Circumcision

[Caitlin.ann]

I do hear the 'intact is gross' which is an argument for aesthetics. The for hygiene is an excuse people often throw about as an added perk, but I don't think I have ever met someone who chose to circumcise their children for hygienic reasons. I am sure there are a few out there, but they have to be quite rare.

One of the worst reasons people seem to let slip around me is that their parents circumcised them, so it must be right. In other words, they are coping with the fact that their parents mutilated their penis, a very important and emotional part of their body, by doing the same thing to their children so as to prove it can't be wrong.

Sometimes, I wish those people never had children.

Most circumcised men I've heard from are glad they were circumcised. They think its more aesthetically pleasing as well, but also cite the hygiene and "my parents did it" reasoning too. I don't so much think its a coping mechanism. Being circumcised is all most of these people know, they can't necessarily imagine what it would be like to still have a foreskin. Most people don't miss what they never had, at least not until they realize what they're missing.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Circumcision is usually done for religious reasons, not for hygienic ones.

In the case of Judaism (but not Christianity you'll notice) religious laws and hygiene laws were the same, which is probably how it originated.

 

[Jade Margery]

Oh believe me, we women don't. We know all about the glorification of the phallus....aka the Center of the Universe. In all cutures of all time, it is THE symbol of power, domination, control and superiority. We females are well aware of just how inferior we and our genitals are. Any pleasure a woman may experience is secondary and of no import to the male, who derives his entire identity through his genitals. That's why men have vasectomies at half the rate women have tubals in spite of the fact that a tubal is way more invasive. It's why men fight tooth and nail to prevent any law that would require sex predators from being castrated. It's why men usually have fewer problems with abortion since it doesn't involve their precious organ. In short, no sharp objects should be allowed anywhere near a man's holy and sacred member. Yada, yada, yada.

You makin' us girls look bad. I'm getting a serious man-hate vibe here, and I feel very bad for you if all the men you have been with considered your pleasure 'secondary and of no import'. You're making a lot of unjustified generalizations.

-A good partner (of which I've had several) is VERY concerned with his lover's pleasure and will go to great lengths to encourage it, even doing things that are not directly pleasurable for him at all. (I suggest you find one.)

-No man derives his whole personality from his genitals. Seriously, have you ever met any real men?

-A man or woman can choose to be sterilized. Choice is a beautiful thing. Just because more women than men decide they don't want to have (any more) kids doesn't mean there's a huge difference in genital equality. No one is forced to have either procedure.

-I would be fine with the chemical castration of sex offenders, as well as the death penalty, if and only if our judicial system were infallible. It isn't, so we shouldn't enforce permanent punishments. On the other hand, it's hardly fair to say all men will fight tooth-and-nail against sex offender castration. I know many men, especially fathers, who are completely for it.

-Abortion is about a woman's choice. Circumcision -should- be about a man's choice. And it's absolutely about whose body is being affected.

-How about no sharp objects allowed without clear purpose and consent near anybody's anythings?

And your previous comments about reduced STI and HIV spread are, has been pointed out, supporting a permanent bodily modification to treat a problem that can easily be prevented by intelligent sexual practices--using a condom, washing regularly, and getting regular check-ups... for BOTH partners. The only place where circumcision could possibly be useful for health practices are places where condoms and health care are not available. I.E., nowhere in western civilization.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Actually the benefits and risks associated with circumcision (including hygiene) are so minuscule that circumcision is left up to parental discretion. Thats why you get a choice in whether you want an intact child or not. UTI, prostate cancer, etc. benefits are often exaggerated.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not so, male circumcision is done for hygiene reasons (I'm unsure so don't take my word for this) whilst female circumcision is done so the girl can feel no pleasure whatsoever during sex - the theory being that if she can't she will never be unfaithful.
In short boys are cut to keep them clean, girls are cut to punish them for adultery they haven't even commited.

No, you've misunderstood what principle I'm discussing. I'm talking about body modification without consent. That's the bottom line, that's the principle I'm talking about. Also, I can't speak for the rest of the world, but down here in the south, circumcisions are done for purely religious reasons. None other - not hygiene, not aesthetics, nor any other. Well, maybe so the "son can look like the father" bit, but the vast majority of the procedures are done because of religion.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No, you've misunderstood what principle I'm discussing. I'm talking about body modification without consent.

Ah, well that's what this entire thread has. Then we go back to the issue of how damaging having a foreskin verus not having a foreskin is and so on and so on. Most of us are repeating ourselves now.

 

[yasic]

Veritas,

I have never met anyone on here who supports rape or FGM.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah, well that's what this entire thread has. Then we go back to the issue of how damaging having a foreskin verus not having a foreskin is and so on and so on. Most of us are repeating ourselves now.

But that's not the point. Regardless of "how damaging" the procedure is/isn't, the point is it's done without consent. I'm sure some men are more "damaged" (perhaps psychologically) than others. This is not something I think about on a daily basis, I'm not seething with hatred and disgust for my parents, and I don't think I need professional help because of it. I simply think that anything, anything that isn't medically necessary can wait until the boy is old enough to make this particular decision for himself.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Hmm I do agree with the consent issue. Thats why I disagree with infant ear piercing.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Regardless of "how damaging" the procedure is/isn't, the point is it's done without consent. I'm sure some men are more "damaged" (perhaps psychologically) than others.

Forgive me if this sounds callous, but with an increase in plastic surgery many people seem preoccupied with what they look like. Some cases are ridiculous (people are willing to undergo surgery to give themselves 'elf ears'), some are out of vanity (women are willing to have the bones removed in their little toe. Why? So they can fit into fashionable shoes) and others seem to think that their lives will magically transformed by a tiny bit of surgery. I suspect a few circumcised men fit into that third category. Whether we think their fears are valid varies from person to person.

 

[OGM]

You makin' us girls look bad. I'm getting a serious man-hate vibe here, and I feel very bad for you if all the men you have been with considered your pleasure 'secondary and of no import'. You're making a lot of unjustified generalizations.

-A good partner (of which I've had several) is VERY concerned with his lover's pleasure and will go to great lengths to encourage it, even doing things that are not directly pleasurable for him at all. (I suggest you find one.)

Exactly Jade; thank you! Veritas, you stereotyping is making you come of like a misandrist.

No man derives his whole personality from his genitals. Seriously, have you ever met any real men?

Right! Years ago people used to say women are ruled by their emotions. Once again; another stereotype.

A man or woman can choose to be sterilized. Choice is a beautiful thing. Just because more women than men decide they don't want to have (any more) kids doesn't mean there's a huge difference in genital equality. No one is forced to have either procedure.

May I add, I would not sterilize a child of mine because I would give him/her the choice in adulthood.

I would be fine with the chemical castration of sex offenders, as well as the death penalty, if and only if our judicial system were infallible. It isn't,...

Which is one of the reasons why most industrial nations have done away with the death penalty. To a great degree, justice depends on how much you can afford for the right lawyer.

And your previous comments about reduced STI and HIV spread are, has been pointed out, supporting a permanent bodily modification to treat a problem that can easily be prevented by intelligent sexual practices--using a condom, washing regularly, and getting regular check-ups... for BOTH partners. The only place where circumcision could possibly be useful for health practices are places where condoms and health care are not available. I.E., nowhere in western civilization.

Yes indeed! In industrialized nations there are three very useful things going for us.
1) Soap
2) Water
3) Condoms
4) Medical Systems

BTW, Jade Margery all your points were excellent!

 

[Rebekka]

Hmm I do agree with the consent issue. Thats why I disagree with infant ear piercing.

Same.

 

[OGM]

Same.

Me too! I would never have a child of mine pierced or tatooed. When they are 18 they can do what they want to do.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I'm not going to personally circumcise my future children because its unnecessary, invasive, the child can't consent, and costs resources which could be placed elsewhere. Especially when the benefits are minuscule and with proper care can be kept as clean as a non-intact genitalia. And because if I tired you'd probably find my body in a river. My fiance is staunchly against.

 

[Veritas]

I do hear the 'intact is gross' which is an argument for aesthetics. The for hygiene is an excuse people often throw about as an added perk, but I don't think I have ever met someone who chose to circumcise their children for hygienic reasons. I am sure there are a few out there, but they have to be quite rare.

Not true. Non-religious circumcisions are done usually for health and hygiene reasons. On a personal note:

I was a nanny once in Europe and took care of a toddler boy. He was not circumcised. Never had I smelled such a stench coming from a diaper. I realized it was from his penis, under the forskin. Even poop didn't smell that bad. Because you cannot retract the forskin before around puberty, it is very difficult to keep it clean. If tried to pull it back just a bit to wash him, he would yell at me. The best I could do was to leave him in the tub to soak and hope all the dead skin in nether region would loosen and float out. It was this situation that motivated me to potty train him pronto. It also served as a formative experience that led me to believe males should be circumcised and that I as a woman didn't want to be intimate with one who wasn't.


Circumcision for all: the pro side

Laumann and colleagues, in 1997, demontrated that not only were uncircumcised men more prone to have sexual difficulties, compared with circumcised men, but also that circumcised men enjoyed a more elaborate sexual lifestyle and that their female partners were more pleased with the esthetics of the circumcised penis.26 In addition, Masters and Johnson have long established that there were no differences in glandular tactile stimulation between circumcised and uncircumcised men.27

Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function

A study of 150 men aged 18 to 60 circumcised for benign disease in London found identical erectile dysfunction scores before and after [Masood et al., 2005]. Of these 74% had no change in libido, 69% had less pain during intercourse (P < 0.05), 44% of the men (P = 0.04) and 38% of the partners (P = 0.02) thought appearance was better after circumcision. Sensation improved in 38% (P = 0.01), was unchanged in 44%, and was worse in 18%. Overall, 61% were pleased and 17% were not, i.e., 3.5 times more were happy with their circumcision.

Adult Circumcision Stories - Men Circumcised As Adults Tell It As It Is...
​

The people who should know best about the difference between being circumcised and not being circumcised are those men who were circumcised as adults. Their stories cut right through the misconceptions based on philosophical supposition and ill-informed nonsense.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

You can 100% absolutely retract the foreskin before puberty. As a future nurse who is doing my clinical rotations right now I'm calling bunk. As a babysitter who had to change an uncircumcised diaper before I'm also calling bunk. Never have I had that experience and always have I been able to retract the foreskin.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Yup yup its right here in my nursing handbook "clean the head of the penis (after pulling back the head of the foreskin, if not circumcised)..."

You are much mistaken.

Look look, its catheter insertion and they show an infant for it. "retract the foreskin if the child is uncircumcised"..


Maybe the child had phimosis and you were misinformed.

 

[Umaro]

Talk to a psychologist about it. If you truly are upset and bitter over it, then it would behoove you to do so, for your own sake.

I fail to see how that would help, nothing would change. I'd still be in the same position, except now I would have paid someone to tell me to just ignore it.

I don't understand why I should even be placed in this situation. You like being circumcised, I don't. If we both had the choice in adulthood, you could have it and I wouldn't. It's win-win. Doing it as an infant, it's win-lose for no particular reason at all.

That means you don't understand why. *sigh* It's all about having children. Period. We have tax breaks specifically set up for having children. We as a society *want* people to reproduce. Furthermore, although vasectomies are technically reversible (though not in all cases), reproducing is a fairly basic biological drive. Removing the ability to reproduce is on an entirely different physiological (and, for most people, psychological) level.

The main reason is that too many people go back to the doctor seeking a reversal, and then blame the doctor if it doesn't work. I fail to see why circumcision is any different, except that I can't go back for a potential reversal.

I'm confused. You say you were circumcised as a baby, right? Than how could you possibly know if you're suffering from less sensation? Frankly, this is not the norm anyway. Most men report MORE sensitivity or no change when circumcised as adults.

Research has shown it to be about 50/50 as to whether or not sex was better before or after circumcision. You're right that I don't know 100%, but I believe it would be better with it, and given the choice, I would like to have my foreskin intact. Plenty of the studies listed below say sensitivity is worse after the procedure, and nearly all studies say masturbation is worse.

Sexual effects of circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forgive me if this sounds callous, but with an increase in plastic surgery many people seem preoccupied with what they look like. Some cases are ridiculous (people are willing to undergo surgery to give themselves 'elf ears'), some are out of vanity (women are willing to have the bones removed in their little toe. Why? So they can fit into fashionable shoes) and others seem to think that their lives will magically transformed by a tiny bit of surgery. I suspect a few circumcised men fit into that third category. Whether we think their fears are valid varies from person to person.

So can I give an infant plastic surgery? Maybe a nose and boob job, just because I think they'll be better off? Sure, they might lose feeling in their nipples or the ability to breastfeed, but think of the aesthetics! Men like bigger boobs after all.

 

[Veritas]

You makin' us girls look bad. I'm getting a serious man-hate vibe here, and I feel very bad for you if all the men you have been with considered your pleasure 'secondary and of no import'. You're making a lot of unjustified generalizations.

First off, what I said was NOT based on my own personal experiences. But rather the way the world has been for hundreds of thousands of years. Phallic worship is real to this day in some cultures.

-A good partner (of which I've had several) is VERY concerned with his lover's pleasure and will go to great lengths to encourage it, even doing things that are not directly pleasurable for him at all. (I suggest you find one.)

I have one, thank you very much! But men have to trained. But I think you need educate yourself on the reality of what women around the world face daily. I'm afraid their lives are not so rosey as yours and mine. I fight for my sisters there. How about you?

No man derives his whole personality from his genitals. Seriously, have you ever met any real men?

Where did I say personality?

-A man or woman can choose to be sterilized. Choice is a beautiful thing. Just because more women than men decide they don't want to have (any more) kids doesn't mean there's a huge difference in genital equality. No one is forced to have either procedure.

Funny thing is, most women don't choose to have tubals. It's the default because their partners won't have a vasectomy. So much for "choice"!



-

I would be fine with the chemical castration of sex offenders, as well as the death penalty, if and only if our judicial system were infallible. It isn't, so we shouldn't enforce permanent punishments. On the other hand, it's hardly fair to say all men will fight tooth-and-nail against sex offender castration. I know many men, especially fathers, who are completely for it.

What kind of "permanent punishments" do you think the victims suffer from? And don't we exact such justice all the time anyway? I would think a sex offender would perfer castration to life in prison.

-Abortion is about a woman's choice

No, abortion is about someone deciding whether someone else should live or die.

Circumcision -should- be about a man's choice. And it's absolutely about whose body is being affected.

Parents make choices all the time about what they think is in the best interests of their child's health. Circumcision is no different when you have the facts and are not deluded by the propaganda.

And your previous comments about reduced STI and HIV spread are, has been pointed out, supporting a permanent bodily modification to treat a problem that can easily be prevented by intelligent sexual practices--using a condom, washing regularly, and getting regular check-ups... for BOTH partners. The only place where circumcision could possibly be useful for health practices are places where condoms and health care are not available. I.E., nowhere in western civilization

As has been pointed out, condom use is not desirable among men. Also, you should know that with uncircumcised men, condoms are more difficult to use and come off much easier....the forskin is the cause.

Actually the benefits and risks associated with circumcision (including hygiene) are so minuscule that circumcision is left up to parental discretion. Thats why you get a choice in whether you want an intact child or not. UTI, prostate cancer, etc. benefits are often exaggerated.

I suggest you learn the facts and not rely on people's opinions.

CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal

There's plenty of documented statistics.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So can I give an infant plastic surgery? Maybe a nose and boob job, just because I think they'll be better off? Sure, they might lose feeling in their nipples or the ability to breastfeed, but think of the aesthetics! Men like bigger boobs after all.

You've missed the point of my post.