Circumcision

[i_like_black]

Okay, so, I've been reading around a few things recently and something concerning the rights of male children has come up: the issue of circumcision.

I know that in some countries and within some religions it has been standard practise to circumcise males at a very young age - under 6 months I think. However at this age, the males are clearly not capable of having a say in what happens to their foreskin.

And I got to thinking, if I was male, I'd want a choice about happened with my foreskin, and I'd want to be informed about it, I wouldn't just want to accept that I didn't have one.

I don't know how many of the males on this forum have ever thought about this, that's why I thought I'd start this thread. I've added as many options as I can think of to the poll but if you can think of others, please add them.

Please also add your views on circumcision.

Being as I am not male, I have no idea whether or not it affects much, all I actually know is that from what I've read, it's not medically necessary, and I also know that the majority of males in my country are uncircumcised.

But I'm interested! I want to know what everybody - especially those of you with penises - think about this. And also, if you are circumcised, will your male children be circumcised? And the same for the reverse.

Thanks!

[Jocelyn.]

I was pretty naive about the topic of circumcision when my son was born. Where I live circumcision seems to be something you just do. I can say the the majority of males in my region are most definitely circumcised. Just doing some quick Google searching shows it to be in the 75% range. In my opinion that is a pretty significant portion.

I can remember some of the ugly names I had heard uncircumcised penises called when I was younger and can remember thinking "I don't want my kid to be one of those guys." Even one of my best friends said she didn't "want her son to have an aardvark dick" when I asked her if she was going to have her then unborn child circumcised. Whatever the fuck that even means...

So, when I found myself pregnant at 21, circumcision wasn't even a decision to be made. Of course the thing growing inside me was going to have it done if it so happened to have a penis. Yep, and it did. I briefly brought the topic up to my husband (then boyfriend) and he agreed. I did some brief research on the benefits of circumcision and decided was I found was reason enough to support my decision.

Let's skip the part about how hard I cried while my newborn son was actually having it done...

... and a few months later was when I joined a forum for moms and there just so happened to be a heated debate about circumcision going on. That sparked me to actually do my research on the topic and finally come to the conclusion that the my reasons for having this procedure done were bogus. Strictly for cosmetic reasons and limited health benefits. I felt like an idiot after finding out that in many other areas circumcision was actually not the norm.

I can't say I would go as far as to say I regret having it done. I don't think my child will grow up to have some "I never got to know my foreskin" complex since around here it is the norm to not have one... hell, having one may even be considered frowned upon. After telling my husband "Well, maybe we shouldn't have" he actually said he would have fought me on the decision. That he thinks we made the best choice for him. But if I could go back and at least know that I had done my research, gotten all the information I could and still made the same decision I'd feel a heck of a lot more at peace with myself right now.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

I was not circumcised at birth, specifically FOR the reason that my dad thought that I should have the choice in what happens to my body. As far as I'm concerned, my penis is fine the way it is, but if I ever want to be circumcised, or if it's medically necessary, I can get it done. It seems to me it makes sense to let the guy choose whether they want part of their body surgically removed. There's no good reason to remove a perfectly natural, functional, and normal part of the body unless it's actually NOT functioning properly. A foreskin is NOT a birth defect!!!

.. and a few months later was when I joined a forum for moms and there just so happened to be a heated debate about circumcision going on. That sparked me to actually do my research on the topic and finally come to the conclusion that the my reasons for having this procedure done were bogus.

Pretty much. Although there have been studies finding that circumcision lowers risk of penile cancer, the risk of penile cancer to begin with is SO LOW that it's not really worth it. Why would you surgically remove a part of someone's body that's perfectly normal just to lower the already low risk of an already rare disease?

[Acheron]

Given a choice, I'd have circumcision of minors for non-medical reasons banned. While it's emotionally-loaded, it's perfectly fair to describe it as the mutilation of baby boys for cosmetic reasons. I think it speaks to the hypocrisy of many people that, while they'll condemn female genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa, they're perfectly happy to ignore the male near-equivalent (not as bad as excising the clitoris, of course, but FGM can simply mean the removal of the clitoral hood, which is analogous to male circumcision) occurring on their own doorsteps. Add to this that the medical justifications are severely overblown: non-religious circumcision in the United States was taken up not for health reasons, but to prevent men from masturbating.

As for me, I'm uncircumcised. Circumcision is increasingly rare in Britain. If I ever have a son, he won't be circumcised either.

[Ceilidh]

If I had a future son I would only have him circumcised for medical reasons. Otherwise I don't see the point.

My ex boyfriend was circumcised when he was a baby because his foreskin was at an awkward angle. He couldn't pee properly. If something like that happened then I would have it done.

[thebigmole]

I'd let my husband decide. What do I know about foreskins?

[TigerTank77]

I don't see a problem with it. While it's not necessary, it can help to prevent issues later in life involving phimosis and smegma.

It's really a non issue.

[George^^]

Being without a penis I have very limited knowledge on circumcision, but I know that my brother is circumsized, because his foreskin was too small. I don't believe that this is the norm here because he has been picked on because his penis looks different than other guy's.

Personally, I wouldn't circumsize him unless it was for something like a medical reason like my brother. I may consider it if it was for relgious perposes, but not being religious and not understanding why what a guys penis has to do with religions, that probably wouldn't happen.

[George^^]

Being without a penis I have very limited knowledge on circumcision, but I know that my brother is circumsized, because his foreskin was too small. I don't believe that this is the norm here because he has been picked on because his penis looks different than other guy's.

Personally, I wouldn't circumsize him unless it was for something like a medical reason like my brother. I may consider it if it was for relgious perposes, but not being religious and not understanding why what a guys penis has to do with religions, that probably wouldn't happen.

[Boobies]

I'm happy to say that I've not been mutilated and that any son I may have will remain whole as well.
There is no real reason to have a circumcision unless it's needed for medical reasons.

[Jovial.]

I have always been for circumcision, any and all boys that I have will be circumcised. It's just for cleanliness and health reasons.

[i_like_black]

Thank you so much for all your responses

I somewhat agree with Acheron, who made the comparison to female genital mutilation in the middle East and Africa - it was precisely this parallel that made me think about the ethics of circumcising male minors, especially in much of the Western world where it is considered the norm.

And as Loving Linux Penguin said, (sorry guys I've forgotten how to do multiple quotes), why would you remove a perfectly normal and functional piece of human anatomy?

If you have said something about the health benefits of circumcision, could you please provide some examples of what these may be? As I've said, being not a penis owner, I'm rather ignorant of all of this.

[TigerTank77]

Okay, seriously, I have to laugh at the people who compare it to genital mutilation, because it demonstrates a complete lack of undertsanding of the differences between male and female anatomy, and the cultures, reasons, and beliefs that go along with each practice.

Female genital mutilation is done out oppression, and is done to turn the woman into a sex slave essentially. To subjugate, dominate, and control her.

Circumcision however, is a sterile medical procedure performed for health, religious, or cosmetic reasons, and is completely voluntary either on the part of the patient, or the patients parents. And despite what some people will argue, it has benefits. not everyone will need or REALLY encounter them, but they are there.

If you don't want it done, fine. If you do, also fine. But don't sit there and tell me a completely inconsequential surgery that when done during infancy, will leave absolutely no memory of any pain or discomfort, is somehow equal to a girl having her genitalia sawed off with a knife.

It's about as offensive to me as PETA comparing the food industry to the Holocaust. I mean come the fuck on.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

^You mean the benefits of not catching an already very rare disease and not having to spend an extra 30 seconds in the shower every day? Is that really worth having a part of your body removed as if it were a birth defect? And not to mention, if there's nothing wrong with my penis, why do my parents get to decide to have part of it removed? And by "nothing wrong", I mean nothing MEDICALLY wrong. The health and cleanliness benefits aren't worth it. On the health side, it prevents (I will say this again) diseases that are already so rare in the first place...on the cleanliness side, smegma can be washed off EASILY. Granted, that depends on teaching your son how to do that, but it's really not a complicated ordeal once you know what you're doing. If I don't want to have to take 30 seconds in the shower to clean under my foreskin, that should be MY choice and I should be the one to decide that I want my foreskin removed. It is not my parents' penis--unless there is something medically wrong with it, they have NO BUSINESS meddling with it. Period.

The argument of using circumcision for preventative health purposes is like saying that everyone should suit up in giant rubber suits if they have to go outside during a thunderstorm, even though the chance of going outside and being struck by lightning is extreeemeellley slim.

[Coexist.]

The health benefits are really only measurable in countries that do not have proper STI education or condom distribution. In developed nations, the health benefits are very small. I really don't have a whole lot of an opinion of circumcision, I completely understand how some people can see it as a individual liberty issue.

However, I completely agree with TigerTank in this way: Stop comparing it to female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation completely inhibits women of their sex drive, and in the more extreme forms of it, makes sex incredibly painful and childbirth often deadly (In these forms, the labia minora is sewn together. And even in the ones that just remove the clitoral hood, the clitoral hood is a necessaity for clitoral functioning. Anatomy lesson, the clitorus hsa the same amount of nerve endings as the penis all in that tiny space, and wtihout the hood, it actually makes the touching of those glands painful. So yeah. Not comparable.) As Ben also pointed out, male circumcision is done before he is old enough to remember the process and the actual process is not really that traumatic considering most babies do not cry during the process. Female is done when she is nine, completely conscious, and she has to be held down and often passes out afterwards. It's completely ignorant for men comparing the two. Unlike female circumcision, the penis is still completely functional, can still receive pleasure, and when they've done studies the amount of nerve endings found in the foreskin are minimal so when tested for response, the men come up at just the same rate. Although both circumcisions are done for religious purposes, one is harmful and potentially life threatening, the other is not.

I get why you don't like it, the health benefits are not that vast. But it's beyond ignorant to compare it to female genital mutilation.

[The Goblins Blade]

I personaly know someone who performed a Circumcision on himself without going to the hospital Im not sure how he did, but he was fine afterwards.

[Jas]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

smegma can be washed off EASILY. Granted, that depends on teaching your son how to do that, but it's really not a complicated ordeal once you know what you're doing.

The four year old I nanny knows how to clean his foreskin properly, so yeah, not difficult in the least.



I'm not even going to touch the FGM/circumcision comparison - so all I can really say is that if I ever have a son, they won't be circumcised. End of.

[dani99]

I would go ahead and have it done, too. It is very common in the U.S to be circumcised. I would be scared that my baby would grow up not wanting it, and the circumcision is A LOT more painful than if you get it over with as a baby.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

^That's exactly my point. What if he DOESN'T want it? What if he doesn't want part of his penis surgically removed when nothing is wrong with it?

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by Revolution

However, I completely agree with TigerTank in this way: Stop comparing it to female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation completely inhibits women of their sex drive, and in the more extreme forms of it, makes sex incredibly painful and childbirth often deadly (In these forms, the labia minora is sewn together. And even in the ones that just remove the clitoral hood, the clitoral hood is a necessaity for clitoral functioning. Anatomy lesson, the clitorus hsa the same amount of nerve endings as the penis all in that tiny space, and wtihout the hood, it actually makes the touching of those glands painful. So yeah. Not comparable.) As Ben also pointed out, male circumcision is done before he is old enough to remember the process and the actual process is not really that traumatic considering most babies do not cry during the process. Female is done when she is nine, completely conscious, and she has to be held down and often passes out afterwards. It's completely ignorant for men comparing the two. Unlike female circumcision, the penis is still completely functional, can still receive pleasure, and when they've done studies the amount of nerve endings found in the foreskin are minimal so when tested for response, the men come up at just the same rate. Although both circumcisions are done for religious purposes, one is harmful and potentially life threatening, the other is not.

You're wrong, and here's why. First, on the issue of how life-threatening circumcision is: boys can and do die from circumcision-related complications. The difference in death rates is because of the unsanitary conditions in which most FGM is carried out.

Second, you're wrong regarding the function of the foreskin. Check this out (pictures NSFW). The number of nerve endings in the foreskin isn't "minimal" at all.

Third, the fact that FGM is, in most cases, more severe than male circumcision is utterly irrelevant when you look at the laws regarding both forms of circumcision. The World Health Organisation defines female genital mutilation as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." That's actually a very broad definition: Type IV FGM, as defined by the WHO, includes "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization."

This is also the standard adopted in national laws. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 in the United Kingdom states that "A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris." The US federal law on the matter is slightly less strict, as it does not include the "or otherwise mutilates" provision of the British law. However, an illustration. In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement allowing doctors to practice a "ritual nick" of the labia, in order to satisfy cultural requirements and save female babies from undergoing more extensive FGM elsewhere. In their justification, they noted that "the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting." This is a pinprick, with a sterile needle, carried out with the objective of preventing a full female circumcision. Cue shitstorm. They retracted the statement less than two months later, including that “the AAP does not endorse the practice of offering a ‘clitoral nick’. This minimal pinprick is forbidden under federal law and the AAP does not recommend it to its members”.

So when I compare circumcision to FGM, I'm not comparing surgical removal of the foreskin with the excision of the clitoris and inner labia. I'm saying that Western laws against FGM (which, by the way, I'm happy with) criminalise the mild pricking, carried out by a doctor under sterile conditions, of a newborn girl's genitals, but remain silent while a far greater number of boys have their foreskins sliced off. This is a clear injustice.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

^That's exactly my point. What if he DOESN'T want it? What if he doesn't want part of his penis surgically removed when nothing is wrong with it?

He's an infant? How many thousands of decisions do parents make for their children without their consent because the parents believe it's in the child's best interest? Decisions which may or may not have a positive, negative, or even any effect on the child's life, yet we pick this one to make a moral stand on? No one else see's this as ridiculous?

Originally Posted by Acheron

You're wrong, and here's why. First, on the issue of how life-threatening circumcision is: boys can and do die from circumcision-related complications. The difference in death rates is because of the unsanitary conditions in which most FGM is carried out.

How does one child dying from one Rabbi's stupid mistake equate to a massive death risk for infants being circumcised?

The rate of infant death from circumcision is 1 in 500000. That's a .000002% chance of death.

You have a greater chance of dying from drinking soda. So quick, lets ban soda!

Originally Posted by Acheron

Second, you're wrong regarding the function of the foreskin. Check this out (pictures NSFW). The number of nerve endings in the foreskin isn't "minimal" at all.

I know what the foreskin does dude. I'm a male. My point is that we don't need it. It's optional. Like the spleen.

Originally Posted by Acheron

Third, the fact that FGM is, in most cases, more severe than male circumcision is utterly irrelevant when you look at the laws regarding both forms of circumcision. The World Health Organisation defines female genital mutilation as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." That's actually a very broad definition: Type IV FGM, as defined by the WHO, includes "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization."

Yes, but again circumcision= not harmful. Except for 1 in 500000 people.

Originally Posted by Acheron

So when I compare circumcision to FGM, I'm not comparing surgical removal of the foreskin with the excision of the clitoris and inner labia. I'm saying that Western laws against FGM (which, by the way, I'm happy with) criminalize the mild pricking, carried out by a doctor under sterile conditions, of a newborn girl's genitals, but remain silent while a far greater number of boys have their foreskins sliced off. This is a clear injustice.

Except here's the thing. The reason the pin prick is defined as mutilation has less to do with the act and more to do with the motivation. If male circumcision started out as a way of dominating men by robbing them of their sexual pleasure, then they'd both be illegal. But they're not, because the motivation and customs for each action are completely different.

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

How does one child dying from one Rabbi's stupid mistake equate to a massive death risk for infants being circumcised?

The rate of infant death from circumcision is 1 in 500000. That's a .000002% chance of death.

You have a greater chance of dying from drinking soda. So quick, lets ban soda!

Strawman much? I was correcting Traci's assertion that no-one ever dies of circumcision. The risk of complications, though, is non-trivial. And given that it's an entirely unnecessary medical procedure in most cases, when we weigh up the potential costs and benefits they come out against circumcision.

I know what the foreskin does dude. I'm a male. My point is that we don't need it. It's optional. Like the spleen.

And, like the foreskin, the spleen has some useful functions. While removing the spleen from all newborns would doubtless reduce their risks of spleen cancer, we don't do it.

Except here's the thing. The reason the pin prick is defined as mutilation has less to do with the act and more to do with the motivation. If male circumcision started out as a way of dominating men by robbing them of their sexual pleasure, then they'd both be illegal. But they're not, because the motivation and customs for each action are completely different.

And here's where you're most wrong. First, the motivation in each case is pretty much identical: it's done because it's been done traditionally. Girls in Africa are mutilated because their mothers and grandmothers were; likewise, boys are circumcised because their fathers and grandfathers were. Sure, there are moral arguments made, and medical ones too among defenders of FGM. But in both cases, the most pressing reason is "because it's always been that way".

And actually, male circumcision, at least among non-Jews and non-Muslims, did start as a way of dominating men by restricting their sexual pleasure. Non-religious circumcision only caught on in the West around 1900, and it was explicitly endorsed as a way to prevent boys from masturbating and reduce "excessive venery" (sex drive). Incidentally, John Harvey Kellogg, one of the leading pro-circumcision advocates of the time, also recommended that girls have their clitorises acid-washed.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Acheron

Strawman much? I was correcting Traci's assertion that no-one ever dies of circumcision. The risk of complications, though, is non-trivial. And given that it's an entirely unnecessary medical procedure in most cases, when we weigh up the potential costs and benefits they come out against circumcision.

Really? Weigh them up for us then.

Also, I'm aware that my statement about soda is ridiculous, but we do and have things done to us every day that are thousands of times more of a risk than circumcision.

Originally Posted by Acheron

And, like the foreskin, the spleen has some useful functions. While removing the spleen from all newborns would doubtless reduce their risks of spleen cancer, we don't do it.

Because it's also an invasive surgery. I'd also appreciate you not talking down to me in a condescending manner. I'm fully aware of the human body. I know what the foreskin and spleen do.

Originally Posted by Acheron

And here's where you're most wrong. First, the motivation in each case is pretty much identical: it's done because it's been done traditionally. Girls in Africa are mutilated because their mothers and grandmothers were; likewise, boys are circumcised because their fathers and grandfathers were. Sure, there are moral arguments made, and medical ones too among defenders of FGM. But in both cases, the most pressing reason is "because it's always been that way".

Except that men and women, through time, have had differing reasons for circumcision. As much as you want to, you cannot deny that the motive is different. Especially since FGM isn't a medical procedure, it's just straight up dismemberment.

Originally Posted by Acheron

And actually, male circumcision, at least among non-Jews and non-Muslims, did start as a way of dominating men by restricting their sexual pleasure. Non-religious circumcision only caught on in the West around 1900, and it was explicitly endorsed as a way to prevent boys from masturbating and reduce "excessive venery" (sex drive). Incidentally, John Harvey Kellogg, one of the leading pro-circumcision advocates of the time, also recommended that girls have their clitorises acid-washed.

Okay, so let me get this straight. This is a practice that has been performed by Jews and Muslims, and Christians for god knows how long. But some idiot from the 1900s comes along with some pseudoscience method trying to kill people's sex drive, and somehow this completely rewrites the entire history and motive of male circumcision?

If someone says to their doctor, "Hey doc, snip my kid's foreskin so he wont have sex", then that's an issue.

Again, it's all in the motive.

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Really? Weigh them up for us then.

Sure. Removes the risk of phimosis, obviously. And reduces the risk of penile cancer, which is already rare. Arguably reduces the risk of HIV transmission in high-risk areas, but needs more research. Thing is, I'm not against circumcision for medical reasons. So if a kid develops phimosis, sure, circumcise him. On the other hand, you have the risk of complications, plus the human rights issue of cutting bits off babies.

Because it's also an invasive surgery. I'd also appreciate you not talking down to me in a condescending manner. I'm fully aware of the human body. I know what the foreskin and spleen do.

Sure. But what I'm arguing is that, just because a body part is non-essential, doesn't mean that cutting it off is justified. And given that the only reason to perform non-invasive surgery is because of the additional risks of invasive surgery, you still need to demonstrate that there's some benefit to circumcision. And in fact, it's no more invasive than FGM.

Except that men and women, through time, have had differing reasons for circumcision. As much as you want to, you cannot deny that the motive is different. Especially since FGM isn't a medical procedure, it's just straight up dismemberment.

Actually, yes I can. Male circumcision is done because it's traditional. Likewise, female circumcision. And in fact, removal of the clitoral hood removes the risk of clitoral phimosis, which is a real medical condition. Given that that's the only big reason for male circumcision that isn't based on superstition, I'd say that's quite important.

Okay, so let me get this straight. This is a practice that has been performed by Jews and Muslims, and Christians for god knows how long. But some idiot from the 1900s comes along with some pseudoscience method trying to kill people's sex drive, and somehow this completely rewrites the entire history and motive of male circumcision?

If someone says to their doctor, "Hey doc, snip my kid's foreskin so he wont have sex", then that's an issue.

Again, it's all in the motive.

Actually, no, not performed by Christians, at least not in the West. Infant circumcision was only taken up by non-Jewish and non-Muslim groups in ~1900. It was pushed for sexual control and (spurious) health reasons. Before that, it wasn't a common procedure in the United States. And in any case, FGM isn't primarily done for those reasons either. It's a tradition, a rite of passage. Check this out. It's done for traditional reasons and reasons of cleanliness, with some additional desire to reduce sex drive. That sounds mostly identical to the reasons for male circumcision.

[JKmadu619]

In Christianity it's not necessary to be circumsised, from a biblical standpoint anyway.

I'm uncircumsised, and I don't see any reason for the operation to be carried out. Although there is risk of minor infection or penile cancer, that's not a legitimate concern. The infections are mild, and can be cleared up easily, and penile cancer is very rare. Botched circumsisions that harm the penis are as common as men who get penile cancer becaues they're uncircumsised. The foreskin is meant for protection, no different than finger nails or eyelashes. Although we can remove those as they can carry issues it's really in better interest to just keep them. Sure if you need a nail removed because it's ingrown as you get older it would hurt, it'd be just as painful for a baby. I don't believe that it's good practice to put a young child through something a grown adult wouldn't likely do to themselves.

TigerTank77: How about your Tonsils then? Their surgery is considred "non-evasise", and yet they serve a purpose and likely shouldn't be removed unless a medical reason arises.

- Justin

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Ben: there's a big difference between the decision to circumsize and any other decision. Removing a part of a child's body without them having a say in the matter when said procedure is unnecessary, removes their sexual pleasure, and has almost no benefits at all IS ridiculous. Most other decisions our parents make for us aren't like that.

[theuphonic]

as a male who is in fact circumcised, I shall weigh in. It is not a big deal. I have never had any problem with wishing that it had not been done. Growing up with your body a certain way, especially a difference so small, you just get used to it. a great deal of our identity as humans is tied up in the body, and that is perfectly natural. If you don't want your child to have the procedure done, don't have it done.

At least for me it is not a big deal at all.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Hunter: for you it may not be a big deal, and I am biased the other way: I'll admit to that. However, I wouldn't say that precludes the possibility that some circumcised guys wish they had foreskins. And it's easier to circumcise someone that wants it done than un-do it on someone that's already had it done (in fact, the latter is fairly impossible, except for some verrrryyyy experimental methods). Maybe it ISN'T a big thing for a lot of people, but I still think being that a newborn's penis belongs to him (it is on HIS body, so I would therefore argue he owns it), he should have the right to be involved in the decision...it's mainly going to affect HIM. And...not to sound cliche...but that's the area of his body that will facilitate the creation of his family (assuming he chooses to go the biological route) or otherwise just general sexual pleasure. Shouldn't something THAT private and THAT important be left up to the person in question?

[Damauritz]

Originally Posted by dani99

I would go ahead and have it done, too. It is very common in the U.S to be circumcised. I would be scared that my baby would grow up not wanting it, and the circumcision is A LOT more painful than if you get it over with as a baby.

No guy thinks like this. No guy says "yeah you know what, sex feels too good. Let's chop off part of my dick and curse my parents for not doing it sooner. "

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I'd let my husband decide. What do I know about foreskins?

You have one, it's called a clitoral hood. And it's not up to your husband, or you. Neither of you will be using the genitalia in question.


FGM and MGM are done under the same principle by the way; to dull the sexual response of the mutilated. It's infuriating that people will not stand up against MGM in the same way as FGM, like the severity of which the non-consenting individual's genitals are mutilated is of any consequence. Sick.

[Damauritz]

Originally Posted by theuphonic

as a male who is in fact circumcised, I shall weigh in. It is not a big deal. I have never had any problem with wishing that it had not been done. Growing up with your body a certain way, especially a difference so small, you just get used to it. a great deal of our identity as humans is tied up in the body, and that is perfectly natural. If you don't want your child to have the procedure done, don't have it done.

At least for me it is not a big deal at all.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of guys now restoring. Once you get the facts, your mind will be changed. Don't be too proud to admit that you have lost something.

[bitesize]

Circumcision is very rare in my country.....I don't think I know anyone personally who has been circumcised. Any guy I've discussed it with expresses distaste at the thought and says that it would definitely decrease their sexual pleasure. Under no circumstances would I do it to my son unless it was medically necessary.

[Wildflower ♥]

I'm Jewish, and in Judaism, when the male is 8 days old, they are circumcised. It is the covenant between them and G-d, that Abraham took when he was like 99 years old (don't have the book infront of me). It's in the old testament. My brother is circumcised, all the boys I babysit are circumcised, any boys I have will be circumcised when they are 8 days old.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Damauritz

No guy thinks like this. No guy says "yeah you know what, sex feels too good. Let's chop off part of my dick and curse my parents for not doing it sooner. "
You have one, it's called a clitoral hood. And it's not up to your husband, or you. Neither of you will be using the genitalia in question.


FGM and MGM are done under the same principle by the way; to dull the sexual response of the mutilated. It's infuriating that people will not stand up against MGM in the same way as FGM, like the severity of which the non-consenting individual's genitals are mutilated is of any consequence. Sick.

It's a parents' responsibility to make that decision for their child. Just like they have the decision to get them immunized for certain diseases, or what kind of medical treatment they get. Circumcision is a medical issue just like all of the other ones out parents decide for us when we are children.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Damauritz

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of guys now restoring. Once you get the facts, your mind will be changed. Don't be too proud to admit that you have lost something.

[citation needed]

Also, ease up on the ethnocentrism.

[BDF]

I like turtles

[Pale]

I'm not circumcised and I am fine with my penis. My sons will also be uncircumcised, no question about it lol.
Oh and also the penile cancer risk is probably a little bit higher because there is more penis tissue to get the cancer.

[Koharuchan]

I've never met a guy who was upset over being circumcised. And honestly, I've actually met guys who were upset that they weren't circumcised. None of my guy friends really think it's that big of an issue. And honestly, neither do I. Every single one of my exes were circumcised, and the ones that I became intimate with had no problems with sexual pleasure. I don't know if circumcision is really hugely linked to decreasing sexual pleasure, but for everyone I know, it doesn't decrease their pleasure. Even my current boyfriend is circumcised, and he's perfectly fine with it. If we ever have a son, he'll be circumcised too. I personally just don't see it as a big deal.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Again, I'd make the argument that what is done to your son's penis is none of your business, UNLESS it's medically necessary. This can have long-lasting effects on sexual pleasure, body image, etc. With other decisions (e.g. immunizations, what kind of shampoo or diapers you use, etc.) there is not likely to be as big of an impact--these things, in theory, happen, are over with, and then show no longstanding sign of having occurred. A circumcision leaves its mark forever (or until the guy tries to get a restoration). There's a BIG difference between "I want my child vaccinated against tetanus. I know that it's proven to work and be effective" and "I'm going to have part of my child's penis removed because everyone else does it and most people say that they don't lose any pleasure, and he may or may not be okay with it, I dunno, but I'm doing it anyway".

[Koharuchan]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Ben here; parents make decisions without their children's consent every day, by doing what they believe is in their child's best interest. Sure, health benefits may not be that vast, but they are there. And what if the kid gets older and decides he wants a circumcision? It's a lot more difficult when you're older, not to mention painful. Finally, I will say again that I really don't see the problem. You're supposed to be happy with who you are. Okay, someone is circumcised. Are they any less of a man? No. Is there something wrong with them? No. My boyfriend is circumcised and is perfectly happy with his sex life, and with who he is.

Affects on sexual pleasure: This has been disputed, but I'll go with it and say that it's true. If so, it's not that big a difference; as I said before, I know a lot of circumcised guys who have great sex lives and have no problems with sexual pleasure.

Affects on body image: You shouldn't care so damn much about whether or not you have a freaking foreskin, especially when a good percent of the population is circumcised. It's not like you're alone; and when it comes down to things like sex, if a girl doesn't like you because you're circumcised, then she's not worth having a relationship with in the first place.

[Henry Tyrell]

Frankly with my boyfriends, their scars looked plain awful- and as it has been mentioned on other threads, lube was required for handjobs and masturbation, which was non-issue for my non circumcised boyfriends. My mother would have you know that the doctors about near botched my father's, and he has a terrible scar (not to mention a low sex drive, which may or may not be related). I've looked into the "benifits" and am not impressed. The penis is a self cleaning body part- not unlike the vagina, so it's not a cleanliness issue. The likelyhood that STI chances are lowered has not convinced me yet.

So all we have left is the fact that circumcision is the norm. Do you know why? Because, "God made us perfect, except for that flap of skin. Cut that off." Fuck that shit.

No child of mine, born healthy, will be robbed of his/her body autonomy before s/he can even comprehend the word "NO".