Edit: I do not in any way think people who have their children circumcised are monsters or being cruel or anything like that, they just AREN'T logical. While I think circumcision is the wrong choice I don't think it should result in arrest or anything rediculous like that.

I think it's funny a lot of people didn't get charlatans sarcasm in his first posts...

but anyway...to ngdawg, I was referring to piercings performed on a newborn child. Are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with me giving my newborn baby girl a septal, nipple, or clitoral hood piercing?

And as far as aesthetics, I think that everyone just plain prefers what they are used to. Here in the US that happens to be cut. If a women had mostly positive experiences with uncircumcised men, or had grown up with a knowledge of them but not the other, I'm positive she'd find them more attractive and vice versa.

But frankly, this idea that the body of a child belongs to the parent is kind of creepy in my own opinion.

I'd also echo what has been said by charlatan...that we don't generally do things we don't have a reason to do, but the more appropriate comparison here is that you don't generally work to limit your own options, or the options of others, given the choice to do so.

If you leave your son uncut, he has the option to have the procedure done later in life should he want it. If you cut him, he doesn't really have the option to reverse that does he. It's like giving you the choice to either A: take a dollar and spend it on anything you wish or B: take a dollar and spend it on hemmerhoid creme. Yeah, the hemmerhoid creme might be kinda nice, but the logical human being doesn't limit their choices like that unless it's something they really need ie. jews thinking they need to have their children circumcised or risk damnation.

I don't believe so, it's common practice...

now female circumcision...well tht's another story.

From here;
And from here;
That's quite a difference, there. Here in Australia, it's perhaps ten percent of boys. Going from that, I think there's definately an issue in the US somewhere.

On the flipside, going from this;
It's not all bad, I guess.

Hulk, i really, really, REALLY doubt that last quote.

Published in Penthouse magazine, from a survey of 200 individuals ;) Take it with a grain of salt, it wasn't intended as serious argument on my part :P

I find it interesting that the idea of "natural" being opposed to religion pretty interesting, that the way a body could be thought to be "originally designed" by an omnipotent creator would clash with the those religiously-minded. I'm not saying natural is wrong, but citing evolution rings pretty hollow. Our bodies, naturally, are suited to about 30 years of prime fitness before all of our organs and muscles begin to atrophy, joints begin to wear and sexual peaks are over (odds of birth defects go up). According to "evolution", we'd all be best suited to the "live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse" mentality.

Religion aside, people seem to vastly understimate the laziness of men (and especially young men and boys) when it comes to hygiene. We don't have to sit down to pee, and that kind of mentality seems to create a situation where the bathroom is an in-and-out in 15 seconds thing. I would guess even other men would underestimate how often guys skip washing their hands after urinating. Of course, even though I do, in a public restroom, all it takes is one guy to skip it and touch the door handle on his way out and the exercise becomes rather futile. Any kind of improvement to natural cleanliness will have a bigger effect than people would admit.

Blame my laziness, but if I could have had an operation as a baby with the result that my nose never ran or precluded ever having to deal with snot or mucus, even if my sense of smell became slightly less acute, sign me up! Obviously this attitude makes me glad I was circumcised as a baby (for health reasons, not religious), though I wouldn't do it to any kids I had. Though I am very happy with my situation, an irreversable operation like that isn't something I'd want hanging over me. Actually, I'd take that nose operation today, even if it hurt like hell and bled for a week. =p

As for the look, obviously that is socialized, but I find it very hard to believe that the smell is. For men or women, certain smells are universally repulsive for a reason. If anything, it would take intense programming to make a person enjoy a smell like sulphur, for example. Men or women, cut or uncut, I don't think properly cleaned genitals have that kind of strong "fishy" smell, do they? From my limited knowledge of stinky smells, isn't even sweat pretty odorless until the bacteria does its thing?

No, it's not abuse, very happy with my fine looking, cut specimen of manhood!

cheers!

:thumbsup:

I don't think you should be offended at all. Perhaps over the term abuse, but not over the term mutilation. Under a strict definition, this is what has been done to those of us who have been circumcised. We have had the natural appearance of our penises altered.

This is, under a relatively strict definition, mutilation. The negative connotation wafts away when we understand that this form of mutilation is socially acceptable.

While some will cry abuse and blame parents, I am not sure this is the right approach. My beleif is that it is an entirely uneccessary proceedure with no significant benefits. That our acceptance of it has more to do with socialization than anything else.

I don't blame my parents for anything. They made the right choice for themselves at that time. Some parents continue to make these choices.

I don't agree with them but so it goes.


Again, I personally feel there is a big difference between most of the decisions we as parents make for our kids and something like circumcision. Perhaps this is just me though.

Again, the choice you made with your daughter is different. Her fused labia was not a "natural" state. The natural vagina is not fused. You opted to repair a problem thereby giving her full and proper use of her genitals.

Circumcision takes something natural and alters it to something that is not.

I can't address your comment about making you suffer. It certainly is not my place to point fingers and make anyone suffer for their past actions. In fact I've tried to avoid doing just this.

I am sorry if you feel that anything I wrote made you intentionally upset.

To me it's medically-unnecessary genital mutilation. I am; my boys are not. It's not abuse -- intent has a very significant weight in the decision -- but I think it's a practice that will thankfully die year by year.

mu·ti·late
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


you know, if anyone's curious. I think most people know mutilate as the more common version, number 1.

As I said above, under a strict definition, number 3 applies. Even stricter, number 1 applies. The foreskin can arguably be said to be essential to the natural function of the penis.

I can't believe that anyone would argue a circumsized penis is a penis in its natural state. Circumcision is the process of altering the penis from its natural state whether that state is beneficial or unecessary is what is under debate here).

That's funny, because again... I have no sensitivity issues. My penis, from top to bottom is QUITE sensitive to light touch. In fact, if it was much more sensitive, sex probably WOULD hurt. I love how these studies are just done to target the masses and promote an agenda. *sigh* Chaulk up another victim to studies and statistics. *hug Sweetpea*

Seriously. This is true, to some extent, of both sides of this issue.

Why do a study if not to prove or disprove a thesis. You sound like you believe circumcision is the *best* and that anyone who disagrees with you is part of some great plot to rid the world of circumcision.

You are coming off as less than reasonable (kind of the opposite to Billage). Is there something I'm missing? Why is it such a big deal that people don't agree with your position?

But the fused labia WAS her "natural state"

I think at a bare minimum... in "the strictest sense" #2b is correct as the fused labia was determined by nature, or by causes outside of human influence (which happens to be part of definition #10). So since she decided to alter the natural form of her child, it was "mutilation" and probably should not have been done unless there were critical concerns to the daughters health (which it did not sound like there would be). Can we quote dictionaries and push our own propoganda some more? I'm really getting into this!

Charlatan-

It's not a big deal. But I'm not saying that people are bad parents over it, or telling people that they are mutilating their children. Making accusations as such is bound to receive a negative response. There's a difference between making an argument against something, and attacking, in any sense, people who have done something you are against. The first is a form of debate and can be enjoyable by boht sides. The other is a form of verbal assault, and is generally frowned upon. :)

Human Rights for Everyone: the Importance of Nonconsensual Child Surgeries Here and Now Ryan McAllister, Ph.D.

In the U.S., could there be a surgery that:

1. Is performed almost exclusively on non-consenting minors,
2. Is illegal to perform on girls, but is promoted for boys,
3. Is performed with no or inadequate anesthetic,
4. Has no well-established benefits,
5. Removes a healthy, unique part of an organ,
6. Causes a lifelong loss of function,
7. And is performed over one million times a year?

Yes. That surgery is circumcision. Its significant, detrimental impact on male health and human rights is commonly minimized in our culture. I ask you to consider the following facts:

Circumcision of infants is never medically necessary, according to the merican Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs.

Circumcision is not recommended by any national medical organization in the world.

Circumcision has serious risks. These include but are not limited to infection, hemorrhage, scarring, shock, penile disfigurement, penile amputation, and death.

Beyond 100% loss of the function of the foreskin, the rate of surgical complications for this unnecessary procedure is estimated to be 2-10%.

Circumcision confers no proven health benefits. Few studies indicate potential health benefits, and these studies have serious flaws in terms of population selection.

Several large-scale studies show that circumcision increases risks of some infections and disease transmission.

An intact penis is easy to clean and care for.

The circumcision wound requires days to heal and is painful for the child during that time.

Circumcision removes several square inches of functional, healthy tissue. (The equivalent area in an adult would be about 15 square inches, the size of a 3x5 index card.)

Circumcision removes 10,000-20,000 specialized nerve endings.

Removal of this many nerves and this specialized tissue damages the ability to feel sexual pleasure.

Circumcision is associated with increased sexual problems later in life. These can include lack of sensation, chafing, lack of arousal, frustration, and problems due to insufficient lubrication.

Circumcision causes excruciating pain and often sends infants into shock. It involves tearing away and amputating highly sensitive tissue that was physically attached to the head of the penis.

Babies who have been circumcised are significantly more likely to have problems breast-feeding, and they demonstrate heightened pain responses months later.

Circumcision is associated with increased risk for depression.

Female partners of circumcised men may experience less pleasure during intercourse and may be subject to more frequent vaginal tearing and urinary tract infections.

Some Jewish individuals are opting for alternative ceremonies that do not require genital alteration, called "Brit Shalom".

U.S. infant circumcision validates female circumcision here and abroad.

The belief that male circumcision is valuable for hygiene reasons mirrors statements that female circumcision is necessary to keep women "clean" and "acceptable" for their husbands.

There is no hygienic justification for removing healthy tissue in any gender.

There is already a federal law protecting female children from genital cutting, modification, or piercing of any kind. Boys have a constitutional right to the same protection.

Involuntary circumcision violates human rights. Every individual has the right to an intact body, and should not be subjected to body modifications without his/her consent. Infants require special protection because they cannot speak for themselves.

A boy who is not subjected to circumcision will fit in just fine with his peers. Circumcision rates in the U.S. are falling, down from 90% in the 1970s to about 60% today. Internationally, the male circumcision rate is about 15%

Sure it was "her" natural state but it is not the natural state of the "normal" human vagina. One could make an argument for keeping her fused. I am not that person.

Again, my issue with circumcision stems form the fact that it is uneccessary, irreversable and done without consent. Of these three, perhaps the third is the weakest of my position.

My position on the question of abuse is open (with me leaning towards, it not being abuse). None of the arguments for circumcision are convincing.

Asthetics, cleanliness, penile cancer are all weak excuses to perform an operation that cannot be reveresed and is ultimately uneccessary.


In the end, I am willing to defend a person's choice to do this but I really have to draw the line at advocating it.

My responses:

1. That is absolutely not true. While it is not ALWAYS medically neccesary, there are times when it MAY BE medically neccesary. To use definitives such as this makes the argument less stable and also makes it seem emotionally driven rather than scientfically driven.

2. True, nor do most organization specifically NOT recommend it.

3. Everything has serious risks, including birth itself for the child and the mother. Riding a bike has serious risks including infected abrasions of the arms and legs, contusions/concussions of the head, potential for being hit by a motor vehicle and possibly death. So should we not let our children ride bikes?

4. The foreskin does not, itself, perform any "function". No more function that your ear lobe. I'm not syaing to lob off earlobes... just saying it's poorly worded. Again it sound personally motivated rather than professionally so. Also, 2-10%? That's a HUGE variance, and again seems extremely unscientific. 2-10%? I call bullshit!

5. Many studies indicate "potential health benefits". It's not as if there have only been 3 or 4 in the last thousand years or so. ALL of those have serious flaws? Again, I call bullshit.

6. And several studies have indicacted that lack of circumcision does the same.

7. So is a circumcised penis.

8. It's called neosporin PLUS. And the procedures used today are significantly different than those used even 20 years ago.

9. Uhm... in an infant it's BARELY one square inch. They lose roughly the same amount of tissue when the unbilical stump falls off. Of course, that's not healthy tissue, but it's also not a LOT of tissue by any means.

10. Specialized nerve endings? I'm not a biologist, but wtf is a specialize nerve ending? Nerves only sense up to a couple of different things... pressure, pain, heat... Do these nerve endings somehow specifically sense vaginal entry? Again, these points sound increasingly unscientific. Also, there are not 10,000 in the infants foreskin, and the body is WELL knwon for it's ability to adapt. I'd imagine that a large number of those that develop over childhood still develop, just NOT in the foreskin. Hmmmm...

11. Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! How many circumcised men have to post about this? There is NO WAY POSSIBLE to determine whether circumcised men or uncut men feel MORE sexual pleasure. Two uncut men may feel TOTALLY DIFFERENT amounts of pleasure as could two cut men. There IS... NO... WAY!

12. Does ANYONE have links to specific data regarding this? I've seen this argument several times, but I've never, ever, ever seen anything stating that a) Any cut man has had these specific problems due to circumcision, or that b) no uncut man has EVER had these problems. How do you show an increase? Statistics only support what the provider wants them to support.

13. Anesthetic anyone? Also, many of the tens of thousands of nerve endings have not yet developed. Oddly enough, my son was healed within 3 or 4 days, and he NEVER fussed about it during that time. Was he in shock for DAYS while it healed? Again, this maybe not bullshit entirely, but it's overstated.

14. Again, where is proof of this? Our baby breastfeeds just fine. Also, how would circumcision prevent this? They still feed from bottles, obviously. So it's not the reflex that's broken. Is this argument trying to say that the baby resents the mother and therefore will not feed from her breast? What kind of Freudian crap is this? Seriously? Can anyone apply some LOGIC to their arguments for a change... please?!

15. You have GOT to be kidding me. I need to link this again:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

There is a different between a causal relationship and a coinciding relationship. If this study was done in America, and the majority of men are circumcised, this correlation could EASILY be drawn. It does not, however, show cause. Again with the science and logic, I know. It must be a dying aspect of medicine.

16. Again, I'd like to see these studies. Regardless of ease of cleaning, if you took two men who were SLIGHTLY unclean (hadn't showered in 36 hours), there is a greater chance of bacteria on the uncut men, due to the nature of bacteria to grow in warm, damp, dark places. Bacteria = UTI. Also, vaginal tearing? None of my partners have had this issue. I'm only a data set of one person, but I fail to see how this, again, follows logic or biological precedence.

17. So?

18. Not really. As dicussed previously, these are two completely different procedures done for different reaons. Female "circumcision" is generally performed with the intent to prevent sexual pleasure in the female to make them more subserviant to the males and prevent them from having affairs. How is this the same? How does one validate the other?

19. Again, "clean and acceptable" generally means lack of sexual pleasure and is a control thing, having little or nothing to do with ACTUAL cleanliness or hygiene.

20. *sigh*

21. Again, this is where the argument falls apart completely in American society, especially since we are PRIMARILY conservative (even our left is considerably right of the left in many places). As soon as you start calling a good, red-blooded American father a monster for mutilating his sons gentitals, your argument no longer matters, regardless of how good it may be. Congress, Judges, the President... likely none of them would ever pass such a "protection" measure due to the vehement nature of anti-circ folks.

22. Bullshit... what large public body feels this way? The UN? No... the WHO? No... The JOB of a parent is to make decisions for the child. This kind of argument is, in my opinion, as big a pile of crap as those that feel TV and rradio should be censored more or that video games cause violence in children. Why do so many people want parents to stop parenting??? We've been doing it since the dawn of mankind... I don't see the benefit in letting society raise our children.

23. If this is a parents sole argument for circumcision, then that's pretty sad. It may be PART of an argument, but certainly not the only reason.

My responses:

1. For infants, there is no reason to remove the entire foreskin. The foreskin is fused to the glans to keep it protected. No baby has a medical need for it that I can think of.

2. The Canadian Pediatric Society said “Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.” And in countries with government health care, it usually isn't covered. In a few US states, Medicare stopped paying for it as well.

3. I'm just glad I wasn't one of the unlucky ones. I'm not sure you could ever get over losing a child, but circumcision is a bad way to go. How would you face your extended family and friends after that? Would you lie and say something else happened? At least you could sue the hospital, but with the forms you sign, it wouldn't be much. Not very many babies die, and the complications are 2 in 1,000. It happens to someone though...

4. I would say .2-1% is correct. At least in America. They might not have as much practice elsewhere. The foreskin provides the function of protecting the glans from abrasion and has a gliding action for when it is needed.


5. Why can't they do a large scale study on monogamous males in the US, Canada, UK, Australia? There are plenty of us here. Why do they have to go to Africa to find horny truck drivers to see 37 uncut guys get AIDS vs. 23 cut ones out of 3,000. They claim that there is a 50% less chance of getting AIDS and stopped the study a few years early. AIDS is a human disease, it doesn't care who you are or what you look like.

6. I don't know about those.

7. It isn't something that is unclean or dirty. If you wash it regularly, it shouldn't be any different. It's not hard or complicated to do. It might be a challenging thing for some people, but I am pretty sure I could pull some skin back.

8. Yes it is. But, they won't remember it, so it must be ok. Pee and cleaning it will be painful, Having the glans exposed will be painful when rubbing against the diapers for the first week at least.

9. Your penis is only ~2 inches long when you are a baby. Hopefully, it gets bigger when you grow up, and would be somewhere in that range.

10. All of our skin has nerve endings, some are wired to the pleasure receptors and feel good. What the doctors left of my inner foreskin allows me to orgasm, not all parts of your body can do that. And some people had their inner foreskin and frenulum removed during circumcision.

11. The outer shaft skin doesn't feel much, so uncut guys might have the advantage that the inner skin can stretch further down the shaft. The glans is covered and should be a little more sensitive to touch.

12. The only one I can understand is lack of lubrication. The uncircumcised guy has skin that moves, the circumcised guy doesn't. I need to use it.

13. Anesthetic wasn't used prior to the 90's and I bet they still try not to use it when ever they can. It costs them time and money. That last sentence is the definition of circumcision.

14. I went from 7lbs 9oz to 6lbs 9oz in my first 6 weeks. I'm not saying that proves anything, but it happens.

15. There are a lot of other causes for depression. If you wish you weren't cut, it might be another thing. But, that is a weak argument.

16. I would have to see a large worldwide unbiased scientific study done on that. I doubt it would prove anything one way or the other.

17. I guess they are the lucky ones. As long as they don't give herpes to the babies it's a positive change.

18. Because the Americans are so smart, and they mutilate their boys, it must be ok to do it to our kids. Female circumcision is different, but they give the same reasons why they continue. It's a societal norm, it's unclean, it smells, it looks better or normal, I had it done she needs it too...

19. People assume that all uncircumcised guys have tons of smegma and diseases under there.

20. Yes. We are smart enough to wash all of our parts.

21. We do have an anti-discrimination amendment in the bill-of-rights. If it is good enough for one gender, it applies to the other. *Except in the case of male circumcision, where grown men don't want to be reminded that they were circumcised or did something bad to their sons.

22. I think in a perfect world you wouldn't need to change, fix or modify anything. He will grow up and can decide when he is old enough to understand what it is function is. Parents that make the choice based on it's what is normal to do or because everyone else in their religion does it, are the ones that bother me.

23. If you are looking at or commenting about another guy in the showers, you risk being called gay or a pervert. I think this is a myth. Group showers aren't even that common anymore. In some parts of the US, the uncircumcised are the majority.


The only good reason that it is done to a baby, is that it would be so much worse to do it to a 4-15 year old. I could see that causing some psychological problems. But there are cures to every condition, except STDs, that can be fixed without a full circumcision. I still don't see anything good from my perspective, or any valid reason to have it done to a baby boy.

Somehow I think we'll be able to sleep tonight :rolleyes:

Well, i'm glad that you have no issue with your sensitivity :D and of course, all statistics have their own adgenda... i understand that completely... (after all, i took a whole semester on statistics in college, they can be bent many ways)

You should be happy you have no issues..
But some men do actually have issues with sex and sensitivity, due to being cut... That is all i was pointing out.

sweetpea

hehe,
Well, i'm glad it's not an issue for you :D :icare:

But as i pointed out... it IS for some men, due to having had this procedure performed...

And if i were to have it done on my son... yeah, it might turn out he has no problem because of it... but what if he turned out to be one of the boys that lost most of his sexual satisfaction because of it? I wouldn't take that chance, just to follow a cultural norm, that's all i'm saying :)

sweetpea

Although i do feel this procedure is a form of mulilation.... I'm personally certainly not saying that parents who still choose to get the procedure performed aren't good parents or anything...
because after all, in parenting, there is no right or wrong really... it's what each family feels is correct for their child, based on their own upbringing and personal perspective on the world.

And although i don't agree with the procedure and i wouldn't have it done if i had a son, that would be what *I* thought was best for my son...

Personally, I don't think It's my place to say what you or any other mom or dad should or should not do with their child, because it is after all *your* child and you are the one responsible for making the choices you feel are best at the given time.

sweetpea

I went ahead and had my son cut. Mostly because I am, but also because mens body image is VERY closely tied to the peen. If it looks abnormal, or deviates from thier peers in any way, things can get rough. Especially in Junior HS. (All children turn into sadistic monsters right about then!) So essentially, i would rather trade off alittle sensitivity for a smoother adolescence.

If I'm not mistaken, it's an issue for some uncircumcised me, too. Anyone have any figures?

:lol: I think the topic to this thread is rather absurd. :lol:

I am cross-posting this here as well as in the ear piercing thread in case some people don't read both and since my post stradles between being relevant to each. However, it is not an exact duplicate of the post in the ear piercing thread. I have made some additions to this post that relate more specifically to this thread.

I pretty much agree with this. One sentence in there is something which I think bears repeating: "Your child is not a toy to 'dress up.'" Now, clothing is one thing, but altering your child's body because you think it would look better is simply unnacceptable to me.

Is it "abuse?" No, not really. Is it bad parenting? Sorry, but yes. A previous poster brought up an interesting point: at what point does body modification of your child, without the child's input or consent, become too much? Parents can pierce ears because it's aesthetically pleasing to them...can they also stretch the earlobes? What about piercing clitoral hoods or labia on baby girls, as someone brought up in the circumcision thread? Or how about a frenum piercing on baby boys (if you don't know what this is, click here)? Surely, if cutting off a part of the penis which has a specific purpose and contains the most sensitive and numerous nerves in the penis simply because it looks better and makes the parent's job of teaching their son how to clean himself a little easier is acceptable, a little frenum piercing should be as well. This is setting aside, of course, those who suffer from preputial stenosis and have a medical need for circumcision. Even then, infantile circumcision is, at the very least, not the best idea.

little_tippler is right though: we, as Americans (because god knows there aren't any other societies which love circumcision for non-religious reasons as much as we do*), live in a society in which circumcision is normal. It is far less normal even in American society than it used to be, but it is still normal. Likewise, piercing a baby's ears may not be statistically normal, but it is not looked down upon. Individual parents who make these decisions are not abusive - intent is an important factor. It is not the parents as individuals who should be condemned with regards to these practices, it is the societal practice as a whole.

I'll say this: at least earlobes, whatever purpose they may serve if any, do not lose their purpose or function by being pierced. The penis DOES lose a function by being circumcized. We can argue about whether it is a necessary function all day, but the point is it is a function, and that fact alone sets circumcision far apart from "normal" ear piercing.

*Note: I don't know for a fact that there is not a single other society which circumcizes at the same rate of America for non-religious reasons, but I do know that if there are others, it is a relative few.

Secret... good post.

I think this part bears repeating: "It is not the parents as individuals who should be condemned with regards to these practices, it is the societal practice as a whole."

I don't think it's sexual abuse, but I do think it's wrong. Let the boy make the decision himself when he is old enough to make the decision. Getting it done on an infant because you want him to look like yourself is the most ridiculous thing I have even heard.

I agree. I chose not to do it to my sons. My brothers all chose it for their boys -- and each of them said the primary reason was that they wanted their son to look like their dad. Ouch! I wanted to smack each of them in the head (I might have, too). I don't wish my beer belly on anybody, for example, and I won't cut someone to look like me either. I can't speak for those who believe it's a religious requirement, but I'm glad more people aren't simply taking the lemming route.

I took the lemming route with my son, and I dare you to come smack me in the head :p

The amusing thing about the anti-circumcision people is the weird, almost religious fervor they attack the practice with. I have to wonder if its due to the unease of making an 'unpopular' choice and wondering if they did the right thing for their child.

One way or the other, its obviously not THAT big a deal, nothing I’ve read pro or con has shown any major difference between cut/uncut in terms of sex, and while there is a disease decrease for cut, its not very significant.

(Smacks ustwo upside the head) :)

I think people should make changes to their own bodies, not anyone else's. I have no problem with tattoos, piercings, etc. I see circumcision as benefitting a parent's vanity, and not benefiting the best interests of a child.

The amusing thing about those who advocate for circumcision is the pig headedness with which they support the practice. I have to wonder if it's due to the discomfort they feel about the whole process, that continuing the practice will help them cope with their choice to cut their kids.

no different than getting people to think differently than another set of people on just about any subject.

Just for the record, I'm circumsized and I'm very happy with it. :D

Cute but it doesn't fit the facts. I see a lot of 'I'm circumcised and happy with it' posts, but what I don't see is 'I want to smack you upside the head for not circumcising your child' posts.

Its those against which seem to have the big old chip on their shoulder.

Must like what Ustwo said... the fact of the matter is that nobody here who has been pro-circ has condemned those who are against it. Several of those who are anti-cric HAVE condemned those who are for it. I think that's the argument about maybe the anti-circ folk are worried about having made a bad decision. I continue to argue only to point out foolish arguments against my thoughts. I have no fervent desire to change someone else's mind. Those anti-circ folks do, however. It's kinda scary, actually. Like pro-lifers killing abortion doctors to prove a point. People who get too fanatical about change are generally not well accepted by society, and don't tend to help make the change the so deeply sought.

"Like pro-lifers killing abortion doctors to prove a point."

I know you didn't just make that comparision.


The way I'm reading it, yes there are a lot of "I'm circumcised that's OK" type posts. There are also a lot of people who are attacking those who would point out that circumcision isn't neccessary.

I don't agree that we should "smack people upside the head", "kill them", etc. but I can understand the frustration that many feel in the face of those who defend the position by shugging their shoulder "what me worry" or doing it for aestethic reasons.

I don't anyone can truly say that cicumcision is a neccessary proceedure (excusing those with rare medical conditions or religious reasons). Noone here has given a solid reason for continuing the practice.

Could you point out those attacks? I really don't see a lot of people doing this here.

Edit:Upon re-reading the whole thread (very quickly) I didn't see anyone doing this. Just who is this 'a lot'?

It makes perfect sense that those against circumcision would be far more adament about it than those for it. Those for it view it as an inconsequential and common social practice - obviously they're not going to have any strong feelings about it other than "it's silly to be against something so simple" or whatever. Those against it, however, view it as genital mutilation. You expect someone to NOT be adamently against what they believe to be mutilation? That's just silly.

Sounds like some people need a new cause to get worked up about then.

Yeah, the unnecessary mutilation of a baby boy's genitals is such a silly cause to get worked up about :rolleyes: (You may not agree that's what it is, but that's what many opposed to it believe it is, in which case I'd consider a person of questionable character if he or she DIDN'T get worked up about it.)

Jesus is clear on the issue, "If [Circumcision] were useful, children's fathers would produce them already circumcised from their mothers." -gospel of Thomas.

In this case, yes it is, the word mutilate is quite telling as well. I'm quite glad my parents had me circumcised, and I'm glad it was done as an infant. I have no shame in having my son circumcised and think the anti-circumcision zealots here are quite amusing in their fervor over something which at worst, makes the penis slightly less sensative in sex and at best slightly lowers your chance for a few rare diseases.

We arn't talking foot binding or female cicumcision here.

It is nice to be labelled a zealot :)

I don't think anyone in this thread is planning to prosecute parents who do this, but the point still stands - why would you want to do this? There really aren't any compelling reasons why people have this done.

You say you are glad it was done to you, and glad you did it to your son? Why??

no you're not! /montypython

i dont think it can be compared to female circumcision, when boys are cut, they can still be sexually stimulated. without the clit, many women feel nothing.

I know the religious link to male circumscisions, but is there any for women? beyond control, i know of no other reason. enlighten me if you could.

Well, first off, not all female circumcision involves cutting off the clit as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. As for a religious basis, while it is not explicitly required, as far as I know, in any sacred texts, many of those who practice female genital mutilation believe there is a basis for it within their religion.

To address the accusation that those strongly opposed to male circumcision are so adament about it because they may feel that they have made the wrong choice for their children and are seeking reassurance from others, it's important to note that I have no children, nor do I have any concrete plans to have any, and there are others who have posted strong opinions against circumcision in this thread that, as far as I'm aware, also do not have children.

Someone please honestly answer the following - it's been brought up before, but never actually addressed in this thread: What if I wanted to have my child's earlobes removed at birth because I thought ears without earlobes were more aesthetically pleasing? Would you fully support my right to this and not consider it an unnecessary and cruel practice? Earlobes have even less function than the foreskin does. To paraphrase UsTwo, I think pro-earlobe zealots would be quite amusing in their fervor over something which, at worst, makes it impossible to wear the typical earring. So, would you not only support my right to have my child's earlobes removed, but endorse the action as acceptable parenting as well? In fact, why not also remove my baby boy's nipples as well? They serve no purpose either. How many doctors do you think would perform such procedures? How many do you think wouldn't report me to child services for even SUGGESTING such procedures?

(Note: This is a somewhat long post. If you do not intend to read the whole thing, I ask that you please at least scroll down to the final section, which I will mark with two horizontal rules, and read that. It is still relatively long, but it contains relevant information regarding the history of routine, non-religious circumcision.)

This is an interesting fact with regard to the religious perspective which I am posting not so much because I think it furthers the argument one way or another, but because I find it interesting,

Also interesting to me - primarily because America is one of the most religious Western countries and male circumcision is also, as far as I know, more common in America than any other Western country (and about 25% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic, which this excerpt most directly applies to)...

<hr>
<hr>

So, I find it interesting that America - what seems to be a "Christian" country - is so interested in circumcision, considering it was repeatedly condemned by Christians in the past. I believe the history of the rise of circumcision in the late 1800's provides many clues:

(Note: this is a relatively long excerpt from an even longer article. I recommend that the entire article be read (look to the little word "quote" for the link, just above the box), but I feel that this section on the history of routine, non-religious circumcision in Western civilization is particularly important and am, therefore, quoting it here)

Hi all, glad I could pop back in.

There are a few things here that need addressing.

I’m not bothering with quotes as this isn’t about “billege v XXX” or something like that.

First I’d like to address what this is about, and what it’s not.

For me, on the “anti” side, it’s not about trying to convince a parent that had their boy cut that they’re bad people. Parents who chose to cut are not ogres, that much should be clear.

They're parents who thought they were doing the right thing. I disagree with their course of action.

However much I disagree, the last thing I would expect is a “pro” parent to suddenly agree with me, or anyone else who advocates against circumcision. For a parent to change sides, so to speak, they’d have to accept that they (if male) are mutilated, also that they chose to needlessly cut up their child’s genitalia.

There's a lot of guilt to deal with if you change to saying, "Damn, I had my kid’s penis cut up for no good reason."

Whereas, on the anti-cut side, I've had a lot of time to think about my dick. I’ve come from thinking all penises look like mine, to knowing that most in the world do not, to finding out mine was cut off with a knife, and left like it is now.

I’ve thought it over, and I accept he's not "as delivered," that it's okay, and that my parents meant no harm. Come to think of it, I don’t think it ever occurred to me to feel angry at my parents about it. This choice, like every other they’ve made for me, was rooted in what they thought was best for me. If anything, they’re victims of the same societal mindset I’m advocating against.

However, I've never pointed to my own child, and said "cut that there flesh of his genitals." Whereas, some of you parents have. The feelings involved in agreeing that was an incorrect action are surely intense. I’m sure that, because you’re human, no matter what decision you make there’s going to be some doubt.

Any guy like me, pointing out a litany of reasons I feel the choice was wrong, should not be expecting a warm welcome. There’s going to be some strong feelings, and they’re going to come out. It happens.

Additionally, it’s hard to get anyone (this certainly includes me) to look back at a major decision, and wonder if it was really right. To boot: this is a bit different than say, buying the wrong model TV or coffeemaker. You cut up some genitals, there’s no going back.

To repeat: my goal here, if I can be said to have one, is not to convince a parent who chose circumcision they’re bad people, but to convince someone who’s not a parent yet to think about this critically. To think, really think, “should I cut off part of my son’s penis?”


Other thoughts:

The quality of this discussion had fallen in the last page or so, and that’s typical of most discussions. By the 4th page or so, you’re usually down to the hotheads going off topic, or getting desperate. We’re not there yet…but:

We’ve got some obviously poor quality commenting going on. If you’re down to that, consider your next post more carefully.

Let’s talk about some quasi-reasoning going on here, and move to discard it in the future.

A few have attempted to dismiss the issue as they believe it’s not very important.
----Someone else is trying hard to convince you it is. The fact that someone you respect, as I’d hope we all do each other, thinks it’s a big deal should cause you to pause and wonder if they have reason to. Really examine your own thoughts, not just point out why they’re wrong. That’s such a cheap debate, and so typical. It’s not discussion, it’s “you’re wrong, no, you are, no you are.”

Tricks such as calling another person’s thoughts “amusing” are just that, tricks.

Every guy that chimes in “I like my cut dick just fine” is missing the point entirely. I like my cut dick too. No one’s saying you shouldn’t like your dick. Buy him McDonalds, and have a Coke and a smile.

There’s no passion from the “pro” crowd “against” the “anti” crowd’s choice because there’s nothing solid to base the practice on.

No one can tell me, and be solidly sure, that if I don’t snip my boy’s dick, something bad will happen. In fact, the vast majority of the world’s male population is surviving quite nicely with the hood left on. So did the cavemen, I believe the American Indians, and 2 billion Chinese are doing okay.

There’s simply no reasons for the “pro” crowd to try to convince the “anti’s” to go get some scissors. However, the “anti” position clearly believes that circumcision is a harmful practice that disfigures a child’s genitals.

Clearly, that’s more important to some people than “Coke vs. Diet.” To point out that one crowd seems more passionate than the other, and go from there to accusing them of arrogance born from fanaticism, is not a very valid statement.

Additionally, to discredit a position because they’re “worked up about it” is similarly invalid. Many posts on the TFP center around a rally against American/world apathy. The last thing I find acceptable is the attempt discredit enthusiasm because it is enthusiasm. That somehow, because it matters to someone, and they’re taking time to express that, it’s not valid. I can’t understand that kind of inverse “not think.”

It is to either parties credit that they are continuing to discuss this, in an intelligent application of energies.

One or two have actually commented that the effort put into these posts is evidence that the poster cares too much about the subject. I’d like to do something most people don’t, and look at that statement thoughtfully, even though it’s been aimed at me.

How much effort am I really putting into this? Do I feel strongly enough that circumcision is wrong that I’m writing my congressman? Nope. Am I protesting in the streets? Nope. Have I attacked any doctors for performing it? Nope. Maybe I’ve set up an “anti” web site? Nope. Am I even reaching a statistically significant audience with my posts? Nope.

I am stating as clearly as I can, with as much diligence as I can, to a small audience of people that choose to come here for discussion.

I’ve been around the TFP for a long time now, and I don’t think you can say I put this much effort into many threads. This subject I have strong feelings about, and a willingness to put effort into discussing it.

Whoever condemns me for that does not belong on the TFP. Period.

I don’t expect you who’ve chosen it to reverse, not at all. But, obviously, we’re not going to agree. My wife and I will choose not to do it to our son. I have posted what I hope are clear and interesting thoughts, and I hope that someone reads them and considers them before making this choice for their son. Until then, we’ll have to agree to disagree.



*note*
Agreeing to disagree was thoughtfully suggested by <b>healer</b>, who I viciously and wantonly stole it from.

Since the stimulation of the penis is still more than anyone could need (and many can't handle anyway), the penis is still capable of issuing semen to impregnate, and expelling urine, I don't see where the real "negative" is. It loses no functionality. The only thing it changes is the type of sexual stimulation you feel, and MAYBE the intensity- but until we have a study done of uncut, adult, sexually active men, who then get cut, have sex again, and compare, anything else is personal opinion, and not based on any kind of science. Polling is worthless, and "assuming" the nerves do this and that and whatever based on theory is just that- theory.

Also... a very standard, frequently-practiced, and easily-rendered medical procedure is hardly something I would call "mutilation". I believe that the term "mutilated", in this case, is a matter of personal opinion, not fact. So if it's just opinion, mind your own business. Keep your hands off my kid's penis.

Why do so many people feel compelled to dictate how others should run their lives? This whole topic is like Roe vs. Foreskin, for cryin' out loud.

Circumcision Deaths
 

Circumcision Deaths

From:

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Some babies die of complications of circumcision.1 There has been a need to assemble in one convenient location information concerning death from complications of circumcision. This page is designed to fill that need.
...
Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary6 non-therapeutic7 operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.8 Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one is seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision.

...


There is a risk and it is not possible to determine how bad it is but it is there.

Would you risk the life of a child given any probabilty, if the procedure is not about saving his life.

Of course they will... it looks good and women seem to prefer it.

Thats good news!! I am a 'survivor' myself!

;)

For once, I agree with you.

:eek:

No, it's merely pointless mutilation.

- proud foreskin owner

That is one opinion and not a very civil way of debating. I am circumcised, glad I am, and if I would have been able to give consent at the time it happened ( with the ability to think and reason as I do now ) then I would have given the consent to do so. My sons will be circumcised and probably so will theirs.

As far as medical, there is nothing wrong with me, never had any problems, and though it is true I don't know first hand the other side of the fence, I can honestly say I have no complaints about what I've got and who I am so I don't care to know the other side of the fence.

tenchi

Not all women do and mostly because it's what they are used to.

on a side note: I'm really surprised this thread is so long! :eek: Who knew so many people had such strong opinions on it. That to me is facinating in and of itself.


sweetpea

Thank you, SecretMethod. I was trying to understand how a religious ritual became a common practice in the US and your information answered my question.

PS: I really like detailed information sources. :)

How many children at birth are able to give consent? NONE of them are. Just the same as how many children have the ability to be fully functional at birth, by which I mean (feeding, changing, grooming, etc.)?? Again, none of them can.

So then would it be reasonable to think that there are a few things at birth that your parents should be able to make a decision for you on? Yes.

If the statistics were flip flopped and the un-cut were the majority, would this be an issue?? Would it be a "societal norm" ? Would people be called "sheeple" if they just followed along and left a child un circumsized??

Think about it from the other side of the fence.

Being of the "cut" demographic, I suffer not on sensitivity, arousal, lubrication, or any of the other symptoms described in detail here. I haven't had a foreskin so I cannot argue to the having one side, as those who do have one cannot make assumptions that I must be less sensitive, etc.
I do not have emotional issues, resentment to my parents for "mutilating" me. *mutilate being a bit of a strong word in my opinion* I see 'mutilate' and think of hitting your foot with a lawn mower, an injury that severly disfigures a limb or body part. Not the trimming of skin in a medical procedure.

To the poster that asked if it would be ok if they allowed their child's earlobes to be cut off.. I would say to you "go ahead". It is your child, and they do not have the ability to consent to what you do. Is it right? Who am I to say? I do not make laws, or judgements as to what is "morally and ethically" correct.

Seeing how I will not see the genitals of 99.9999999% of the world out there. I couldn't care less if someone is cut or un-cut.

As long as they are comfortable with their bodies, and are happy with themselves; who am I to really say anything? And who am I to say that someone is a "bad parent" or makes "bad choices"? So who are you to tell me that what I choose to do to MY child is a bad choice? Why do you feel it is your need to tell me what I am doing is wrong?

I don't know if any of this was particularly thrilling or not, but I felt compelled to respond with something. I just have issues with people in general thinking that they know what is 'right' or the 'best decision' for me and my life style.

Perhaps your lack of foreskin has also made you a grumpy, grumpy man. :P

I'm quite a happy guy really :D

On the other hand I am fighting off Clostridium difficiles right now, and if something is going to make you grumpy, it sure does.

While we're at it, let's cut off the earlobes. They're just useless hanging skin. This way, it will be easier for children to keep clean behind their ears and prevent infection! Your hair is useless, so let's give you some electrolysis on your head, and you don't get a say in it. You only need one ball, so let's cut out your left one to reduce the risk of testicular cancer later in life too.

UsTwo: Well there goes my theory. :(

Using this logic, would you call those of us who do not circumcise our girls "sheeple"? It is the societal norm that we do not perform this procedure. Looking at it, as you suggest, "from the other side of the fence", perhaps it is just my socialization that tells me that female circumcision is wrong.


The point is, as always, the uncircumcised penis is the natural state of the penis. Altering it is uneccessary for the proper functioning of the penis. There is no truly sound reason for doing so.

Many pages in, noone has yet offered a sound reason for cutting their children.




PS: can we agree not to use the term "sheeple" anymore? It has to be one of the most ignorant terms I've herd in the past few months.

LOL. What a crock of shit.

The fact that it is common in America does nothing to suggest that it isn't abuse.

Maybe we should define abuse a bit better. There are many that believe that a single, good swat on the ass is child abuse (and it's been held up in court that way), while other the age old approach of the belt across the ass and believe it is NOT abuse. There are a LOT of people on both sides of that. But wait, there's a third party that believes you should NEVER physically punish a child. Uh oh, no it's all murky and such. So who's right? Is anyone? Is anyone definitely wrong? Why? If you believe it is unnatural to lay a hand on your child for reasons of punishment, what about if your child is in danger and you have to PULL them out of the way of say... a moving car. What if, then, you dislocate their shoulder. The sad thing? If someone called child services on you, you'd be investigated for such a thing. That's how out of control "child abuse" advocates are.

Here's another one... nudist colonies. Is THAT child abuse? Nudity regulations and societal acceptances vary so much from place to place and person to person. If you live in the city, and someone comes over and you're sitting naked on the couch (as a dad) next to your 16-y/o daughter... you'd be in a heap of shit. In a nudist colony? Of course not. THIS is why parents have to be allowed to be parents again and make their own decisions for thei own kids. As a society, we can lay out basic laws of governance... we cannot and should not tell people how to live their lives, including how to raise their children. What if the family is just a bunhc of closet nudists? That's their right... but the dad would probably go to jail. Really...

"Of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer reported since the 1930's, fewer than 10 occurred in circumcised men. The risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men is 1 case per 380-600 men; in circumcised men it is 1 case per 75,000 to 8."

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Let's say it is 1 in 400. That means out of 24,000,000 men, 23,940,000 will not get cancer to get your 60,000 number. And that is in a group that have lived since 1930. Should we circumcised all 24 million as invents just to prevent 60,000 circumcisions to remove the cancer when the guys are 50+ years old.

There really should be much better statistics out there. There are millions of guys in Europe living very similar lives to Americans. What are the cancer rates currently? What about STD rates? The problem is if you sleep with an uninfected partner, you aren't going to get an STD regardless of if you are circumcised or not.

With the exception of the UK, circumcision is quite rare in Europe...I don't see them getting penile cancer left and right (nor do I see Australians having huge penile cancer issues, where neonatal circumcision runs at about 10%, like much of Europe). First, correlation != causation, second, I'm curious to know where you got that from, and third, if the evidence were that clear, respected medical organizations wouldn't be saying things like:
(emphasis mine)
Funny, even the American Academy of Pediatrics - based in the ONLY country in the world that routinely circumcises children for non-therapeutic (meaning there is no present *need* for it) and non-religious reasons - can't bring itself to say routine neonatal circumcision is a good thing.
Elsewhere, the criticism is more harsh:

They used to be harsher in the past, but when some studies came out showing it DID in fact lower disease potential they changed their language to less harsh. Their current philosophy is that while it does show SOME benifit, its not enough to recomend the procedure be done routinely.

Note that the lack of a recommendation of routine neonatal circumcision is NOT the same as a recommendation against it. Don't read more into the AAPs statement than there is.

The lack of position on their part can be just as easily written off as politics. Why make millions of parents feel bad about their decision to cut their baby boys. The evidence isn't conclusive enough to suggest they are harming the children so why rock the boat too much.

You will notice though that the Australians, where circumcision is not prevalent, take a more decisive tone.

Here are the consequences of removing that little piece of skin:

There is a difference between engaging in something that contains consequences and actually forcing the consequences to occur.


Thats because the majority of circumsized men never knew what it was like being uncircumsized in the first place. How are you supposed to know what you've lost when you never knew what it was like to have what you orginially had in the first place.

Actually, given that circumcision is a operation with permanent effects and given the fact that the said child is free to be circumcized at ANY point in their life, it is a decision that the parent SHOULD NOT be able to make. Removing a part of someone's anatomy is something that should be left up to the person who is losing part of their body. Especially when there is no reason why a circumcision must be done while the to-be-circumsized is incapable of giving consent.

No wonder all the ladies call him 'Mr. Stubby'

Holy crap, you mean I could cum even faster! Those same ladies will love that from 'Mr. Stubby'

Let me check....:confused: I seem to have some hair at least 1/2 way up the shaft, damn circumcision! As for the bleeding I thought that was due to herpies, my bad!

[quote] * Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.[32]

Wow I didn't know they did cicumcisions with dull scissors!

THATS where Mr. Stubby went!

Work of those dull scissors no doubt!

As someone somewhat familiar with human physiology I have to say :lol:

And here I thought I was a wuss due to an over protective mother!

I had this problem when I used to go swimming in swamps naked.

Yea my son had horrible infections after cicumcision last year...oh wait he didn't.

Yea cause its so much better having to pull back the forskin to get the baby crap out. You would think upon reading this that the forskin was a magical shield :lol:

Who writes this stuff anyways, its like PETA does anti-circumcision.

You really are an ass...

Laugh all you want - the foreskin in a baby is literally stuck to the penis - you can't get under it to clean it - there is no under to get at.

It is actually recommended that you just leave his willy alone until it actually detaches itself, at which point you can clean undeneath it - my boy is not 2 yet and I've never had to clean his willy.

I'm still waiting for that 'a lot' of people you talked about, until then begone.

:eek: I assume you mean you never had to clean under his foreskin and not Mr. Happy in general.

In most boys you need to start cleaning under after about age 2, some will take longer.

I retract my "a lot" and ask all to re-read posts 150 and 151.

I stand by my assesment of you. If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, I suggest you "begone".

You can retract your a lot and replace it with 'none'.

As for being constructive, when someone posts a rather amusingly one sided article making circumcision seem like a great evil plague upon man I reserve the right to make fun of it.

Lighten up, you will enjoy life more.

First, I'm not convinced the source you quoted is very valid. It's a roughly 2.5 page report that lists 67 references. It sounds to me like a lot of pulling at strings to make a specific point. It's easy to move sentences out of context to have them say whatever you'd like. If you wrote a 2-3 page report for a class and had 67 references, you'd either get a 4.0 because your professor was a dumbass, or a gooseegg because you didn't actually do any STUDYING. And sorry, just having MD after his name doesn't make him qualified. There are a lot of practicing doctors who I would not visit as well. School != smart.

Now let's look at those points. First of all, they are all very definitive and absolute. Circumcision denudes (not sometimes, but apparently always). "The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance," again, not sometimes but always. I'm looking at my penis right this very second. It is noit "dull", "gray" or "sclerotic" in any sense. Sclerosis generally has to do with a hardening of tissue, which I've not known to occur in cut men at all. Also, keratin seems to have been throw around a lot here. Keratinous tissue is generally thought of as being hair and nails. Do I have a tusk for a penis? Hmmm, nope! Both arguments here and elsewhere in this thread have no real bearing in reality.

80% or more of your penile skin? Is that so? Oh yeah, because it loops back. No, still not really 80%. I'd imagine 50%... but it only covers 25% or less of the actual LENGTH of the penile shaft. Okay, maybe 33%. Certainly not 40%.

Again with the desensitization... I guess that whole 3-minute man is a bigger myth than we're led to believe. Us cut men must be STALLIONS in bed since we're so desensitized. I can go about... maybe 15-20 minutes if I really put some effort into it. Maybe 25-30 minutes the second time around. I could go for an hour if we took breaks to do other things. If I was more sensitive, I think my wife would be sad.

Question for the cut men here... has your penis EVER just cracked and bled? Don't be shy... I really, truly want to know. Send me a PM even... I'll list the number of responses here. WTF?

"Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin." Are you KIDDING me? What kind of butcher doctors perform the surgery in these cases? Was this study done in a hosptial with a high malpractice occurance? If I had a pitted, cracked bleeding penis with skin tags and dangling bridges... I'd never get laid. I mean, are there pictures in any medical books or magazines or journals of this occurance? If it's noted, it must happen at least now and then. No, I don't buy it. It might happen as a freak thing in 0.001% of cases... maybe.

Also, uncut men can have "curved" penises. Curving of a penis can happen do to any number of things. This, again, may be the cause in SOME cases... but I doubt it's the norm.

Well, I'm kinda of tired of this argument for now. But again, I just don't see a good argument against it. Really I don't. Even when sources are quoted specifically, they are easy to refute. Come back when you have better evidence. Thanks!

Weird, I just had a discussion on this elsewhere.

It seems like many of the crusaders on this particular front are using circumcision as a scapegoat for their own sexual dysfunction. Which is ironic, since the only interesting new tidbit I picked up in that above-linked discussion was that premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction are more common in uncircumcised men.

See, for me it doesn't even matter how valid that source is (and, by the way, I agree - it's suspicious). What it all comes down to - setting all the possible negatives aside (and there have been more valid sources showing negatives, albeit less sensational as some other sources might have you believe) - is that it is the permanent removal of a body part, without the person's consent, for absolutely no necessary medical reason. If there WERE a significant medical reason, penile problems would abound in Europe, Australia, South America, etc - all places where circumcision is quite rare. I mentioned earlier, the circumcision rate in Australia is about 10%, and it's not dissimilar throughout most of Europe.

Surprisingly to me, someone actually responded that they'd be fine with me having my child's earlobes removed after birth. I'm not sure if that person was serious, but I'm pretty sure that person is in an extreme minority if they were. The best any medical organization is willing to say is that circumcision maybe, potentially might have slight medical benefits. And, by no surprise at all, that's from an American source - again, the ONLY country in the world that regularly performs non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. It is a cure in search of a disease.

The point is, it doesn't even really matter if circumcision isn't BAD. The point is, it's not really even GOOD. It just IS. And when we're talking the permanent removal of a body part on a helpless child who has no ability to consent, that's simply not a good enough reason.

I really do agree with you here in terms of its not really good or bad, its sort of a meh.

From my selfish standpoint (as in what I like about it myself).

#1 It IS culturaly acceptable and expected, there are fights worth fighting, this doesn't seem to be one of them.

#2 I'm always BJ ready and the women in the US expect it.

#3 I'm glad it was done when I was a wee-one so I don't recall it.

It doesn't seem to really hurt anyone so I don't understand the frothing at the mouth some people have about it. My evolutionary biology take on this is the foreskin became obsolete once we started to wear clothes, and while I've never experianced it first hand the fun descriptions I read while researching this make me glad I am since there are obvious hygine issues and I like to keep'em clean (see #2).

For the life of my I can not understand why people would want to remove it... it is something we are born with and have had ever since humans were humans. And for those of you who say it doesnt change anything, yes it does. The amount of feeling you would loose would be insane. Having your penis constantly rub against your pants must kill so much feeling, essentialy creating a calluse over the most sensative part of the males body.

Anyways when the time comes for me to have children there is NO WAY that I would ever have this sugury done to them.

Did you actually READ this thread? First you say, definitively, that is does change things. Then you say very uncertainly that is "must kill so much feeling". This shows that you don't know. Are you cut? If so, were you at birth? If you are uncut, you don't know. If you are cut, and were so at birth, you don't know. If you were uncut and became cut in life after you began having sex, you may know, but that is also questionable, as my previous posts have stated. If I lost my right hand, I'd start masturbating with my left. It wouldn't be as good. I can therefore say that left-handed people must not enjoy masturbation as much. Conclusively, this makes no sense.

Someone PROVE that cut men enjoy sex less than uncut men. Loss of nerves? Maybe some are lost, more likely the body adapts and developing nerves develop elsewhere. Keratination, callous and other similar terms? I don't experience that. Other cut men here don't seem to. Are there pictures? Case studies? Can anyone show me PROOF of this occuring? I'm happy to post a medical study picture of my penis. It's fine. It's not scared, abnormal, curved, inverted, calloused, cracked and bleeding, keratinized (beyond what any exposed flesh is). It's soft, sensitive skin that reacts favorably during sexual situations. My wife likes it. My previous partners have enjoyed it. Why is this SUCH a problem to some people. It's not a limb. It's skin. Sheesh!

It looks like more states are not having Medicaid fund this surgery. In the future, it could be just as culturally unacceptable to be circumcised. Or the younger circumcised guys are the different ones just like they are in Europe. The Internet is allowing a lot of people to see for themselves what goes on, and why it isn't necessary to remove the foreskin.


I don't want my tax dollars to fund this, and I have made the choice to have a health insurance plan that doesn't cover it. So, the question is, if you had to pay ~$200 out of your pocket, would you still do it?

Do you still have part of your frenulum? That is the part on the bottom of the penis right behind the glans. Could you see that if someone had a circumcision where all or most of the inner skin was removed, it would reduce sensations? Yes, the glans would still work, and allow orgasms, but what if your shaft skin could have the same feelings? You aren't going to orgasm quicker, it would just be more intense. For girls, it would be like having an orgasm by simulating her clit only vs. both the clit and her vagina.

We get worked up about it because it is sensitive, erogenous skin that was removed because our parents thought since everybody else is doing it, he'll get it done also. Without doing any research or knowing anything about the foreskin. Or that they have been conditioned to think uncircumcised penises are different or unclean.

I do have sensation along my shaft. Maybe I'm missing something... I just don't see what it is I'm missing... and I don't mean that in a speculative fashion. I know about the foreskin. I have done research. I still circumcised my sons. *shrug* It CAN be unclean, but I don't think it normally is. I do believe there are potential health benefits. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot be accused of not looking into it.

The point of posting the source that I did was to create a listing of the increased risks that you take when you recieve a circumcision. The problem is that you're permanently removing a part of a child that increases infection risks due to surgery and the removal of a protective flap of skin, and decreased sensitivity (read: pleasure) with very little gains. You're trying to tell me you need to hear a good argument agaisnt; the fact that the benefits are not really there when compared with the increased risks and losses in sensitivity should suffice as an argument agaisnt.

The bottom line is that you must produce a good argument FOR because you are taking a course of action that will effect your child permanently without their ability to consent to the changes.

You are missing increased sensitivity and pleasure; you would not know this though because you would not have any memory of having it. The fact is that there are greater risks than the benefits of getting circumcision.

You are one of the lucky ones. Some guys don't have that sensation left. Not all circumcisions leave the same amount of inner foreskin or frenulum.

yeah in the Philippines in some villages boys don't get it done until they are like 12, and it is done with a large knife or machete... (well that's what my cousins scared me with...) the 12 is true, the knife or machete... dunno. but by 12 I'd know if I wanted it done or not, and at 12, not would be my choice.

But one of my relatives did get it done late in life like that, and he got a different cut where there is some tissue at the bottom like a "waddle" supposedly it's for the woman's pleasure. Again, i don't know if it's true or if he's just making it up but I did see it and it is different.

That or it will come to show you come from a poor backround.

interesting point.

kids use and think of different ways to class themselves as the same...

I recall some uncuts that were "ashamed" to shower in gym because they were different. I didn't shower in gym because I couldn't shower and get dressed in the short 10 min timeframe. I tried a couple times, but there weren't enough stalls for everyone all at once.

I'm sure people will know by the car you are driving and the clothes you wear much more than, his parents didn't have the money to get him circumcised, therefore he must be poor.

Maybe it means that his parents didn't want to perform surgery on him right after he was born. Most people could find some way to spend $200, even if they are rich.

This is part of why I think the claims of sexual pleasure being decreased don't measure up. If you had it done late in life, I would expect you to know if there was a major difference in what you got out of sex. Its not like adults haven't done this.

For fun I've decided to look beyond the circumcision of children and lets look at adults. The children literature is swamped with those fighting the good fight, but I figured that the adult literature should be free of this.

This is from the american academy of family physicians

http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1514.html

Just a warning, the link above has pictures, enough said. Of the negative effects of circumcision they neglect to mention any change in sexual sensations (beyond those 4-6 weeks of recovery)

From the mayo clinic

This is also from the mayo clinic.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm

Damn now this one says something, not something some of you will agree with, but something...

Ok now odds are that didn't format right so here is the link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...f_circumcision

But let me break it down....

For adult circumcision....

Sex drive: 2 studies, sex drive was unchanged.

Erectile function: 6 studies, 2 in favor of non-circumcision, one in favor of circumcision, and 3 showing no effect. The study in favor OF circumcision was larger in sample size by a factor of 15 to any other study done.

Ejaculation: 5 studies. 3 no difference, 2 say circumised men take longer to ejaculate, including the very large study above, it also claims circumcised men are LESS likely to prematurely ejaculate.

Penile Sensation: (note just what you can feel where) 6 studies. Two in favor of noncircumsision one in favor of circumcision, 3 no difference.

Overall satisfaction 5 studies, 3 favor circumsision, two no difference.

Now its been a LONG LONG time since I did a meta analysis of like studies, but it seems to me that over all there is a benifit to circumsision over being non-circumcised.

Cynthetiq I'd like to thank you for pointing me in this direction, if anything it makes me more confident I made the right decision for my son. Its late, I'm tired, I'm just getting over being sick and I can see typos all over so I'll ask you all to forgive me there :)

If this is how you feel then why did you bring up medicade?