Circumcision

[Rebekka]

Considering that the WHO recommends routine Circ in developing countries to reduce the spread of AID's and other STI's, I think a very good case for medical reason's can be made.

WHO Recommends Circumcision, Citing HIV Data : NPR

Circumcision Guards Against STDs - US News and World Report

Aside from the obvious hygeine and odor issue, women have a stake in this. Uncircumcised men are much more likely to transmit STI's to women because the foreskin harbors viruses, bacteria and yeasts. In addition, for women there is a clear preference:

Argument: Women prefer cleaner circumcised penis - Debatepedia

The US is not a developing country, so why would infant circumcision be necessary there? You have good hygiene overall, as far as I know.

As for aesthetics, most non-American women are satisfied with intact foreskins.

 

[Umaro]

For all the whining about whether it's moral or immoral, is anyone going to offer up some actual reasoning behind their opinion? And, perhaps even more importantly, why their opinion ought to be forced upon other people?

I've got some reasoning. Given the choice I want my foreskin back, but thats impossible.

Considering that the WHO recommends routine Circ in developing countries to reduce the spread of AID's and other STI's, I think a very good case for medical reason's can be made.

WHO Recommends Circumcision, Citing HIV Data : NPR

Circumcision Guards Against STDs - US News and World Report

Aside from the obvious hygeine and odor issue, women have a stake in this. Uncircumcised men are much more likely to transmit STI's to women because the foreskin harbors viruses, bacteria and yeasts. In addition, for women there is a clear preference:

Argument: Women prefer cleaner circumcised penis - Debatepedia

Man, it's a good thing all those babies having sex are not giving each other STDs.

 

[Chajara]

I find it amusing how many women say they prefer circumcised men because they're "cleaner". As if it's really any more difficult for a man to wash his junk than it is for a woman to get hers clean.

I happen to prefer them intact, myself, and won't be circumcising any boys I have. I don't feel I have the right to permanently alter my child's body.

 

[Aradia]

I've got some reasoning. Given the choice I want my foreskin back, but thats impossible.

Life ain't fair. Parents make decisions for their children. Sometimes the children resent or disagree with the decisions made for them. I'm very sorry that your life is so miserable without a foreskin. Given the choice, I want to have not been forced to go to church as a child, but that's impossible.

Man, it's a good thing all those babies having sex are not giving each other STDs.

I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[Rebekka]

Life ain't fair. Parents make decisions for their children. Sometimes the children resent or disagree with the decisions made for them. I'm very sorry that your life is so miserable without a foreskin. Given the choice, I want to have not been forced to go to church as a child, but that's impossible.

The difference between being forced to go to church as a child and being circumcised as a child is that you can choose to stop going to church as an adult (and probably even as a teenager), but you can't get your foreskin back.

 

[selfinflikted]

Aside from the obvious hygeine and odor issue, women have a stake in this. Uncircumcised men are much more likely to transmit STI's to women because the foreskin harbors viruses, bacteria and yeasts.

Anyone who exhibits a modicum of personal hygiene won't have to worry about odor, bacteria, and the like. However, I will have to do more reading on the transmission of STI's and such.

 

[Aradia]

The difference between being forced to go to church as a child and being circumcised as a child is that you can choose to stop going to church as an adult (and probably even as a teenager), but you can't get your foreskin back.

I can't ever get those hours of my life back. I lost them. Permanently.

It's all just more whining about how one person's morality is more important than another person's morality.

So, tell me, is it the irreversible nature of the mutilation that is problematic for you? If that's the case, would a reversible mutilation be acceptable?

 

[Umaro]

Life ain't fair. Parents make decisions for their children. Sometimes the children resent or disagree with the decisions made for them. I'm very sorry that your life is so miserable without a foreskin. Given the choice, I want to have not been forced to go to church as a child, but that's impossible.

So why don't you apply this to female circumcision? Sure, they lose out on sexual pleasures, but life isn't fair! It's not like they can't lead normal lives otherwise. The parent just made the decision for them and if they resent or disagree then too bad.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's all just more whining about how one person's morality is more important than another person's morality.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I'd be interested to find out how many cut men would've rather had the choice made for them as an infant, or have made the choice themselves. But I certainly wouldn't consider the fact that men take issue with having the choice made for them as "whining", if that's what you're saying.

 

[Aradia]

So why don't you apply this to female circumcision? Sure, they lose out on sexual pleasures, but life isn't fair! It's not like they can't lead normal lives otherwise. The parent just made the decision for them and if they resent or disagree then too bad.

Instead of making yourself look foolish, you might want to know whether I apply this to female circumcision. Bye!

 

[Chajara]

So why don't you apply this to female circumcision? Sure, they lose out on sexual pleasures, but life isn't fair! It's not like they can't lead normal lives otherwise. The parent just made the decision for them and if they resent or disagree then too bad.

Yeah, and if I want to tattoo my infant because it's become fashionable to do so, then why shouldn't I be able to? It's not going to hurt her any and I have the right to make decisions about my child's body after all.

 

[Rebekka]

It's all just more whining about how one person's morality is more important than another person's morality.

It's late and I'm tired - huh?

So, tell me, is it the irreversible nature of the mutilation that is problematic for you? If that's the case, would a reversible mutilation be acceptable?

Yes, and mostly yes. But I don't think a useless mutilation that is reversible is advisable, either. It's a question of integrity of the body.

You can't change your past - but circumcision affects the present, too, unlike the forced churchgoing (you don't have to continue going to church but you can't choose to have a foreskin).

 

[Aradia]

I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I'd be interested to find out how many cut men would've rather had the choice made for them as an infant, or have made the choice themselves.

I think that'd be a very illuminating study!

But I certainly wouldn't consider the fact that men take issue with having the choice made for them as "whining", if that's what you're saying.

Take issue? Sure, go ahead and take issue with it. But is it *really* that much different than all the other choices that are made for us by other people? Did your parents do it to you out of spite or malevolence?

 

[selfinflikted]

I think that'd be a very illuminating study!

And interesting

Take issue? Sure, go ahead and take issue with it. But is it *really* that much different than all the other choices that are made for us by other people? Did your parents do it to you out of spite or malevolence?

Yes. It really IS that much different. And no, my parents didn't do that to me out of malevolence, of course. They are Christians, and since chopping off penis skin is en vogue with the Christians here in America, they were just following suite.

 

[Skaloop]

Aside from the obvious hygeine and odor issue, women have a stake in this. Uncircumcised men are much more likely to transmit STI's to women because the foreskin harbors viruses, bacteria and yeasts.

So does the vagina. So should those routinely be removed? And please define "much more likely" and provide data to back that up. I've certainly read that they are more likely, it's that "much" qualifier that I question. Especially in developed nations, where it could be controlled by personal hygiene, which is harmless, as opposed to minor surgery, which is oftentimes not.

 

[Aradia]

It's late and I'm tired - huh?

Sorry. Here's a summary:

* It's moral!
* It's immoral!
* It's moral!
* It's immoral!

And on and on...

Yes, and mostly yes. But I don't think a useless mutilation that is reversible is advisable, either. It's a question of integrity of the body.

Why is the integrity of the body so important? And who gets to decide whether a particular modification is "useless" or "useful"?

You can't change your past - but circumcision affects the present, too, unlike the forced churchgoing (you don't have to continue going to church but you can't choose to have a foreskin).

Ummm... every past moment affects the present and future. Our past shapes our present. I fail to see the difference, in this particular respect.

 

[Chajara]

I really don't get the STI angle either. If you're circumcised, are you seriously going to say "Welp I don't have to use condoms because my penis is without a foreskin and therefore impervious to disease!"

Not unless you're dumb and the chick you're trying to bang is also dumb enough to actually sleep with you. Therefore it's kind of a moot point.

 

[Umaro]

Why is the integrity of the body so important? And who gets to decide whether a particular modification is "useless" or "useful"

How about we actually let the person being modified determine if its useless or useful in non emergency situations?

 

[Aradia]

Yes. It really IS that much different.

You aren't really just going to leave it there, are you? Care to elaborate on WHY it really is that much different? Pretty please? =D

And no, my parents didn't do that to me out of malevolence, of course. They are Christians, and since chopping off penis skin is en vogue with the Christians here in America, they were just following suite.

So why is it such a horrible thing that it happened?

 

[selfinflikted]

I really don't get the STI angle either. If you're circumcised, are you seriously going to say "Welp I don't have to use condoms because my penis is without a foreskin and therefore impervious to disease!"

Not unless you're dumb and the chick you're trying to bang is also dumb enough to actually sleep with you. Therefore it's kind of a moot point.

Heh. I've never once thought that.