Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[R3dF41c0n]

I'm against circumcising boys unless there is a medical or religious reason. America does it to every baby boy shortly after birth for really no reason at all. The doctors claim it's for sanitary reasons but honestly in this day in age that shouldn't be a problem. I think parents don't want to explain to their sons how to care for themselves but that's my opinion.

As for me I was uncircumcised until a few weeks ago. I had the surgery for medical reasons and kept putting it off due to not having insurance. After the pain and tenderness died down I can say I'm happy with my decision.

Still, I think it should be a decision a man makes for himself as an adult and not something parents do for them.

 

[Michael Galvin]

I wonder how many of the opponents of circumcision (calling it child abuse and mutilation, and that it should be the "child's choice") are in favor of abortion. Seems rather hypocritical to me.

I also have to laugh at people who are critical of opponents of abortion and gay marriage, claiming that they have no right to legislate morality, but then they themselves want to make things like circumcision illegal. Hypocrites.

In truth I'm not an advocate one way or the other regarding circumcision. If a parent feels it's right for their child then it's not my place to impose. My parents didn't have me circumcised, but it wasn't about principle or morality. They simply didn't see a medical need for it.

 

[Sewora]

I'm against circumcising children unless there is a medical or religious reason. America does it to every baby boy shortly after birth for really no reason at all. The doctors claim it's for sanitary reasons but honestly in this day in age that shouldn't be a problem. I think parents don't want to explain to their sons how to care for themselves but that's my opinion.

As for me I was uncircumcised until a few weeks ago. I had the surgery for medical reasons and kept putting it off due to not having insurance. After the pain and tenderness died down I can say I'm happy with my decision.

Still, I think it should be a decision a man makes for himself as an adult and not something parents do for them.

How does religion justify doing it? In africa they still circumsize women in certain areas (cutting off the labia minora or clitoris)for religious reasons. Is that fine too since it's for a religious reasons?

There's little reason to perform circumsizion on infants. The foreskin is not supposed to retract until a much later age, so phimosis is usually misdiagnosed. It is not supposed to be cleaned under because it destroys the natural pH scale of the glans. Most doctors around here will tell you NOT to clean under the foreskin on your infant because it has a natural protection that should be preserved.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

It's tough to figure out what religion i am, because I'm atheist. I merely dislike the way the natural penis looks as i stated. You jump to trying to debunk all this stuff. I don't have any of that as a reasoning for it. I just dislike the way it looks, and I for one am glad i was circumcised early because I would be undergoing a surgery that would leave me in pain for months if it was not done early in life, and yes i would undergo it.

It's ugly, you can stop attacking my country now by being a bigot btw. Just so you know. Every single country out there is evil in someway no need playing holier then thou.

I just wanted to point out that the surgery isn't that bad. I had it done at age 25 for medical reasons and it only hurts for about a week. It was tender for another week, but after that I was back to having sex.

 

[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.

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.

Sensing resentment here. And no, I did not like the foreskin even before for a number reasons and only some of them were aesthetic.

 

[RagTagBand]

The idea that parents should be allowed to mutilate their children is absurd and fucking stupid. Your child is not a possession, not an accessory, you have to be all kinds of fucked in the head to chop bits off them to suit your beliefs. I am unsurprised that, once again, the "Fucked in the head" award goes mainly to religious people.

The "hygiene" reasoning is equally absurd, We don't perform electrolysis on children's heads so they don't have to worry about cleaning their hair, we don't cut the tips of people's fingers off to stop them biting their nails; The true motivation here is laziness not hygiene.

The "benefits" of circumcision are trivial and superficial if true at all, the risks outweigh them alone and that's ignoring the actual tangible benefits of not cutting functional bits of the human body off.

The only acceptable reason for circumcision is demonstrable medical conditions like Phimosis.

 

[Sewora]

The only acceptable reason for circumcision is demonstrable medical conditions like Phimosis.

The foreskin on an infant should not retract, ever. It's only ever been used to prevent phimosis in later age. And the number of boys who actually have penile problems in later age are ~4%, so it's a bit extreme if you ask me.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I'm against circumcising children unless there is a medical or religious reason. America does it to every baby boy shortly after birth for really no reason at all. The doctors claim it's for sanitary reasons but honestly in this day in age that shouldn't be a problem. I think parents don't want to explain to their sons how to care for themselves but that's my opinion.

As for me I was uncircumcised until a few weeks ago. I had the surgery for medical reasons and kept putting it off due to not having insurance. After the pain and tenderness died down I can say I'm happy with my decision.

Still, I think it should be a decision a man makes for himself as an adult and not something parents do for them.

How does religion justify doing it? In africa they still circumsize women in certain areas (cutting off the labia minora or clitoris)for religious reasons. Is that fine too since it's for a religious reasons?

There's little reason to perform circumsizion on infants. The foreskin is not supposed to retract until a much later age, so phimosis is usually misdiagnosed. It is not supposed to be cleaned under because it destroys the natural pH scale of the glans. Most doctors around here will tell you NOT to clean under the foreskin on your infant because it has a natural protection that should be preserved.

That statement was primarily aimed at the Jewish community regarding male circumcision. (I'm sorry I should have specified). I don't agree with circumcision BUT if you belong to a religion community that views it as a requirement than the doctors should respect the wishes of the parents (even though rabbis perform the procedure if I remember correctly). My problem is when parents do it for no other reason than "it's America". Those are my views on male circumcision.

As for female circumcision I am completely against it. That procedure is done to woman so they won't enjoy sex and I believe it is wrong. The difference is the male procedure doesn't make sex uncomfortable while the female one makes it painful or prevents the woman from achieving any kind of pleasure.

I'm editing my original post to eliminate any future confusion.

 

[RagTagBand]

The only acceptable reason for circumcision is demonstrable medical conditions like Phimosis.

The foreskin on an infant should not retract, ever. It's only ever been used to prevent phimosis in later age. And the number of boys who actually have penile problems in later age are ~4%, so it's a bit extreme if you ask me.

I did not qualify "Circumcision" with "Infantile circumcision" nor "Preemptive circumcision", you have read something in my post which I did not write.

Circumcision is only acceptable when there is a demonstrable medical condition like Phimosis, that is when a doctor has diagnosed someone with Phimosis (which usually happens in adulthood).

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

I don't agree with circumcision BUT if you belong to a religion community that views it as a requirement ... My problem is when parents do it for no other reason than "it's America".

No, there is really no difference between "we do it cuz we're jews" and "we do it cuz we're americans". Distill it and it's the same: "we do it because others do it, regardless of actual good or bad."

 

[Sewora]

The only acceptable reason for circumcision is demonstrable medical conditions like Phimosis.

The foreskin on an infant should not retract, ever. It's only ever been used to prevent phimosis in later age. And the number of boys who actually have penile problems in later age are ~4%, so it's a bit extreme if you ask me.

I did not qualify "Circumcision" with "Infantile circumcision" nor "Preemptive circumcision", you have read something in my post which I did not write.

Circumcision is only acceptable when there is a demonstrable medical condition like Phimosis, that is when a doctor has diagnosed someone with Phimosis (which usually happens in adulthood).

In that case I apologize, I misread your post and made a stupid assumption.

 

[FateOrFatality]

I was circumsized for medical reasons when I was around eight, and I can honestly say I had no problem with it. I don't regret being circumsized, nor would I wish to be uncircumsized. So I don't personally have a problem with parents doing it.

However, looked at impartially, I'd have to agree that it does seem to be a rather barbaric practice. My opinion? Wait until the child is old enough to choose and understand the consequences. From my experience, it isn't any more painful or dangerous, although I'm not a doctor so don't quote me on that.

 

[AngloDoom]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't seem to be a very effective treatment. I have never been unsatisfied with sex or masturbation (well, I have on occasion, but obviously there are other factors too).

Well, that's a bit like a colour-blind person saying they see every colour normal people do. They don't know, since they've never experienced it. Science, however, says otherwise.

From this Wikipedia Article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin)

"Boyle et al. (2002) state that "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings?many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."[18] The AAP noted that the work of Taylor et al. (1996) "suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin."[19] "

OT:

My stance on this topic is it should only be done when the child wishes it to be done. If they care enough about the way their penis looks to have surgery, let them. If it needs to be done for medical reasons, let them. One of the most common reasons people are circumcised is that their father was too. This is no different from tattooing your baby at birth: it is purely cosmetic and should be within the individuals scope to choose how it looks. In fact, it's worse than tattooing your child simply because it won't affect their sex-life.

 

[Qitz]

I think it should be the kids decision. It's his penis why not let him decide what he wants it to look like?

There are a couple of Penn & Teller Bullshit videos that does a nice job of showing some of the fluff about circumcision. Don't take it as absolute gospel without your own research but still a good bit of information.

Also shows that if you were circumcised that you can reverse it.

Spoiler

 

[Durgiun]

If I ever have a kid, and the kid is male and if someone tries to cut off a piece of his body I'll hunt down the bastard with a shotgun.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I think circumcision is pointless.

It was thought to have medical and hygiene benefits, but that turns out not to be true. In fact the biggest negative is seems to have is trouble during sexual intercourse sometimes.

I think it's terrible that parents decide to do it before they can even speak. It should be the child's choice if he wants to cut off his foreskin.

I know people have to cut off their foreskin if theirs is too tight... But apart from that...

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I don't agree with circumcision BUT if you belong to a religion community that views it as a requirement ... My problem is when parents do it for no other reason than "it's America".

No, there is really no difference between "we do it cuz we're jews" and "we do it cuz we're americans". Distill it and it's the same: "we do it because others do it, regardless of actual good or bad."

I see your point, but I would modify it to say the Jews "do it because we always have" and the Americans "do it because everyone around us does it". It's not quite the same. Granted there is some tradition in the case of Americans but that tradition is like comparing an ant to a skyscraper.

My argument is the Jews have a reason while most Americans don't. The Jews do it because they believe God commanded Moses to circumcise himself and all his followers. That procedure is rooted deep in spiritual belief and tradition. While I don't believe in it I respect the beliefs of the Jewish people and argue that should be protected.

The average America really has no reason to circumcise his or her son. There is no spiritual tradition and really no medical benefit. They just do it because everyone else does it and they usually don't stop to think for themselves. I've heard some parents claim they did it to their son so he wouldn't get picked on in the shower room. That's such a weak reason to make a permanent change to a boy's body. I strongly believe everything on or in our body has a purpose. So unless you have a good reason you should leave the body as it is.

 

[Sewora]

The Jews do it because they believe God commanded Moses to circumcise himself and all his followers.

So because a fairytale character did it, it makes it alright for people to do it to their children? Force their religious beliefs unto someone who didn't freely choose it? Your argument doesn't hold up because it's based in the assumption that just because it's always been like that, it should always remain like that.
Evolution is not just a term that can be applied to biology, but behaviour and traditions aswell.

At some point someone has to stand up and question archaic behaviour instead of defending it because it has "always been like that" or because a book told them to do it.

Familiarity or tradition doesn't always mean it's the right thing, it just means you're comfortable with it.


Archaic practices that has been tossed out the window thanks to logic and reasoning in the modern world:
* Torture
* Oppression of women
* Beating disobedient children
* Performing dentistry on children without anasthetics
* Isolating people with Lepra
* Lobotomizing mentally ill people
* Cutting off parts of childrens genitals

There's a few countries that haven't really caught up with the rest of the modern world, but I believe the US and others will follow soon. With the new generation of educated children and adults alike, old traditions like circumsizion will be thoroughly questioned.

Ps. Mind you, I'm not trying to batter you, I'm merely adding my opinion to the discussion.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Sweet fucking jesus, this thread AGAIN?? I have two boys and they are both circumcised. They are fine.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Not as fine as otherwise.