Circumcision

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

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.

The hysterical majority actually holds your opinion, that it isn't harm. They'll go one step further and say we should get it done, because its tradition!

 

Maybe having the skin boiled off my hands wasn't suffering. Maybe being abused most of my life wasn't suffering. Maybe I don't get out much. Or maybe you assume too much about me. Perhaps I care about this issue more because of my own trauma, and am making a bigger deal out of it than there really is, or maybe not. At least I don't think that I am.

 

You're right actually, I didn't go through anything at all. I just have PTSD and Borderline Personality disorder for nothing. Because my childhood was peachy, rosy and ideal!

 

Sure, lots of people have had it worse than me. That doesn't justify circumcision nor does it the skin being boiled off my hands. Had to have skin grafts to repair it. Happened when I was 3 as a punishment. The only thing I remember is my mom used to use it as a punishment for me shitting my pants, and that my hands were blistering and I don't remember much else. You could say that that was okay, it taught me not to poop my pants! I didn't even remember it, so surely it did me no harm, right? Sure, I shouldn't compare the two. It is a little unfair of me. But my skin on my hands at least, granted grafted on, grew back. So I was actually really lucky, there's hardly any signs of it anymore. But afterall, you want to minimize it by comparing it to starving children. Both are bad. Sure one is worse, but that doesn't justify it!

 

How do you know how much pain those infant boys go through anyway? Do you know? Because last I checked it was alot. Alot more than what is justifiable with the bad excuses given for this procedure.

[LifeCycle]

Inflicting pain on any infant for what are very questionable results, is disturbing.  Even more so when it's the parent who okays it.

 

That's what world you live in folks.  Isn't that just dandy?

[Kurari]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Thankfully that hasn't been my experience. I definitely do not believe that. I believe ALL people have a right to call the shots to their own bodies. With gender-specific issues, I think the people of that gender are the only ones who should have the final say. Male circumcision is a man's issue. I think it's totally fair that I don't get a vote on the matter. 

[Guest r3alchild]

My feelings is that millions of years of evolution has made the penis with a forskin so leave it alone. If there is or was a good reason for us to not have a forskin then im sure evolution would and will stop making them.

[Kurari]

My feelings is that millions of years of evolution has made the penis with a forskin so leave it alone. If there is or was a good reason for us to not have a forskin then im sure evolution would and will stop making them.

 

The foreskin's purpose is to protect the penis, especially the glans in keeping it protected, soft, and moist. The rest of it's purpose is for sensitivity during sex for men, and it's also possible that it also helps protect the vagina during intercourse from dryness and damage for women.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

My feelings is that millions of years of evolution has made the penis with a forskin so leave it alone. If there is or was a good reason for us to not have a forskin then im sure evolution would and will stop making them.

The foreskin's purpose is to protect the penis, especially the glans in keeping it protected, soft, and moist. The rest of it's purpose is for sensitivity during sex for men, and it's also possible that it also helps protect the vagina during intercourse from dryness and damage for women.

Yep its there for a reason.

[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.

Just for the record rank, I claimed no such thing.

[RankStranger]

 

 

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.

Just for the record rank, I claimed no such thing.

 

No such thing as what?  It'd help if you'd be more specific.

[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.

Just for the record rank, I claimed no such thing.

 

No such thing as what?  It'd help if you'd be more specific.

That I am a paragon of empathy, or anything else.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Just for the record rank, I claimed no such thing.

 

No such thing as what?  It'd help if you'd be more specific.

That I am a paragon of empathy, or anything else.

 

 

Maybe you didn't use those exact words.  But a significant fraction of your posts involve you explaining how you value others so much, treat people well, and are an all-around nicer and more empathetic person than all these other assholes in the world.  And maybe that's true- I dunno.  But if in fact that's the case, I can't figure out why this valuation, empathy, and such doesn't seem to extend to male children.

 

Not cutting pieces off peoples' genitals without their consent... I reckon that's among the most basic of human courtesies. 

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Or males in general. She seems to hate them.

[RankStranger]

Or males in general. She seems to hate them.

 

Maybe she has good reason to.  We're a pretty contemptible bunch.  

 

But christ on a cracker- this is such a simple question.  

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

Or males in general. She seems to hate them.

 

Maybe she has good reason to.  We're a pretty contemptible bunch.  

 

But christ on a cracker- this is such a simple question.  

She's blocked me. Push her too much she'll block you too. Or at least I have a strong suspicion she has. O well if she has.

 

I have alot of reasons to hate men and hate women but I hate neither. It'd be alot to blame all men and women on the face of this earth for shit that has happened to me.

 

She has good reasons to hate men. She's been through alot. I feel bad for her. She takes these debates too personally.

[kolaida]

I guess I don't have much to say on the topic except I definitely think it should NOT be done.  Stuff should be left alone until the person decides one way or the other. I've never really understood the purpose behind it, the reasoning beyond it was done in the bible. No point in carrying on a tradition that has shown there's not much medical benefit, if any.  Shouldn't be done unless necessary. 

 

Not to insult any males with circumcised parts.  It doesn't stimulate me more or less, circumcised or not and the pleasure has been about the same from what I can tell (course I was never actively comparing circumcised or not as I had never really given it much thought).  It's sad some males suffer so much from it, they can't have satisfactory sex lives their entire life (how sad). But I'm glad it's not the case in ALL males circumcised (that would be depressing living in the usa and all....) 

[Galien]

I have only ever blocked two people on here but they are pussies who think I am a bully anyway and have now buggered off it would seem. I don't think circumcision is a bad thing, I don't believe it to be mutilation and I don't know one adult circumcised male in meatspace who does either. I don't hate men, I strongly dislike selfish egotistical people who only think of themselves.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Mutilate:

 

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

 

Sounds like mutilating a childs sex organs, hence sexual mutilation.

 

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

[RipVanWinkle]

WOW! I am surprised at how volatile this topic is. When I was born and even when my two sons were born

circumcision was a non-issue. And I don't know when it became a hot issue. It never caused me any

problems of any kind, nor did it cause my brother or my sons any. When I was young I was told by my

parents that it was done for medical reasons. Since that is not really true, I don't see any reason to do it. But, if it is to be done I think it should be done when the child is an infant. As to the pain

it causes, I have received a type of anesthesia for a procedure which, according to my doctor, would

not actually put me under, but rather, I would not remember anything. So perhaps not remembering pain

as an infant is nearly as effective as that kind of anesthesia. I know they're not the same exactly,

but perhaps circumcision is not as traumatic to the child as we think. Perhaps a good doctor would have better insight than we do on this issue. bill

 

bill

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

WOW! I am surprised at how volatile this topic is. When I was born and even when my two sons were born

circumcision was a non-issue. And I don't know when it became a hot issue. It never caused me any

problems of any kind, nor did it cause my brother or my sons any. When I was young I was told by my

parents that it was done for medical reasons. Since that is not really true, I don't see any reason to do it. But, if it is to be done I think it should be done when the child is an infant. As to the pain

it causes, I have received a type of anesthesia for a procedure which, according to my doctor, would

not actually put me under, but rather, I would not remember anything. So perhaps not remembering pain

as an infant is nearly as effective as that kind of anesthesia. I know they're not the same exactly,

but perhaps circumcision is not as traumatic to the child as we think. Perhaps a good doctor would have better insight than we do on this issue. bill

 

bill

Whether or not a child remembers it says nothing about how traumatic it is. I know people who have claimed it caused them trauma, but its hard to say. Then again, its hard to say that the skin on my hands being boiled off caused me emotional harm because I don't remember it by that same logic. I'm not saying it is or isn't. It doesn't seem to often cause trauma from what I know. Though that's not why its important.

 

The reason is seen as wrong is because you're forever altering your childs genitals for the cosmological desires of the parents. Whether that cosmological desire is religious, traditional, or whatever.

 

Appealing to the authority of doctors is a copout. Though I'm sure everyone here agrees that if it were medically necessary, then circumcision would make sense to do it. I'm sure we're all on the same page with that part. If there's no medical reason to do it, why do it?