Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Rodrigo Girao]

http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

You used Brian Morris as a reference. Your argument is invalid.

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris

 

[SciMal]

Alittle arrogant aren't you?

Yes, I am. It comes from being a Scientist and having to deal with bullshit on a daily basis from everybody who thinks subjective experiences somehow compromise Scientific Fact.

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]...

Okay, after nearly an hour of scouring the net, I found the study this blog is referencing:

"Are condoms the right size(s)? a method for self-measurement of the erect penis." Venereology 1995; 8(2):77-81.

The study was actually about analyzing a method to accurately measure the penis for condom sizes, and had absolutely nothing to do with the causative effects of circumcision. They mention the correlation (which is not causation) once, without statistical analysis, and it is never brought up again in any other journal I can find.

You should note that Christopher Fletcher, M.D. - the person you find quoted all over Google - did not actually perform the study.

Other things I noticed:
-The study also correlates condom use to penis size. Condom use declined for narrower penises.

In the end, I'm forced to conclude that Christopher Fletcher's quote is derived from him taking the information wildly out of context and prescribing his own bias to it.

Sorry mate, it just doesn't say what you think it does.

you [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/health/webmd/main3949777.shtml]

This article doesn't mention the foreskin at all, and doesn't correlate circumcision to any dysfunctions or malformations. It mentions that flaccid length doesn't correlate to erect length, and that the penis has a "boomerang" shape to it because it's only partially external.

Useless.

go [http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Your-Penis-Is-So-Small---The-Horrors-of-Circumcision&id=2528111].

This is an ad for Penis Enlargement Exercises. It's only one step above junk-mail because it references the aforementioned Venerology article.

Useless.

Skin only grows to an extent and at a staggeringly slow speed which is why the obese have stretch marks.

I wouldn't call it staggeringly slow; skin cells have fairly high turnover rates (from days to weeks, usually).

You're also missing the point: You said that the lack of foreskin causes penises to grow less than they would otherwise because of mumblesomethingblarghdybloo.

This is simply false. The skin doesn't restrict the size of anything, and is the most malleable organ in the body. Blood flow will restrict penis size before skin. You can always make more skin, but at some point the amount of blood in an erect penis will cause the man to pass out.

Also the material has to be there in the first place before it can grow to accommodation.

This sentence is a tautology. "The skin has to be there before it can grow." ==> "The skin must exist to exist."

You seem to think that the foreskin is either completely intact at birth and simply expands like an accordion as you reach adulthood instead of growing along with the child, or that there's an upper limit on the size it can reach due to the "slow growth" of the skin.

Both are false.

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.

There's no physiological evidence to confirm anything you just said. At all. You are essentially saying that muscles shouldn't be able to get as large as they do in body-builders because the skin on the arm should restrict their size.

I'm sorry, your assertion is just wrong.

 

[Sellfish]

OK... I registered just to take part in this poll and state my opinion about that; how crazy is that?!

First, let me tell you something about myself:
I am 24 (soon 25) years old, roman catholic (even though I don't give a damn), German and circumcised since I've been 2, 3, 4(?) years old? I seriously can't put my finger on it.
My penis - here we go ^^ - is of regular size (13-15cm, varies) and belongs to the "blood penis" sub-type or whatever you might call it. I have no problems whatsoever that are or could in any way be related to the circumcision and everything functions properly.
The surgery was performed due to medical reasons and in a regular hospital under anesthesia.

Am I pro or contra this procedure?
PRO!
Why? It's convenient... humans do not need this part of their body anymore. Hair, the appendix, wisdom tooths AND the foreskin are nothing but remnants of long gone ages. Washing is easy and quick, peeing is easy, quick and clean, sex is easy and clean - although sometimes quick *wink*

Do I think it looks better/worse than an uncircumcised penis?
Yes and no... both kinds can be ugly looking, but a wrinkled skin over your penis? No, thank you!

Should it be performed out of religious reasons?
HELL NO! F*CK RELIGIONS!

Medical reasons?
YES!

Who should get to decide?
I DON'T CARE! Complaining about this in my opinion is bat shit crazy - it must be an American or maybe Christian thing. No one robbed you of anything, no part of your life is reduced in quality because of this - it even is improved in some ways.
But as I also want children to be not allowed to practice any religion until the age of 18/21 and THEN choosing what and if they want to believe I have to go with: Let the child decide! Except for medical reasons, then it's necessary.

 

[ILikeEggs]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Foreskin_sensitivity


http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/


http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/

Spoiler

As compared with genitally intact men, circumcised men reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with their orgasms. (p < .05) and a wide range of negative emotions associated with being circumcised (p < .05). Previous research indicates women enjoy intercourse better with genitally intact men (9, O'Hara & O'Hara, 2001, see above). In view of the present findings based on self-selected participants, the possible negative effects on adults' sexual function and psychological well-being need to be discussed in obtaining informed consent for circumcision (sexual reduction surgery) imposed on unconsenting male minors. Much larger representative samples are desirable.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Spoiler

We postulate that the `ridged band' with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue and that it cooperates with other components of the prepuce. In this model, the `smooth' mucosa and true skin of the adult prepuce act together to allow the `ridged band' to move from a forward to a `deployed' position on the shaft of the penis. In short, the prepuce should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more and less specialized parts.


http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

It is generally thought that the prepuce protects the glans. However, it is equally likely that the glans shapes and protects the prepuce. In return, the glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce. Possibly, the `ridged band' helps mediate the afferent limb of the ejaculatory reflex. Another use has to be found for the infantile prepuce, which contains muscle bundles, blood vessels and nerves in profusion; its internal organization is poorly understood but a case can be made for sensory tissue with the rigidity and form associated with specific function.

Go nuts. You'll also notice how in the case of the Sorells study(if you check the wiki, that is) that Morris and Waskett pulled general pedantry in order to undermine the study while providing no conclusive proof of their own. They also argued that fine-touch sensitivity was not the only type of sensitivity, but by arguing that, you're accepting that it(fine-touch sensitivity) is lost with the foreskin, and if fine-touch sensitivity triggers don't exist, you'd have to resort to (possibly)more aggressive forms of stimulation, since only pressure, pain, vibration and temperature(The glans doesn't even temperature sensitivity) sensitivity triggers remain. This ties in with the study I'm going to quote below

Spoiler

The O'Hara and O'Hara study in the UK was a self-selected, voluntary survey. Some of its subjects were recruited from anti-circumcision sources, tending to bias results away from circumcision, but it had two strikes in its favour.

All the women who took part had experienced sex with both intact and circumcised men.
They described in detail what they experienced, and sometimes found favourable attributes in spite of their preferences

"[The] women [who] preferred circumcised partners ... still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints ... during intercourse than their circumcised partners."

"Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents."

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

More misinformation. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and will sometimes not separate(naturally, of course) till late puberty. Even so, it isn't like you need to be scrubbing it down aggressively with soap. A light rub(which is how masturbation starts and why circumcision was introduced in the first place) under running water is more than enough unless the child has an open wound down there.

Simply put, I was an idiot when i was young, and i refuse to believe i'm no the only one out there who was like that.

Looking at it this way, maybe parents want to circumcise so they can be even more damn lazy and incompetent than they already are, all under the guise of being concerned for the welfare of their son.

Only in your opinion. Culture and tradition itself has value to any people.

That's fine, but a lot of people go with cultural on account of ignorance, and that should change.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Only in your opinion. Culture and tradition itself has value to any people.

In my opinion there has to be a reason NOT to do it to change cultural traditions. I don't have to justify why I wear a hat to anyone, its just our tradition. That tradition has value to us as a people.

Your parents didn't physically nail a hat to your head as an infant so that removing your hat would require major surgery.

Generally speaking, we live in countries where people aren't expected to interpret their culture the same way or to see it as valuable simply because "everyone else" does. You've misinterpreted my point to be that simply being wanted by people isn't good enough to make a tradition worth keeping up. Of course it is. The point is that in a multicultural secular society each generation and each individual has to judge the value or relevance of a tradition to itself, you cannot simply assume that your child will grow up to believe as you do.

Fundamentally, it comes down to this. You don't own your children's bodies, you look after them until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves and during that time the choices you make for them are your responsibility. Do you really consider cosmetic surgery, however simple, a valuable exercise of that responsibility? Because in the absence of any real benefit, circumcision is a cosmetic procedure for the vast majority of people who get it.

In most cases, whatever you teach or do to your children is reversible if it turns out they wish it to be. Circumcision is not one of those things. With modern medical technology it's not very difficult to get it done as an adult if you want it, it is however impossible to perfectly reconstruct a foreskin once it's been removed.

As I said earlier, this practice (outside of Judaism and Islam, for whom I can understand the cultural argument but still question whether it needs to be done in infancy any more) is a 150 year old "cure" for masturbation. It's hardly written in the constitution.

 

[SodaDew]

I say parents choice; I read somewhere circumcisions help prevent some kind of cancer, so I support the act of doing it.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Since some people give the religious argument, here's one for the Christians.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

 

[ILikeEggs]

Since some people give the religious argument, here's one for the Christians:

I'm not the best example of a stereotypical Christian, but I've run into that verse before, and it always amuses me at how often die-hard fanatic Christians know little to nothing about the Bible.

 

[SciMal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Foreskin_sensitivity

Right. I referenced the most comprehensive study involving foreskin sensitivity in my initial response, and the researchers didn't assert a loss of sexual sensation or pleasure due to the missing receptors because of their testing methods and the distinct disadvantages to the ways other studies performed their surveys.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/

Yes, this study right here, actually. Don't just read the parts the biased website want you to read. Look at their discussion:

Despite the controversy over the long-term impact of male circumcision, no thorough, objective, quantitative studies measuring the long-term sensory consequences of infant circumcision have hitherto been reported.

Again, that study doesn't say what you think it does. The entire purpose of the research was to figure out a way to measure sensitivity loss for other studies to take advantage of, NOT make conclusions about circumcisions and sexual gratification.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/

Spoiler

As compared with genitally intact men, circumcised men reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with their orgasms. (p < .05) and a wide range of negative emotions associated with being circumcised (p < .05). Previous research indicates women enjoy intercourse better with genitally intact men (9, O'Hara & O'Hara, 2001, see above). In view of the present findings based on self-selected participants, the possible negative effects on adults' sexual function and psychological well-being need to be discussed in obtaining informed consent for circumcision (sexual reduction surgery) imposed on unconsenting male minors. Much larger representative samples are desirable.

Issues I find with this article:

-Their reference that women enjoy uncut men more is a link to a website trying to sell you a book, which is shoddy even if it was written by an M.D. I can't take that portion seriously.

-The experiment wasn't well performed. They don't make any mentions of controls or accounting for other variables, and half of their study relies on the partners of the participants accurately reporting in lieu of the men.

-The researchers did not perform any physical or psychological side effects to determine whether the men involved were otherwise fit and healthy. This is probably my biggest hang-up because they're relying on subjective interpretations and personal experiences to dictate their data - which can be notoriously inaccurate.

They also don't make any efforts to interview men who chose to get a circumcision later in life, which you think would be the very first thing to do if you want to prove the adverse psychological affects of circumcision since you can clearly correlate data before and after.

At least their sample size was decent, even if their lack of control for variables was horrendous.

Take this one with a huge grain of salt if you want to believe it, but I'm not buying it.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Spoiler

We postulate that the `ridged band' with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue and that it cooperates with other components of the prepuce. In this model, the `smooth' mucosa and true skin of the adult prepuce act together to allow the `ridged band' to move from a forward to a `deployed' position on the shaft of the penis. In short, the prepuce should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more and less specialized parts.

It is generally thought that the prepuce protects the glans. However, it is equally likely that the glans shapes and protects the prepuce. In return, the glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce. Possibly, the `ridged band' helps mediate the afferent limb of the ejaculatory reflex. Another use has to be found for the infantile prepuce, which contains muscle bundles, blood vessels and nerves in profusion; its internal organization is poorly understood but a case can be made for sensory tissue with the rigidity and form associated with specific function.

The only half-decent study provided... but again, this only proves there's some sort of sensation lost: Not that the lost sensation results in less gratification or that it isn't compensated for by nearby tissue.

It doesn't prove sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision.

Go nuts. You'll also notice how in the case of the Sorells study(if you check the wiki, that is) that Morris and Waskett pulled general pedantry in order to undermine the study while providing no conclusive proof of their own. They also argued that fine-touch sensitivity was not the only type of sensitivity, but by arguing that, you're accepting that it(fine-touch sensitivity) is lost with the foreskin, and if fine-touch sensitivity triggers don't exist, you'd have to resort to (possibly)more aggressive forms of stimulation, which ties in with the study I'm going to quote below...

Yes, and I haven't tried to make the case that sensation is magically maintained after cutting off skin.

I've been saying that the argument for clear causation of circumcision to sexual dysfunction is bunk. Yes, the part of the skin that's cut off had nerve endings. Does it appear to interfere with any measure of sexual gratification? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings

Look at the dozens of studies performed. The majority didn't find any statistically significant differences between cut/uncut penises, and for every study that supports a negative association with Circumcision there's another that counters it.

The trend that I personally spotted was:

For the better-designed, better-controlled studies with a widely representative subject pool, there isn't any significant difference in function or sexual gratification between men who were circumcised shortly after birth and those who weren't.

For those men who chose to get circumcised later in life for medical or personal reasons, the majority didn't report any significant improvement or degradation of sexual gratification or sensation.

If there's any bias in the dozens of studies which have been peer-reviewed, it's that getting circumcised later in life carries a slightly higher probability of having any reaction at all (negative or positive) because most men do so for vanity or medical issues resulting in less than expected improvement or significantly more improvement than expected relative to their physiological and psychological state prior to the surgery.

The O'Hara and O'Hara study in the UK was a self-selected, voluntary survey. Some of its subjects were recruited from anti-circumcision sources, tending to bias results away from circumcision...

This study stops here, because after that sentence, the study is the opposite of science. It willingly introduces bias that skews its results in favor of the researchers' bias.

Garbage when I saw it the first time above, and it's even more garbage now.

Also, as a personal request, please don't cite obviously biased organizations. The actual studies are easily accessible in the references section of Wikipedia, there's PubMed, hundreds of searchable Scientific Journals, and most colleges publish staff research submitted to journals.

There's absolutely no reason you should be getting info from anywhere else other than peer-reviewed sources.

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

More misinformation. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and will sometimes not separate(naturally, of course) till late puberty. Even so, it isn't like you need to be scrubbing it down aggressively with soap. A light rub(which is how masturbation starts and why circumcision was introduced in the first place) under running water is more than enough unless the child has an open wound down there.

Agreed. The hygiene issue of the foreskin isn't really an issue. All you do is teach the kid to pull it back and clean it out. It only becomes meaningful if the person doesn't bathe for very, very long stretches of time or gets an infection which remains untreated.

 

[Sewora]

I'm pro amputating womens breasts. They are largely unecessary and causes backpain, can become cancerous and serves no real purpose with the invention of formula.


So.. Where is the flaw in that kind of thinking? Well, there's many factors to take into consideration. First off, it'd be inhumane to do that to anyone, assuming they don't want certain bodyparts.
Second, it'd be ridiculous to implement costly procedures simply because we feel the bodyparts no longer serve their original purpose when they still serve a purpose.
Thirdly, if there is a single reason as to why a certain bodypart should not be permanently removed, then it should not. That is the basis as to why we shouldn't rape women and children, strike children or treat others poorly.
Why? Well.. There's upsides to rape and molestation of children. A child that is physically capable of carrying a child should have sex and make babies, right? No.. Of course not, that'd be insane.
Should be strike disobedient children? They'll behave and respect you out of fear which is great, right? No, again it's wrong.
Simply because you can point of benefits of a crude act doesn't justify the act, it's just a ridiculous attempt at covering up what you're really doing.

Why is it still legal in the modern world when every other similar procedure has been outlawed, such as lobotomy and circumcision of females?
Well, it's because the majority of the US public are in fact circumsized and too scared or stubborn to even touch the subject.
Women in the US are rapidly becomming more and more aware of the benefits of uncircumsized men and asking why it's even done.
Men on the other hand doesn't want to face the fact that what's been done to them is wrong and that they will never in their life experience the joy of not being mutilated. So they tell themselves it's fine, that they don't miss it or desperately trying to point out benefits with it.
Benefits that has no value in comparison to the downsides.


So what can we do? There's little that can be done. These people are too adamant about their opinions. If you've never had candy in your whole life, you're not going to crave it. So why would they even wanna question their situation when they know of nothing else?

Luckily for the men on this planet, circumsizion is a dying ritual. In four hundred years I'd be surprised if there's a single person still circumsized in the modern world.


But what can we do? How about those few per cent of men who are damaged by circumcision and can never have their body restored to it's proper state again? Nothing, unfortunately. They are being damaged beyond repair by a malevolent public who refuses to face facts.



Simply put, a rapist doesn't actually believe what he's doing is wrong. For him, it's reality. You can try to talk sense into him, but he won't stop being a rapist because to him, he's right.
Luckily for us though, there's no scientists even remotely interested in trying to justify rape.

I guess that's because rapist scientists are few and far inbetween... Circumsized scientists however, are probably pretty damned common, and I doubt they'd be interested in trying to prove their bodies are damaged beyond repair.

 

[Sewora]

I'm pro amputating womens breasts. They are largely unecessary and causes backpain, can become cancerous and serves no real purpose with the invention of formula.

So.. Where is the flaw in that kind of thinking?

Actually the biggest flaw is you don't understand women's breasts.

Let's start with formula and breast feeding. Formula does not replace breast feeding, not even close. It is a replacement when you have no other choice. The nutriant list and benefits to both mother and baby are overwhelming with breast feeding.

As for the back pain, that is a real issue, but only for those with large breast. In that case many people have breast reductions that solve the problem, but moving from that to amputation is unnecessary to solve the back pain.

Breasts also serve as a method of courting. This is biologically programmed into us. The primary reasons seem to be human's absense of "heat related" signs and the fact that walking upright has removed the natural "bottom" that most primates use for attraction. The breasts look surprisingly like nice plump bums.

Amputation can also cause hormone problems for the woman.

On balance, you have demonstrated glands that if removed would create demonstratable harm.

Great, you understand how we feel then. And that's pretty much what we're all saying about the foreskin. Regardless of what you claim, it does serve a purpose. And the benefits of having it outweights the benefits of not having it.

Just so you know, I'm in perfect agreement with you about the breasts. But if a country had a history of amputating breasts, people would defend that as fiercly.

 

[Ledan]

No idea. I guess there's the chance it could develop an infection or something. I'm not saying everyone should have it, but it's hardly a big deal. It's not like it's impaired me from doing anything that I would have done if I hadn't been circumcised.

Actually, circumcising your penis makes it more numb to sensations. And it is possible to grow it back. (check out Penn and Teller: Bullshit, their episode on circumcision)

 

[kurupt87]

No idea. I guess there's the chance it could develop an infection or something. I'm not saying everyone should have it, but it's hardly a big deal. It's not like it's impaired me from doing anything that I would have done if I hadn't been circumcised.

Actually, circumcising your penis makes it more numb to sensations. And it is possible to grow it back. (check out Penn and Teller: Bullshit, their episode on circumcision)

It's not foreskin though, it's just stretched skin. There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.