Circumcision

[Notedstrangeperson]

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say that it's less damaging.

Yeesh ... But thanks for pointing it out.

Even if it is less damaging to remove a foreskin compared to a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], so what? Just because something is the lesser of two evils doesn't make it not evil.

Yes, this is where you and I differ. While I see female circumcision as inherently wrong (due to anatomical differences and poor reasoning), I see male circumcision as a routine and fairly minor operation - true, there is the potential for going wrong, but the risk is small and all surgery has a certain level of risk anyhow.

A bit callous perhaps but I find it hard to believe the loss of a foreskin is that devestating. The advatages and disadvantages seem minor, and the evidence for health risks / benefits is mixed. It doesn't seem to matter much either way. It's not really worth all the worry.

 

[OGM]

Wow...that was 14 pages of a bunch of nothing to get caught up enough to post. I could have just blind posted and I think it would have had the same outcome.

I don't have an opinion on circumcision because I don't have a penis. That said, I do support it when medically necessary (foreskin is too tight, won't retract, etc).

FGM, yeah I'm against that. But these things seem to be apples and oranges to me, but the again, can anyone truly comment if they are because (at least to my knowledge) no one has gone through male circumcision and FGM have they? I would conclude, however, that FGM is about ownership and power, while male circumcision is not.

I don't plan on having kids, but if I did and I had a son, I would defer to his father on whether to circumcise or not.

If I had a son I would let him decide when he becomes an adult. As for his penis looking like mine or not...why should I don't care if it looks like mine? That "my son's penis gonna look like mine" line of thinking is just too weird for me.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

1. This thread is antisemitic.
2. Circumcision is healthier than not doing it.
3. It's relatively painless, you won't remember it (I don't, do you?) nor could it hardly be called "mutilation."

 

[MountainCappuccino]

I do support it when medically necessary (foreskin is too tight, won't retract, etc).

A rational opinion.

 

[OGM]

1. This thread is antisemitic.

Please explain

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Please explain

1. It was a joke.
2. It's no secret that this practice started basically with Jews and other Semitic peoples.

 

[OGM]

1. It was a joke.
2. It's no secret that this practice started basically with Jews and other Semitic peoples.

I am glad someone has a sense of humor on this thread

Here in the greater New York City area, I was reading an article a few years ago that was explaining that an increasing number of Jews are not circumcising anymore. They are using a needle to draw a ceremonial drop of blood.

 

[laconicstudent]

Just in case some people don't bother checking the official statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Yes, I know that the cartoon is not the official statement, but its funnier.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I am glad someone has a sense of humor on this thread

Most of my posts are not serious.

Here in the greater New York City area, I was reading an article a few years ago that was explaining that an increasing number of Jews are not circumcising anymore. They are using a needle to draw a ceremonial drop of blood.

That's odd, perhaps maybe around the Reform I could see this but the Orthodox? I'm not sure, I don't know, my growing up was largely secular, pretty much completely aside from major milestones but even I had a bris.

 

[OGM]

Most of my posts are not serious.

Levity is much needed!!!

That's odd, perhaps maybe around the Reform I could see this but the Orthodox? I'm not sure, I don't know, my growing up was largely secular, pretty much completely aside from major milestones but even I had a bris.

Oh no...The article said the Orthodox were upset that the circumcisions were not taking place. What was interesting that the article said that circumcision was less frequent when one parent was Jewish and the other was a Gentile. I don't remember if it matter which parent was which. The article was published several years ago in a New York newspaper.

 

[Umaro]

A bit callous perhaps but I find it hard to believe the loss of a foreskin is that devestating. The advatages and disadvantages seem minor, and the evidence for health risks / benefits is mixed. It doesn't seem to matter much either way. It's not really worth all the worry.

How about the risk/benefit where men are legitimately upset about having it removed? I for one am quite angry that the choice wasn't mine. Why is it the opinion of the penis' owner doesn't matter at all to you people?

 

[Jade Margery]

Yes, this is where you and I differ. While I see female circumcision as inherently wrong (due to anatomical differences and poor reasoning), I see male circumcision as a routine and fairly minor operation - true, there is the potential for going wrong, but the risk is small and all surgery has a certain level of risk anyhow.

Now, what I'm getting from this is, 'Male circumcision is common in my culture so I don't think it's a big deal but female circumcision isn't so I can see it's inherently wrong'. You admit there is a risk with all surgeries. So why should we allow an infant to be subjected to an unnecessary, painful (usually done without anesthetics*) procedure in the first week of their life? Why is it not a big deal that a part of someone's body is taken away without their consent?

A bit callous perhaps but I find it hard to believe the loss of a foreskin is that devestating. The advatages and disadvantages seem minor, and the evidence for health risks / benefits is mixed. It doesn't seem to matter much either way. It's not really worth all the worry.

The evidence for health benefits is null. At best, it can be said that a man who doesn't wash himself regularly has a greater chance for infection with an intact foreskin because bacteria can be trapped under it--but all of two hand motions in the shower can take care of that and even so, men are much less likely to get genital or urinary tract infections than women and no one is suggesting corrective surgery for us.

It was mentioned earlier that circumcision is rare in industrialized nations. Rates may be falling but in America at least, it's still pretty common. Three of my four brothers are circumcised--they were born in hospitals and the doctors just did the circumcisions without really informing my mother of all the risks and effects. It was sort of a 'this is just standard procedure for baby boys' kind of thing. Mom educated herself before my last brother was born at home and he is uncircumcised. Penis problems to date? None. And Mom feels bad that she didn't prevent my other brothers from being circumcised. It's something that can never be taken back and she just didn't know any better at the time. It should have been their choice.

*Up until the last decade it was assumed that babies didn't really feel the pain or that giving them anesthetics would be more painful than the actual operation. Recent evidence has proven this wrong--it's actually very painful to pull a layer of someone's skin off, stretch it many times its normal length, and cut it off with a pair of scissors. Who knew? Anesthetics and pain relief are now being recommended for circumcisions, but anesthetics carry their own level of risk. A new born baby is a delicate, fragile little creature. Why pump him with painkillers for no good reason?

 

[laconicstudent]

Yes, this is where you and I differ. While I see female circumcision as inherently wrong (due to anatomical differences and poor reasoning), I see male circumcision as a routine and fairly minor operation - true, there is the potential for going wrong, but the risk is small and all surgery has a certain level of risk anyhow.

A bit callous perhaps but I find it hard to believe the loss of a foreskin is that devestating. The advatages and disadvantages seem minor, and the evidence for health risks / benefits is mixed. It doesn't seem to matter much either way. It's not really worth all the worry.

I'm looking at your gender icon right now.

 

[yasic]

I don't see how an operation that causes extreme stress and pain to a newborn, permanently removes a piece of the penis, and reduces sexual pleasure in the future could possibly be called a minor operation.

I agree it is nothing like female circumcision, and I may have been wrong on the types of female circumcision available out there, but there is still no excuse for male circumcision.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I'm glad I was circumsized.

 

[Umaro]

I'm glad I was circumsized.

But see, there's 3 types of men really.

1) Men that want to be circumcised
2) Men that don't care
3) Men that don't want to be circumcised

If we make infant circumcision illegal, all 3 groups are happy. Group 1 can have it done when they're older, and groups 2 and 3 get their way too.

By letting it happen as an infant, groups 1 and 2 are still fine, but group 3 has their wishes violated.

So one way everyones happy, and one way a group gets the shaft and gets to be bitter about it the rest of their lives. What possible reason would there be to not make everyone happy?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Now, what I'm getting from this is, 'Male circumcision is common in my culture so I don't think it's a big deal but female circumcision isn't so I can see it's inherently wrong'.

It's not about culture, it's about anatomical differences, which I've already mentioned several times - besides circumcision of either kind isn't common in my culture so there's no reason for me to favour it.

 

[Rebekka]

But see, there's 3 types of men really.

1) Men that want to be circumcised
2) Men that don't care
3) Men that don't want to be circumcised

If we make infant circumcision illegal, all 3 groups are happy. Group 1 can have it done when they're older, and groups 2 and 3 get their way too.

By letting it happen as an infant, groups 1 and 2 are still fine, but group 3 has their wishes violated.

So one way everyones happy, and one way a group gets the shaft and gets to be bitter about it the rest of their lives. What possible reason would there be to not make everyone happy?

That's my reasoning too. Even if you do see advantages to circumcision (I don't - good hygiene is not that hard to practice in first world countries, and there are better ways to prevent STI's than by circumcision), it's not necessary to circumcise infants (except for medical reasons).

 

[Aradia]

I'm curious -- for those men who are angry and/or upset about having been circumcised as a baby, what negative effects have you suffered?

 

[Umaro]

I'm curious -- for those men who are angry and/or upset about having been circumcised as a baby, what negative effects have you suffered?

Loss of sexual sensitivity, feeling wronged by those who were supposed to protect me, feeling less than whole, increased difficulty in masturbation, large visual scar reminder, people in other countries commenting asking why it isn't "natural," just to name some.

And what positive effects has it given me? I shower daily and use condoms as it is, so there really aren't any benefits.