Circumcision: a Pillar of American ignorance

[Rodrigo Girao]

I'm sure you feel it's in my best interests to try and convince me that I'm impotent, or scarred or that I should start calling my parents monsters.

I'm not saying you are impotent; occasionally, circumcision damages the penile dorsal nerve in a way that makes you completely insensitive down there, but I suppose that's not the case. Nonetheless, your likelihood of becoming impotent with age is increased. But I can say you are scarred, that's inevitable, wounds leave scars. And about calling people monsters, that's a matter of opinion - and you can guess what my stance is.

 

[Megumi0505]

To those who insist on that "uncut is gross, cut is cleaner and healthier" bullshit...

(warning: NSFW pic)

Spoiler

Which one looks healthier again?

lol! The one on the right seriously looks like a tentacle XD

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

So you think the dried mushroom on the left looks better?

 

[Hugh Intactive]

Reliable citation needed for anyone claiming that circumcision makes sex any less enjoyable.

Frisch M, Lindholm M, Grønbæk M, Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun 14. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947)

 

[Hugh Intactive]

How could someone be Jewish and not be circumcised?

"Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, president of the Dutch Association of Rabbis, said only about 50 male Jewish babies are circumcised in the Netherlands each year." (Ynet News, September 27, 2011) Today the Dutch Jewish population numbers about 30,000 so if the Jewish birth rate is the same as the national average of 10.23 births/1,000 population, about 307 children are born to Jewish parents annually, about 157 of them boys, so their circumcision rate is less than 32%. Contact details for celebrants of Brit Shalom (covenant without cutting) including about 20 rabbis, are here: http://tinyurl.com/britshalom

It's only the Jews that circumsize their people isn't it?

Nope. Worldwide, Muslims, followed by gentile Americans, tribal Africans, Filipinos, South Koreans, then Jews, some Coptic Christians, some Melanesians, eastern Polynesians and Australian aboriginals. (It used to be common in Britain and the Commonwealth but not any more.)

 

[Dwarfman]

And about calling people monsters, that's a matter of opinion - and you can guess what my stance is.

Edit. Statement withdrawn

 

[D-Ray]

I'm circumcised, and glad to be so. Whenever I see an uncircumcised man in porn, I get pretty put off. It's kind of gross, bro.

I find circumcised penises gross, bro

These two posts underline the entire argument of this topic. IT IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE!

Depending on where you live and how everyone views it, it will influence your opinion on the matter.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Some "subjective" views are objectively superior. There is really no moral difference between an American woman who prefers circumcised men and an African man who prefers circumcised women: in both cases, the healthy, natural human condition is seen as gross, and a deformed, incomplete body is seen as attractive.

If you find yourself in that position, you better stop and think: "Man, I'm fucked up in the head. Why do I see things this way? Was I born like this, or was I molded by the culture around me?" Realizing that the truth is in the latter gives you a choice: you can make an effort to mold your aesthetic preferences away from what you have been taught. Just as you were conditioned, you can condition yourself back.

 

[GeneWard]

*Snip*... actually, that probably isn't the best thing to say on this thread.

Great. I have to rehash an old chapter of American history.

An Adventist named Dr. Kellog went on a crusade against all sexuality. This went on from the middle-to-late 1800s and into the 1900s. He performed circumcisions on boys AND girls.

His views included:

- NO painkillers. He said the pain would teach the child sexuality was evil.

- He used acid to burn the genitals off little girls.

- He advocated circumcision to fight masturbation.

He even went on to say that masturbation leads to death from God's wrath, and even stated this was "proven" by scientific studies. He then went onto say masturbation angered God so much that if Americans don't take steps to fight it, God would destroy America.

This scared many Americans, enough for them to get their children circumcised en masse. The practice only survived to this day because the children grew up, forcing it on their kids, started a "tradition."

Its this reason Americans are keen to making shit up about the "benefits" of circumcision, and try to scare everyone about intact penises.

Oh, this puts a whole new spin on the matter. Thanks for going to so much trouble (At least partially) on my account.
In that case, this practice is barbaric! If what you say is true, this ought to be more widespread subject matter in the classroom. I didn't learn about this man and his actions, and I wonder for how many others this is the case. I would still argue that circumcision has hygienic advantages, but to do it just... well, for no God-damn reason is ridiculous, man!

 

[Hugh Intactive]

Reliable citation needed for anyone claiming that circumcision makes sex any less enjoyable.

5 seconds of searching on google came up with

^ "Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision". Pediatrics 103 (3): 686?93. March 1999. doi:10.1542/peds.103.3.686 . PMID 10049981 .

Boyle, Gregory J; Svoboda, J Steven; Goldman, Ronald; Fernandez, Ephrem (2002). "Male circumcision: pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae" . Bond University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Sorrells, Morriss L.; James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss, Christopher Eden, Marilyn F. Milos, Norma Wilcox and Robert S. Van Howe (March 2007). "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" (PDF). BJU International 99 (4): 864?869. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x . PMID 17378847 .

I would show more but I'm going to bed now.

To masturbate.

With my uncut penis.

U jelly?

Sure, go ahead. Although it kind of looks like you didn't really bother reading the thread, as there have been different studies saying different things since that one post I have, and even a wikipedia article summarizing the results of major studies. I would say that you should go over a thread better before responding to posts on the first page, but I guess you had more important things you needed to go get done, so I understand.

This is exactly the kind of topic on which Wikipedia can not be trusted. As it happens, there is an expert Wikipedian who patrol(l)s the circumcision entries ensuring they support his favourite operation. He's made more than 10,000 edits on the topic, and also co-authored papers with circumcision fanatics.

Really, how many studies does it need to prove that cutting a highly innervated, uniquely mobile part off the sexual organs (in an operation that began its secular incarnation with that purpose) makes sex less enjoyable?

 

[Hugh Intactive]

*Snip*... actually, that probably isn't the best thing to say on this thread.

Great. I have to rehash an old chapter of American history.

An Adventist named Dr. Kellog went on a crusade against all sexuality. This went on from the middle-to-late 1800s and into the 1900s. He performed circumcisions on boys AND girls.

His views included:

- NO painkillers. He said the pain would teach the child sexuality was evil.

- He used acid to burn the genitals off little girls.

- He advocated circumcision to fight masturbation.

He even went on to say that masturbation leads to death from God's wrath, and even stated this was "proven" by scientific studies. He then went onto say masturbation angered God so much that if Americans don't take steps to fight it, God would destroy America.

This scared many Americans, enough for them to get their children circumcised en masse. The practice only survived to this day because the children grew up, forcing it on their kids, started a "tradition."

Its this reason Americans are keen to making shit up about the "benefits" of circumcision, and try to scare everyone about intact penises.

Oh, this puts a whole new spin on the matter. Thanks for going to so much trouble (At least partially) on my account.
In that case, this practice is barbaric! If what you say is true, this ought to be more widespread subject matter in the classroom. I didn't learn about this man and his actions, and I wonder for how many others this is the case. I would still argue that circumcision has hygienic advantages, but to do it just... well, for no God-damn reason is ridiculous, man!

Another influence was a late 19thC California lung-doctor called Peter Remondino. He made up the "we used to need it when we ran through the brambles, but no longer" meme out of his head: http://www.circumstitions.com/remondino.html . And see what else he had to say: http://www.circumstitions.com/remondino.html#rape

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Yes, it is.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Seeing as though it is irreversible it should be a choice you make when you're an adult, rather than your parents make for you when you are a newborn.

I don't see why this thread ran for nine pages after you nailed it with the sixth reply quite how any body can argue with this point of view I don't know.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

My son was circumcised at a doctor's recommendation, and here is the MEDICAL reasoning that was given to us by a doctor, reasoning that that has nothing do with religion or aesthetics.

If a boy goes uncircumcised, it is more difficult to keep the penis clean and healthy. Most pertinent of all, it is possible that a circumcision may be necessary later in life due to the hardening of the foreskin or other complications. Most all of teenage boys and men who have had to have a medically necessary circumcision have turned to their parents and asked, "Why didn't you do this to me when I was a baby?"

And what is there to gain from not circumcising a newborn boy? Sex MAY feel better for him when he's older? Is that it? First off, I say "MAY" because I question how one would prove such a thing. Surely the only people who can make such claims are those who have experienced both and I don't hear circumcised males complaining about how sex isn't pleasurable enough.

In short: While the possibility is small, it is still very possible that a later-life circumcision may be medically necessary for a male, and that is destined to be one of the most painful and uncomfortable experiences he will have. One can sidestep these possibilities entirely with newborn/infant circumcision. And what does he lose? A possible increase in sexual pleasure that has not been conclusively proven exists and is not being demanded by the circumcised population.

Though it is rooted in religion and aesthetics, circumcision still has a logical/medical basis.

 

[SD-Fiend]

Yes, it is.

it really isn't

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

If a boy goes uncircumcised, it is more difficult to keep the penis clean and healthy.

Chop off your ears so you don't have to clean them.

Most pertinent of all, it is possible that a circumcision may be necessary later in life due to the hardening of the foreskin or other complications. Most all of teenage boys and men who have had to have a medically necessary circumcision have turned to their parents and asked, "Why didn't you do this to me when I was a baby?"

Let's give all girls mastectomies, so they won't have to do it later.

Seriously, I heard enough of those "medical reasonings" that make no sense. Truth is, they dismiss non-surgical treatments so they can get paid for unnecessary surgeries. Any doctor worth his salt will withhold circumcision until it is the last resort for an actual problem; otherwise, he is a quack.

 

[Iron Mal]

Well here's a little question (uncircumsised here, it's not very commom in the UK unless there's a religious reason behind it).

If there are so many problems and issues attached to posessing foreskin then why were we born with it?

Seriously, if it seriously caused so many complications and had so many risks attached to it (and was more attractive to the opposite sex) then surely it wouldn't have made it through our thousands and millions of years of evolution as a species?

Our ancient ancestors probably didn't have routine circumcisons done to their children and I'm sure they managed to get along and have sex just fine (we're here today after all so they can't of had too many problems with it).

 

[remnant_phoenix]

If a boy goes uncircumcised, it is more difficult to keep the penis clean and healthy.

Chop off your ears so you don't have to clean them.

Most pertinent of all, it is possible that a circumcision may be necessary later in life due to the hardening of the foreskin or other complications. Most all of teenage boys and men who have had to have a medically necessary circumcision have turned to their parents and asked, "Why didn't you do this to me when I was a baby?"

Let's give all girls mastectomies, so they won't have to do it later.

Seriously, I heard enough of those "medical reasonings" that make no sense. Truth is, they dismiss non-surgical treatments so they can get paid for unnecessary surgeries. Any doctor worth his salt will withhold circumcision until it is the last resort for an actual problem; otherwise, he is a quack.

Yes, of course, because reductio ad absurdum is always the best approach when discussing medical options.

 

[FernandoV]

At this point in out modern society, there is little justification for such an act, yet America continues this ridiculous practice, for largely cosmetic reasons, along with the ideology, "I was, so my son will be". Is this not insane? It is absurd to perform surgery based on cosmetic reasons unless of some horrible deformity or mutilation. Besides, the foreskin offers more pleasure, and keeps the head lubricated. Many people perform this act, because they do no know the alternative, and that is truly tragic. Throughout Eurasia, and the rest of the world circumcision is on the decline, because people have recognized these truths for over half a century. The only reason (Outside of religion), is that is can reduce the chances of catching HIV, something that has been huge problem within 3rd-world countries, but why not offer condoms instead of a permanent surgical solution, reintroduce the female condom, an older tool originally intended to offer women the tool necessary to keep themselves safe. What say you? This is not an attack, only an outcry.

Hmm, yea; circumcision: the root of all evil. I'd find something a little more substantive to complain about next time.