribes who converted to Islam centuries ago, and has never been written as a requirement in the Koran.
* According to this link [http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/], circumcision is
NOT a requirement to be Jewish. I can't say if this is true or not, but the site seems well thought out and presented, so I assume its a valid view on Judaism.
* Christians haven't ever required the practise, as far as I'm aware, in order to be christian.
And bluntly, for other religions, there has to be something wrong if your religion requires you to force both the religion and the act of circumcision onto a kid who isn't old enough to make up his or her own mind.
As for cultural circumcision, well, thats outright barbaric, frankly. Especially female circumcision.
