Poll: Circumcision

[Aschenkatza]

snipped

That is true, the only problem is that is chance of getting an infection in the circumcision wound is greater than the difference between the chance of an uncircumcised child getting a urinary tract infection and a circumcised child.

snipped

These are also true, but the reason they're true is because the foreskin can cause microbes during sex in-between the foreskin and the glans, and so, unless you're planning on your child having lots of unprotected sex before they can decide if they want to be circumcised for themselves, there is absolutely no reason to make the decision for them.

Very true. Course, we also can't plan on our children having protected sex[even though we will secretly hope]. It is a unknown area. Most people will get their male children circumcised in the U.S because they[the male parent] were circumcised themselves. It's a learned behavior and it is passed down through families.

Surprisingly enough, "More recently the AAP(American Academy of Pediatrics) modified its position on circumcision by shifting from neutrality to a position of moderate opposition to this medical procedure (Task Force of Circumcision, 1999)" -same book (Our sexuality by Crooks and Baur, 10th edition)

We will never fully know which is better though, circumcised or uncircumcised.
However, as a female... I have to say a circumcised penis is more attractive looking than a uncircumcised =P No offense or anything.

 

[GammaChris]

I can't believe some people are actually arguing in this thread. I was circumcised when I was a baby, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing. As far as I know, I'm not missing much. Foreskin is just skin. That's it; nothing else to it at all. Everything down there works fine, and it's probably easier to clean. It all comes down to the parent's decision. In America, it's the norm. In Europe and elsewhere, it's not. You're not a freak if you haven't been circumcised, and you're not cool if you have been.

 

[Seldon2639]

removing the clitoral hood would be absolutely analagous to removing the foreskin - the clitoral hood is the prepuce of the female, completely homologous with the prepuce of the male. of course, most female circumcisions are NOT situations where the clitoral hood is removed, but involve practices even more heinous. i was largely giving a hypothetical.

as far as the history goes, the practices of female and male circumcision are older than recorded history, so we can't know their EXACT origins - it's possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons, but it is a widely accepted theory that it was practiced initially in at least SOME cultures as a means of suppressing sexual sensation. the rise of circumcision as a routine cultural practice in the western world, however, was absolutely connect to sexual taboos, including the prevention of "self-abuse", aka masturbation. i recommend reading circumcision: a history of the world's most controversial surgery by david gollaher or 'a surgical temptation: the demonization of the foreskin' and 'the rise of circumcision in britain' by robert darby if you're interested in how all this came to be.

those seems like a less-than-entirely-unbiased titles to me. Except the last one, which might be neutral. But, you're making a logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument is that because something was done for bad reasons at times, it's not proper to do in and of itself. Even *if* I accept your premise that it was to prevent sexual stimulation and masturbation (a big if), that's irrelevant to the question of whether it is proper to do it in the here and now. As discussed above, there are health benefits to the child, as well as to the child's partners.

women can develop 'crotch rot' as well, you know. in general, women are more likely to contract genital infections than an uncircumcised man. of course, what was done in the ancient world isn't really the point here - but it seems to me that it would be FAR more dangerous to perform surgery without modern sanitation than it would be to let nature take it's course.

As I said before, we've moved far afield of the real question

obviously children don't possess full autonomy, but it's completely absurd to suggest they don't have ANY - if i were to, say, tattoo my child, i would likely wind up in court. to use your example of braces and retainers [which honestly, i don't think is remotely comparable to cutting off part of a person's body, but i'll go with it] - if it's done for PURELY cosmetic reasons, i think it's abhorrent. it's one thing if a child's crooked teeth is effecting their speech or otherwise impeding their development, but straightening a child's teeth because you can't accept that your child is 'imperfect' seems to me a rather twisted line of logic - and again, it's culturally based. personally, i find perfectly straight teeth unattractive, but i LOVE septum piercings - would you really support me taking my child in to get their septum pierced?

as for vestigial tails, as far as i'm aware, they're completely non-functioning anomaly, making it a very poor analogy. EVERY male baby is born with a foreskin - there are fewer than 50 cases of a human tail reported in medical literature. Correcting a rare deformity is NOT equipollent to removing a functioning, normal part of the human body.

Wow. Okay, at least you're consistent. A few things. First, no, you wouldn't go to jail if you tattooed your child. You sign the release, and while your kid might hate you for the rest of its life, you wouldn't go to jail. The question comes down to this:

Are there benefits to the procedure, and are there costs? In America, there is no benefit to a septum piercing, and the costs of social stigmatization. In a culture where such a piercing was societally "good", or if there were a medical benefit to the procedure, I'd support you. I wouldn't understand it, but that's your world. If you don't find that circumcision had benefits (despite the evidence), and that it has costs, you're fine in deciding against it. For anyone who feels that the benefits outweigh the costs, there's nothing wrong with them having the procedure performed on their child. You claim it should wait until the person makes the decision for himself, but the health benefits come into play before that. Average age of first intercourse in the U.S for males is about 15-years-old. That's three years, then, of sex (maybe protected, maybe not) before the child has the autonomy. Besides, I'd rather have the procedure done when I'm too young to remember it, than having to be conscious of the guy slicing it off.

 

[Aries_Split]

no, i have not...

For the love of Jesus!
Stop.Posting.

All you do is go into a topic, make some generic 1 sentence statement, and then leave.

SHUT UP!

 

[Terror_666]

The only reason I was circumcised is because my dad didn't want to have the conversation of "daddy why does my willy look different than yours?".

 

[Flap Jack452]

I couldn't imagine not being circumsised.

 

[Ignignoct]

no, i have not...

For the love of Jesus!
Stop.Posting.

All you do is go into a topic, make some generic 1 sentence statement, and then leave.

SHUT UP!

*Forceful hug*

"Shhh-shh-shh-shh... There there, everything's going to be okay..."

Laughter and apathy is the proper response to these people. Don't let it get to you.

 

[seidlet]

those seems like a less-than-entirely-unbiased titles to me. Except the last one, which might be neutral. But, you're making a logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument is that because something was done for bad reasons at times, it's not proper to do in and of itself. Even *if* I accept your premise that it was to prevent sexual stimulation and masturbation (a big if), that's irrelevant to the question of whether it is proper to do it in the here and now. As discussed above, there are health benefits to the child, as well as to the child's partners.

actually, the first title - the history of the world's most controversial surgery one - is usually reviewed as being even-handed. i'm NOT arguing that because something was done for bad reasons initially that we should have a knee-jerk opposition to it now - i'm simply saying that we should be extremely skeptical of a procedure that was designed without medical benefit in mind.

as for supposed modern day health benefits, circumcision is the only 'preventative' surgery performed on infants - we don't remove our appendixes in infancy to prevent appendicitis. the 'medical benefits' are obviously not enough to sway the AAP or the WHO [not that that should be taken as the be-all and end-all of medical knowledge]. UTI's are easily treated with anti-biotics, and are still more prevalent in females than in intact males. penile cancer is less common than male breast cancer, and the american cancer institute claims that the studies on the connection between circumcision and penile cancer were inherently flawed, as they failed to account for lifestyle factors such as smoking. the connection between ANY STD and circumcision is only applicable if you're having unprotected sex - wouldn't it be much easier to teach our children the benefits of condoms, rather than try to pass of circumcision as a panacea [which it obviously isn't, considering that america has the highest rate of circumcision AND the highest rate of HIV in the industrial world.]?

not to mention that choices about sexual practices should be made by people old enough to consent to having sex.

Wow. Okay, at least you're consistent. A few things. First, no, you wouldn't go to jail if you tattooed your child. You sign the release, and while your kid might hate you for the rest of its life, you wouldn't go to jail.

if i took in a young teenager, this might be true. if i had an INFANT tattooed, there would be a huge media circus and CPS intervention. it is ILLEGAL to tattoo small children, for obvious reasons.

Are there benefits to the procedure, and are there costs? In America, there is no benefit to a septum piercing, and the costs of social stigmatization. In a culture where such a piercing was societally "good", or if there were a medical benefit to the procedure, I'd support you. I wouldn't understand it, but that's your world.

cultural relativism.

If you don't find that circumcision had benefits (despite the evidence), and that it has costs, you're fine in deciding against it. For anyone who feels that the benefits outweigh the costs, there's nothing wrong with them having the procedure performed on their child. You claim it should wait until the person makes the decision for himself, but the health benefits come into play before that. Average age of first intercourse in the U.S for males is about 15-years-old.

i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a law allowing 15 or 16 year olds to consent to circumcision - there are similar laws for other cosmetic procedures, such as tattoos and rhinoplasty. that's a completely different situation than a routine procedure performed on an infant - and as i've said above, the supposed health benefits are often best addressed by other courses of action. we are NOT allowed to choose whatever preventative interventions we want for our children, which suggests strongly that this entire issue is cultural, not medical.

Besides, I'd rather have the procedure done when I'm too young to remember it, than having to be conscious of the guy slicing it off.

you wouldn't be conscious. you would be under anesthesia, and you can get general anesthesia if you request it. you would also be provided with adequate pain medications [the last adult circumcision patient i personally saw was offered morphine and oxycontin and sent home with vicodin. this gentlemen declined the first two because he wasn't in very much pain, but if he WAS, it would have been more than adequately dealt with - something that's completely denied to infants.]. of course, not everyone feels the way you feel about your procedure - just as a child might hate his mother for tattooing him, i have met many, many men who resent their parents [sometimes to the point where they have cut off all communication] for circumcising them as infants.

 

[seidlet]

The only reason I was circumcised is because my dad didn't want to have the conversation of "daddy why does my willy look different than yours?".

i seriously think this conversation is a myth. i would think a kid would be more confused by their dad's pubic hair and large, dangling testicles, both of which seem like they would be more prominent and noticeable. and i have to admit, the fact that so many men want to avoid explaining the difference to their children makes me wonder if they are trying to avoid facing the fact that part of their penis was cut off.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

I am and what the hell is it around for, appranetly you just said there's no advantage really, what is the small slight advantage, i never really understood why people were or weren't.

 

[FinalGamer]

Very few people in Europe are circumcised, to us it's something only the Jews do. Why most Americans do it despite most being Christian I have no idea. There's no benefit to circumcision and the Bible says nothing about it (but I could be wrong so if someone can pull up a Bible quote, be my guest).

The only reason girls (or guys if you prefer) wouldn't like the sight of it, is they've never seen one so they think it's freakish, when in actual fact, it should be the opposite. A healthy penis should have foreskin. Okay it's a lil droopy and shrivelly-looking but dammit it was there in the first place and doesn't kill ya like an appendix.

 

[Willwillwritehiswill]

My penis has been touched by only me and my cohorts. No sharp objects have ever spoiled it's (ugly) glory.

 

[Ignignoct]

Very few people in Europe are circumcised, to us it's something only the Jews do. Why most Americans do it despite most being Christian I have no idea. There's no benefit to circumcision and the Bible says nothing about it (but I could be wrong so if someone can pull up a Bible quote, be my guest).

The only reason girls (or guys if you prefer) wouldn't like the sight of it, is they've never seen one so they think it's freakish, when in actual fact, it should be the opposite. A healthy penis should have foreskin. Okay it's a lil droopy and shrivelly-looking but dammit it was there in the first place and doesn't kill ya like an appendix.

Old Testament says do it.

New Testament says it doesn't matter.

Not sure why the Christians cherry-picked the OT verse. Must've been to justify existing tradition.

 

[jockslap]

not being circumsised has worked out fine for me, so long as you shower often (i do every day, but i know people who do it every other day). Just spend the extra 2 minutes to clean the area THOROUGHLY and everything is good!

 

[Seldon2639]

those seems like a less-than-entirely-unbiased titles to me. Except the last one, which might be neutral. But, you're making a logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument is that because something was done for bad reasons at times, it's not proper to do in and of itself. Even *if* I accept your premise that it was to prevent sexual stimulation and masturbation (a big if), that's irrelevant to the question of whether it is proper to do it in the here and now. As discussed above, there are health benefits to the child, as well as to the child's partners.

actually, the first title - the history of the world's most controversial surgery one - is usually reviewed as being even-handed. i'm NOT arguing that because something was done for bad reasons initially that we should have a knee-jerk opposition to it now - i'm simply saying that we should be extremely skeptical of a procedure that was designed without medical benefit in mind.

as for supposed modern day health benefits, circumcision is the only 'preventative' surgery performed on infants - we don't remove our appendixes in infancy to prevent appendicitis. the 'medical benefits' are obviously not enough to sway the AAP or the WHO [not that that should be taken as the be-all and end-all of medical knowledge]. UTI's are easily treated with anti-biotics, and are still more prevalent in females than in intact males. penile cancer is less common than male breast cancer, and the american cancer institute claims that the studies on the connection between circumcision and penile cancer were inherently flawed, as they failed to account for lifestyle factors such as smoking. the connection between ANY STD and circumcision is only applicable if you're having unprotected sex - wouldn't it be much easier to teach our children the benefits of condoms, rather than try to pass of circumcision as a panacea [which it obviously isn't, considering that america has the highest rate of circumcision AND the highest rate of HIV in the industrial world.]?

not to mention that choices about sexual practices should be made by people old enough to consent to having sex.

Wow. Okay, at least you're consistent. A few things. First, no, you wouldn't go to jail if you tattooed your child. You sign the release, and while your kid might hate you for the rest of its life, you wouldn't go to jail.

if i took in a young teenager, this might be true. if i had an INFANT tattooed, there would be a huge media circus and CPS intervention. it is ILLEGAL to tattoo small children, for obvious reasons.

Are there benefits to the procedure, and are there costs? In America, there is no benefit to a septum piercing, and the costs of social stigmatization. In a culture where such a piercing was societally "good", or if there were a medical benefit to the procedure, I'd support you. I wouldn't understand it, but that's your world.

cultural relativism.

If you don't find that circumcision had benefits (despite the evidence), and that it has costs, you're fine in deciding against it. For anyone who feels that the benefits outweigh the costs, there's nothing wrong with them having the procedure performed on their child. You claim it should wait until the person makes the decision for himself, but the health benefits come into play before that. Average age of first intercourse in the U.S for males is about 15-years-old.

i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a law allowing 15 or 16 year olds to consent to circumcision - there are similar laws for other cosmetic procedures, such as tattoos and rhinoplasty. that's a completely different situation than a routine procedure performed on an infant - and as i've said above, the supposed health benefits are often best addressed by other courses of action. we are NOT allowed to choose whatever preventative interventions we want for our children, which suggests strongly that this entire issue is cultural, not medical.

Besides, I'd rather have the procedure done when I'm too young to remember it, than having to be conscious of the guy slicing it off.

you wouldn't be conscious. you would be under anesthesia, and you can get general anesthesia if you request it. you would also be provided with adequate pain medications [the last adult circumcision patient i personally saw was offered morphine and oxycontin and sent home with vicodin. this gentlemen declined the first two because he wasn't in very much pain, but if he WAS, it would have been more than adequately dealt with - something that's completely denied to infants.]. of course, not everyone feels the way you feel about your procedure - just as a child might hate his mother for tattooing him, i have met many, many men who resent their parents [sometimes to the point where they have cut off all communication] for circumcising them as infants.

We appear to have reached the logical end of any useful conversation. You believe there to be no benefit, and much cost. I believe there to be no cost, and some benefit. I've never met a man who resented his parents for circumcising him, nor any man who regretted not being circumcised. This is an argument which cannot be resolved, and which approaches insanity very quickly. We're at the impasse of two implacable and irreconcilable world views. For all the evidence you have that it doesn't help anything, I have evidence that it does (the AAP and WHO have vacillated back and forth on this issue like metronomes). For all the evidence you can bring that it causes problems, I can bring evidence that it doesn't. You believe it to be mutilation, I believe it to be a non-issue. Short of dueling to the death, there's no way to say one person is "right".

 

[TurretedCasius]

Edit: I think some people do it for religious purposes. Don't know what the reasoning is, though.

I believe it was Judaism that started it. But I think that came back down to the desert survival thing.

A bible story! i don't remember what verse it was but...

Well there was going to be an attack on this town so the general got his army of like 10,000 but then god told him that he had to make all of them drink from a river and only the ones who cupped the water instead of shoving there faces in it would be sent to battle. he was left with like 1,000 men and then god told him that only the ones willing to have their foreskins cut off with a sharp rock would be sent to battle. he was left with 100 men and they fought off the invaders and won! So then other people started getting circumcised to honor these warriors!

So there you have it kiddies! the mystery of circumcision solved! I don't know why god wanted to cut off their foreskins but whatever!

 

[Danzaivar]

I find it funny how the strongly Christian country of the US has a tradition of cutting the ends of their kids penis' off, with the whole 'Made in Gods image' thing it just seems like a f*** you to the big guy!

I couldn't imagine being cut, you get so much more 'flow control' when you want to see how high you can piss up a urinal or whatever... Different cultures and all that I guess.

 

[Seldon2639]

It's not normal in Poland, or Europe. Why would it be?

No point, really. It's just inhumane, cutting off the most important part of a man just for... WHAT?

Money they need no logical reason. I don't know maybe being able to enjoy sex is deviant. There are no proven benefits it first caught on in the 20's or 30's when they thought it would prevent masturbation it was disproven in the 40's but at his point it was instutuionalized. There was a lawssuit in the seventies and then the doctor's had to get parental consent. Standard american behaviour. The only benefits on the other hand are cosmetic.
I'd go source hunting but spending too much time on this subject just get's me pissed.

If you can find me a source, I'd like to see it. The basis for it is closer to hygiene than it is to "discouraging masturbation" (depending on country, and ethnicity, and who you want to listen to), and there are legitimate health benefits (depending on who's doing the research, and when, since it seems to go back and forth). Seriously, there's been a pretty good discussion on the benefits vs. costs thus far on the board, and I encourage you to read it

 

[Skalman]

Whatever the original reason was, the fact is still that circumcision lessens sensitivity of the glans and therefore stimulation and pleasure.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here, but is there any circumcised man here who is unable to feel stimulation and pleasure, or even feels "less"? I promise you, the orgasm one experiences as a circumcised man is no less than that of an uncircumcised man. Hell, if there is any desensitization, that would just mean we can last longer, no?

Well, I said lessens, not removes.
And lasing longer can be achieved just as well through mental training. There's really no need to go all scissor happy...

But see here, most of the people here who were circumcised "without their consent" (including me) have never had sex before their circumcision. Therefore, if I have sex it wouldn't matter if I was circumcised or not because I've never felt it before. It doesn't matter if it decreases stimulation because I've never done it without circumcision before.

Well it just means you don't know what your missing if that is the case.
All I'm trying to say that there is no reason to perform a circumcision on an infant or young child when they can choose to have it done themselves later in life. It should be up to the individual to choose, to for someone to choose for them.

[snip]
of course, not everyone feels the way you feel about your procedure - just as a child might hate his mother for tattooing him, i have met many, many men who resent their parents (sometimes to the point where they have cut off all communication) for circumcising them as infants.

This would most likely be the result if my parents had chosen to circumcise me as an infant, which by the way, is very rare where I live.

 

[seidlet]

We appear to have reached the logical end of any useful conversation. You believe there to be no benefit, and much cost. I believe there to be no cost, and some benefit. I've never met a man who resented his parents for circumcising him, nor any man who regretted not being circumcised. This is an argument which cannot be resolved, and which approaches insanity very quickly. We're at the impasse of two implacable and irreconcilable world views. For all the evidence you have that it doesn't help anything, I have evidence that it does (the AAP and WHO have vacillated back and forth on this issue like metronomes). For all the evidence you can bring that it causes problems, I can bring evidence that it doesn't. You believe it to be mutilation, I believe it to be a non-issue. Short of dueling to the death, there's no way to say one person is "right".

i completely agree that we are at an impasse, as you seem to be committed to your stance, and after literally years of research, a career in child-birth, and tons of anti-circumcision activism work, i think i would have to have a lobotomy to change mine.

however, if you would like to see a large presence of men who resent being circumcised at birth, a simple search for 'foreskin restoration forum' would probably do the trick.