Circumcision

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

In my lifetime I have watched way too many things go from a non issue to a shitstorm. I'm not easily swayed by public opinion but a lot of people are. It has become quite the industry now to take an issue then promote it and stir the pot until it is a big deal. I always smell a rat when that is the case. These days we cannot make any decision unless we have to justify it to the dogooder of the week. May as well just have your kidlets and hand them over to the state, seeing public opinion and rabid lobbyists decide everything for us now.

 

Strange world where you can wipe an unborn child out of your life like it is nothing, but if you want to circumcise a child you are causing it harm.

You know as a man I could say what women say about abortion (you don't know unless your my sex) but I wont say that, because I think you can understand what a man feels about circumcision.

I find that that Galien's example that one can wipe an unborn child out of life like it is nothing, but some see it as harming a child by circumcision, is rather off topic here. I don't consider an unborn child, a child. You are assuming that an unborn child is a person. And that is not the topic of this debate.

 

Is it causing harm to a child by having a medical procedure performed without their consent. I say, not harm, but overriding the right to choose. Whole heartedly I say yes. I have two sons. Both are circumcised. My opinion was heard, but the relationships I was in, that opinion did not count. Ultimately, my sons will have to take it up with their fathers if they take issue with what was done. With that said, I AM instilling an understanding of the difference between what is considered the social norm and a mostly religious tradition PURPORTED as a social norm.

 

I have made it a point to not alter my children's physical appearances in anyway, unless demonstratively medically necessary.  I do this because I want them to understand that while they are subject to my rules, they own their bodies and thoughts. I do not feel circumcising my sons ahead of time would have necessarily prevented any problems. Reality is, the majority of the world is not circumcised. Hasn't been since the dawn of time. I do not feel there is enough evidence yet after all these years of study to prove it helps in enough situations to warrant the procedure at birth. The practice itself came about in mainstream medical fields to help prevent/cure masturbation (for women as well). Pain as a deterrent to pleasure. That is sick.  I rank this as bad as female circumcision. Mutilation is more like it.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Was no big deal thirty years ago, not sure why it is now. We enforce much worse things into our children's heads, but no one seems too concerned over that. I'd be more concerned over turning my child into a heartless, mindless entitled robotic consumer.

Read up on it in the med journals. Read up in the news. Study up and not leave yourself willfully ignorant on why it is a big deal now.

[Galien]

Yep, can't have me ignorant of right thinking now can we?

[RankStranger]

Yep, can't have me ignorant of right thinking now can we?

You've every right to your opinion. So do proponents of female circumcision. People who think it's wrong to unnecessarily harm children have the right to express their disagreement with y'all. And you have the right to participate in that debate... or not.

 

That's the thing about freedom of speech. In theory everybody has it. Including people you don't agree with.

[Ravenstar]

Welcome to the world, little one!... it's bright and cold and kinda scary and you can not take care of yourself yet - we are here to protect you.

 

But.. while you are learning about trust and safety let's painfully mutilate the most sensitive part of your body, without anesthetic

 

welcome to the world...

 

Fuck.

 

When I was at the hospital after my daughter was born I heard a little boy being circumcised down the hall... poor little thing screamed bloody murder. If that was my son screaming, I would have ripped the doctors throat out. Don't give me any crap about 'they won't remember'.. they may not remember the event... but PAIN causes trauma, whether remembered consciously or not. Childhood pain (before 6 years of age) can cause all sorts of mental/emotional issues later on.. that is a proven FACT.

 

Also.. at 47 I'm no virgin, uncircumcised men are more sensitive. (and in some cases more gentle because of it) How many men have gone through life not even realizing they were supposed to be more sensitive? How does this affect their sexuality? I know one thing it does... they have a hard time grasping how sensitive women's genitals can be. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the lasting effects of circumcision.

 

Another issue not touched on yet... way back when... most religion was based around fertility and the veneration of the phallus (and correspondingly women's reproductive organs as well) Don't tell me that this religious OBSESSION with the penis doesn't stem from that.. it's friggin' obvious.  Phallus worship, fertility and blood sacrifice... barbaric.

 

Can't they just erect (pun intended) another obelisk instead of mutilating infants?  OR, at the very least leave the decision up to the individual when they are old enough to choose for themselves?

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Yep, can't have me ignorant of right thinking now can we?

Was no big deal thirty years ago, not sure why it is now.

 

Your words above here say you do not know why, and I am pointing out you have information at your fingertips.

[Vendredie]

In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do.  I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around.  Interesting.

 

I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on.  And without anesthetic? That is barbaric.  Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all.  And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation. 

 

But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated."  True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not.  Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth.  The two are not comparable.

 

Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.  

[RankStranger]

In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do.  I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around.  Interesting.

 

I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on.  And without anesthetic? That is barbaric.  Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all.  And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation. 

 

But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated."  True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not.  Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth.  The two are not comparable.

 

Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.  

Male and female circumcision are absolutely the same thing. They differ only in degree (of severity). There is very little difference in principle, origins, or common justifications.

[LifeCycle]

In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do.  I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around.  Interesting.

 

I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on.  And without anesthetic? That is barbaric.  Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all.  And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation. 

 

But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated."  True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not.  Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth.  The two are not comparable.

 

Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.  

Yeah, that's no big deal.  Thanks mom, for decreasing my sensitivity on my sexual parts for my entire life because you're a fucking moron.  I know I shouldn't blow the issue out of proportion though.  It really is no big deal.

[Vendredie]

 

In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do.  I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around.  Interesting.

 

I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on.  And without anesthetic? That is barbaric.  Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all.  And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation. 

 

But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated."  True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not.  Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth.  The two are not comparable.

 

Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.  

Male and female circumcision are absolutely the same thing. They differ only in degree (of severity). There is very little difference in principle, origins, or common justifications.

But saying the experience of one is exactly like the other's is very ignorant and even arrogant.  It is not at all okay to say your pain is the exact same as someone else's, when it has far fewer and less severe effects.  There is no difference in origins, but there is a HUGE difference in practice and in effect.  It's not right that boys who are circumcised go on to have reduced feeling, but comparing it to an extremely painful procedure INTENDED to have painful, life-long effects is very ignorant and arrogant indeed.  

[Vendredie]

 

In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do.  I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around.  Interesting.

 

I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on.  And without anesthetic? That is barbaric.  Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all.  And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation. 

 

But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated."  True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not.  Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth.  The two are not comparable.

 

Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.  

Yeah, that's no big deal.  Thanks mom, for decreasing my sensitivity on my sexual parts for my entire life because you're a fucking moron.  I know I shouldn't blow the issue out of proportion though.  It really is no big deal.

So you'd rather be in pain for the rest of your life while having sex?  I'm jsut saying that circumcision and FGM aren't comparable to each other.  

 

I'm not even for circumcision and I agree that parents who go along with it are fucking morons, I just think that a lot of "intactivists" try to appropriate the suffering of others when they can still experience sexual pleasure and achieve orgasm and suffer no pain long-term. 

[Guest r3alchild]

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis

Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?

It's swell to have a stiffy, it's divine to own a dick

From the tiniest little tadger to the world's biggest prick

 

So three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas

Hooray for your one eyed trouser snake

Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend, your Percy or your cock

You can wrap it up in ribbons, you can slip it in your sock

But don't take it out in public or they will stick you in the dock

And you won't come back

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience, women make a much bigger deal out of circumcision than men do. I think this is one of the few times where I've seen it go the other way around. Interesting.

 

I'm against circumcision in the sense that I'm against unnecessary medical procedures that have little or no proven benefit, especially when they're performed on children so young they cannot process what's going on. And without anesthetic? That is barbaric. Newborn boys do have nerve endings there, after all. And the only reason to do it is "tradition" when said tradition started off as a way to prevent masturbation.

 

But I'm not so rabidly against it that I regard every circumcized penis as "mangled" or "mutilated." True, they are less sensitive, but the procedure has less effect long-term than female "circumcision," which is far more barbaric and leaves its victims with little in the way of sexual pleasure. Men with circ'd penises are still capable of enjoying sex... women with cut-off clitorises and labia are not. Comparing the two shows an astounding amount of ignorance and hubris, because "circumcized" women face a lifetime of literally being ripped open during sex or childbirth. The two are not comparable.

 

Both sides of the debate tend to annoy me, with the pro side just sticking to tradition and other asshattery, and the con side blowing things wildly out of proportion.

 

Male and female circumcision are absolutely the same thing. They differ only in degree (of severity). There is very little difference in principle, origins, or common justifications.

But saying the experience of one is exactly like the other's is very ignorant and even arrogant. It is not at all okay to say your pain is the exact same as someone else's, when it has far fewer and less severe effects. There is no difference in origins, but there is a HUGE difference in practice and in effect. It's not right that boys who are circumcised go on to have reduced feeling, but comparing it to an extremely painful procedure INTENDED to have painful, life-long effects is very ignorant and arrogant indeed.

Maybe we differ only in semantics here... I dunno. I've readily acknowledged that the damage from female circumcision is significantly more severe, generally speaking, than the damage from male circumcision (although there ARE guys out there who have lost practically all sexual function due to the practice). And best I can tell, that's where the differences end. Otherwise we're talking about essentially the same phenomenon.

 

I think part of the tone of this debate is that in our society, it's OK for women to rail against unjust sexual practices and taboos... whereas men are expected to be stoic and invulnerable about such things. Apparently others have had different experiences, but it's been MY experience that women are generally more in favor of male genital mutilation than men are. Whereas we ALL agree that it's unacceptable to mutilate female genitals.

[roadrunner]

Like anything you could argue both sides. After looking at all of the facts on both sides, personally I came away with the conclusion that its useless if anything.

 

I was circumcised as a child I'm not mentally scarred, I don't feel like I missed out on something, and no female has ever asked for her money back....I mean.... complained about me having been circumcised. I dont have any of the effects that most opponents of circumcision cite and I'm not mad at my parents. For these reason I think its just something silly that we started doing before we had all the facts. 

 

 

I think good intentions perpetuated the practice despite its religious roots. Regardless the ethics of such a practice have to be called into question at this point 

[Vendredie]

Like anything you could argue both sides. After looking at all of the facts on both sides, personally I came away with the conclusion that its useless if anything.

 

I was circumcised as a child I'm not mentally scarred, I don't feel like I missed out on something, and no female has ever asked for her money back....I mean.... complained about me having been circumcised. I dont have any of the effects that most opponents of circumcision cite and I'm not mad at my parents. For these reason I think its just something silly that we started doing before we had all the facts. 

 

 

I think good intentions perpetuated the practice despite its religious roots. Regardless the ethics of such a practice have to be called into question at this point 

Yep, how I feel about it.  And how most men who have weighed in on forum discussions about this that I've seen have felt.

 

Still not getting any of my future sons circ'd.  There's no point, but if it somehow happened anyway (as hospitals have been known to disrespect the wishes of the parents regarding this) I wouldn't freak out and pronounce him "mutilated" or "mangled".  Like any procedure it carries risks of infection and accidents... but most of the time, that's simply not the case. I'd be more pissed that the hospital did not respect my wishes or the bodily autonomy of my hypothetical son... well, what little bodily autonomy a newborn baby has, anyway.  It deserves to be questioned and parents ought to have a right not to choose it for their children. All the guys I've been with have been cut, they certainly had no problems with sex. 

[Galien]

I guess the main difference is what the people here think constitutes harm and suffering, and what I think does. No point arguing when meanings are different.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

From a sexual point of view I would much rather wrap my lips around a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one. Just sayin'

 

 

It's because you're more accustomed to sexually mutilated penises. I know that I used to be embarrassed that I still had a foreskin. Now I'm happy, knowing that when circumcised, you lose sensitivity.

 

 

This issue just underscores how dumb people really are.  I bet if you asked most moms why they had their kid circumcised they would reply with inaccurate information or with an "I dunno" or worse, something religious.

Or they think you're crazy for not circumcising your kid, even though they don't know why a kid should be. It's just tradition, and you must obey!

This is where the term "Sheeple" seems appropriate.   If you so something so intrusive, so painful, not without its own risks, that lasts for a lifetime, to your own infant child and you don't know why... You're a fucking "sheeple."

 

In this case, a barbaric sheeperson at that.

 

 

 

From a sexual point of view I would much rather wrap my lips around a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one. Just sayin'

 

Wow- is that supposed to be a justification for cutting pieces off a child's genitals?  I hear that some men in Northern Africa prefer women without labia or a clitoris...

 

Jesus christ... you'd think our self-proclaimed paragon of empathy would err on the side of NOT causing unnecessary bodily harm and the potential for lifetime sexual dysfunction.  I guess it just goes to show how powerful completely senseless cultural notions can be.

You always been this against circumcision for your whole life, or just since people started carrying on about it? There are worse things in the world than having your tip nipped. What a performance. If I had a son he would be circumcised. Because I said so.

 

He probably started caring when I did, when he came to realize just how disturbing it really is. So what? Who cares when he began to care about it?

 

Though I'd like to make a point. Someone from a culture not accustomed to sexually mutilated penis-heads might find your attraction to them bizarre and disturbing, if not insane. Just saying.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

 

 

 

From a sexual point of view I would much rather wrap my lips around a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one. Just sayin'

 

Wow- is that supposed to be a justification for cutting pieces off a child's genitals?  I hear that some men in Northern Africa prefer women without labia or a clitoris...

 

Jesus christ... you'd think our self-proclaimed paragon of empathy would err on the side of NOT causing unnecessary bodily harm and the potential for lifetime sexual dysfunction.  I guess it just goes to show how powerful completely senseless cultural notions can be.

 

You always been this against circumcision for your whole life, or just since people started carrying on about it? There are worse things in the world than having your tip nipped. What a performance. If I had a son he would be circumcised. Because I said so.

 

 

It just seems like a very obvious question to me.  

 

Should we cut up a kid's genitals?  Or not?

 

Seriously- where's this empathy you're always going on about?  Every justification you've posted so far can be (and is) used to justify female circumcision- which I THINK we can all agree is horrible.

Most men my age, in my country are circumcised because at the time it was culturally appropriate to do so. A lot of their sons are circumcised so they can look like dad. I am assuming you have never smelt the penis of an uncircumcised man who does not exercise appropriate hygiene. Not nice.

 

My grandson was recently circumcised on a trip here, he is muslim. He looked fine to me. Im pretty sure his world will not be devastated or his sex life compromised. There are so many worse things that happen to children all the time that remain ignored. This topic shits me because it is neither here nor there, but people want to make a huge issue out of it.

 

 

Some people have trouble taking care of their teeth. They have bad breath. Might as well pull out everyone's teeth in case they grow up to have poor hygeine. In fact, it's less painful than circumcision!

 

That's a poor excuse. Women's parts can smell bad too, especially when they don't exercise good hygeine. What does it matter? In fact, I've never had trouble keeping my part clean, its not a terribly difficult part to clean when you have a foreskin. Nor to keep clean.

I guess the main difference is what the people here think constitutes harm and suffering, and what I think does. No point arguing when meanings are different.

How would you define harm? suffering?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Harm

 

physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.

 

Suffering:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering?s=t

 

the state of a person or thing that suffers.

Often, sufferings. something suffered by a person or a group of people; pain

 

Looks like alot of suffering for an infant. And damage if you knew what circumcision was.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

This issue just underscores how dumb people really are.  I bet if you asked most moms why they had their kid circumcised they would reply with inaccurate information or with an "I dunno" or worse, something religious.

Or they think you're crazy for not circumcising your kid, even though they don't know why a kid should be. It's just tradition, and you must obey!

 

 

This is where the term "Sheeple" seems appropriate.   If you so something so intrusive, so painful, not without its own risks, that lasts for a lifetime, to your own infant child and you don't know why... You're a fucking "sheeple."

 

 

 

-1 for saying 'sheeple'.

[Galien]

 

 

 

 

 

 

From a sexual point of view I would much rather wrap my lips around a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one. Just sayin'

 

Wow- is that supposed to be a justification for cutting pieces off a child's genitals?  I hear that some men in Northern Africa prefer women without labia or a clitoris...

 

Jesus christ... you'd think our self-proclaimed paragon of empathy would err on the side of NOT causing unnecessary bodily harm and the potential for lifetime sexual dysfunction.  I guess it just goes to show how powerful completely senseless cultural notions can be.

 

You always been this against circumcision for your whole life, or just since people started carrying on about it? There are worse things in the world than having your tip nipped. What a performance. If I had a son he would be circumcised. Because I said so.

 

 

It just seems like a very obvious question to me.  

 

Should we cut up a kid's genitals?  Or not?

 

Seriously- where's this empathy you're always going on about?  Every justification you've posted so far can be (and is) used to justify female circumcision- which I THINK we can all agree is horrible.

 

Most men my age, in my country are circumcised because at the time it was culturally appropriate to do so. A lot of their sons are circumcised so they can look like dad. I am assuming you have never smelt the penis of an uncircumcised man who does not exercise appropriate hygiene. Not nice.

 

My grandson was recently circumcised on a trip here, he is muslim. He looked fine to me. Im pretty sure his world will not be devastated or his sex life compromised. There are so many worse things that happen to children all the time that remain ignored. This topic shits me because it is neither here nor there, but people want to make a huge issue out of it.

 

 

 

Some people have trouble taking care of their teeth. They have bad breath. Might as well pull out everyone's teeth in case they grow up to have poor hygeine. In fact, it's less painful than circumcision!

 

That's a poor excuse. Women's parts can smell bad too, especially when they don't exercise good hygeine. What does it matter? In fact, I've never had trouble keeping my part clean, its not a terribly difficult part to clean when you have a foreskin. Nor to keep clean.

I

guess the main difference is what the people here think constitutes harm and suffering, and what I think does. No point arguing when meanings are different.

How would you define harm? suffering?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Harm

 

physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.

 

Suffering:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering?s=t

 

 

the state of a person or thing that suffers.

 

Often, sufferings. something suffered by a person or a group of people; pain

 

Looks like alot of suffering for an infant. And damage if you knew what circumcision was.

 

I define harm in a heirarchy compared to what I have to live with every day. Go fuck yourself.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

 

 

 

 

 

From a sexual point of view I would much rather wrap my lips around a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one. Just sayin'

 

Wow- is that supposed to be a justification for cutting pieces off a child's genitals?  I hear that some men in Northern Africa prefer women without labia or a clitoris...

 

Jesus christ... you'd think our self-proclaimed paragon of empathy would err on the side of NOT causing unnecessary bodily harm and the potential for lifetime sexual dysfunction.  I guess it just goes to show how powerful completely senseless cultural notions can be.

 

You always been this against circumcision for your whole life, or just since people started carrying on about it? There are worse things in the world than having your tip nipped. What a performance. If I had a son he would be circumcised. Because I said so.

 

 

It just seems like a very obvious question to me.  

 

Should we cut up a kid's genitals?  Or not?

 

Seriously- where's this empathy you're always going on about?  Every justification you've posted so far can be (and is) used to justify female circumcision- which I THINK we can all agree is horrible.

 

Most men my age, in my country are circumcised because at the time it was culturally appropriate to do so. A lot of their sons are circumcised so they can look like dad. I am assuming you have never smelt the penis of an uncircumcised man who does not exercise appropriate hygiene. Not nice.

 

My grandson was recently circumcised on a trip here, he is muslim. He looked fine to me. Im pretty sure his world will not be devastated or his sex life compromised. There are so many worse things that happen to children all the time that remain ignored. This topic shits me because it is neither here nor there, but people want to make a huge issue out of it.

 

 

 

Some people have trouble taking care of their teeth. They have bad breath. Might as well pull out everyone's teeth in case they grow up to have poor hygeine. In fact, it's less painful than circumcision!

 

That's a poor excuse. Women's parts can smell bad too, especially when they don't exercise good hygeine. What does it matter? In fact, I've never had trouble keeping my part clean, its not a terribly difficult part to clean when you have a foreskin. Nor to keep clean.

I

guess the main difference is what the people here think constitutes harm and suffering, and what I think does. No point arguing when meanings are diff

erent.

How would you define harm? suffering?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Harm

 

physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.

 

Suffering:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering?s=t

 

 

the state of a person or thing that suffers.

 

Often, sufferings. something suffered by a person or a group of people; pain

 

Looks like alot of suffering for an infant. And damage if you knew what circumcision was.

I define harm in a heirarchy compared to what I have to live with every day. Go fuck yourself.

 

I assure you that you don't have to deal with anything close to the harm that is circumcision. That being said, you're answer isn't very informative nor mature.

[Galien]

Well apparently I have to believe circumcision is harm because the hysterical majority says so. With all due respect, I dont think having the end of your foreskin removed is even close to the misery and suffering many, many people in the world go through every day. I can only assume that if you do think that, then either you haven't suffered or you don't get out much. Must be just peachy to slowly starve to death when you are five years old because the majority of the greedy people in the world don't want to feed you. Don't hear anywhere near enough people jumping up and down about that do we?

 

I realise that this topic is so emotive there is no point discussing it. Just like abortion and rape, apparently there is only one acceptable opinion.

[Ravenstar]

hmmm.... that is an interesting, if disturbing. I've been through my own hells and very little of parts of my life were 'normal'... but I found through the course of various therapy that I engaged in that my own ptsd had inoculated me to others pain and suffering. I was comparing what I have experienced and lived through, and judging others by that standard. It's a pretty high standard.

 

I am a stoic, a survivor and when it comes right down to it pretty fucking strong...(I've been tested in the fire, so to speak) and I forget that not everyone has the same capacity to tolerate pain, suffering or even discomfort because I'm on the other side now... I've taken pride in my strength - but it didn't assist me in becoming a more loving person, it just protected me from harm - and that was necessary for a while - but it wasn't the end of my healing. I've been harsh with others because of this, in the past, to my regret. I've been disdainful and impatient with others because for me... pain, trauma and dysfunction was 'normal'...and on some level I think I looked down on those who hadn't been through as much as I had. There's a weird sort of reverse pride in there that's hard to explain... but it isn't entirely a positive adaptation. Well, it wasn't for me.

 

I think our entire culture is kind of like this sometimes - immune/insensitive to barbarity - because it has become accustomed to it - like a frog in a pot of water slowly being cooked to death and not hopping to safety because it's so gradual.

 

There is terrible suffering in the world, yes..and there is suffering that seems like a mosquito bite when I compare it to my own, or to others stories I've heard... but, for me, to compare is to invalidate the individuals, their experience and their humanity. And that is a terrible thing.

 

I guess what I'm saying is... sensitivity to brutality at all levels is what keeps us compassionate - human.. and it's an easy thing to lose sight of. That's what I've learned anyway.

 

 

 

Oh... I do have one other point on his subject. Male circumcision... is not quite equal to female 'circumcision' - which is actually a clitoridectomy and sometimes removal of the major and minor labia as well - which would equate to the removal of the penis entirely (and maybe the prostate as well), not just the foreskin. Just thought we could clear that up.

 

In any case... I think circumcision should be the decision of the person, and not something done before the age of consent. That's my position on it which I base on personal autonomy and sovereignty over one's own body..

[roadrunner]

......

In any case... I think circumcision should be the decision of the person, and not something done before the age of consent. That's my position on it which I base on personal autonomy and sovereignty over one's own body..

 

I agree. I'm sure I cried but I dont remember as a matter of fact nobody gave me any details of the event. Having said that, had it been omitted when I younger I certainly would not go through with it as an adult or age of consent. If Im old enough to know whats happening I dont want them hacking at my stuff. By the time yo reach the "age of consent" you've probably already gotten up close and personal with your parts. 

 

but its nothing like female circumcision from what I understand.

[JadedAtheist]

Having read a few journals from journal databases that my university has access to, the main reason for the decline of circumcision is because of the belief that there is no substantial benefit to the procedure. In the UK the drop was dramatic because it was no longer covered by the government healthcare and people were not going to cover it out of their own pocket. In Australia the ACP adopted a policy of discouraging circumcision due to the same reason and as a result there began a decline. In the US, the AAP too adopted a policy of discouraging it which resulted in a steady decline. This decline came to an abrupt stop when the AAP restated its position by claiming it may have slight benefits but the decline began again once it assumed its prior position.

 

The biggest arguments in favor of circumcision can are the rates of the following: Penile cancer, HIV and STDs. These pose greater risks for those uncircumcised than the other way around. The biggest factor is penile cancer in which there is a 32:1 ration of circumcised men getting cancer vs uncircumcised men. Those getting circumcised after the neonatal period gain none of the safety of those who do so in that period. HIV and STDs pose minimally greater risks due to the foreskin 'trapping' the viruses/diseases in the penile area. It's for this reason that WHO has adopted a pro-circumcision policy (at least for countries that are under great risk for HIV) and various other bodies have changed stances of discouraging circumcision to stating it has pros and cons.

 

In terms of complications that arise from circumcision, from the journals that I've read the rate of complication varies from around 0.1% to 3% with most of those complications related to minor issues like bleeding that takes longer to heal than expected. I wasn't able to find a study that showed the rates of permanent issues arising from complication. Deaths are extremely rare and are generally related to poor after care. A study in Iran showed that in a 10 year period, 23 deaths occurred with an approximate 500,000 circumcisions being performed every year there. This correlates to a rate of about 0.0005%.

 

The rate of penile cancer is the highest in the US at about 1 in 100,000 or in other words a man has about a 0.001% chance of getting it. In Australia, 0.01% of the population has HIV. Other STDs have various rates of occurrence but most are not as serious as HIV so I am not too concerned with them.

 

Based on the unlikeliness of someone contracting penile cancer or HIV (and especially since it offers insignificant protection against it) it seems to be the benefits to circumcision are almost non existent. While I don't think circumcision is the same as someone physically abusing their child, I do think you are putting your child under unnecessary risk for insignificant benefits. I'm not sure if I would wish to ban parents from being allowed to perform it because of the above but I certainly think discouraging it is a good start and as already shown, it's discouragement has had a dramatic change in the culture.