AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10362 times:
I was reading an article today in the newspaper about the decline of circumcision in the United States. It mentioned that Israel and the United States were the two major countries where circumcision is largely performed.
There was this segment that said that some doctors had recommended it, whilst others have not.
What is your stance on the issue?
As an uncircumcised male, I am totally for it. I hate being uncircumcised and am seriously considering having the chop. I find it both aesthetically unattractive not to mention I got Ballanitis and a UTI (both in Thailand!) and the doctor said my chances of getting both would have been reduced had I been circumcised.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 1, posted (11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10358 times:
If any adult male consents to have this procedure performed on their own penis that is their right to do so. In rare cases there are valid medical reasons for performing this operation.
Performing this procedure without benefit of anaesthetic on infants who have no say in the matter, whether done on the basis of dubious science, or on grounds of superstition/religion, or 'because I had it done to me, so I want it done to my son' is, in my opinion completely unwarranted and, again, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse.
BTW, I give this thread a maximum of 24 hours before the mods need to close it, because people who have a belief one way or the other on this issue tend to feel very strongly about it, and it is not a subject where you can agree to meet in the middle.
[Edited 2012-06-24 00:10:16]
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10346 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 1): Performing this procedure without benefit of anaesthetic on infants who have no say in the matter, whether done on the basis of dubious science, or on grounds of superstition/religion, or 'because I had it done to me, so I want it done to my son' is, in my opinion completely unwarranted and, again, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse.
I totally respect your view. But that is also like saying that baptizing someone in a particular religion prohibits their choice as an infant. Or sending your child to a particular school (religion-affiliated school, all boys or all girls school) restricts their choices as well.
As a parent, you make choice that you deem the best for your child at that point in time. You are the child's source of life, so you inherently have the right to make choices on their behalf until they reach such an age where they can make decisions effectively.
In my situation I wish my parents had circumcised me as a baby because now, if I do get a circumcision, I have to go to hospital and have surgery and that is at least 3 days out of action (not to mention the other type of action!).
The very fact of saying "wait until the kids are older to decide if they want a circumcision" is a bit silly because no one wants non-essential surgery. But someone may want to be circumcised (I'm not alone in this matter!)
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10321 times:
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): I totally respect your view. But that is also like saying that baptizing someone in a particular religion prohibits their choice as an infant. Or sending your child to a particular school (religion-affiliated school, all boys or all girls school) restricts their choices as well.
Children can grow up and decide that they want to follow a different religion, or no religion at all. They cannot decide to grow back severed body parts. Circumcision is an irreversible physical change to a child's natural body. I have always found the religious arguments for it very odd, if we are made in god's image then presumably the foreskin is part of that image.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10310 times:
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): The very fact of saying "wait until the kids are older to decide if they want a circumcision" is a bit silly because no one wants non-essential surgery.
OK, you have lost me there, if 'no one wants non-essential surgery' why would they want to do it to someone else?
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5285 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10296 times:
Ugh! Circumcision is a dreadful practice and any body mutilation, unless it is life threatening, should be a decision left to adults. As a gay man I've always found uncircumcised penises off-putting -- that foreskin is there for a reason!
AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10295 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 6):
OK, you have lost me there, if 'no one wants non-essential surgery' why would they want to do it to someone else?
I thought I was unclear. The point is the surgery is pretty intense and is ALOT easier when done as a baby. The very fact of waiting until they are an adult to decide if they want to be circumcised is going to cause a lot of people to remain uncircumcised purely for the fact that they don't want surgery. This is despite that SOME people may still want to be circumcised.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5285 posts, RR: 35 Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10272 times:
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 8): The point is the surgery is pretty intense and is ALOT easier when done as a baby. The very fact of waiting until they are an adult to decide if they want to be circumcised is going to cause a lot of people to remain uncircumcised purely for the fact that they don't want surgery. This is despite that SOME people may still want to be circumcised.
If you're talking about a religious or lifestyle choice here I don't see why anyone should have it foisted upon them when they're too young to decide for themselves. I've known a couple of adults who have been circumcised for medical reasons and, while it was initially sore and uncomfortable for a while, was nothing they couldn't handle. I think that would be par for a lot of surgery, so it should be no big deal.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22711 posts, RR: 88 Reply 10, posted (11 months 2 days ago) and read 10249 times:
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): The very fact of saying "wait until the kids are older to decide if they want a circumcision" is a bit silly because no one wants non-essential surgery. But someone may want to be circumcised (I'm not alone in this matter!)
Why is it silly? I know adult men who want to be circumcised and that's their choice, they can have it done.
But I don't want to be circumcised and I haven no choice because it;s already been done - without my consent.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 months 2 days ago) and read 10235 times:
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): But that is also like saying that baptizing someone in a particular religion prohibits their choice as an infant. Or sending your child to a particular school (religion-affiliated school, all boys or all girls school) restricts their choices as well.
Thats because it does and is also wrong, children are already good at having made up friends they don't need extra put on them by adults.
ba6590 From UK - England, joined Jul 2007, 132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 days ago) and read 10221 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 1): Performing this procedure without benefit of anaesthetic on infants who have no say in the matter, whether done on the basis of dubious science, or on grounds of superstition/religion, or 'because I had it done to me, so I want it done to my son' is, in my opinion completely unwarranted and, again, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse.
Completely agree
Interestingly enough, heard this on the BBC the other day:
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10161 times:
I'm against it, for the same reason as Kiwiandrew:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 1): Performing this procedure without benefit of anaesthetic on infants who have no say in the matter, whether done on the basis of dubious science, or on grounds of superstition/religion, or 'because I had it done to me, so I want it done to my son' is, in my opinion completely unwarranted and, again, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10013 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 5): I have always found the religious arguments for it very odd, if we are made in god's image then presumably the foreskin is part of that image.
Indeed. As an atheist I find many aspects of religion puzzling, but this one it, to me, one of the strangest.
OK, you have lost me there, if 'no one wants non-essential surgery' why would they want to do it to someone else?
I thought I was unclear. The point is the surgery is pretty intense and is ALOT easier when done as a baby. The very fact of waiting until they are an adult to decide if they want to be circumcised is going to cause a lot of people to remain uncircumcised purely for the fact that they don't want surgery. This is despite that SOME people may still want to be circumcised.
I don't really care if it is easier as a baby than an adult, it is a tolerable procedure even for adults and so I see no reason to carry it out on anyone too young to consent to it. Much like tattoos and piercings, male circumcision is an aesthetic choice, even for religious reasons. Unlike most piercings it is also irreversible (well you can over the course of months stretch the skin back to full length but it is still physiologically different to an uncircumcised foreskin as far as I am aware). I am perfectly fine with people deciding that they wish their genitals to look a certain way and opting to have surgery to make it so, be it for pure aesthetics or as a ritual to confirm their religious devotion.
I do not agree with people having an unecessary procedure done to them before an age at which they can consent, for religions or other reasons. We have enough people, male and female, who feel uncomfortable with their own bodies without artificially adding to the number who were circumcised babies and don't want to be, thus who may have an artificial reason to resent their bodies (or even their parents a little).
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 7): Ugh! Circumcision is a dreadful practice and any body mutilation, unless it is life threatening, should be a decision left to adults. As a gay man I've always found uncircumcised penises off-putting -- that foreskin is there for a reason!
Indeed there are reasons why foreskins are a disadvantage, some STIs for example, so explaining this in sex education classes to teenagers and allowing them to choose for themselves with the best medical information, and their own religious/aesthetic opinions would surely be a better way to operate IMO.
I do not know the evolutionary reason for foreskins existence, they may well be a throwback that now serve little/no purpose to homo sapiens whilst increasing the risk of some specific diseases and conditions, but I don't see any drive for babies to have their tonsils removed.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6279 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9933 times:
If it's for valid, essential medical reasons then fine - do the necessary. If not, then do not unnecessarily chop bits of someone's body off. If people want it done that badly for other reasons when they're old enough to decide then hey, they can choose to do it then.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9819 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9886 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 5): I have always found the religious arguments for it very odd, if we are made in god's image then presumably the foreskin is part of that image.
That is something I have never understood either. I was circumsised when I was newborn. I had no say in the decision about altering my body. Because my parents decided it was the Christian thing to do, to alter God's image, they decided. That was the only reason for that medical procedure.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9864 times:
I am thankful that I was not circumcised, even though when I was born the doctor insisted on it. I'm glad my parents are not so religious to have their beliefs thrust onto me (heck, I was baptized when I was 12 years old and it was my decision).
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): But that is also like saying that baptizing someone in a particular religion prohibits their choice as an infant. Or sending your child to a particular school (religion-affiliated school, all boys or all girls school) restricts their choices as well.
I believe the person should be free to decide. I was sent to a Catholic school. By 9th grade I had considered going to a public school (or a non-religious school). The first 8 years of grade education were the worst. Had I been allowed later on to select the school I wanted to go to, perhaps grade school might have been more enjoyable.
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): As a parent, you make choice that you deem the best for your child at that point in time. You are the child's source of life, so you inherently have the right to make choices on their behalf until they reach such an age where they can make decisions effectively.
Ah, but here's the problem. You can choose a religion for your kid, you can choose a school for your kid. In the future, the child can change without a problem. Once you're circumcised, there's no going back.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 22, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9841 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 1): Performing this procedure without benefit of anaesthetic on infants who have no say in the matter, whether done on the basis of dubious science, or on grounds of superstition/religion, or 'because I had it done to me, so I want it done to my son' is, in my opinion completely unwarranted and, again, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse.
There is no other surgical procedure performed on infants in which a perfectly healthy and normal body part is removed. Why this one procedure gets the exception is beyond me.
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4): In my situation I wish my parents had circumcised me as a baby because now, if I do get a circumcision, I have to go to hospital and have surgery and that is at least 3 days out of action (not to mention the other type of action!).
No, it can be done much easier than that, using the African method. It takes about an hour and the pain isn't too bad.
As far as the thing about HIV transmission, there is another important number to be calculated in any study: the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). For example, suppose that 95% of ear infections are viral. Then I'd have to prescribe 20 kids with ear infections antibiotics to make one kid better for an NNT of 20. Not so impressive, huh?
For circumcision, the NNT for HIV prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa is *60.* (in the U.S., with a lower prevalence of HIV, it's probably at least in the thousands). For the prevention of UTI in infants it's a few hundred. For the prevention of penile cancer, it's probably in the hundreds of thousands to millions.
Suddenly, the medical evidence for circumcision becomes a lot less impressive. But the (religious Jewish) authors of the Africa circumcision studies don't want you to know that, so they didn't include NNT in the study.
Another problem is that due to the exaggerated 'benefits' of circumcision with regard to a reduction of STI incidence it draws attention away from a much simpler and less drastic method of reducing infection.... using condoms. I have met guys who seriously believe that because they are 'cut' that they can screw around to their heart's content continuing to practice unsafe sex.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9767 times:
For those commenting on how the religious significance baffles them, why it's altering "Gods image" etc, it's actually commanded of the Jews by God.
Genisis 17:
Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. ”
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 26, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9960 times:
I seem to be reading some years back that not having the procedure done slightly increase the risk of penile cancer, and their partners have a slightly higher increased risk of cervical cancers. "Slight" was the term used for both risks.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 28, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10011 times:
Perhaps I'm incredibly naive here, but those of you who were circumcised as a baby and strongly wish they weren't, why? I was circumcised when I was an infant and I've never thought much about it. Doesn't bother me at all. The procedure wasn't done correctly and I had some complications that required minor surgery when I was in third grade, but other than that I've never really given it any thought. I'm just curious why people who were circumcised wish they weren't.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
September11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 23 Reply 29, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9986 times:
This is somewhat interesting. I've received every indication that circumsion or no circumsion is perfectly fine. I feel circumsion is old school so I'm uncertain about circumsion on my boys. Maybe one boy circumcised and the other boy uncircumised.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 48 Reply 30, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9982 times:
I'm glad I was. I find it much more aesthetically pleasing and less effort to care after (based on conversations with my uncircumcised friends). My completely unscientific survey among girls I've discussed it with (all across the planet) indicates a preference for circumcised men, but I absolutely concede it's unscientific. But the fact that women say that, even in places where its prevalence is very low, was surprising/telling to me.
It's one of those things where I wouldn't want it done as an adult, but I'm glad it was done as an infant.
Completely irrespective of any benefits (of which I believe the science is inconclusive either way), it's a personal preference. I'll probably have it done to my boys.
The truth is the vast majority of us will not experience having both, so making any subjective claim about which is better is folly. The majority of those will be content with what they have, and more likely than not will choose whatever they have for their kids.
There will be people on both sides who aren't happy with the decision of their parents (as is evidenced in this thread alone), and it's one of those things where you have to believe your parents, whatever they chose, chose based on your best intentions.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9958 times:
Quoting September11 (Reply 29): Maybe one boy circumcised and the other boy uncircumised.
If you're that on the fence about it I can't help but be of the opinion that this option is just plain irrational. If you are unsure either way I infer you don't feel any particularly strong religious argument to do so, and are not convinced of any medical justification of overwhelming significance. Therefore you must be at least conscious of the arguments against circumcision and have given them some credence, or simply don't place importance on the perceived benefits.
It is perfectly possible to be on the fence about infant circumcision, you may be for it, against it, or have no preference. The thing about this topic however, is that to be on the fence should (in my opinion) be to err on the side of leaving your sons uncut and let them make their own decisions on the matter when older. If you cannot think of a convincing justification to do it on all of your sons I can not imagine wanting to risk doing it to one, only for it becoming something he grows up to resent.
If there is one thing I have gained from this thread, it is that for all of those who were glad they are cut (and who probably would have considered having it done in adulthood) or who are indifferent, there are a significant number who dislike that it was done for whatever reason. I am not a parent, but could not imagine doing something that may have this consequence over a pure aesthetical choice.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9944 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 30): My completely unscientific survey among girls I've discussed it with (all across the planet) indicates a preference for circumcised men, but I absolutely concede it's unscientific. But the fact that women say that, even in places where its prevalence is very low, was surprising/telling to me.
If such studies exist (anyone on here have access to scientific journal libraries to tell us maybe?), I wonder if this viewpoint would be relatively new. I hypothesise that much of the reason for worldwide positive opinion on the aesthetics of a cut penis, from the perspective of males and females, is their overwhelming majority in mainstream porn. The porn industry with by far the biggest following worldwide, amongst men and women is the US porn industry, where most of the penises are circumcised.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 30):
There will be people on both sides who aren't happy with the decision of their parents (as is evidenced in this thread alone), and it's one of those things where you have to believe your parents, whatever they chose, chose based on your best intentions.
I find this viewpoint puzzling. I simply see the risk of a child growing up to be disappointed that they were cut (or in extreme cases hate the fact) and being unable to remedy the situation as by far the worse option to a child who was uncut growing up to wish to be circumcised, with the option to get it done if they wish. Yes it is a chore, yes you have to take pills so you don't get an erection for a week to let it heal up, but it is fairly trivial if it is something you want.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22711 posts, RR: 88 Reply 33, posted (11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9810 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 28): Perhaps I'm incredibly naive here, but those of you who were circumcised as a baby and strongly wish they weren't, why?
Circumcision isn't my natural state. My body was changed - for no valid medical reason - without my consent.
My mother had it done because she didn't want me to be like my father (uncut) whom she had come to hate. She believed that circumcision might "reduce my sexual appetite" - sorry, mum.
In terms of peer pressure, it was fine when I was at school in the Middle East (all the boys were cut) but I had to go to school in Europe for a while and I was the only cut, so I was bullied as "half man" by the other boys. I have a fairly healthy ego - LOL - so I survived all that but it surely made an impression on me.
I understand the religious reasons for it (Jews/Muslims) but I'm not religious in any way and I'd rather be who I am, not who my parents or any doctor wants me to be.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 34, posted (11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9793 times:
Well I'm glad I had it done.
Just for the hygienic aspect alone it was worth it and i'm glad my Parents made this decision, I certainly would not have wanted to have the procedure later in life !
Both of my boys had it done very young.
I think most women prefer it too but I am curious.
Any women on this site / thread with an opinion on this, curious to know their viewpoint ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 35, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9776 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 34): I think most women prefer it too but I am curious.
A woman is not marrying a penis. I don't understand why a woman would have a preference for one over the other. I will not change who I am to please her just as I can't expect her to change her appearance to please me. Besides, that part of the body will only see action with said person for a brief period. If I can't be in a relationship with a woman just because I am uncut, I'd dump her right then and there, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
kl838 From Netherlands Antilles, joined Oct 2010, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9730 times:
I am not circumcised, and I don't agree with it, because when you look at the reasoning its mostly because of hygiene or religious reasons. As for hygiene I don't understand why can't someone just clean their penis when they take a shower. If you do that everyday the whole hygiene matter becomes non existent, and as for religion it depends on how strict ones family is or how strict you are. I have come across some people who did need to get circumcised because the foreskin is too tight, which is understandable. At the end of the day it is personal preference, and if you are circumcised from birth there is not much that you could do about it.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 37, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9720 times:
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 35):
A woman is not marrying a penis. I don't understand why a woman would have a preference for one over the other. I will not change who I am to please her just as I can't expect her to change her appearance to please me. Besides, that part of the body will only see action with said person for a brief period. If I can't be in a relationship with a woman just because I am uncut, I'd dump her right then and there, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
You are right that certainly should not be a reason for a relationship to work or not.
Just wondered whether Women have a preference.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6017 posts, RR: 55 Reply 38, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9726 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 24): For those commenting on how the religious significance baffles them, why it's altering "Gods image" etc, it's actually commanded of the Jews by God.
Genisis 17:
Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. ”
Reading this word by word in 2012 is like having the devil read the Bible. When translated into modern language, then it should be something like this:
"Then God said to Abraham: Sorry mate, but I left it to future generations to invent showers and shampoo. It causes some discomfort for you, since you - unlike the vikings - live in the hot and sweaty Middle East. Therefore you shall have this little trick done on yourself, your sons, the male slaves which you bought, and their sons. It will relieve you all of quite a few problems with your penis until in a few thousand years time when I let future generations invent bathrooms with clean water and soap. (And please notice, dear Abraham, that at roughly the same time I will seriously consider banning slavery)."
In those days it was identical to having a vaccination against a disease - including caretaking and responcible slavery management.
But not today since soap has already been invented. I couldn't care less whether people choose to be circumcised or not - or have rings in the nose, tattoos or whatever. But having it done on children is an abuse. They have the right to choose themselves.
Being uncircumcised is a big advantage if you are naked and climbing trees for hunting with bow and arrow or such. Otherwise your fifth extremity can become a little "worn". But few people I know of are making a living that way these days. So choose as you like - for YOURSELF.
[Edited 2012-06-24 19:54:23]
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Interesting you bring this up because from my vantage point, I'm surprised how many men are uncircumcised in porn. In my *cough* experiences *cough cough* I feel the majority are uncircumcised.
Quoting GST (Reply 32): being unable to remedy the situation as by far the worse option to a child who was uncut growing up to wish to be circumcised, with the option to get it done if they wish.
While I think this point is valid, it's at least worth mentioning there is foreskin restoration. I haven't done much research on it, but I admit I have an odd fascination with the global prevalence of circumcision, in a completely nonsexual way.
As I predicted, areas where the prevalence is low have decidedly negative attitudes toward it, while areas where it's more common have more positive attitudes toward it.
I would postulate this question, though: if lots of people are unhappy that they were circumcised, the likelihood of them circumcising their children is very low. While circumcision rates in the US have dropped, there are some confounding factors that may account for part of the drop (for one, circumcisions performed later in infancy due to religious reasons are often not counted, and also, an influx of immigration from areas where circumcision isn't performed). Since there's little evidence to indicate circumcision rates dropping as a result of unhappiness with the procedure, doesn't this indicate those that have had it done are at least content with it?
I stand by my statement that most people that have been circumcised are happy (or are at least neutral) they have been, and most people that haven't are happy that they haven't. There will be people that aren't, but I certainly don't think it's fair for someone to tell me that I shouldn't have been circumcised when I'm pleased with it.
Which is why I stand by my statement that there is nobody who has more interest in the goodwill of the child than the parents. In all cases, they should be provided the latest and most encompassing information regarding neonatal circumcision, and make the choice for their child, factoring in medical, ethical, societal, and religious reasons, and whatever else they want to consider. Different people can and will come to different conclusions. I'm fine with that. I certainly would not push a friend who's considering this topic toward circumcision. If asked, I would explain my reasons for believing what I do, but encourage them to make their own choice.
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4348 posts, RR: 20 Reply 41, posted (11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9610 times:
I have heard that one reason circumcision got so popular in the US in the 50's and onwards was it was a quick buck for the doctor who was doing it. I think the charge was something like $400 back then for about 15 minutes of the doctors time.
Clearly some doctors had better skills than other in this area than others.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9558 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 40):
As I predicted, areas where the prevalence is low have decidedly negative attitudes toward it, while areas where it's more common have more positive attitudes toward it.
Well of course, but you can say the same about female "circumcision", in this case there is absolutely no room for argument, that is a horrific mutilation, but there are still parts of the world where it is extensively applied.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 40): doesn't this indicate those that have had it done are at least content with it?
It may indicate that a majority are happy, possibly even a large majority, but I think you need a bit more data to pick meaning out of such a restricted measured variable.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 40): There will be people that aren't, but I certainly don't think it's fair for someone to tell me that I shouldn't have been circumcised when I'm pleased with it.
Fair enough, but I personally tend to endorse the side of avoiding unnecessary irreversible procedures where patient consent is not possible, even where the incident rate of people being unhappy with it is relatively low. Yes, foreskins can be reconstructed if a person wishes, after a fashion, but it is a far from trivial procedure that takes much longer than adult circumcision would if going the other way.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 40): If asked, I would explain my reasons for believing what I do, but encourage them to make their own choice.
There are far greater evils in the world than male circumcision so I'm happy to agree with this.
bookishaviator From Australia, joined Jun 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (11 months 1 day ago) and read 9517 times:
Quoting kl838 (Reply 36): As for hygiene I don't understand why can't someone just clean their penis when they take a shower. If you do that everyday the whole hygiene matter becomes non existent
Precisely. Personally, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near any unwashed penis, circumcised or not.
When I die, when I die, I'll rot. But when I live, when I live, I'll give it all I've got.
racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 45, posted (11 months 18 hours ago) and read 9354 times:
A point that hasn't been brought up, but I feel that should be important: sexual pleasure.
Knowing only my uncircumcised position, I think that that's a lot of very sensitive skin with a lot of nerve endings that gets cut off there. Why forfeit that sensation and the subsequent possibilities of pleasure?
Not to mention that the missing foreskin over the glans surely leads to a lot of lost sensitivity in the glans as well, doesn't it?
GQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 46, posted (11 months 18 hours ago) and read 9345 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 3): I think that lack of my consent is quite wrong - it's my body, I should decide.
Since this is the overwhelming opinion on here, it's obvious you people have issues with your parents for whatever reason and WAY too much time on your hands.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 47, posted (11 months 17 hours ago) and read 9316 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 38): In those days it was identical to having a vaccination against a disease - including caretaking and responcible slavery management.
Exactly, and this is the root of a lot of other health related 'religious requirements' created during the age of superstition.
Some poor fellow eats undercooked pork (or beef and milk at the same time) and dies - God steps up to command people not to eat these things.
Had abdominal surgery not been a death sentence in Old Testament times God probably would have commanded the Jews to remove the appendix in case that went south. Maybe the prostate too, once a man's child producing days were over.
Of course had medicine and science advanced that quickly I doubt whether the Old Testament would have been written at all.
Even so, taking Genesis at its word - if the God of Abraham is saying "Hey, I want to you cough up a piece of pipe as a sign of our covenant" I'm going to ask for a piece of his or find a better God. There are certainly enough good ones to choose from.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (11 months 17 hours ago) and read 9293 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 46): Since this is the overwhelming opinion on here, it's obvious you people have issues with your parents for whatever reason
Eh? How did you get to that conclusion, I wouldn't want to have my parents deciding to cut bits of my body off for no apparent reason so that means I have issues?
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 49, posted (11 months 16 hours ago) and read 9268 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 46): Since this is the overwhelming opinion on here, it's obvious you people have issues with your parents for whatever reason and WAY too much time on your hands.
Or maybe something else is on your hands.
It's not something that should be blown up, but then again, why should a parent decide how my body will look like? Why should a baby be circumcised as opposed to wait until he is of age to determine whether he should do it? I don't think many here have an issue with their parents: what's done is done, but I think many of us would rather let our children decide in the end if they wish the procedure or not. Since there's nothing that proves a health benefit of having circumcision just hours after being born rather than at 18 years of age, why not allow the years to go by?
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 50, posted (11 months 16 hours ago) and read 9274 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 15): I do not know the evolutionary reason for foreskins existence, they may well be a throwback that now serve little/no purpose to homo sapiens whilst increasing the risk of some specific diseases and conditions, but I don't see any drive for babies to have their tonsils removed.
It's there to protect the most sensitive parts and prevent desensitization due to constant stimulus from outside sources such as bedding and clothing.
Quoting racko (Reply 45): A point that hasn't been brought up, but I feel that should be important: sexual pleasure.
Knowing only my uncircumcised position, I think that that's a lot of very sensitive skin with a lot of nerve endings that gets cut off there. Why forfeit that sensation and the subsequent possibilities of pleasure?
Not to mention that the missing foreskin over the glans surely leads to a lot of lost sensitivity in the glans as well, doesn't it?
According to Moses Maimonides, decreasing sexual pleasure was one of the main reasons for circumcision:
"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
Source- http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 51, posted (11 months 16 hours ago) and read 9247 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 46): Since this is the overwhelming opinion on here, it's obvious you people have issues with your parents for whatever reason and WAY too much time on your hands.
You wouldn't accept it if your parents decided you looked better without one ear, would you...
Circumcision is a life long, unalterable, unreversable decision - one parents shouldnt get to make.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1416 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (11 months 16 hours ago) and read 9149 times:
Quoting kl838 (Reply 36): As for hygiene I don't understand why can't someone just clean their penis when they take a shower.
I agree. I have to question the hygiene habits of those for whom spending extra time on their genitals seem to be such an inconvenience that having their penises mutilated is an acceptable solution.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5285 posts, RR: 35 Reply 53, posted (11 months 15 hours ago) and read 9128 times:
The HIV argument in circumcising children doesn't make any sense, given that sexual activity isn't a thing associated with children. I haven't heard of any adult deciding to get circumcised to reduce the chance of HIV infection, but there's nothing to stop them doing so.
One advantage of the foreskin that doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far is its (or rather the fluid underneath's) lubricating effect in sexual activity, particularly masturbation. This would be my main argument against it.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 54, posted (11 months 15 hours ago) and read 9112 times:
Against it, won't be having it done to my children.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 40): As I predicted, areas where the prevalence is low have decidedly negative attitudes toward it, while areas where it's more common have more positive attitudes toward it.
I think a large part of this is the male ego- for most men suggesting that there might be something wrong with their beloved penis is to imply they're less of a man. People are much more likely to think their way is best.
I certainly don't think it's a big deal, and I wouldn't favor banning it or anything like that. It does slightly shock me how many people bring up the hygiene argument though- does that imply most cut men don't wash themselves?
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, RR: 5 Reply 55, posted (11 months 15 hours ago) and read 9094 times:
I am not strongly against it but I just don't see a point to it. It sounds the same as cutting the tail or chopping off the ears of a dog, for aesthetic reasons. It may have worked well for desert dwellers 2000 years ago who had no concept of hygiene, but this is 2012, most of us have access to soap and we clean ourselves frequently.
I am glad I was not circumcised, I have read that you lose a lot of sensitivity once you are mutilated and the benefits are very debatable. I haven't seen any studies showing that the European population (mostly uncircumcised unless there are religious reasons) show greater numbers of cancers or infections. I have seen that doctors, after so many decades of it being common practice in some places, are still divided on the subject.
I have also read that one of the reasons for the procedure becoming mainstream in the US was because it made it more difficult for young boys to "play" with themselves. Is there any truth to that?
As for what women prefer, that is irrelevant. A woman should be interested more in you than the details of your penis's anatomy - especially if you decide to keep it as nature made it. Mutilating a part of your body to conform to someone's tastes is wrong. If circumcised women looked better to men, this would still not be a good reason for it to become standard practice, women would be up in arms about it. From women that I know, it is really a non-issue. If it is, it is because they have only seen cut, so that is what they have considered "normal" for all their lives.
sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, RR: 5 Reply 56, posted (11 months 14 hours ago) and read 9078 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 24): 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. ”
So then how can my father be an uncircumcised Minister?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 58, posted (11 months 14 hours ago) and read 9111 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 28): Perhaps I'm incredibly naive here, but those of you who were circumcised as a baby and strongly wish they weren't, why?
As a gay man, I didn't realize what I was missing out on until I messed around with my first uncircumcised guy. I'm not going into details, but I envy uncircumcised men.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 59, posted (11 months 13 hours ago) and read 9015 times:
Quoting sbworcs (Reply 56): So then how can my father be an uncircumcised Minister?
If hes not Jewish, then hes ministering under the new covenant of Jesus Christ - the old covenants no longer apply but many christians feel that circumcision adds to their belief.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 60, posted (11 months 13 hours ago) and read 9024 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): As a gay man, I didn't realize what I was missing out on until I messed around with my first uncircumcised guy
... and as an uncut gay man I wondered what the hell I was doing wrong when I encountered my first cut guy , it wasn't until I had more experience that I saw the pattern .... you guys require so much more work
Quoting Acheron (Reply 52): I agree. I have to question the hygiene habits of those for whom spending extra time on their genitals seem to be such an inconvenience that having their penises mutilated is an acceptable solution.
I have always found the hygiene argument quite bizarre, I have met plenty of guys with really bad foot odour but I can't imagine many people suggesting that newborn males should have their feet cut off as a preventative measure.
While I have unfortunately met one or two guys who needed a lesson in personal hygiene with regard to their foreskins most of us simply clean ourselves there as routinely as we clean every other part of our bodies.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 61, posted (11 months 13 hours ago) and read 9029 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 55): I am not strongly against it but I just don't see a point to it. It sounds the same as cutting the tail or chopping off the ears of a dog, for aesthetic reasons. It may have worked well for desert dwellers 2000 years ago who had no concept of hygiene, but this is 2012, most of us have access to soap and we clean ourselves frequently.
It wasn't even hygeine, per se. It was the indellible mark of a Hebrew man. Once circmcised, you were forever circumcised. It was often done to prisoners of war.
Quoting lewis (Reply 55): I have also read that one of the reasons for the procedure becoming mainstream in the US was because it made it more difficult for young boys to "play" with themselves. Is there any truth to that?
Yes there is. Fat lot of good it did.
Quoting TSS (Reply 50): According to Moses Maimonides, decreasing sexual pleasure was one of the main reasons for circumcision:
This is fascinating. I've never read that passage.
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 46): Since this is the overwhelming opinion on here, it's obvious you people have issues with your parents for whatever reason and WAY too much time on your hands.
I love that because a number of well-thought-out and logical arguments against the practice have been enunciated here, including some from people who are not circumcised, you jumped --nay, leaped and bounded-- to this conclusion.
GQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 63, posted (11 months 10 hours ago) and read 8889 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 51): You wouldn't accept it if your parents decided you looked better without one ear, would you...
Because that's such a logical comparison. Nice try.
People that have such a huge issue when it comes to this don't have enough to do. End of story. Not an opinion, just a matter of fact. You guys better get to the counselor's office because this is obviously such a burden on your psyche.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 64, posted (11 months 10 hours ago) and read 8865 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): People that have such a huge issue when it comes to this don't have enough to do. End of story. Not an opinion, just a matter of fact.
An uninformed opinion based not in fact. I have no issues with my parents related to my circumcision, sir.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, RR: 5 Reply 66, posted (11 months 10 hours ago) and read 8834 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): Because that's such a logical comparison.
For people growing up in places where chopping off part of the penis is not the norm, it does sound as stupid and as weird as chopping off your ear.
If the ear comparison doesn't work because the ear does provide an important function, how about just chopping off the earlobe? It is quite useless if you think about it - unless you want to use it to hang earrings from it. And I know of at least a couple of people who at one time or another had an infection that started from there, even without piercings. That makes it medically justified too right?
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 67, posted (11 months 10 hours ago) and read 8827 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): People that have such a huge issue when it comes to this don't have enough to do. End of story. Not an opinion, just a matter of fact.
In general I find opinions stated as fact (or even worse, ": FACT") the least convincing ones. This is no exception.
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 68, posted (11 months 9 hours ago) and read 8825 times:
Now here's the part I don't understand. The foreskin gives at least some amount of "extra" expansion room, so an uncircumcised person should theoretically be able to get bigger than than that same person when circumcised... shouldn't they? I mean, not to get too personal but when an uncircumcised penis is fully engorged you can't tell it is an uncircumcised penis. Everything is fully stretched tight and all the skin is being utilized.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 69, posted (11 months 9 hours ago) and read 8815 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): People that have such a huge issue when it comes to this don't have enough to do. End of story. Not an opinion, just a matter of fact. You guys better get to the counselor's office because this is obviously such a burden on your psyche.
Well, apparently you also don't seem to have enough to do or otherwise you'd contribute your opinion to this thread instead of criticizing us for discussing our opinions regarding this topic and one that, as far as this thread is concerned, is controversial due to a baby not having a say in whether to be circumcised or not.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 70, posted (11 months 9 hours ago) and read 8831 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 68): Now here's the part I don't understand. The foreskin gives at least some amount of "extra" expansion room, so an uncircumcised person should theoretically be able to get bigger than than that same person when circumcised... shouldn't they? I mean, not to get too personal but when an uncircumcised penis is fully engorged you can't tell it is an uncircumcised penis. Everything is fully stretched tight and all the skin is being utilized.
No it's not stretched tight. The foreskin retracts, but there's plenty of "play" in it.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22711 posts, RR: 88 Reply 71, posted (11 months 9 hours ago) and read 8817 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): As a gay man, I didn't realize what I was missing out on until I messed around with my first uncircumcised guy. I'm not going into details, but I envy uncircumcised men.
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): People that have such a huge issue when it comes to this don't have enough to do. End of story. Not an opinion, just a matter of fact.
Huh?
There are a whole lot of thing about which I have strong opinions, but I don't spend my day agonising about them. I don't spend my day agonising about my cut state - I love my cock and it has given me extraordinary pleasure these many, many years.
I'm with those Asian religions that worship the penis - happy Thailand:
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2086 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (11 months 7 hours ago) and read 8757 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 59): If hes not Jewish, then hes ministering under the new covenant of Jesus Christ - the old covenants no longer apply but many christians feel that circumcision adds to their belief.
I had opportunity to look into this recently. Here is an explanation of the religious perspective of circumcision today as it applies to Christian as I understand it.
The Old Testament was for the Jews, God's chosen people. No doubt there were practical reasons for the law that was issued as mentioned by Prebben. In Christianity, all of the Old Testament became a picture or figure of things established by Jesus in the New Testament. So for example, Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac his son is a picture of God giving his son Jesus. Isaiah 53 talking about the lamb led to slaughter refers to Jesus going to the cross and so on. Circumcision is taken up by Paul in his epistles and Romans 4 particularly deals with it, directly referring to Genesis 17 Moo quoted because many of the early Christians were converted from Judaism and were struggling to leave behind all the old customs and rictuals set out in the law.
Circumcision in Christianity is commonly referred to as the "cutting off of the flesh", the flesh in this context referring to what is bad morally about the natural unchristianized person - so all the bad things we do, say and even think. So in the epistles and New Testament, God's word no longer applies to Jews only as it did before Jesus, but also Greeks and gentiles (ie the rest of the world) so now Jews are on an equal footing in the sight of God morally, though the race will always retain a unique place in God's ordering. However, Paul makes it perfectly clear that circumcision is not a literal thing at all, it is a moral or spiritual exercise "to cut off your desire for evil things".
Long story short in the Christian belief, Genesis 17 was over ruled 2000 years ago and circumcision is not a religious requirement since the introduction of Christianity, which for God replaced Judaism so doesnt apply there either. Of course for the Jews, the law still stands as Christianity is false which is why they still practise it. Not sure about Islam. This is how it was explained to me anyway...
A thought that occurs to me is if men are worried about STD's gathering there, if you are going to put yourself into a position where you could easily contract one, why on earth would you do so without a condom?? As Prebben and others have said, circumcision does not replace basic hygiene or adult responsibility.
AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (11 months 7 hours ago) and read 8746 times:
Okay.... Totally didn't mean to bring religion into because it's 2012 and I really don't think (well I hope) that people don't make such decisions using religion as a moral barometer, especially in human health topic.
I asked because a circumcised penis looks aesthetically better (in my opinion). An uncut penis is just gross.... GROSS!
Also, I don't think it's mutilation if you grow up not knowing any better (or in my case, worse!) and how many cases are there of circumcision related infant death compared to the number of operations performed.
beowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 721 posts, RR: 16 Reply 75, posted (11 months 4 hours ago) and read 8680 times:
Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter): not to mention I got Ballanitis and a UTI (both in Thailand!) and the doctor said my chances of getting both would have been reduced had I been circumcised.
Unless you have phimosis I don't see why soap and water couldn't have prevented at least the balanitis.
As for the pro or con of circumcision, I think a medical need should be the yard stick here. Just because I don't "need" my appendix or tonsils, they are also not yanked out by default. If it's a religious practice, well, that's opening a can of worm.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 76, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8569 times:
Thank you for
Quoting TSS (Reply 50): According to Moses Maimonides, decreasing sexual pleasure was one of the main reasons for circumcision...For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
It strikes me that Maimonides was kind of a douche, operating under the cover of religious orthodoxy.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 77, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8537 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): Because that's such a logical comparison. Nice try.
It is - its an arbitrary removal of a body part through a decision by your parents. Does changing the body part in question have any effect on the topic?
The only reason you think the ear makes it not a logical comparison is because we don't allow parents to remove the ears of their children. So why do we allow it for any other body part?
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 63): People that have such a huge issue when it comes to this don't have enough to do. End of story. Not an opinion, just a matter of fact. You guys better get to the counselor's office because this is obviously such a burden on your psyche.
So changing a babies body in a non-reversible way is perfectly acceptable to you? Why?
jamincan From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8525 times:
I have often thought it would be cool to have a tattoo, but am too squeamish around needles to go out and get one. My parents could have saved me the trouble by having me tattooed as a baby, but trust me, I am grateful they spared me. Similarly, I am glad they didn't give me any piercings.
I don't see circumcision as much different. It is a body modification that is being done without the infant's consent. I am all for people having the choice to have a circumcision, but without consent, performing an unnecessary procedure like this is irresponsible and unethical.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 80, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8427 times:
Quoting babybus (Reply 79): If he didn't want you to have a foreskin he would have removed it Himself.
Sure, but it's more righteous if you 'choose' to do it for him. Or should I say fore him.
Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8430 times:
As of today, a German court ruled that circumcising children for religious reasons represents a criminal offense (bodily harm). The judges said that the children's right of physical integrity weighs more than the parents right of religious freedom.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 82, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8422 times:
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 81):
As of today, a German court ruled that circumcising children for religious reasons represents a criminal offense (bodily harm). The judges said that the children's right of physical integrity weighs more than the parents right of religious freedom.
zrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2872 posts, RR: 10 Reply 83, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8405 times:
Historically, circumcision was a sign that said, "We (as a people) don't engage in human sacrifice."
But that history is not so meaningful today.
I am a propane of religious circumcision, though I understand the arguments on both sides. But it should be understood that anesthetics SHOULD BE USED. I have never worked with a moyel who does not use it.
daviation From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8323 times:
Obviously this issue is never going to be decided one way or the other.
I'm just going to say that I was circumcised at birth and so was my son. I obviously don't remember it. My member is quite nice, thank you very much. And I'm in my 50s and it still works just fine. And my partners (not that I've had so very many, unfortunately!) were all very happy with it. It doesn't take any extra work at all.
I attended my son's circumcision. He cried for about five seconds.
People from other cultures have all kinds of bodily traditions - Africans enlarge the earlobes, Chinese change the shape of their feet.
I thought it was funny that San Francisco tried to outlaw circumcision. This is the same city that will die for a woman's 'right' to kill her fetus (yeah, let's talk about that hot topic!), but won't allow her to snip off a bit of unnecessary skin.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 88, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8298 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 85): I thought it was funny that San Francisco tried to outlaw circumcision. This is the same city that will die for a woman's 'right' to kill her fetus (yeah, let's talk about that hot topic!)
I agree that was wrong; it's too widespread to be outlawed right now IMO. It is becoming less fashionable which is a good thing, and I expect that trend to continue without the need for a ban.
Having said that I don't think one's opinion on abortion should preclude one from having an opinion on circumcision. If (presumably like you) you believe that life begins at conception and that a ball of 8 cells counts as a living being, then the position you outline above may seem hypocritical. However if, like many, you think that life begins rather later than that, then it's perfectly consistent. It depends where that line of life is drawn.
Personally I favor Bill Hicks' view. You're not a human 'til you're in my phone book.
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 89, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8281 times:
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 81): As of today, a German court ruled that circumcising children for religious reasons represents a criminal offense (bodily harm). The judges said that the children's right of physical integrity weighs more than the parents right of religious freedom.
I agree. If female circumcision is wrong, then it logically follows that male circumcision is wrong. Just because it doesn't "do as much damage" doesn't mean that it's OK.
However, what Germany forgets (and what San Francisco forgot) is that all that is going to happen is that Jewish and Muslim parents are simply going to take their kids elsewhere, get them circumcised, and come back. Now, you have an enforceability problem.
daviation From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 90, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8192 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 86): Dad wants (or demands) his son to be like him.
Quoting bgm (Reply 87): You celebrate genital mutilation?
Well, obviously I don't agree with your assessment. But you're entitled to your opinion.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 88): a ball of 8 cells counts as a living being
If your wife has ever had a miscarriage at, say, six weeks, and you've wept over that fetus and what could have been a child to love, then yes, I think life begins before birth. Or had a friend whose wife gave birth prematurely and the fetus had to be on life support for three months, then yes, you have a new appreciation for when life might begin. Your phonebook remark is witty and funny, but it doesn't affect the tragedies that happen in real life. For the record, I do believe in a woman's right to an abortion, but I think we should call it what it is. Killing a life.
And most of the women I know think uncut weiners look awful. I guess it's just what they're used to seeing. Who knows if it's right or wrong.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 91, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8181 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 86): Dad wants (or demands) his son to be like him.
I suspect you may be right. Perhaps there is some sort of reverse Oedipal thing going on where the father thinks, "well, I don't want my son to be able to experience pleasures which my parents denied to me" . I am sure Freud would have had a field day, except of course that as he was undoubtedly cut, he may have never thought to question it
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
daviation From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 92, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8172 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 91): I don't want my son to be able to experience pleasures which my parents denied to me
That is certainly one of the most bizarre thesis I've read. I don't think my parents denied me any pleasures. And I can't imagine that anyone would think I'd want to deny my son anything.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 93, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8174 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 90): Quoting tugger (Reply 86):
Dad wants (or demands) his son to be like him.
[....]
Well, obviously I don't agree with your assessment. But you're entitled to your opinion.
But then why on earth would you even consider doing it? Look I am not attacking you or anything, it's just that unless you did it for religious reasons (which you didn't note and I have no reason to assume) there is no real reason to do something like this to a baby boy.
I have held my kids tightly as they bawled when getting their shots and I do that for the reason that it has proven benefits for their health and longevity. But there is no significant benefit to a circumcision, so unless there was some underlying reason, the main reason why almost every father wants their son to be circumcised is because they are and they can't imagine their son not looking like them, "it was good enough for me, it is good enough for my son".
Don't take it the wrong way, it is a real reason why things are done ("it was done to me and I am fine"). I have quite a few friends that have stated this as their reason.
Tugg
[Edited 2012-06-26 15:22:33]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 94, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8172 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 92): I don't think my parents denied me any pleasures. And I can't imagine that anyone would think I'd want to deny my son anything.
I suggest you read the entire thread, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in general cut penises have far less sensitivity than uncut. Ask any of your gay friends who have experienced both types and I can virtually guarantee they will confirm this from real life experience.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 95, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8165 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 92): I don't think my parents denied me any pleasures.
But they did, even if they did not mean to at all and it wasn't even in their minds.
I don't get why some here can't accept that something that remains covered and protected is going to be more sensitive than something that is not covered and protected. I will offer that perhaps it could be similar to the sensation of sex with a condom on versus sex without a condom. So imagine that difference and add it to your sensation of sex without a condom and you will begin to imagine what an uncircumcised man can experience.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 96, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8143 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 94): I suggest you read the entire thread, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in general cut penises have far less sensitivity than uncut.
Let's leave that aside for a moment. Sexual pleasure is appreciated in the brain, not in the penis. Anyone who who owns a working penis knows that the exact same stimulus applied prior to ejaculation is interpreted VERY differently than immediately after ejaculation. Before it is: "OMG YES!" and right after it is: "OMG STOP!" There just isn't a way to compare directly whether I experience less or more "pleasure" during sex than an uncircumcised man, and "sensitivity" isn't exactly the gift that everyone treats it as.
The issue is the fact that this is a normal part of a male body. This is not an extra finger or a skin tag. It's supposed to be there. There is no medical justification for removing it routinely. There is no ethical justification for removing it without a medical indication. It belongs to the infant, not the parents, not the doctor, not the Rabbi.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, RR: 5 Reply 97, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8132 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96): There is no medical justification for removing it routinely.
I am curious, since you are a doctor, how is circumcision presented at medical school. Is it taught as something that should be pushed to the patients or do they leave it to your discretion? Also, how do insurance companies treat it, since you could argue whether the surgery is cosmetic or necessary.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 98, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8140 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 97): I am curious, since you are a doctor, how is circumcision presented at medical school. Is it taught as something that should be pushed to the patients or do they leave it to your discretion?
The American Academy of Pediatrics formal position on circumcision:
Quote: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 99, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8108 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 90): If your wife has ever had a miscarriage at, say, six weeks, and you've wept over that fetus and what could have been a child to love, then yes, I think life begins before birth. Or had a friend whose wife gave birth prematurely and the fetus had to be on life support for three months, then yes, you have a new appreciation for when life might begin.
Probably. But being emotionally invested in a subject isn't the best foundation for sensible policy, so that's a moot point. In any case I have been careful to avoid stating my definition of when life begins- it's certainly not at birth!
Anyway, that's very off-topic. The point was not to get into an argument about abortion but to explain why your claim of hypocrisy in SF was fallacious when viewed from the angle of somebody who does not believe life begins at conception. For them it is perfectly consistent to be pro-choice and be against circumcision.
Quoting daviation (Reply 90): Your phonebook remark is witty and funny, but it doesn't affect the tragedies that happen in real life.
It's not my remark- I'm merely requoting Bill Hicks in attempt to lighten the mood. Fffpt.
Quoting daviation (Reply 90): And most of the women I know think uncut weiners look awful
If we're being honest here, the appearance of the penis is not its strongest point whether it's cut or uncut .
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, RR: 5 Reply 100, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8098 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 90): And most of the women I know think uncut weiners look awful.
If they feel so strongly about it that they would reject a partner because of it, the word 'shallow' comes to mind. I doubt it though, at the end of the day, it is not the looks of it that they really care about.
daviation From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 101, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8104 times:
OK guys, you got me! I wish I still had a foreskin. My parents (well, one is deceased) should be shot. I'm sorry I ever had my son circumcized. I don't see the big problem. My dick works fine. His dick (from the little I know about it) works fine too. We're nice and clean. Girls like it. I don't see the earth shattering.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 102, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8102 times:
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 99): Anyway, that's very off-topic. The point was not to get into an argument about abortion but to explain why your claim of hypocrisy in SF was fallacious when viewed from the angle of somebody who does not believe life begins at conception.
(partially) OT: In Judaism, an infant isn't truly a "whole person" until 8 days of age at which time... a male infant is circumcised.
Judaism has a lot of strange traditions of this sort. For example, you don't say the baby's name until it's born. You don't congratulate women on their pregnancy. You don't have baby showers. This makes perfect sense from the point of view of a bunch of nomads wandering around in the desert 6,000 years ago. I'm sure their infant mortality rate was pretty atrocious, so there were good reasons to avoid premature celebration.
signol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 2948 posts, RR: 7 Reply 103, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8086 times:
I had the cut when I was 5 years old, for medical reasons. The car journey to the hospital that day is one of my earliest memories.
Now I have a son, he is 3 years old, and he is uncircumcised (despite pressure from both sets of grandparents). However, there is a chance he will have to have the snip himself, for the same reasons I had it done to me.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6017 posts, RR: 55 Reply 104, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8073 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 89): However, what Germany forgets (and what San Francisco forgot) is that all that is going to happen is that Jewish and Muslim parents are simply going to take their kids elsewhere, get them circumcised, and come back. Now, you have an enforceability problem.
No, I don't think that Germany forgot anything. That fact that some people violates the law doesn't mean that the law is wrong. After all, stealing horses has been forbidden for thousands of years, still not all horse thieves get crucified.
BTW, it's not just a German law. I'm also considered a criminal in case I have a baby son circumcised. I guess it's the same in (most of?) Europe.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 106, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8027 times:
Yeah they did. If people are determined to do it, they are going to get it done, even if it's done without proper regulation and oversight.
It's like banning abortion. It will still happen, but it will be done with coat hangers and in back alleys. The same argument applies.
This is going to be solved by educating the public, not by banning it. However, I do think that it is worthwhile to make insurance stop paying for the procedure. Medi-Cal in California has stopped paying for it.
kent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 888 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8022 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 106): This is going to be solved by educating the public, not by banning it. However, I do think that it is worthwhile to make insurance stop paying for the procedure. Medi-Cal in California has stopped paying for it.
Circumcision is legal in Australia, although the medical position is similar to AAP. Although Australia is the only country in the world which routinely pays a medicare benefit for elective male circumcision, the procedure is not performed by public hospitals.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38503 posts, RR: 80 Reply 109, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7972 times:
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 81): As of today, a German court ruled that circumcising children for religious reasons represents a criminal offense (bodily harm). The judges said that the children's right of physical integrity weighs more than the parents right of religious freedom.
Kudos to Germany for this!
Quoting mariner (Reply 71): I'm with those Asian religions that worship the penis - happy Thailand:
AF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 572 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7943 times:
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 81): As of today, a German court ruled that circumcising children for religious reasons represents a criminal offense (bodily harm). The judges said that the children's right of physical integrity weighs more than the parents right of religious freedom.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 112, posted (10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7854 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96): There is no ethical justification for removing it without a medical indication. It belongs to the infant, not the parents, not the doctor, not the Rabbi.
Agreed. Removing the foreskin based on misplaced medical concern is bad enough, but to me doing it for religious reasons is completely unacceptable child abuse. What also should belong to the infant is the right to decide what religious beliefs he does or does not subscribe to when he is old enough to think for himself.
Of course that isn't what Judiasm or any other religious cult indoctrination process is about. What stronger way to push a religious belief on a kid than to cut off a piece of his naughty bits! And that my friends is what it is all about - a man can shed the yarmulke or crucifix necklace, or shave his beard and discontinue kneeling toward Mecca, but for "God's Chosen People" that foreskin is gone for good.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 113, posted (10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7782 times:
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 112): Of course that isn't what Judiasm or any other religious cult indoctrination process is about. What stronger way to push a religious belief on a kid than to cut off a piece of his naughty bits! And that my friends is what it is all about - a man can shed the yarmulke or crucifix necklace, or shave his beard and discontinue kneeling toward Mecca, but for "God's Chosen People" that foreskin is gone for good.
I wonder if the bogey man came to me in a dream and told me to cut off my sons little finger that would be ok?
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 114, posted (10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7738 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 113): I wonder if the bogey man came to me in a dream and told me to cut off my sons little finger that would be ok?
Fred
I don't know for sure...but here in the US at least, your "faith" in that bogey man would be viewed as a de facto positive personal quality, as long as you called him "God". In fact your money would say "In God We Trust", and by pledging allegiance to the flag you'd be placing your nation - including the nonbelievers ironically - "under" that God.
And if you joined the military you'd be treated to many opportunities to express solidarity with the 'believers' of various other faiths via public prayers jammed into every conceivable opportunity, regardless of how remote the connection might be.
But on the other hand if you have no bogey man and would prefer to keep things secular you are deemed an asshat that is trying to deprive believers of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs (by continually ramming the importance of their faith down everyone else's throat at every damned opportunity).
Getting back to the topic, this place needs as many foreskins as we can muster. Sorry I can't help the cause there.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 115, posted (10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7704 times:
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 114): this place needs as many foreskins as we can muster
A.net quote of the day!
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 114): I don't know for sure...but here in the US at least, your "faith" in that bogey man would be viewed as a de facto positive personal quality, as long as you called him "God".
If and only if you can get at lest ten other people to believe in the same bogey man. If it's just you, then you're nuts.
As expected, the ADL has reacted furiously to the German court's decision and while they did not call it anti-Semitic, they said that it meant that Jews were not welcome. My heart bleeds... just like my foreskin did when they cut it off of me at eight days of age.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 116, posted (10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7677 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 89): However, what Germany forgets (and what San Francisco forgot) is that all that is going to happen is that Jewish and Muslim parents are simply going to take their kids elsewhere, get them circumcised, and come back. Now, you have an enforceability problem.
It is the ruling of an independent judge. There is no law for or against circumcision in Germany, so there doesn't have anything to be enforced. But children could sue their parents, or. if compliations happen like in this case, the DA has to investigate the case and start prosecution.
There was a good ead articl in FAZ today
The state guarantees religious freedom, religion is not the foundation of statehood.
.....the court ruling is wise in defining religiously based circumcision as criminal act. The parents claim of their religious freedom is secondary as they restrict their sons religious freedom with the circumcision.
Would circumcision be allowed by law, the state would have to define between allowed bodily harm and individual, criminal bodily harm. However, the law must treat everyone equal and be equally just to eveyone..........
In summary, this court and other courts in the future had/ will have no other choice but this ruling.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38503 posts, RR: 80 Reply 117, posted (10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7669 times:
As much as I oppose circumcision, I'm glad that my car rides so smooth that a rabbi can perform a circumcision in the backseat of my car while driving down a bumpy road - similar to the Royal Deluxe II.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 119, posted (10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7636 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 116):
The state guarantees religious freedom, religion is not the foundation of statehood.
You see, that's because Germany is a reasonable and civilized country. I wish the USA was.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 118): So 9 people believe and I'm nuts but 10 people believe and I can start cutting bits off my kids? Is this 10 person thing an actual rule?
No, it's me pointing out that as long as it's a group of people, suddenly it gets coddled as a "religion" and not "insanity."
The USA allows a lot of parental behaviors towards kids in the name of religion that I would consider abuse. They can refuse to vaccinate, refuse to educate (I once met a 13yo boy born and raised in Brooklyn who only spoke Yiddish, not a word of English), and to some degree, refuse to provide medical treatment (although it can be overridden in the case of threat to life or limb). Often, people use "religion" as a defense for behaviors that have nothing to do with any religion.
I'm glad that Germany takes a stand against such behaviors. After all, children are NOT the property of their parents.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 120, posted (10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7579 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 119):
No, it's me pointing out that as long as it's a group of people, suddenly it gets coddled as a "religion" and not "insanity."
Well, depends on how batshit crazy the "religion" in question is*. Look at how everyone takes the piss out of Scientology**, which has more than a few followers.
*Yeah I know, its pretty subjective.
**Though obviously I only condone equal opportunities mockery, take the piss out of all religions.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 119):
I'm glad that Germany takes a stand against such behaviors. After all, children are NOT the property of their parents.
With luck we'll see a rapid increase in the number of countries taking such stands, about time too.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 121, posted (10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7555 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 120): Well, depends on how batshit crazy the "religion" in question is*. Look at how everyone takes the piss out of Scientology**, which has more than a few followers.
And yet in this country they have a right to refuse to give their kids medicine unless it's life or limb. They also get away with abduction, torture, and all sorts of other things using "religion" as a cover. In other countries, they would have been branded a cult and banned.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 122, posted (10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7490 times:
Been circumcised in my teenage years due to medical reasons (phimosis, circumcision is not common in Germany and AFAIK I´m the only circumcised male in my family). I noticed a loss of sensitivity, but on the other hand it helps me not to be too "trigger happy", which is popular with the ladies, since it gives me more time to satisfy THEM, as they usually take longer to reach one or multiple orgasms.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 123, posted (10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7473 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 116): .....the court ruling is wise in defining religiously based circumcision as criminal act. The parents claim of their religious freedom is secondary as they restrict their sons religious freedom with the circumcision.
One more important aspect of this ruling: It places the constitution and the subordinate laws above the rules of religions.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 124, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7402 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 123): One more important aspect of this ruling: It places the constitution and the subordinate laws above the rules of religions.
That goes without saying and is the basis for every court ruling. Not only the constitution but the law in general is superior and above anything. Nobody, not the government and certainly not a religion or a religious leader stands above the law.
The court, in his case has done nothing else but protect the rights of the child against the parents.
However, the state will not hunt down on parents who have their boys circumcised. But doctors handling such operations will think twice, as from now on they know that they might be prosecuted.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 125, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7412 times:
slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6518 posts, RR: 37 Reply 127, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7361 times:
Funny how there's more outrage about male circumcision in the Western world on this thread and nary a word about female clitorectomies that are commonly done in islamic countries because women are property.
Our priorities are so unaligned with what our purpose ought to be.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 128, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7341 times:
Quoting slider (Reply 127): Funny how there's more outrage about male circumcision in the Western world on this thread and nary a word about female clitorectomies that are commonly done in islamic countries because women are property.
Correction: This practice is carried out in SOME Islamic countries, notably in Africa (Egypt, Sudan, several West African states, including Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ghana and Nigeria) and some countries on the Arabian peninsula, but there also among some non-Islamic groups (e.g. the Massai in Kenya). It is virtually unknown in central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and in Islamic South East Asia as well as Turkey, Albania and Bosnia. Because female genital mutilation is practiced in several African countries by parts of the Islamic and non-Islamic (with the exception of the Christians) ethnic groups, I suspect that it is actually a pre-Islamic regional tribal tradition, which somehow survived and got passed into Islam. AFAIK the Q´ran makes no demands for this deplorable practice.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 129, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7340 times:
Quoting slider (Reply 127):
Funny how there's more outrage about male circumcision in the Western world on this thread and nary a word about female clitorectomies that are commonly done in islamic countries because women are property.
Because female circumcision is banned in Western countries. This thread isn't about that.
I'd like to see anyone who performs a clitorectomy get castrated without anesthesia. But that's neither here nor there. There is no prerequisite for eliminating all clitorectomy in the world before we start to attack male circumcision.
slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6518 posts, RR: 37 Reply 130, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7297 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 129): There is no prerequisite for eliminating all clitorectomy in the world before we start to attack male circumcision.
True, however, I think this is a windmill that no one needs to really attack.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 131, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7299 times:
Quoting slider (Reply 130): True, however, I think this is a windmill that no one needs to really attack.
EVERY baby in the world should be born without any risk of having someone amputate a normal part of his or her anatomy.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 132, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7301 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 129): I'd like to see anyone who performs a clitorectomy get castrated without anesthesia.
I was married to a woman who had such a procedure performed on her (she was from Sierra Leone). It was still possible to get her to climax (the nerves, which end in the clitoris continue through the vulva and past the vagina), but it took a lot of effort. Instead of a castration I would recommend the ampuation of the glans (the equivalent of the clitoris) with a rusty razorblade without anaestesia. This way the guy would still get the urges, but would not be able to get satisfaction.
But in reality it is mostly the old women who insist having the young girls mutilated "due to tradition".
In their society men have a limited say in "women´s affairs" and the act is mostly carried out by women´s societies.
Interestingly my ex used to advocate the practice as well until she became biblebashing Christian.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 133, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7245 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 132): Interestingly my ex used to advocate the practice as well until she became biblebashing Christian.
*sigh*
*Sigh* This just validastes my view of religious people.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22711 posts, RR: 88 Reply 134, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7210 times:
Quoting slider (Reply 127): Funny how there's more outrage about male circumcision in the Western world on this thread and nary a word about female clitorectomies that are commonly done in islamic countries because women are property.
This isn't a thread about female circumcision, but I can go there if you want.
There are tribes in Africa, in the Upper Nile area and parts of Somalia, who perform what is called Pharaonic circumcision - infibulation:
"The operation calls for cutting off most of the labia majora and the complete removal of the labia minora and the clitoris. When this is done, a match is placed in the labia majora aperture. After the wound has healed, a small opening is left, from which urine comes out. At the age of puberty, menstrual blood is let out of the same opening. At the end of this operation, when the match is already placed, the girl's legs are tied together for forty days to make sure that the wound heals well.
Thus, quite simply, a woman is deprived of her genitals and denied the most basic element of life."
The paper goes on to describe what happens with (a) menstruation and (b) marital sexual activity and childbirth, and none of it is pretty reading.
In at least one case, in South Sudan, a man used acid to try and get entry to his wife on their wedding night.
I know of missionaries and doctors who have tried to stop the practise, but with very little success - peer pressure is a powerful thing.
A Nigerian boy was accidentally castrated during a botched backstreet circumcision here a couple of years ago, and it would seem he was not the first victim. How on earth do you explain that to a teenage eunuch?
FlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1893 posts, RR: 28 Reply 136, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7112 times:
There was another story (other than circumcision) few months ago. A mother has no right to force her daughter to tan her skin because a daughter doesn't like it. It's a child's body not mother's body.
cruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 138, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6861 times:
All I will say is I got it when I was 16/17 and wish I got it sooner. Also going to school in USA being uc was hell. I also can't stand reports, especially from female doctors, who talk about why its so bad to get it done. Since I know what its like both ways, I have experienced zero differences, if not better now.
cruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 140, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6775 times:
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1277 posts, RR: 2 Reply 142, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6535 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 119): I'm glad that Germany takes a stand against such behaviors.
I've followed the aftermath of that ruling closely, reading a few German law blogs. Unfortunately, it's only a decision by the Landgericht Köln (Cologne), i.e. the case was tried at a Amtsgericht before and then appealed to the Landgericht.
They could have appealed further to the Oberlandesgericht (highest court of each German state), and even further to the Federal Court or to the Federal Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor did not appeal, and the doctor who performed the operation on a muslim boy was held guilty, but without punishment (because of his mistake of law, because he had reason to trust that his action was lawful). So the doctor can't appeal and is technically acquitted.
Because it was decided by the lowly Landgericht it means that male circumcision, as long as there is no medical indication or the child hasn't consented to the circumcision is illegal in the district of the Landgericht Köln only. It's not legally binding to any other region of Germany, but still might very well be trend-setting.
It was all an exercise of weighting the values of § 2, 4 and 6 of the German Basic Law. The judges found that § 2 (integrity of the persons body, ban on mistreating somebody) precedes § 4 (the right to freely exercise one's religion) and § 6 (care of and education of the child is the prime duty of the parents).
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/...on-not-ban-it-jurist-says-1.447788 is a report by Haaretz about this judgement. An attorney who has worked on the lawfulness of male circumcision said that reactions from Israel were the most moderate he received. In comparison, both German christian denominations, and jews and the muslims were up in arms about their perceived loss of religious freedoms.
Addition: In my opinion, male circumcision is an extremely good example of debating religious freedoms. The parents have the right to rear their child in their own religious community. But when and where begins the religious freedom of the child? When does it "earn" the right to renounce the religion professed by his or her parents? Only when they reach legal maturity?
Religious freedom is not only the right to choose a religion freely, but also the right not to choose any religion. And IMHO, every child is born with that very freedom.
David
[Edited 2012-07-03 01:54:19]
[Edited 2012-07-03 01:55:00]
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 146, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6363 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 145):
Why? Why shouldn't it be up the individual what permanent, non-necessary surgical alterations are done to their own bodies?
And that is what begets the entire discussion here....
That is my personal belief. I think the advantages outweigh any possible disadvantages.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Why? Why shouldn't it be up the individual what permanent, non-necessary surgical alterations are done to their own bodies?
And that is what begets the entire discussion here....
That is my personal belief. I think the advantages outweigh any possible disadvantages.
I'm curious as to which "advantages" you refer.
Putting aside the "basic human right to bodily integrity" issue, one would assume that if foreskins were such an unnecessary burden to mankind then men in parts of the world other than the US and the Middle East would lining up to have themselves circumcised, yet this doesn't appear to be the case. Why do you suppose that is?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
Putting aside the "basic human right to bodily integrity" issue, one would assume that if foreskins were such an unnecessary burden to mankind then men in parts of the world other than the US and the Middle East would lining up to have themselves circumcised, yet this doesn't appear to be the case. Why do you suppose that is?
Your geographical analysis reflects more of a religous attitude to the procedure in those countries than a practical one.
Calling them a 'burden' is an exaggeration, I think circumcision promotes hygiene, simple as that.
Do you feel the same way about appendectomies or tonsillectomys ?
Should we keep every part of our bodies no matter how unnecessary ?
Seriously, what are the advantages of having a foreskin ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 151, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6314 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 148): Do you feel the same way about appendectomies or tonsillectomys ?
Both of which you have removed if you have issues with - you can't have those procedures carried out on a baby just because you as the parent wants them removed.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 148): Should we keep every part of our bodies no matter how unnecessary ?
"We" and "Our" in your sentence is what this debate is all about - no one here has an issue if *you* decide to have any body part removed, but why should *you* have the ability to make such a life long decision for any one else?
Quoting Max Q (Reply 148): Seriously, what are the advantages of having a foreskin ?
I'm much more sensitive down there than someone who is cut. And I'm no less hygienic.
Quite a statement to say. As someone who was cut in my teen years, I haven't felt any changes in how sensitive I am down there, I actually think it's better now.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 153, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6311 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 151):
I'm much more sensitive down there than someone who is cut. And I'm no less hygienic.
You have no way of knowing that.
Quoting cruiseshipcrew (Reply 152):
Quite a statement to say. As someone who was cut in my teen years, I haven't felt any changes in how sensitive I am down there, I actually think it's better now.
Point made.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 154, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6293 times:
Boldness added by myself.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 153): Quoting cruiseshipcrew (Reply 152):
Quite a statement to say. As someone who was cut in my teen years, I haven't felt any changes in how sensitive I am down there, I actually think it's better now.
Point made.
If the point you were trying to make that a personal decision was made then you are indeed correct. "My", "I", "I", "I".
I thought you were big on personal freedoms MAX? maybe I was wrong.
cruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 155, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6295 times:
Fred I didn't post it on this last reply but I said it above....it would have been a lot easier and made me happier if it was done on day one. My statement above wasn't directed about it being my choice. I was saying people who say they feel better because they are uncut, I disagree with them because they don't know how it feels both ways.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 153): You have no way of knowing that.
Actually, I have every way of knowing it - I have two friends who were cut, one at age 19, the other at age 23 and both were done (in a hospital) for religious reasons.
Both have reported a drastic reduction in sensitivity after a year.
I'm going to keep my skin, thanks. And I'm going to recommend to anyone willing to listen that its not worth having done for anything other than immediate medical reasons.
raffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1644 posts, RR: 4 Reply 158, posted (10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6259 times:
In babies, it is entirely unnecessary. If you are an adult and have a tight foreskin which stops you from having sex or retracting your foreskin for washing, then it's fine. But I have read so much rubbish about how un circumcised people have dirty penises- HELLO? We wash every day and the foreskin provides necessary protection to the penis.
I've met some guys who've had the chop and the friction from their penises rubbing on their clothing has caused a hardening of the skin on the top and loss of sensation.
kiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3 Reply 159, posted (10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6259 times:
A couple of week ago in Norway a baby boy died during a ritual circumcision, this led to calls to ban circumcision in Norway, fair call IMO, the govt minister in charge said no, Norway will not become the first country to ban rictural circumsions, what is daft about this statement is that Norway already bans female circumsions, female circumsisions are also ritual, what makes a womens genetials any more important than a males genetials?
IMO the real problem with banning circumcision is religion (mainly jews and muslims), Western countries with no need to continue this outdated practice should ban it (like they have with female circumcision) but they are weak and are afraid of being called anti semitic and anti muslim.
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4722 posts, RR: 13 Reply 160, posted (10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6162 times:
I'm Jewish so in our faith getting the tip nipped is standard operating proceedure. Thank God I didn't remember my "Bris"
We make it a ceremony! I believe my dad may he rest in piece imbided in spirits to get him through the experience.
Uncut meat looks creepy. I remember gym class in Junior and Senior High. Scarey moments.
Not when you were born you weren't, if my dad said I was a banana when I was born it wouln't make me a banana.
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 160): I'm Jewish so in our faith getting the tip nipped is standard operating proceedure.
I don't understand how beleiving in the bogeyman/god/Allah/insert appropriate name here gives people the right to mutilate their children? Could Tom cruise cut his sons nipples off because he belongs to a cult? I see no reason why other "religions" should be different.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 162, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6070 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 142): Religious freedom is not only the right to choose a religion freely, but also the right not to choose any religion. And IMHO, every child is born with that very freedom.
That is exactly the point.
Very good conribution overall BTW. Thanks.
What cannot happen and will not be in line with our constitution is that , in Germany, laws are passed for certain groups of the population. In my opinion, you can quote § 1 of the Basic Law as well.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 163, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5990 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 148): Quoting TSS (Reply 147):
Putting aside the "basic human right to bodily integrity" issue, one would assume that if foreskins were such an unnecessary burden to mankind then men in parts of the world other than the US and the Middle East would lining up to have themselves circumcised, yet this doesn't appear to be the case. Why do you suppose that is?
Your geographical analysis reflects more of a religous attitude to the procedure in those countries than a practical one.
While that may be true of the Middle East, in the US the vast majority of circumcisions are not performed for any religious reason.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 48 Reply 164, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
So basically we have uncircumcised people in here claiming you should make the decision yourself, and circumcised people claiming they don't care it's done/are glad it was done young. A few circumcised people have, for various reasons, not wish they'd been, and by my approximation those few that were circumcised later in life wish they had been earlier on.
And then we have people who haven't been both making outrageous claims about "knowing" that one is better than the other.
Have I got it? Yup, bout time to lock this one up.
And once again, I trust that my parents made the right decision for me, and I'm very glad I had it done. I'd probably say the same thing if I hadn't been. Why don't we just live and let live? The simple fact is if most people weren't happy with it, they'd go out of their way to make sure their kids didn't have it done. Based on the fact you don't see a massive decrease in its popularity, I'd say that tells you all you need to know.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 166, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5878 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 164): And then we have people who haven't been both making outrageous claims about "knowing" that one is better than the other.
You know, as a gay man, I have a direct basis for comparison...
So basically we have uncircumcised people in here claiming you should make the decision yourself, and circumcised people claiming they don't care it's done/are glad it was done young. A few circumcised people have, for various reasons, not wish they'd been, and by my approximation those few that were circumcised later in life wish they had been earlier on.
And then we have people who haven't been both making outrageous claims about "knowing" that one is better than the other.
Have I got it? Yup, bout time to lock this one up.
And once again, I trust that my parents made the right decision for me, and I'm very glad I had it done. I'd probably say the same thing if I hadn't been. Why don't we just live and let live? The simple fact is if most people weren't happy with it, they'd go out of their way to make sure their kids didn't have it done. Based on the fact you don't see a massive decrease in its popularity, I'd say that tells you all you need to know.
Cheers,
Cameron
Well said.
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 167):
Quote:
“How can you think it’s O.K. to cut little boys, when you are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls?”
Civilised countries banned it for girls now it should be banned for boys, religion be damned.
Seriously It is not, by any stretch of the imagination remotely the same !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6325 posts, RR: 14 Reply 169, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5847 times:
Happily unchopped and have never ever had "eww an uncut penis" moment when I've fucked anyone. Most women don't seem to mind as long as it is big enough and hard enough to do the job ...
I would not condone it, nor would I condone little girls getting their ears pierced as babies.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 170, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5839 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 166): You know, as a gay man, I have a direct basis for comparison...
I have to admit that I have been loathe to go there for fear of the mods, but I have to agree with you.
We seem to have a lot of guys on here making claims presumably based on a scientific sample of exactly one dick, their own.
Well if they want to believe that, fine ( let's face it, no guy really wants to think of his own equipment as damaged goods).
I believe that I have personally sampled enough to make a make a more statistically valid assessment ( I don't have an exact count, but I would guesstimate in the high hundreds) , and I have no hesitation in saying that in my experience, intact penises are, in general, far more sensitive than cut ones.
I can understand why guys who have had the snip would prefer not to believe that, and I agree that there is the occassional exception where a cut guy still has a high degree of sensitivity, but on the whole I have no doubt who gets the better deal in general.
To those posters who say that they know better than me, please feel free to give me an estimate of the number of penises , other than your own, which you have handled in order to arrive at your opinion.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
kiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3 Reply 172, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5815 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 168): Seriously It is not, by any stretch of the imagination remotely the same !
Tell that to the baby who died in Norway a couple of weeks ago due to complications caused this barbaric practice.
It is the same, you are taking a child and removing parts of them, mainly for daft and unnecessary religious reasons. It's also a proven fact the circumcised males don't have as much feeling as uncircumcised males.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 48 Reply 173, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5751 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 166): You know, as a gay man, I have a direct basis for comparison...
Do you? I have no doubt you've been on the receiving end of both, and can make claims for how it felt for you, but unless you've had both a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis, I don't think you have a direct basis for comparison as to the sensation felt by that person.
You yourself said it's difficult to quantify such a statement since pleasure is derived from the brain.
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 172): It's also a proven fact the circumcised males don't have as much feeling as uncircumcised males.
I'd love to see you back that statement up with a quality scientific study. Good luck with that.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 175, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5722 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 173): Quoting kiwirob (Reply 172):
It's also a proven fact the circumcised males don't have as much feeling as uncircumcised males.
I'd love to see you back that statement up with a quality scientific study. Good luck with that.
A study from 2007 published in the British Journal of Urology under the title "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" did exactly that. It is available online, but I am unable to link directly to it.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 176, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5715 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 173): Do you? I have no doubt you've been on the receiving end of both, and can make claims for how it felt for you, but unless you've had both a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis, I don't think you have a direct basis for comparison as to the sensation felt by that person.
I'm not going into details on a family board, but believe me, I do have some direct basis for comparison.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 48 Reply 178, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5636 times:
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 174): People like yourself who are circumcised don't know any different so try to defend it
And you know what it's like to be circumcised?
The biased anti-circumcision website, with a few first-hand accounts, does absolutely nothing to further your cause any more than your second hand account from your friend. Sorry he had the experience he did, either way, though.
The Slate article pretty much proves my point. Some will be happy, some won't be happy (though you'll notice a fairly sizable majority were happy the procedure was performed).
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 179, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5627 times:
Quoting TSS (Reply 175): A study from 2007 published in the British Journal of Urology under the title "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" did exactly that. It is available online, but I am unable to link directly to it.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 178): (though you'll notice a fairly sizable majority were happy the procedure was performed
Ask a man if he is happy with his circumcision and he will hear "is your penis defective?", at which point the male ego will go into overdrive and statistically invalidate any useful results you might get.
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
JAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3321 posts, RR: 4 Reply 182, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5597 times:
I've been watching this thread for a few days and finally feel I should comment. First of all, please don't ever compare male circumcision to female circumcision because the two are similar by name only. Female circumcision is the intentional removal of the clitoris and the sewing closed of the vagina. It permanently damages the function of a lady's anatomy. Male circumcision is the removal of excess skin on the tip of the penis. Think of the female procedure as chopping off an arm and the main procedure as cutting off the loose skin at the elbow. Completely different procedures and outcomes. Male circumcision does not impair or restrict the function of the penis which is for urination and ejaculation via stimulation (whatever it may be). As a person of the Jewish faith I was circumcised and have absolutely no memory, recollection, or adverse effects from it. Mutilation is not a word I would use to describe the procedure. Once again, there's no impairment of the penis and it can function in the same way it would if not circumcised. The only reason people raise such a huge fuss over it is because it involves the penis which is a taboo and "private" part. If it was a removal of excess skin on another part of the body I doubt there would be so much attention given. Circumcision in my opinion reduces the chance of infection (even if you clean yourself properly) and is visually more appealing (women prefer it, it's a well known fact). When you have extra skin there, you trap moisture and bacteria from natural bodily functions which can lead to "deposits" (or so I understand, you know what I mean).
I would be very unhappy if I was not able to have my son circumcised as it is my religious belief/tradition and there is absolutely not adverse effects to the procedure (much like piercing a girl's ears). Yes, there is risk involved but there is also a risk of many other complications during a child's life.
[Edited 2012-07-06 16:35:41]
Supported the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 183, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5599 times:
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 182): Male circumcision is the removal of excess skin on the tip of the penis.
It is not "excess" or "redundant." It is natural and normal. An accessory digit is "excess." A foreskin is not.
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 182): As a person of the Jewish faith I was circumcised and have absolutely no memory, recollection, or adverse effects from it.
You can masturbate without any lubrication?
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 182): The only reason people raise such a huge fuss over it is because it involves the penis which is a taboo and "private" part. If it was a removal of excess skin on another part of the body I doubt there would be so much attention given.
What other body part do we remove "excess skin" from? Is it OK to chop off earlobes? That's "excess skin." How about removing little toes? After all, you don't really need them to function.
No. You do not mutilate an infant for non-therapeutic reasons. Ever. For any reason. I can, but I don't and I won't. It violates the Hippocratic Oath and I am of the opinion that the AAP and AMA need to take a stronger stand on the issue. It is only because of "religion" and "tradition" that this procedure exists.
And let me just clarify: the word "mutilate" is not editorializing. A "mutilating" procedure is any procedure done for any reason that permanently alters the external appearance of the body. An appendectomy (or just about any operation) is a mutilating procedure, but it is done because it is absolutely necessary. Even a cosmetic procedure like rhinoplasty (nose job) is mutilating, although in that case the mutilation is considered beneficial by the patient. So, by definition, circumcision is a mutilating procedure.
Have I referred a child for circumcision? Yes. Twice. Both had abnormalities of the foreskin and removal was the only practical option.
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 182): I would be very unhappy if I was not able to have my son circumcised as it is my religious belief/tradition and there is absolutely not adverse effects to the procedure (much like piercing a girl's ears).
I very much hope that people like you are made universally unhappy in my lifetime. And yes, I am (nominally) Jewish. But because your god or Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever you believe in tells you to take a knife to your child doesn't make it right.
I have no adverse effects, as mentioned. I don't see how using or not using lubrication would be an adverse effect. For the record, you do not need lubrication for any sexual activities when circumcised.
Supported the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 185, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5600 times:
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 184): I have no adverse effects, as mentioned. I don't see how using or not using lubrication would be an adverse effect. For the record, you do not need lubrication for any sexual activities when circumcised.
I disagree. I cannot masturbate without lubrication. In fact, that is one of the reasons why circumcision was promoted by religious authorities; to prevent masturbation. Depending on the study (and there haven't been many) less than one in five circumcised men can masturbate without lubrication.
That is an "adverse effect" by definition, whether you think it is or not. It removes a physiologic function and so BY DEFINITION it is an "adverse effect." And yes, masturbation is a physiologic function. A man who does not masturbate is abnormal.
cruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 186, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5587 times:
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 184): you do not need lubrication for any sexual activities when circumcised.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 48 Reply 188, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5566 times:
Wow, man, that's terrible. You're honestly the only person I've ever met who's said that.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 179): Ask a man if he is happy with his circumcision and he will hear "is your penis defective?", at which point the male ego will go into overdrive and statistically invalidate any useful results you might get.
So you're going to use that completely unsupported speculation to support a point the opposite of what was made in the article? I don't think it works that way. Even granting your argument (which I don't altogether agree with, though I understand where you're coming from), at the very least you must agree there's nothing in that article that would support the argument that people who have experienced both prefer uncut.
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 180): and I didn't get either of my sons cut
That's fine, and your prerogative. Not sure whether you were circumcised at birth or later in life (based on your attitude, I'd guess the former), but it sounds like you don't know what it's like to have both, either. That's my point. If you were unhappy to be circumcised, I don't blame you. But the fact is, the vast majority of people that were are happy, or at most indifferent about it. In fact, there are only two groups that that seem to be against it.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 183): I very much hope that people like you are made universally unhappy in my lifetime.
Wow, getting a bit too personal there, Doc. I respect you a lot, but those kind of statements are entirely uncalled for.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 183): And let me just clarify: the word "mutilate" is not editorializing.
And let's be honest here, how many people in this type of dialogue have the medical background to know that? A very, very small minority. Just about everyone who uses that term is using it as an equivalent to "female genital mutilation" (don't believe me, look at the usage in this thread along), when it is ABSOLUTELY not.
I'm probably done replying in this thread. It's a very polarizing topic, and one people aren't likely to have their minds changed easily.
It is also a topic that, by its nature, is very hard to find any real truths in regarding overall happiness.
Here are some statements that I think most objective people can agree with:
1) The majority of people who are uncut are happy with their status.
2) The majority of people who are cut are happy with their status.
3) There is a small minority of people who are uncut who are not happy with their status.
4) There is a small minority of people who are cut who are not happy with their status.
5) There is a very small minority of people who have been both, and there is no conclusive preference one way or the other. I suspect many of the people who are happier after it than before it in this group are so because they had some medical issue that caused it.
Here's the problem: the vast majority of people arguing against it fall into statement 1. The majority of people arguing for it fall into group #2. So we've got both groups unfamiliar with what having the other is like. Which means that groups 3, 4, and 5 should have the majority of emphasis (with particular emphasis placed on group 5, since that is really the only group that knows what it's like to experience both).
Speaking as someone who is happy with their situation, I find it really odd that other people are telling me how I should feel ("you should've had the choice"). How do you respond to the fact that I'm glad I didn't have to make the choice? I like my appearance and its functionality, and I'm very glad I don't remember it. If people were as outraged that they didn't have the choice as the anti-circumcision movement would lead you to believe they are, it would disappear in a single generation. That's simply not happening. The decrease in circumcision rates in the US correlates very strongly with the rise in hispanic births in the US (which circumcise at a very low rate). There is nothing in any of those studies (which have flaws in and of themselves...for example they don't include religious circumcisions) to imply that anything other than changing demographics are the cause for the drop in circumcision rates in the US. Other reasons include medical insurance coverage. A Time article notes that circumcision rates are 24% higher in states where Medicaid covers it compared to those that don't. There are simply too many confounding factors to infer any sort of causation from the drop.
I respect others' opinions on the issue, and if you don't want to get your kid circumcised, more power to you. I'm happy I was, I have no issue with not having had the choice, and I think the vast majority of those that were don't feel any sort of betrayal by not having had the choice. If you want to continue doing research about any performance issues or health risks/benefits, I fully support that, but please, don't insult my intelligence by comparing it to female genital mutilation. It's a very porous argument that really detracts from your "credibility."
Happy snipping (or not) to all, and to all a good night!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5297 posts, RR: 47 Reply 189, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5537 times:
Well I was also refraining but I thought I'd chime in. I do agree that the difference between female and male circumcision is great, and at least with male circumcision there are some arguable benefits, even if they are outdated. And to be fair, an unwashed cut penis is cleaner than a unwashed uncut penis, but with the level of bathing today, I'm certain it doesn't make a difference. I'm sure girls (and guys if you swing that way) don't care either way what your dick looks like. I think it's not a huge deal in the scheme of things, but I wish I had the choice, therefore, I'm going to break from tradition and let my future sons (if I have any) choose. I'm sure they'll keep their foreskins... fine by me.
May be a gross question, but I'm curious, to the uncut guys, when you are going #1, does it... affect your flow? If you catch my drift... trying to be "family friendly here" lol
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 185):
I disagree. I cannot masturbate without lubrication. In fact, that is one of the reasons why circumcision was promoted by religious authorities; to prevent masturbation. Depending on the study (and there haven't been many) less than one in five circumcised men can masturbate without lubrication.
I think that's completely false, and impossible to believe.
That is an "adverse effect" by definition, whether you think it is or not. It removes a physiologic function and so BY DEFINITION it is an "adverse effect." And yes, masturbation is a physiologic function. A man who does not masturbate is abnormal.
kiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3 Reply 192, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5461 times:
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 182): I've been watching this thread for a few days and finally feel I should comment.
You're jewish so your opinion on circumcision is colored by your faith, it's what I would expect from any jew or muslim. IMO the opinions of people whose faith mandates circumcision don't count, you're indoctrinated into believing it's the right thing to do, when it isn't.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 188): 2) The majority of people who are cut are happy with their status.
That's because they don't know what they are missing.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 189): I'm sure girls (and guys if you swing that way) don't care either way what your dick looks like.
Well my wife had never seen a cut dick before she saw mine, thought it was very strange, same deal with a couple of Swedes and a Finish girl I dated as well.
cruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 193, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5436 times:
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 192):
That's because they don't know what they are missing.
Like I posted above I got it done in my late teen years, like it much better now and wish I got it a lot sooner.
jamincan From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0 Reply 194, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
Circumcision does have a small chance of having severe complications. Considering it is an elective, cosmetic procedure, I seriously question the ethics of one who would perform circumcision on an infant. This is particularly alarming in situations where there is no religious reason for the procedure. Would you condone parents having their children undergo elective cosmetic surgery? Because that is essentially what circumcision in those situations is.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 195, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5414 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 189): May be a gross question, but I'm curious, to the uncut guys, when you are going #1, does it... affect your flow? If you catch my drift... trying to be "family friendly here" lol
I do admit sometimes it's a problem. In the mornings it might get a bit stuck and before you can pull it back you're already "letting it flow" and it might impact part of the foreskin and deviate into the floor. But other than that, just retract it so there's no obstruction. As a kid (younger than 8), however, I would get scolded because I didn't retract it. My mom went as far as giving me a little warning that although she didn't have me circumcised she would do so if I kept doing #1 without retracting. I can see that hygiene might be important since by that time I would complain about that part: I'd get a couple of small bruises inside due to poor hygiene, but nothing a few years of maturing can't solve.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5297 posts, RR: 47 Reply 196, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5417 times:
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 192): Well my wife had never seen a cut dick before she saw mine, thought it was very strange, same deal with a couple of Swedes and a Finish girl I dated as well.
I meant I doubt you would start getting frisky with someone, expose it, and your partner says "eww you're cut/uncut!" and walk away. It may seem strange at first but as long as she/he's not 100% shallow, I don't think a big deal would be made
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 195): I do admit sometimes it's a problem. In the mornings it might get a bit stuck and before you can pull it back you're already "letting it flow" and it might impact part of the foreskin and deviate into the floor.
Well I guess this is a very weak/unsubstantial victory for the cut side
cruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 197, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5416 times:
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 195): Were you active during your teen years to decide whether you prefer being cut?
Without going into too much detail on a public forum, yes I was.
kiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3 Reply 198, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5374 times:
Quoting jamincan (Reply 194): Circumcision does have a small chance of having severe complications.
Like I said and linked to above, a baby in Norway died during a 'routine' circumcision a couple of months ago. The dangers are very real for what is an unnecessary procedure.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 199, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
Quoting cruiseshipcrew (Reply 197): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 195):
Were you active during your teen years to decide whether you prefer being cut?
Without going into too much detail on a public forum, yes I was.
Fair enough.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 196): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 195):
I do admit sometimes it's a problem. In the mornings it might get a bit stuck and before you can pull it back you're already "letting it flow" and it might impact part of the foreskin and deviate into the floor.
Well I guess this is a very weak/unsubstantial victory for the cut side
Yeah, that's just one advantage of being cut...but this rarely happens. It's those moments when you had a lot to drink and need to let it flow in a hurry. Even with the foreskin, the gland can get dry (well part of it) if the foreskin does not cover it completely.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 43 Reply 200, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5295 times:
It's very strange how gay males have such a strong opinion about circumcision. In my opinion, it marginalizes the gay community deeply as a people who care only about sex. You really care that much if men are cut?
As for me, I don't care. If I get married and my wife wants our child to have our child cut, fine, It is what it is. I place circumcision around #30 under my priorities.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5285 posts, RR: 35 Reply 201, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5286 times:
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 195): I do admit sometimes it's a problem. In the mornings it might get a bit stuck and before you can pull it back you're already "letting it flow" and it might impact part of the foreskin and deviate into the floor. But other than that, just retract it so there's no obstruction. As a kid (younger than 8), however, I would get scolded because I didn't retract it. My mom went as far as giving me a little warning that although she didn't have me circumcised she would do so if I kept doing #1 without retracting. I can see that hygiene might be important since by that time I would complain about that part: I'd get a couple of small bruises inside due to poor hygiene, but nothing a few years of maturing can't solve
I know two guys who were circumcised because they couldn't retract their foreskin properly. I didn't know they were getting this done till they were about to go under the knife, which is a pity, as I could have offered an alternative. I had the same problem in my teens, only I didn't know it was a problem until I became sexually active and realised other guys could do this. I solved the problem easily and without any surgery: I started taking daily baths in the hottest water possible, which had the effect of softening my foreskin and gradually I was able to stretch it back over the glans. Rubbing a little salt onto the glans each time helped to desensitise it a little (or at least I think it did) and after a week or two doing this I was able to pull it right back over the glans.
There is one advantage that a cut penis has over an uncut one: you're never going to get your foreskin caught in your zip.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1416 posts, RR: 1 Reply 203, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5282 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 148): Calling them a 'burden' is an exaggeration, I think circumcision promotes hygiene, simple as that.
Considering how many people have been whinning about how having to spend a few extra minutes cleaning themselves is burden, it seems it doesn't.
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 182): is visually more appealing (women prefer it, it's a well known fact).
In your area, probably. Everywhere else where being cut is not common at all, not so much.
Now, as I've said it before, if a girl walks away on you because you are uncut/cut, you are dating the wrong kind of girl unless you like the shallow Jersey Shore trashy type.
But hey, whatever makes you feel better about having a mutilated penis
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): It's very strange how gay males have such a strong opinion about circumcision. In my opinion, it marginalizes the gay community deeply as a people who care only about sex. You really care that much if men are cut?
O rly?. I'm not gay and I think your statement is ridiculous. Though in this very thread there are a few statements that prove you wrong:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 30): y completely unscientific survey among girls I've discussed it with (all across the planet) indicates a preference for circumcised men
Quoting Max Q (Reply 34): I think most women prefer it too but I am curious.
And like I said before, a lot of people with questionable hygiene habits, it seems.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22711 posts, RR: 88 Reply 204, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5262 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): It's very strange how gay males have such a strong opinion about circumcision.
Why is that strange? Most straight men I know are almost always conscious of the physical attributes of women.
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): In my opinion, it marginalizes the gay community deeply as a people who care only about sex.
In a thread about male circumcision, the subject of dicks is likely to be prominent.
If you want to start a thread about - say - convict Australia, I'd have a fair amount to say about that too, and only a small percentage of it would be related to the homosexual activity - sex - that flourished at the time.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 205, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5195 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): As for me, I don't care. If I get married and my wife wants our child to have our child cut, fine, It is what it is. I place circumcision around #30 under my priorities.
So if you want your daughter to be circumcised as well, I would assume that she would not protest?
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 201): you're never going to get your foreskin caught in your zip.
SO TRUE!
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 206, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5092 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 188): So you're going to use that completely unsupported speculation to support a point the opposite of what was made in the article? I don't think it works that way.
Clearly you're not a statistician. That's often the way it works when you're asking nebulous questions like "how do you feel". Of course the writer acknowledges this in her first sentence, where she uses the word "unscientific".
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
raffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1644 posts, RR: 4 Reply 207, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4928 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): It's very strange how gay males have such a strong opinion about circumcision. In my opinion, it marginalizes the gay community deeply as a people who care only about sex. You really care that much if men are cut?
It's not about sex. It's about mutilating a child. If we were not meant to have foreskins then we wouldn't have been born with them.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 208, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4857 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): It's very strange how gay males have such a strong opinion about circumcision.
Because most of us have experience with a lot of penises in our lives. Most straight men have intimate experience with only their own.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 188): 3) There is a small minority of people who are uncut who are not happy with their status.
4) There is a small minority of people who are cut who are not happy with their status.
The difference is that group (3) can get cut. Group (4) cannot get un-cut. If a man (or teenager old enough to make an informed decision) desires circumcision on his own penis, then I support him 100%. After all, he's the rightful owner of said organ and can do with it what he likes.
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 209, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4646 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
Stop circumcision!
It is a brutal, barbaric practice and should NOT be allowed for infants that have no say in the matter.
Quoting raffik (Reply 207): It's not about sex. It's about mutilating a child. If we were not meant to have foreskins then we wouldn't have been born with them.
I agree totally with the above two replies. I have been hearing this issue being knocked around for about 75 years now; every time I hear it again, I'm reminded of how thankful I am that my parents were sensible enough to tell the Doctors to "keep their scissors off" of "Little Charley's" "dickie" ! I have been using that thing for all manner of different "things" for just shy of 80 years now, and I can unequivocally state that "the way it was originally designed" is far superior to the "altered" state.
I can easily prove my point; I would assume that the vast majority of the members of A.net wear shoes most of the time, with the possible exception of when you go swimming, surfing, or just taking a shower. Try this simple "test"; next time you're outdoors and it's comfortably warm, take your shoes and socks off, and try walking down a gravel driveway, barefoot. I can guarantee, unless you spend one hell of a lot of time going barefoot, you're not going to get very far on that gravel driveway before you put your shoes back on ! Yet we have all seen people who never wear shoes, and they they can walk in gravel, lava, jungle vegetation, and some can even serve as porters for mountain climbers, and walk in snow in their bare feet !
It'a all about "sensitivity", (or the lack of it).
The very same thing can be said about people who routinely perform very hard, course work, and who never wear gloves to protect their hands, (and especially their fingers). Any doctor can tell you that the tips of human fingers are so sensitive that they are easily able to discern differences of only a few thousands of an inch on a smooth surface; however, the people who routinely engage in hard work, bare handed, will have far less sensitivity in their finger tips.
Now, the present discussion isn't about our fingers. What it IS about, most of us probably don't "use" quite as much as we use our finger tips; but when we DO have occasion to "use it", I must point out, "lots" of sensitivity is much preferable to a "lack" of sensitivity.
Just to "cover all the bases".............I'm sure we have all heard all of the "old wive's tales" about "it's easier to keep clean if it's "altered"; to which I can only say, it's a lot easier to get you feet clean when you take a shower if you remove your shoes and socks first; I don't know about anyone else, but I can assure everyone, it is my habit to attend to personal hygiene regularly, throughout the day; I always wash anything that needs washing, quite a few times daily as is necessary; ( I really think that nonsense about "keeping it cleaner" was aimed at the people who tend to bathe like once a month, (whether they think they need to or not).
Again, getting back to the OP's original question, he's asking for our personal opinions; are you "for" or "against" circumcision ? I have only read a dozen or so replies at the beginning, and also reply No. 208 (which directly precedes my reply) In it, I think Doc Lightning pretty well sums it up, when he notes;
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 208):
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 188):
3) There is a small minority of people who are uncut who are not happy with their status.
4) There is a small minority of people who are cut who are not happy with their status.
The difference is that group (3) can get cut. Group (4) cannot get un-cut. If a man (or teenager old enough to make an informed decision) desires circumcision on his own penis, then I support him 100%. After all, he's the rightful owner of said organ and can do with it what he likes.
I can't say it any better than that ! So........ it's really not just about "are you for or against circumcision", but rather, are you for (or against) performing this totally needless "procedure" on an infant, who will forever have to go through life with some of the most sensitive nerve endings on his whole body, forever "flopping and rubbing" against his trousers, thereby greatly "desensitizing" said very important nerve endings, and in so doing, greatly diminishing said organ from "performing" as I believe it was intended to perform, by ________________; (you can fill in the blank space with "Mother Nature", or whoever you choose)
I really don't wish to criticize anyone's religion here, but at the same time, I feel that it's a very serious thing to do this to infants; I feel anything this serious should be "put off" till the person having the procedure is old enough to decide for himself.
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 43 Reply 210, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4645 times:
Quoting raffik (Reply 207): It's not about sex. It's about mutilating a child. If we were not meant to have foreskins then we wouldn't have been born with them.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 208): Because most of us have experience with a lot of penises in our lives. Most straight men have intimate experience with only their own.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 205):
So if you want your daughter to be circumcised as well, I would assume that she would not protest?
**Raising my hand** I want you to go Saudi Arabia and protest this awful disfigurement. Let me know how it goes.
... you speak for yourselves. Again, I don't care.
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 211, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4599 times:
Against.
That the US and Israel are the two large practicers of male baby genital mutilation is telling. Jews get a pass because that is part of their religion.
I'm uncircumcised and have never had an STI/STD. (But I religiously have safe sex.) All that crap about circumcised people having a lower transmission rate is just that...crap.
If an adult man wishes to get his penis chopped off that is his prerogative, it should not be forced on innocent babies. It is time to outlaw this practice actually. It should be an adult's decision.
BTW, a lot of my circumcised friends are envious, because uncircumcised guys are a LOT more sensitive on the glans of their penis.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 212, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4579 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 200): As for me, I don't care. If I get married and my wife wants our child to have our child cut, fine, It is what it is. I place circumcision around #30 under my priorities.
I'm Assuming that if you wife wants to sandpaper off his nipples you'll be fine with that too?
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 213, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4566 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 210): I want you to go Saudi Arabia and protest this awful disfigurement. Let me know how it goes.
JCS...............I have no plans to go to Saudi Arabia, now or ever, so I have ZERO interest in what the people there think about the practice of circumcising infants; (not to mention, there are quite a number of other things I happened to disagree with the Saudis about )
They also don't allow women to drive cars, the last I heard; hey, I could care less ! I'm not a woman, and as i just mentioned, I wasn't going there anyway............so who cares WHAT they think ? Certainly not me !
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
daviation From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 214, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4534 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 211): the US and Israel are the two large practicers of male baby genital mutilation
Uh, WTF are you talking about?? Have you forgotten that Muslims perform this practice as well? And how many Muslims are in this world?
When all is said and done, you can think whatever you want, but 60% of Americans perform circumcision, and the Muslim World performs circumcision, and the few Jews in the world perform circumcision.
Do you think it's going to stop because a bunch of a.net cranks don't like it? This is one of the most ridiculous discussions I've seen on this board. Nobody has convinced anyone to change their perspective at all.
daviation From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 216, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4442 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 215): Mostly because no one will admit their penis has any kind of shortcoming, real or perceived.
What are you, a professional psychologist? Don't put words in my mouth or anyone else's. I don't think anyone is referring to shortcomings, perceived or otherwise.
The original issue, before it got muddied by amateur psychologists, was are you for or against it? After 200 comments, half are for it, half are against it. The real issue then is will this change anything. Of course not. People who do it for traditional or religious reasons will continue. People who think it's a positive health procedure will continue.
But to say it's an American/Israeli practice is ludicrous. Anyone who makes that statement is excluding the entire Muslim world. And Muslims don't follow the practice because Americans and Israelis do it!!
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 217, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4430 times:
Quoting daviation (Reply 216): The real issue then is will this change anything. Of course not. People who do it for traditional or religious reasons will continue. People who think it's a positive health procedure will continue.
Not necessarily. The idea that all this is fixed and never changes just isn't true. New Zealand for example went from a circumcision rate of virtually zero to around sixty percent, then back to zero in less than 100 years. Circumcision rates have declined since the 1960s in the US (when the rate was around 90%) to barely half in the last few years. It's a perfectly reasonable debate to have.
Quoting daviation (Reply 216): But to say it's an American/Israeli practice is ludicrous. Anyone who makes that statement is excluding the entire Muslim world. And Muslims don't follow the practice because Americans and Israelis do it!!
Agree with this- the vast majority of the Muslim World and about two thirds of the US is circumcised, the vast minority of those in Asia, South America, Europe and (recently at least) Australasia are not:
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16817 posts, RR: 57 Reply 219, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4382 times:
Quoting jcs17 (Reply 210): **Raising my hand** I want you to go Saudi Arabia and protest this awful disfigurement. Let me know how it goes.
Oh yes, because if they do it in KSA, we should do it here? Maybe we should ban women from driving, too? (Actually, come to think of it... )
Quoting daviation (Reply 216): And Muslims don't follow the practice because Americans and Israelis do it!!
They do... but not directly. They are following the same Biblical commandment that Jews follow. The two religions have a lot more in common than either likes to admit.
ACJFLYER From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 7 Reply 220, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4316 times:
I have not commented much in any forum on anet for a while but this one peaked my interest and after reading posts I have decided to add my two cents.
First of all I was born and raised into a religion that is not as ritualistic Judaism but is still a religion that requires much of it's followers. There are many things that the church frowns upon and surprisingly enough the church holds no doctrine on circumcision. Whether you circumcise your child or not is no where mentioned in any of their doctrine. With that being said my parents chose not to circumcise me when I was born. My 4 older brothers had all been circumcised at birth and I was the one that my parents decided not to circumcise.
I grew up uncircumcised and after a few traumatic experiences around the age of 7, due mainly to my parents not understanding the need to teach me the proper hygiene etc, Doctors had to see me and after some unpleasant treatments they got me back on the right track and I learned how to maintain everything.
I had always thought about being circumcised and after over 10 years of thinking about it I decided last year at the age of 26 to get circumcised. After a few visits to the Urologist it was time to go to the Hospital and get things going.
I was put under and after a few hours I was waking up and heading home. I made the decision to take a daily photo journal of the recovery process and sometime in the next 6 months or so I will finish the journal and post it online to give an unbiased photo documentary of the procedure and recovery without trying to convince anyone of what decision to make.
I personally am glad that I was circumcised. The sensitivity has decreased but not in the way that many on this forum are pretending to understand. The head of the penis naturally becomes more callused and the sensitivity that I "lost" was the sensitive to the touch, almost burning uncomfortable sensation. In return I received a different kind of sensitivity. Because the head of my penis wasn't so sensitive I was able to feel the sensitivity of the rest of my penis including the lower ridge where the head meets the shaft and the area where the frenulum (sp?)was snipped.
I must be one of the fortunate ones that can still masturbate without lube even after being circumcised. I find sexual activities to be much more enjoyable because they are much longer lasting allowing me to truly enjoy the situation.
Again, I am only posting this to be informative because out of the 200+ posts so far on this thread there are way too many people offering their advice on pure speculation. I understand that many of you have friends etc that may have had the surgery performed and many that have seen and handled dozens or hundreds of penises but there is a lot of exaggerated claims on here from many that are in no position to add them.
(Edited to correct the spelling of 'there' to 'their' in fear that a small grammatical error late at night might cause some members reading this post to focus on such a trivial matter rather than remaining on task and spending their energy commenting on the actual topic and its review.)
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22711 posts, RR: 88 Reply 221, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4310 times:
Quoting ACJFLYER (Reply 220): I had always thought about being circumcised and after over 10 years of thinking about it I decided last year at the age of 26 I decided to get circumcised. After a few visits to the Urologist it was time to go to the Hospital and get things going.
The essential point is that it was your decision.
You have obviously thought very deeply about becoming circumcised - I would have liked that same opportunity, but it was denied me.
ACJFLYER From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 7 Reply 222, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4307 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 221): The essential point is that it was your decision.
Again, I am not trying to convince anyone that one way is better than the other. You are right as well when stating that because you were circumcised as infant you were not afforded the opportunity to choose for yourself.
I can say that having the procedure done as an adult is anything but pleasant. I did years of research and chose the urologist I did for a very specific reason. He did amazing work and I am pleased with the care and attention to details that he provided me. The surgery was such that I was unable to work for a week and a half and it was an extremely uncomfortable experience and yet at the same time I can tell you that even as an adult I don't really remember much of the pain in the sense that is was very uncomfortable and there were many sleepless nights but I would never call it a traumatic experience. That would be a bit dramatic to go that far.
The pictures alone of the recovery for the first few months would show that there were VERY unpleasant days and that the aesthetic aspect of it all isn't complete until around 9-12 months after the procedure.
Mariner, I am not negating the point that I was able to decide as an adult to have the procedure done. Again, you are absolutely right. What I am stating is that there are many members on here throwing out wild claims about the procedure, how it is performed, and what it is like in regards to the "before/after."
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 445 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5285 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jul 2007, 132 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9611 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38503 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6279 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1416 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined Oct 2010, 77 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6017 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4784 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 721 posts, 
.
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1277 posts, 
From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6325 posts, 
And you know what it's like to be circumcised? 
It is not "excess" or "redundant." It is natural and normal. An accessory digit is "excess." A foreskin is not.
