How do you feel about circumcision?

[Kodachi]

There is absolutely no reason to.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. There are plenty of medical reasons to have a male circumcised:

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_3.pdf

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_4.pdf

These are info packets from the World Health Organization, which I think we can agree upon is a reliable source for this kind of information. I'll tell you to read the links if you want a list of all the health benefits of male circumcision but some of the highlights are:

-Decreases the chance of urinary tract infections of babies/children
-Decreased instances of cervical cancer in female sexual partners
-Ease of penile hygiene leading to fewer infections
-Lower rate of sexually transmitted infections
-Lower rate of penile cancer
-Helps prevent the spread of HIV

Now, I will agree that it is a choice, but I don't think that it should be either illegal or mandatory. I personally am very happy my parents had me circumcised.

Okey doke. time to show why statistics are a spin doctors best friend...

- Decreased the chance...: I'll give you this one, younguns aren't totally capable of keeping care of themselves and the procedure may help.
- Decreased instances of cervical...: Lolwut? This totally sounds like a giant leap into the old "Correlation equals Causation" fallacy so prevalent in medical science. Anyone remember the whole "Vaccinations for children cause autism" thing?
- Ease of penile hygiene...: I'll give you this one too. Fairly straight forward
- Lower rate of STIs: Gotta call BS here too. Careful selection of sexual partners and proper protection will help avoid STIs far better than circumcision. It's true that it's *possible* to have a higher rate of general infections but that's simply because of the above stated more complicated penile hygiene practices that aren't always upheld by uncircumcised males.
- Helps prevent the spread of HIV: Here's the exact wording of the document - "In numerous observational studies lower levels (prevalence) of HIV infection have been found in
circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men". Once again, correlation does not equal causation. You're looking in an area where HIV is a major issue throughout the continent. I'm sure there are many other commonalities among HIV positive African males. Maybe they're all taller than average as well.

One final quote from that document that I believe needs showing:

"Circumcision does not guarantee complete protection from any of the infections cited above and is medically indicated as treatment for only a few conditions ? most commonly for phimosis."

Honestly, knowing full well that circumcision costs money, even in places with universal healthcare, it sounds like the medical community is trying to play up the benefits in order to perform a relatively simple cosmetic procedure.

 

[infohippie]

I think it's a terrible thing to do to an infant. It should never be performed unless medically necessary.

I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.

Well, do you have a beanie or a helmet?

 

[PleasantAsAHeadcrab]

Don't have a penis, not planning on doing it to my future sons either. The whole concept of it as just weirded me right the hell out...

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

So it would be ok if your parents branded your ass?
And put piercings on you, or the circumcision equivalent would be just chopping your ear off because they prefer that look.

You're using extreme examples to prove your point. I'd point out the logical fallacy by name, but honestly saying it is rather tired. You know what you've done.

But, to answer the heart of your over-wrought question...

If my parents decided to have my ears pierced when I was an infant... I'd have thanked them. I hated getting my ears pierced at 16 because I am irrationally afraid of needles. If it was already done for me, and healed, it would have been a lot less painful and frightening.

So yes, I would want part of my body harmlessly altered because my parents though it looked nice and/or provided health benefits.

Since I don't have a penis, I can't really speak about foreskin directly, but none of the guys I've ever dated have had any, and they don't seem to mind. I will be circumcising any boys I happen to have. I have no religious beliefs about it (being pagan) - I just think his future girlfriends will appreciate it.

 

[Kyle 2175]

I had to be circumcised when I was 12 due to rather bad phimosis. For most people I would say it isn't necessary and doesn't do anything useful, however, phimosis, at least for me, was extremely painful and getting circumcised was quite literally a cure for pain for me.

I guess I would say that it's also okay as part of tradition or similar things, it doesn't really effect much. Outside of that getting circumcised young of course prevents any chance of getting something like phimosis but I'm not a huge fan of the idea of doing these things without consent from the person actually getting circumcised, and I'm pretty sure that you can't very well give consent to these things at a very young age.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

See? It still matters. You seem to lack many facts about circumcision by your post above.

... what? I provided a logical reason why it causes no damage to... and you just...

Wow. Of all the logical fallacies, I didn't expect to see "pretends opposition agrees and simply moves on" in this debate. Wow.

As far as my knowledge of circumcision, what facts, exactly, did I get wrong?

Or do you just mean that I didn't post a link to a TV talk show by way of evidence?

You know what - I really don't care. If you think circumcision is a big deal, fine - don't get your male children snipped.

I'm having any male children I have circumcised.

 

[Smooth Operator]

You're using extreme examples to prove your point. I'd point out the logical fallacy by name, but honestly saying it is rather tired. You know what you've done.

I didn't use extremes, just pointing out that circumcision applied to other areas suddenly doesn't make sense.
If cutting skin off a baby is ok why then limit it to penises, if it's really ok we should do as we please.

And to what extent would you really thank your parents for piercings, the entire ear, nose, lips, nipples, clit,... where is the limit? Is there any limit?

 

[The Lugz]

I just think his future girlfriends will appreciate it.

unless he happens to get a skin bridge, causing more harm than good or carry, and then spread std's through damaged skin or the thing becomes comically malformed from the healing / sedimentation process and develops odd hard lumps.
the fact of the matter is the 'perfectly formed, healthy circumcised phallus' is rarer than people would like to believe

that said, tight underwear can be just as damaging. it's a sensitive organ and requires unrestricted blood flow life long for good health

anyone advocating this is overlooking the hard evidence that this process causes severe problems, as with most things people blind themselves to the consequences of their actions

again
look at the documented problems for yourself:

http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

i cant think of any woman would like to see that unless they were into flesh-wounds

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Isn't it cleaner to circumcise?
Either way, I'm cool with it.

 

[Phisi]

Strongly against it as it can't be undone (to my knowledge) and it is the child's body not the parents'. However if an adult wants it done then that's their decision. I don't believe you can argue the better appearance case without complete hypocrisy if you are against the circumcision of females as it is one of the reasons for it. It is mutilation any way you look at it and should be illegal to perform it on male children, however we live in a strange society where to stand up for equality for males is sexist. The sins of our fathers is more literal then ever. I think I'm done ranting now, wait one more; cultural arguments for it are also hypocritical as female mutilation is a part of other cultures. Okay I think I'm done now.

 

[chaos order]

i'll take a neutral stance on this one. simply because the child is WAY TOO YOUNG to even remember the procedure and even then there are mild anesthetics that can be used to dull the pain.

i see people comparing this to female "circumcision" which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. female "circumcision" negatively affects the individual greatly, while male circumcision has no negative long term impact on the child. Yes there is a very slight chance of infection, as with any procedure, but male circumcision also provides some protection from urinary tract infections. so circumcision really doesn't help or hamper the child a great deal.

aside from the medical aspects circumcision has been a socially accepted procedure in western societies for a long time. circumcision can pretty much be compared to getting an ear pierced, its not a big deal and people shouldnt get worked up over it.

so if someone doesn't want to get their child to get circumcision, fine, but if they do, that is ok too.

 

[The Stonker]

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

So it would be ok if your parents branded your ass?
And put piercings on you, or the circumcision equivalent would be just chopping your ear off because they prefer that look.

You're using extreme examples to prove your point. I'd point out the logical fallacy by name, but honestly saying it is rather tired. You know what you've done.

But, to answer the heart of your over-wrought question...

If my parents decided to have my ears pierced when I was an infant... I'd have thanked them. I hated getting my ears pierced at 16 because I am irrationally afraid of needles. If it was already done for me, and healed, it would have been a lot less painful and frightening.

So yes, I would want part of my body harmlessly altered because my parents though it looked nice and/or provided health benefits.

Since I don't have a penis, I can't really speak about foreskin directly, but none of the guys I've ever dated have had any, and they don't seem to mind. I will be circumcising any boys I happen to have. I have no religious beliefs about it (being pagan) - I just think his future girlfriends will appreciate it.

Hah! You do know that the foreskin CAN be a pleasure facture for the man and the woman?
Also, if you've ever seen a penis with foreskin on it then you see it goes up and down, right?
Well, guess what! IT MAKES SEX MORE PLEASING.
Anywho.
Tell me the facts on except for the tight foreskin or religion on why I should take a piece of my penis and cut it off?
I like my penis. We're best friends.

 

[Evelynia]

Being of the penis-less (and female) condition, I don't know if I deserve an equal opinion on the subject. If I have sons, I don't think I'll personally have them circumsised unless their father feels strongly about it because I don't see the point. Does it honestly make a difference either way to anyone's adult life?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I didn't use extremes, just pointing out that circumcision applied to other areas suddenly doesn't make sense.
If cutting skin off a baby is ok why then limit it to penises, if it's really ok we should do as we please.

And to what extent would you really thank your parents for piercings, the entire ear, nose, lips, nipples, clit,... where is the limit? Is there any limit?

You ARE using extremes.

Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The body parts you've mentioned are all important. Nipple and clitoral damage is NOT something to joke about. I assume you mean piercing the clitoris or nipple (not cutting it off, which is what I initially got from your post) and my reply to that is that those are not safe to pierce in an infant.

The ear? Sure, why not? I'm not sure what you mean by "the entire ear" - like, cartilage piercings?

The nose - that would likely be a problem for snot reasons.

Again, foreskin removal has no medical downside. Removal or piercing anything but the earlobe would cause permanent, awful damage to a person. It is NOT the same. It is an extreme exaggeration. None of those locations are just skin.

The closest you might be able to get is trimming the ear lobe. It's just empty skin with no purpose. If I had freakishly long earlobes as a baby, and my parents chose to trim them to look more normal, I would be fine with that. It's a little skin that does nothing. No big deal.

I will say again - a clitoris is NOT just skin. It is in no way related to foreskin. It is not a valid comparison. Stop making it. It's offensive.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Female genital mutilation is done to remove a woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure - it isn't merely decorative. The male version would be smashing the testicles to create a eunuch.

How is slicing off part of the nerve system and exposing the rest to get numb, and doing so at an age where the child is unable to make the decision himself or defend himself? You're mutilating the child's genitalia to reduce sexual pleasure for religious reasons. There is no difference.

They really aren't comparable. FGM's equivalent for males would be castration, not circumcision.

They're still able to procreate, the purpose is to reduce sexual pleasure to reduce the likelihood of adultery, just as with males.

<Now the other post un-disappeared, please delete this one mods>

This is a legitimate thread and all you have to do is post your opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, but no sense in overreacting.

Nono, you don't understand, I reposted my first one because it didn't appear in the thread. I assumed the escapist had eaten it but then it appeared along with my new one.

 

[Wintermoot]

feel free to have it done but please don,t botch it!

 

[The Lunatic]

Given being circumcised is often cited as making the person less sensitive down there and hardening the skin, I'd say it'd better not to be so.


Really though, it's down to the person. I see no reason why it should be common place and more than anything it should be down to the person it's actually being done to.

 

[KoalaKid]

I guess I'll take a neutral stance on this issue as it's to late for my very large and handsome penis anyway.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

My personal view on circumcision is that it is okay if there is a medical reason for it - otherwise it is basically just unneeded surgery and surgery always carries with it a risk. A 10% risk in the case of circumcision to be more exact ( http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/ ).

I just looked up "mutilation"** and according to wikipedia it could be argued that circumcision is an act of mutilation since it degrades the function (by causing insensitivity due to exposing senseitive skin which causes it to harden). For fairness sake, medical oppinions on this range from "we dont know if it has an effect" to "it has a huge effect" - it is worth noting though that very few "it has no effect" exists if wikipedia is to believed in this matter.

The argument that it prevents cancer is true only for people who do not wash behind the foreskin properly. However, if you have a habit of not washing yourself for so long that cancer risk rises, you probably have other problems which you need to deal with first.

The argument that a new-born can´t remember the pain and that it is therefore ok to do it is also lost on me - just because someone cant remember the pain is not a reason to validify said pain. You dont put people with dementia through painful procedures either "because they cant remember it anyway". Why would you willingly inflict pain on your newborn child when it is unnessecary and even risky from a medical perspective?

I can see how there can be religious reasons for it but even then, there are very few religions which demand it explicitly. Even the bible says that "god created man in his own image" - following that to the nessecary logical extreme, is cutting something off yourself then not the same as cutting off a piece of the divine? I am not trying to turn this into a religious debate. I am just trying to cover as many arguments as possible here.


EDIT: The point is, if you want it as cosmetical surgery when you are old enough to decide for yourself (18 in most countries I believe), then go ahead and get it. Until then, I see it as wrong on the same level as other parentally ordered cosmetic surgery on infants.


**From wiki: Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation