Circumcision

[Gamma Male]

Should routine infant circumcision be legal? I don't think so. Kinda seems like a violation of the infants rights. Not to mention it reduces sensitivity.

Without the foreskin to protect the sensitive glans, the pants and underwear start rubbing against the glans, forcing it to undergo keratinization and get harder to prevent oversensitivity. Callouses on palms and scabs on bruises undergo the same basic process.


And the safety arguments seem pretty ridiculous. Having a foreskin is no. less safe than not having one as long as you take proper care of it and clean it regularly.

Procircumcision advocates usually claim that most circumcised guys don't care or are glad they're circumcised, but what about the ones who do care? What about the ones who wish they weren't circumcised?

[Horatio Nelson]

Making it illegal would be stupid. If the parents want their son circumcised, they should have every right to.

[Typhlosion]

Circumcision is generally accepted to have health benefits over uncircumsized penises. Sensitivity is not largely supported by the community, AFAIK

(I might search up those after on)

Circumcision on infants is a whole other story, fo course. While ideally in medicine should most people be circumcised, there is a lot of preference into it.

Should it be banned? No, because in the end it might prevent some icky situation. Plus, jews. Should it be encouraged? No, leave the choice to the future grown human.

Damnit, giving me a headache. Logical ideals versus freedom of preference ideals fighting in my mind.

[Gamma Male]

Making it illegal would be stupid. If the parents want their son circumcised, they should have every right to.

What about the kids rights? This is an irreversible surgery.

And what about the people who wish they weren't circumcised?

[Horatio Nelson]

What about the kids rights? This is an irreversible surgery.

And what about the people who wish they weren't circumcised?

I think they should leave infants uncircumcised and let themselves decide when they get older.

Unless of course the parents want to decide.

[Gamma Male]

I think they should leave infants uncircumcised and let themselves decide when they get older.
I agree.
Unless of course the parents want to decide.

Contrary to popular belief, custody does not equal ownership. Infants have rights
And the right not to have their bodies permanently mutilated without consent should be one of them. What if two parents wanted to have their babies tongue forked? What then?

[PinkFloyd]

I don't think that it should be flat out banned but made so parents can't have it done without consent from the child. It's his body, not theirs. The only reason I think it should remain legal and not 100% illegal is because circumcision has multiple health benefits as well as the cosmetic thing.

[Horatio Nelson]

I agree.


Contrary to popular belief, custody does not equal ownership. Infants have rights
And the right not to have their bodies permanently mutilated without consent should be one of them. What if two parents wanted to have their babies tongue forked? What then?

That's painful, circumcision is not. (At least, I can't remember any pain.) There is a bit of a difference there. I wouldn't deem circumcision "mutilation". Mutilation is defined as causing serious damage. I don't think circumcision damages the penis.

[Gamma Male]

I don't think that it should be flat out banned but made so parents can't have it done without consent from the child. It's his body, not theirs. The only reason I think it should remain legal and not 100% illegal is because circumcision has multiple health benefits as well as the cosmetic thing.
Right. I wasn't suggesting it be completely illegal, you should just have a valid medical reason or consent from the child.
That's painful, circumcision is not. (At least, I can't remember any pain.) There is a bit of a difference there. I wouldn't deem circumcision "mutilation". Mutilation is defined as causing serious damage. I don't think circumcision damages the penis.

Circumcision is extremely painful. If you can't remember the pain from it you probably wouldn't remember the pain from having your tongue gauged either.m

And tongue gauging of an infant must not be mutilation either, because it doesn't cause any impairment of function either. Does that make it okay? Of course not.

[Typhlosion]

Circumcision is extremely painful. If you can't remember the pain from it you probably wouldn't remember the pain from having your tongue gauged either.m Or, just maybe, it wasn't painful for him. My dad remembers it only as a nuisance, but not painful.

And tongue gauging of an infant must not be mutilation either, because it doesn't cause any impairment of function either. Does that make it okay? Of course not.

<wikipedia> Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body [...] </wikipedia>

Functionally there is very little to lose and potentially much more to gain (avoided). Appearance is really subjective. If circumsision were widespread, wouldn't an u/c penis be ugly/abnormal?


But there is no objective cause to gauge a tongue of an infant, is there?

[Horatio Nelson]

Circumcision is extremely painful. If you can't remember the pain from it you probably wouldn't remember the pain from having your tongue gauged either.m

And tongue gauging of an infant must not be mutilation either, because it doesn't cause any impairment of function either. Does that make it okay? Of course not.

You are missing the point, even if it is painful, no one will be able to recall the pain if they have it done as an infant.

Plus, there are valid reasons for circumcision. As far as I know there are no health benefits from having your tongue gouged.

[ksdnfkfr]

i think it's something that shouldn't be routine anymore. it makes about as much sense as routinely cutting of a baby's earlobes at birth. it's some primitive custom that somehow became a fad modern in America.

The only reason I think it should remain legal and not 100% illegal is because circumcision has multiple health benefits

What are the multiple health benefits? in what way am i less healthy?

[Gamma Male]

Just a sidenote: I was circumcised but am currently undergoing foreskin restoration using stretching techniques.
http://www.restoringforeskin.org/
Yup, that's a real thing.

[Horatio Nelson]

Just a sidenote: I was circumcised but am currently undergoing foreskin restoration using stretching techniques.
http://www.restoringforeskin.org/
Yup, that's a real thing.

Honestly, I would have liked to have been uncircumcised, and my son(s), if I have any, will be uncircumcised. But I don't feel like I was mutilated or physically harmed in any way.

[Gamma Male]

Honestly, I would have liked to have been uncircumcised, and my son(s), if I have any, will be uncircumcised. But I don't feel like I was mutilated or physically harmed in any way.

I don't feel mutilated, I'd just really like to have a foreskin

[Lovelife090994]

Should routine infant circumcision be legal? I don't think so. Kinda seems like a violation of the infants rights. Not to mention it reduces sensitivity.

Without the foreskin to protect the sensitive glans, the pants and underwear start rubbing against the glans, forcing it to undergo keratinization and get harder to prevent oversensitivity. Callouses on palms and scabs on bruises undergo the same basic process.


And the safety arguments seem pretty ridiculous. Having a foreskin is no. less safe than not having one as long as you take proper care of it and clean it regularly.

Procircumcision advocates usually claim that most circumcised guys don't care or are glad they're circumcised, but what about the ones who do care? What about the ones who wish they weren't circumcised?

I'm not cut but my penis is not where my foreskin covers my glans. They are not calloused. Banning all forms of circumcision would cause more harm than good. For one, the practice of circumcision varies. Even with females sometimes only and I do mean only and not in anyway including FGM is only done to remove excess skin. After that then they take it no further with the girl unless you consider cosmetic female genital surgery as female circumcision.
For males circumcision can be to remove excess skin, remove overly tight skin, like in my case as a baby pull back and cut most excess skin, and or to remove skin for tradition or cosmetic purposes since cut penises and phalluses do look cleaner and longer. Banning it all would end even the medically required circumcision. Even to women, imagine being born where you vagina is nearly fused closed but can be fixed. I don't think a girl or woman should be forced to live with that just as to a man with overly tight skin shouldn't have to suffer that. End the mutilation but not the actual true circumcision for cosmetics, tradition, or medical conditions.
Bear in mind some piercings and body modifications go way over cutting off excess penis skin. At least that isn't punching holes in your flesh, genitals, and gut, or other painful procedures.

[Gamma Male]

I'm not cut but my penis is not where my foreskin covers my glans. They are not calloused. Banning all forms of circumcision would cause more harm than good. For one, the practice of circumcision varies. Even with females sometimes only and I do mean only and not in anyway including FGM is only done to remove excess skin. After that then they take it no further with the girl unless you consider cosmetic female genital surgery as female circumcision.
For males circumcision can be to remove excess skin, remove overly tight skin, like in my case as a baby pull back and cut most excess skin, and or to remove skin for tradition or cosmetic purposes since cut penises and phalluses do look cleaner and longer. Banning it all would end even the medically required circumcision. Even to women, imagine being born where you vagina is nearly fused closed but can be fixed. I don't think a girl or woman should be forced to live with that just as to a man with overly tight skin shouldn't have to suffer that. End the mutilation but not the actual true circumcision for cosmetics, tradition, or medical conditions.
Bear in mind some piercings and body modifications go way over cutting off excess penis skin. At least that isn't punching holes in your flesh, genitals, and gut, or other painful procedures.
Of course circumcision should be legal if there's a valid medical reason, or if the person consents. But routine infant circumcision should be illegal.

[ImCoolBeans]

Or, just maybe, it wasn't painful for him. My dad remembers it only as a nuisance, but not painful.



<wikipedia> Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body [...] </wikipedia>

Functionally there is very little to lose and potentially much more to gain (avoided). Appearance is really subjective. If circumsision were widespread, wouldn't an u/c penis be ugly/abnormal?


But there is no objective cause to gauge a tongue of an infant, is there?

You are missing the point, even if it is painful, no one will be able to recall the pain if they have it done as an infant.

Plus, there are valid reasons for circumcision. As far as I know there are no health benefits from having your tongue gouged.

That is a pretty bad argument. "Infants won't remember the pain." Seriously? If you kicked an infant in the face I'm sure it wouldn't remember the pain 15 years on, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a painful, and traumatic experience.

A family member of mine was circumcised as an infant and the doctor messed up, I remember how much pain and discomfort my baby relative was going through, and he cried in agony for two days before they could fix it. Just because he won't remember how much it hurt getting a part of his penis cut off, doesn't change the fact that he was forced to go through something horrible for no good reason.

Circumcision is almost obsolete in the medical world. Only about 5% of uncircumcised men are effected by phimosis (which is treatable). Hygiene was the main cause for concern regarding circumcision, but that is an outdated concern. If you bathe somewhat regularly, and give your junk a wash, like every man should, you will have nothing to worry about. 50/60+ years ago hygiene and medicine was not like it is today, and we're still arguing with those same standards. It doesn't make sense, and makes for poor support in your arguments.

If there is a valid medical reason for why somebody needs to be circumcised, then of course it should be allowed, but "hey let's cut that thing off because his dad, grandpa, uncle, and half cousin are all circumcised" should not be an acceptable reason, and that unfortunately is the main reason why people are circumcised today -- tradition. Just because it's been a tradition for umpteen years doesn't mean it has to be carried on, long after the original reasons for it are still massive medical concerns. Don't be sheep.

[phuckphace]

I asked my mom when I was about 10 why they had me circumcised as a baby, and she said "your father is, so we decided to have it done with you too." it made no sense to me then, and makes even less sense to me now. all males on my mom's side of the family are intact, and I certainly wish I was as well.

the ethical concerns aside, the keratinized and "cracked" appearance of the glans caused by circumcision is just ugly and unnatural-looking.

[PinkFloyd]

i think it's something that shouldn't be routine anymore. it makes about as much sense as routinely cutting of a baby's earlobes at birth. it's some primitive custom that somehow became a fad modern in America.



What are the multiple health benefits? in what way am i less healthy?

You are not less healthy. You just have to clean more. One well known benefit is a reduced chance of a urinary tract infection and the other is preduced chance of balanitis. Basically in short, circumcision means you don't have to clean in a small space.

[ksdnfkfr]

You are not less healthy. You just have to clean more. One well known benefit is a reduced chance of a urinary tract infection and the other is preduced chance of balanitis. Basically in short, circumcision means you don't have to clean in a small space.

i see what you're saying. but at the same time i don't think i'd be washing it any less if i was circumcised. it's like 5 seconds in the shower with soap and water. which includes the ball sack. the mouth however requires ten times more maintenance, with teeth brushing and flossing or bad breath, gingivitis, tooth decay and abscesses if you don't. so i just don't see hygiene being an issue with an uncut penis any more then it is all the other body parts.

[PinkFloyd]

i see what you're saying. but at the same time i don't think i'd be washing it any less if i was circumcised. it's like 5 seconds in the shower with soap and water. which includes the ball sack. the mouth however requires ten times more maintenance, with teeth brushing and flossing or bad breath, gingivitis, tooth decay and abscesses if you don't. so i just don't see hygiene being an issue with an uncut penis any more then it is all the other body parts.

People like the procedure because of the whole cosmetic thing as well as religion in some cases. (not something I agree with) Also, because of today's medical advancements, circumcision isn't barbaric and torturous in the first world.

[ImCoolBeans]

People like the procedure because of the whole cosmetic thing as well as religion in some cases. (not something I agree with) Also, because of today's medical advancements, circumcision isn't barbaric and torturous in the first world.

Not really, there is no other way to do it than stretching out the foreskin with a medical device, making a vertical cut in it, and then cutting around the base of the foreskin, which leaves a scar that never goes away.

In fact, jewish families often circumcise their baby boys at a family gathering called a "Bris." The family has a Rabbi come to the home, and he circumcises the baby with a knife in the living room of their home, while everybody watches, and the baby screams in pain.

[PinkFloyd]

Not really, there is no other way to do it than stretching out the foreskin with a medical device, making a vertical cut in it, and then cutting around the base of the foreskin, which leaves a scar that never goes away.

In fact, jewish families often circumcise their baby boys at a family gathering called a "Bris." The family has a Rabbi come to the home, and he circumcises the baby with a knife in the living room of their home, while everybody watches, and the baby screams in pain.

Well damn, I did not know that. My argument is down the crapper.

[ksdnfkfr]

People like the procedure because of the whole cosmetic thing as well as religion in some cases. (not something I agree with) Also, because of today's medical advancements, circumcision isn't barbaric and torturous in the first world.

from what i've read some people like it and others hate it as far as how it looks or having had it done. i don't have anything against it myself and think it does look better cosmetically. but i also think it's completely unnecessary surgery that shouldn't be done on newborns assembly line style. i'm glad it wasn't done to me and i have the choice of keeping it or not.

[PinkFloyd]

from what i've read some people like it and others hate it as far as how it looks or having had it done. i don't have anything against it myself and think it does look better cosmetically. but i also think it's completely unnecessary surgery that shouldn't be done on newborns assembly line style. i'm glad it wasn't done to me and i have the choice of keeping it or not.

To be completely honest, I feel violated because it was done to me without my consent.

[ksdnfkfr]

In fact, jewish families often circumcise their baby boys at a family gathering called a "Bris." The family has a Rabbi come to the home, and he circumcises the baby with a knife in the living room of their home, while everybody watches, and the baby screams in pain.

not bash someone's religion, but that really does sound like a primitive bloodletting ritual that doesn't seem to have a place in the modern age any more than animal sacrifices.

[tovaris]

Yes it should be ilegal.

[Stronk Serb]

I am glad me and my parents were raised in a secular family. I would fucking hate it if they had a doctor mess with my pee-pee like that.

[dame]

We had this discussion the other day in my medical class. From my understanding, circumcision is preformed a few days after birth, getting circumcised while you're a newborn is painless from what I was taught. When you're circumcised a few days after birth your nerves are still not fully developed, so the newborn should feel to much. Many cry when circumcision is preformed, but it's not from pain, it's because of the fact that they're being laid down on their back & not wrapped up in fetal position. I'm not 100% sure if this is true & I don't want to sound ignorant, that is what my instructor told me. Circumcision while an infant would be quite painful & shouldn't be preformed unless there's a medical reason. I don't think circumsion should be illegal, your parents are using their best judgement when they decide whether to circumsize or not. Then again, that's just my opinion, I don't mind being circumsized, but I can understand someone who didn't want to be circumcised & had no say in it.

[backjruton]

The only thing I'm against when it comes to this and most other things are religious rituals because to me it all seems stupid and I don't see a point in any of it. When I mentioned it yet again yesterday to my mum because my brother had it she said... I almost had it done when I was younger because of similar complications he had, that's one thing, but the thing she said that annoyed me was that "It's cleaner". I'd rather more feeling than more clean. To me it's purely cosmetic, so to me it should be the decision of the person themselves and not the parent or whoever else in other circumstances may want it done as soon as possible. And now I think of it I probably would if it was much easier and there was no chance of any problems happening... because from what I read (and I didn't read everything) one person who's trying to make another argument here didn't remember that there are the chances of something really bad happening and I don't think the parents should be able to decide on what in very extreme circumstances can actually kill the kid... I know that's what happens with FGM anyway because it's much more dangerous but I'm not so sure about anything :whoops:

[Faolan]

Circumcision is an important part of many religious beliefs, such as Judaism and Islam, and making it illegal would not far well with practicing Jews and Muslims. I'm circumcised and I personally am all for the continuation of it.

[Gamma Male]

Circumcision is an important part of many religious beliefs, such as Judaism and Islam, and making it illegal would not far well with practicing Jews and Muslims. I'm circumcised and I personally am all for the continuation of it.

What if a religion called for cutting off a newborns earlobes or forking his tongue?

[Faolan]

What if a religion called for cutting off a newborns earlobes or forking his tongue?

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right choice, but it's tradition. I get that it's seen as inhumane, but for religious purposes, I think it should be allowed.

[Gamma Male]

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right choice, but it's tradition. I get that it's seen as inhumane, but for religious purposes, I think it should be allowed.

So you would be okay with those two things being legal? With parents having their babies earlobes cut off or tongues forked?