Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?

[Syntax Error]

It's a disgusting practice. A circumcised person can't even be considered a full man, since you have a piece missing from the one thing that shouldn't be messed with, ever.

Hah, I find this post to be too funny to take seriously. Hang on, I'll go put on some flesh on my genitals to "man up."

Circumcision is the best way to proceed from all the studies behind it, and honestly it's heck of a lot better. All my female friends here in the United States agree that males should be too, since un-circumcised males to them just look too funny. I even know one who refused to have sex with a guy because of it, though that may a bit low, but too funny nonetheless.

And I'm pretty sure majority of the Escapist here (U.S. wise) was circumcised as a kid, and now they just want to rebel against the decision since the Escapist has always been against any decisions in the world taken that wasn't their consent. IE: Circumcision, wars, being born, not given a cookie, etc.

Must be a culture thing, here in the Philippines, you're not a full man if you're uncircumcised.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

Con:
>Your parents chose for you! How dare they!

If that's the only con you could find, I must say that biased research is biased.

*sigh*, damn. Alright, I'll add the rest of them.
>Circumcision is an irreversible cosmetic procedure, most often performed on a child without their consent.
>While a majority of men in the US are circumcised, %70 of the rest of the world's men are uncut.
>The state of a cut or uncut member can be the cause of teasing and humiliation, especially in pubescence. (Although so is being fat, skinny, weak, short, disabled, etc)
>The foreskin has a concentrated amount of nerve endings. Removing it "supposedly" decreases sensation/pleasure.
>Meatitis becomes more prevalent.

That's honestly about all I can think of. Notice most of them are not based in medicine, but rather on the philosophical or psychological impact of the procedure.

 

[EvilPicnic]

Pro:
>COMPLETE AVOIDANCE of penis cancer (seriously. "In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis.")

Um...no. It is my unfortunate duty to inform you that you still can die from a penile cancer. Sorry dude.

And most of the rest of your post was wrong too

 

[MaVeN1337]

One word: Smegma.

 

[Eirak]

In English you called that "circumcision" for both gender. Circumcision means "to cut around", what is done to woman is "excision" (in my language) when it removes all. It's not the same as circumcision in that case, it's more like a castration. The female circumcision (cutting the skin around the clitoris) also exists.

I don't know if circumcised men find it less pleasurable but they can come as fast as the others.

 

[zehydra]

Where is OP pulling his facts from? Out of thin air? How does he know that they have more pleasure? (uncircumsized)

 

[Tomo Stryker]

Pro:
>COMPLETE AVOIDANCE of penis cancer (seriously. "In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis.")

Um...no. It is my unfortunate duty to inform you that you still can die from a penile cancer. Sorry dude.

And most of the rest of your post was wrong too

Umm, I don't know about you but I would rather die with my penis that I think is ok and can satisfy my woman. But I mean if your cool with chopping off a piece of your penis that can add that extra "oomph" to your lover and live a long life with no penile cancer and not completely satisfy your woman... that's cool to I guess.

 

[EvilPicnic]

[EDIT] ^^ Uhhh, what? [/EDIT]

All my female friends here in the United States agree that males should be too, since un-circumcised males to them just look too funny.

All my female friends here in the United Kingdom agree that males shouldn't be too, since circumcised males to them just look too funny.

[shrug]

 

[Miral]

As for the case of female circumcision, I think people's reactions are again, way out of proportion (At least in my experience). I mean I've met people who rant and rave over circumcision and yet don't even seem to know it exists for females. I've also met a few people who are just fine with male circumcision and yet if you even mention female circumcision they turn into the people I spoke against in the last paragraph.

It's a problem of definitions. The female equivalent of male circumcision would be trimming back or removing the labia, which is a primarily cosmetic procedure which some adult women choose to perform, and (usually only in third world countries) sometimes infant girls have done to them as well. Like most cosmetic surgeries, this is mostly harmless but kinda dumb, but if adults choose to have it done to themselves then what the heck, it's their bodies. (Having an adult choose to do it to a baby, however, would be wrong.) So this matches up with male circumcision on all points.

That, however, is not what is commonly referred to as "female circumcision". For whatever crazy reason, that term actually encompasses both the above as well as cliterectomy (partial or total removal of the clitoris); the male equivalent of that would be chopping off the entire glans of the penis, or the whole thing. It should go without saying that neither the male nor female forms of this should be committed to anyone, for any reason, and anyone that does so should be up on criminal charges.

tl;dr: if males or females want to get circumcised (the former true equivalence case, not the latter one), and they're adults and have properly understood what it all means, then whatever -- it's their body, they should get to choose, no matter how silly the choice. But it's not something that should be chosen for them without their input, especially since it's usually irreversible.

 

[Jumplion]

I'm circumcised (religious reasons) and I really don't care one way or the other. I can still use my Johnny just fine, and I'd imagine most circumcised men can to. There's a difference between male and female circumcision (as I'm sure has been pointed out before in the thread) in that female circumcision completely mutilates the genitals to the point where it can no longer be used depending on the circumcision. Males, it's basically just a snip that the baby never feels (allegedly) and their little Willy is fine and dandy most of the time.

If the parents decide for their baby to be circumcised, I hope it is out of their best intentions and not because "it's the norm" or whatever. If you think the benefits outweigh the cons, then I think it's fine to do so to a baby. After all, a parent's responsibility is the welfare of their child. But if it's just "because", then that's just wrong I think.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

The big problem I have is when people throw around the "Fact" that there is a loss of pleasure with a circumcised penis.....how the hell do they know? Are circumcised men incapable of having orgasms? Are they suddenly unwilling to have sex because it doesn't feel good?

HELL NO. It's just a myth anti-circumcision people throw around.

I personally am all for it. It's easier for cleaning, helps protect against infection and for god's sake it's NORMAL. I've known way too many women who balk at an uncircumcised penis. I don't want my son to go through that. You do it as a baby, there's no memory of the event.

i will agree to that last part, i have known quite a few girls who didn't know what an uncircumcised one looked like, and they saw one, and they were grossed out by it, so yeah, for the medical reasons (which have been proven, hell my aunt does studies involving stuff like that for a living and she "highly" persuades everyone to do it)

so yeah, for all the reasons listed, plus not having my son be ashamed when he does actually get into intimate actions, i'm for having it legal.

 

[Stevanchez]

This guy makes a lot of good points:



For all you sticklers out there, all of his references are at the end of the video.
I would also invite you to find a video of a baby getting circumcised, it's pretty bad. Especially when you consider that the forskin is attached to the penis head like your nail to the nail bed when you're a baby.
Oh, if you haven't figured it out, I'm against doing it to babies. Adults can do whatever they want to themselves.

 

[jawakiller]

There is no damage done in the process so its not exactly like hacking off a toddlers digits. Besides, it doesn't affect your life enough to justify bitching. Now if my parents had the tips of my fingers shaved... I would certainly let the bitching commence.

There is damage done. That has one of the highest densities of nerves in your body and mutilates the child, it is also suppose to make sex less pleasurable for the woman (that is anecdotal but still makes sense-less to stimulate the woman). If you had you pinky tip cut off it would not impair your ability to function and would have the same benefits of circumcision.

Besides if the grown man wants one later for cosmetic reasons he can have it done, there is no reason to do it to babies.

But being circumcised doesn't "impair" your ability to have sex. The whole argument about women's pleasure? I've never had a complaint yet. And getting one while your an adult is insane, even with pain killers. Besides, many people have their children's ears pierced. Is that mutilation?

And if the tip of my pinky was cut off I would probably hate my parents.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

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

You're right, of course. It's a tough issue... particularly so for circumcised men. I mean, the clear consensus now is that there's no medically compelling reason to perform the operation, but that can be kind of hard to accept if you had it performed on you. Presumably, you really want to think it happened for good reason.

 

[Nova Helix]

And if the tip of my pinky was cut off I would probably hate my parents.

Whats the difference? As you said you wouldn't know what you were missing with only 2/3 of a pinky, that much pinky wouldn't change the ability to use your hand much.

I am against infant piercing. When they are older if they ask for it fine, many women go their whole lives without piercing.

 

[smaug85]

question, get circumcised now or you run a bigger risk of getting testicular cancer in other words more of a chance to lose ALL sexual pleasure, plus I know multiple girls who say sex with circumcised looks better and is better, so i agree with the way it is now, plus it's also a religious thing so that's like forcing your views on someone which violates the first amendment's freedom of religion. On another note my security recaptcha was Hamp, Schurible that shall be my british book characters name, Mr. Schuribl Hamp

 

[dex-dex]

if it was how nature had planned it then why tamper with it?
I do not know guys who are because judaism is rare in my town.
but If it just so it is easier to clean but you lose almost half of sexual pleasure then what is the point?
i would not turn them down if they were.

 

[kickyourass]

As for the case of female circumcision, I think people's reactions are again, way out of proportion (At least in my experience). I mean I've met people who rant and rave over circumcision and yet don't even seem to know it exists for females. I've also met a few people who are just fine with male circumcision and yet if you even mention female circumcision they turn into the people I spoke against in the last paragraph.

It's a problem of definitions. The female equivalent of male circumcision would be trimming back or removing the labia, which is a primarily cosmetic procedure which some adult women choose to perform, and (usually only in third world countries) sometimes infant girls have done to them as well. Like most cosmetic surgeries, this is mostly harmless but kinda dumb, but if adults choose to have it done to themselves then what the heck, it's their bodies. (Having an adult choose to do it to a baby, however, would be wrong.) So this matches up with male circumcision on all points.

That, however, is not what is commonly referred to as "female circumcision". For whatever crazy reason, that term actually encompasses both the above as well as cliterectomy (partial or total removal of the clitoris); the male equivalent of that would be chopping off the entire glans of the penis, or the whole thing. It should go without saying that neither the male nor female forms of this should be committed to anyone, for any reason, and anyone that does so should be up on criminal charges.

tl;dr: if males or females want to get circumcised (the former true equivalence case, not the latter one), and they're adults and have properly understood what it all means, then whatever -- it's their body, they should get to choose, no matter how silly the choice. But it's not something that should be chosen for them without their input, especially since it's usually irreversible.

Thank you for that, I wasn't aware of most of that. What I was refering to when I said "Female Circumcision" was much closer to the first definition you gave, but now I understand a bit more why people get up in arms over "Female circumcision," even if the term isn't quite used correctly.