Zeraph

I'll just say that I'm uncut, and very glad. There are actually more advantages than you might think.

Glory's Sun

Considering the extent and emotion in this discussion.. could you give a list of the advantages??

xepherys

But see, this cannot conclusively be proven. I feel quite a bit of sensitivity during intercourse. If a man has a circumcision after the age at which he begins to have sex, it likely won't feel "as good" to him, just like most right handed men wouldn't enjoy masturbating with their left hand as much. It a lot like how some woman get "hooked" on use of a vibrator... if they do it enough, they don't feel as good with normal sex. But BEFORE, they felt it just as well, and that was with no changes to their physiology. I don't believe there is any way to conclusively prove that uncut men are more sensitive or enjoy sex more than cut men. It's like saying men or women feel it more than the other. How could you know? Average endorphine release? Too variable. Brainwave? Well, men and women respond differently to a LOT of things. You just can't say one or the other.


Then you don't understand my reasoning at all... he's a different person than me, he may NOT look like me. This had nothing to do with my decision to circumcise my son. I honestly believe, through what I've read, what I think and what common sense I can muster towards the topic, that I made the correct decision.

spindles

I was snipped as a child - who knows if is the cause of any of my problems? I don't have an alternative universe where I can see myself uncircumcised.

We decided to leave my son intact because there is no reason to do it.

For people who say it is "aesthetically" better - what a crock of shit - that is just more of the same ingrained thought - "everybody has it, so it looks better if I do too". If yours looks like that, of course you think it looks better.

I reject aesthetics as a reason to do this - it's basis os flawed.

I don' think it is the same at all. One is removing something you can't put back and the other is adding pretty shiny things that can be removed later, usually without any lasting problems.

Plus people rarely pierce their children in the first week of life.


What actually pisses me off most about this is people don't seem to really think about it too much - "I'm done, so we should do him too...".

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Gatorade Frost

Personally I don't see this as a reason to get pissed off. People have done it for hundreds of years with little to no problems, it's a common practice, etc. Why should the average person really worry about circumcision and whether or not it's 'mutilation' when the majority of society agrees that it's not? It seems like a poor reason to get pissed off, to me.

__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips

stevie667

To be honest, i havn't seen one shred of conclusive evidence to say that there is an advantage to having a circumcision, just statistics.

Excusing any entry into any euphamisms and profanities, every guy who isn't circumcised will know exactly exactly what gets him off, so will every guy who is circumcised. The ONLY people who can comment on the who it feels better are those who have had a circumcision after entering their sexual life.
I would bet that the extra few thousand nerve endings do make a difference, but i'm not going to go into surgery just to prove that point.

As for cleanliness, give me a break! 4 seconds is all it takes to give jr a clean in the shower. Should we remove the teeth because they cause build up of plaque which causes bad breath? Should we sew up the anus because of all the nasty things that can happen there?
The human body is a cesspit of bacteria and other nasties every second of every day of every year of all our lives, deal with it. Some people are more prone to infections that others, some people don't bother with personal hygene. Saying that removing the foreskin will stop bad things happening sounds like hogwash to me.
The forskin increasing chances of sexual infections? Do these kind of people realise theres a whole other 6 inches of potential entry waiting for its turn to get stuck in (excusing the pun)? I'm sure all of that is prime teratory for STDs, so is the big hole at the front.

The forskin serves a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be present in all of us, with it's own little glands and other associated paraphenalia (yes, i am aware of the nipples in men, or the apendix, no need to bring those up, they're pissing off anyway).

Those who argue asthetic reasons are (as i am aware) those who are circumcised. If thats what you've grown up with, i'm sure thats what you'll consider normal (even though, by definition, its not), and some of the replies definatly show that.

The question is, if you asked your son when he hit 18, would he like to chop the end of his penis off because someone believed it might help him in some possible way, i think his response would be to tell you, in the nicest possible way, to fuck off.

Edit: Gatorade - Your society may advocate circumcision, mine certainly doesn't.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Zeraph

Off the top of my head the obvious would be more sensation, more for the SO to play with and myself, natural lubrication, protection, and knowledge...which is the knowledge to be proud that my parents didn't submit me to such torture against my will as a child just to conform to social pressure.

I've seen the arguments about sensation, whether it means much during sex or not. Well plain and simple my foreskin isn't devoid of nerves, therefore I have more sensation, more fun.

What your SO likes would vary of course, but I find it fun to play with my foreskin. Feels good and it's something else to change it up when I masturbate or played with during sex.

Natural lube for both sex and masturbation. This is probably the biggest boon so far, when I was younger and more embarrassed about masturbation I would have been a lot more limited if I had to use lube...or hurt myself if I didn't. Even now I can masturbate easier. I've played with lube out of curiosity, and the extra mess it makes is not fun. Hasn't happened to me but I can imagine running into a woman who doesn't have enough natural lubrication and the foreskin making the difference in sex.

Protection...from everything. Won't save me so much a kick in the nuts but from clothing, dry air, etc. When a penis doesn't have a foreskin the head gets thicker to compensate. That extra sensation may mean a lot when I'm older and less sensitive.

Hygiene has never ever been a problem. Not once. I enjoy touching and cleaning my penis in the shower anyways, even when I'm not masturbating. I'm already cleaning my pubic region anyways, it takes all of a few extra seconds for cleaning. No downside there.

The only downside at all has been being different and a little embarrassed when I was younger. But that downside has turned into an upside and one that I gladly have paid for all the benefits. That slight embarrassment lasted a few years and I'll be living with my penis a lot longer than that.

Having to write all that was why I didn't want to write more in the first place, and the sides seem to be pretty well drawn, but I hope this helps some.

xepherys

Wow, and again with the ignorant rantings... Zeraph, I circumcised my child. It has NOTHING to do with "social pressures". Generally I find the majority of people to be stupid, and therefore will not generally do anything simply because it is "the norm". I looked into it and made an educated decision. Why is that so difficult for some of you to wrap your minds around, that people can be intelligent, and still do something DIFFERENT that you?

Also, I am cut. I do NOT use lube when I masturbate. It has NEVER hurt. Why do people think this is neccesary for cut men?

spindles

just because people have been doing it/it is common practice does not lessen the barbarity of it. Perhaps it is time that society changed its mind...

maybe "pissed off" is a little strong, but the feelings are still valid.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Charlatan

First off... in what way was Zeraph being ignorant. He was stating his opinion just as much as you are. I suggest you take a step back and relax.

Second... great you made an educated decision. This does not mean it was the right... or even the wrong decision.

Part of what we are all reacting to here is that circumcision, in North America has been thoroughly socialized. Most don't question it in the slightest. In fact, many advocate for it despite the fact that they haven't even given it much thought.

You chose to cut your child... bully for you.

I still say it was an uneccessary act. What you did was the equivalent of removing a baby's appendix on the fear that one day it might burst. Heck, we don't need an appendix and it can potentially cause problems, let just get that sucker out of the kids belly now.

Was that the right decision? Maybe... hard to tell since the appendix will never have a chance to be bad or benign. Is it going to harm the kid, maybe, maybe not.

Was it neccessary at that juncture? No.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ustwo

Here is the key gents.

Most women I know like the look of cut, and they are the ones who enjoy looking at the thing.

You can argue all you like, but I don't reall care, I care about the ones who will be playing with it. Sure maybe its just cultural, but its my culture, and if it makes them suck it more, then its a good thing.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ngdawg

I take offense to being called a mutilator to my kid. And as for the 'he didn't give permission' to have it done', he didn't give permission for a lot of the decisions I've had to make over the years-all made based on my own knowledge and judgement.
And some of these comments look like there's some deepseated anger towards the parents of the posters, some from the same people who, as adults, did do alterations and in some cases bodily mutilations that are permanent(me included with tattoo and piercings) to themselves. As I said before, what you never had you don't miss-and using 'what-if's' is useless.

Now, just as a sidenote to those who mentioned girls-my daughter was born with a condition that caused her labia to fuse. Should I have left it? There, as with my son, decisions had to be made. We made what were the right ones at the time and neither has suffered for it so why are you so adamant to try and make ME suffer for the choices?

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Grasshopper Green

Hopefully by the time my son is older, this won't be an issue. With fewer boys being circ'd, girls growing up right now will probably be used to seeing both.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

Zeraph

I never said that as an all encompassing statement. I was only glad MY parents didn't conform. That does not mean that anyone who does cut their child has done it just to conform...if youre going to get nasty make sure you fully comprehend what youre screaming at.


And I can drive with flat tires

spindles

You'll never know if he misses it, as it is already gone. What you suggest with that is that "ignorance is bliss". It in no way (to my mind) validates the choice to have this surgery.

Who said kids should get permission for the decisions you make? I sure as hell didn't ask my son whether he should be vaccinated, but he is.

Circumcision seems like a no-brainer decision to me:
* are there any real benefits for this surgery? if no - don't do it.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Leto

nope not a croc of shit. just not a big deal. and aesthetics is as good a reason as any.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Sweetpea

I personally feel that it's a form of mutilation... and for non-religious folk... people only do it because 'it's always been done that way....'

And if i had a son, i would not choose to have this procedure performed. It was thought at one point in time to be more 'clean' ... but it's been proven that proper washing of the penis is all that is nessasary, just like any other part of your body.

My husband has not been circumcised and i prefer it that way to the other men i've been with who were.

If it known that men who have had the procedure performed experience lower sensitivity during both masturbation and intercourse...

In some ways... those men who have been circumcised were cheated of the amazing sexual sensations they could have had.


"Circumcision Diminishes Sensitivity

“Research published last year in the British Journal of Urology may well explain the links between circumcision, frequent masturbation and oral sex, however. A group of doctors headed by Dr. John R. Taylor at the University of Manitoba discovered that the small sheath of foreskin tissue removed during circumcision is filled with extremely sensitive nerve endings and mucus membrane cells. The head of the penis itself is extremely insensitive to light touch, although it can be stimulated by heavy touch, they found. That lack of sensitivity in the head of the penis may well account for an increased need by circumcised men for the more intense stimulation that masturbation and oral sex can provide, according to Dr. Robert Van Howe...”

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/sex-cut-uncut.htm

I am of the opinion that is a silly cultural norm (for non-religious folk) that has been put into place and remains unnessasary to this day and indeed cheats men out of increased sexual pleasure.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

tspikes51

Let me shake things up a bit. How about if I say that if I could get anesthesia (and yes, I know that they probably wouldn't give it to me), and there was a way for me not to get wood for a couple of days afterwards, I'd probably opt for it today if I hadn't had it done already. It straight up just looks better to me, and I just have to worry about ball sweat. Then again, I'm biased a bit I guess.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

Ustwo

Ummmm so the reason guys who are circumcised jack off and like BJ's is because sex doesn't do it for them?

Well I can't speak for all men, but this is not an issue for me, hell sometimes I wish Mr. Happy was a bit less sensative in sex if you know what I mean

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

kangaeru

I had a talk with my parents when I was 11 or 12 about getting circumcised.

It's hard when you're a kid changing in the locker room for the first time and you hear kids making circumcision jokes about you...it really sucks.

But in the end, I decided not to have it done...and I'm glad my parents left the choice up to me. If anything, it's made me more comfortable with myself. I'm almost 21 now, in college, and most girls are PROBABLY not expecting to see Mr. Winky wearing a hoodie, but you know what, I don't give a fuck and I have an awesome sex life anyways.

If anything, having to deal with the ridicule and untrue but widely believed social stigmas about being uncircumcised, in the end it's made me more confident and mature.

I definitely would not circumcise my own son, if for no other reason than it's a life lesson in being comfortable in your own skin.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

Arsenic7

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.

__________________
This is no sig.

rlynnm

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

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

__________________
The hardest thing is to be honest with yourself, especially if that means completely redefining the world you've come to know.

Don't look too hard, I'm right in front of you.

hulk

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.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

stevie667

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

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

hulk

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

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

yster

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?

highthief

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

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Leto

cheers!

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Charlatan

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.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

meembo

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.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

Gatorade Frost

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.

__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips

Charlatan

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).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

xepherys

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*

Charlatan

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?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

xepherys

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!

xepherys

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.

Himbo

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%

Charlatan

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 hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

xepherys

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:



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.

ASU2003

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.