Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Oskamunda]

Hmm...circumcision...really? We're going to have a whole talk about peens?

OK, fine.

The reality is that circumcision has been with us for at least 5,000 years, probably longer. Muslims do it, Christians do it, the WHO recommends it to Africans. There are many reasons to do it or not to do it, most of them cultural or religious...so let's instead look at the medicinal side of it.

Circumcision has been linked to lower rates of syphilis and herpes; it has also shown to inhibit the spread of HPV, chancroid, and even HIV (in Africa, studies have shown as much as a 66% reduction of HIV transmission in males who ARE circumcised, and damn am I for preventing HIV transmission in Africa). I don't know why this is, perhaps the folds of the foreskin provide a better vector for such transmissible diseases. Observational studies also indicate that circumcised men have a decreased occurrence of ED...but that evidence is purely anecdotal at this stage.

It is known that the foreskin does provide a barrier to the escape of urine and sweat, making uncircumcised males more prone to urinary tract infections, balanoposthitis (almost six times more likely), and even penile cancer. The penile cancer thing just scares me, and even though the incidence of penile cancer is ridiculously low amongst all men, and that most of this "evidence" is anecdotal with no serious cohort studies...it still terrifies me anyway. Also incidence of complications during priapism is higher among uncircumcised men...but priapism is a complication anyway, so you might just be slightly more fucked.

Guys I have known that were uncut describe needing to take extra care to keep the foreskin clean, and I have known girls and women who say uncircumcised peens smell weird (obviously if the man hasn't taken care of the aforementioned additional cleaning duties). I have also known girls to describe the sensation of an uncut peen as similar to a ribbed condom, increasing stimulation. The visual result of circumcision depends on the particular doctor involved, and can range from traffic-cone-peen to Nazi-helmet-peen (yeah...that's right...invocation of Godwin's Law in a discussion about circumcision).

Bottom line: Meh. Seems to be some sound medical reasons TO do it, and some trumped up human rights claims to NOT do it. But, for you guys out there who really think you got screwed by your parents, FEAR NOT! Circumcision is not, in fact, permanent...and you don't need surgery to get your foreskin back.

WARNING! NSFW DIAGRAMS AND PICTURES OF WEIRD PEENY THINGY EXERCISES
http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/manual-tugging/method-2 [http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/manual-tugging/method-2]
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html [http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html]
http://pages.suddenlink.net/manual_methods/index.html [http://pages.suddenlink.net/manual_methods/index.html]

 

[Kakashi on crack]

It's painful, mostly permanent, completely useless, and really should be a choice.

It was exactly half of those for me - permanent, and my choice. It was neither painful nor useless.

Giving it to infants is pretty much useless and most of the time they don't give them anesthetics.

"most"? Care to define that?

There is topical anesthetic, and two forms of injectables that are given. At least where I'm from, usally some form of anesthetic is used in ones performed by doctors.

In Jewish reliious circumcisions (assumingfull brit milah), the child or adult receives a small amount of alcohol as an immediate pain killer, and may on doctor's advice also receive something like infant tylenol. Injectables aren't common, but it isn't unusual for the topical cream to be used in modern procedures. Even mohels that don't use it themselves often make sure the parent is aware of its existance so they can apply it themselves based on doctor's advice if they wish.

Well, in the U.S. "most" would be that only 40% of infants who are circumcised are givin any form of anesthetic according to national statistics (the source is somewhere or another, too tired and I have a physics paper to write so I'll let someone else find it)

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Besides, there aren't any medical benefits:

I had it done for medical reasons. At the time I wasn't entirely sure what the problem was, but I'm now quite sure it was phimosis as the general issue seemed to be that it was too tight. Retracting my foreskin to wash under it was both dificult and painful, which led to a build up of bacteria. I was given creams to apply to help remove it, but repeatedly forcing the retraction of the foreskin eventually led to a large blood blister on the inside. In short, it was causing me a great deal of discomfort. I gave my full consent to the operation, and 5 years on I haven't suffered any negative effects.

My appologies. By no medical benefits I was referring to non-medically-necesary circumcision.

 

[DarthSka]

To start, I'm circumcised and couldn't really care less that it was done to me when I was a baby. However, that's me, not someone else. It was done without my consent and I turned out not to give a crap, but the same may not be true for everybody. Some might resent that it was done with no say on their part, so really, it should be left to the person to decide for themselves when they get older.

 

[Hengster]

and some trumped up human rights claims to NOT do it.

Explain trumped up.

 

[katsabas]

Did it. Medical reasons. Looks a hell of a lot better without a foreskin, lemme tell ya. Was little when it happened so my parents decided for me.

 

[Hengster]

Did it. Medical reasons. Looks a hell of a lot better without a foreskin, lemme tell ya. Was little when it happened so my parents decided for me.

I guarantee if you did not get circumcised you would think your penis looks better WITH the foreskin.

We all defend what we have so it is kind of flawed to use that as some sort of argument in favor or against cutting.

 

[Kimarous]

What does God want the tip of someone's dick for?

To answer that specific question, a lot of Old Testament religious laws were based around then-relevant hygiene conditions. Back then, it was a lot harder to clean the body, especially in the Middle East where water is a much valued commodity. Other laws deemed certain bodily functions (like periods and "nightly emissions") as ritually unclean, forcing said individual to avoid other people to avoid the spread of infection, and various meats were treated the same way for the same reasons.

They may seem barbaric by today's standards, but that was how they tried to manage health back in those days. Many of the other Old Testament laws were also specifically applicable to the time frame; laws concerning slaves weren't necessarily advocating the practice of slavery by the Hebrews/Israelites, but acknowledging that they existed and the etiquette to show such individuals.

OT: I am circumcised and, to be quite frank, I don't give a crap either way. I'm more irked about a surgery from my childhood (there was an issue with my urinary tract) that's left me with a big scar running down the underside of my dick. I'm still a virgin and I sincerely hope this doesn't adversely affect my future sex life. >_<

 

[Venoregard]

I don't think it should be done at all. The only exception is when it's necessary due to the foreskin cutting off blood flow to the penis. But people also sometimes needs organs removed if they become infected or fail. That's fine. But done otherwise? I can't bring myself to support it.

The evidence supporting it medically is substantial at best.

"It's cleaner." - Teach your kids to clean themselves properly. Smegma happens to BOTH sexes, should we circumcise girls too now to remove their labia because of the chance of smegma?

"It helps prevent STDs." Y'know what else Prevents STDs? Condoms. Whether you're cut or not. If a guy is cut does that mean he doesn't need to use a condom? Of course not. So what's the point? Teach children safe sex.

"Religious reasons." So it's ok to cut into your newborn's genitals because of a religion now? I'm shocked how such a socially liberal place as the internet will scream "bigot" at anyone against gay marriage, but using religion as a reason to cut a baby's penis is somehow okay.

Having a foreskin is the natural form of a male, the way that they were born. I don't see how anyone can be so stagnant about cutting a piece of your penis off after birth without your consent. To me, it makes absolutely no sense. Not that my opinion on it is going to stop parents from throwing their newborns to the knife as if it's not even a big deal, but, whatever.

Wow, I'm ornery tonight, aren't I? Excuse me.

 

[PhiMed]

Eh, to be honest if you never had a foreskin then you never really care that you never had it. I mean, I don't really see the point except for medical or religious reasons, but it's not really the end of the world.

Circumcision very clearly hurts and discomforts babies (or anyone else who has it done) for a while after the operation. It might not quite be the end of the world, but I still think it is very wrong.

So do vaccinations. Babies are pretty much completely unaware of the fact that it even occurred within two minutes. Their somatic sensory pathways aren't very well developed at that point. Not a good reason to do it, mind you. Just not a very good reason NOT to do it, either.

 

[mcnally86]

and some trumped up human rights claims to NOT do it.

Explain trumped up.

Do babies get the right to choose? Does a baby have a religion or is their parent picking it for them so they don't go to baby hell (a real place in some faiths?) Is the parent making a medical decision? Less time for JR to clean himself and less chance of STD's. Granted if Jr. grows up and is not a dirty person this is useless but some parents plan for their children to not clean themselves well. Does a baby have the right to choose what if wants for better sexual sensation? Babies don't choose that stuff and hopefully parents don't choose that for the baby when making decisions either. Sorry but parent have the right to choose, I know that upsets you. The only time you can say the parent can't choose, is if you adopt the baby. You can't take away parental rights and still let them be parental.

Parent make bad choices, it happens. But are all choices that heinous? Your parent did this thing not to be a monster but because they thought it was a bad choice. Shouldn't a choice with good intention be better then a choice with harmful intentions. Those are civil rights issues.

 

[CleverCover]

I don't really know, seeing as I'm a chick. If I was circumsized, I'd hate it. It sounds horribad. So, on that basis. No.

My brother hasn't been circumsized and is still alive, so I guess on that basis it's ok to not have it.

Either way, it's not necessary. Just...tradition I suppose.

 

[Jak23]

Just googled uncircumcised penis and threw up, everyone circumcise your babies!

 

[KefkaCultist]

Somehow (and I really have no idea how) my group of friends found out that I did not have my winky mutilated as a child due to my parents being awesome british people. Anyways, I get shit for it so often and I really don't understand why. I mean, WE ARE BORN LIKE THIS so why should it be cut off? Hell, I've heard from guys and girls before that it increases the pleasure in bedroom bam-bam.

And I don't understand the religious aspect either. You are given something at birth, something that GOD gives you, so you chop it for god? Yep... cause that makes perfect sense.

EDIT: oh and the hygiene reason? It's not that hard to clean yourself with a shower...

 

[Delsana]

Some people have provided research that sexual activity is highly more pleasant when uncircumcised due to a sensitivity that isn't removed through the use of the foreskin surgery.

 

[predatorpulse7]

Just googled uncircumcised penis and threw up, everyone circumcise your babies!

American spotted.

You geniuses, that's the way you're supposed to look and that's the way you looked as well(I'll assume you're a guy) before your parents decided that cutting up your dick would be a-ok.

An uncut dick(aka the natural kind) wouldn't raise an eyebrow in two thirds of the world.

It is a barbaric and primitive ritual and surprise surprise, 70% of all circumcisions occur in the muslim world. And if we are talking about regions it occurs mainly in Africa, parts of SE Asia, South Korea, Phillipines. Real select group you got there America.

And guess what, even countries that did dabble in circumcision at times like Canada,Australia,UK,New Zeeland are seeing a clear decline in male circumcision while the only demand seems to be in... Southern Africa.

You are probably gonna see a lot more uncircumcised dicks in the future. OH THE HORROR!!!

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

so it's basically going to turn into a circumcised versus uncircumcised cock fight? (slight pun obviously)

but really, i think it's the parents choice, if the child has any other kind of cosmetic change at an early age i've never seen it to be a problem, plenty of my aunts/far relatives were born with an extra nub for a toe or didn't have fully developed skin in certain spots or they had dead spots of for hair on their head, all taken care of at an early age.

 

[hashtag]

I just don't see a point to cutting off part of the dick for any non-religious reasons. Seems kinda weird.

Just to make sure i get this: essentially your argument is "God made man in his image, so let's turn around & cut the foreskin off because God said so?"

How does that make sense? (not inflammatory, i really don't understand how that makes any sense at all)

Dude, I'm an atheist. I just feel there's tradition, religion, and that can be over what your kids may feel. And while that may read odd, shit like that hurts really bad when you're a teenager or adult. I figure, if it is your religion just do it, I don't care.

 

[Sateru]

I was circumcised... :\ I really think it's up to the parents to decide... My parents were both not religious, and they had told me later in life that they did it because they felt that it would make it more easier on me later in life. It's more hygienic than leaving it on since you need to clean under the foreskin regularly to prevent a build up of dead skin and whathaveyou.

Ultimately, it's more along the lines of what you believe in... Sometimes, they have to circumcise the child if the foreskin isn't developed properly, either obstructing the means for the child to urinate, or painful to the child. So... it's purely situational, and it does matter if the child's parent has been circumcised or not. I mean, a father who has been circumcised will be more likely to do the same to their child, just like a father who isn't might prefer to leave the foreskin on.

 

[hashtag]

I voted the parent's choice, but what I really mean, is religious reasons. I really think you shouldn't circumcise, barring medical reasons, unless it's a religious reason. I just don't see a point to cutting off part of the dick for any non-religious reasons. Seems kinda weird.

"(10 points says poll gets eaten)" You, my friend, are out 10 points. I think I will use the points to buy a vineyard, out in the countryside.

What if the religion says you have to cut off the ears, would you be alright with that too?
What about the nostrils?
Or how about simple ritual scarring?

Keep knives away from infants if there's no medical reason to cut them.

Ears&#8800;pointless piece of skin on your penis. Just saying.