Poll: Circumcision
- Thread starter Spartan Bannana
- Start date
Recommended Videos
actually there is a medical reason for having it done i have had it done for medical reasons and 3 other people i know have had it done for medical reasons. Hurt like a ***** for about a week afterwards though, but it was better than the god awful pain that i had had constanly before it. I dont know any Jews so i dont know there opinions on it
Doug said:
I'm taking my college savings, dropping out, doing menial labour and saving up for the financing of a Communist revolution in a third-world country with some like-minded psychopaths. We're looking for interested parties.Jumplion said:
I at least hold myself to the standards I hold to others, but I appreciate the hypocrisy accusation. It must come easy, and feel justified, considering the society we live in.
it's an autonomy issue - people too young to consent to a procedure should NOT be given a surgery that is entirely cultural and cosmetic. people would get their knickers in a twist if a baby girl's clitoral hood was removed for ANY of the reasons that we use to justify circumcision.avidabey said:
circumcision was designed explicitly to reduce sexual sensation - now it's become a cultural issue, and we look for reasons to justify our cultural practice.
i should probably stay out of this given that this is my 'hot button' issue, but i will say that i think it's child abuse and i think it should be illegal for all non-consenting individuals. that said, i think circumcision should be legal for both men AND women who have reached the age of consent - adults should be allowed to do whatever bizarre thing to their body that they choose.
I shudder at the thought of anything sharp in the proximity of my crotch. But I'm a dirty Brit.
no, of course not. a medically-indicated procedure later in life is a totally different story than routine infant circumcision - HOWEVER, physicians in the united states are very circumcision-happy and have virtually no knowledge of how to deal with the foreskin - in medical schools in the US they learn VERY little about it other than how to remove it. many problems where circumcision has been recommended could have been solved through the use of manual stretching, steroid creams, or a number of other methods. i think that circumcision should be treated very seriously, and only used as a LAST resort in these situations.Spacewolf said:
No - I'm and I think most of the others are saying that unless it is a medically necessary procedure (i.e. like non-retacting foreskin, etc), then it should be up to the person the procedure is being performed on to consent too. I.e. not forced on an infant.Spacewolf said:
dude, sign me up.IchStrafenDich said:
just FYI, a non-retracting foreskin is NOT, in and of itself, a reason to resort to circumcision. adults with non-retracting foreskins can manually stretch the foreskin gently over time, until the opening is large enough to retract of it's own accord. in severe cases, topical steroid cream can help things on their way. all babies are born with non-retractable foreskins which you should never, ever retract - the first person to retract a child's foreskin should be the child himself, and some individuals don't get to this point until their late teenage years. there are also some men who's foreskin NEVER fully retracts but aren't having any sorts of problems with it.Doug said:
the problem seems to be that our culture is very sex-phobic. it's a rare pediatrician/family physician who will recommend playing with your penis as a method of treatment - they'd rather get you under the knife.
I'm gonna have to call bulls*** here. There's no proper analogy between female genital mutilation (to use the correct term, as defined by the World Health Organization) and circumcision. FGM was designed specifically to dull sexual stimulation and decrease the chances a woman would commit adultery, but there exists no such history for male circumcision.seidlet said:
We can argue whether any of the reasons still apply, but when it was originally instituted (in a desert environment), it was far more about hygiene than about cosmetics. Excluding modern sanitation, it has a much greater impact on the spread of diseases (including the chances of contracting diseases which afflict someone with what can charitably be termed "crotch rot"), as well as being generally more cleanly.
Incidentally, no, it's not about autonomy. Parents make medical decisions all the damned time. Children have no autonomy in terms of medical proxy, with good reason. If what you're saying is that no medical procedures should be preformed on on a child unless absolutely medically necessary, you'd be removing a *lot* of medical procedures. Braces are usually more cosmetic than necessary, same thing with retainers, or even those few children born with tails and need to get them cut off. You can say those aren't as "traumatic", but then you'd need to define the limits of traumatic, and prove that circumcision counts.
UK guy here, and intact.
If someone gets it done of their own volition or for medical reasons then fair do's but infant circumcision is simple barbarism - there's no consent involved, and I'm fairly sure most people's genitals aren't the concern of their parents.
If someone gets it done of their own volition or for medical reasons then fair do's but infant circumcision is simple barbarism - there's no consent involved, and I'm fairly sure most people's genitals aren't the concern of their parents.
