Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Zyxx]

I'm very much against circumcising infants (you adults do what you want to your dicks) except when medically necessary. I'm not circumcised and have never had trouble with cleanliness or infection. Hygiene: It's not hard when you live in a developed country.
If you're going to remove something to "prevent potential infection" because it will "hurt a lot" if you do it as an adult (you think it doesn't hurt a baby?) why stop there? Why not preemptively remove a newborn's tonsils, or appendix?
Because it's too risky? Well, circumcision isn't 100% risk-free either; no surgery is.
I see no reason to subject an infant to a painful operation with permanent effects unless the consequences of not doing so are worse.

(Arguing against its religious practice is a bit trickier, but there are motions within Judaism and likely others to abolish routine circumcision. Those advocates can argue against it in that context more effectively than I can.)

 

[TehXenos]

It should only be done POST infancy, and only due to medical reasons such as serious infections, etc.
Also, so many people saying that it has all these clear positive medical effects, yet I (and nobody else I have ever met who is uncut) have ever had a problem. The cleanliness line is BS, if somebody isn't going to clean themselves properly, then not having a foreskin isn't gonna stop them having cleanliness problems elsewhere.
Should I remove my childrens arms at birth? It has hundreds of medical benefits, such as;
No cuts possible to arms, no sore muscles in arms, no chance of hitting another child, can't pick up hot objects, can't drive so therefore have 100% less chance of dying in an accident, etc.
Its mutilation of the body, no doubt about it. There are tribes doing similar things to women, and its universally condemned...whats the difference?

 

[viking97]

does it really make a difference? all i know is not having one reduces risk of cancer, but having one makes it easier to masturbate.

having been circumcised, i'm kinda curious to how fapping without any lube would feel...

 

[Seives-Sliver]

The parents should decide, because when one is circumcised, it is usually while the child is a baby, or toddler, and they wouldn't remember it. There are also medical reasons, mostly because it's a hygiene issue. Really, it's not like a circumcision will kill a child, and it really doesn't have any negative effects, since when the child grows up, they won't see any benefit to having a foreskin in the first place.

But the fact is that some men do regret having a circumscision done to them when they were children, indeed some men use various tools and procedure to 'regrow' their foreskins.

Sure its not the majority but how many people have to regret it for people to stop doing it, 1 in 10? 1 in 5?

Just seems like the percieved benefits are not worth the potential risks.

Well, not much can be done about that really, if someone is circumcised, it really doesn't change much. There is kind of an underlying message to be made really, that it'll take away how much control a parent has over their own child, we're already kind of seeing the starting of it, with people being called abusers for spanking their children.

Even this is kind of getting out of hand, circumcision isn't mutilation, it doesn't damage a child permenantly, and most people don't care about it when they get older, and if they do, then they won't circumcise their own child. This is much like any thread on the internet, a small thing most people blow up about, and it's odd how this is about circumcision, and yet people are raising banners to blow this thread up.

We should start branding children.
It doesn't make a difference in the end, it's not mutilation because there is no permanent damage. Sounds pretty good to me.

Ah, we hit that end of the spectrum then hm? Well, let's put it like this, there is a line between doing something that benefits a child, and simply doing it to harm a child, while there is not many problems with circumcision, I am circumcised, and would not want to sprout a foreskin any time soon, there is a problem with branding a baby. There are benefits to having the foreskin removed, and no benefits to being branded, unless you're Steve-O, and do it for money, in which he is an adult, and made the decision himself. Branding a child, giving it a permanent tatoo, or even piercing the ears of a child isn't beneficial, and shouldn't be done until the child can make the logical decision at an appropriate age themselves.

Oh but there's only very conflicting evidence of benefits. We should cut out children's appendixes, and any little piece of supposedly useless skin because it could be beneficial and doesn't actually harm the child in the long run.

It's purely there because it's embedded in some societies. Here in Australia the numbers of people having it are considerably low.

There is not much evidence that there is something wrong with having a foreskin either, it's not really all that important, and not having one isn't going to kill someone. As for doing something like cutting out periphery organs and whatnot, they don't harm anything until they fail, but one would have to undergo surgery to have their organs cut out, and to do that to a developing infant isn't really a good idea. And cutting the foreskin off isn't complex, it's really *SNIP* and you're done. Though with the Brisk, that is odd, though I'm not Jewish, so I am in no way qualified to question their beliefs.

Main point though, there is nothing wrong with having a foreskin, cleaning it becomes a minor hassle, but that's it, and removing it isn't much of a problem, since a child probably won't miss it anyways.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

I have never EVER seen a thread more full of confirmation bias and recursive/circular logic.

This is a bad argument it is a shame to see this happen. There is basically no difference. The medical benefits and weaknesses cancel on both sides. It should be at the discretion of the parents...why? simple. You see if someone is circumcised as a baby they will NEVER know what they missed and they will not remember any pain. If they are uncircumcised as a baby they will not know what they missed and if they REALLY want a circumcision on top of that they can have a painful surgery and get it; if not then cool same.

Circumcision is a non invasive non damaging procedure that has little effect on ones life.

For the record I am circumcised, I was circumcised as a baby and I am content because I don't know what I missed out on and quite happily live the life of any normal penis owner.

Also: The evidence I have seen on both sides is a large amount of hot air. One thing that is fact is that people without foreskins will find it easier to clean the penis. Does this mean that people with foreskins will have unclean penises? NO of course not it can be cleaned with effort. So once again no difference. Less sensitivity? bull crap you don't know what you have missed. Quite frankly it's hard to imagine a higher level of pleasure than sexual if you are circumcised so you can't even IMAGINE what you have missed.

Also to those who think nobody should be circumcised:

Man you people who say nobody should be circumcised and it is just done because of religion. You are enforcing your opinions on others just as much as the fanatics you speak of, given the chance you would ban circumcision. Well how about this how about I pretend I am a religious fanatic I should say that "Nobody should be uncircumcised, its unnatural because it is against gods word". Who are you to define natural, who are you to be so selfish.

 

[Rule Britannia]

Not circumcised. I really don't care in the slightest, not once has the thought occurred to me "I wish I had been circumcised".

 

[Seives-Sliver]

I have never EVER seen a thread more full of confirmation bias and recursive/circular logic.

This is a bad argument it is a shame to see this happen. There is basically no difference. The medical benefits and weaknesses cancel on both sides. It should be at the discretion of the parents...why? simple. You see if someone is circumcised as a baby they will NEVER know what they missed and they will not remember any pain. If they are uncircumcised as a baby they will not know what they missed and if they REALLY want a circumcision on top of that they can have a painful surgery and get it; if not then cool same.

Circumcision is a non invasive non damaging procedure that has little effect on ones life.

For the record I am circumcised, I was circumcised as a baby and I am content because I don't know what I missed out on and quite happily live the life of any normal penis owner.

Also: The evidence I have seen on both sides is a large amount of hot air. One thing that is fact is that people without foreskins will find it easier to clean the penis. Does this mean that people with foreskins will have unclean penises? NO of course not it can be cleaned with effort. So once again no difference. Less sensitivity? bull crap you don't know what you have missed. Quite frankly it's hard to imagine a higher level of pleasure than sexual if you are circumcised so you can't even IMAGINE what you have missed.

Also to those who think nobody should be circumcised:

Man you people who say nobody should be circumcised and it is just done because of religion. You are enforcing your opinions on others just as much as the fanatics you speak of, given the chance you would ban circumcision. Well how about this how about I pretend I am a religious fanatic I should say that "Nobody should be uncircumcised, its unnatural because it is against gods word". Who are you to define natural, who are you to be so selfish.

My word sir! I kneel before you in homage for making a bit damn of sense in this thread!

 

[xXGeckoXx]

snip

Just one point here the rest is addressed in my other post. What you don't know does not hurt you. We do a lot of painful things to babies. I reckon that overall the trauma from immunizing babies by injecting them with vaccines is pretty good example of a failure in your logic. What is one of the reasons why we do it to babies? Because they wont remember it. Is your argument a good one in this case. Think about it...probably not.

Well sure circumcision is different and more about preference. But it is also quite significant, in Judaism it has quite a bit of meaning, it can be interpreted as a sign of faith. And what if the kid does not want to be faithful? Well because it is also quite common practice in non-religious people it could just not be interpreted that way. Yay for open interpretation, you are branding the kid with the mark of meh and they can choose it to be whatever they want. As a matter of fact from now on I am interpreting it as a sign from the upper beings of the universe that live in the 11th dimension that my penis is superior that sounds like a good meaning to pin to it and guess what...I can.

Edit:

snip

Thanks. Even taking into account the fact that we all have different opinions the sheer weight of the fallacies and biases in this thread are staggering. Having just written an essay on the topic I was a bit endangered by how badly people where arguing their opinions. Even if I get hated on for this you made it worthwhile (first time I have ever had to use an emoticon to get my point across).

 

[Rin Little]

I have never EVER seen a thread more full of confirmation bias and recursive/circular logic.

This is a bad argument it is a shame to see this happen. There is basically no difference. The medical benefits and weaknesses cancel on both sides. It should be at the discretion of the parents...why? simple. You see if someone is circumcised as a baby they will NEVER know what they missed and they will not remember any pain. If they are uncircumcised as a baby they will not know what they missed and if they REALLY want a circumcision on top of that they can have a painful surgery and get it; if not then cool same.

Circumcision is a non invasive non damaging procedure that has little effect on ones life.

For the record I am circumcised, I was circumcised as a baby and I am content because I don't know what I missed out on and quite happily live the life of any normal penis owner.

Also: The evidence I have seen on both sides is a large amount of hot air. One thing that is fact is that people without foreskins will find it easier to clean the penis. Does this mean that people with foreskins will have unclean penises? NO of course not it can be cleaned with effort. So once again no difference. Less sensitivity? bull crap you don't know what you have missed. Quite frankly it's hard to imagine a higher level of pleasure than sexual if you are circumcised so you can't even IMAGINE what you have missed.

Also to those who think nobody should be circumcised:

Man you people who say nobody should be circumcised and it is just done because of religion. You are enforcing your opinions on others just as much as the fanatics you speak of, given the chance you would ban circumcision. Well how about this how about I pretend I am a religious fanatic I should say that "Nobody should be uncircumcised, its unnatural because it is against gods word". Who are you to define natural, who are you to be so selfish.

Thank you!

 

[Bruenin]

Gonna keep it simple, I hate how parents get their kids circumcised without knowing what it actually does or without any real reason too and I wish I was never circumcised. I believe its a persons own choice and until they make a way for it to be FULLY reversable then the parents shouldn't be able to get the surgery done on their children unless its for some medical condition.

Btw just to clarify, all of this is my OPINION, nothing more.

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

I have never EVER seen a thread more full of confirmation bias and recursive/circular logic.

This is a bad argument it is a shame to see this happen. There is basically no difference. The medical benefits and weaknesses cancel on both sides. It should be at the discretion of the parents...why? simple. You see if someone is circumcised as a baby they will NEVER know what they missed and they will not remember any pain. If they are uncircumcised as a baby they will not know what they missed and if they REALLY want a circumcision on top of that they can have a painful surgery and get it; if not then cool same.

Circumcision is a non invasive non damaging procedure that has little effect on ones life.

For the record I am circumcised, I was circumcised as a baby and I am content because I don't know what I missed out on and quite happily live the life of any normal penis owner.

Also: The evidence I have seen on both sides is a large amount of hot air. One thing that is fact is that people without foreskins will find it easier to clean the penis. Does this mean that people with foreskins will have unclean penises? NO of course not it can be cleaned with effort. So once again no difference. Less sensitivity? bull crap you don't know what you have missed. Quite frankly it's hard to imagine a higher level of pleasure than sexual if you are circumcised so you can't even IMAGINE what you have missed.

Also to those who think nobody should be circumcised:

Man you people who say nobody should be circumcised and it is just done because of religion. You are enforcing your opinions on others just as much as the fanatics you speak of, given the chance you would ban circumcision. Well how about this how about I pretend I am a religious fanatic I should say that "Nobody should be uncircumcised, its unnatural because it is against gods word". Who are you to define natural, who are you to be so selfish.

And suddenly a rational person appeared. Seriously people, relax.

 

[BlueMage]

does it really make a difference? all i know is not having one reduces risk of cancer, but having one makes it easier to masturbate.

having been circumcised, i'm kinda curious to how fapping without any lube would feel...

You still use lube.

Claiming to live the life of a "normal" penis owner when circumcised is unfortunate. It's only normal because you know no better. You don't have my scorn - you have my pity. I wish your parents hadn't been so narrow-minded. I wish they hadn't desired to harm their child for their own reasons. But what I wish means nothing, because you're the one living with the damage.

 

[TehXenos]

I don't see why people think that its MORE acceptable to inflict this pain on a baby than on an adult or young adult? Who cares if you don't remember it, what right does anyone have to hurt a baby? Especially seeings the general consensus is "it doesn't make much difference".
If it doesn't make much difference, then why is it necessary to mutilate a child's genitals?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I have never EVER seen a thread more full of confirmation bias and recursive/circular logic.

This is a bad argument it is a shame to see this happen. There is basically no difference. The medical benefits and weaknesses cancel on both sides. It should be at the discretion of the parents...why? simple. You see if someone is circumcised as a baby they will NEVER know what they missed and they will not remember any pain. If they are uncircumcised as a baby they will not know what they missed and if they REALLY want a circumcision on top of that they can have a painful surgery and get it; if not then cool same.

Circumcision is a non invasive non damaging procedure that has little effect on ones life.

For the record I am circumcised, I was circumcised as a baby and I am content because I don't know what I missed out on and quite happily live the life of any normal penis owner.

Also: The evidence I have seen on both sides is a large amount of hot air. One thing that is fact is that people without foreskins will find it easier to clean the penis. Does this mean that people with foreskins will have unclean penises? NO of course not it can be cleaned with effort. So once again no difference. Less sensitivity? bull crap you don't know what you have missed. Quite frankly it's hard to imagine a higher level of pleasure than sexual if you are circumcised so you can't even IMAGINE what you have missed.

Also to those who think nobody should be circumcised:

Man you people who say nobody should be circumcised and it is just done because of religion. You are enforcing your opinions on others just as much as the fanatics you speak of, given the chance you would ban circumcision. Well how about this how about I pretend I am a religious fanatic I should say that "Nobody should be uncircumcised, its unnatural because it is against gods word". Who are you to define natural, who are you to be so selfish.

People do die from circumcision and sensitivity is a measurable value. You could read the citation people put in before calling everything people said is bullshit. There have been citations provided on both sides and not all arguments are hot air.

 

[ks1234]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

 

[R Man]

I think this thread has reached the medical equivalent of Godwin's Law. Are people seriously comparing the removal of a piece of skin to entire limb amputations and torture? Yet we allow tattoos and piercings, and not just ear piercings. Seriously of all the nasty things humans do to each other, all the various tortures like burning and flaying, is circumcision really comparable?

For reference circumcision is not the nastiest things men have done with their willies. In Mesoamerica Mexica and Maya priests and leaders would lacerate their penises with stingray spines.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

snip

Right and wrong. I was being a bit harsh (while trying to avoid bias) to make a point. Yes people have died from circumcision. But people have died from not being circumcised as well (probably before the technology to do it cleanly arrived people would die because they never had the proceedure as a child).

Pleasure is a measurable value but only subjectively. A person has his own scale and has no way of comparing it to somebody elses' scale so the top on my scale might be lower than yours but it makes not difference to me, I would never be able to distinguish. If I could take a pleasure o meter and measure it it still would not make a difference because I could not experience a greater level even if I knew it existed. A completely non objective factor here.

 

[walrusaurus]

Okay, how about this though. I'm circumcised, and I don't want to be. It's considered absolutely horrendous to circumcise a female, so why should it be any different to circumcise a male?

Yes, I understand physically, the two operations are very different. But my point is this: you are mutilating a child. Your child very well may not agree with your reasoning for that mutilation when it grows up. So don't cut your kid.

This. I am in 100% agreement.

If i was a member of Jesus' Church of Transsexualism. and it was my whole-hearted religious belief that all male babies must undergo sex changes to female and vice versa, would i have the right to impose that on my children just because my god told me to do it?

Or for a less hyperbolic example, if rather than foreskin, i believed pinky fingers to be 'unclean'. Would i be allowed to tell the doctor to chop my infant sons fingers off? Neither one hugely impairs your ability to function mostly normally, (they both do slightly). They're both equally barbaric, but one is legal and the other isn't. Why?

 

[Pipotchi]

I will repeat a point I made earlier most of the benefits/drawbacks are fairly minor on both sides, cleaniness, cancer rates and so on.

Plenty of guys are perfectly happy with their circumscised cocks and plenty of uncircumscised guys feel the same way.

However some guys regret it when they get older either because of a botched operation, or they feel wronged by their parents, or one of many other reasons. Not a high % granted, but those are the guys I feel sorry for. They were subjected to a medical procedure they didnt ask for and in later life they regret it.

Just doesnt seem right to me