Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?

[Ishadus]

Well, it's no skin off my nose....

lol that's awesome.

Anyway regarding my opinion, I don't believe in unnecessary surgeries ever, least of all in children. Aesthetic arguments are pointless as people will have different opinions on what looks better.

You think circumsion is awesome? Then great, go and cut stuff off. However, people for circumsion never seem to have a counter argument to the importance of choice. It's not YOUR body, so why should you choose how to alter it? I think people with dozens of piercings/tattoos are gross, but it's their body to do what they want with.

The loss of sexual sensitivity is also fact, although the numbers of 40-50% seem rather contrived to me. I'd have to see a lot of primary source research in peer-reviewed journals before I'd believe something like that. This can either be a pro or a con depending on the individual, however. So, again, the importance of choice.

I never understood the cleanliness argument. Exactly how lazy are people? It's a small extra bit of surface area to wash. The fact that people take this and run with it to the point of horror stories about increased chance of disease is ridiculous. Not washing increases chance of infection - news at 11.

 

[WolfThomas]

I'm uncircumcised, my father was circumcised as a baby and he was pissed off that his parent's did it to him with out his consent. So he left it up to me. I've had two friends who both had to be circumcised for medical reasons (one for an acute para-phimosis, the other just tore his foreskin during rough sex), both of them haven't really noticed a difference except that masturbation is more difficult (requires lubricants, while previous the skin move well enough by itself).

I've remained uncircumsied. I don't really see the point, cleaning is easy. I feel that it should be a man's choice, not his parents.

I've known way too many women who balk at an uncircumcised penis. I don't want my son to go through that.

This I've personally never understood, an erect uncircumised penis looks the same as an erect circumised penis. It's only in the flaccid state the difference is noticeable.

 

[Gibboniser]

I don't think you can really expect a reasoned discussion, circumcised men are going to defend it to the death, they have it, and they can't change it, and the opposite applies, well, even if uncircumcised males can change it.

 

[nothinghere]

I advise people to watch the penn and teller episode of circumcision. I cant link it for obvious reasons, but google "penn and teller bullshit episode list" go on tv blinx and its season 3 episode 1.

Watched. I felt kind of ill watching those snipping scenes. Ugh my stomach still feels bad. And... yeah. Pretty shitty to be circumsized. Maybe I should try that... tugging... method hahaha.

I hated the opperation, I mean holding people down so they dont move, and they are hypewrsensitive. Just wrong.
You could probablly find a way to do that method and get it back though if thats what you want, so on the brightside atleast its reversable.

the operation isn't exactly reversable, you can get foreskin restoration but that means it takes skin from another part of the body and gafts in onto the penius, so it usually doesn't match up, and natural restoration can take years. It wouldn't be a complete recovery but it helps quite a bit, theres still pernament effects from the original operation.

 

[PunkyMcGee]

EDIT: My opinions are my own. I don't want to keep cleaning my inbox for a topic that isn't any fun. So I have deleted this.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Over here (South UK) its pretty very(?) rare to hear of circumcised people. I remember back in school (good few years ago now)in my whole school of about 300 people (not sure of the girl:guy ratio as it varied per year) 3 people were "known" to have it due to escapades in the sports showers. The knowledge found out that is, not that they were doing something in the shower that caused them to be circumcised...

These people were treated with equal parts revulsion and curiosity by the rest of my school. We were taught in school that the only good reason to be forced to have a circumcision would be if there was an underlying medical condition. Of course they also said it was ultimately down to personal preference. This was at a (primarily) Catholic School

We don't have such a large Jewish community as a lot of Western(?) American states though, as I understand it those that strictly follow certain (all?) sects of it are traditionally required to have it performed on their child at a coming of age ceremony. I theorise that due to the prevalence of this religious tradition it also seeped into secular society. After all if the minority are uncircumcised then girls are used to those who are circumcised. This is how behaviour generally spreads.

On an unclear point such as this the usual behaviour is that both sides point to studies carried out by their researchers. As the researchers have a personal stake in the matter they bias the results even if unintentionally.

We both devolve into a semi-tribal style of arguement where flawed evidence and illogical arguements are used on both sides. There is no way to gather completely unbiased data on this matter. Even if we asked an all female team of researchers to study it for us they would be biased by what country they are from and what they have seen all their life as normal.

This arguement will never probably be "solved" as it is Socially Sensitive Research. If one side is right then its not a big problem as guys can go have the operation done if they choose. If, however, the other side is right then there is a subsection of society out there who have had their sensory apparatus purposefully and irrevocably (currently) damaged. They will likely not be very happy.

After all nobody likes to hear that they are inferior in any way except maybe those who like a bit of BDSM.

Female circumcision is a whole new can of worms and is on a whole different level.

 

[Ultrajoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

Read.

No sure what to take from that. Seemed that unlike the examples I offered, certain important aspects of the practice of marriage, including the expectation of maintaining tradition for tradition's sake, or even the letter of the law, were omitted sheerly to provide an example that seems by it's nature to favor one perspective (female) over the other (male). I feel my examples are much more base and free of contextual biases.

Example: They injure a man in his reproductive organs in a movie and it's a comedy, the do likewise damage to female reproductive organs (and not just an outward strike, since male sexual organs are external and female internal, so an external blow would not be nearly the same thing) and you're making a horror/thriller/drama.

Media paints all women as fragile and weak, and all men as goofs and hard asses. We know this, gender roles are everywhere. And, sorry to act the pit-bull, but what about the examples provided in the blog are biased contextually? Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it's pretty much the perfect sounding board of equality issues. Childbirth, being all about the innards of a lady, is about as contextually biased as it gets.

Furthermore, ask a woman what it feels like to get kicked in the ****. It bloody hurts, and can do more damage than even a boot to the balls. Forget internal injury, kick a vagina and you can tear far more vital things than the relatively 'tank' testicles. But, as you say, this is always something done to a woman for shock value (often by a male) rather than something endured purposefully (see; casino royale). I know you think this example is a bastion of male victimization, but in truth it displays objectification of women and hardmful gender stereotypes far more blantantly

We are not societally perceived as equals. If that was the point I agree, but the slant still favors women by a broad majority.

It does not. You see equality, and because of male privilege think 'I'm being done over here!', re-read the blog. It rather carefully explains this. Try some of the other links on 'female priveledge' and 'PHMT'.

I'll even give them to you.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/faq-ive-got-nothing-against-equal-rights-for-women-but-weve-got-that-so-isnt-feminism-nowadays-just-going-too-far/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/

 

[RatRace123]

I was circumcised as a baby so, I don't really have much to say other than I'm still fine.

So, I don't see anything wrong with it,

 

[EvilPicnic]

No it isn't - unfortunately, because it is in fact a topic worthy of debating. However, no guy wants to admit that their manhood is 'inferior' to someone else's so both sides have a massive bias.

My "bias" is particularly massive. Heh heh.

Ok, sorry about that.

But seriously, there is one difference in the bias. Circumcised men are stuck with what they have. Uncircumcised men are not.

Maybe all blokes should leave this thread and leave the debate to the women who can be more objective...

Isn't that sort of like leaving the debate about female circumcision solely up to men? I mean, isn't it sort of a *problem* that they don't have a stake in it?

Heh, I was just being flippant

My point was that with this being such a personal (and charged) issue, lots of responses will end up being emotional rather than factual.

 

[stueymon]

I live in the UK where circumcision is not as massively prevalent in the states, I personally am not circumcised, I dont know about my friends, it's not really a discussion that comes up! heh!

Why is it so common in the states? It seems abnormal to americans to not be circumcised. honestly I think it should be an adults choice, but that said, I've never thought about losing any more of what little I have

although one thing i've been curious about and never really had the chance to ask, are you supposed to be able to pull it down when erect? I know I cant :S

On female circumcision?... what exactly does that involve? because I know in africa the clitoris is sometimes removed and that is just wrong. but aside from that? if you want to do something to yourself, go for it! I wont blame you.

*side note* I've seen images of a bifurcated penis... now THAT is fucked up..

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

On female circumcision?... what exactly does that involve? because I know in africa the clitoris is sometimes removed and that is just wrong. but aside from that? if you want to do something to yourself, go for it! I wont blame you.

Depends on where it's taking place. Sometimes part of the clitoris is severed, sometimes all of it is removed and sometimes the labia (lips) are severed too. Its sort of equivilent to the process of making a male into a Eunuch. Its intent is, depending on location, either to prohibit female masturbation (still taboo), make sex only about child bearing for the woman, make the woman easier to control (never understood that one but it is a possible reason women have it done to them) or for religious or cultural reasons.

 

[Varya]

snip

snip

I never said it would outright traumatize you, I said it could.

Also, your subconscious mind is largely out of your perception and control, that's why it called SUBconscious . It's quite possible for something to greatly effected your subconscious mind when you don't even remember it.

If I asked you, why is X your favorite food, why do you like the color X, could you come up with a thorough description of what goes on in your mind when you experienced said thing?

I still don't see your point. As far as I can tell your talking about insignificant differences. So what if my favorite color is green instead of red, or if I play the drums but not the piano. I still live a healthy life.

I will say this, yes your subconscious can file away things that memory can't. I apparently almost drowned as a baby, and might be why I never learned how to swim. However, not having a flap of at the end of my penis has no baring on me at all, even if it could grow back I wouldn't want it to. The idea of it just sounds gross to me.

It matters not because of what happened to you per se, but what could happen. A child should not be deprived of a choice, exposed to a risk, go through pain, (no, not even if the child wont remember) for a procedure with no proven benefits and several proven risks.

What do you mean no proven benefits? I copy/pasted this form a medical journal.

Spoiler

Are there benefits from circumcision?

There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

I hope this was informative. I know there are risks but don't say there are no benefits or else they wouldn't do it.

I think this is where we hit a dead end, from what I've heard and read, most of that data has been proven wrong or inconclusive. The part about infection I know is wrong, circumcision removes the protective foreskin thereby increasing the risk. The part about the cancer was also wrong, it was shown that most subjects that were circumcised were Jews, and that it was in fact their cultural look on cleanliness that was the reason for the results, not the circumcision. Also, if someone does a procedure like this on a child for cosmetic reasons, I truly think that they are doing something awful. I have nothing against cosmetic surgery, but it should be a choice made by the one who gets the operation not by a parent. I have no desire to find my sources and translate them from Swedish, so I don't expect you to believe me but there it is.

 

[Lexodus]

Amazingly enough, I don't have some desperate longing for the foreskin I never knew. I don't cry at night, holding pictures of it in my arms (like some of these guys who are against it are trying to make it seem), and I function perfectly well. Male circumcision is fine, particularly at a young age because it doesn't bother the baby and, if the bullshit pleasure statistic is correct, they won't know any different. Religion is an odd reason to do it, but by all means do- you say god doesn't like it (although that leads me to wonder why he created it then), I say, think whatever the fuck you like, you're giving this kid a couple of things less to worry about.
Also, uncircumcised shlongs look horrible to both other guys and a lot of girls. Also, rippage, etc. *shudder*

Female circumcision is a whole other story. That IS just mutilation, effectively the equivalent of castration. There is no reason for it at all and it is fucking disgusting.

 

[theonlyblaze2]

I was circumcised and it never really bothered me. I guess it should be up to the person or the person's parent, depending on age. It's not like your parents haven't done worse.

 

[Kuilui]

I was circumcised when I was a baby. I have no idea why. That whole loss of some sensation thing seems like a good deal though honestly if it is true.

 

[Sneeze]

I think circumcision is a frankly barbaric practice to force on babies. If a grown male wants to do it for health (in the case of something like a paraphimosis), convenience and/or cosmetic reasons, fine by me, thats up to him and him alone, but forcing it on children? It's bullshit if you ask me.

The cleanliness argument can be solved by just pulling back and rinsing when you have a bath or shower - simple.

From what I've heard there is no concrete evidence that it prevents disease or infection as many studies have turned up different results, some say it decreases, some say it has no effect, others say it decreases.

Last longer during sex? Sure but its less pleasurable for BOTH parties. Seem like a fair trade?

Arguing its a redundant organ like the appendix, lets for one second say it is? Do you remove the appendix of all new borns? No, you only do it when needed (ie. appendicitis) , apply the same to the foreskin, only remove it when there's a case of phimosis. Sorted.

Cosmetic reasons? A little subjective to start, no? It's only the preferred in countries that practice it because its the norm, it's a complete catch-22 really.

Oh, and lets not forget, its fucking painful. Its a fucking scalpel to your DICK.

And for what it's worth, being in the UK I'm uncut, and glad about it. Not a decision I'd have wanted my parents making on my behalf.

 

[Lexodus]

I live in the UK where circumcision is not as massively prevalent in the states, I personally am not circumcised, I dont know about my friends, it's not really a discussion that comes up! heh!

Why is it so common in the states? It seems abnormal to americans to not be circumcised. honestly I think it should be an adults choice, but that said, I've never thought about losing any more of what little I have

although one thing i've been curious about and never really had the chance to ask, are you supposed to be able to pull it down when erect? I know I cant :S

Dude, I think you SHOULD get circumcised. Your foreskin sounds to be either non-retractable, which some are, or too tight, which could mean problems.
Besides, you won't lose any length, just a flap of skin over what you already have.

 

[Lexodus]

I think circumcision is a frankly barbaric practice to force on babies. If a grown male wants to do it for health (in the case of something like a paraphimosis), convenience and/or cosmetic reasons, fine by me, thats up to him and him alone, but forcing it on children? It's bullshit if you ask me.

The cleanliness argument can be solved by just pulling back and rinsing when you have a bath or shower - simple.

From what I've heard there is no concrete evidence that it prevents disease or infection as many studies have turned up different results, some say it decreases, some say it has no effect, others say it decreases.

Last longer during sex? Sure but its less pleasurable for BOTH parties. Seem like a fair trade?

Arguing its a redundant organ like the appendix, lets for one second say it is? Do you remove the appendix of all new borns? No, you only do it when needed (ie. appendicitis) , apply the same to the foreskin, only remove it when there's a case of phimosis. Sorted.

Cosmetic reasons? A little subjective to start, no? It's only the preferred in countries that practice it because its the norm, it's a complete catch-22 really.

Oh, and lets not forget, its fucking painful. Its a fucking scalpel to your DICK.

As a baby you don't feel it, and trust me, it really isn't 'less pleasurable for BOTH parties'. Where are you even getting that from? It's not even less pleasurable for ONE party, especially if you don't have anything to compare it to.
And I'm in the UK too, I know it's not exactly the norm yet but I have no issues with being circumcised.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I hope this was informative. I know there are risks but don't say there are no benefits or else they wouldn't do it.

Circumcision may well provide health benefits, however...

'if it didn't help they wouldn't do it' is all well and good until you add human nature into the mix. We've been doing things with no benefit for thousands, tens of thousands, of years... just because we think it helps; Torture, Witch-burning, Blood Draining, Sacrifice, Buying Better Audio Cables, Lite Salt, Repairative Therapy, Shock Therapy, Hybrid Cars, Eugenics, Scientology Auditing, UN Sanctions, Affirmative Action, No Child Left Behind, Stolen Generation, Prayer.

People will consistently do stupid things for no good reason, the belief otherwise is not a good supporting argument.