Is the circumcision of a boy mutilation?
 

I say Hell no - it's a common practice here in America, and it's done while they are too young to remember anything about it. It's a lot more sanitary and reduces your risk of getting penile cancer greatly.

Hahaha yeah it is. A dirty old man is fondling little boy penis!

Ahahahaha

EDIT: yeah but seriously it isn't. If it were, then all doctors who treat children are pedophiles.

P.S. circumcision doesn't make it any more sanitary.

It does not reduce the risk of penile cancer. Penile cancer is extremely rare and there is no study proving it reduces the risk. There are several statistical studies that show any difference in cancer rates between the circumcised and non-circumcised is unmeasurable chatter.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

Meanwhile, if you read pro-circumcision lit, it reads like tin foil stuff, the studies are all "against the truth", it's all shaped by doctors with a "political agenda". Very little data to back it up.

No, I think she meant is it abuse, the way we think of the removing of the clitoris in some african tribes is abuse...

Of course, it's hard to interpret a two sentence OP!

As for the issue... I'm on the fence. I'm clearly used to them being circumcised, but I can't think of a good reason to do so.

I believe so. You cutting off a part of a boy's genital's.

You can't do this to women. There are actual laws protecting your girls against this type of act. But nothing for boys.

Circumcision doesn't benefit young boys in any way. That is the conclusion from post 2000 studies done on the subject from un-biased researchers.

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3475

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

*Circumcision has serious risks. These include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, shock, penile disfigurement, penile amputation, and even occasional death. The complication rate for this unnecessary procedure is estimated to be 2-10%.

*Circumcision confers no proven health benefits. An intact penis is easy to clean and care for. Some studies show that it increases risk of infections or disease transmission. The few studies that indicate some health benefits all have serious flaws in terms of population selection.

*Circumcision permanently changes the way an infant will later experience sex and sexuality. It removes several square inches of functional, healthy tissue including 10,000-20,000 nerve endings. Removal of this many nerves and this much tissue damages the ability to feel sexual pleasure. Problems later in life can include lack of sensation, chafing, lack of arousal, frustration, and problems due to insufficient lubrication.

*Circumcision is painful. It involves tearing away and amputating highly sensitive tissue that was physically attached to the head of the penis. The procedure causes excruciating pain and can send infants into shock. Babies who have been circumcised are significantly more likely to have problems breast-feeding, and they demonstrate heightened pain responses months later.

*Circumcision hurts everyone. There is evidence that female partners of circumcised men experience less pleasure during intercourse, and may be subject to more frequent vaginal tearing and urinary tract infections.

*Although circumcision holds a traditional place in Jewish and Islamic culture, today's hospital circumcision bears little resemblance to religious ceremonies. 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. In fact, there is no hygienic justification for removing healthy tissue in either gender.

*There is already a federal law protecting female children from genital cutting, modification, or piercing of any kind. Boys have a 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 child 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 60% today.

Let's just say, I'm happy to have the hood.

you'll have to back those up with facts.

I've not seen anything that corroborates that at all.

Thanks for the links.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry about the wrong wording.

What a strange way to make your point...

Here's a question: Is female circumcision abuse? It is a common practice in parts of Africa. LINK

It does not make the penis anymore sanitary than a woman who does not wash herself (i.e. a penis with a foreskin + soap and water = a clean penis). The link to cancer has been proven false.

As for being too young... I could remove baby boy's nipples at birth. They are young and won't remember, they don't need them... so I say take them off.

Hospitals for a time, used to do them to every boy. They also used to advocate bottle feeding your kids. Today they will not perform them unless requested.

Basically, sexual abuse is a misnomer in this case.

It would have been better to say 'is circumcision ritualistic mutilation?'

I don't see how anyone can say 'no' to that. That's pretty much a definition of circumcision.

I don't see the logic behind removing a part of the body that it is normal to be born with. It's like saying that ten fingers is too many and we can afford to lose a few.

In most cases it is an unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery performed before the subject is old enough to give consent. If cutting of a part of a baby's genitals out of some weird sense of tradition isn't abuse, I don't know what is.

It is abusive. It's SICK.

I will not allow any sons I may have to be strapped down and mutilated. There is no rationalization or reasoning I would ever believe that makes this in any way okay.

I'm genital mutilated, like most guys. I don't hate my parents for doing it, because I don't believe it ever occured to them not to. I have to excuse thier behavior because I believe it was done in ignorance.

Only recently are we coming out of the dark ages on this particular subject. There is no valid reason to strap a child down and cut off parts of his genitalia.

The linked video below is of a boy being mutliated by a doctor. Why a parent would do this, I don't understand. The child is literally strapped down in a seat made just for this particular horror. His penis is then clamped with one tool, then ripped apart with other sharp tools. The infant's body is wracked with pain as he's mutilated. It makes me sick to see this.

Video of mutilation << Video requires RealPlayer... Sorry about that.

The amount of hypocracy surrounding this practice continues to amaze me. It's barbaric and senseless.

I agree that it's unnecessary ... but I have to ask: of the male respondents, are any of you circumcised?

I don't believe there is any recent scientific reasoning to support benefits of male circumcision, but I still don't consider it "abuse"; though it is a religious ritual for sure and I think it fits "ritualistic mutilation".

Most of my friends cringe when I tell them about this ...but my two year younger brother and I were born in Austria in 1949 and 1951 to Catholic parents and circumcision was not all that common or generally done to all. When we came to the U.S. and were being examined by the pediatricians of the day back in the mid 50's, they recommended that my brother and I be circumcised. So I had it done when I was almost 10 years old. Other than the potential pain and suffering of which I barely had any of that, I think I prefer mine to be circumcised, though I have never lived as an adult with mine in the OEM version.

I never heard about this variation until the recent news in NY State about one of the orthodox Jewish variations on circumcision. I found it quite odd that their ritual involves the moyle sucking the bloody wound of the baby ...maybe I'm weird for even thinking that's weird?! But it's in the news since apparently one moyle could have transmitted herpes to a couple of babies by this procedure.


my edit: when my two boys were born, now they're 9 & 10yo, we had them circumcised at home by a moyle even though I'm not Jewish and while my wife is of Jewish heritage, her family is absolutely NOT religious at all. We thought we wanted it done and it was safer doing it at home.

I'm not circumcised, and I'm kinda glad I'm not.

I can just pull the skin back if I want to pretend I'm circumcised :)

Yes. I am circumcised.

The responses are interesting.

After due consideration and reading of the current literature, my wife and I decided to have our son circumcised.

I am but I'm undecided as to whether my son (if I have one) will be.

I do find it interesting that men who are circumcised feel strongly that you shouldn't be. I always thought that there wasn't a good enough reason to do that to a little baby, but because it's so societally accepted here, there wasn't a reason necessary.

But as I'm not a man, with all of the expectations on me about how my penis is supposed to look, what do I know? All I do know is that it does seem equivalent to slicing off the clitoris, and that is a horrible thought. Why do that to a poor baby boy?

I'm circumsized.. I like it. I guess it's just what I've always pictured as being normal. When I see an uncut penis.. it just looks odd to me. (no offense to anyone with a hood.)

Now, do I think it's wrong?? TBH, I've never really given it much thought. I've never studied up on the reasoning(s) behind the practice so I couldn't really give any answer other than.. "I have no fucking clue."

I don't think it's abuse. It's unnecessary surgery. I asked my parents why they had it done to me, and the reason came back that my father was circumcized, and so he wanted me to be the same. I'm not angry about it; it hasn't negatively affected my life, but I won't be having it done to any sons I have, because it IS unnecessary.

I don't get this comparison. Cutting off a teeny piece of skin covering is soooo far from cutting off a functioning part of the genitalia. While the skin has some minor sensory functionality, to me ...OK - I'm male... the clitoris seems to be much more significant in this regard and therefore, MUCH more significant of a mutilation.

It's just what you're used to. In this country, circumcision isn't anything like as usual as it is over in the US.

JustJess, it's not equivalent to having your clitoris sliced off, that would be the same as cutting off the glans... think of it more like having the hood that covers your clitoris taken off.

I know that what we understand as 'female circumcision' isn't exactly the same as it is in the case of males, but if you're looking for the conceptual equivalent, that - to my understanding - would be it.

Completely unnecessary.

nope not abuse. Necessary? not any longer. was it ever necessary? maybe not. But i was done as a matter of medical practice when I was born. The women of my past and present all seemed to have prefered it that way too. All of them in discussion have claimed that. Were they telling the truth? hard to say. Just as I would not have complained about their physical configuration while I was in a relationship with them as well.

My sons (all three) are circumsized. Would I do it now? Probably not. But It's not a big issue, and all three are comfortable with the situation.

*yawn* there are more important things to worry about.

For those wondering what female circumcision is exactly... you can click on this link to wikipedia: LINK

I just don't know why anyone would do something so uneccesary.

Male and female circumcision are equivalent as far as both practices being mutilating.

Although, is there not a situation where some men are actually unable to roll the foreskin back because it is too tight to fit over the glans? My understanding is that it makes intercourse painful, and cleaning next to impossible. I believe circumcision is used in such cases. Though I might be wrong.

The last female circumcision in America, according to that article was done in 1958???? I am continually amazed by how backwards we have been, and how recently.

Talk about barbaric:

:eek:

Circumcision is done (or recommended) in this case but that would be because the proceedure is medically neccessary.

It's a bit different from taking the foreskin from a baby who has no say in the matter, for no other reason than either a) religion or b) aesthetics.

Yea, I do see the distinction.

I was just bringing it up because it shows that not every circumcision is unnecessary.

i am cut too...........an hold no grudge towards my parents.


but i gotta say,i'm so fucking glad that my son didn't have to scream and go through the pain that poor little boy did in that vid.


....there's no need for it.

I thought long and hard when I found out I was having a boy.. His father is circumcised and said hell, yea, he's getting it too. I had been with one uncircumcised man and, while he was probably not the norm, I hated it-he was unclean. But I wasn't sure it was necessary. I decided for it.
Not all doctors or hospitals strap a baby down like a scene out of a Vincent Price movie and hack away. While I did not witness my son's, they did bring him to me right after and he wasn't even crying. There was almost no blood on the bandage either.
As for some of those 'facts' posted, he had NO problem breast feeding, didn't have 'heightened pain response' later on. Every man I've been with besides the one have been circumcised and never complained about lack of sensation, lack of lubrication(isn't that partly my job?) or lack of arousal.
It is one of the most agonizing decisions to make while pregnant. MIght have helped if I could have learned about the care that goes with leaving the foreskin intact, but I didn't have a clue, except Mr. Icky.

That's because he didn't wash, not because he had a foreskin. I find this attitude completely irreconcilable. I just don't get the fascination with lopping off something all men are born with for no reason whatsoever. It strikes me that losing your foreskin is commensurate with a loss of sensation in the head of the penis. It stands to reason, since I'm uncut and I can barely stand it to be touched directly. If it was exposed all the time, I'd feel nothing like what I do now. While you might think that's great from a stamina point of view... I'm not convinced. And I'm quite capable of lubicrating myself, thanks.

I don't believe that it is abuse. It's certainly not necessary, but I don't have a problem with anyone who makes the choice to have their son circumcized. It doesn't inhibit sexual function or pleasure in any way. As far as I see it, that's what sets it apart from clitoral mutilation or female genital mutilation in general.

I don't view it as sexual abuse, but I see no reason for it unless you have religious convictions for it. I watched a video in my human sexuality class in 1998 that showed a baby being circumcised; I vowed then and there that no son of mine would ever go through that. Thankfully, hubby didn't see any reason for it either, and it was never an issue when my son was born.

I was born in the 70s in Midwest America to white parents. There was no way I was going to not get circumcised. There was probably some family influence, since all of my cousins had it done. I think my parents weren't looking out for my best interests and were just following the crowd. I doubt they even thought twice about not having it done. And the doctors here are more than willing to make the extra $200 for 15 minutes of work.

I would say it is sexual abuse. It demonstrates the power that adults have over a child. A baby can't defend himself or say he doesn't want it done. And I don't see 90% of European males getting circumcised when they are old enough to consent to the surgery. It's the boy's body to decide what to do with as he pleases. There is no reason to cut it off, even the religious ones. The Jewish people used to just make a small cut on the top of the skin and let some blood drip out.

Hopefully as people learn more about this, I hope their attitudes change. The circumcision rates have dropped quite a bit in the past 10 years. All I know is my son(s) will be left with all of their pieces.

I wouldn't say sexual abuse. Genital mutilation is a better term. I have no problem with it being performed when necessary, but doing it just for shits and giggles is retarded. It's tradition? So fucking what? Traditional medicine also involved bleeding people to cure them. Let's do that too! Circumcision at birth is complete idiocy. FUCKING STUPID IDEA.

just to clear up a few things..female circumcision is done to prevent the female from reaching orgasm by destroying the clitoris. this is supposed to prevent them from having sexual intercourse with other men because they would be deprived of the pleasures of sex..

whereas male circumcision is more of a cleanliness issue to most. i know for a fact that from a religious point of view both jews and muslims practice it to all their boys... theoretically anyways. i'm chopped and ive never had a prob with it. ive never had any flashbacks or anything freaky like that. i think myself as 'normal' ... i think...:D

It was the smegma under the foreskin that was gross-yes, because he didn't wash, I believe I said that. Really no reason to get.....uh...snippy.

From the information I've seen, it's the trimming of the labia, not the clitoris.

ng: Haha I love awful puns. ^_^

My $.02:

I was circumcised and honestly, I'm glad. I think aesthetically it's a better choice. My family really doesn't have a religious reason, I figure it's just what was normal when I was born.

Honestly, if I'd been able to make the choice back then, I'd have chosen to get snipped. Knowing what I do now, I see that the only one of my friends that was supposedly uncircumcised got teased pretty bad, even in high school.

I don't really know if I'll be having children, so it's not an especially important issue in my future, but I do know that if I had a son, I'd most likely get him circumcised. Not because I am, but just because I know that it CAN be very difficult in this area to grow up un-cut.

So, in summation, no, I don't think it's abuse. It's simply a matter of opinion.

i'm happily uncircumcised. Hate to go on a tangent, but i disagree with circumcision even for religious reasons. Doing it at birth seems like a way to guarantee a population within the religion. waiting until an individual has the choice to go through circumcision would make the process actually meaningful to that person religously and spiritually.

Having spoken with a rabbi on the matter, I found out that most Jewish Rabbi go with a "free hand" operation that's relatively fast, where as hospitals use a device called a 'bell clamp' which involves strapping the child so it is immobile. It's been awhile since i did the paper.

to clarify on female circumcision: it's a regional thing. In some regions it involves "trimming" the labia, while in other's it involves a full removal of the clitoris. Learned this in anthropolgy from a professor who saw the operations performed.

heh. not a big deal. I'm cut. there's no issue. not irreconcilable at all. I am still incredibly sensitive, and yes, my partners have preferred it. but again, it is not a big issue.

One of the benifits of being circumcised.

I've never had to use the word "smegma" in relation to my person.

As has been said It's unnecessary.

To me it is equivalent to cutting off our childrens pinky fingers and toes, because, hey, they are unnecessary, and doing so lowers their chance of developing PINKY cancer or hurting their PINKY or sticking their pinky in their ass, not washing their hands, and comming down with a case of STINKY PINKY!

Also, to prevent confusion, the most common form of female circumcision is almost completely analogous to male circumcision...it is just the removal of the clitoral hood.

And yet one is mutilation and the other "normal" here.

Also, for the parents who want it done to their son when they are young because THEY had it done...why not let the child decide when he is an adult? Shouldn't it be his decision? You know those parents you've heard about who pierced their baby's ears or nose? How'd you react to that? What if a parent decided they wanted to tattoo their baby because it was family tradition?

Many cultures do, in fact, pierce their daughter's ears as babies or tattoo their children. We here pierce every part of our bodies, tattoo til there's barely plain skin left. Culturely speaking, those are relatively benign.
I'm on the fence about circumcision as I do think it's a involuntary body modification that the child doesn't choose-yet I chose it done to him. Do I feel guilty? Very small part of me does. Keep in mind though, it is a more serious procedure done to an adult and one in which the pain of it would be remembered. My son was done his second day and by the time we all went home on their sixth day, there wasn't even a bandage. To those who complain their parents 'destroyed' their genitalia I would say two things: 1)we did the best we could with the knowledge we had and 2) you can't miss what you never experienced. Get over it.

I'm not really sure why people are so vehemently against it. Also, using examples like "Traditional medicine also involved bleeding people to cure them. Let's do that too!" is really bad. A lot of the modern things that are "right" or "better" really aren't. A lot of traditional medicine is actually coming back. Bleeding? Leeches? Both have acceptable medical uses. What about all those great drugs and antibiotics docs love pumping into us nowadays... that must be WAY better becuase it's modern.

I hate it when people get preachy because the "old" ways are cruel and horrible and the "new" ways are enlightened and better. People probably thought that when they burned witches at the stake, too. I guess it all comes back to "to each their own". It doesn't really cause any problems, so if the family prefers it, so be it.

I'm circumcised... as are both of my sons. I thik it's beneficial. You can show studies that say it's not... there are studies that say it is. Regardless, studies and statistics mean just about zilch these days. You can get financial backing for and professioanl acceptance of even the most bullshit of studies.

I'm just astonished. I shouldn't even be posting, because I'm no where near the "responsible" place someone should be when typing.

The one thing I can do, as opposed to arguing with at least half the lot of you, is comment on what just blows me away.

It's the causuality with which most of you are like "oh hell, just snip it off, they don't remember it." Or, "I'm not hearing any complaints from cut men."

Utter astonishment. That's all I'm capable of right now. That and disgust.

I'm astonished more that a large group of people, that I normally consider more intelligent than the general populace, are just so "bleh, cut it" about the whole thing. Like, it's really not a big deal at all.

Amazing. Sick, and barbaric, but amazing.

The whole thread is proof that this tradition of male genital mutilation is so ingrained that intelligent people will set aside thier better reason, and move ahead unfettered.

You know, it's amazing the types of things that can end up being discussed in a political science class...such as the time last term where we spent about half a class of mine talking about this :p.

Anyway, objectively I'm forced to take the position that it is genital mutilation. There is no reason for it whatsoever, and the fact it is so entrenched into society - especially American society - doesn't even remotely resemble an excuse for the procedure.

Admittedly, I think circumcised penises look better (to the degree to which I am capable of thinking a penis looks good :p), but that is a matter of socialization. The fact I have grown up in a society where circumcision is the norm and have, therefore, been socialized to find it more aesthetically pleasing does not change the fact that it is the unnecessary mutilation of genetalia.Completely agreed.

I'm with you, buddy.

Sheeple. It's like when I talk to my grandma and she says something like " I can't believe they let niggers vote now."

It's the accepted belief of the time that people refuse to consider deeply enough to change. Sheer ignorance.

I can already feel the ban, so I might as well add that there is nothing people hate more than being called ignorant. Especially parents. Because hell, it's their child, right? They know everything.

I have nothing but disdain for people who claim to research the topic and still go ahead and remove part of their baby's natural anatomy. And it's purely a fucked up, cultural thing that has no bearing on reality.

If a doctor circumcised my child, I would kill him. It's that simple.

It's called Phimosis, and I'm a sufferer. Although I don't really see it that way. My foreskin rolls back far enough in order to keep everything clean and there's no pain during intercourse as long as she's naturally lubricated. There are ways to stretch the skin manually or using a cortizone cream applied daily, resulting in the skin being able to move freely over the glans over time. The problem is that men suffering from this condition have never had their glans exposed and thus it is extremely sensitive. More exposure would result in an obvious loss in sensation, but I dont know if I'm willing. I think I'm more afraid of sex becoming less pleasurable and not being able to get my sensitivity back once lost.

As for the OP, I think circumcision for the sake of doing it is unnecessary. Neither me or my Dad are and if I have a son I'm leaving him intact. If he wants to later on in life or when he becomes sexually active, I'll have no problem with it. I think it should be a choice. Not the default.

Same here, and with my dad and youngest brother. I was snipped at a very young age, and have never really noticed any side effects. I'm sure as hell not embarrased about it, nor do I miss the extra skin.

I think the whole issue is overblown, actually. There was one member above who advocated murder as a response to small-scale, voluntary medical procedure. Several others decrying it as the worst form of child abuse around. I don't know about you, but I can think of many, MANY things worse to do to a child.

The procedure, however, could be a lot nicer. From here:
Ouch, yo. That's not so much a question of cultural/religious ethics as a question of medical ethics, I think. I was under general anesthetic for my operation, which I assumed was the norm. Hence, the results of the studies on post-traumatic stress and long-term mental health may be more a result of a painful procedure at a young age than circumcision itself.

Do I think it's mutilation. no. Just like I don't think piercings or tattoos are mutilation. I was snipped as a child and yeah all those bad side affects have Never been experienced by myself or any of the men that I've known over my life, because of this I would say that there is nothing wrong with it. Then again some one older and wiser then I found enough people willing to say yes this hurt there life to say that circumcision has negative affects. I've never even actually heard of those side affects in till I read this post. Some feel very strongly about this subject though and that surprises me as well.

Sexual abuse?!? To me it is about religious belief nothing to do with that at all. But if you want to talk pain, I know someone who became religeous as an adult, I think he was 31, when he had his circumcision.

I'm not sure killing the doctor would be the best, but I wouldn't let it happen in the first place.

It's the whole attitude of "It's good enough for me, then it must be good for him." logic that doesn't make sense to me. Yes, we circumcised men are damaged, evolution created the foreskin for a reason and we lost it. But just because our parents made a mistake, doesn't mean that we have to repeat it. Education and knowledge about this will help reduce the numbers. However, I could never be friends with anybody who watched the video of it being performed, and still went ahead and did it to their son.

The other thing is, I wonder why this never gets talked about on TV? You would think the Discovery Health Channel could do a show about the most common surgery in America.

you're asigning too much of a deal to it.

carry on with life.

The big difference is that the piercings and tattoos that you are refering to were done by adults with their concent.

Circumcision is done to a baby.

Answer this: Would you tattoo your baby?

It comes up as a hot topic every now and then. I remember there were a lot of investigative reports in the mid 80's on this. The one thing that is permanently etched in my mind are the "oopsies".

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ...r/horror.shtml

There is risk with every surgery. A slip of the wrist and junior's genetalia is damaged.

The thing that bothers me about the studies that favor circumcision is that they defend, rather than show proof. And a good many of them choose to label opposing studies as anti-semetism.

Penn and Teller did a great Bullshit! episode on this.

Everything I have ever read clearly states that foreskin helps sexual arousal, helps enjoyment and prolongs the male orgasm.

But I wouldn't know...... I'm not a freak my parents made sure I was circumsized so that I wouldn't look funny in the showers at school..... which is weird because at our school very rarely did they allow us to shower after gym class in JHS and SHS.... which sucked if you had gym early in the day.

Uh, I'm not sure why you said this...

But anyway, as someone else pointed out, this is hardly a good idea. Just like pro-lifers who kill abortion doctors, this would do nothing but hurt your cause and your future. Absolutely nothing good would come of it. In fact, it would only strengthen the idea that you're just a messed up person for challenging the social norm and no one would even consider that you may be correct. Not to mention, as much as circumcision is genital mutilation, it is also not likely to negatively effect your child in the long run. Pretty silly to kill someone over what basically amounts to piercing your child's ear in terms of the most likely long-term negative effects (I say this knowing there can be serious complications but also noting that they are not overwhelmingly common).

I love how people who agree with something that happens to be the social norm these days are ALWAYS sheep (sheeple). I'm intelligent, and I made a decision. It was based on several beliefs and facts. I didn't circumcise my son because the kids next door are (I have no idea hoenstly). I did it because I felt it was the right choice for my child. Just because you don't like it doesn't make ME wrong. What disgusts me is the utter lack of tolerance some people have for other people's views. That, and the Dutch. Oh wait, sorry. But all kidding aside, you cannot assume someone is ignorant and making a "follow tha pack" decision SOLELY because that decision happens to be the common one. That itself is ignorant.

Neither have i, yet the boys are still happily intact :hmm:
Can't go blaming poor hygene on this ya know.

Personally, why on earth would you want to circumsize (baring medical reasons)? You couldn't go thinning out your sack, you wouldn't lop off your earlobes, so why mutilate jr?

ig·no·rant Audio pronunciation of "ignorant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.


I just want to throw this out there. I didn't realize that making a decision based on what you read or believe is ignorant.

Seriously, what's the big harm of circumsision?? Does it do permanant damage to the child. ( I don't want to hear yes because it takes off a little piece of skin.) Boo friggin hoo. If that's the case then please don't let your kid ride a bike or participate in sports because it could cause damage to that child. I have yet to meet a man who said that circumsision caused his problems in life or it had some profound effect on him. So unless someone can show me facts supporting long term problematic effects then it's simply a decision that is made by the parents. The parents are the care takers. The parents decide (until old enough) what is best for the child. If a parental unit decides circumsision is the right choice for their child.. then fine. If they don't .. then fine. It shouldn't really make a difference. A penis is a penis.

guccilvr is right on the money. In fact, as a parent it's 100% our job TO make decisions for our children. So yes, we do this to babies. We make our children do chores to. In fact, most of them woudl CHOOSE not to if left to their own accord. We make them study, we ground them, maybe spank them, give them time outs, make them eat their peas and all sorts of other nasty things. And we say, "While you under our roof, you play by our rules", and it should be that way until they are out on their own (read not just until age 18). We make those decisions using the information provided to us and our own logic and thoughts. As I said above, just becuase you disagree doesn't make us wrong.

Seriously, what's the big harm of Infibulation?

As a parent, I've decided that it is best for my young daughter to have her vulva sewn shut by the process of Infibulation. It will not effect the use -- we will leave a small enough hole for her to urinate and to expel menstal blood (when the time is right). In the meantime she will be safe from getting raped.

I can't believe more people don't do this in North America. She is young so she feels no pain and she won't know what she is missing. Most importantly, she will be safe from rape. My culture does it all the time. I don't understand what the big deal is.

I don't see the correlation between seing something shut with possible permanent side effects and snipping of a relatively small flap of flesh that has NO PROVEN permanent side effects. Can you make a reasonable argument that compares one to the other? No apples to oranges thanks!

Charlatan.. I have to admit.. I laughed while reading your reply. Now I'm not trying to offend you.. it's just that infibulation is much more intrusive than circumsision. Circumsision doesn't take away the right to have a fully functioning organ. I totally see the other side of this argument and how it's not necessary and all that. I just feel that for some to claim it's ignorant and barbaric is.. well.. ignorant at best. There is no real argument on why you <i>shouldn't</i> do this and there's no real argument on why you </i>should</i> do this. So that makes it null and leaves it up to the parents. Different cultures believe different things. I can't condemn some tribe who performs circumsision on girls or whatever they do because that's what they know. It's their belief system. In this society it's seen as normal for boys to be circumsized. Why?? It's been ingrained. Is it necessary? I've already answered this. No. But like I said.. unless it does something to the child that is mind altering or causes more than a few seconds of pain.. then I fail to see the problem. I'm glad my parents chose to have me circumsized.

I guess it all comes down to individual <b>belief structure</b> in the end. I believe it's ok. You don't. I won't say you're wrong, because you aren't, you just have a different structure. :D

The way I see it, my daughter is protected from rape and she can have the skin re-opened when she reaches the age of concent.

It doesn't change the function or the use of her vagina. It protects her and she feels nothing.

Imagine how embarrased she would be when we live in Africa if she doesn't look like all that other little girls in the village.

Ultimately, it really is my choice right? I am the parent and she is a baby.

It seems to me that if there is no reason to do it... why do it.

Unless you have a covanent with God... i.e. you are a Jew, there is no reason for this proceedure.

With the exception of religion, is see no cultural reason for doing this proceedure. The only reason I see is aesthetic or because I want to.

These are not good enough reasons.

I happen to like the look of pointed ears. Perhaps I should have my baby's ears surgically modified to be pointy. It won't affect her hearing and she will look cooler than all the other kids in her daycare.

For me, it's aesthetic. I think my penis is prettier without a turtle neck and because of that I'm glad my parents circumcised me when I was born. I don't actually remember being circumcised, and in fact I never even realised it until I was in middle school and I was like "Oh... Circumcision? I guess so."

With the knowledge I have now, I wouldn't circumcise my son, but mainly because I'd be worried that he would grow up and then bitch at me for circumcising him, not because I think it does any actual harm.

As I'm reading this thread, I'm eating a bag of pork rinds ...fried pork skins... I love these things but I have to watch I don't get my keyboard too greasey. I keep thinking that they're probably all those foreskins fried up crispy by some enterprising person. Zero net carbs, too.

Obviously ...to me at least... for the general population male circumcision is gradually going the way of the dodo bird and for good reasons. But since it's a religious ritual for some, and IMO not harmful if done properly, it's here as long as the religious traditions are here.

:lol: You win!!!

Why thank you ;) but I doubt many of the folks in this thread would agree to end the debate on such a tasty note.

Is this the same as piercings? Because, really, that train of thought applies there too. ;)

She's too old now. Should have done it when she was a couple of days old. Now she'll have to wait til she's 18 :)
Bottom line is, probably 99.5% of what we do to our bodies is for aesthetics or ease of maintenance. Culture or 'how it's always been done' maybe the other .5%(at least in North America)

Well, if I have a daughter I am now making plans to have her labia minora chopped off. It doesn't really serve much of a purpose - no more than male foreskin at least - and I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing.

I'd love to see the outrage which would assuredly occur if I actually tried to have that done.

Doesn't having the labia or clitoris make sex painful for a female?

I agree. When she's old enough to ask for a piercing, I will take this under consideration. I don't think it is my place to pierce her ears (or anything) until she has some say in it.


That's absolutely true. The main difference is that as adults (or children or teenagers) we have some say in the proccess.

It isn't done without our permission.

I'm just as shocked as the posters above, but for a different reason.

Why should I see this is as mutilation? I happen to think that circumcised penises look better, and if pornography is any indicator.. so do a lot of people.

Furthermore, my parents circumcised me for health reasons, not religious reasons (my father is a rabid atheist). There was credible evidence (and still is credible evidence) that it provides a health benefit. Common sense alone tells me that a damp dark place is not as clean as an exposed area. Science most assuredly backs this claim (not penis cancer, those studies were not very well controlled -- but bacterial infections) and so I have no problem with it.

Female Genital Mutilation is either done out of ignorance or malice; male circumcision is usually neither. FGM is also done to remove pleasurable sensation s for women, whereas circumcision does not.

You're comparing apples and oranges -- it HAS to be done as a child, so there is no chance to ask them what they'd wish. It's not like tattooing, where you can wait 18 years and they can decide.

So in that respect, screw you. I like my exposed head. :)

Some additional research, for the skeptics (like me) among us.

Leto-

I appreciate you feel I’m spending too much time on this. However, I disagree, and will keep posting. You’re welcome to skip over my posts.

It’s tough for me to know where to start discussing this. There’s so much I want to touch on.

I’d like to start with the cleanliness topic. It has two components, one for women to pay attention to, and one for men.

I’m sure that those of you possessing vaginas have at one time or another been exposed to the idea that your vagina stinks. In fact, there’s an entire industry selling products (FDS, douches, etc.) to make your vagina “not stink.” If you’ve ever watched a stand up comedian talk about “eating pussy” then you’ve heard more comments about the “smell.” You’ve heard the “fish jokes,” and you’ve read the discussions on our own TFP where women struggle with men who do believe their partner’s vagina is “dirty” “smelly” etc. If fact, I’ve read threads and met both men and women, who refuse any kind of sex during menstruation because of various opinions centered on cleanliness. The words “gross” “icky” “disgusting” “smelly” are often used in these discussions.

I say all this to make perfectly clear that the loathing of the vagina’s natural smell and lubrication is well ingrained in our culture. Women deal with this every day. They struggle to educate men to the facts, yet support male genital mutilation for reasons of cleanliness. Such hypocrisy is so deep, it’s not even conscious.

So far as I know, we’re not in the common practice of slicing off labia majora to solve the issue of female odor. However, we are slicing off the foreskin to satisfy the same line of thinking. Any woman who rallies to circumcision’s cause is not only agreeing with the same thought that declares her vagina “smelly” and “dirty,” but she’s also exposing her hypocrisy if she has ever rejected the idea of her vagina as “smelly” or “dirty” in its natural state.

Men who rally to male genital mutilation for cleanliness reasons have now bought stock in the idea that a natural penis’ lubrication is unclean. Most men didn’t even know their penises were supposed to be able to lubricate. Yet, some of you talk about “no side effects…”

Let’s move on to the idea of choice.

Tattooing or piercing compared to male genital mutilation is an apples/oranges situation. But let’s address it anyway. Piercing, such as the ears of a young girl, is quite different than the removal of her earlobes or labia majora. Try having an infant’s clit pierced, and let me know what the police say.

Tattooing is only legal in this country at the age of adulthood, or with the parents permission. They are permanent body modifications that should be made by adults. They should not be made for a child unless solid reasons can be shown. It’s awfully challenging to think of valid reasons to pierce, tattoo, or perform genital mutilation on a child. Adults can modify their bodies at will.

I do not believe that parents who have chosen to mutilate their sons are “sheep.” They have looked (I dearly hope) at facts and made a choice based on their beliefs and own reason.

However, I do believe they’ve made the wrong choice. They’ve chosen to permanently modify their son’s penises from their natural condition, because they felt like it. The boys will not live healthier lives now because of it, nor will they experience the type of sexual pleasures they would have pre-mutilation. Their glans will not be protected nor nourished by the foreskin and its benefits.

It’s true that the rest of their sexual and genital functions will happen, and enable someone to say “there’s no side effects.” Similarly, if I surgically cut off a finger, close after birth, I could say there were no side effects; or, sliced off the female’s labia majora. The fact is a large portion of the penis’ functional structure has been arbitrarily cut off. The penis functions without the hood, but not as nature intended. As it’s done without consent at birth, very few mutilated men can make the basis for a comparison cut/uncut.

As to appearance: We’ve been socialized to believe the cut penis is better looking. Women as well as men. Just like we’ve been socialized to believe in bigger tits, smaller stomachs, narrower hips, and fuller lips. In fact, such a large portion of us have cut penises, most of us didn’t know there was a different way to be, until we saw “that weirdo” in the locker room. Given the intense social pressures to fit in, it’s no small wonder we’re happy we’re all one big mutilated bunch, especially at that age.
I’d also like to go out on a limb an say there’s some latent anger at the mutilation that’s transferred to sons. I hardly would say fathers are conscious of it, but there’s certainly something sick about the train of thought “I’m mutilated, so he’s going to be too.” Further exploration of that train of thought should reveal that Dad doesn’t have a base awareness that he is “mutilated.” He’s accepted his disfigurement by his parents all his life. Challenging that is a very complicated mental process.

It’s just a small flap of skin, and thus not a big deal. So are earlobes. Yet, it’s not aesthetically acceptable to cut off earlobes.

I’ve said what I have to say.

I fervently hope time does show, not that parents who’ve chosen to mutilate are wrong per se, but that the practice of societal endorsed mutilation is wrong.

Because a lot of people like something does not neccesarily make it right. And it proves nothing other than what the majority of males are having done (or not done) to them. European porn has a lot of uncircumcised penises what does that prove?


My parents circumcised me for health reasons. It was reason it was proscribed to the vast majority of babies in the past. Most of the reasoning behind this has been proven false or spurious at best.

Your common sense approach would suggest that all women should be dirty and/or bacteria ridden. The vagina is damp, dark place and excretes the same fluids (for lack of a more techincal term) as the glans below the foreskin do.

Soap and water. Say it with me. Soap and water.

I understand the urge to prepetuate this uneccessary proceedure upon our kids. Believe me. I am circumsized and when we had my son I had to think about it. Did I want my son to look different from me? In my mind, all I know is the circumsized penis.

After some thought and some discussion and some research... I decided to not have it done.

It was uneccessary. There was no pressing reason to have it done. Aesthetics and "just because I like it" is not a good enough reason.

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

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

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.

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...".

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. :hmm:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

:lol: :lol:

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?

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.

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 :lol:

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 :lol:

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.