Is Circumcision genital mutilation?
 

I've been thinking about this for a while now, ever since Anonymous Member (kind of a funny title, considering the nature of this thread) made the comment about his sex life and how is SO would blow him if only he were circumcised. Personally speaking, I'm not circumcised and I'm damn glad about it too! I've always considered that circumcision is a form of genital mutilation, on par with a girl having her labia cut off. But this form of mutilation gets practiced in hospitals.

But what purpose does it really serve? Cleanliness? I keep my unit pretty spanking clean, even with a foreskin. So that argument is out the window. I think too, about sensitivity. I know I'm pretty uncomfortable if my foreskin gets pulled back and the glans of my penis rubs against my underwear. So I think about guys who are circumcised. Does that mean that either they just don't notice it anymore, or are their penises less sensitive than mine? Does that mean that I get more satisfaction out of sex, or that they can last longer before ejaculation? And since, I'm guessing, 99.99% of circumcised men didn't have a choice in the matter, does that mean that their parent's for whatever sanitary or religious reason made a choice about their child's future sex life?? Doesn't that sound like mutilation to you?

So, c'mon Men of the TFP (and ladies too), offer up your opinion/experiences about circumcision.

Been with two uncircumcised men and two circumcised, so this is hardly a scientific study with proper controls... BUT

My experience was that the circumcised men didn't necessarily last longer before cumming. This is likely a coincidence, but they remained hard after cumming and were therefore able to keep me in orgasm longer. The two that were uncircumcised pretty much went flacid after one pop, and I had to work to bring them back to their potential.

I'm sure there are far more men on this board, cut and uncut, that could tell me in general if this is a trend or if it happened to be the case with these particular men.

On the mutilation idea:

My husband is circumcised. I have left the decision to him, if/when we have children. As a woman I don't feel I have the proper perspective on whether it is mutilation or not. Since he has never known different, he plans on researching before making the decision. My main concern is if something were to go wrong with the circumcision, leaving the man with constant discomfort.

Circumcision, at or near birth, in a hospital, is not mutilation.

It doesn't have any serious impact on lifestyle or sexual performance, and has some (debatable) health benefits.

Circumcision as it is practiced elsewhere in the world often is mutilation. Particularly some of the Muslim circumcision practices which are horrifying.

Oh man, not this again.

Yes, its mutilation, however its normalcy wins it major cognitive dissonance points.

I would have to say yes, it is. I am uncircumcised and have no problems with it. I don't see any need to cut off the foreskin. If I have a boy, I won't have him cut. He can have the operation done when he is older if he chooses. I realize that it is a much more serious thing to do when you are older, but since you can't put it back I think that is the best approach.

as a muslim male currently living in the middle east, i find your comments quite irrational.

are you talking about male mutilation older men/boys in muslim countries?

I watched a video in child development this term that detailed the story of David Reimer. While the procedure used in Reimer's circumcision was not the routine procedure, I'm not sure I want to be responsible as a parent for a decision that could significantly alter my child's genitalia, should complications arise. I just don't see it as necessary.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it genital mutilation, as the genitals still function correctly after a successful circumcision. Certainly, a botched circumcision could be called mutilation. Admittedly, I'd feel a whole lot better about the whole thing if it were the individual's decision, and on one else's.

My father-in-law a few years ago had to have a circumcision for whateverthehell reason. If I recall, it was due to yeast infections (yes men get them too apparently).

My dad, in his later years had difficulty with hygiene and had a modified circumcision done in the ER after a nasty infection. So while you may be able to keep it squeaky clean now, there may be a time that you can't.

I've always felt my circumcision made my equipment lower maintenance. Because I had it in the hospital after birth, I don't remember it, but I know I couldn't walk for damn near a year afterward.

I agree, there is another thread about whether it was child abuse a few years ago.

I haven't heard a good reason to get it done yet, and there are too many benefits to having a foreskin to cut it off for no real reason a few days after birth.

I voted for no because I'm circumcised since age 14. I think it's like cutting your hair, you just don't want to have to comb it in the morning. Same thing, less maintenance. I had no decreased sensitivity either ... :D:thumbsup::p

That's SO much better said than the screed I was about to write.

Circumcised. Fine with it. Sexual function is plenty adequate, thanks. If I have male children, I'll probably circumcise them, unless their mother feels strongly otherwise.

The Circumcision Monologues | Circumcised | Circumcision | Muslim Circumcision Attitudes | Ritual Circumcision | Circumcision Ceremony

I'm not sure what Slims was referring to exactly, but the idea that there is a ceremony and the boy gets dressed up for it is a little crazy to me. But, every other major religion has some circumcision element to it as well, and I don't understand why someone would get it done or do it to their kid because others in their group have done it.

Come on people, lets please move away from the literal definitions because piercing your ears would be sound hearing unit mutilation.

I think mutilation comes into play when we introduce the abuse factor.

So far, the only thing I get is the response that if you do it because of your religion then it is mutilation, if the newborn baby doesn't consent to it then it is mutilation ... yada yada yada!!

Well, I had this buddy in Iraq who used to stuff glowsticks in his foreskin and try to hail the QRF choppers doing hip rotations.

...

Middle East or Africa, I think Slims is talking about this kinda stuff. The "manhood rituals" of chopping your wang at ~18 years old in an environment as sterile as the back of a deceased hobo's tongue, sitting in the wild for three days without food, etc. National Geographic horror show stuff.

Yeaaah, I'm all for testing my manhood, but not THAT manhood.

...

I don't care if my helmet has a neck gaiter or not. I certainly don't care how anybody else has their junk equipped. It's mutilation but ya don't have to say it like it's a bad thing.

I see no reason for it. It's cutting a piece of a child off. Doesn't sit well with me.

If you clean it, you'll be fine. If not, expect to have phimosis, infections, etc and require circumcision.

I'm uncut and I prefer it that way for no other reason that I have never been cut and have anything to compare it to. However, I will not circumcise my son should I have one. My wife had better give me a damn good reason for me to agree to it.

asu and cromp - if thats what slims is referring to, i dont see how ithas anything to do with islamic practices. sure circumscision is. but the ritual is not, and is practiced by all faiths.

the ritual a more regional issue than an islamic one

That's how it looks to me.

Xerxys, it sounds like you had your circumcision somewhat late in life (at least compared with my husband and everyone else that had it done when they were infants) Would you be comfortable sharing your experience with us?

even though in a way it is mutilation, i still voted no. every time i look at my wang i dont mutter to myself "curses, i was mutilated."

im sort of glad my parents gave me the chop. circumcised dongers look more aerodynamic in a way. i feel like my dick could go from 0-100 in 4 seconds flat.

i also heard its easier to clean, which is great, because im a friggin slob.

my friend Scum got a circumcision when he was 16, it was his own choice. im guessing its just more appealing or something.

Yeah, foot binding used to be all the rage according to my seventh grade history class.

I think everybody "gets" this issue. It's just a case of "it's what we've always done" versus "well, why are we doing it?"

...

And I'm just pissed because my circumcision took off my twig and berries entirely, leaving me with what we'll refer to as a Yule Brenner.

Smooth-spot'd!

ive watched specials on awkward shit, such as foot binding.

a snip off of my foreskin is a wee bit different than my feet being curved into a "n" shape. in my mind it is, at least. probably because of it seeming the norm.

rabbi have Parkinsons?

Piercing your ears is sound hearing unit mutilation. The question is, as it is with circumcision, is it justifiable?

Methinks not, at least not at birth, or without consent for that matter. It's a basic human rights thing, people should be able do to their bodies what they choose, without someone else doing it for them - including their parents. It can always be done after consent is given.

I'm not mourning the loss of my foreskin.

George A. Romero presents: Night of the Living Foreskin

I can hear the groans now... "peeenussss... PEEEEN-NUSSS!"

Why not? The protective covering is pretty nice when it isn't in use. And it has a function when it is in use as well.

It's the attitude that it doesn't do anything or has no purpose that makes parents think they can have a doctor (or religious person) remove it.

Humor me: What is it really protecting? I mean, it isn't like our dicks have a toenail.

Even if we take as a given that it doesn't do anything.. I mean, shit. My appendix doesn't do anything, and I have yet to find a use for that little fleshy bit at the end of my nose. I'm sure as hell not chopping it off.

Do maternity wards charge by the ounce or something? Are we worried about the kid's 0-60 time, and saving every conceivable bit of weight? Where does useless equate to 'gots to go'?

The hygiene thing always comes up in these discussions. If you can't keep your foreskin clean, then you need to bitch your nurse out in a major way because you're not capable of bathing yourself. It's really not hard.

Don't get me wrong here, at the end of the day, this isn't an issue I'm going to crusade about. I'm not picketing hospitals and starting pro-turtleneck movements. But at the same time, my thought process tends to run that fewer unnecessary surgical procedures are better.

Why do it?

Well, as an observant Jew, obviously I'm happy to be circumcised, and certainly plan to circumcise any sons I might be blessed with in the future. But those are for reasons that have nothing to do with health or sexual fitness or aesthetics.

That said, I have never had any desire to not be circumcised, and have always been pleased by my state over and above the religious reasons. I saw my first uncircumcised penis in junior high, in the locker room, after I transferred from Jewish day school to public school. It scared me out of a year's growth. I thought the guy had some kind of weird disease. Obviously, I know better now, but I have to say that I find uncircumcised penises to be extremely aesthetically displeasing to me. I mean, let's face it, dicks are really not decorative units as it goes, no matter what kind they are, but uncircumcised johnsons just are not...streamlined. They seem to range from looking vaguely sluglike to looking like they just sneezed and have a booger hanging down, and when hard they seem to mostly look like they're kind of activated while still in the package.

I'm not going to say anyone should be forced to circumcise their sons or themselves. But I definitely think that nobody should be prevented from circumcising their sons or themselves.

And I definitely don't think it's genital mutilation. Genital modification, maybe. But mutilation, to me at least, implies a modification of the body which is actively unhealthful or hazardous, is deliberately painful or uncomfortable or unpleasant for the person to whom it was done, and has negative effects on the proper functioning and performance of the body parts in question. And one might argue that the health benefits of circumcision are slight enough not to be worth it; or that the aesthetics are displeasing to one; or that it is simply unnecessary (except where religion is concerned); but there is simply no evidence that it decreases sensitivity or impairs sexual or urinary function, nor is it painful or uncomfortable after it heals. Therefore, I can understand calling it genital modification, but not genital mutilation.

hm. I can't be the only one who wouldn't mind staring at them all day.

:lol: Man, I can't wait to use this line at a bar. Somebody work in a "Voltron" joke and I'll just die.

(condensing paragraph to relevant sentence, no misquote intended)

I think circumcised dicks are ugly.

As Barbie said to the Ken Doll, where's your point?

I don't know. Religion fucks things up. I want to be tolerant of people for their beliefs, but I happen to think that those who refuse to give their children life-saving blood transfusions on religious grounds are supremely fucked up and bordering child abuse. The life of a child changes the equation here.

Now, obviously circumcision is not the same level of seriousness. To my knowledge, nobody's died. So let's say that we give orthodox practicing Jews a bye on that one. So far as I know, the rest of the Abrahamic sphere has no such mandate, or at least not one that's really enforced.

I just don't understand how this came to be the norm. The prevailing arguments seem to be 'it looks funny' (societal pressure, from people not seeing it regularly), 'it's unhygienic' (bullshit) and 'everybody does it.' And I just don't get that. This is a proactive thing. It's a conscious choice parents have to make. I can't get into the headspace of someone who intentionally puts their child under the knife without a clear and compelling reason.

Islam, Jewish all circumcise. I being Jewish do and plan on G-d willing if I have a son(s). I am not sure where people think it is the norm, it really varies on where you are, in America it is very common but Latin countries it is not. There was health debates on it, religious debates, personally I do not have such dilemma, and I feel if you do not want do not do it, but I would not consider it mutilation.

First of all, I really tried to be clear that the religious arguments are their own thing, entirely separate from anything else. Their reasons are valid only to members of those faiths, and therefore are useless discussing the issue with nonmembers. As far as I know, all practicing Jews circumcise their sons, regardless of movement or denomination. As far as I know, all practicing Muslims circumcise their sons, regardless of sect or tradition. Their reasons are valid only for Jews and Muslims, respectively. So unless one is a practicing Jew or Muslim, the religious issue is moot. (Or, I suppose, a member of some other religion that circumcises, about which I have heard nothing).

And circumcision is such a minor body modification, without any negative physical effects on sexual or urinary function, that, to my mind at least, it seems inconceivable to debate attempting to enforce a prohibition of circumcision at the cost of religious freedom. Therefore, what it boils down to is: if you're not bound by your religion to circumcise, and the idea offends you, don't do it. Otherwise, why create an issue where no issue exists?

As for non-Jews and non-Muslims who circumcise...aesthetics can be a reason. You might not like it: it might seem deeply insufficient to you, but it can be a reason. On its own, I'm not sure it would be enough for me, either. But for some, it could be.

Now, it does appear to be accurate that circumcision brings slight health benefits in that it does slightly promote penile hygiene, and it appears to very slightly retard passage of sexually transmitted diseases. If you want to point out that in both those cases, the benefits are minute-- perhaps an edge of three or four percent as opposed to the uncircumcised-- and that you feel that is not at all a sufficient gain in your opinion to justify circumcision, that might be a fair argument. But there will certainly be some parents that think that even a couple of percentage points favor in their sons health justifies circumcision.

I agree, parents can sometimes do terrible things to their kids in the name of their own beliefs. And I too am shocked and offended by people who let their kids die because they don't "believe" in antibiotics or transfusions. But when it comes to body modifications of the kind bearing cultural significance, and without lasting physical harm to the proper functioning of the body-- piercings, scarification, ear notching, circumcision, earlobe or lip stretching...look, you and I may not appreciate either the aesthetics or the cultural reasons to do those things, but that's because it's not our culture. Cultural transmission only works by bringing kids up in the tradition: you can't just teach them abstract lessons during childhood and then let them decide at the age of majority whether to join their traditional society. That produces nothing but secular/Western assimilation, and the traditional culture is lost.

I'm also not saying there's never an appropriate moment to step in: obviously, female genital mutilation, or foot binding, or rituals depriving kids of fingers or eyes or what have you...I would certainly agree that that might be over the line, and should be stopped. But only because those rituals irreparably damage the correct functioning of the body in deeply integral ways, to degrees that it is impossible to presume that any significant majority of children so mutilated in infancy would, on adulthood, agree that, given the chance, they would certainly volunteer for such modifications willingly.

*shrug* Oral is better when the guy's been circumcised, at least in my opinion. Other than that, it doesn't seem to matter.

This Is Not A Big Deal.

People seem to think I get more emotionally invested in these discussions than I actually do. I don't know why that is.

I have almost no exposure to muslim faith. I don't know details there. They circumcise too. Okay, cool. The point is that, for most people, this is not the case. If we take as granted that in the Western world this is how things are generally done, I still don't see how we got here.

It's all about momentum. Sending your son's member to the skin tailor to get hemmed is an active thing. It's a decision that has to be made. And I'm wondering how it is that people with no religious imperative started making this decision en masse so that now the regular reaction to an uncircumcised dick is that it 'looks funny.' The only reason they look weird to you is because you're not used to them. Same as how I thought the first circumcised penis I ever saw looked funny, because I wasn't used to that.

I don't buy the health argument. At all. You want your kids to be healthy, you teach them basic hygiene. Bam! Done. So that's not really flying.

I know it's a minor thing. I know it doesn't really cause lasting harm. But I could say the same things about a foreskin. My default position is to leave it well enough alone. And I don't see the other side on this one, try as I might. When it comes to the health of my child, I want the path of least resistance. I want to make the decisions that force me to interfere as little as possible, while making sure my child stays as healthy as possible. If I have a decision to make about something cosmetic that causes no lasting physical or social harm either way, I'm going to choose to leave it the way it is.

But I guess maybe that's just me.

Jesus, Martian, stop being so funny with the colorful language. It's 4 AM and I'm giggling like a 12 year old in sex ed.

Pfft.

The opportunity to make colourful analogies is what draws me to threads like this to begin with.

getting it done as an infant beats having to get it done as an adult, situation is embarassing, plus what would've been something you dont remember, now becomes those six months-year (really?) that you wish you could forget.
anyone remember that married with children episode? classic.

I don't buy the whole "circumcised penis is cleaner" theory. The foreskin is there to prevent infection from entering the urethra. If you are taught from a young age to pull the foreskin back when you are bathing, there isn't a cleanliness issue either.

Circumcised men are less likely to get and pass on HIV to their female partners.
(Male Circumcision (Updated January 2009))
Male Circumcision Trial Findings:

* Three randomized controlled clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa demonstrated a 50-60% reduction in risk of female-to-male HIV transmission among men randomized to receive circumcision compared to uncircumcised controls. This evidence is supported by long-standing ecologic and observational data.1
* Elective surgical male circumcision confers a partially protective effect against HIV acquisition for HIV-negative men at risk of acquiring HIV from HIV-infected female sexual partners, and may be particularly effective in populations where HIV prevalence is high and male circumcision prevalence is low.

I'm very happy with my snipped member.

you can always send me a PM ;)

oh..and baby-lish is getting the snips

Circumstances.

Without good medical cause or adult consent of the affected individual, it most certainly is mutilation.

(and lets be clear, the medical causes out there are dodgy at best and complete lies at worst)

And anyone trying the social or functional arguments should start a thread on the aesthetic, social and religious benefits of female genital cutting on the under-aged.

Being that I am and have had to make the decision twice for my two sons, I've never looked at it as mutilation. Maybe that is rationalization at work. The intent was never to mutilate the human body. Since I am not Jewish, the intent was not driven by religious requirements. But its sort of a social norm, at least where I came from. While it technically may be mutilation, since the intent was not, I give it a pass. Again I say this may be rationalization.

Not this again... Condoms work much, much better, and the whole 'scientific experiment' was a sham. It only lasted a few months and they guessed that the number of HIV infected partners both groups slept with were equal. And seeing how it was like 12 vs. 8 out of 2500 when they stopped the study instead of letting it go on for a few years (because saying a 50% drop is more impressive, and the newly circumcised group was starting to have more sex), well let's just say I hope not all medical research is done this way.

---------- Post added at 12:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

My experience is that it has more to do with my blood pressure and the number of days since my last orgasm. If my blood pressure is over 140/90, it doesn't work as well as when it is 100/70. But that is just me, though it may be the same for others.

May?

Go on, be honest.

GENUINEGIRLY:

Circumcision has absolutely, 110%, NOTHING to do with sexual function. In fact, one of its main pro-arguments of yesteryear was its function of restricting the ease of masturbation... which is pretty true.

Mine is cut. As most of you have seen.


I've never put too much thought into it. It's a dick. It's used for peeing and spreading out seed. If you look at a penis as anything else above and beyond that, you've crossed a line.

You gonna let someone needlessly hack chunks out of that bad boy?

When has that ever stopped you before?

Yes, or perhaps some regions have bad imams or a bad mix of spiritual beliefs with their islam. Either way I don't think Islam as a whole has a problem with the way they circumcise.
I wouldn't do it to my child, my wife's (she's american) only opinion on the matter is that his future girlfriend might get freaked out by it, or make fun of it. So the fuck what?
I grew up in america, have shared locker rooms with cut boys, I don't have a complex about my extra bit of skin, and if my wife (then gf) got used to it, who's to say my future son's SO won't?

I don't like that cutting off part of your penis is the norm, at least in America, but I don't think I'd call it genital mutilation, because, if carried out well, your genitals work fine. This is more of a cosmetic surgery at birth than anything else, which to me is almost as bad. Still, I wouldn't want anyone taking a blade close to my child's penis. That's just too big a risk.
Your boy might get made fun of for a flap of skin, but what about if he had half a head? Or a diagonally cut one? Or some other weird scar?

I am female, and I vote that circumcision is a sad taking away of nature's plan.

I am also curious why the poll is set up so, that we females,
are only allowed to be curious as to what the guys are saying.

I am also wondering if men would like to hear about the different
sensations a partner experiences during intercourse, between cut and uncut?

I say partner, but I can only relay my own vaginal experience.

The way the foreskin slides back and forth, inside my vagina- (especially during a slow succulent, intercourse session) was a real wake-up whoa moment for me.

Men that are okay with the sensations they feel after being cut is fine,
I mean, what other choice do they have really?

But please think about it.
There are many nerve endings that are cut away when you toss out the foreskin.
As much pleasure as you get from your circumcized penis,
wouldn't you want your sons to experience the full pleasure of nature's plan?

For the same reason that other polls on this board, which directly affect women are set up so that men can only vote "I'm a man and I'm curious"

Well,

I was born in Africa, Kenya. They circumcise at various stages of adolescense as some sort of symoblic gesture of intitiation into adulthood. What's funny is, even the stupid adults don't regard you as an adult anyway. Thus begun my hatred for old assholes. I degress..

I was actually looking forward to the process. It was a) the in thing, kinda like a fad that's been running for the last couple hundred years and b) made you anticipate the manly feeling that is ~uncut~!! Really my parents only let me go through the process because I asked them to and it had little or no risk. You see, we have hospitals and clinics :D.

Initiation is done mainly when your through with class 8. (mostly at 14 but sometimes later days of 13) By the time you get to Form 1 (after class 8) your regarded a non infant and capable of taking care of yourself. (How I started listening to Dido I don't know!!!)

Up to today I still don;t have a good reason for circumcision and levite summed it up well. Modification and not mutilation is the difference.

The horror stories related to circumcision in Africa crompsin speaks of happen to what? 5 people yearly? All these people are nomads and traditional herders who have lived like that since their oldest alive person can remember. Even female genital mutilation (FGM) is frouned upon. It no longer happens unless of course you're in the back of the backwards countries in Somalia or Sudan. The act in Kenya is illegal.

As far as this being mutilation, nope, not really.

One person's modification is another's mutilation. That's all in the societal norms and subjective opinions.

The circumcision that i get myself into trouble condemning is the needless hacking at the genitals of a NEWBORN child for no other reason than social fancies, or a religion that should be soundly condemned for such hideous teachings.

Wife beating was once a religious/social norm.
Execution for theft was once a religious/social norm.

The two, along with a very long list of others, have been removed from society to a greater or lesser degree in the western world.

Taking a scalpel to a newborn baby, needlessly, is or should be abhorrent to anyone who thinks about it objectively for more than a second or two, whether you think the result is modification or mutilation. Taking even tiny risks with their lives, genitals, future sexual well-being at the costs of obvious pain, etc...

I will never understand the dissonance of a mind that rationalises it.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

(Oh, and I'm not voting on this poll as there's no division between the proxy circumcision of minors and elective circumcision of adults.)

Dude, I said SOME muslim circumcision practices can be horrifying. Not all, or even most.

I don't think this is an irrational statement at all considering how many of the bedouin tribes handle the issue:


"In Bedouin tribes circumcision is a puberty rite, or test of manhood, enacted on boys between the ages of ten and fifteen. The rite is called es-selkh (the flaying). As the name implies,not merely the prepuce, but the entire sheath of the penis is longitudinally slit and sliced off, leaving the "rod" like a skinned eel. As a rule, youths look forward to the ordeal with masochistic or fatalistic abandon. They pull each other's drawers down and stand proudly naked, not daring to move a muscle or cry out

Jacabus observed that in Arab circumcision the skin of the sheath of the penis and the mucous membrane are cut at the same level, and after the operation is completed there is absolutely no prepuce. This is the desired result. The penis is literally strained to stiffness when erect, for the skin is stretched tight, and the entire glans, including the corona, and the neck of the corona are fully exposed by the retraction."

Traditional Moslem circumcision rites
And a bit dated, but I doubt the practice has changed much in the rural areas:

"Circumcision, although nowhere mentioned in the Koran, is generally regarded as obligatory for Moslems following the example of the prophet Mohammed himself, who was circumcised in accordance with Arab custom. No uncircumcised person may lawfully make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Among the tribes in southern Iraq … the operation was often deferred until manhood … and was seldom performed before puberty. It was done by specialists who travelled round from village to village in the summer. Their traditional fee was a cock [!], but more often they charged five shillings. The examples of their work which I saw were terrifying. They used a dirty razor, a piece of string and no antiseptics. Having finished, they sprinkled the wound with a special powder, made from the dried foreskins of their previous victims, and then bound it up with a tight rag. People living under these conditions acquire a remarkable resistance to infection, but they could not resist this, and boys sometimes took two months to recover, suffering great pain in the meanwhile.

One young man came to me for treatment ten days after his circumcision, and although I am fairly inured to unpleasant sights and smells, the stench made me retch. His entire penis, his scrotum and the inside of his thighs were a suppurating mess from which the skin was sloughing away, the pus trickling down his legs. I cured him eventually with antibiotics.

In spite of the social stigma of being uncircumcised, some boys not unnaturally refused. In other cases the fathers would not allow their sons to be operated on because there was no one else to look after the buffaloes. A few maintained that they had been circumcised by an angel at birth, a superstition that is also current in Egypt. Later I visited villages … where I heard that hardly anyone was circumcised."

Wilfred Thesiger, The marsh Arabs, London 1964, pp. 101-2


And, from a paper on circumcisions in Turkey and their potential complications (Last I checked Turkey was a muslim nation):

"Unfortunately, most circumcisions throughout the world are performed by traditional circumcisers rather than by medically-trained professionals. In those patients with complications, only 5% of the circumcisions were performed by doctors, 10% by health technicians and the remaining 85% by traditional circumcisers. The traditional circumcisers in Turkey are commonly devoid of any medical training and belong to other professions such as barbers, traditional drummers and male servants of health institutions. They usually perform circumcision with self-made devices similar to the Mogen clamp.

The present analysis emphasizes that the most serious complications are caused by traditional circumcisers this potentially dangerous traditional practice should be prevented. Furthermore, mass circumcisions become widespread and used by many sociopolitical relief organizations in Turkey as a method of advertisement. The present results suggest that even when performed at medical institutions, it is difficult to; provide enough sterile equipment and conditions for a safe mass circumcision. Moreover, mass circumcisions performed outside medical institutions are also becoming widespread and are mostly performed by health technicians or traditional circumcisers.

In conclusion, circumcision is an important surgical procedure which has life-long effects and should be performed singly at medical institutions by trained medical staff. Mass circumcisions commonly organized for self-advertisement or for propaganda cause significant risk and should be stopped as soon as possible."
Significantly increased complication risk with mass circumcisions


I had two Afghan interpreters on my last deployment, they told me how they were circumcised, not at a hospital as an infant, but as young boys, at home, by some 'dude' with a knife.


I know the Muslim world is not the source of all evil, but I hardly think it is irrational to point out that it is the source of many of the more disturbing circumcision practices, which often result in complications due to incompetence. And I haven't even begun to touch on Female Circumcision, which the muslim world seems to at least tolerate (I have not noticed any outrage on Al-Jazeera regarding the issue, even though in some muslim countries nearly every single female is 'circumcised.' By circumcised I mean the entire clitoris is removed as well as the majority of the Labia with the two ragged remnants of the inner labia sewn together (with thorns in some places) to prevent the woman from having sex before marriage. The husband gets the pleasure of cutting her open (with a knife) on her wedding day. In the more 'conservative' tribes the wife gets sewn up again each time the husband leaves on a trip.

Cheers!

I'm circumcised.

not upset about it... I work just fine...

That said i think its an unnecessary procedure and am inclined to not have any sons I may have cut.

I'm cut, my two boys aren't. I think is mutilation - why the hell would I make my children go through a completely unnecessary medical procedure.

Mutilation implies to me doing damage or harm with the intent to injure or maim.

I don't believe circumcision would fall under the term mutilation.

It could be termed by some as "unnecessary surgery", but I don't think genital mutilation applies to this particular procedure.

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the only reason why circumcision isn't considered mutilation by some/most is "because I was done and I am fine*, it's great! Yeah!".

*The argument applies to a huge range of opinions:

I voted for the right guy, even though he's fucking everyone! (I don't want to admit I was wrong)
I bought the right car, even though it was clearly the wrong choice! (Same thing)
I believe circumcision is fine, because I was mutilated without my consent before I can remember, have no frame of reference over the choice and therefore it is A Great Thing To Keep Inflicting On Our Babies (tm)

Cm'on tisonlyi, I mustv'e read somewhere you pierced your penis. Was that mutilation or modification? What about tattoos? They really hurt and actually leave a mark that wasn't there before.

Mutilation is extreme. Mutilation is abuse. Besides take it from someone who had it done a bit later in life. To circumcise an adult or one with a fully developed penis is harder than an infant. I takes 2 weeks to recover and you must NOT have a full bladder when going to bed because morning wood is a motherf***er.

Kind of like this. Let's say 99.8% of earths population don't get appendicitis, only the 0.2% do. To remove the appendix at birth in order to prevent appendicitis would be unnecessary but I would be totally fine with it if it means not giving birth at the same time my wife does.

+1

Never sore with an uncirc'd penis...even after marathon sessions.

As for opinion, I'm against cosmetic surgery on infants.

If he has these things that is a choice he made, like cosmetic surgery - cutting off bits of someone's flesh for (mostly) cosmetic reasons when they don't have a choice is not the same thing.

dude...slims..sigh

do you know what year we actually live in? you're quoting a book written by Wilfred Thesiger who is quite a popular personailty here in this part of the world. i never who who he was until i came here. but Wilfred spent many years travelling the Empty Quarter and met many Bedouins. The Empty Quarter is an empty vast arid land and is one of the biggest desert in the world. its covers a large percentage of the UAE, and saudi as well as parts of yemen and oman. his travels were in the 1940s mainly and he came across tribespeople and nomads of whom most were muslims.

using his quote to justify your point is irrational. you quoting stories from Thesiger on bedoiuns who happen to be largely uneducated, neglected people living in unhygenic desert conditions. these people have no access to anything. they are neglected by the countries they live in, and even till today are stateless and admonished by most. circumcisions are done by uneducated, illiterate people fromw ithin the tribes...no wonder they have problems when they do minor procedures such as this!

so you can understand their lifestyle. so when you say SOME muslim customs, you are talking about a large minority here ( less than 1% of the muslims population).


as far as turkey goes..have you been to turkey? yeah turkey's a muslim country...pfffft! muslim by name...cultural practices remain, but religion plays no part of turkish life except when they want to sell you a prayer rug or something.

as for afghans..its petty much the same as the bedoiuns..uneducted illiterate nomads. i'm no expecting santised utinsels to be used.

as for female cirsumcision, i have NEVER EVER heard of instances of women being sewed up. its not a part of islamic beliefs of customs. IF it is indeed true, its a cultural thing and has nothing to do with islam. Hadith and islamic jursipudence contain nothing on the matter. but once again, you speak about minorities here.

i'm late for work now, so ive got to run. buti can expand on a few other things

False Equivalence.

The adult choice to modify/mutilate (purely subjective in an ADULT context) my own body, in full knowledge of the facts and with sufficient control of my faculties, is in no way near the topic of neonatal or infant circumcision.

If I had a child, would I have the right to drive a slug of metal through the penis of my newborn son? Even if it's my religion? Even if all of my male friends have it done?

Would I have the right to cut the vaginal lips or stubs thereof from my infant newborn daughter?

Didn't think so.

Why?

It's an extremely invasive procedure undergone for entirely cosmetic or non-critical reasons. It's unethical in the extreme to inflict unnecessary agony, change and risk upon a helpless individual.

A newborn is an individual. They have rights.

Tell me how is infant male circumcision different from those two cases above?

Even if he did pierce it, that just means putting a hole through it, which is usually temporary. Removing a entire foreskin is not temporary, nor would it have been his choice (unless he got it as an adult).

Dlish:

I know how old my Thesiger quote is. But considering the lifestyle of the peoples he was observing....it is still as current as the morning's news.

the Minority I spoke of (and which you emphasized) are responsible for the vast majority of complications following circumcision.

Also, I was not trying to typecast Islam, but state that some circumcision practices deeply disturbed me. The ones I was aware of took place in the Muslim world and so I referenced that.

Yes I have been to Turkey as well as other Muslim countries, and don't disagree with your assessment, but it is still part of the Muslim world...I didn't say the world of fervent muslim believers.

I never made a case for the practices I quoted being integral to the religion, though they are tied to the local beliefs/religion...whether you think they are valid or not.

I'm with those who say that mutilation is too strong of a term. I was a baby when I got snipped under the belief that it would reduce/prevent future medical problems. I have no idea if there is any medical justification for circumcision.

On a related (well, sort of) side note, my wife says that she's curious to know how a foreskin feels during intercourse. I would guess that many women have the same thought.

So awesome to have a woman's opinion here, and that's because you guys are the ones who either benefit out of the penis' surgery, or don't.

To me, it feels like that extra flap could produce some nice feelings, for both parties involved, and there's no hygienic reason (when you look at uncircumcised people like me without problems) to make a change.

hey Lucifer where's the "I'm female but still have an opinion" button???

Personally I will admit I do lean towards the mutilation side of the fence in this one, I simply don't see any need to have it done from a scientific viewpoint (yes I know about hygiene issues - that's coming) and would strongly object to having it done to any male child I might have.


There seems to be 3 main reasons people use for having circumcisions - hygienic, religious or cultural

In regards to hygiene issues I think most of the reasons for having it done can be combatted by effective personal hygiene, ofcourse if you don't clean under your foreskin you're going to get dirt and then some kind of infection - that's common sense same if you were a woman and decided to go days without cleaning your genitalia. It's just a bad idea. Going back to the days of WW2 most definitely get it done, simply because if you're involved in any form of trench warfare it's almost impossible for you to bathe sometimes for weeks at a time and numerous infection did spring up for exactly that reason. in fact the British government during WW2 subsidised the costs to have an adult circumcision done for it's troops.

Religious reasons are a different issue and something that not being religious myself I don't feel qualified to discuss, you either get it or you don't ( kinda the same way I view the whole sub / Dom thing - odd hmmm?)

Cultural reasons are kindof a combination of the two. Much as I dislike the idea I have to accept that there are cultures out there today that still believe you are not a man until you have had an adult circumcision performed. Take parts of Kenya where during a boys mid to late teens he has the foreskin removed with the sterilised lid of a ring pull can and is allowed to make no noise during the procedure. Yet you ask boys or men if they would have it done or do it again and they will say yes because you are not a man until it has been done. You'll have problems marrying, buying property or holding a position of authority while still being viewed as a child.

Attraction wise I have to go with uncircumcised for preference but that's only personal opinion - I find it easier to give oral to an uncircumcised man as opposed to a circumcised one.


have to agree with GG on this one - I know I find them pretty attractive

Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk
 

Looks like the experts disagree with you:

Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk
By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: August 23, 2009

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection.
Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners.
For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now.
But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

Did those studies involve people having sex with or without condoms? I'd suspect that condom use would eliminate any differences due to circumcision.

I think the HIV thing is as stupid an argument as the hygiene. Have good hygiene, have safe sex, and you're just as safe whether cut or not.

^^ The hygene argumant isn't stupid. It's just like hair. If you can't be bothered to wash your hair properly everytime you take a shower you will get lice. Same goes for foreskin.

That shows how much you know about HIV. Very little.

The forced circumcision idea is cultural bullshit. Not substantiated at all.

biznatch said the hygene is as stupid as HIV. I'm not discounting the HIV argument is baseless at all, the hygene one, on the other hand isn't.

Should I be questioning your comprehension skills?

I would like to reiterate, I personally don't think that the health/safety justification for circumcision is particularly persuasive, unless you happen to be singularly phobic about sanitation and infection.

I also don't think that the mere fact of it being popular or unpopular aesthetically is necessarily a persuasive justification to circumcise if you are opposed to doing so, or to not circumcise if you are inclined to do so.

What the difference of opinion in this thread seems to boil down to is that there are some individuals who believe that cultural and religious requirements are adequate justifications to circumcise baby boys, and some individuals who believe that they are not. Thus far, I have no problem.

Where I am beginning to have a problem is that those individuals who do not believe cultural and religious requirements present adequate justifications for circumcision do not seem content merely to resolve that such a position means that they should not circumcise their baby sons, but also entitles them to criticize (nearly but not quite to the point, I feel compelled to point out, of disrespect) those individuals who do feel so justified.

Nobody, IMO, has yet been overtly or directly disrespectful to anyone's religion, nor mostly to anyone's culture; nor am I accusing, confronting, or calling anyone out. But I can't help noticing that there is a pronounced negative bent that is beginning to appear that, to my eye at least, is beginning to go from disagreement with circumcision to disagreement with religion.

Now, don't get me wrong! I am in now way trying to suggest that people who don't care for religion ought to change their minds, nor am I suggesting that they should pretend to do so. Nor am I attempting to shut down this topic, or shame anyone into silence or anything. I am merely concerned because every so often, online in general, and very occasionally on this forum that I love, I see people who do not care for religion cross the line from merely disagreeing to disrespecting.

As I have said before I feel quite strongly that nobody ought to be compelled when it comes to religion, and atheism is, IMO, just as respectable as theism (or vice-versa, if you prefer to phrase it that way). And I have no quarrel with disagreements of philosophy, or outright rejections ("that's just not for me,") or even critiques ("I don't understand it, and I don't get people who claim to understand it."), or sometimes even criticism ("that seems wrong to me.") My problem begins with "I don't agree with this, it IS wrong, and you shouldn't agree with it either, and if you do, YOU'RE wrong." Which, to be fair, no one in this thread has said (as far as I can recall). But I feel things drifting in that direction.

I would like to re-state what I said before, that, as far as I know, none of the religions that require circumcision require it for those who are not adherents of their faith. Therefore, it seems to me that the easiest way to solve the problem of not agreeing with religion as a justification for circumcision is simply not to practice such a religion. But if the adherents thereof do circumcise, and find it meaningful and spiritually satisfying, and do not (for the most part) object to it or find it regrettable or debilitating, then what is your cause for criticizing them? (And I feel compelled to add, labelling it "genital mutilation" which is inevitably pejorative, is, to my mind, an attack criticism).

Now, I would certainly agree that there have been some cases cited in this thread of the procedure being done with improper care, in deeply unsanitary conditions, leading to horrific results, and those sorts of thing should certainly be avoided. And if one wished to critique such cultures by saying that, if one will require circumcision, one must ensure it is done safely and properly, and all due precautions are taken to assure no harmful side effects...well, that is a critique I would leap to agree with. But to indicate that a handful of problem cases, easily remedied by proper sanitation, technique, and followup, indicates that religions and cultures should have no right to practice circumcision is, to my mind, an ill-conceived conclusion deeply colored by disdain for religion and/or foreign cultures.

I'm sorry to come in like this with a heavy hand: usually I refrain from saying anything when stuff like this develops. But I really love this forum, and I really respect the people in here, and I can't say it doesn't bother me.

To make it personal for a moment, nobody's saying that if you don't believe in circumcision you should have to circumcise your son. You like foreskin? OK, so you should live and be well, and have fine, healthy sons with yards of foreskin. But it hurts to see something disrespected that I am grateful for every day, that I truly feel brings me closer to God, and which fills my heart with joy when I consider the prospect of being able to one day help my son join the covenant of his people, and draw closer to God himself. If you don't get that, and don't understand it, and don't like the concept, OK, great. Don't be Jewish. Nobody's saying you should be. Unless you actually are Jewish, in which case, yeah, I guess that would pose something of a problem for you. But I presume that any Jews who are so vociferously against circumcision probably are not feeling particularly connected to their Jewish identities, so I suppose it all works out, in any case.

My point is, just a little more care taken to separate between criticism of an action and criticism of those who take the action would be appreciated. But in any case, I say it with love and respect, and I hope it is taken that way. I am not trying to attack anyone, and I hold each and every one of you in high regard.

How can a baby be adherent to a 'faith'?

I'm confused when you say that, " nobody ought be compelled when it comes to religion." I might be missing the context here, but then you go on to say,

"any Jew who is against circumcision, is not 'connected' to their jewish 'identity'.

All I am hearing, then...is failure, bad bad Jew.

Your post is very strange. It apologizes yet it doesn't.

Would you consider it disrespectful, if I claimed that genital mutilation,
done under the guise of any religion, I find abhorrent and cruel?

One of the fundamental ways membership in a society is generally understood is that parents are responsible for raising their children according to the rules of that society, with the presumption that those children, when grown, will wish to be fully participating members of that society also, and will as adults retroactively appreciate the efforts their parents have made on their behalf, even if they didn't necessarily appreciate them in the childhood moment. This is hardly a novel notion, and since Judaism and, if I understand correctly, Islam also, consider themselves not only religions but cultures, it is entirely applicable. What other religions in the world demand circumcision I don't know, but I would be surprised if there was not a strong cultural component to them.

In other words, just as nobody ought to come round to my door and demand that I not be a Jew, but be a Christian, or an atheist, instead, even so, nobody ought to go to the doors of Christians and atheists and demand that they be Jews. My point is, if you don't believe that you are religiously required to circumcize your son, nobody should compel you otherwise.

Judaism requires male circumcision at eight days. That is not a negotiable part of traditional Jewish identity. The only Jews I am aware of who do not circumcize their sons, or have any problem with doing so, are secular Jews who-- usually due to lack of Jewish education-- have little connection to the Jewish tradition. This doesn't make them bad people, but it does make them disconnected from Jewish society. An uncircumcized Jewish man, just as much as a child whose father is Jewish but whose mother is not, may feel like a Jew, but they are not, until they have (respectively) been circumcized and been through the form of conversion. That's simply how Jewish law works. Now, by the same token, if two secular Jews decide not to circumcize their son, nobody's going to come to their door and compel them to circumcize the baby. They will suffer no direct consequences of their actions, unless we include the dismay of their more traditional family members and friends. And I am in no way suggesting that they should be compelled, or should suffer other consequences. But there are consequences, none the less: by refusing to circumcize their son, they have ensured that should he desire to participate in Jewish society as an adult-- have a bar mitzvah, lead prayers, read publicly from the Torah, be a formal witness under Jewish law, marry a Jewish girl, etc.-- he will have to suffer adult circumcision. I assume that something of the same would be true in Muslim society, although I don't know the nuances of Shari'a well enough to be certain. Perhaps Dlish knows.

But at least with Judaism, it's an ethnoreligious culture, and as such, it has laws and rules and boundaries governing membership, association, and behavior. To be born into that tradition means that either you adhere to some accepted version of those laws and rules and boundaries, or you effectively are choosing not to participate in Jewish society. There is no compulsion: nobody will force you to follow Jewish law or the Jewish tradition if you don't want to. But like any society, disconnecting oneself from the way the rest of society operates is a choice that has consequences in one's life, and the life of one's family. If one considers those consequences outweighed by the temptations of belonging to a different society, or attempting to live with no society at all, then they should live and be well, but there are things in Judaism that will be closed to them. Not out of malice. Just because that's the way this society works. And if that's not to your taste, then perhaps this isn't the society for you to be part of.

It would depend on what you mean by genital mutilation. I said before and I say it again, that to my mind, calling it genital mutilation implies that either it is done haphazardly and without reason, or it is something done that causes crippling and/or consistently painful and/or notably impaired lack of genital function. It may have been done unsafely. It would also probably be significant to me if a majority, or a sizable minority at least, of those persons to whom the procedure was done objected later in life, and regretted that it had been done to them.

With female genital mutilation, you have all of those things: it is often done unsafely; it is not consistently done the same way in all societies that do it; it is done for varying reasons, none of which are mandated by, or even suggested by Shari'a, but rather stem from local, often pre-Islamic, cultural aesthetics. It causes severe impairment and often permanent pain associated with the impeded proper functioning and use of the genitals. And there are, unsurprisingly, a large number of women to whom it has been done that object later in life, and admit that they wish it had not been done to them.

Whereas, at least as far as I have been able to discover, circumcision among Jews and Muslims (and probably some others also) in Western Countries, and in most urbanized and/or developed portions of the Muslim world, is done safely; it is done for reasons of fundamental spiritual import to the religion; it causes no notable impairment to the sexual function of the penis, and no impairment to the urinary function at all; the vast majority of men to whom it has been done have no problem with it, do not regret it, and are for the most part quite happy with it. The majority of those I have encountered who do have a problem with it seem to object out of philosophical ideals about body integrity or holism, or sometimes a great zeal for free choice: it is seldom, if ever, objected to because of crippling or traumatic after-effects, and at least IMO, never credibly so.

That being the case, it seems to me that circumcision falls into the category of culturally-based body modification. Generally speaking, no permanent damage is done, no ill effects are suffered, and parents are not compelled by force to do it to their children. Which leaves me back at, if it doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. And if your conclusion is, "I don't like circumcision. I don't get why it would be OK. I will never do it to my son," OK, great. You should never have to. But to stand back and call it abhorrent when others do it for their own reasons, because it doesn't appeal to you, is essentially to say, "Your experience of bonding with God is yucky. You suck." Which I feel is counterproductive to discussion, and ultimately, is not a critique I will accept.

I apologized because I don't want to come off as "religious judgmental guy," and, as I said, because I really do love the board and respect you all. But I just felt I had to stand up for what I believe in, without intending disrespect to others, or wishing to quash the whole conversation.

If I have a baby boy, he won't be circumcised. I don't see the need for it.

Also, as a female, I (kind of) prefer the bits I play with to be uncut. Just a matter of personal preference, though.

Go ahead, rail against the CDC, WHO, and everyone else, then:

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

Summary

Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [41, 42].

Male circumcision may also have a role in the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. CDC consulted with external experts in April 2007 to receive input on the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the United States and to discuss considerations for the possible development of guidelines.

As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

wouldn't surprise me if most of us couldn't, either...

+1
They're all good, so who cares?

If I'd had a son, though, I most likely would've circumcised him.

Of course it's mutilation. You're slicing off a bit of someone's genitalia against their consent.

The health argument is utter bullshit. If you're too dumb to wash your cock, then it says a lot more about the modern society's desire to circumvent natural selection than it does about how circumcision makes your pecker maintenance-free.

In Europe, we stopped slicing 'n dicing our babies ages ago, but here the ol' "everybody else does it" - or social norm, to be fancy about it - seems to still be a widespread excuse.

Well, there is the mounting evidence that it can reduce the spread of HIV for at-risk populations...

Yeah, there's also evidence that AIDS is 50% more prevalent among gay men than heterosexuals.

And?

I don't have a sock on my cock, and having seen guys that do, I'm glad. Of course, if I went uncircumcised, I would probably think that circumcised dicks looked fucked up. I think people should be able to have it done if they want, or not have it done if they don't. Who gives a shit?

Any idiotic idea can be backed up by "statistics" and "evidence".

Get rid of homosexuality - reduce AIDS by 50%. It's the "homo disease" after all, right?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Comparing one idiotic notion to another.

Circumcision does not prevent contracting HIV. That's no less retarded a reason to butcher one's child's genitalia than religion or "because everyone else does it."

Facts are facts. Pretending they don't exist because you find them unpleasant is foolish.

Currently, there are multiple (at least 31, if you trust the CDC) studies of various design which support the assertion that increases in circumcision rates are associated with a decrease in HIV transmission rates. 3 of these studies were randomized controlled clinical trials. Suitably sized randomized controlled clinical trials are the bees fucking knees when it comes to epidemiological standards of evidence. Apparently, these studies showed that circumcision was so effective at reducing transmission rates (50-60%) that the folks running them stopped midway through after having decided that it would be unethical to continue them.

Credible evidence suggests that circumcision can have an affect on HIV transmission rates. This doesn't mean that circumcision is an appropriate replacement for a condom. What it does mean is that less condom-inclined populations would benefit, HIV-wise, from having all their little fellas snipped.

Didn't we have this discussion already? In fact, I'm nearly sure of it.

Well to my vote, circumcision is most definitely mutilation. There is no longer a purpose for it. It is no less sanitary. Period. I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any issue of cleanliness. The women I've slept with seem to agree. Not only that, but at first they couldn't even tell I was uncircumsized to begin with. There is literally zero reason to circumsize anymore.

Not in this thread. Unless you're talking about how the three times these studies have been brought up, various folks have chimed in with half-formed noncriticisms?

Except for the effects of circumcision on HIV transmission rates.

Even if circumcision affected HIV transmission rates, it is not an excuse to mutilate newborns. Improve availability of sexual health education and condoms. Or let people elect to get circumcised, should they choose to do so, when they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

What you're advocating is mutilating the genitalia of a newborn child whose right to his own intact body you are denying at the ridiculous pretense that he might someday contract and spread HIV to someone else. You're saying that the child cannot be entrusted to make his own decisions regarding his sexual health and behaviour; that's a bullshit cop-out. You don't know what he will do. You are just half-assedly denying him the right and opportunity to decide for himself.

I'm not sure what's got your foreskin in a shredder. I've not once advocated a particular course of action. So what you think I'm advocating has absolutely nothing to do with reality. I've merely referenced factual information.

I'm not in a position to make public health policy decisions. If I were, I certainly wouldn't force anyone to get a circumcision against their will. However, I would inform them of the facts and let them make their own decision.

If it makes you feel any better, if me and my lady ever have a son, we aren't planning on having him circumcised.

In terms of circumcision, yes it is as stupid, IMO.
This is how I see it: "But if you don't wash your uncut penis you'll get infections." ..."Well, why wouldn't you wash your penis? Most people who work, and get out of the house take showers, and cleaning a penis takes 20 seconds or less."

"But you're more likely to get HIV with a uncut penis?" "Not if you wear a condom."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think they're both sort of stupid. If you take your precautions in life, like brushing your teeth, eating well, showering, etc etc, you're less likely to deal with disease, obesity, general health problems.

Clearly, the message "Just wear a condom." hasn't caught on in certain places. Especially given that there's a certain funny hat wearing Palpatine impersonator who seems to have no problem telling his followers that condoms don't protect against HIV.

What's your plan to fight obesity? Telling people to stop eating so much? I think these problems are more complicated than you think.

Oh, sure, it hasn't worked. I think we can get there, though. And I think circumcision to prevent HIV spread is kind of similar to surgical operation to reduce stomach size at birth, to prevent overeating. Workarounds when there are (in my opinion) better solutions.

I think coming up with a solution for AIDS in Africa is probably even harder than tackling obesity in the US.

But even though this sounds too idealistic, I'll always be in support of education, not semi-preventative surgery.

I'm in support of whatever works, as long as it works in an ethical way.

Yes, but the uncircumsized of the world feel an overwhelming need to start a thread on the subject every few months.

Circumcision-envy, Freud would call it.