Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[predatorpulse7]

I think we're a pretty sick race overall when we justify hacking off parts of a baby's penis and with such childish reasons as well. The religious reasons I find the funniest. God made you but hey, if you wanna be bro with God, hack off some of your baby's junk.

And no matter what some people tell you, uncut is DEFAULT and there is nothing wrong with it. The americans here should google the history of circumcision in the US and prepare to facepalm massively.

Just like only the US and 2-3 other countries hold off going metric while everybody else is doing it, US is in "select" company when it comes to circumcision:

And I'll just leave this here:

The AMA states that "virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.".Specifically, major medical societies in the USA,Britain,Canada,Australia and New Zealand do not recommend routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

BTW, I live in Europe and have beem circumcised because of phimosis.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

I don't care, it doesn't really phase me all that much. I'm circumcised, do I hate my parents for it? Not at all. In fact, I live in America, and I have yet to see an uncircumcised penis in person(locker room, showers, etc.), so I guess it's nice to not be a 'Freak'

It's normal in America, therefore, I'm glad I'm circumcised.
If I lived in Europe, I'd rather not be circumcised(or whatever is normal over there.)

I heard it's terrible to have it down later in life though... I don't think waiting is really a good idea.

 

[gphjr14]

Don't remember it happening, so I can't say I'm traumatized by it.
Have had sex more than once and performed fine.
Non issue for me. If I have a son I'll leave it up to the mother I don't care either way.

 

[Tanis]

"Parents shouldn't do it do their kids. Let them decide when they'er older."

My question is:
Why is it okay to take a sharp rock to a males' penis but not to a females' clitorides?

Answer:
It isn't right either way, just the male circumcision has been done for so long in the West that nobody seems to complain about it.

 

[Harlief]

Why do some religions love to mutilate the genitals of newborns? Behind the excuses and fairy-tales, you are fucking with the sexual organs of someone who is nowhere near capable of giving informed consent; removing a part of his organ which serves some very important functions and contains a lot of nerves.

It's a barbaric practice which has an attached death-toll. Yup, newborn boys do in rare cases die from an unneeded, destructive cosmetic surgery.

 

[Hengster]

I don't care, it doesn't really phase me all that much. I'm circumcised, do I hate my parents for it? Not at all. In fact, I live in America, and I have yet to see an uncircumcised penis in person(locker room, showers, etc.), so I guess it's nice to not be a 'Freak'

It's normal in America, therefore, I'm glad I'm circumcised.
If I lived in Europe, I'd rather not be circumcised(or whatever is normal over there.)

Well done - you are calling people who are no circumcised freaks but would change your position as soon as you were put into a situation where you would be reidiculed for it. There is nothing freaky about either type of penis but thanks for showing how you will follow he herd and not think for yourself.

I heard it's terrible to have it down later in life though... I don't think waiting is really a good idea.

So if you were no circumcised but had the choice later would you do it or would you be one of those 'freaks'?

The problem with this whole debate is that people who are circumcised think this is an ATTACK on their penis or their parents. This is NOT personal. Just because people do not agree with circumcism does not mean they feel sorry for you, or think you are a deformed.

Just as people who are circumcised (for the most part) do not really care if you have a foreskin or not and the only time they do is if they feel attacked or threatened so retaliate with errr derr smegma lololol.

This post has too many people defending their penises and lashing out at others because they feel their ego being hurt rather than looking at facts and logic. (both camps not just one)

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Eh, to be honest if you never had a foreskin then you never really care that you never had it. I mean, I don't really see the point except for medical or religious reasons, but it's not really the end of the world.

bullshit

I've held the fact that I was circumcised against my parents since I was 15. I'm quite honestly fucking pissed as its genital mutilation in my eyes.



On Topic: Can a parent get their child a tatoo when they're a baby?

Its a non-medically-necesary surgery. What other surgery, that isn't medically necesary, can one have for their kid?


thats right, NONE.


As far as I'm concerned, if you're an adult and you decide to get circumcised, than its your choice, you made the choice, and you're stuck with it for life. but for fuck sake, DON'T force genital mutilation on a child.


Besides, there aren't any medical benefits:

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.


Reducing risk of cancer is NOT a benefit. That's like saying "you're less likely to get breast cancer if you lob your daughter's tits off." but you don't see anyone doing that, now do you?



Also, the HIV arguement is a lie.

If you actuallty look at where circumcision is most common, and then look at the countries that have the highest levels of HIV/AIDs, you'll find that America has the highest circumcision rate in the world, and 3 times as many HIV cases (next to the large number of circumcision to HIV ratios of Africa) compared to Europe, where circumcision is very uncommon, and HIV ratios are much lower.


And I know our European friends are just as sexually active as us Americans so don't try and argue it.

 

[Almanac]

Besides, there aren't any medical benefits:

I had it done for medical reasons. At the time I wasn't entirely sure what the problem was, but I'm now quite sure it was phimosis as the general issue seemed to be that it was too tight. Retracting my foreskin to wash under it was both dificult and painful, which led to a build up of bacteria. I was given creams to apply to help remove it, but repeatedly forcing the retraction of the foreskin eventually led to a large blood blister on the inside. In short, it was causing me a great deal of discomfort. I gave my full consent to the operation, and 5 years on I haven't suffered any negative effects.

 

[Oskamunda]

Hmm...circumcision...really? We're going to have a whole talk about peens?

OK, fine.

The reality is that circumcision has been with us for at least 5,000 years, probably longer. Muslims do it, Christians do it, the WHO recommends it to Africans. There are many reasons to do it or not to do it, most of them cultural or religious...so let's instead look at the medicinal side of it.

Circumcision has been linked to lower rates of syphilis and herpes; it has also shown to inhibit the spread of HPV, chancroid, and even HIV (in Africa, studies have shown as much as a 66% reduction of HIV transmission in males who ARE circumcised, and damn am I for preventing HIV transmission in Africa). I don't know why this is, perhaps the folds of the foreskin provide a better vector for such transmissible diseases. Observational studies also indicate that circumcised men have a decreased occurrence of ED...but that evidence is purely anecdotal at this stage.

It is known that the foreskin does provide a barrier to the escape of urine and sweat, making uncircumcised males more prone to urinary tract infections, balanoposthitis (almost six times more likely), and even penile cancer. The penile cancer thing just scares me, and even though the incidence of penile cancer is ridiculously low amongst all men, and that most of this "evidence" is anecdotal with no serious cohort studies...it still terrifies me anyway. Also incidence of complications during priapism is higher among uncircumcised men...but priapism is a complication anyway, so you might just be slightly more fucked.

Guys I have known that were uncut describe needing to take extra care to keep the foreskin clean, and I have known girls and women who say uncircumcised peens smell weird (obviously if the man hasn't taken care of the aforementioned additional cleaning duties). I have also known girls to describe the sensation of an uncut peen as similar to a ribbed condom, increasing stimulation. The visual result of circumcision depends on the particular doctor involved, and can range from traffic-cone-peen to Nazi-helmet-peen (yeah...that's right...invocation of Godwin's Law in a discussion about circumcision).

Bottom line: Meh. Seems to be some sound medical reasons TO do it, and some trumped up human rights claims to NOT do it. But, for you guys out there who really think you got screwed by your parents, FEAR NOT! Circumcision is not, in fact, permanent...and you don't need surgery to get your foreskin back.

WARNING! NSFW DIAGRAMS AND PICTURES OF WEIRD PEENY THINGY EXERCISES
http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/manual-tugging/method-2 [http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/manual-tugging/method-2]
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html [http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html]
http://pages.suddenlink.net/manual_methods/index.html [http://pages.suddenlink.net/manual_methods/index.html]

 

[Kakashi on crack]

It's painful, mostly permanent, completely useless, and really should be a choice.

It was exactly half of those for me - permanent, and my choice. It was neither painful nor useless.

Giving it to infants is pretty much useless and most of the time they don't give them anesthetics.

"most"? Care to define that?

There is topical anesthetic, and two forms of injectables that are given. At least where I'm from, usally some form of anesthetic is used in ones performed by doctors.

In Jewish reliious circumcisions (assumingfull brit milah), the child or adult receives a small amount of alcohol as an immediate pain killer, and may on doctor's advice also receive something like infant tylenol. Injectables aren't common, but it isn't unusual for the topical cream to be used in modern procedures. Even mohels that don't use it themselves often make sure the parent is aware of its existance so they can apply it themselves based on doctor's advice if they wish.

Well, in the U.S. "most" would be that only 40% of infants who are circumcised are givin any form of anesthetic according to national statistics (the source is somewhere or another, too tired and I have a physics paper to write so I'll let someone else find it)

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Besides, there aren't any medical benefits:

I had it done for medical reasons. At the time I wasn't entirely sure what the problem was, but I'm now quite sure it was phimosis as the general issue seemed to be that it was too tight. Retracting my foreskin to wash under it was both dificult and painful, which led to a build up of bacteria. I was given creams to apply to help remove it, but repeatedly forcing the retraction of the foreskin eventually led to a large blood blister on the inside. In short, it was causing me a great deal of discomfort. I gave my full consent to the operation, and 5 years on I haven't suffered any negative effects.

My appologies. By no medical benefits I was referring to non-medically-necesary circumcision.

 

[DarthSka]

To start, I'm circumcised and couldn't really care less that it was done to me when I was a baby. However, that's me, not someone else. It was done without my consent and I turned out not to give a crap, but the same may not be true for everybody. Some might resent that it was done with no say on their part, so really, it should be left to the person to decide for themselves when they get older.

 

[Hengster]

and some trumped up human rights claims to NOT do it.

Explain trumped up.

 

[katsabas]

Did it. Medical reasons. Looks a hell of a lot better without a foreskin, lemme tell ya. Was little when it happened so my parents decided for me.

 

[Hengster]

Did it. Medical reasons. Looks a hell of a lot better without a foreskin, lemme tell ya. Was little when it happened so my parents decided for me.

I guarantee if you did not get circumcised you would think your penis looks better WITH the foreskin.

We all defend what we have so it is kind of flawed to use that as some sort of argument in favor or against cutting.

 

[Kimarous]

What does God want the tip of someone's dick for?

To answer that specific question, a lot of Old Testament religious laws were based around then-relevant hygiene conditions. Back then, it was a lot harder to clean the body, especially in the Middle East where water is a much valued commodity. Other laws deemed certain bodily functions (like periods and "nightly emissions") as ritually unclean, forcing said individual to avoid other people to avoid the spread of infection, and various meats were treated the same way for the same reasons.

They may seem barbaric by today's standards, but that was how they tried to manage health back in those days. Many of the other Old Testament laws were also specifically applicable to the time frame; laws concerning slaves weren't necessarily advocating the practice of slavery by the Hebrews/Israelites, but acknowledging that they existed and the etiquette to show such individuals.

OT: I am circumcised and, to be quite frank, I don't give a crap either way. I'm more irked about a surgery from my childhood (there was an issue with my urinary tract) that's left me with a big scar running down the underside of my dick. I'm still a virgin and I sincerely hope this doesn't adversely affect my future sex life. >_<

 

[Venoregard]

I don't think it should be done at all. The only exception is when it's necessary due to the foreskin cutting off blood flow to the penis. But people also sometimes needs organs removed if they become infected or fail. That's fine. But done otherwise? I can't bring myself to support it.

The evidence supporting it medically is substantial at best.

"It's cleaner." - Teach your kids to clean themselves properly. Smegma happens to BOTH sexes, should we circumcise girls too now to remove their labia because of the chance of smegma?

"It helps prevent STDs." Y'know what else Prevents STDs? Condoms. Whether you're cut or not. If a guy is cut does that mean he doesn't need to use a condom? Of course not. So what's the point? Teach children safe sex.

"Religious reasons." So it's ok to cut into your newborn's genitals because of a religion now? I'm shocked how such a socially liberal place as the internet will scream "bigot" at anyone against gay marriage, but using religion as a reason to cut a baby's penis is somehow okay.

Having a foreskin is the natural form of a male, the way that they were born. I don't see how anyone can be so stagnant about cutting a piece of your penis off after birth without your consent. To me, it makes absolutely no sense. Not that my opinion on it is going to stop parents from throwing their newborns to the knife as if it's not even a big deal, but, whatever.

Wow, I'm ornery tonight, aren't I? Excuse me.

 

[PhiMed]

Eh, to be honest if you never had a foreskin then you never really care that you never had it. I mean, I don't really see the point except for medical or religious reasons, but it's not really the end of the world.

Circumcision very clearly hurts and discomforts babies (or anyone else who has it done) for a while after the operation. It might not quite be the end of the world, but I still think it is very wrong.

So do vaccinations. Babies are pretty much completely unaware of the fact that it even occurred within two minutes. Their somatic sensory pathways aren't very well developed at that point. Not a good reason to do it, mind you. Just not a very good reason NOT to do it, either.

 

[mcnally86]

and some trumped up human rights claims to NOT do it.

Explain trumped up.

Do babies get the right to choose? Does a baby have a religion or is their parent picking it for them so they don't go to baby hell (a real place in some faiths?) Is the parent making a medical decision? Less time for JR to clean himself and less chance of STD's. Granted if Jr. grows up and is not a dirty person this is useless but some parents plan for their children to not clean themselves well. Does a baby have the right to choose what if wants for better sexual sensation? Babies don't choose that stuff and hopefully parents don't choose that for the baby when making decisions either. Sorry but parent have the right to choose, I know that upsets you. The only time you can say the parent can't choose, is if you adopt the baby. You can't take away parental rights and still let them be parental.

Parent make bad choices, it happens. But are all choices that heinous? Your parent did this thing not to be a monster but because they thought it was a bad choice. Shouldn't a choice with good intention be better then a choice with harmful intentions. Those are civil rights issues.

 

[CleverCover]

I don't really know, seeing as I'm a chick. If I was circumsized, I'd hate it. It sounds horribad. So, on that basis. No.

My brother hasn't been circumsized and is still alive, so I guess on that basis it's ok to not have it.

Either way, it's not necessary. Just...tradition I suppose.