Bara_no_Hime said:
I personally approve of it it (but don't disagree if parents or whatever opt not to)
You don't disagree if parents opt not to? You mean you'll graciously allow me to leave my son (due next month, incidentally) uncircumcised? That's very big of you.
Bara_no_Hime said:
Berethond said:
There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".
Though really, I think it should be illegal.
Um... why?
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?
If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?
Why? Because it's genital mutilation. On an adult, slicing up their genitalia without their approval or medical necessity would be considered a sexual assault.
Pierced ears and tattoos are generally done at the person's own request, and any reputable tattoo parlour will refuse to tattoo anyone not old enough to give legal consent. Pierced ears, again, have some degree of age limit; I have seen people who've had their toddler's ears pierced, which I have similar opinions about.
Circumcision is forcibly removing a non-trivial part of a non-consenting child's genitals. Its medical advantages are questionable (the old hygiene chestnut is nonsense for anyone who's learned the arcane art of washing), and its aesthetic justification is subjective at best and entirely fallacious at worst.
*You* think it makes the penis look better. (Personally, I find circumcised penes to look rather lumpy and misshapen, but I understand that that's my subjective opinion, not an objective fact.) I'm not sure why the appearance of a child's genitalia is of that much significance to you, but the sheer arrogance of imposing that subjective view on a child is staggering. What about if someone were to decide they wanted to cut their child's ears off because they preferred the smooth-sided look? Would that be all right?
Besides, in any instance where it matters how it looks, the foreskin will be retracted anyway. Unless you mean the showers after gym class, but anyone suggesting hygiene as an excuse for circumcision clearly would never find themselves in that situation anyway.
In my view, circumcision is child molestation in all but law. There are conditions that make it medically necessary, but in my view anyone who has it done for any non-medical reason is being simply abusive.
Bara_no_Hime said:
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure. ... Again, foreskin removal has no medical downside.
Now, that is just incorrect. It protects the glans from friction (allowing the glans of an uncircumcised man to retain its original sensitivity), keeps it moist, and contains lots of nerve endings of its own - in fact, some studies suggest that it's one of the most sensitive areas ("the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."
(Sorrells, 2007))
"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."
(Boyle, 2002)
Studies do vary, of course - it is a distinctly subjective matter, and few people are in a position to comment on both states - but what is certain is that it contains a high density of nerve endings, as does the frenulum.
There are also more specifically medical advantages of retaining it; to take just one example, several meatal conditions such as stenosis are far less common among uncircumcised men.
There are also a number of complications that occur with varying regularity; everything from unpleasant scarring, cysts and skin bridges to ulcers, necrotising fasciitis and impotence.
Incidentally, 117 boys died in 2010 following circumcisions. It's rare, but the risk exists.
Bara_no_Hime said:
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.
You're implying that circumcision is perpetrated to "look normal", suggesting that retaining something that every male is born with is abnormal. Well... Actually, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
If an infant is born with a defect that is surgically correctible - hexadactyly, for instance, or a third nipple or something - by all means correct that to "look normal". But if you try to tell me that a foreskin, which provides so many benefits and so few downsides, is abnormal (bearing in mind that over 80% of European males are uncircumcised) I will oppose you at every turn.
You do not mutilate a child to satisfy your own personal aesthetics. It's that simple.
---
EDIT:
Shiny Koi said:
In spite of being a woman who is an avid supporter of uncut, I have to say one thing: Stop talking about being less sensitive like it's a bad thing! Any of you ever been to a sex store, or actually, you know, had sex?
They have a massive lineup of condoms and lubricants designed specifically to reduce your pleasure so that you last longer. The more sensitive you are, the quicker you'll pop!
Unless you practice lots.
Given the choice between circumcision and "lots of pracatice"... I know which I'd pick. As for how long one lasts... perhaps I should let my wife handle that one. ;-)
Not often that happens in a discussion such as this one.
