Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Biosophilogical]

Nope, I think it's horrible. Legal child abuse, and whether or not people have religious reasons to do it shouldn't even come into it.

If someone wants to have it done to themselves when they're old enough to decide, fine. If someone wants to forcibly and irreparably mutilate their child, that is not fine, and I don't care what their reasons are.

This exactly. My brother and I are not circumcised, and I am very grateful that we aren't, not because I'm against circumcision, or I have some aesthetic preference for foreskins, but because I want the choice to be mine. On a similar vein, my friend is circumcised and he wishes he hadn't been. It's not like he is sitting there going "Those lucky bastards, I wish I had a foreskin", he just wished it was his choice (which it wasn't, having been circumcised as a baby).

So my opinion is that the parents can keep their religious/aesthetic views to their own genitals. They have no right to perform permanent physical changes on their child, just as much as they shouldn't be allowed to circumcise someone else without their permission (child or otherwise).

 

[alandavidson]

Just my two cents: Wait until the kid turns about 10, and then give him the option.

Some personal experience with the subject (spoilered for content)

Spoiler

When I was little (around 4-5 years old), I had, er, problems with that area, and had to go see a doctor about it quite frequently. The doctor recommended circumcision to fix the issues, but my parents left it up to me. I voted "no". Today I have fully functional man-parts.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I'm so glad that I can come to this thread for support. I... was circumcised as a child, I can't remember a time where I haven't felt scarred (both mentally and physically) and deformed. Kids used to mock me at school calling me names and making fun of my lack of foreskin, as if it didn't already bother me enough. It's tragic that parents are allowed to make such life altering decisions for their children.

 

[iNsaneMilesy]

I'm all for circumcision

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

Same here. I also agree. I'm circumsised and I'm glad I was. It does have a FEW medical benifits, but mostly I like the way it looks. Too me it's normal and looks better than uncirsumsised penis, there is no lack of sensation or size... doing very well in the size dept. but thats another topic...

Seeing how many people chose that it would be better to leave the choice until older leaves me with a look of bewilderment on my face. Either they are women, uncircumsised or are too easily drawn to feeling like they were robbed of a bit of useless skin. Get over it, you are better off without it and plus women prefer it which means better sex. I was far too young remember the proceedure, so no "TRAUMA" was inflicted. If a grown man were to get it done now, not only would it be scary as hell, he may have a possible feeling of remorse at an older age. Plus he'd have to walk around in a lot of pain for a few weeks. It also look very different when its done on a man as opposed to a baby, baby has time to grow into it if you will. As a baby, I spend all my time on my back crying, shitting and eating. A good time to recover I say.

Funny how only in the last generation has EVERY single parenting choice or act been called into question by a small few and turned into a major isuue when it has been working fine for well, EVER.

From disipline like spanking, to medical choices like NOT immunising... insane. Also usually all lead by the psychotic minority. Interesting that alot of them are people dont even have children, yet have to put their 2 cents in on topic they really know nothing about.

 

[SonicKoala]

First off, they are performed without anasthetics. Second, anasthetics doesn't work on infants because they are in fact hypersensitive.

And second and most important, the MAJORITY of the entire world thinks an uncircumsized penis is more beautiful. It's just in the US that it's considered appealing to be circumsized, and even then it's only because you're taught that a penis is supposed to look like that from birth.
In other cultures it's more beautiful for women not to have breasts, and for men to wear wooden tubes on their penises.
I can name one culture which thought it was appealing to be blond and blueeyed.. Were they right? Nope, or at least the Allieds thought not.

Is there any subject immune to utterly pointless Nazi references which serve absolutely no purpose other than to paint the individual who invoked the reference as an absolutely horrendous debater?

Signs point to no...

 

[Sewora]

First off, they are performed without anasthetics. Second, anasthetics doesn't work on infants because they are in fact hypersensitive.

And second and most important, the MAJORITY of the entire world thinks an uncircumsized penis is more beautiful. It's just in the US that it's considered appealing to be circumsized, and even then it's only because you're taught that a penis is supposed to look like that from birth.
In other cultures it's more beautiful for women not to have breasts, and for men to wear wooden tubes on their penises.
I can name one culture which thought it was appealing to be blond and blueeyed.. Were they right? Nope, or at least the Allieds thought not.

Is there any subject immune to utterly pointless Nazi references which serve absolutely no purpose other than to paint the individual who invoked the reference as an absolutely horrendous debater?

Signs point to no...

If you can't tolerate it, don't participate in the discussion. The act of amputating healthy bodyparts on infants to make them fit into a wicked society is closely related to the act of filtering out bad people from society. Conformity is not just a word to describe social attitude, but also the public's demand for you to be perfect according to someone elses standards. And I can't help it if that's exactly what the nazi's thought and did.

 

[BlueGlowstick]

Males get circumcised because of religious and/or health reasons; it also helps with keeping the penis clean.

Females, however, get circumcised so they won't experience pleasure during sex. Disgusting, I know, but it's the truth. I found out in mythology. (And what a sick, twisted weirdo he was...)

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

So if I may draw a conclusion, what you're saying is that anything done to a person without their explicit consent is a unethical.

It may surprise you, then, that a lot of what people do to others without their consent is for the sake of their well-being, or their perceived well-being; I'm going to find it hard to believe that if you got in a car accident and would have bled to death without intervention, but weren't able to state your opinion on the matter, you'd criticize the parties responsible for attempting to save your life. Not comparable in scope, of course, but comparable in essence.

This thought process is what a lot of parents go down when making a child's decisions for them, because the kid can't speak on their approval of the matter. Despite your incredible vehemence on the matter, circumcision isn't a big deal to most people, and most parents do it in a perceived best interest for their child, and nine times out of ten (if that few in cases) the person isn't affected by it one way or the other. It may have even ended up being - gasp and alarm - for their own good, whether you like it or not.

On that note, let me present a different perspective: Let's suppose some people are indeed better off for having their junk "mutilated", as so many of you are fond of saying. Let's say that some people who haven't had the procedure would also be better off if they did. Most of them aren't going to get it done anyway. Why? Because they've grown up with the thing as they know it. People tend to be reluctant to permanently change themselves, even for their own good, especially when that change involves a sharp metal object slicing their flesh. We tend to get used to the status quo, to being uncomfortable because it's what we know.

Now, I've no argument for people having their own say in what happens to themselves, but what if they would have been better off if their say on the matter was ignored? Is it wrong then? What's more, are you going to claim that the people who have been wronged by this procedure (in reality or entirely in their minds) outnumber those that benefited from it, or that the latter's opinion is inferior because it was without their consent?


I could write a book on my annoyance with how many things are done to us in a doctor's office solely to support the business model that is American medical, but that's a gripe for another discussion.

As someone who is going to enter the medical proffession as a biomedical scientist i would first like to say im glad i live in england, our healthcare might be innefficient but at least we dont have such blatent value of money over people.

Anyway, id agree that to we accept some things we dont want for our own good, and other times we must force people to do things to keep them alive, but i would argue this arguement only holds true for things that are, objectively, 100% for their own good. And circumcision isnt really defined as 100% good. Complications can occur and pretty much every medical positive can be achieved with washing yourself efficiently. Id compare it to tattooing a babies penis if i had to. It seems like an unneccessary waste of resources to achieve something randomly shallow on someone who has no say in the matter. Despite what people linking individual studies might say im going to link some meta analysis. Id argue that unless what you are doing is doing ONLY good, arguing that doing something for someones "own good" is a pretty falacious arguement as you might end up doing them harm. Or marking them in a way they dont like, for pretty much no gain. It seems pointless to me.

Heres the meta analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Costs_and_benefits

Basically no real effects either way, except those found for can be emulated with cleaning and those found against are chronic and need correcting with surgery. I think from a medical stand point its pointless.

Also penile cancer is the only thing it treats that cannot be achieve by cleaning, as well as being really rare and only treated by the fact that something you have removed cannot have cancer, id like to add male breast cancer rates are higher, is it now right to remove mens nipples when they are infants?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

EDIT: Accidental double post.

Sorry, this was weird mistake due to extreme escapist lag.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I'm all for circumcision

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

Same here. I also agree. I'm circumsised and I'm glad I was. It does have a FEW medical benifits, but mostly I like the way it looks. Too me it's normal and looks better than uncirsumsised penis, there is no lack of sensation or size... doing very well in the size dept. but thats another topic...

Seeing how many people chose that it would be better to leave the choice until older leaves me with a look of bewilderment on my face. Either they are women, uncircumsised or are too easily drawn to feeling like they were robbed of a bit of useless skin. Get over it, you are better off without it and plus women prefer it which means better sex. I was far too young remember the proceedure, so no "TRAUMA" was inflicted. If a grown man were to get it done now, not only would it be scary as hell, he may have a possible feeling of remorse at an older age. Plus he'd have to walk around in a lot of pain for a few weeks. It also look very different when its done on a man as opposed to a baby, baby has time to grow into it if you will. As a baby, I spend all my time on my back crying, shitting and eating. A good time to recover I say.

Funny how only in the last generation has EVERY single parenting choice or act been called into question by a small few and turned into a major isuue when it has been working fine for well, EVER.

From disipline like spanking, to medical choices like NOT immunising... insane. Also usually all lead by the psychotic minority. Interesting that alot of them are people dont even have children, yet have to put their 2 cents in on topic they really know nothing about.

First of all if you read through the arguements given you would be less bewildered. Just a thought.

The idea is that the procedure is medically unneccessary as all health benifits can be achieved by washing often and efficiently. But it can also cause complications. Take a look at this meta analysis of studies if you want, dont have a go at me for not using sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Costs_and_benefits

Id at that point say that as it has pretty much no medical effect for the better that cant be achieved anyway, and the negative effects can be only fixable by surgery that the procedure is medically unneccessary and as such it is wrong to perform on a child.

This doesnt even touch on the rights of the child. I would say that permenantly marking your child in any way is wrong, and many children would rather they chose how they look. The thing is your father couldnt force circumcision on you when you are 18, why is it ok when you are small? Because you cant say no? Because you cannot object? Thats rather questionable. Seeing as the above shows its medically unnecessary it now falls under the category of either cosmetic or personal choice. I dont think babies should undergo cosmetic surgery full stop. So lets not even get into that as its a little bit sickening.

Id also argue that any surgery performed is better as a baby for all the same reasons but we dont perform medically unneccessary surgies on babies because its pointless, a little dangerous and a waste of resources as well as having a chance of being against that persons will in the future (IE they were angry it was performed)

Id argue that spanking and immuniisations are not permenant physical changes to your child and thus completely fall out of the topic of this arguement. I agree a parents choice should be on how to punish their child. Vaccinations should be mandetory though.

I argue that i own my body. That although it is entrusted to my parents for a large portion of my child life that it is still mine, and thus all choices pertaining to the way it looks or will be forever should be mine too. I LIKE having a foreskin. And if you dont thats awesome, but it should be your choice if you have one or not. The glide mechanism needs it, it has glands and nerves and honestly id be as happy with this as i would if someone tore of my nipples as a kid. Maybe you are happy without these glands, i cant comment on how important they are but isnt it my choice if you are going to remove them?

Removing mens breasts would prevent male breast cancer, a cancer at higher rates than penile cancer, an arguement used by the pro circumcision camp revolves around reduction of penile cancer. Is it ok to remove your kids nipples? How about is earlobes? At what point is it wrong to customise your child in such a permenant fashion? Is this the only exception to these rules? Why should it be? Why is it ok to force a child and not an adult? Is it just because it cant say no? Why is it ok to force anyone at all?

Seeing as im soon to be joining the medical community you can bet ill be lobbying for choice in circumcision and asking proffesionals exactly why this is allowed.

Also THIS was done because it looks good back in ancient times.

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/forensics/11-forensic_anthropology/forensic_skeletons/peruvian_female_%28skull_binding_100bc%29-www.boneclones.com.JPG

I know its a lot worse than circumcision but id argue that the justification for this is just as false. Its wrong to go "i think this looks better, thus my son should be forced to have it". What if he doesnt like it? You cant just force personal preference on your kid forever in an unchangable way.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

Let me introduce you to...

I'm so glad that I can come to this thread for support. I... was circumcised as a child, I can't remember a time where I haven't felt scarred (both mentally and physically) and deformed. Kids used to mock me at school calling me names and making fun of my lack of foreskin, as if it didn't already bother me enough. It's tragic that parents are allowed to make such life altering decisions for their children.

 

[Phlakes]

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

Let me introduce you to...

I'm so glad that I can come to this thread for support. I... was circumcised as a child, I can't remember a time where I haven't felt scarred (both mentally and physically) and deformed. Kids used to mock me at school calling me names and making fun of my lack of foreskin, as if it didn't already bother me enough. It's tragic that parents are allowed to make such life altering decisions for their children.

Let me introduce you to...

Spoiler: ...

...the wonderful world of sarcasm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm]! Because that's all his post was.

OT: Yeah, should still be the parents' choice. In the same way a parent can cut the umbilical cord at whatever length.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

Let me introduce you to...

I'm so glad that I can come to this thread for support. I... was circumcised as a child, I can't remember a time where I haven't felt scarred (both mentally and physically) and deformed. Kids used to mock me at school calling me names and making fun of my lack of foreskin, as if it didn't already bother me enough. It's tragic that parents are allowed to make such life altering decisions for their children.

Let me introduce you to...

Spoiler: ...

...the wonderful world of sarcasm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm]! Because that's all his post was.

OT: Yeah, should still be the parents' choice. In the same way a parent can cut the umbilical cord at whatever length.

One is medically neccessary. You cant leave an umbilical cord because then you couldnt move the baby. Removing the foreskin is medically unneccessary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Costs_and_benefits

Because all positive aspects can be emulated through cleaning while all negative aspects are rather uncomfortable and some need surgery to correct.

Id argue that as well as that it physically scars a child in a way other children might not be scarred (everyone has a belly button) as well as affecting something with a LOT of functionality (ie a penis does more than a belly button) so the two are not comparable. Id be happy with peoples opinions if they didnt draw such obviously false equalities.

 

[Sewora]

There's no point talking to these people. Have you seen a single person in this thread who've gone from:

"I think circumsision is great and should be the parent's choice!"

to

"Oh I see what you're getting at, I was misinformed. Thank you for telling me these things!"

It hasn't happened, and is not going to. The process of turning people away from this horrible act of childmutilation is a slow process.
Many americans, the public and doctors alike are rapidly becomming more aware of the scientific facts regarding circumsion and has begun questioning it.
Most unbiased doctors will tell you it grants no medical benefits and serves no purpose from a medical standpoint. Hell, even the Paediatricians handbook says "There's no medical benefits from circumcision." The doctors that perform circumcision are taught that it serves no purpose. If THEY are taught that, why aren't the rest of the US public taught it?
It is by definition "a unecessary medical procedure" and goes against both the American and Global Health Associations. It is put in the category of "cosmetics".
I know many Americans ranging from age 16 to 40, and I've had this discussion with many of them, and what I've come to realize is that the younger generations are more curious about foreskin than the older generations.
For example, my friend who's 16, let's call him John for simplicity, asked me whether the foreskin does anything or not, since he himself never had the choice to keep it (Not that it ever personally bothered him beyond a slight curiosity.).
I told him what it does, why it's there and the things we are taught by doctors in Sweden aswell as the proposed benefits used by Americans to justify circumcision. And he actually unprovocatively asked me "So why circumsize children?".
It never even struck him to argue that having no foreskin means cleaner. Because I'd assume he knows as well as I do that we clean our penises in the 21st century.
Because no one has ever told him why circumsision exists, or why his penis is supposed to look a certain way. It was just reality to him. Just like it's reality to some girls to be circumcised and the parents uses the same kinds of arguments to justify it as americans does. Same arguments, same thing done to a child. It's just that Americans consider them more educated than Africans so they can tell them it's wrong to circumcise children. But as soon as we tell the US it's wrong to circumsise children they're suddenly as stubborn as African tribes.


So.. Carrying on. My older friend, who's 38, let's call him Dan. fought fiercly to get me to understand circumcision, and completely ignored verything I said about the benefits of remaining intact.
To him, circumsision is sa normal part of life as paying taxes or going to work. And he've never questioned it's wrong to question conformity. "Thinking outside the box" is alien to him. And that's not going to change. He is taught to believe certain things, and he will continue doing so.


To the 16 year old who hasn't been psychologically bombarded as much by the American public, and has more freedom to explore knowledge and experiences thanks to the internet, has a much healthier curiosity and sense of logic.
To him, having no foreskin is normal, because it's always been that way. But he knows that's not what a penis really looks like. He knows they come with skin, and he wondered why some decide to cut it off. He's going to get educated, do his research and ask the important questions before comming to an educated decision.

He haven't said much about it since, but he did mention he still doesn't get it.
Teenagers like John are going to grow up, and not have their children circumsized because they questioned the procedure at young age and finds no reason to do it to his own children. He's going to give his children the freedome to choose themselves, because he's educated enough to ask questions.


There's a famous quote that goes "If everyone does the same thing without questioning it, it's time to question it.". Because history has taught us that conformity is bad. Following directions without question is the way of ants, not humans. We have the ability to learn, but so many put their hands to their ears because they are so manipulated by their society that it's impossible to teach them new things. They don't want to see reality, because the world they live in is good enough, even if it could get better...

 

[Sewora]

Also it's not that hard to keep an uncicrumcised penis clean.

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

How many other body parts do you condone chopping off so that 10 year olds wont have to bother learning how to clean them?

That's the whole point of growing up and learning. Finding excuses not to learn or grow up just doesnt seem like a good idea...

*Cough* It cleans itself. Pretty ingenous evolutionary step. People haven't always been very clean, so to avoid infection in the most important part of the male anatomy, the penis have come to be capable of keeping itself in a rudamentary clean state.

Unless you retract your foreskin and rub it against dirt, you're in the clear really. The penis is tough, it can clean itself and evacuates a degree of the "filth" through urinating.
It's not like the glans is exposed to the weathers and other stuff like the rest of our bodies.

A child is more likely to get an infection in his ear than his penis.
And I don't hear anyone marching for their right to amputate childrens ears.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Because no one has ever told him why circumsision exists, or why his penis is supposed to look a certain way. It was just reality to him. Just like it's reality to some girls to be circumcised and the parents uses the same kinds of arguments to justify it as americans does. Same arguments, same thing done to a child. It's just that Americans consider them more educated than Africans so they can tell them it's wrong to circumcise children. But as soon as we tell the US it's wrong to circumsise children they're suddenly as stubborn as African tribes.

Can we stop seeing this absurd comparison to female circumcision? Women are circumcised to take away pleasure from sex, male circumcision gives more pleasure. Someone who's circumcised is not going to suffer a negative impact from it, so stop trying to compare it to a situation where there is a clear negative impact.

That being said, from all of the information I've seen there really isn't a strong medical reason to circumcise children, because of that I'm going to agree that it's a mostly pointless procedure. As it doesn't have any clear distinction for the positive or negative I say it should be the parent's choice. I've never encountered someone who regretted being circumcised or even who had a preference over the two, and most girls I've asked about it prefer circumcised penises anyways.

I do think that the parents should pay for the operation though, as it is not a necessary medical procedure.

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

Let me introduce you to...

I'm so glad that I can come to this thread for support. I... was circumcised as a child, I can't remember a time where I haven't felt scarred (both mentally and physically) and deformed. Kids used to mock me at school calling me names and making fun of my lack of foreskin, as if it didn't already bother me enough. It's tragic that parents are allowed to make such life altering decisions for their children.

Sorry, but Phlakes is right, sarcasm.