Queries about circumcision

[malestrithe]

Yeah, I don't care what you do with your child and yourself. If you want to have your child circumcised, that's your decision. I hope that you keep it private, among your close friends and family, and in the appropriate context. I do not care how close we get, the last thing I want to hear in a bar or a restaurant is that you are considering circumcising your child. At the hospital would be better.

Now that I said that, I need to get back to reading about hoe moviebob is such a meanie for not agreeing with me this week on something.

 

[Maze1125]

As someone else mentioned, uncircumcised penises just look... well, weird. In fact when I was a kid I never thought there was a difference until sex ed class. They showed pictures of uncircumcised penises, and my first though was, "Whoa! What the hell is that?".

Anyways I was circumcised and don't really mind. If I have a son, I'll probably do the same for him. To me it just seemed like one of those steps you take when your child is born, sorta like vaccinations. (Note: I am not saying that circumcision is equivalent to or as important as childhood vaccinations.)

But why?
Why do something physically painful to a child "just because"?

We vaccinate to protect from childhood diseases, but the only thing circumcision has been proven to protect against are a few STDs, something no-one should have to worry about until they're old enough to consider the pros and cons for themselves.

A vaccination is far far less painful than circumcision, and if it had no proven health benefits, there's no way I'd even do that to my child.
Ignoring the mutilation argument entirely, tradition is no reason to cause a child pain, no matter how minor. And circumcision isn't minor.

 

[The Funslinger]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

Agreed, though it's my understanding that most North American men are circumcised.

I was baffled, and queried my pen pal in the throes of sympathy pains about that when I found out.

I guess it'll just be a surprise for the American lasses when I go over there for university.

 

[lacktheknack]

WHY WOULD YOU START THIS THREAD? D:

Fine.

I'm circumcised, I have no comparison, I feel fine, I don't care. I note that the most vehemently anti-circumcision people are not, the people who care least are those who are. So that should say something.

Will I circumcise my sons? I dunno lol. I'll play it by ear based on what's recommended by the doctor and what my wife feels about it. I don't think it makes significant enough of a difference to make the hilariously big deal that people like to make of it.

 

[Woodsey]

"with some (potentially biased) opinions dubbing it "genital mutilation" (which shocked me)."

Because it is - whether you agree with circumcision or not, it is genital mutilation.

Anyway: when you first start jacking it, your bell-end is incredibly sensitive. Once you get used to having your foreskin rolled back, it is less sensitive.

Never had a foreskin? Less sensitive bell-end.

The crux of the argument that this will inevitably descend into is that it's not the place of the parents to start chopping off body parts because they're religious or because they "just want him to look like his Dad".

Most people probably don't give a shit - but some people do, and they should be allowed the choice of what happens to their own body. (Obviously this is excluding medical reasons.) That people could be so willy-nilly (heh) about having body parts permanently removed with no say in the matter is beyond me.

Funnily enough, it's such a massive phenomenon in the States amongst non-Jews because it was originally intended to stop guys wanking.

I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

You'd think people who'd been circumcised had never been taught how to wash.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Don't worry. I am telling you, as a circumcised non-virgin, that sex is still totally awesome. I remember worrying about the same thing, and trust me, it's fine. I've never felt let down (and neither have my partners... as far as I know) by it, besides, we all know it's about the yaw girth.

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

I am circumcised and have been since a few days after my birth, so I have no basis for comparison, but I am as horny as the next guy and enjoy the feeling of sex just fine. I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

But how would you know? Like you said, you have no basis for comparison.

The same way people know I'm missing something and should be outraged at my parents, I suppose.

It's not the same thing comparison though.

He's talking about sensation, though, for which he cannot make the comparison because he cannot say for certain which is better.

I dont support circumcision.

I do, however, support a parents right to choose for their child. The solution in my eyes is properly educating people about circumcision, not banning it.

Proper education doesn't always work though. You can tell some people exactly how to not fuck something up and they will still do it. That's why it's still practiced, primarily by the religious (aka, the feeble-minded).

Besides, shouldn't it be your choice whether or not to be mutilated? And it is mutilation. It hurts like a ************ and the aftereffects are not well understood and can in some cases lead to death. Not often, but the fact that it can happen (as well as the risk of an ill-performed operation) is reason enough not to do it. The only benefit is the reduced HIV/AIDS thing, but that's not as prevalent in the west and is something one can learn about if one chooses.

There's no justification for circumcision. It's an old religious tradition that doesn't even try to fix what isn't broken.

Besides, why the fuck is a foreskin supposed to be a covenant with God?

It's actually rather simple. It's not the circumcision itself that is the covenant, but rather that God commanded to Abraham that he and all his male descendants should have a reminder in their flesh of the covenant in which God promised that Abraham would be fruitful and multiply, so what better place for the reminder than the thing that lets you be fruitful and multiply. Sources: being Jewish.

 

[lacktheknack]

I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

Something I don't remember, never have and never will short of ridiculous head traumas.

That's why I don't give a rip either way.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm circumcised, I have no comparison, I feel fine, I don't care. I note that the most vehemently anti-circumcision people are not, the people who care least are those who are. So that should say something.

You can't miss something you never had, people who are uncut can.

That's what it says to me.

That's a problem?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

Agreed, though it's my understanding that most North American men are circumcised.

I was baffled, and queried my pen pal in the throes of sympathy pains about that when I found out.

I guess it'll just be a surprise for the American lasses when I go over there for university.

Well we can blame Kellogg for that (yeah, the cereal guy).

Dude was a friggin' fanatic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Theological_views].

Scared a lot of parents into mutilating their children.

 

[Sam Warrior]

My understanding is that it can reduce the transmission of some sexually transmitted diseases, its generally cleaner and can make the guy last longer during sex (never a bad thing). My opinion is that it shouldn't be done without good medical reason, though those crop up more often than you'd expect. Overall not a bad thing really, wont cause you any problems and shouldn't effect your sex life in a bad way.

 

[Reginald the Butler]

I understand where you're coming from. I'll just be something my wife and I discuss in the future.

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I understand where you're coming from. I'll just be something my wife and I discuss in the future.

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

Rub you finger along the back of your hand, and then across your palm.

That's the difference in sensitivity we're talking about.

 

[Yopaz]

You know, I am going to go a little off topic here and go back in time.

A few years ago there was this giant resource project planned. Because there are a lot of kids with Diabetes type 1 (IDDM or Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus) they wanted to research why this occurs and how it can be pretended. This is usually a disease that occurs on children younger than 8 years old and it's a very serious disease. It's unknown what makes it happen so research on the subject is needed. However they weren't allowed to go through with the project because it's unethical. They would be doing research on newborn babies and young kids who can't consent.

Now this is research that could help millions of people every year including the ones included the ones that are researched on. If that isn't ethical then giving a newborn a cosmetic procedure which got no proven perks other than the old myth about hygiene is far from it.

 

[ElPatron]

Rub you finger along the back of your hand, and then across your palm.

That's the difference in sensitivity we're talking about.

I am uncut, my brother has been circumcised. We have discussed this and it seems that there is no difference in sensitivity.

I seem to remember something about a research on men who had sex when they were uncut and then cut and found no difference. Can't bring sauce, unfortunately.

If that isn't ethical then giving a newborn a cosmetic procedure which got no proven perks other than the old myth about hygiene is far from it.

Except when it's not purely cosmetic and is thought as a way to prevent the spreading of HIV.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

But other websites and studies I've looked at have said that there's no change, and/or that it can actually expose/enhance certain areas of the penis, giving the same or more sexual pleasure, and some women like it. So basically, what I'm asking here is to have some kind of definitive, unbiased verdict on the whole thing, because I don't need yet another thing to stress about (as sad as that may sound) and I'd rather it not be a problem in the future.

The studies that found no change used the circumcised penis as there model for comparison, and thus never tested the sensitivity of the foreskin itself or factored it into there equations. In addition to the sensation its movements produce, the foreskin contains tens of thousands of nerves, making it one of, if not the, most sensitive parts of the penis. You cannot possibly remove that many nerve ending and not lose sensitivity. It is not possible.

As for genital mutilation, it is a permanent surgical alteration to human genitals committed against infants who cannot possibly give their consent (their parents consent does not and should not count, the same way parents can't consent for a child to have sex and make it not rape). Circumcision is a more invasive procedure than many of the activities banned as genital mutilation when done to girls (you have no doubt seen the extreme cases which are more equivalent to castration. These are not the norm and the most common varieties of FGM remove fewer nerve endings and less tissue than circumcision). Any cut made to the genitals of an infant girl is a crime. Why shouldn't infant boys receive the same protection?