Circumcision

[selfinflikted]

Selfinflikted: As I pointed out to Wiccan_Child, there are fairly few advantages / disadvantaged to be circumcised or uncircumcised that it hardly affects their lives. If it's so ineffectual it's rather over-dramatic to call it 'barbaric mutilation'.

Well, that depends on who you ask.

I can't understand why, for the life of me, you guys can't understand that cutting off bits of peoples' body without their permission should be a no-no.

I think, probably, that some of you really do agree with me, but are reluctant to admit so because it's a religious tradition.

 

[OGM]

Selfinflikted: As I pointed out to Wiccan_Child, there are fairly few advantages / disadvantaged to be circumcised or uncircumcised that it hardly affects their lives. If it's so ineffectual it's rather over-dramatic to call it 'barbaric mutilation'.

Conversly would it be fair to say:

There are fairly few advantages / disadvantaged to for a baby to keep it's earlobes or to have them removed; that it hardly affects their lives. If it's so ineffectual it's rather over-dramatic to call it 'barbaric mutilation'.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Your future son will thank you

I hope so. I truly don't understand the aversion to intactness some females seem to have. They seem to think its gross when in reality it is anything but.

I realize there are some cases in which circumcision is necessary, however I have placed that in a separate category from routine infant circumcision. To be fair our current methods of circumcision are great. I caution circumcisions when not done under the direct care of a medical professional within the hospital setting.

 

[yasic]

There's a loss of sensation so presumably it's not as pleasurable as it could be. Here's a question, if your parents came into your house right now, strapped you down, and gave you a shot that made you permanently 20% less sensitive down there, would you be upset with them?

Or more closely: What if you found out that they gave you an experimental vaccine that makes you 5% less likely to get HIV, however makes you 20% less sensitive in your genital region. You also know that they knew this vaccine would become available on the general market by the time you turned 16 so you could have made the choice on your own.

Would you bet upset or hurt if they gave this vaccine to you when you were a child?

 

[Aradia]

There's a loss of sensation so presumably it's not as pleasurable as it could be. Here's a question, if your parents came into your house right now, strapped you down, and gave you a shot that made you permanently 20% less sensitive down there, would you be upset with them?

I'm going to give you a moment to withdraw this question, since it will not accomplish what you want it to accomplish.

Do any of those questions really matter if they're things that upset me? You asked if there were any negative effects, and I'm very upset about all those things I listed every time I think about it. I'd say it's definitely effecting me in a negative way.

Yes, they do matter. I'm genuinely curious about the mediation of these negative effects.

I wanted a vasectomy, and spent 8 months searching for someone who would do it for me. As a willing adult I could not find a doctor willing to give me a permanent procedure, but as a baby no one really cared what I thought? So if by some accident I do have a child before getting the snip, can I give him a vasectomy as an infant? My beliefs are that vasectomies are highly beneficial in that you don't have to risk having kids, and as a parent wouldn't I have say over what happens to his body according to your view? There's so much more benefit, and no real downside, so I can make that choice for him, right?

I feel your pain. I had a vasectomy in my 20s and even though I was older than you, still had to fight for it. I believe vasectomies are beneficial, too. But do you understand *why* doctors refused to give us one?

 

[Aradia]

Conversly would it be fair to say:

There are fairly few advantages / disadvantaged to for a baby to keep it's earlobes or to have them removed; that it hardly affects their lives. If it's so ineffectual it's rather over-dramatic to call it 'barbaric mutilation'.

Exactly! Now you're starting to understand.

 

[Umaro]

I'm going to give you a moment to withdraw this question, since it will not accomplish what you want it to accomplish.

I don't feel I need to withdraw the question. The only thing it will accomplish is better seeing your position.

Yes, they do matter. I'm genuinely curious about the mediation of these negative effects.

So what do you propose I do? I'm genuinely upset at having all those things taken away from me for a reason as stupid as "so you'll look like your father." How do I get over that bitterness? I can't exactly get my foreskin back...

I feel your pain. I had a vasectomy in my 20s and even though I was older than you, still had to fight for it. I believe vasectomies are beneficial, too. But do you understand *why* doctors refused to give us one?

Of course I understand why, what I don't understand is why they don't feel the same way about infant circumcision. if I want a vasectomy for MYSELF, why is it harder to get than if THEY want to cut MY foreskin off?

Beyond that, you didn't answer my question. If I find a doctor can I have my infant son given a vasectomy? It's a benefit in my mind, and I'm his parent.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There are few advantages or disadvantages to when a sadist cuts deep scares on the back of a victim.

Again, you can't compare the two. The sadist is doing it because, well, he's a sadist. Sseveral circumcised users have pointed out how un-traumatised they are so I can't say that circumcision always caused some terrible mental trauma.

I can't understand why, for the life of me, you guys can't understand that cutting off bits of peoples' body without their permission should be a no-no.
I think, probably, that some of you really do agree with me, but are reluctant to admit so because it's a religious tradition.

Partly, but it's mostly because circumcision isn't the evil sadistic baby-butchering it's painted to be. Female circumcision is also a religious / cultural tradition but I oppose it (for reasons I listed much earlier on the thread).

 

[selfinflikted]

Partly, but it's mostly because circumcision isn't the evil sadistic baby-butchering it's painted to be. Female circumcision is also a religious / cultural tradition but I oppose it (for reasons I listed much earlier on the thread).

Then, clearly, I won't be able to understand your position on the subject. Yes, female circumcision as you described sounds absolutely horrible and appalling, but the same principle applies to male circumcision. Note, I said principle.

 

[yasic]

Again, you can't compare the two. The sadist is doing it because, well, he's a sadist. Sseveral circumcised users have pointed out how un-traumatised they are so I can't say that circumcision always caused some terrible mental trauma.

This is speaking from anecdotal experience, but women that come from regions where rape is expected and a woman who isn't raped is a rarity are not as affected by rape as those who were raised here (It truly was a horrifying experience for me listening to such a woman casually talking about how she was raped 3 times).

The culture desensitizes horrific and barbaric traditions.

 

[Aradia]

I don't feel I need to withdraw the question. The only thing it will accomplish is better seeing your position.

Ok. In that case, my answer is "bring it on".

So what do you propose I do? I'm genuinely upset at having all those things taken away from me for a reason as stupid as "so you'll look like your father." How do I get over that bitterness? I can't exactly get my foreskin back...

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.

Of course I understand why, what I don't understand is why they don't feel the same way about infant circumcision. if I want a vasectomy for MYSELF, why is it harder to get than if THEY want to cut MY foreskin off?

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.

Beyond that, you didn't answer my question. If I find a doctor can I have my infant son given a vasectomy? It's a benefit in my mind, and I'm his parent.

I'd support you. But obviously I'm a fan of vasectomies. =)

 

[yasic]

I'd support you. But obviously I'm a fan of vasectomies. =)

I just have to say, this ranks among the scariest thing I have heard said here on CF.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes, female circumcision as you described sounds absolutely horrible and appalling, but the same principle applies to male circumcision. Note, I said principle.

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.

This is speaking from anecdotal experience, but women that come from regions where rape is expected and a woman who isn't raped is a rarity are not as affected by rape as those who were raised here ... The culture desensitizes horrific and barbaric traditions.

Hmm. So you're asking whether people are traumatised (or not) because they have experienced somehing genuinely awful or because society says it's wrong? I confess I can't answer this - although it would make an excellent topic. It could be applied to many scenarios. I still however think circumcision, when done correctly, it not a barbaric tradition.

On a side-note if cutting off earlobes was a cultural norm I doubt I would care. I've already decided to have pieces of metal put through them, many times.

 

[Aradia]

I just have to say, this ranks among the scariest thing I have heard said here on CF.

I take that as a compliment.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

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.

It is done for hygiene and aesthetics. People feel that the genitalia can not be sufficiently kept clean enough if it has foreskin or they just don't want their child to have to worried about it. I find many americans feel foreskin is much more aesthetically pleasing and want to give that aesthetic benefit to their children. Many people cite phimosis as one reason for circumcision while either not knowing or negleting the fact that there are much more economical and less invasive ways to treat phimosis than circumcision.

 

[yasic]

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.

Circumcision is usually done for religious reasons, not for hygienic ones. This is easily seen by comparing a countries religiosity level to their circumcision level (references available upon request). If if was for hygienic ones, why is it that countries that are mostly atheistic in nature, such as the netherlands, tend to only have the same number of circumcised males as they do religious extremest males?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Circumcision is usually done for religious reasons, not for hygienic ones. This is easily seen by comparing a countries religiosity level to their circumcision level (references available upon request). If if was for hygienic ones, why is it that countries that are mostly atheistic in nature, such as the netherlands, tend to only have the same number of circumcised males as they do religious extremest males?

Thats not what the people I've talked to would say. The difference is in those countries medical professionals see circumcision as an unnecessary procedure and does not relate to hygeine as the same level of hygeine can be see with proper cleaning.

Here all I hear is "ewww intact is gross" and "for hygiene"!!!! It is religion for some people, but not the people I'm around at least.

 

[yasic]

Thats not what the people I've talked to would say. The difference is in those countries medical professionals see circumcision as an unnecessary procedure and does not relate to hygeine as the same level of hygeine can be see with proper cleaning.

Here all I hear is "ewww intact is gross" and "for hygiene"!!!! It is religion for some people, but not the people I'm around at least.

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.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ask a jew. I'm defending a cultural tradition, but I unfortunately am not well-versed enough to say why/whether circumcision must be done at (or soon after) birth. And I have to leave work soon to take my kitties to the vet, so I don't have time to properly do the research right now, or I would. =(

Same here, sans the kitties. I'd also like to know why also. Perhaps we can find out and discuss later

Why? (C'mon, you must've known I'd ask that... *grin*)

For the same reason I can walk into the office next to mine, and snip my coworker's finger off.

 

[Veritas]

If a woman has such a partner she should find another one that shares her viewpoints.

If a woman does not want to conceive it is her right to have a tubal, abstain or have partners that use condoms or have vasectomies.

In most countries of the world, this is totally unrealistic. Women have few choices or rights.

How many people on convicted rapist and murders have been exonerated in the past 10 years because of mistakes and bad evidence? Now you want to have the same legal systems remove body parts?

It's not that many. Besides, we have DNA and video evidence now days.

Men don’t become pregnant…I am sure fewer women are concerned about prostate health as well.

Funny you should mention that. circumcised men have lower rates of prostate cancer. In fact, the health benefits of circumcision for all sorts of things are such that I'm surprised more of you aren't supporting it. And those health benefits are to the MAN and not the woman.

About 500,000 vasectomies are performed in the United States every year. It is one of the most popular operations there is. Veritas; sharp instruments are used.

And twice as many tubals which is not a minor operation. It's done under a general and has a much longer recovery time. Also, long term these women usually go thru menopause earlier, have heavier periods and higher rates of ovarian cancer.

Your future son will thank you

Unless he developes one of many potential problems in which he will undoubtedly be angry with you for not doing it when he would never remember it.

There's a loss of sensation so presumably it's not as pleasurable as it could be. Here's a question, if your parents came into your house right now, strapped you down, and gave you a shot that made you permanently 20% less sensitive down there, would you be upset with them?




Do any of those questions really matter if they're things that upset me? You asked if there were any negative effects, and I'm very upset about all those things I listed every time I think about it. I'd say it's definitely effecting me in a negative way.




I wanted a vasectomy, and spent 8 months searching for someone who would do it for me. As a willing adult I could not find a doctor willing to give me a permanent procedure, but as a baby no one really cared what I thought? So if by some accident I do have a child before getting the snip, can I give him a vasectomy as an infant? My beliefs are that vasectomies are highly beneficial in that you don't have to risk having kids, and as a parent wouldn't I have say over what happens to his body according to your view? There's so much more benefit, and no real downside, so I can make that choice for him, right?

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.

I just have to say, this ranks among the scariest thing I have heard said here on CF.

But rape, female genital mutilation don't bother you much.