Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Dave Rogers]

Abstractualize that and ask yourself how any loving parent can force their children to sit still while a stranger shoves needles and drills and picks into their tender, tiny mouths, hmmmm? Or force them to allow wires to be inserted, banded around their teeth, and then tightened every couple of weeks, causing sometimes excruciating pain, all for the sake of a cosmetically correct smile. Should that be stopped too, or does the good that proper dental care does far outweigh the pain involved, which is sometimes considerable pain?

Even dentistry isn't all that clear-cut, actually. The "cosmetically correct smile" isn't something we bother all that much about either on this side of the pond; as long as a set of teeth are functional and won't cause pain, they'll usually be left as they are. But, yes, of course we'll allow our children pain when it's clearly outweighed by the benefits, and anyone who honestly believes that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the pain is making what they believe to be the best decision. The attitude I would take issue with is that of parents who realise that it doesn't make much difference either way, but go ahead and do it anyway because it's just what everybody does. That isn't a good enough reason for me to cause my child irreparable harm, however trivial.

Dave

 

[I Ratant]

I have.
Uggers!
Nothing regular showers couldn't handle.

 

[slingblade]

[qimg]http://i53.tinypic.com/2qizi8p.jpg[/qimg]

Since the topic is in the thread title, I have to ask why you even bothered to open the thread.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Um....my first husband never had a dusty dick.

"Cleaner" only means that without the foreskin to hold it there, smegma rarely builds up on a cut penis. My father, according to my mother, was so filthy his penis stank. It got to where she wouldn't let him touch her anymore without a bath, and so they rarely had sex, because he would rarely bathe.

Is is more clear to you now?

Ok let me explain from the beginning:

Dust and dirt naturally accumulate on any surface that is exposed. Any surface. If such surface is covered by a permeable cape of any material, it is automatically protected from dust and dirt.

Therefore, a penis with foreskin is protected from dust and dirt particles.
Yes, it does accumulate that grease that does get stinky if you don't clean it. But of course, as long as you clean it, it should not be a problem.

So how is it cleaner to have a penis that is completely unprotected from exposure to dust, dirt and contact to rough surfaces?

 

[Alan]

Ok let me explain from the beginning:

Dust and dirt naturally accumulate on any surface that is exposed. Any surface. If such surface is covered by a permeable cape of any material, it is automatically protected from dust and dirt.

Therefore, a penis with foreskin is protected from dust and dirt particles.
Yes, it does accumulate that grease that does get stinky if you don't clean it. But of course, as long as you clean it, it should not be a problem.

So how is it cleaner to have a penis that is completely unprotected from exposure to dust, dirt and contact to rough surfaces?

In that example, the foreskin will get the dust and dirt and such and so it's not really a cleaner situation.

Um....my first husband never had a dusty dick.

"Cleaner" only means that without the foreskin to hold it there, smegma rarely builds up on a cut penis. My father, according to my mother, was so filthy his penis stank. It got to where she wouldn't let him touch her anymore without a bath, and so they rarely had sex, because he would rarely bathe.

Is is more clear to you now?

If he was circumcised, I doubt things would be much better. The key factor was his rare bathing, not his foreskin.

 

[slingblade]

Ok let me explain from the beginning:

Dust and dirt naturally accumulate on any surface that is exposed. Any surface. If such surface is covered by a permeable cape of any material, it is automatically protected from dust and dirt.

Therefore, a penis with foreskin is protected from dust and dirt particles.
Yes, it does accumulate that grease that does get stinky if you don't clean it. But of course, as long as you clean it, it should not be a problem.

So how is it cleaner to have a penis that is completely unprotected from exposure to dust, dirt and contact to rough surfaces?

First, shut up.




Let's cut to the chase: you asked what women mean by it. I told you what they probably mean by it. Does that make them correct, of is it just what they mean?

So it could be a perceptual bias.

How much dust and dirt is one really exposed to under two layers of clothing, anyway? Would you perceive your arm being "cleaner" if exposed to the air, or if wearing a skin sleeve with "grease" in it?

Okay then.


And shut up.

 

[zooterkin]

How much dust and dirt is one really exposed to under two layers of clothing, anyway? Would you perceive your arm being "cleaner" if exposed to the air, or if wearing a skin sleeve with "grease" in it?

I forget which comedian it was (possibly the late, great, Alan Coren) who asked why we wash our hands after handling our penis rather than the other way round, given that one is, as you say, protected from the world and the others are exposed to all the germs going.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I forget which comedian it was (possibly the late, great, Alan Coren) who asked why we wash our hands after handling our penis rather than the other way round, given that one is, as you say, protected from the world and the others are exposed to all the germs going.

Well, there are certainly some public toilets where I don't wash my hands. Typically two reasons:

1) There is sure to be more germs on the tap than on any part of me.
2) Having to touch the door handle on the way out will destroy any effect of washing, anyhow.

Of course, in China, there is usually a third reason, also:

3) There are no facilities for washing your hands. Or if there are, too many people have mistaken them for other facilities.

- Thank Ed for antiseptic hand gel.

Hans

 

[ZirconBlue]

May I ask how old you are?

Unless you're very young, I doubt that your parents were any different than sling. They probably had no idea there was anything wrong with what they were doing and in fact probably thought it was what they were supposed to do and probably had this reinforced to them by medical providers at the time.

Assuming that's the case, why would you resent your parents for what they thought was a medically appropriate procedure for you?

Of course, I don't even know if you're American born. Maybe you're from some place where there was a lot more accurate information out about circumcisions so this wouldn't apply at all.

Also, my point is that circumcision does not seem to be a common thing to hate your parents for. The fact that you as an individual nearly hate your parents doesn't really change that. There are still a million other things a person could hate their parents for, including not being circumcised, so "your kid will hate you" is still a crap argument.

I'm 39, and am American. All you say is true, and is why I don't hate my parents. When I say I am resentful, I am referring to resentment toward the entire culture and set of irrational customs that made circumcision the default setting in the US. My parents were only a small part of that.

Also, I don't really think I "know" you. You're a person on the internet I've never met in real life and who I know nothing about. When I say "I know" someone, I mean in real life. I don't really count casual internet interactions with "knowing a person."

That's fine. But,

A) I still feel compelled to chime in whenever people make statements about not knowing anyone that is upset by having been circumcised. The common belief is that men are generally content with whichever decision their parents opted for. Maybe you don't really "know" me, but at least now you've got a data point in opposition of that belief. And you can put a face to that data point, even if that face is a doubtful owl.

2) You're much more likely to get frank, honest discussion of this sort of thing with the shield of internet anonymity than you are in real-life, face-to-face conversations. Only on the internet have I ever discussed my personal feelings about it.

 

[JJM 777]

Of course, in China, there is usually a third reason, also:

3) There are no facilities for washing your hands.

We who would like to wash our hands before dining, have noticed that you don´t need to go to China to be deprived of the possibility of washing your hands. Every other small Subway or McDonald´s doesn´t have a toilet, or a public water basin either. Those that have a toilet, often have the toilet somewhere in second floor, obviously the customer is not designed to wash his hands, end of topic.

 

[brodski]

the fact that it "hurts" I don't think is something that automatically makes parents refrain from doing something to their child.

Can I ask why you put hurts in inverted commas?

ETA: That may have sounded more aggressive than I intended. But take it from me, it hurts. A lot.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

First, shut up.




Let's cut to the chase: you asked what women mean by it. I told you what they probably mean by it. Does that make them correct, of is it just what they mean?

So it could be a perceptual bias.

How much dust and dirt is one really exposed to under two layers of clothing, anyway? Would you perceive your arm being "cleaner" if exposed to the air, or if wearing a skin sleeve with "grease" in it?

Okay then.


And shut up.

Good point. I just always felt that the penis itself is particularly more sensitive to exposure to anything, even if it's contact with clothing which does get dirty as well, so it's not 100% clean. But maybe it's just me being used to my penis remaining uncircumcised and thus, as protected and as moist as my eyeball. Like, I would not want my eyeball lacking the protection it currently has behind its eyelid keeping it always clean and moist, know what I mean?

 

[slingblade]

Can I ask why you put hurts in inverted commas?

ETA: That may have sounded more aggressive than I intended. But take it from me, it hurts. A lot.

I don't mean to sound insensitive to the post, but...Brodski! Hi! Welcome back!

 

[brodski]

I don't mean to sound insensitive to the post, but...Brodski! Hi! Welcome back!

Cheers.

 

[slingblade]

Good point. I just always felt that the penis itself is particularly more sensitive to exposure to anything, even if it's contact with clothing which does get dirty as well, so it's not 100% clean. But maybe it's just me being used to my penis remaining uncircumcised and thus, as protected and as moist as my eyeball. Like, I would not want my eyeball lacking the protection it currently has behind its eyelid keeping it always clean and moist, know what I mean?

I actually do know what you mean, because of my husband.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I actually do know what you mean, because of my husband.

So.... are you saying he's a living example of why people should not get circumcised?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Can I ask why you put hurts in inverted commas?

ETA: That may have sounded more aggressive than I intended. But take it from me, it hurts. A lot.

Sure, sorry about that, that was confusing. I was just trying to single out it hurts as an argument by itself against circumcision. It would have been more appropriate for me to have used italics rather than quotation marks. I was not trying to imply that I am dubious to the claim that it hurts, I assure you, I certainly am not.

 

[brodski]

Thanks for that. Given that, I still think it's a confusing term to use, as another part of the penis is also clearly called the tip, and I don't see how it can have two of them.

Besides, the cutting around the shaft is actually done near the base, isn't it?

In a newborn the foreskin is fused to the glans ("mushroom head" if you like) so it is the tip, kind of- but yes it is potentially confusing and the confusion could be played on for emotional effect.

No, the cutting isn't (usually) done near the base.

 

[brodski]

Sure, sorry about that, that was confusing. I was just trying to single out it hurts as an argument by itself against circumcision. It would have been more appropriate for me to have used italics rather than quotation marks. I was not trying to imply that I am dubious to the claim that it hurts, I assure you, I certainly am not.

ah ok. That makes sense. The argument is often put forward that it doesn't hurt (Slingblade has mentioned in this thread that she was told by doctors that it didn't hurt, for instance) , which is why I challenged it.

I agree that the fact that it is a painful procedure isn't necessary an argument against it, if any benefits outweigh the pain. This is a standard equation done in medicine. But to deny that there is any real pain at all (which some people do) is odd.

 

[slingblade]

In a newborn the foreskin is fused to the glans ("mushroom head" if you like) so it is the tip, kind of- but yes it is potentially confusing and the confusion could be played on for emotional effect.

No, the cutting isn't (usually) done near the base.

Okay, then I remain misinformed on it, and apologize for that.
And thank you for clearing up the confusion of terms.


ETA: to be clear on my part, the doctors never told me it didn't hurt. They said they didn't think it hurt much. And that babies forget.