Should circumcising the penis of baby boys be made illegal?

[Zelder]

How do you feel about circumcision of the penis of male babies. Should it be illegal, up to the parents to decide, or required?

Also, guys, if you are circumcised, are you happy you were? If not do you wish you were?

I think that it's wrong to make a permanent change like that to baby who has no say in the matter. I asked my twin brother; he says he's glad he's not circumcised (we're close). It should wait until they are over 18 and can decide for themselves.

[Vocabulous]

up to the parents i am and im fine with it. its also healthier, easier to keep clean

[Walter Powers]

Oh God, not another distasteful thread from you.

I might respond in the morning.

[Plasma]

This is a very controversial question, although, for the time being, it's completely up to the parents and what they want to do. I was circumcised as a baby and I think I'm pretty indifferent about it... It seems like women in the USA like the look more so I guess it isn't all too bad

[PinkFloyd]

I don't care about all the benefits of it. Circumcision should not be a choice made by someone other than the kid getting it unless it absolutely needs to be done. My answer is yes. it should be made illegal.

I wish I could know what it's like to be uncut, but I can't. The only girl that's seen it says it looks more clean. I guess I'm happy about that at least.

[saea97]

There are certainly plusses to circumcision when considered for health reasons, but that's a decision a child should make when they are old enough to think about the procedure for themselves. If they choose to have it done for health reasons when they're of age, then fine: that's them being the master of their own body.

As for religiously motivated neonatal circumcision: In my book, it's nothing short of forced mutilation. A book that commands me to hack off a portion of my child's genitalia is a book worth burning. Raise the child as an adherent of Islam or Judaism if you must (although I do not condone that either) and then give them the choice when they reach a certain age.

[MisterSix]

Not one of these threads again.
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
A cock can work just as well without a foreskin

[Gigablue]

There is no medical reason for routine circumcision, and as such, it is a cosmetic procedure. I have a big problem with performing cosmetic surgery on infants. If there is a specific medical reason, then it should be done, otherwise, it should be banned.

[ovoxo23]

How do you feel about circumcision of the penis of male babies. Should it be illegal, up to the parents to decide, or required?

Also, guys, if you are circumcised, are you happy you were? If not do you wish you were?

I think that it's wrong to make a permanent change like that to baby who has no say in the matter. I asked my twin brother; he says he's glad he's not circumcised (we're close). It should wait until they are over 18 and can decide for themselves.

I think that it should be alliwed on babies. There are health risks when you don't and there are religious beliefs associated with it. If you make it illegal to get circumcision on babies, you're basically prohibiting some people from practicing their beliefs. I was circumcised as a baby and I am very glad. I think it looks better and is more confortable and I can do more things without worrying about health risks. It's aldo way easier to clean. Honestly, if I didn't have it done as a baby, I'm not sure U coyld build the courage to do it as an adult, so I am VERY glad it was done to me as a baby.

[Gigablue]

I think that it should be alliwed on babies. There are health risks when you don't and there are religious beliefs associated with it. If you make it illegal to get circumcision on babies, you're basically prohibiting some people from practicing their beliefs. I was circumcised as a baby and I am very glad. I think it looks better and is more confortable and I can do more things without worrying about health risks. It's aldo way easier to clean. Honestly, if I didn't have it done as a baby, I'm not sure U coyld build the courage to do it as an adult, so I am VERY glad it was done to me as a baby.

There are potential complications of the surgery. These are usually mild, but in rare cases can include death. There aren't significant health risks associated with not performing routing infant circumcision. In some cases, circumcision is necessary, but it certainly is not needed for all infants.

As for the religious argument, we prevent people from practicing their religion when to do so would violate others rights. For example, we ban female genital mutilation because it causes harm, even though some people feel it is mandated by their religion. (Before anyone challenges this, I'm not saying that circumcision is anywhere near as bad as FGM). I think that since circumcision is a violation of the baby's right to safety and security of person, and since it carries no significant medical benefit, it should be banned, regardless to religion.

[Southside]

It's been shown in studies that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV, though the final decesion should be up to the parents since the baby cant talk or make decesions for itself. As a boy whos circumcised, it's much easier to clean and looks better in my opinion.

[tovaris]

Its conpletly unnecesary mutilation of a baby.

[trimm_tom]

i believe it is the choice of the family but unfortunate that the child cant decide until it is older and it is more painful

[Zelder]

This is a very controversial question, although, for the time being, it's completely up to the parents and what they want to do. I was circumcised as a baby and I think I'm pretty indifferent about it... It seems like women in the USA like the look more so I guess it isn't all too bad

But would you prefer you hadn't been?

The whole concept of circumcision just seems really wierd and unneeded to me.

[Sugaree]

Oh God, not another distasteful thread from you.

Well, don't take that butthurt too seriously Walt. It might hurt when you sit next time.

And no, it shouldn't be made illegal. It's just a stupid idea to make circumcision illegal. What's the point? Yeah, the kid has no say in the matter, but why make it illegal for a parent to decide what they feel is best for their children?

[teen.jpg]

I don't care about all the benefits of it. Circumcision should not be a choice made by someone other than the kid getting it unless it absolutely needs to be done. My answer is yes. it should be made illegal.

I wish I could know what it's like to be uncut, but I can't. The only girl that's seen it says it looks more clean. I guess I'm happy about that at least.

Is it really worth the effort to make it illegal? It's not that big of a deal.

Sure, it might be nice to have foreskin, but I'm not losing any sleep by not having it.

Its conpletly unnecesary mutulation of a baby.

"mutilation"

It's not even that bad. You make it sound like castration.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Abyssal Echo]

[QUOTE=Purple_Floyd;2434587]I don't care about all the benefits of it. Circumcision should not be a choice made by someone other than the kid getting it unless it absolutely needs to be done. My answer is yes. it should be made illegal.

I agree with Rob it should be illegal. the choice should be left up to the kid.

[Elysium]

Up to the parents, but I'd like to see the child in question have a say in it as well. The problem I see with outlawing it or requiring it is that it'd be involving government, which doesn't keep church and state separated. Circumcisions are often a religious practice.

[Walter Powers]

Well, don't take that butthurt too seriously Walt. It might hurt when you sit next time.

And no, it shouldn't be made illegal. It's just a stupid idea to make circumcision illegal. What's the point? Yeah, the kid has no say in the matter, but why make it illegal for a parent to decide what they feel is best for their children?

I agree. My thoughts exactly.

[Plasma]

But would you prefer you hadn't been?

The whole concept of circumcision just seems really wierd and unneeded to me.

Sometimes I wish that I had had the choice, but it's in the past, so I try not to worry about it. I probably wouldn't have chosen to be circumcised to be honest.

[Korashk]

A cock can work just as well without a foreskin
Objectively false. Foreskins contain thousands of pleasure-giving nerve endings and provide natural lubrication.

It's been shown in studies that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV,
And those same studies failed to pass peer review yet are still used as a bullshit reason to justify cosmetic surgery on infants.

Yeah, the kid has no say in the matter, but why make it illegal for a parent to decide what they feel is best for their children?
Because parents shouldn't be able to violate the bodily integrity of their child for shits and giggles.

[STEALTHy]

I don't care about all the benefits of it. Circumcision should not be a choice made by someone other than the kid getting it unless it absolutely needs to be done. My answer is yes. it should be made illegal.

I wish I could know what it's like to be uncut, but I can't. The only girl that's seen it says it looks more clean. I guess I'm happy about that at least.

Look I have a circumcised penis and I don't care. I wouldn't care if it wasn't. All I care is that the dang thing works, and it does. If you want to run a poll I bet 99.9% of other males who had their penises circumcised when they were a baby don't give a care either. It's not like an international crime to be a parent and want your male baby to be circumcised. A female being circumcised though is something that should always be illegal.

Objectively false. Foreskins contain thousands of pleasure-giving nerve endings and provide natural lubrication.


And those same studies failed to pass peer review yet are still used as a bullshit reason to justify cosmetic surgery on infants.


Because parents shouldn't be able to violate the bodily integrity of their child for shits and giggles.

Double Post Merged. ~StoppingTime

1. Then it makes the male last longer, ever think about that?

2. Your right

3. Obviously you don't have a child of your own, I highly doubt parents do things to their children just for shits and giggles. In 1st world countries this argument is invalid. In places like India though where the fathers sell the baby and use the girl as sex slaves it stands ground.

[Kameraden]

There is absolutely no need for circumcision in Western Society. We're not rolling around in the mud or sand like several other societies -- I guarantee you that any intact (uncircumcised infers circumcision is normal, which is a lie) will not get an infection unless he's a filthy pig in which case I'm sure he wouldn't land a partner with whom to contaminate.

[Jonathan1998]

Unless it's medical, then yes. I believe it's the kid's choice to be circumcised or not, it's not the parent's choice, it's not their body, it's practically genital mutilation and they're getting away with it. It's ridiculous

[Human]

It isn't up to the parents whether a human should have a body part or not. The risks generally outweigh any benefits, if there are any benefits.

[Luminous]

There is no medical reason for routine circumcision, and as such, it is a cosmetic procedure. I have a big problem with performing cosmetic surgery on infants. If there is a specific medical reason, then it should be done, otherwise, it should be banned.

That is my thought as well. Just wait until the kid is old enough to choose for themselves if they want a piece of themselves cut off or not.

[RoseyCadaver]

Well, the child isn't able to consent to getting their foreskin cut off, and unless there is a medical need, a child shouldn't have to have their foreskin cut off.

Let them decide what they want when they're older...and when they can remember it.

Also there are complications that come up with some circumcisions, like skin bridges.

[handle with care]

i say it is an unnecessary procedure done only because most parents are misinformed if the possible consequences of not getting it done and are not informed that their can be complications.

[deadpie]

Personally I would have rather been circumcised at birth then when I was twelve. Had quite the not fun time with tightness and with puberty beginning boners were a nightmare of intense pain. Couldn't retract, impossible to clean.. I had to get it done. Then of course people noticing in middle school in the locker room that I had the change from the surgery after a month where I wouldn't shower with everyone.. That was quite embarrassing. No health benefits my ass... "When they can remember it" how about no? "Let them decide later on" like that conversation is every going to randomly pop up between a child and parent without the most awkward silence ever.

Obviously prefer the way I am now then what I was. No my dick is not mutilated. Fuck you for saying so. Ugh I hate it when people say circumcision is "mutilation". Yes I can still get a lot of sensitivity. People make it sound like cut guys feel like they're jerking off with sandpaper and feel nothing at all. I mean personally... I hate my entire body and hate everything about the person I am except my dick, because it's my best friend, it loves me, i love it, it's always there for me, it brings me a tad bit of happiness to life.

My stance is it shouldn't be illegal. I think it's quite dorky for people to think it should be. Really crazy. Keep it to parents choice. They're doing what they think is best and healthy for their child. I'm on the pro side, which is a rare thing for people to say online because "intactivists" as they call them like to shame and make people feel like shit because of DICKS EVERYWHERE. I don't see myself ever having children mainly because I'm forever alone and gay, but my stance is that circumcision for babies has proven health benefits and is the smarter move. Rather trust doctors then a group of angry people on computers that think they know more than the AAP and many others that dedicate their job for this type of information. I honestly don't care what people decide for their children. Their choice and that's A-OK, but I know what I'd do if I magically got married and had some baby boy out of nowhere (.000001 chance of that happening).

[Stronk Serb]

I am happy to have an intact penis. It should be made illegal, it is a unneeded mutilation of a baby's penis, and it cuts off some ppeasure nerve endings. Some of you said that they had boner problems, so do I, but with or without the foreskin, people would notice.

[roadwarrior]

Stay to it to be legal, it's good to parents to decide whether they want it or not, just do and respect the traditions what should it be...

[Kameraden]

So I guess since I'm part Greek I should keep up the tradition of hating and killing Turks whenever I get the chance.

[Trenton_]

It's a high end choice for the parents, if your parents don't have the money, don't get it. Same for braces and cosmetic surgery. In the USA, most guys are circumcised and are better off for it and girls and women definitely prefer it. In other countries, they're poorer, so it's a waste of money and the women expect a guy to be natural unless his family has some wealth.

[Milky Joe]

Should definitely be illegal. If you want to cut bits of your own penis that's your business but doing it to a baby is wrong.

So I guess since I'm part Greek I should keep up the tradition of hating and killing Turks whenever I get the chance.

Yes, it's important to keep up tradition ;)

[Kameraden]

It's a high end choice for the parents, if your parents don't have the money, don't get it. Same for braces and cosmetic surgery. In the USA, most guys are circumcised and are better off for it and girls and women definitely prefer it. In other countries, they're poorer, so it's a waste of money and the women expect a guy to be natural unless his family has some wealth.

...I cannot believe you just said that. So Americans circumcise because they're rich, and for example, 90% of Europeans don't circumcise because they're poor? Do us all a favor and just discontinue your Internet service.

[tovaris]

It's a high end choice for the parents, if your parents don't have the money, don't get it. Same for braces and cosmetic surgery. In the USA, most guys are circumcised and are better off for it and girls and women definitely prefer it. In other countries, they're poorer, so it's a waste of money and the women expect a guy to be natural unless his family has some wealth.

Its nt a question of an investment, but if he parents are sane and dont wish they child to be disfigured unneceserely, this excludes medical resons (by the way braces out of medical resons and surgery are conpletly free for children, at lest here).
I do are, tow not understand, that this dependes on the colture, but is unncesary in a todays society.

P. S. :
and this too:

...I cannot believe you just said that. So Americans circumcise because they're rich, and for example, 90% of Europeans don't circumcise because they're poor? Do us all a favor and just discontinue your Internet service.

Stay to it to be legal, it's good to parents to decide whether they want it or not, just do and respect the traditions what should it be...

Why couldn't the child chose to or not to keep with tradition when they are 18?

[Stronk Serb]

Stay to it to be legal, it's good to parents to decide whether they want it or not, just do and respect the traditions what should it be...


But what if the child does not want to have a mutilated penis? If we go by tradition, just because I am of Serbian ethnicity means that I should choose my future childrens' spouses? That was our tradition before the 19th century, by your logic I should marry my children off to someone who they don't love. No.

[thewhiteyeezus]

Well it should be for hygienic reasons but its really up to the parents about what they want to do.

[Trenton_]

...I cannot believe you just said that. So Americans circumcise because they're rich, and for example, 90% of Europeans don't circumcise because they're poor? Do us all a favor and just discontinue your Internet service.

It's not popular in europe then, big deal. I have no idea why they don't do it. Maybe it's the system over there. Maybe it's money. Either way, it's an added expense, maybe they choose not to get it done. If the girls there don't mind it, then don't. In USA, girls care. Not all Americans circumcise because they either don't want to or they don't have the money for it. There are poor people in america too, but I've never seen a foreskin in real life, so it's rare where i live.




Its nt a question of an investment, but if he parents are sane and dont wish they child to be disfigured unneceserely, this excludes medical resons (by the way braces out of medical resons and surgery are conpletly free for children, at lest here).
I do are, tow not understand, that this dependes on the colture, but is unncesary in a todays society.

P. S. :
and this too:



Why couldn't the child chose to or not to keep with tradition when they are 18?

Disfigured? It improves the look, no retraction issues, no smegma, so no stank. If that's disfigured to you, then that's your personal opinion. In the USA it would be more disfigured to have a foreskin.

[Aves]

Because of the fact that doing it later in life sucks ass, I have no problem with it being done at birth. I don't care much on the matter, personally, but that's my opinion.

[britishboy]

I really didn't want to get involved here but heres my opinion its cosmetic surgery given to a kid watch this
she brings up good points

-link removed. Emerald Dream - She does, but unfortunately, a few images are not ok by the rules of VT....sorry.

[tovaris]

Disfigured? It improves the look, no retraction issues, no smegma, so no stank. If that's disfigured to you, then that's your personal opinion. In the USA it would be more disfigured to have a foreskin.

cut of th babies ear while you are at it, no ear wax...
You yust dont cut of a part of a human bing lt alone a baby.
Yes disfigured, what els should one call an artefitial absence of a body part?
If they like it so much they can wilingly do it when they turn 18


It's not popular in europe then, big deal. I have no idea why they don't do it. Maybe it's the system over there. Maybe it's money.


Its the much more advanced state of minin Europe, (even many jews decide againced circumsision acording to the latest statistic). What is wiht you and money? It is an unneded „cosmetic” surgery, with lifelong concikuences.


Either way, it's an added expense, maybe they choose not to get it done. I


its an aded unnded body alteration, that belonges to the past and the days when people lived in mud...



and ples rede your comerads reply again!:

...I cannot believe you just said that. So Americans circumcise because they're rich, and for example, 90% of Europeans don't circumcise because they're poor? Do us all a favor and just discontinue your Internet service.

i an of the opinion that it wouldnt be fare not to quote this one in its original volumen for it would lose on meaning.

[Kameraden]

It's not popular in europe then, big deal. I have no idea why they don't do it. Maybe it's the system over there. Maybe it's money. Either way, it's an added expense, maybe they choose not to get it done. If the girls there don't mind it, then don't. In USA, girls care. Not all Americans circumcise because they either don't want to or they don't have the money for it. There are poor people in america too, but I've never seen a foreskin in real life, so it's rare where i live.
.

Americans initially circumcised for the same reason Victorian England did -- it would prevent masturbation (supposedly), and as such preserve ones chastity. It later became common practice on MEN, during the World Wars so when they fought in the desert, they wouldn't develop an infection. These fathers made their children look like them, and their children the same. Get over yourself, it's not cleaner, it's just an act of greedy an cowardly fathers giving their child more of a reproductive organ than themselves.

Also, might I add: if being uncircumcised is "dirty" then why is it that the United Kingdom has a massively lower STD and STI rate than the 90% circumcised America? Think about it long and hard buddy.

[Cygnus]

It should be allowed for medical reasons, but if it is just for the sake of it then absolutely not.

[Trenton_]

Americans initially circumcised for the same reason Victorian England did -- it would prevent masturbation (supposedly), and as such preserve ones chastity. It later became common practice on MEN, during the World Wars so when they fought in the desert, they wouldn't develop an infection. These fathers made their children look like them, and their children the same. Get over yourself, it's not cleaner, it's just an act of greedy an cowardly fathers giving their child more of a reproductive organ than themselves.

Also, might I add: if being uncircumcised is "dirty" then why is it that the United Kingdom has a massively lower STD and STI rate than the 90% circumcised America? Think about it long and hard buddy.

You sure are worried about this issue. In what way does me or my dad effect you? Or when I do it for my son? It's a choice, just like it's your choice to leave your son natural.

std and sti rates aren't at issue. by cleaner i mean smell and appearance from a girls point of view and if you're into girls as most of us are, Americans citizens choose to make it a better experience for the girls and they like better because it is cleaner and less funky. No big deal really.

IRL, I don't know one guy who has a foreskin and the girls that have discussed it that I know said they wouldn't be interested in being with a guy who isn't circumcised. It's part of American culture and if I lived in europe or maybe austrailia, maybe I wouldn't be circumcised and wouldn't have my son circumcised.

[justin 13]

Dude My Dad didnt like it so I am uncut.

[SawyerSauce]

It shouldn't be made illegal. The foreskin is used for skin grafts and those are important. I, however, will not circumcise my child(ren). It's healthier not to.

[zac zohla]

it should not be illegal. it is very important in some religions.

[tovaris]

It should be allowed for medical reasons, but if it is just for the sake of it then absolutely not.

Exactely!

it should not be illegal. it is very important in some religions.

in some religions human secrafise is wery inportant!

You sure are worried about this issue. In what way does me or my dad effect you? Or when I do it for my son? It's a choice, just like it's your choice to leave your son natural.


It is alredy ilegal to do many things to ones children...


std and sti rates aren't at issue. by cleaner i mean smell and appearance from a girls point of view and if you're into girls as most of us are, Americans citizens choose to make it a better experience for the girls and they like better because it is cleaner and less funky. No big deal really.

IRL, I don't know one guy who has a foreskin and the girls that have discussed it that I know said they wouldn't be interested in being with a guy who isn't circumcised. It's part of American culture and if I lived in europe or maybe austrailia, maybe I wouldn't be circumcised and wouldn't have my son circumcised.

Is realy isnt clener. Since We stopped living in caves and mud huts.

Its a strange sadist colture indeed.

[britishboy]

the 'clean' argument is pathetic, thats why got made showers, should I have to shave my hair because I have to shampoo it? cut off my hands because I have to wash them?

[Human]

It shouldn't be made illegal. The foreskin is used for skin grafts and those are important. I, however, will not circumcise my child(ren). It's healthier not to.

So are you saying it's okay for doctors to take part of your body and give it to other people without your permission when you're a baby?

We should let doctors take part of your liver too when you're born, you only need part of it anyway. (sarcasm)

[Gigablue]

You sure are worried about this issue. In what way does me or my dad effect you? Or when I do it for my son? It's a choice, just like it's your choice to leave your son natural.

It's a choice you shouldn't be able to make. The only one who can make the choice is the person being circumcised. They need to understand the risks and benefits of the procedure and then give informed consent. An infant cannot give informed consent.

std and sti rates aren't at issue. by cleaner i mean smell and appearance from a girls point of view and if you're into girls as most of us are, Americans citizens choose to make it a better experience for the girls and they like better because it is cleaner and less funky. No big deal really.

Appearance is a matter of personal taste. You can't say that something is objectively more aesthetically pleasing.

As for cleanliness, that's only an issue if you don't wash yourself regularly. In developed countries, cleanliness is not an issue.

Lastly, you claim girls prefer circumcision. Do you have any data to support that assertion, or did you just make it up?

IRL, I don't know one guy who has a foreskin and the girls that have discussed it that I know said they wouldn't be interested in being with a guy who isn't circumcised. It's part of American culture and if I lived in Europe or maybe Australia, maybe I wouldn't be circumcised and wouldn't have my son circumcised.

Your basis for claiming that girls like circumcised guys is that all the girls you've talked to say that. That doesn't prove anything. In order to support your claim, you would need a larger, well controlled study with a much larger scope.

it should not be illegal. it is very important in some religions.

Your religion does not give you the right to harm your child. If they want to be circumcised for religious reasons, they can make the choice themselves when they're older.

Stay to it to be legal, it's good to parents to decide whether they want it or not, just do and respect the traditions what should it be...

If we always respected traditions, even harmful ones, nothing would ever change. Some traditions serve no purpose and need to die out.
It's a high end choice for the parents, if your parents don't have the money, don't get it. Same for braces and cosmetic surgery. In the USA, most guys are circumcised and are better off for it and girls and women definitely prefer it. In other countries, they're poorer, so it's a waste of money and the women expect a guy to be natural unless his family has some wealth.

Firstly, it's not a very expensive procedure, so I don't even see why you are bringing wealth into the discussion.

Braces and cosmetic surgery are different. With braces, the child is old enough to understand the basic idea and the risks. The parents do have influence, but the child has a say in the decision.

As for cosmetic surgery, it shouldn't be done on children. There is no medical reason for cosmetic surgery, and there are risks. It should only be done with informed consent on adults.

In many rich countries, circumcision is rare, this proves that wealth is irrelevant.

It's not popular in Europe. then, big deal. I have no idea why they don't do it. Maybe it's the system over there. Maybe it's money. Either way, it's an added expense, maybe they choose not to get it done. If the girls there don't mind it, then don't. In USA, girls care. Not all Americans circumcise because they either don't want to or they don't have the money for it. There are poor people in america too, but I've never seen a foreskin in real life, so it's rare where i live.

Do you know which regions have the highest rates of circumcision? It's not in developed countries. In fact developed countries have very low rates. The highest circumcision rates are in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Disfigured? It improves the look, no retraction issues, no smegma, so no stank. If that's disfigured to you, then that's your personal opinion. In the USA it would be more disfigured to have a foreskin.

The look is a subjective matter. There is no objective standard. If someone wants to be circumcised for cosmetic issues, they can choose to be. It's a personal decision, not one that the parents should make.

Retraction problems can be corrected by other methods in most cases. In extreme cases, then circumcision might be necessary, but only as a last resort. It should not be used preventatively since severe cases are rare.

Smegma and odour can be prevented with proper hygiene.

[Stronk Serb]

We do not live like in the Middle Ages. We are a lot cleaner, and is circumcision not needed anymore for health reasons. If done for religious reasons, it should be illegal for the parents to make that decision, and the child can take circumcision, but it must know the consequences, and it must be with the child's consent.

[Trenton_]

It is alredy ilegal to do many things to ones children...


That's true, but it's not illegal and when I have a son, I won't be doing the procedure. I like it. Many guys like it. You can't change someone else's opinion if they don't like something. If you don't like golf or a certain color, I can't convince you. Nor would I want to. Nor should I, but you seem to have this hard stance against a practice that's been going on for thousands of years and put in a fair amount of effort trying to convince people it's wrong.

Notice that I don't tell you that you are wrong or living like an animal or some other negative thing. You should be happy with how you are and then, that's it.

[StoppingTime]

That's true, but it's not illegal and when I have a son, I won't be doing the procedure.


I don't think that's the point that was being made.

I like it.

Many guys like it. You can't change someone else's opinion if they don't like something.

This is something you just repeat in every post and I'd like to understand it. Basically you're mentality in everything is the following:

I have these shitty opinions that limit people from doing what they want and nothing you ever say will change it because I'm allowed to have my opinions and you can't change that. But here's the secret, opinions that are applied can be wrong.
If you have an opinion that you don't like a certain kind of person or some kind of decision for no practical, legal, or legitimate reason and then declare that other people shouldn't too (and I know that you personally can't do that, but it's the mentaility you have that I'm referring to) then your opinion is wrong and limiting.

So stop using that argument.

but you seem to have this hard stance against a practice that's been going on for thousands of years and put in a fair amount of effort trying to convince people it's wrong.

That's like saying "well people have been killing people for thousands of years why's it wrong."
"People kept slaves for thousands of years why's it wrong."
"People treat(ed) women as inferior beings for thousands of years why is it wrong"

Using something (or someone's) age in an argument it's meaningless. People do shitty things for thousands of years, it doesn't automatically become okay after X number of years. And I'm not even talking about this topic.

[SCHS1998]

I say that it shouldn't be made illegal i honestly don't see a problem with circumcision. I am circumcised and i think my penis works just fine.

[Trenton_]

I don't think that's the point that was being made.



This is something you just repeat in every post and I'd like to understand it. Basically you're mentality in everything is the following:

I have these shitty opinions that limit people from doing what they want and nothing you ever say will change it because I'm allowed to have my opinions and you can't change that. But here's the secret, opinions that are applied can be wrong.
If you have an opinion that you don't like a certain kind of person or some kind of decision for no practical, legal, or legitimate reason and then declare that other people shouldn't too (and I know that you personally can't do that, but it's the mentaility you have that I'm referring to) then your opinion is wrong and limiting.

So stop using that argument.



That's like saying "well people have been killing people for thousands of years why's it wrong."
"People kept slaves for thousands of years why's it wrong."
"People treat(ed) women as inferior beings for thousands of years why is it wrong"

Using something (or someone's) age in an argument it's meaningless. People do shitty things for thousands of years, it doesn't automatically become okay after X number of years. And I'm not even talking about this topic.

Seems like your describing how you argue. It's an opinion on circumcision. What's the big deal? Some are for it, some are against it. It's kind of the point of the whole thread.

[StoppingTime]

Seems like your describing how you argue.

http://media.tumblr.com/cf7724a0d4e6ccaa7ee4412893ea14a6/tumblr_inline_mgp5olaWWa1qgyp8h.png


It's an opinion on circumcision. What's the big deal? Some are for it, some are against it. It's kind of the point of the whole thread.

I was discussing more about your stance on things in general. Your reasoning in this whole thread was nothing but "I'll do it because it's what I want and it's what I think people like." To be honest with you I agree; it shouldn't be illegal, but I was more pointing out that your reasoning isn't really fair.

(Also, I wasn't saying you were a shitty person because you're not. I was saying that your opinions are because they aern't backed up by anything. There is in fact a difference, and I'm sorry if you took it personally because you shouldn't)

[SawyerSauce]

So are you saying it's okay for doctors to take part of your body and give it to other people without your permission when you're a baby?

We should let doctors take part of your liver too when you're born, you only need part of it anyway. (sarcasm)

The removal of foreskin is voluntary. The parents sign the papers and the foreskin is cut off. If part of my liver was taken out at birth because my parents said to do so, I would definitely want it to be used to help others. But, that would not happen because removing a newborn's healthy liver is dangerous and pointless.

[tovaris]

That's true, but it's not illegal and when I have a son,
.
The american law alowes for a father to do anithing ilegal like beat torture murder etc yust they have s son? That makes no sense.

I like it. Many guys like it. You can't change someone else's opinion if they don't like something. If you don't like golf or a certain color, I can't convince you. Nor would I want to. Nor should I, but you seem to have this hard stance against a practice that's been going on for thousands of years and put in a fair amount of effort trying to convince people it's wrong.

Notice that I don't tell you that you are wrong or living like an animal or some other negative thing. You should be happy with how you are and then, that's it.

I never said circumsision was wrong all together! Ionly stated that a person should have a say! You cant decide something in the name of estetics for a baby. A person should be able to nake such a decision on their own not to be thrown into it even before they are fiziologicly abme to form a conplex thaught.

Did ypu even read what i wrote?

[Tarannosaurus]

The removal of foreskin is voluntary. The parents sign the papers and the foreskin is cut off.
Yes but that's the parents doing the volunteering not the person being circumcised.
Personally I am against circumcising babies, if they wish to be circumcised they can do so when they are older. My parents never baptized me because my mother didn't think it was fair to force a religion upon me. And good thing too since I am not a Christian. A person can't claim to know the mind of a baby and what religious path they will choose. This is me talking about the religious side of it. The other arguments. people saying it 'looks better' etc, then sure get circumcised. But babies certainly don't know if they want to be circumcised or not so please don't force it upon them.
P.S. This isn't a whole rant about the quote just the first line is relating to the quote.

[deadpie]

I don't understand how cutting a hand or removing a newborn's liver would be considered in the same boat as circumcision. People are extremely overdramatic, think way too much into this stuff and I believe the only reason why it's controversial is because it's about dicks. There's no health benefits in removing a liver or cutting someone's hands off. Dumbest fucking point I've ever heard.. Or 'why not remove the eyelids' point.. You need to really listen to yourself here... I know you guys are against the evidence that professionals from the AAP have made that circumcision is beneficial, which is ok! Although, it shouldn't be illegal when we know it can give benefits. If you're cut and are bothered by that, it's probably because your parents thought it was the healthier and safer decision. Not because they wanted to "mutilate you" because deep down inside your parents are sick sadistic BDSM bastards with sex dungeons in the attic.. Get over it, learn to love what you have... or don't and be extremely angry all the time.

[Kameraden]

Actually, kid, the AAP does NOT recommend non-medicinal routine circumcision. I also know this because pretty much all the men on my mother's side of the family are doctors and surgeons, and when the topic was once brought up at a family dinner, they all agreed it was "unnecessary, and barbaric."

[tovaris]

I don't understand how cutting a hand or removing a newborn's liver would be considered in the same boat as circumcision. People are extremely overdramatic, think way too much into this stuff and I believe the only reason why it's controversial is because it's about dicks. There's no health benefits in removing a liver or cutting someone's hands off. Dumbest fucking point I've ever heard.. Or 'why not remove the eyelids' point.. You need to really listen to yourself here... I know you guys are against the evidence that professionals from the AAP have made that circumcision is beneficial, which is ok! Although, it shouldn't be illegal when we know it can give benefits. If you're cut and are bothered by that, it's probably because your parents thought it was the healthier and safer decision. Not because they wanted to "mutilate you" because deep down inside your parents are sick sadistic BDSM bastards with sex dungeons in the attic.. Get over it, learn to love what you have... or don't and be extremely angry all the time.

There is absolutly no medical reson to remove the forskin of a baby boy (only in some rare cases medical reasons may ocure and then should be corectly adressed). No doctor will ever advise you to rutinly circumsize a baby boys.

Actually, kid, the AAP does NOT recommend non-medicinal routine circumcision. I also know this because pretty much all the men on my mother's side of the family are doctors and surgeons, and when the topic was once brought up at a family dinner, they all agreed it was "unnecessary, and barbaric."
And this

[deadpie]

Actually, kid, the AAP does NOT recommend non-medicinal routine circumcision. I also know this because pretty much all the men on my mother's side of the family are doctors and surgeons, and when the topic was once brought up at a family dinner, they all agreed it was "unnecessary, and barbaric."

Here (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx)

There is absolutly no medical reson to remove the forskin of a baby boy (only in some rare cases medical reasons may ocure and then should be corectly adressed). No doctor will ever advise you to rutinly circumsize a baby boys.

Maybe in other countries they might not recommend it or bring it up. There's many medical reasons and tons of people have to end up getting it done later in life for health reasons (including me). These cases aren't rare.

[Kameraden]

Here (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx)
.

Can you not read, kiddo?


New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys, according to an updated policy statement published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The revised policy, like the previous one from the AAP, says the decision whether or not to circumcise should be left to the parents in consultation with their child’s doctor.


Unless you're a pig who doesn't bathe, you will not have hygiene problems. I'm right, you're wrong. Get over yourself.

[deadpie]

Unless you're a pig who doesn't bathe, you will not have hygiene problems. I'm right, you're wrong. Get over yourself.

Ugh... This isn't just about hygiene issues. There's tons of other issues people can get from foreskin. Some people don't have to worry about them. Good for them. The part you put in bold is pretty much saying that there's benefits, but it's not enough to recommend all men to be cut. I don't see how that makes me wrong? Why should it even matter what I think is right and wrong? I base my information off my personal experience and from what I read. Also I already know this isn't going to go anywhere but an "i'm right, no i'm right, no you're wrong, NO YOU'RE WRONG" type fake bs conversation that means absolutely nothing and proves nothing as well.

[Tarannosaurus]

Ugh... This isn't just about hygiene issues. There's tons of other issues people can get from foreskin. Some people don't have to worry about them. Good for them. The part you put in bold is pretty much saying that there's benefits, but it's not enough to recommend all men to be cut. I don't see how that makes me wrong? Why should it even matter what I think is right and wrong? I base my information off my personal experience and from what I read. Also I already know this isn't going to go anywhere but an "i'm right, no i'm right, no you're wrong, NO YOU'RE WRONG" type fake bs conversation that means absolutely nothing and proves nothing as well.

Out of curiosity, what are these benefits?

[Emerald Dream]

Please, let's try to not personally insult others while debating. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as we keep it respectful. Otherwise, take it up privately with that person - or I may take it up privately myself.

[Human]

The removal of foreskin is voluntary. The parents sign the papers and the foreskin is cut off. If part of my liver was taken out at birth because my parents said to do so, I would definitely want it to be used to help others. But, that would not happen because removing a newborn's healthy liver is dangerous and pointless.

The removal of foreskin is not voluntary, just because the law says that the parents get to say for the baby, it does not mean the baby actually gets the decision. Some people would have differing opinions to you and would like their body to not be cut open as a child, but I assure you that removing a newborns foreskin is also dangerous, and pointless.


Addressing those who say removal of the foreskin has health benefits - I haven't seen you name any yet. I doubt things such as tight foreskin would be noticeable until they are teenagers when they can at least have a part in saying. But the point here is that why do parents remove foreskin even when no health benefits would be received, as they have no problems which couldn't be dealt with in the future.

[SawyerSauce]

The removal of foreskin is not voluntary, just because the law says that the parents get to say for the baby, it does not mean the baby actually gets the decision. Some people would have differing opinions to you and would like their body to not be cut open as a child, but I assure you that removing a newborns foreskin is also dangerous, and pointless.


Addressing those who say removal of the foreskin has health benefits - I haven't seen you name any yet. I doubt things such as tight foreskin would be noticeable until they are teenagers when they can at least have a part in saying. But the point here is that why do parents remove foreskin even when no health benefits would be received, as they have no problems which couldn't be dealt with in the future.

It's not pointless. There are many reasons SUCH AS religious beliefs, disease prevention, aesthetical reasons, and the reason you listed above. It's hardly dangerous. The chance of complication is .2% and those complications are usually minor bleeding.

Addressing what you say towards newborns not having a voice. Of course they don't have a "voice". They are not the ones taking care of themselves. If they had the capabilities to care for themselves and coherently make their own decisions, then I'd agree with you. You don't complain about the child not having a choice between Huggies or cloth diapers. To leave the foreskin on until then, could be considered cruel. When the male is a baby, he doesn't feel the pain that he would feel when he is older. A lot of males resent their parents for not getting them circumcised when they were infants.

Really, I'd be more concerned about other health complications regarding infants.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Human]

It's not pointless. There are many reasons SUCH AS religious beliefs, disease prevention, aesthetical reasons, and the reason you listed above. It's hardly dangerous. The chance of complication is .2% and those complications are usually minor bleeding.

Addressing what you say towards newborns not having a voice. Of course they don't have a "voice". They are not the ones taking care of themselves. If they had the capabilities to care for themselves and coherently make their own decisions, then I'd agree with you. You don't complain about the child not having a choice between Huggies or cloth diapers. To leave the foreskin on until then, could be considered cruel. When the male is a baby, he doesn't feel the pain that he would feel when he is older. A lot of males resent their parents for not getting them circumcised when they were infants.

Really, I'd be more concerned about other health complications regarding infants.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream


Can you please post links to reliable sources, because as far as I know, there isn't any noticeable increased risk of diseases if you keep your foreskin on, however removing it is similar to what someone says that we might as well just remove a hand or a kidney to lower chances of cancer and disease, at the end of the day, foreskin is a body part and it's my body part and I wouldn't want my parents removing it.

Huggies and diapers is a huge difference compared to foreskin, as it's part of your body, and a sensitive part at that, I wouldn't want a doctor unknowingly (to me) removing part of my penis when I was a baby, you can use any kind of diaper and it won't affect you in the future. The baby also would feel pain, I don't know where you get that from. I'm sure a lot of males resent their parents for giving them circumcisions if they didn't need it, and I'm sure they'd be a lot happier with the increased sensitivity if they were never going to get a disease in the first place.

[tovaris]

Here (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx)



Maybe in other countries they might not recommend it or bring it up. There's many medical reasons and tons of people have to end up getting it done later in life for health reasons (including me). These cases aren't rare.

These cases are rare.
No doctor in their right mind would recomend a medicaly unjustified circumsision of a baby.
I say if they like it so mich let the child make the decision on their own.

[britishboy]

Sometimes I wish that I had had the choice, but it's in the past, so I try not to worry about it. I probably wouldn't have chosen to be circumcised to be honest.

this is the exact problem of it! its irreversible! and the child may like the foreskin!

[Sugaree]

this is the exact problem of it! its irreversible! and the child may like the foreskin!

But why do you care? Let the past be the past and move on.

[Gigablue]

I don't understand how cutting a hand or removing a newborn's liver would be considered in the same boat as circumcision. People are extremely overdramatic, think way too much into this stuff and I believe the only reason why it's controversial is because it's about dicks. There's no health benefits in removing a liver or cutting someone's hands off. Dumbest fucking point I've ever heard.. Or 'why not remove the eyelids' point.. You need to really listen to yourself here...

Medicine is all about risks and benefits. There are health benefits of removing the liver (prevents liver cancer, hepatitis, cirrhosis, etc.), but they are hugely outweighed by the consequences (death). For that reason, no sane person would recommend routine liver removal.

The same can be said about circumcision. There are benefits (prevents phimosis, paraphimosis, reduces the risk of HIV, penciled cancer), but there are also risks (bleeding, infection, meatal stenosis, gangrene, death).

The benefits of circumcision may seem impressive at first, but aren't that great. Phimosis can be easily treated in most cases. If all else fails, circumcision can be performed. However, the majority of males don't develop phimosis, and the majority of those who do do not require circumcision. Therefore, it makes little sense to circumcise as a preventative measure.

Paraphimosis is rare, and it can generally be treated. It is only serious if left untreated. The risks of circumcision pose a greater hazard than the risk of paraphimosis.

Penile cancer is an incredibly rare disease. As cancers go, it is relatively easy to treat. As with paraphimosis, the risks of the procedure outweigh the risks of the disease.

HIV is the most common benefit cited. However, there is only a reduction in female to male transmission. This is a very rare transmission route in developed countries. Nearly all new HIV cases result from male to male transmission, with a few resulting from male to female transmission. While circumcision may be a useful way to prevent the spread of HIV in developing countries, it isn't needed in developed countries.

There are other health claims made for circumcision, but those are the main ones. The benefits are at least balanced by, and probably outweighed by, the risks. Since there is no overwhelming medical benefit, there is no reason to perform the surgery without informed consent.

I know you guys are against the evidence that professionals from the AAP have made that circumcision is beneficial, which is ok! Although, it shouldn't be illegal when we know it can give benefits. If you're cut and are bothered by that, it's probably because your parents thought it was the healthier and safer decision. Not because they wanted to "mutilate you" because deep down inside your parents are sick sadistic BDSM bastards with sex dungeons in the attic.. Get over it, learn to love what you have... or don't and be extremely angry all the time.
The AAP may support circumcision, but other groups oppose it. For example, the Swedish Paediatric Society, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Royal Dutch Medical Association, British Medical Association and Canadian Paediatric Society, to name just a few. The AAP is not by any means the final authority in the topic.

I do believe that the vast majority of parents have good intentions, but are simply misguided. The main issue I have is that no matter how good the intentions of the parents, it's not their decision to make. Since non-medical circumcision is a cosmetic procedure, it must be done with informed consent from the recipient.

Maybe in other countries they might not recommend it or bring it up. There's many medical reasons and tons of people have to end up getting it done later in life for health reasons (including me). These cases aren't rare.

This is just wrong. The rate of medically necessary adult circumcision is very low. You were the exception, not the trend. Far fewer than one percent of men will need to be circumcised later in life. There are certainly more who choose it for non-medical reasons, but it is not a commonly indicated procedure.

It's not pointless. There are many reasons SUCH AS religious beliefs, disease prevention, aesthetical reasons, and the reason you listed above. It's hardly dangerous. The chance of complication is .2% and those complications are usually minor bleeding.

The religious argument is irrelevant. The choice to circumcise depends on the religious beliefs of the parents, not the child. If my religion dictated that I had to cut off the hands of my child, would I be allowed to? No. While circumcision is nowhere near as extreme, the principle is the same. A child should not have a perfectly health body part removed because of their parents religion.

As discussed above, the disease reduction is balanced by the risks of the procedure.

Aesthetics are by their very nature subjective. What the parents find aesthetically pleasing is not necessarily the same as what the child prefers. If someone wants to be circumcised for cosmetic reasons, they can make the choice themselves once they are old enough to understand the implications.

Addressing what you say towards newborns not having a voice. Of course they don't have a "voice". They are not the ones taking care of themselves. If they had the capabilities to care for themselves and coherently make their own decisions, then I'd agree with you. You don't complain about the child not having a choice between Huggies or cloth diapers. To leave the foreskin on until then, could be considered cruel. When the male is a baby, he doesn't feel the pain that he would feel when he is older. A lot of males resent their parents for not getting them circumcised when they were infants.

Infants do feel pain. To say they don't is simply incorrect. They may not feel pain in the exact same way that adults do, but the procedure isn't very pleasant for them.

Infants depend on their parents to take care of them, and the parents should make healthcare decisions on behalf of their child. However, this is not a healthcare issue, it's a cosmetic one. Also, the choice of diaper is a trivial matter. The removal of a body part is not.

Lastly, there may be some who resent their parents not having had them circumcised, but there also some who resent being circumcised. Unless you have data proving that the former outnumber the latter, your point is moot.

[britishboy]

But why do you care? Let the past be the past and move on.

because one may not want to lose a bit of his body! but has? thats silly but it should be legal to avoid upsetting jews

[Sugaree]

because one may not want to lose a bit of his body! but has? thats silly but it should be legal to avoid upsetting jews

Oh yes, gods forbid the JEWS are upset.

[Luminous]

it should be legal to avoid upsetting jews

I know many Jewish people who would continue to circumcise their sons even if it was illegal. Probably my own parents included, if they were to have more children (which they won't). It may upset some Jews but many won't care.
I think it should be legal but the individual who is getting circumsized must be 18+, even 13+. They should be old enough to know that they are getting a bit of their penis cut off. Though, like I said before, the law won't prevent many orthodox Jews, it would likely cause some conservative, reform, and even some orthodox Jews to rethink what they are doing.

[Sandra Main]

I have 2 little brothers ages 5 and 3 years old both are uncircumsized.
Mom and i both bath them and take care of them.
I'm trying to teach them how to care for their penises and foreskin solely for hygiene .
But now mom wants to get them both circumsized.
I don't want that for them. untill they can decide for themselfs.
Trying to talk her out of it

[tovaris]

I know many Jewish people who would continue to circumcise their sons even if it was illegal. Probably my own parents included, if they were to have more children (which they won't). It may upset some Jews but many won't care.
I think it should be legal but the individual who is getting circumsized must be 18+, even 13+. They should be old enough to know that they are getting a bit of their penis cut off. Though, like I said before, the law won't prevent many orthodox Jews, it would likely cause some conservative, reform, and even some orthodox Jews to rethink what they are doing.

If the age limit was to be set at a resnoble age i dont think any religion might be upser, since many jews and muslims insit on the child to be awere of the action for the action Should be concious as the believe

[brandonggarcia1]

It's the parents choice at that moment...

[Josh from SoCal]

It's interesting that a girl is so worried about what has or hasn't happened to our penises. I personally don't know a single guy that would voluntarily let someone with a KNIFE anywhere NEAR his junk. By the time a guy is "old enough" to decide for himself, he's already taken a few shots to that area and would never let anything like that near his groin.

And who the F wants the government making MORE decisions for us?

Katie, for those of us who were circumcised as infants, I can guarantee you none of us has any memory of that at all. If you are worried about inflicting pain on babies, there are plenty of avenues for you to channel that versus child abusers, rapists, pedos, and people like that. Turn your attention to fighting THOSE things. Parents aren't having the procedure performed on their children to harm or mutilate them. WTF?

[henry5331]

Circumcision is not mutilation. A circumcised penis works just as well as an uncircumcised penis. It isn't bigger or smaller. It isn't harder or softer. It isn't more or less sensitive. It's just a little more clean and has a little less skin.

It's wrong to scare young men with propaganda about anti-circumcision.

[Korashk]

Circumcision is not mutilation. A circumcised penis works just as well as an uncircumcised penis. It isn't bigger or smaller. It isn't harder or softer. It isn't more or less sensitive. It's just a little more clean and has a little less skin.

It's wrong to scare young men with propaganda about anti-circumcision.
Nobody's saying don't get circumcised. We're all saying don't force babies to get cosmetic surgery.

Also your last two sentences are wrong. Uncircumcised penises are objectively more sensitive and circumcised penises aren't necessarily cleaner.

[sqishy]

I think it should be made illegal unless it needs to be done for some urgent/emergency medical reason (reduction in chance of getting HIV for example). If someone is to be circumcised, they should have a choice in it. Babies don't have that choice. They should make a legal age on it.

[tovaris]

Circumcision is not mutilation. A circumcised penis works just as well as an uncircumcised penis. It isn't bigger or smaller. It isn't harder or softer. It isn't more or less sensitive. It's just a little more clean and has a little less skin.

It's wrong to scare young men with propaganda about anti-circumcision.

It makes ot les sensitive and some studies show it decreses plesure during intercorse.
It should be every persons choice made by then not for them.
It's wrong to scare young men with propaganda about pro-circumcision.

Nobody's saying don't get circumcised. We're all saying don't force babies to get cosmetic surgery.



I If someone is to be circumcised, they should have a choice in it. Babies don't have that choice. They should make a legal age on it.

[henry5331]

Men circumcised as adults, who have had sexual experience both before and after circumcision, generally report an improvement in their sexual pleasure.

Want facts?

Circumcision reduces by 3-fold the risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. One in 10 uncircumcised men suffer from inflammation of the head of the penis and foreskin at some time in their lives. This rises to 1 in 3 if the uncircumcised man is diabetic. (Diabetic men also have other severe problems when uncircumcised.) In contrast less than 2% of circumcised men experience such inflammation.

Circumcision substantially reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in men and risk of renal complications.

Up to 10% of males reaching adulthood uncircumcised will later require circumcision for medical reasons. Many are reluctant to go ahead with this or are incorrectly advised to ‘put up’ with the problem rather than have a circumcision. Early elective circumcision means penile problems are less likely to arise, and thus consequent issues are avoided.

Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive, simple procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if the level of suffering and fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals and access facilitated by the health systems of every country.

And then there's those people who like to sell "cone devices" and "foreskin stretchers." Of course they sell these items after telling young men that they are mutilated and deformed and can't measure up to "real" men. Just like all the other scum who sell penis "enlarging" products.

Babies also don't have a choice of which country they are born in. They don't have a choice of which country they live in. They don't have a choice of what clothes they wear. They don't have a choice of who their parents are. That's a ludicrous argument. It is a moral argument that is subjective.

[Gigablue]

Men circumcised as adults, who have had sexual experience both before and after circumcision, generally report an improvement in their sexual pleasure.

This may be because men requiring circumcision later in life had some health problem which impaired sexual function. As a result, circumcision could fix it. This doesn't necessarily mean that circumcision leads to increased pleasure.

Circumcision reduces by 3-fold the risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. One in 10 uncircumcised men suffer from inflammation of the head of the penis and foreskin at some time in their lives. This rises to 1 in 3 if the uncircumcised man is diabetic. (Diabetic men also have other severe problems when uncircumcised.) In contrast less than 2% of circumcised men experience such inflammation.

Firstly 10% to 2% is not a threefold reduction. Secondly, do you have a source for that?

Also, that seems irrelevant. How many of those men needed treatment as a result to the inflammation? I would guess that it is very low. Even if everything you claim is true, I don't really see why this matters.

Circumcision substantially reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in men and risk of renal complications.

The risk of a UTI is low, about 1%, in uncircumcised males. Circumcision does prevent UTIs, but it doesn't eliminate the risk. To prevent one UTI, you would need to do about 100-200 circumcisions. When you weigh the risks of the circumcision against the small risk of a UTI and the even smaller risk of it being serious, it is clear that circumcision is not worth it.

Up to 10% of males reaching adulthood uncircumcised will later require circumcision for medical reasons. Many are reluctant to go ahead with this or are incorrectly advised to ‘put up’ with the problem rather than have a circumcision. Early elective circumcision means penile problems are less likely to arise, and thus consequent issues are avoided.

This is just wrong. The actual number is around 1%.

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Lets take this one at a time.

UTIs, as discussed before, are rare, especially in non-infants. The risk or renal damage is very small. The risks of circumcision are greater than the risk posed by a UTI.

Hygiene issues and smegma can be prevented by frequent washing. Since everyone should bathe often, this really isn't relevant.

HIV is more complicated. Circumcision can reduce female to male transmission of HIV by about 60%. However, in developed countries, female to male transmission is insignificant compared with male to male transmission. Circumcision would be nearly useless at preventing the spread of HIV in developed countries. It may help in developing countries. That being said, it is nowhere near as effective as a condom.

For HPV, the evidence is mixed and inconclusive. Also, we have a vaccine which works very well. It makes much more sense to use that as opposed to circumcision to stop the spread of HPV.

For all other STIs, the evidence is mixed. It is not sufficient to recommend circumcision is a preventative procedure.

Phimosis and paraphimosis are prevented my circumcision, since they both affect exclusively the foreskin. However, phimosis can usually be treated quite easily by stretching and with a steroid cream, circumcision is not necessary. Paraphimosis is very rare.

So far, I am only aware on one study showing a decrease in prostate cancer. It was not designed to show causality, only correlation. Furthermore, the reduction was very small, and thus potentially a statistical anomaly and not a genuine correlation. To say that circumcision prevents prostate cancer is very premature.

The incidence of thrush is not reduced by circumcision. Studies have shown no correlation.

Balanitis and balanoposthitis are uncommon and easily treated by antibiotics.

The evidence for health benefits in women is preliminary and mixed. STIs are better prevented by condoms and vaccines.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if the level of suffering and fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals and access facilitated by the health systems of every country.

The socio-sexual benefits are debatable. Circumcision can aid sexual function in men with problems caused by the foreskin, but there is little evidence for other benefits. Also, since the foreskin has a very high density of nerve endings, removing it reduces sensitivity. Furthermore, there is no evidence that women have a preference. In certain cultures, they may be more use to one or the other, but no study has shown a cross cultural preference.

Saying that at least half of uncircumcised men develop foreskin related problems is just wrong. The real number is much lower than that. Of those who do, very few require circumcision. Also, where do you get the number 100 to 1?

Babies also don't have a choice of which country they are born in. They don't have a choice of which country they live in. They don't have a choice of what clothes they wear. They don't have a choice of who their parents are. That's a ludicrous argument. It is a moral argument that is subjective.

The birthplace argument is irrelevant. Birthplace depends on outside factors, not choice by anyone. The same for parents.

Clothing choice is not analogous to circumcision. If, later on in life, a baby doesn't like the clothes picked by their parents, they are free to change them. Circumcision in the other hand, is permanent. Furthermore, clothing choice has no adverse health effects.

[NeuroTiger]

How do you feel about circumcision of the penis of male babies. Should it be illegal, up to the parents to decide, or required?

Also, guys, if you are circumcised, are you happy you were? If not do you wish you were?

I think that it's wrong to make a permanent change like that to baby who has no say in the matter. I asked my twin brother; he says he's glad he's not circumcised (we're close). It should wait until they are over 18 and can decide for themselves.

Circumcision is fine to me.it help reduce the accumulation of bacteria down there and also other penile problems.
I'm circumcised and happy.
It's up to the parents to decide in my opinion though mine was more a religious issue. I'm comfortable with it.

[Kameraden]

Circumcision is fine to me.it help reduce the accumulation of bacteria down there and also other penile problems.
I'm circumcised and happy.
It's up to the parents to decide in my opinion though mine was more a religious issue. I'm comfortable with it.

Cite your work.

[tovaris]

Circumcision is fine to me.it help reduce the accumulation of bacteria down there and also other penile problems.
I'm circumcised and happy.
It's up to the parents to decide in my opinion though mine was more a religious issue. I'm comfortable with it.

Why couldent te person getting circumsided decide on their own.

[Sandra Main]

I think that it should be left up to the child in his later years when he is able to decide on
his own.

[VladimirA920]

It's been shown in studies that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV, though the final decesion should be up to the parents since the baby cant talk or make decesions for itself. As a boy whos circumcised, it's much easier to clean and looks better in my opinion.

"It's been shown in studies that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV" Oh Yes ! Like in USA when circumcision has been performed in many people and HIV/AIDS rates are higher than many European Countries when is Circumcision is really rare.

It should be not legal, just in medical cases !

[henry5331]

When I was a baby, my natural state was self-centeredness, ignorance, and I would shit and piss myself, I couldn't feed myself, and I couldn't sleep through the night. I'm glad that I don't live in my "birth" state now.

You claim to present "scientific" case, yet you cloak it in emotionalism and subjective moralism. Then you add to your "scientific" case language designed to scare young men.

There is no rational reason to make circumcision illegal, or to take the decision away from parents or the individual. The situation at birth should be neutral, neither compulsory nor prohibited. And no doctor should be compelled to perform the procedure.

Oh, and "arguments" that equate circumcision to abortion are ludicrous. One involves removing skin, the other involves terminating a pregnancy. They are not the same thing.

[Southside]

"It's been shown in studies that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV" Oh Yes ! Like in USA when circumcision has been performed in many people and HIV/AIDS rates are higher than many European Countries when is Circumcision is really rare.

It should be not legal, just in medical cases !

I dont understand why people have a problem with circumcision, a circumcised male is still able to reproduce, you guys act like circumcision strips a person of their ability to reproduce..

Circumcised penis is easier to clean, thats coming from someone who spent a few years uncircumcised.

[Sandra Main]

I also think it should become illegal.
Untill the child can decide for him self
at a later time in his life when he is able to understand.
Once the forskin is removed its gone for life.

[nopelol]

I dont understand why people have a problem with circumcision, a circumcised male is still able to reproduce, you guys act like circumcision strips a person of their ability to reproduce..

Circumcised penis is easier to clean, thats coming from someone who spent a few years uncircumcised.

No one is saying its bad, they're saying it's unnecessary. Big difference.

That being said, personal preference is fine, as long as the person who's going to be cut is the one making the decision.

[Josh75]

up to the parents i am and im fine with it. its also healthier, easier to keep clean


I was cut @ birth so I remember nothing about it. I'm sure it hurt for a day or so, but there are other birth traumas a newborn experiences like all the the sudden bright lights everywhere, it's cold as hell compared to mom's womb, & whatever else. So the additional bit of pain of getting snipped I don't think really matters. No boy cut @ birth remembers it. People who yell & scream about mutilation & all that stuff is all crap in my opinion. My dad & his father were both uncut. I've never asked my dad why he chose to have me cut, we're not close & I wouldn't be comfortable talking about it with him.

I've been with many boys who are cut and many who are uncut. I happen to agree that there are definite health and hygiene benefits to being cut. I know lots of older gay guys who are uncut who say they have to wash their foreskins several times a day to keep it clean and so it doesn't smell bad. Many of the uncut friends I've talked about this with also tell me they have to wash it several times a day, up to 4-5 times in some cases depending. I've been with uncut boys who I had to ask to please wash it or let me wash it or let's shower together and we'll clean it because it smells bad, and I hate the smell. And I'm sure as hell not going down on a smelly foreskin, nor put it anywhere else! Teens get hard many times a day and most secrete varying amounts of pre, & they pee, which traps both pre & urine inside the foreskin and it breeds bacteria and germs inside there which is what causes the smell. You can look it up on the net, it's true.

I'm gay & 16 & I've been fooling around with boys since I was 7, learned to jack when I was 12 and started having sex then. So I have experience with this. I'm happy as a bug in a rug that I'm cut and if I have kids with a partner one day, the boys will get cut.

That's my story & I'm stickin' to it.

[DoodleSnap]

I don't care about all the benefits of it. Circumcision should not be a choice made by someone other than the kid getting it unless it absolutely needs to be done. My answer is yes. it should be made illegal.

I wish I could know what it's like to be uncut, but I can't. The only girl that's seen it says it looks more clean. I guess I'm happy about that at least.
^^^This. Should be for the child to decide, as then they can decide based on what pros and cons there are for both sides.

[Emerald Dream]

This was bumped. :locked: