For biolgicial males, circumcision?

I've never heard of anyone that I know having issues with their foreskin, though I doubt this is a conversation you'd hear brought up in many other places than a Ben Stiller movie.

I actually researched this a few years ago out of curiosity. My opinion is: leave the choice up to the boy. He can choose later in life if he wants to have this procedure done to him. Why make this irreversible (in most cases) choice for him?

 

I had skin adhesions, but it was not infected. That is still not a medical emergency. Even my doctor admitted to my mom that it was a proactive measure. And yes, I have expressed to her how upset I was over the whole thing.

 

It seems I am a part of the minority in this discussion, as I am completely okay with circumcision.

I was circumcised as an infant, and have been happy with my parent's choice. That is because this is how I've been all my life though, so that is why I can't imagine what it would even be like to have foreskin. I think the best answer would be that depending on whether or not each individual was circumcised at birth will determine their outlook on the subject. I was circumcised as an infant, so this is me and I am okay with it. Someone who was circumcised later on in life most likely does not agree with it, as they were used to have their foreskin.

 

I know I'm female and probably have no place in this discussion, but I never liked the idea of circumcision and won't be subjecting my future children to the procedure.

I mean the foreskin is really sensitive and it's actually supposed to protect the glans. Diseases can be prevented with a condom- and the hygiene excuses are pretty false too. I think if a guy needs to be cut to have "good hygiene" then he has awful hygiene to begin with since it just proves he doesn't know how to shower correctly. Also, if you're a woman it's supposed to hurt less to have sex with a uncircumcised man since the foreskin produces natural lubrication.

So yeah, dunno. I just think it should be a personal choice. Ironically, I wouldn't complain if my female parts were cut off with my consent, but I wouldn't promote it to others.

 

I live in the UK and I'm not circumsised, and although I had problems in childhood (I was never told how to clean it, I didn't even realise I had to clean it), I'm very glad I'm not. There are very few useless appendages in nature, especially not on something as important as the penis. It protects the head from damage and provides natural lubrication, aiding pleasure and chance of pregnancy. It seems bizarre to me that anyone would lop off a natural, functioning, healthy part of the body.

The jury is still out on whether or not it helps or hinders STI infection, but either way is irrelevant due to these amazing things called condoms.

I think that Americans need to learn that they only think circumcised penises "look nicer" because that's what they're used to and that uncircumsised is only unclean if he doesn't wash it.

 

False.
It makes it easier to clean. If you don't clean you'll still have a higher risk of diseases than someone's who's natural and does clean regularly.

Except it really doesn't. Nothing personal, but you've bought into a very common myth about circumcision.
It only makes it easier to clean.

There will always be a most likely place to get diseases, does that mean we should keep cutting until you won't have any genitals left, or should we just stop having sex?

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 12:04 PM ----------

It also has bad effects when done on infants, from tearing, infections and loss of nerves to actual death.

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 12:07 PM ----------

Reality disagrees however.
It has to do with keeping your penis clean, whether through washing or wearing a condom.

IE nothing to do with the foreskin itself.
With this logic, we should start cutting of people's ears, in case their parents don't know how to wash it properly.

Not only is this pure personal opinion, we don't cut other body parts of for aesthetic reasons, at least not before the owner of the body can consent.
Maybe the child finds foreskin more appealing?
Seriously aesthetics is the worst reason to circumcise a child.

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 12:09 PM ----------

Except there are plenty of people who were circumcised at birth who also disagree with that decision.

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 12:10 PM ----------

Why not, if I may ask?

 

That was a study done on 3000 people, an incredibly small number, and it was found that only penile vaginal sex increased the risk. Still, even if it is correct, if you're going to have unprotected sex with someon you don't know then you have no-one to blame but yourself. Why would you mutilate a child rather than teach him how to use a condom?

 

I mean, technically speaking the clitoris is the most useless and unnecessary part of the body with It's only purpose being used for sexual pleasure, and that's it. And It's technically still possible to feel pleasure without it. Which in comparison, the foreskin is more important and has more uses and protections for non-sexual reasons.

I don't agree with female circumcision (obviously!!) and I would find it more painful, but I'm just saying that if mine were gone I wouldn't miss it all that much and that's how circumcised men feel since they don't know what they're missing.

Obviously we are not in disagreement though considering you know your facts : P

 

Circumcised penises look weird. I don't know why Americans are so obsessed with removing the foreskin.

 

Like I said, there will always be a most vulnerable part.
So we either have to cut of all sex parts alltogether, or not have sex from the start.

Meaning there's no sound basis for infant circumcision since:
A. Children don't have sex, especially not infants.
B. There are ways to protect againt infections that do not involve the unsollicited removal of perfectly healthy part of the human body.

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 03:20 PM ----------

Ah, I see, but you really would not mind if you lost it?

Agreed, I was just surprised you'd be fine with it if somebody cut of a part of your body.

I see your point.

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 03:22 PM ----------

Indeed, even when circumcised.

The point remains that removing the foreskin is unnecesarry. It doesn't remove risks, nor decrease them significantly enough. More importantly arguments based on STDs are completely irrelvant when it comes to infant circumcision, for obvious reasons.

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 03:25 PM ----------

Also interesting:
Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates

The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3515509.html

How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections | Van Howe | Journal of Public Health in Africa

---------- Post added 19th Jul 2015 at 03:27 PM ----------

Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infections | Circinfo.org

I also want to make clear I'm not making a value judgement on people who have been circumcised.
At most I'm making a value judgement about the necessity of the procedure and the unilateral decision made by partents, guardians and doctors.

 

And then they can make their own informed choice, rather than having it taken from them for no sound reason.

Except it really doesn't, see the article links above.

That and the fact that:
A. You're not forced to have sex
B. There are other ways to reduce the risks of STDs

Means this argument demonstrates neither necessity, nor a sound basis for infant circumcision.

I'm not. See the articles above.

Fotunately reality does not operat based on your word, final or otherwise.
All you've done is post blind assertions. You have done nothing to demonstrate it's true.

Citations? Not to mention irrelevant since the fast majority still wouldn't since the skin that they're part of simply doesn't exist anymore.

All circumcision reduces nerve endings.
You have provided not a single rational argument to support circumcision, neonatal or otherwise.

 

There is no reason for circumcision unless it's tied to religion, I don't know why everyone else decided to hop on that bandwagon.

As it is a part of the person's body and they have no choice in the matter, I believe it is an unfair procedure.

There is nothing detrimental about keeping foreskin on, only if it has a certain harmful condition that requires cutting or it gets infected (in which case, is a fault of the parents' for not bathing their child properly.)

 

I don't care about the so-called "benefits", because

Circumcision is a procedure performed without the person's consent.

I was circumcised, and I despise it.

I would never do that to my kids.

 

I'm personally very glad and proud that I've not been circumcised.

The argument that it's easier to clean is pretty ridiculous considering it can be cleaned perfectly well with the foreskin on. I wouldn't mutilate myself anywhere else for cleaning purposes. Having an attached foreskin does not necessarily mean uncleanliness, just like having a circumcised penis does not necessarily mean cleanliness.

As mentioned before, there's countless benefits. It protects the penis in many ways, keeps a layer of natural lubricant for sex, and allows for more pleasurable sex due to the retention of erogenous tissue, to just name a few.

If medically necessary it makes sense to remove it. However to uphold tradition, "improve" the aesthetic, make it easier to clean (does it though?), or for any other non-medical reason, it seems redundant. If it's done without consent from an able-minded, well-informed mind, then that's even worse.

 

It's true, but irrelevant.

 

I think nowadays it's consensus on logical adults to simply not circumsize their kids. I didn't to either of my boys and wishe'd for a while I had mine. But my penis isn't really hat big a deal to me. So.

 

Original American reason for jumping on that bandwagon: attempt to keep boys from masturbating.

From that point, it somehow became "normal", and the force of tradition took over. A lot of parents probably signed the consent forms without a thought past: well, it's what everyone does!