Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[camazotz]

I just dealt with this issue recently when my son was born. I'm not circumcised, and honestly can't see why anyone would choose circumcision unless there was an arbitrary (i.e. religious) reason. We researched the issue extensively and determined that there was no medical benefit to the process. If my son wants to get circumcised later in life, that's his prerogative, but it does strike me as an antiquated and unenlightened activity.

I have no idea if an uncircumcised penis is more or less sensitive/functional than a circumcised one, but I can say I would rather not find out the hard way, heh!

 

[kurupt87]

Well it's obviously the individual's choice. I don't really think there's way to explain that in a way someone on this thread already has, so I'll leave this here instead:

Spoiler

I will add this: I hope Hitchens has never laughed at a joke predicated on murder or rape, or hell, any death for that matter. If he has, he's an enormous hypocrite. There's no logic behind saying that what a person finds funny explains anything about their moral character. I personally have the ability to divest myself from a joke, to realize that the people getting killed or mutilated or anything else are not real people. In fact, I'll bet you anything Hitchens has laughed at one of the many "crucifixion of Jesus" jokes out there. I can't (or at least don't care enough to try to) prove it, but I think it makes great food for thought.

I might suggest that joking about rape with your friend is ok. Joking about rape with a rapist, on the other hand, is slightly different.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The rate of AIDS in uncircumcised countries are far lower than circumcised ones.

You seem to be confusing a cause with an effect, here. The rate of people who die from cancer is higher in people who go through chemo than people who do not go through chemo.

That is a bad comparison. That assumes that Circumcision actually helps against AIDs. If that was true, it would be true for all cases. Instead, uncircumcised countries do not have those problems. The studies that try to state AIDs is stopped by circumcision would also state that AIDS should be rampant everywhere. Instead, it is not.

A surgery doesn't stop STDs, education does. Its this reason the US, and the third world have such high rates. Education is bogged down by superstition, and religious/cultural control.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue. Would you mind re-stating your case, and walking me through your thought process?

Rather than type it out, Ill just give this video:


It contains links to the studies. Its been posted in every circumcision thread, and no one has been able to refute it yet.

Could you explain it to me in your own words? I don't have time to watch a 15 minute video of someone on youtube's opinion about a tv show.

 

[ultimateownage]

Only for Medical reasons, really. Though most of the medical reasons can be cured in other ways these days. I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it, but I wouldn't ever consider it myself. Most of the 'studies' into the advantages of [having/ not having] a person circumcised are all complete bollocks.

 

[brtshstel]

I say the positives out-weight the negatives. Sure, it's a painful procedure. But it will heal. A series of skin lacerations will heal much more easily than urinary tract infections and other diseases. I was also told it mildly helps protect against prostate cancer. But at the same time, it's not as vital as, say, immunization shots.

It's similar to inoculations. Sure, a needle stick hurts like a ************ when you're four years old, and you can have a reaction to the medicine. But I rather enjoy the fact that my surrounding areas aren't plagued with a polio, measles, mumps, or rubella epidemic. And on that note, I seriously disagree with the parents who opt their children out of such vaccinations. It's selfish and takes no regard for the people who are at most risk of these diseases, such as the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.

 

[deadTLF]

I'm circumcised and am happy that it was done at birth. I also have psoriasis and i know that if I wasn't circumcised it would have caused problems for me in the long run. I have no problem with parents doing it to their kids at birth as long as the doctor doing it is good(there are a few cases were things have gone wrong) but as long as you have a good doctor I say do it.

 

[deadTLF]

I'm circumcised and am happy that it was done at birth. I also have psoriasis and i know that if I wasn't circumcised it would have caused problems for me in the long run. I have no problem with parents doing it to their kids at birth as long as the doctor doing it is good(there are a few cases were things have gone wrong) but as long as you have a good doctor I say do it.

 

[Orekoya]

I say the positives out-weight the negatives. Sure, it's a painful procedure. But it will heal. A series of skin lacerations will heal much more easily than urinary tract infections and other diseases. I was also told it mildly helps protect against prostate cancer. But at the same time, it's not as vital as, say, immunization shots.

It's similar to inoculations. Sure, a needle stick hurts like a ************ when you're four years old, and you can have a reaction to the medicine. But I rather enjoy the fact that my surrounding areas aren't plagued with a polio, measles, mumps, or rubella epidemic. And on that note, I seriously disagree with the parents who opt their children out of such vaccinations. It's selfish and takes no regard for the people who are at most risk of these diseases, such as the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.

Except tract infections can be healed with penicillin and doesn't require mass mutilation to fix. Also this fixes no other diseases. Besides the entire point of the bill was to prevent non-medical required circumcision. It's protection to cancer is miniscule and indeterminable(mostly because penile cancer is really REALLY uncommon, seriously you are more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer as a man.) and it's protection against stds are nullified by practicing safe sex with condoms. These reasons are paper thin reasons to cut off a vital part of the penis.

If no other reason to have a foreskin matters to you, then I will say this. The foreskin double folding skin layers account for roughly 40-50% of the penis's skin. Your penis can only grow as large as the skin available to it. When you circumcising an infant you are effectively making his penis 40-50% smaller than it could be.

Circumcision makes your penis smaller.

 

[SciMal]

Can i just say. Everything you said before this. Was. Beautiful. Thank you.

We can agree it is a medically unneccessary proceadure yes? That the risks either way are pretty much negligable?

Agreed. There isn't a medically compelling reason to circumcise; it's optional.

At this point this paragraph is where the conflict arises, the idea that a father can make such a choice for his son without his input or consent, and then he is absically forced to live with it forever.

I see two routes.

Cut but dont wanna - Screwed

Uncut but wanna? - you can do something.

Regardless if the differences in the proceadure on different age groups one looks more appealing to me than another. Id rather my child had the choice in his life to make a decision rather than having daddy autonomously decide for him. It all comes down to the rights of the child.

Our two opinions aren't mutually exclusive, yours simply implies that fathers should prefer to leave their children uncircumcised so they can choose later in life.

Mine doesn't have a preference, but does note that being 'different from dad' can bring up psychological distress if left unaddressed. This merely places a bias towards fathers who think it would benefit their sons to look more like them; uncircumcised or not.

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/forensics/11-forensic_anthropology/forensic_skeletons/peruvian_female_%28skull_binding_100bc%29-www.boneclones.com.JPG

In terms of "emulating daddy" id like to point to this monstrosity. I reckon this here is screwed in the head. And of course it is far far far worse than circumcision. However the same reasons justify it. I dont think it does any damage persay, or has any positive effects, but it can only by justified by preference... the parents preference. And is basically irreversable. I dont think the same arguements hold true for either case.

You reckon it's 'screwed in the head' because it's not your subjective norm. While I'm suspicious about the lack of damage, I couldn't find any studies to confirm or deny the benign nature of skull binding.

I wouldn't say it's 'far far far worse than circumcision.' It's a societal preference; and every society has them. Again, though, something to that extreme probably didn't come without consequences; so I don't think it's the best example.

I also think the exact same arguements would stand for example, tattooing a childs penis matt black. I dont feel this would be appropriate either so i figure we should put aside cultural bias for the sake of rights and leave these things to choice.

Watch teh above video.

"Rights" are a cultural and societal bias; they are not guaranteed by nature. Physics does not dictate the Right to Vote and Evolution does not necessitate the Right to Free Speech. Because of this, and the benign nature of circumcisions, there isn't a more correct answer when it comes to the debate.

It is simply the choice the parents make at the time they are presented with it; and my preference is that the father - who has the most experience with the consequences - make the final decision.

I don't ask more than that, and I realize it's possible to expect less.

Personally, I see a well-informed person making a choice about circumcision the way I see a well-informed person making a choice about breakfast. As long as you're aware of what you're going to do later (teaching the son about how little the difference matters / what you should eat later in the day to fill in any nutrition you don't eat at breakfast), the differences are so insignificant that the debate is moot.

To me, this "debate" exists because people are misinformed, and it's only with egregious misuse of facts or complete fiction (i.e. - intact foreskins means significantly better sex) that I step in to educate. Bluntly. With a hammer.

That's all.

 

[TheOneMavado]

It's child abuse. Nothing more, nothing less. Put the parents in jail where they belong for even suggesting such atrocity.

 

[SciMal]

These reasons are paper thin reasons to cut off a vital part of the penis.

It's not vital. At all.

If it was, every circumcised man would never enjoy sex or possibly father children.

It's not necessary for sexual stimulation or release, it's not necessary for hygiene or medical reasons, and it's only significant advantage is in regards to a state where the person doesn't frequently bathe.

Removing the appendix and tonsils have more of a physiological effect on patients than removal of the foreskin - and I am not joking about this.

If no other reason to have a foreskin matters to you, then I will say this. The foreskin double folding skin layers account for roughly 40-50% of the penis's skin. Your penis can only grow as large as the skin available to it. When you circumcising an infant you are effectively making his penis 40-50% smaller than it could be.

Circumcision makes your penis smaller.

There's so much bullshit in this one paragraph you probably shouldn't comment on any biological issue anymore.

I know it may seem strange, but the skin is an organ and grows to meet the needs of the individual. If skin was restrictive in the way you're implying, nobody would be obese. Ever.

Also, penis size does not vary due to circumcision. It varies due to genetic factors and environmental factors, with slight correlations to HEIGHT and ETHNICITY (which are ALSO genetic and environmentally affected quantitative traits).

The most extensive study of penis size was conducted with a few hundred men from multiple ethnicities and found the average length seems to be between 5.65" and 5.87" with a standard deviation of ~.9 inches. The average circumference between 4.67" and 4.97" with a standard deviation of ~.5 inches. Both depending on how you interpret the data.

After you stop comparing yourself to the average numbers and feeling better/worse, you can stop utilizing misinformation in your arguments regarding this subject.

Sincerely,

SciMal.

 

[Ithera]

Ahhhh yes. An outdated "medical" procedure from ancient days given mystical importance. A practice just as outdated as organized religion, and should hold no place in a modern society.

Sadly, humanity being superstitious creatures prone to flights of fancy. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

 

[fleischwolke]

Off with his head!

 

[Sewora]

Utter shit

You are delusional. Do some research on your o-- Oh right, you probably don't even have any foreskin, so you can't really say what's different, now can you? Hm.. Well, that's bit of an issue here now isn't it?

If you wanna know the truth, ask those who didn't have their foreskin amputated. There's no other way to find out.

If the default state is perfectly fine, and the only thing you add by circumsizing is bad things, then you can by logical reasoning figure out that it's not a good thing to circumsize.

Let me repeat, I can retract my foreskin and be circumsized for a day, you can't pull your skin forward and try being uncircumzised. So arguing against people with foreskin whether it's good or not, is pointless and ultimately useless. We already know how it is to have it, and the sensation of not to have it.


To put things easier, if you wanna know what it's like to have two hands, ask someone who has two hands and stop putting all your trust in the research done by the people with one hand.

 

[SciMal]

Utter shit

You are delusional. Do some research on your o-- Oh right, you probably don't even have any foreskin, so you can't really say what's different, now can you? Hm.. Well, that's bit of an issue here now isn't it?

If you wanna know the truth, ask those who didn't have their foreskin amputated. There's no other way to find out.

I have you meathead. Believe it or not, I have friends, and some of them aren't circumcised.

Funny how you didn't address your lack of scientific studies you used to claim the superior experience of the foreskin, or my nearly-dozen studies which says sexual satisfaction isn't affected.

If the default state is perfectly fine, and the only thing you add by circumsizing is bad things, then you can by logical reasoning figure out that it's not a good thing to circumsize.

You don't "add bad things" by circumcising. You add nothing, you take away nothing. It is a zero-sum game in modern society.

You'd know that if you read any of the sources I cited.

Let me repeat, I can retract my foreskin and be circumsized for a day, you can't pull your skin forward and try being uncircumzised.

I suppose... in the same way you can wrap your lips under your teeth and pretend to only have gums.

So arguing against people with foreskin whether it's good or not, is pointless and ultimately useless.

Sort of like the foreskin, hi-oh!

We already know how it is to have it, and the sensation of not to have it.

Am I being trolled? Are you the forum jagoff that everybody else avoids debating with and quietly let harass the newbies as a form of hazing?

To put things easier, if you wanna know what it's like to have two hands, ask someone who has two hands and stop putting all your trust in the research done by the people with one hand.

Hilarious. Next time my brother comes home from the Marines and tells stories about how his buddies got their limbs blown off I'll be able to say, "At least they have their foreskins!" I'm sure they'll appreciate the comparison you've made.

 

[Orekoya]

If no other reason to have a foreskin matters to you, then I will say this. The foreskin double folding skin layers account for roughly 40-50% of the penis's skin. Your penis can only grow as large as the skin available to it. When you circumcising an infant you are effectively making his penis 40-50% smaller than it could be.

Circumcision makes your penis smaller.

There's so much bullshit in this one paragraph you probably shouldn't comment on any biological issue anymore.

I know it may seem strange, but the skin is an organ and grows to meet the needs of the individual. If skin was restrictive in the way you're implying, nobody would be obese. Ever.

Also, penis size does not vary due to circumcision. It varies due to genetic factors and environmental factors, with slight correlations to HEIGHT and ETHNICITY (which are ALSO genetic and environmentally affected quantitative traits).

Alittle arrogant aren't you? So quick to call bullshit without even looking into whether or not any of what I said had merit. Here [http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=350] you [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/health/webmd/main3949777.shtml] go [http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Your-Penis-Is-So-Small---The-Horrors-of-Circumcision&id=2528111]. Skin only grows to an extent and at a staggeringly slow speed which is why the obese have stretch marks. Also the material has to be there in the first place before it can grow to accommodation. Yes, genetics are the determining factor for size, but by cutting off the skin you are limiting the potential size it can grow. Your penis stubs itself to protect itself. If you are lucky. If genetically you have a large penis and circumcised, you may likely not have enough skin for comfortable erections.

If you still think it's all bullshit, then I ask you this: how do you crop/dock dogs? You cut off some skin from the ears/tail. What does it do? Makes the dog's ears/tail a certain shape but it's smaller than what it would've been uncropped/undocked.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I love how these debates stretch out over 14 pages. I also love how anyone who is circumcised seems to get monumentally insecure at the mere suggestion that there might be anything.. not even "wrong", just completely unnecessary.. about cutting off someone's foreskin before they're old enough to consent. I can only imagine it makes a lot of people feel like they've been mutilated but still.. jesus.. calm down, noone is that interested in your penis. You're fine either way, it's not that big an issue, however it's also completely unnecessary.

There are a lot of misunderstandings about circumcision, so here's what I've learned over the years.

* Circumcision became popular in the US about 150 years ago for two reasons, firstly because some doctors claimed it would prevent syphilis transmission (which was epidemic in America at the time), but more importantly because it was believed to prevent masturbation, which at the time was being blamed for practically every sexual "dysfunction" the Victorian mind could catalogue (and that's a fair few).

* Circumcision does have a very slight reported effect on the transmission risk of some STDs. However, this only effects transmission from the "receptive" to the "active" partner, which is the least common type of transmission. If you're a circumcised male, your partner is absolutely no safer.

The differences we're talking about are also so negligably small that they're hardly worth mentioning. I'd suggest with the risk of accident or infection (any open wound can become infected) during the circumcision procedure, you're really no safer either way.

Anyone in any kind of situation where there could be an STD risk needs to wear a condom and wear it correctly. Anyone exposed to HIV needs to try and get PEP within 36 hours. That's the end of it really. Being circumcised will not protect you from anything, so any debate about its utility is fairly meaningless.

* The smegma which forms under a foreskin is not dirt, it's a residue left by the natural cleaning and lubricating agents produced by the body. It's easy to wash off and there's no reason why a circumcised penis should be any cleaner or fresher as long as both owners remember to wash themselves. It's certainly not germy or an infection risk, in fact one of its functions is as an antibacterial agent.

* Some people experience a loss of sensitivity after being circumcised. There are a range of reasons for this, primarily that the foreskin has a lot of nerve endings in and of itself. The loss can vary enormously from person to person, but very rarely impedes sexual function.

* On the other hand, it's much easier to get a glans piercing when you're circumcised, and some people find this helps negate the loss of sensation.

So really.. it's not a big deal either way. Some people also think it looks better, but I find that tends to be cultural. None of my friends in the UK seem to be particularly enamoured with circumcized cocks.

I tend to come down on the side that says you shouldn't modify someone's body out of vanity before they're old enough to consent, and yes that includes piercing your children (although piercing is at least reversable without major surgery). I'm semi-okay with it for religious reasons, and totally okay for medical reasons, but a lot of people seem to come out with complete bullshit about the whole topic and it doesn't fill me with confidence that they're choosing for good reasons.