Circumcision - Perhaps a good thing afterall?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The Gnome King:
I've been with circumcised and uncircumcised males and without going into too much detail about my own sexual life, I can say that there is sometimes a *lot* of difference in 'effect' - much more so than having a genital piercing. We may simply have to agree to disagree here based on our different experiences in this regard.

I guess so, I never noticed any great difference.

And to add a final twist of irony to the complete lack of seriousness of my earlier comment, male genital piercings are a massive turn-off to me so I actively wouldn't know.

The Gnome King:
Better for sex with specific partners.

True, but that's entirely situational.

The point is that we can't and shouldn't reduce this to a simple question of what is the "best" (or most functional, or least damaged) body. There's really no such thing outside of context.

The Gnome King:
But who are we to tell others what the appropriate response is to something that has been done to their body?

I guess maybe you've got me here. I'll go away and think about it.

However, aren't those people also telling others (namely circumcised men who don't feel particularly "damaged" by the experience) what the appropriate response is? Isn't this diversity of personal experience what we're actually trying to reconcile here? I don't think the argument for or against circumcision should really rest on anyone's personal experience, rather it should rest on some recognizable process of medical decision making.

..which I suspect would lead to the conclusion that it shouldn't happen, which I have to say I'm perfectly fine with.

The Gnome King:
Out of curiosity, do you have statistics about this when the operations are performed in hospital settings? I have not seen this particular bit of data you are mentioning here.

Not off the top of my head.

However, if you think about it, the organ in question is tiny, which makes the margin for error unacceptably small. It also means that any complications which do arise are likely to have a more serious effect on the organ as a whole.

The Gnome King:
And what about the clitoral nick that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended before the feminist outcry?

I wouldn't say they "recommended" it, that gives the impression that they implied it was in any way a safe or beneficial practice. It's not. What they suggested is that it might be legalized in order to discourage more extensive and harmful forms of genital cutting.

The real issue here is that opinions like the one you linked to are relatively common. People tend to assume that the aim of FGC is to control women's sexuality, ironically because Western doctors used to use clitoridectomy to treat a range of "sexual abnormalities" in women, such as lesbianism, "nymphomania" and even masturbation. The actual reasons why FGC still exists in some countries are a lot more complicated, and generally have far more to do with coming of age or preserving a particular ethnic identity than with sexual repression. This, I suspect, is what the AAP is responding too.. however, it is not commonly accepted within political discourse on the subject.

The difference may not be reflected in the level of physical harm, but there is a (percieved) cultural harm. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, but many people still would and (for better or worse) those people have significant influence within this issue. I'm not going to take a stand on this one as I don't feel I have the specialist knowledge to adequately compare the medical effects of a "nick" (which is a very vague term and could mean a lot of different things) to those of removing the foreskin from a baby boy.

Incidentally, the only nuanced accounts I have read of FGC practices have all come from feminist academics.

The Gnome King:
Nobody sees any irony in advocating an medically unnecessary practice rooted firmly in the hatred of male masturbation, though?

I'm not "advocating" it, as mentioned I don't think it's medically necessary and I know damn well it was originally popularized to try and stop masturbation (it wasn't just Kellog though, there was a lot of very dodgy academic and medical research around this topic).

There is a similarity I guess, in that most of the people who actively advocating for circumcision are circumcised men, just most of the people who seriously advocate for FGC are women who have undergone it themselves. Hence my overall point, people are often somewhat incapable of rational discussion when it comes to their private parts.

Of course, if they were, I suspect they would ultimately come to the conclusion that all these things are dumb and stop doing them, but that doesn't mean actual circumcised people should be required to view themselves as victimized or mutilated in order to appease some kind of egotistical valorization of the "intact" male body.

My point is and always has always been that this is an issue where people on both sides tend to think with their dicks, and that's not a good thing.

Yeah, I'm going with the mutilation approach. Frankly, I don't approve of making such choices for a person, regardless of the benefits offered. When I say "such choices", I mean those that permanently disfigure a person. Exceptions of course to amputations that must be performed, if they aren't conscious, to avoid a certainty of dangerous infection.

I was cut. My two boys were cut. They don't care. Also, don't bother quoting me on this since I won't respond. The vicious anger over a small procedure is baffling considering the amount of war, famine, and disease rampant in our world. Also, I had a vasectomy, that procedure was rather easy as well.

The Gnome King:
snip

Only the first few lines apply to you, specifically your use of the dictionary.

St3rY:
snip

No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to fall back on dictionary definitions and then shrug your shoulders and tell us you're just being technically correct. That only works with people too naive to know any better. The dictionary doesn't dictate how people identify words. When "genital mutilation" is brought up, it's not circumcision that comes to the minds of people. It's a poor girl getting scrambled by a rusty knife in a tent somewhere and you're trying, intentionally or unintentionally, to establish an emotional link between that and circumcision by using very strong loaded words. But it's manipulative, extremely offensive[1], and it's ultimately vacuous, because it's an argument that claims circumcision is wrong not because of any medical evidence or scientific studies, but because it happens to share a linguistic categorical characterization, important details be damned. So stow the circular arguments of "Circumcison has the "side effect" of mutilation 100% of the time," or "So you find the genital mutilation of children such a minor issue it's not even worth discussing?" Repeating loaded words means nothing.

[1] Less that you would look down on our intelligence like that, but rather how you try to equate the pain and suffering of those women with our relatively benign problem,

St3rY:

Frission:
I never understood how people can get so up in arms about circumcision. Who cares? Any studies done about the health effects or effects on sensitivity are inconclusive on either side.

So you find the genital mutilation of children such a minor issue it's not even worth discussing?

I'm also somewhat baffled when someone, after a heated discussion, types the line "who cares?" with a straight face. Especially considering there's a good few posts above going on in some detail why you should care.

Yes, since removing the appendix is a form of mutilation as well. Removing the Umbilical cord is mutilation as well.
Does this sound like a ridiculous comparison? Then don't be so quick to attack.

Circumcision is a medical procedure, and from what I've read above, has negligible to no effects. Why then should we be concerned about it?

EDIT: I mean, a good part of the united states doesn't have tertiary water treatment. THAT'S a real health concern.

Thomas Guy:
I was cut. My two boys were cut. They don't care. Also, don't bother quoting me on this since I won't respond. The vicious anger over a small procedure is baffling considering the amount of war, famine, and disease rampant in our world. Also, I had a vasectomy, that procedure was rather easy as well.

You don't need to answer, but at least consider this: even in the US, where circumcision is relatively accepted 40% don't get circumcised given the choice. That number is probably much higher considering most of those who did go through the procedure had no choice in it, as it was thrusted on them by their parents. Are you confident your boys wouldn't have chosen otherwise, if they had the opportunity to make up their own minds?

LetalisK:

The Gnome King:
snip

Only the first few lines apply to you, specifically your use of the dictionary.

St3rY:
snip

No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to fall back on dictionary definitions and then shrug your shoulders and tell us you're just being technically correct. That only works with people too naive to know any better. The dictionary doesn't dictate how people identify words. When "genital mutilation" is brought up, it's not circumcision that comes to the minds of people. It's a poor girl getting scrambled by a rusty knife in a tent somewhere and you're trying, intentionally or unintentionally, to establish an emotional link between that and circumcision by using very strong loaded words. But it's manipulative, extremely offensive[1], and it's ultimately vacuous, because it's an argument that claims circumcision is wrong not because of any medical evidence or scientific studies, but because it happens to share a linguistic categorical characterization, important details be damned. So stow the circular arguments of "Circumcison has the "side effect" of mutilation 100% of the time," or "So you find the genital mutilation of children such a minor issue it's not even worth discussing?" Repeating loaded words means nothing.

Not in a single instance did I compare male genital mutilation to any level of female genital mutilation. But even if that's the picture you personally get, they don't merely share a linguistic category (an argument you could have also made for the word "circumcision" as it's also used in both cases). Both of them are an unethical invasion of ones bodily integrity, albeit to different degrees. I assume you wouldn't get up in arms if "milder" forms of FGM was compared to the type III case, where most of the genitalia is vandalised.

I would also ask you to turn your tone down, as this is getting rather personal.

[1] Less that you would look down on our intelligence like that, but rather how you try to equate the pain and suffering of those women with our relatively benign problem,

Frission:

Yes, since removing the appendix is a form of mutilation as well. Removing the Umbilical cord is mutilation as well.
Does this sound like a ridiculous comparison? Then don't be so quick to attack.

Circumcision is a medical procedure, and from what I've read above, has negligible to no effects. Why then should we be concerned about it?

EDIT: I mean, a good part of the united states doesn't have tertiary water treatment. THAT'S a real health concern.

I'm not aware of instances where the appendix is routinely removed for non medical, religious reasons. Assuming you were serious about the umbilical cord example, there are very good medical reasons for not leaving the mother and baby connected for the rest of their lives. One of them being that blood flow stops in the cord 10-20 minutes after birth and the dried out "appendage" falls off by itself eventually, something you can't say about the foreskin.

Circumcision is a procedure that, as you stated, has negligible to no positive medical effects, making it an unethical procedure when a non consenting person is submitted to it.

My thoughts on this:

"My body, my choice, my responsibility."

St3rY:

Not in a single instance did I compare male genital mutilation to any level of female genital mutilation.

Yes, you have. By your continued insistence on throwing around "genital mutilation" like it's an argument, you're invoking the weight of "genital mutilation" that most people are familiar with...

But even if that's the picture you personally get,

...which is totally not that it's a brutal and barbaric practice, I guess. Must just be me.

(an argument you could have also made for the word "circumcision" as it's also used in both cases)

No, I couldn't have, because "circumcision" doesn't carry the weight that "genital manipulation" does. Hence why you keep wielding the latter instead of the former.

they don't merely share a linguistic category (an argument you could have also made for the word "circumcision" as it's also used in both cases). Both of them are an unethical invasion of ones bodily integrity, albeit to different degrees.

Oh, so you were knowingly trying to confuse the issue by using a loaded term.

I assume you wouldn't get up in arms if "milder" forms of FGM was compared to the type III case, where most of the genitalia is vandalised.

Keep digging.

I would also ask you to turn your tone down, as this is getting rather personal.

You've made the tone very clear.

Yeah, I'm not convinced. If I were to have a male child I definitely wouldn't have him circumcised unless it was strictly medically necessary. However, although I disagree with it, I'm loath to start petitioning against it and calling it mutilation since the prime advocates for it seem to be other circumcised men, most of whom seem to be quite happy with their parts.

But obviously this is the fault of feminism.

LetalisK:
snip

Genital mutilation is the general term for any kind of concision of the reproductive organs, like it or not. And yes I keep using it because I don't think a brutal and barbaric practice, like male circumcision, deserves making a distinction from other types of mutilation.

If you want to count offenses, believe me, I'm just as offended when you and others try to trivialise male circumcision. Yet my head doesn't explode and I don't go on ridiculous tangents like you keep doing.

Edit: I know you already made a reply, but I'd rather not make a new (at this point bordering off topic) post about it. This was my last reply to you, I'm not going to help you in turning this thread to a personal flame fest any further.

St3rY:

Genital mutilation is the general term for any kind of concision of the reproductive organs, like it or not.

Yes, this has been addressed and wasn't challenged. Not the point.

And yes I keep using it because I don't think a brutal and barbaric practice, like male circumcision, deserves making a distinction from other types of mutilation.

So...there aren't different degrees. Or at least none that matter, since you're not making a distinction. Why did you leave that little part out in your previous post? It's also so big-hearted of you to put the struggles of the male infant being circumcised on the same plane as the young girl getting her genitals sewn together only to be reopened later in life for no other reason than the pleasure of a man and his desire to have children. So heroic.

If you want to count offences, believe me, I'm just as offended when you and others try to trivialise male circumcision.

I guess it would look like trivialization to someone who doesn't have a reasonable perspective.

Edit: I also find it interesting you consider this "exploding".

LetalisK:

St3rY:

Genital mutilation is the general term for any kind of concision of the reproductive organs, like it or not.

Yes, this has been addressed and wasn't challenged. Not the point.

And yes I keep using it because I don't think a brutal and barbaric practice, like male circumcision, deserves making a distinction from other types of mutilation.

So...there aren't different degrees. Or at least none that matter, since you're not making a distinction. Why did you leave that little part out in your previous post? It's also so big-hearted of you to put the struggles of the male infant being circumcised on the same plane as the young girl getting her genitals sewn together only to be reopened later in life for no other reason than the pleasure of a man and his desire to have children. So heroic.

If you want to count offences, believe me, I'm just as offended when you and others try to trivialise male circumcision.

I guess it would look like trivialization to someone who doesn't have a reasonable perspective.

Edit: I also find it interesting you consider this "exploding".

The only reason you consider your stance reasonable is because it has historical cultural weight. I'm sure those who practice female circumcision consider it quite reasonable.

Kaulen Fuhs:

The only reason you consider your stance reasonable is because it has historical cultural weight. I'm sure those who practice female circumcision consider it quite reasonable.

Well, to be fair, it could also be because I'm right. Does one have a more negative impact on an individual than the other? By how much? Mind you, this isn't to say one is positive and one is negative, they can both be negative.

Copper Zen:
NOOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!!

It's moments like now when I check the current events in R&P that I know that there is no God.

A circumcision thread in R&P?!? Somebody kill me now....

Want to know why I'm having this reaction? Circumcision is #3 on this Cracked.com article: 6 Innocent-Sounding Topics That Are Guaranteed Flame Wars.

Realitycrash:
Screw it, we're having this discussion again, it's been almost six months since last time and I've never gotten to truly participate in it.
Anyway, here it goes:

Less than 2 months, actually. You hate me, don't you? What did I ever do to you? :(

OT: I was circumcised and I'll have any boys I sire circumcised, too. Don't care what others think about it.

I-will-be-watching-this-thread-closely, people. If it degenerates into a flame war like the last one I'll shut it down before it becomes a ban-fest like the other one.

I've read that article too, and I actually think we have more level-headed people here than in the average forum.

And I checked: It was two months ago in OT. Not R&P. OT doesn't count, because OT is full of people that do not exactly carry the same standard of discussion as R&P (yes, I am serious).

Wow, Escapist has more circumcision threads than the gay forums I haunt; and they have A LOT of those threads. Good job.

*golf claps*

LetalisK:

No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to fall back on dictionary definitions and then shrug your shoulders and tell us you're just being technically correct. That only works with people too naive to know any better. The dictionary doesn't dictate how people identify words. When "genital mutilation" is brought up, it's not circumcision that comes to the minds of people. It's a poor girl getting scrambled by a rusty knife in a tent somewhere and you're trying, intentionally or unintentionally, to establish an emotional link between that and circumcision by using very strong loaded words. But it's manipulative, extremely offensive[1], and it's ultimately vacuous, because it's an argument that claims circumcision is wrong not because of any medical evidence or scientific studies, but because it happens to share a linguistic categorical characterization, important details be damned. So stow the circular arguments of "Circumcison has the "side effect" of mutilation 100% of the time," or "So you find the genital mutilation of children such a minor issue it's not even worth discussing?" Repeating loaded words means nothing.

Huh. I never thought I would see such a perfectly worded explanation of the difference between "Meaning is dictated" and "Meaning is use", and the fallacious use of certain loaded words that carry connotations unnecessary for an academic debate, in the R&P.
Hat's off.

[1] Less that you would look down on our intelligence like that, but rather how you try to equate the pain and suffering of those women with our relatively benign problem,

Realitycrash:

I've read that article too, and I actually think we have more level-headed people here than in the average forum.

And I checked: It was two months ago in OT. Not R&P. OT doesn't count, because OT is full of people that do not exactly carry the same standard of discussion as R&P (yes, I am serious).

I agree that the regulars in this forum tend to be...more focused, shall we say?

It wasn't the forum that concerned me it was the topic--some topics seem to draw out the most antagonistic sides of people.

I was informed tonight that R&P threads don't show up in the Popular Topic box like I had thought they did. Previously I had been afraid that once this thread came to the attention of the rest of the community all hell would break loose. Especially since I needed to go to work this afternoon/evening.

With that in mind I hope you noticed that I said I was watching this thread in case a flame war erupted because I wanted to close it down (which I never enjoy doing without the OP requesting me to do so) before the discussion degenerated to the point that I would have to run around Hammering people.

At least one poster missed that point though I grok his displeasure at my heads up to everyone. Such heads-ups aren't something I'm inclined towards doing but I decided to do it in the hopes of preventing people from getting themselves into trouble.

I hope you understand my reasons and will accept my apology should you think I harmed the discussion here.

Copper Zen:

Realitycrash:

I've read that article too, and I actually think we have more level-headed people here than in the average forum.

And I checked: It was two months ago in OT. Not R&P. OT doesn't count, because OT is full of people that do not exactly carry the same standard of discussion as R&P (yes, I am serious).

I agree that the regulars in this forum tend to be...more focused, shall we say?

It wasn't the forum that concerned me it was the topic--some topics seem to draw out the most antagonistic sides of people.

I was informed tonight that R&P threads don't show up in the Popular Topic box like I had thought they did. Previously I had been afraid that once this thread came to the attention of the rest of the community all hell would break loose. Especially since I needed to go to work this afternoon/evening.

With that in mind I hope you noticed that I said I was watching this thread in case a flame war erupted because I wanted to close it down (which I never enjoy doing without the OP requesting me to do so) before the discussion degenerated to the point that I would have to run around Hammering people.

At least one poster missed that point though I grok his displeasure at my heads up to everyone. Such heads-ups aren't something I'm inclined towards doing but I decided to do it in the hopes of preventing people from getting themselves into trouble.

I hope you understand my reasons and will accept my apology should you think I harmed the discussion here.

No apology necessary. It's a nice change of pace with an active and participating Mod.

I asked Copper Zen for advice, apparently I was overly cautious, so I'll go on.

LetalisK:
snip

If most people are not familiar with the term "genital mutilation" that's not my fault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_mutilation

Fact is, it includes both male and female circumcision. I operated under the assumption that the R&P forum goers are read enough that they are aware of this fact. However you want to twist and turn my words I never stated or made an argument that male and female circumcision are equal. They do belong in the same category called genital mutilation, that doesn't mean that there are no "different degrees" or that male circumcision is equal to which ever form of female circumcision.

I spell it out again: I do not think most forms of female genital mutilation are equal in severity to male genital mutilation.

The argument I was making (which you never actually addressed), is that male circumcision is a process with questionable medical benefits; whatever benefits it might have is covered by non invasive procedures, such as proper use of condoms and sanitation; the procedure itself is invasive and potentially dangerous and it always comes with the irreversible loss of a body part - hence mutilation.

When such a procedure is exercised on a non consenting half, it should be considered unethical (and hopefully in the future unlawful) act like the act of the mutilation of female genitalia already is in most of the industrialised world.
That doesn't mean the two are equated, only that both should be universally banned (and sanctioned according to the scale of the severity - whether female or male genital mutilation).

I hope I was clear this time.

Edit: Never the less I understand your point and will stick with "male genital mutilation" instead of the more general term for clarity's sake.

LetalisK:

Kaulen Fuhs:

The only reason you consider your stance reasonable is because it has historical cultural weight. I'm sure those who practice female circumcision consider it quite reasonable.

Well, to be fair, it could also be because I'm right. Does one have a more negative impact on an individual than the other? By how much? Mind you, this isn't to say one is positive and one is negative, they can both be negative.

Female circumsicion is far worse in terms of harm done, but both are practices involving involuntary disfigurement and are based on antiquated notions about human sexuality. Neither is necessary, is my point, but one gets a pass because... well, that's the way it's always been done.

CAPTCHA: it is fair

...stop mocking me >_<

St3rY:

If most people are not familiar with the term "genital mutilation" that's not my fault.

Fact is, it includes both male and female circumcision. I operated under the assumption that the R&P forum goers are read enough that they are aware of this fact.

The other side of that coin is that as you're asking me to believe that you didn't understand that "genital mutilation" is a loaded term in common conversation. Okay, done.

However you want to twist and turn my words I never stated or made an argument that male and female circumcision are equal.

I did nothing to twist your words. Whether you stand by them or not is up to you.

Genital mutilation is the general term for any kind of concision of the reproductive organs, like it or not. And yes I keep using it because I don't think a brutal and barbaric practice, like male circumcision, deserves making a distinction from other types of mutilation.

They do belong in the same category called genital mutilation, that doesn't mean that there are no "different degrees" or that male circumcision is equal to which ever form of female circumcision. I spell it out again: I do not think most forms of female genital mutilation are equal in severity to male genital mutilation.

One effectively contradicts the other. Unless otherwise told, I'll assume the sentiment from your latest post.

The argument I was making (which you never actually addressed)

...because it was irrelevant. My argument was with how you were presenting your stance and refuting the opposition.

Edit: Never the less I understand your point and will stick with "male genital mutilation" instead of the more general term for clarity's sake.

Okay, let me break it down here. When you made comments like:

Inoculation doesn't involve irreversible mutilation.

Circumcison has the "side effect" of mutilation 100% of the time.

I don't quite find the compulsory genital mutilation of children fit subject for humour.

So you find the genital mutilation of children such a minor issue it's not even worth discussing?

it appeared to me like you were basically attempting to get people to agree with you/silence them through trying to cow them. After all, who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against "mutilate" and would hate to be linked with anything even remotely related to "anything mutilation"? Like being against continued development of advanced fighter jets and being labeled "anti-military" because of it(even though they may otherwise be very pro-military). Technically, yeah, that person is in this case, but calling someone anti-military brings along a whole other host of baggage that person now has to deal with even though they shouldn't have to. No, there is nuance there and it's not an all or nothing game. This is a tactic used in politics all the time to suppress dissenting opinions by misrepresenting the other side to be something it actually isn't via prejudicial comments or accusations. Simply throwing "anti-military" at the person is not going to get a constructive response from them as they are going to deeply resent being called or identified as something they are not and will fight back. Maybe I should have started off with that explanation.

Kaulen Fuhs:

LetalisK:

Kaulen Fuhs:

The only reason you consider your stance reasonable is because it has historical cultural weight. I'm sure those who practice female circumcision consider it quite reasonable.

Well, to be fair, it could also be because I'm right. Does one have a more negative impact on an individual than the other? By how much? Mind you, this isn't to say one is positive and one is negative, they can both be negative.

Female circumsicion is far worse in terms of harm done, but both are practices involving involuntary disfigurement and are based on antiquated notions about human sexuality. Neither is necessary, is my point, but one gets a pass because... well, that's the way it's always been done.

CAPTCHA: it is fair

...stop mocking me >_<

I don't disagree. Refer above where my beef wasn't with the stance, but with how it was being argued.

LetalisK:
I don't disagree. Refer above where my beef wasn't with the stance, but with how it was being argued.

So it is... How red my face is.

[runs away]

manic_depressive13:
Yeah, I'm not convinced. If I were to have a male child I definitely wouldn't have him circumcised unless it was strictly medically necessary. However, although I disagree with it, I'm loath to start petitioning against it and calling it mutilation since the prime advocates for it seem to be other circumcised men, most of whom seem to be quite happy with their parts.

But obviously this is the fault of feminism.

Steady on, I don't think anybody's invoked the F-word yet. Anyway, I'd have imagined that this is an issue most feminists would either be ambivalent about, or oppose on the basis of "their body, their choice"?

Personally I oppose childhood circumcision from the view that it's the kid's choice. You wouldn't tattoo your newborn, or clip their earlobes off, and besides, most of the "benefits" that get bandied around wouldn't come into effect until adolescence or adulthood anyway.

LetalisK:

Genital mutilation is the general term for any kind of concision of the reproductive organs, like it or not. And yes I keep using it because I don't think a brutal and barbaric practice, like male circumcision, deserves making a distinction from other types of mutilation.

They do belong in the same category called genital mutilation, that doesn't mean that there are no "different degrees" or that male circumcision is equal to which ever form of female circumcision. I spell it out again: I do not think most forms of female genital mutilation are equal in severity to male genital mutilation.

One effectively contradicts the other. Unless otherwise told, I'll assume the sentiment from your latest post.

Those two are in now way contradictory. In the first he states fgm and circumcision should both be classified as genital mutilation, in the second he states that saying they are both mutilation does not mean they are of equal severity. I don't see your problem here, a classification like mutilation can contain varying degrees of severity.

Due to the issues present with circumcision later in life, I think in - purely in terms of being "safe" - it's better to have it performed on an infant. It avoids all the psychological issues as well, as the child won't know any different. And, in fairness, I've never met a man who said "I wish I wasn't circumcised as a baby". Ever. So, I don't think it's something that needs to be removed in Hospitals. It's a perfectly acceptable choice, as far as I'm concerned.

In my mind, the difference between the equivalent female surgery, if I can use that word, is that the male version actually has benefits for the male, namely hygiene. The female surgery really is mutilation, in my opinion, and shouldn't be an option at all. It's true that those hygiene aspects for the male won't come into play in virtually all cases, but it's a still a viable option in my opinion. It's just one of the many decisions parents will make for their children before they're able to decide for themselves.

I wasn't circumcised, but it's something my wife and I will discuss when we have children. I suspect we'll lean towards no, simply because I wasn't. However, it is the preference of many women for their partners to be circumcised. I'd wager the majority, in fact. Worth considering, perhaps?

Zeh Don:
And, in fairness, I've never met a man who said "I wish I wasn't circumcised as a baby". Ever.

Nice to meetcha. I'm a man who wishes he wasn't circumcised. My children, if ever I have any, will certainly not be.

Zeh Don:
Due to the issues present with circumcision later in life, I think in - purely in terms of being "safe" - it's better to have it performed on an infant. It avoids all the psychological issues as well, as the child won't know any different. And, in fairness, I've never met a man who said "I wish I wasn't circumcised as a baby". Ever. So, I don't think it's something that needs to be removed in Hospitals. It's a perfectly acceptable choice, as far as I'm concerned.

I have met guys who wish they were uncircumcised, so they definitely exist. And it's impossible to know which camp a baby is going to fall into when he gets old enough to know what happened. An uncut guy can always choose to get circumcised if he decides he prefers it that way, but a cut guy is SOL.

I wasn't circumcised, but it's something my wife and I will discuss when we have children. I suspect we'll lean towards no, simply because I wasn't. However, it is the preference of many women for their partners to be circumcised. I'd wager the majority, in fact. Worth considering, perhaps?

It's worth considering for an adult who's thinking about getting circumcised. But for the parents of a newborn? Absolutely not. Your six day old baby doesn't need a penis that's pleasing to women, and that would be an incredibly creepy reason to have the procedure done.

"It reduces the risk of getting HIV," well as far as I am aware it doesn't, or is such a small reduction it's not worth it, and of course you know how all babies and young children are so into sex and catching STDs...... Like others have said let the person make the decision when they're old enough but then I can guarantee most boys wouldn't have it done, because you know they have a choice and aren't completely defenseless anymore unlike babies who have the irreversible procedure done without their consent.

I can tell you, had my parents done that to me as a baby, I would have resented them for it, for the rest of my life.

Let people decide for themselves! Don't modify your babies to suit YOUR needs.

Quaxar:

dmase:
I have to tell you if I was getting a urinary tract infection like many of the women I know I would be pissed(burning while I pissed more accurately) as of now I've never had one and until i'm old and decrepit probably won't get one thanks at least in part to the fact that I don't have foreskin.

Normal urinary tract infection rates occur in approximately 1% of male prepubescent children while infection as the commonest complication of circumcision happens in 2% of cases. So apart from needlessly cutting healthy tissue that might fulfill hitherto unknown roles such as the apendix once was you're effectively doubling infection rates in non-risk children.
Just something to ponder about.

The 2% figure is general complications not just infection. With an infection rate of .4%, the most common complication is bleeding, something that is a complication for all surgery.

To include there is a 90% difference in UTI for circumcised and uncircumcised patients.

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!
.

Quaxar:

Ultratwinkie:
Hell, when you follow the trail of who keeps changing wikipedia and publishing circumcision propaganda it gets creepy as all hell.

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Gilgal_Society
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Bailey

The Gilgal society is a bunch of sadomasochists who take pleasure from cutting foreskins. They even go low enough to publish "erotic" stories of cutting minors. Some of these people work in the UN, and are in charge of spreading circumcision.

And funny enough, some of these people take time out of their day to keep changing wikipedia to show a circumcision bias.

The amount of time people invest to cutting genitals is creepy. Some of those people in that lists are friends convicted pedophiles who take sexual pleasure in circumcision. Its downright scary.

Woah woah woah, that some creepy stuff right there. I have never heard of this Society but they're freaking me out already.
They'll even sell you a VHS tape depicting a circumcision, specifically mentioned as being unlabelled for your own discretion. If unlabelled VHS isn't the epitome of creepyness I don't know what is.

Realitycrash:
What do you know of the reported loss of sexual tactile-senses? I.e having your foreskin cut off makes you lose considerable "sensation", making it harder to orgasm?

Yeah, it totally does. No wait, it doesn't! Or does it? Aaaaaah, it's getting confusing!

.
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

dmase:

Quaxar:

dmase:
I have to tell you if I was getting a urinary tract infection like many of the women I know I would be pissed(burning while I pissed more accurately) as of now I've never had one and until i'm old and decrepit probably won't get one thanks at least in part to the fact that I don't have foreskin.

Normal urinary tract infection rates occur in approximately 1% of male prepubescent children while infection as the commonest complication of circumcision happens in 2% of cases. So apart from needlessly cutting healthy tissue that might fulfill hitherto unknown roles such as the apendix once was you're effectively doubling infection rates in non-risk children.
Just something to ponder about.

The 2% figure is general complications not just infection. With an infection rate of .4%, the most common complication is bleeding, something that is a complication for all surgery.

To include there is a 90% difference in UTI for circumcised and uncircumcised patients.

Fair enough, I seem to have fallen victim to bad phrasing in this study. Still, you're doubling the trouble considering UTIs in males decline rapidly after the first year of age anyway, mainly because you're getting rid of the filthy diaper issue, and are generally very easily treated. So the benefits in regards of UTI prevention are rather slim.
Unless you're too lazy to take a shower every few days I doubt your circumcision has influenced your chances of UTI in any significant way.

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!

Like a condom that only works half the time and only in regards of HIV and HPV. So it's kind of like a bulletproof vest that only stops Glock rounds, if you're only getting shot at with Glocks great but you never know whether someone might have some other bullets in his gun too. I would argue that similar to how a legal helmet-requirement for cyclists can lead to an actual increase in accidents due to the Peltzman effect, the trust in your circumcision can have negative effects on your usage of condoms and thus increase STI rates.

TheIronRuler:
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

On the plus side, when I went to check out that tape thing I found it was legit but apparently not working. Who still buys these anyway with all the videos on youtube. Especially when the US version is a frelling $24.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked