The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

JoeEllison said:
Nope, but it is one hell of a lot closer to that than to cutting off the end of the penis, or genital mutilation, or any of the rather stupid comparisons that people have made in this thread.
Click to expand...

It's nothing at all like trimming a fingernail. (And you complain of "rather stupid comparisons"!)

Denying that cutting off the foreskin is genital mutilation doesn't stop it from being genital mutilation.
 
rex said:
It's nothing at all like trimming a fingernail. (And you complain of "rather stupid comparisons"!)

Denying that cutting off the foreskin is genital mutilation doesn't stop it from being genital mutilation.
Click to expand...

Calling it mutilation doesn't make it true either. And, generations upon generations of successful procreation and enjoyable sexual experiences kind of prove that it isn't mutilation, and that it is foolish beyond rational belief to call it that.
 
Loss Leader said:
The religious authorities whom I trust recommended circumcision.

Don't bother writing back about how silly that sounds to you. I know it sounds silly to you. You wouldn't have written your post in the first place if it didn't sound silly to you. However, that is my entire justification. I will never change my mind, be persuaded by your argument or second-guess my beliefs. I have already gladly agreed that this may not appear rational to you. I have even conceded that non-Jews should probably not be circumcised because there is no objective medical justification.

However, this religious belief is more important to me than any argument you think you might be able to conjur against it. I ask that you not bother replying, not waste your time or energy and not concern yourself with my religious beliefs for even one second more.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't take offense at my questions, but could you explain the reasoning some more?

(I am not Jewish, and I don't know any Jewish people and am not too familiar with their beliefs)

As I said before, I am very much a human rights person, and I consider the right of self-determination of religion and culture to be very important. But that is just my viewpoint, and I don't want to impose upon you. I don't have any kids (thank Buddha), and if I ever have any they will be adopted so I have not and will not need to actually make this decision.

Does the religious belief have to do with a parent giving their child a circumcision, or is it that a Jewish person needs a circumcision?

Again, I hope that you could answer me, as I do not intend to insult.

(As a random side note, is "Jew" an acceptable term? It's just that I grew up in a more... racist neck of the woods and the only time I heard the term was when it was used derogatorily, so I have always instinctively identified it as an inappropriate term.)

___________

As for the rest of the thread:

The cleaning issue is not a big deal. As a young male, I take offense to the stereotype that young people are incapable of proper hygiene :p .

As for the "mutilation" and other terminology, I think they are needlessly emotive. Sure, it may be accurate by definition, but it injects needless emotions into the discussion.

And I would like to state that I consider ear piercing and tattooing to be ritual body modification. The only reason why we think it normal and other forms of body modification not is that our culture accepts it.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
And I would like to state that I consider ear piercing and tattooing to be ritual body modification. The only reason why we think it normal and other forms of body modification not is that our culture accepts it.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but that's for consenting adults and maybe, re piercings, kids as young as nine

Who but a nutter and/or sadist would advocate the tattooing of newborns?
 
JoeEllison said:
Calling it mutilation
Click to expand...

It meets the definition of mutilation.

Many cut males have recognised that it is mutilation, and have had foreskin restorations in order to increase sexual pleasure and protect the glans. Although the restored foreskin is not as good as the original, restored males consider it preferable to staying circumcised.
 
Last edited:
rex said:
Many cut males have recognised that it is mutilation, and have had foreskin restorations
Click to expand...

Yeah? How many?

I wonder if its significantly more than the number of people who have needless surgery like vanity facelifts and/or teeth-work?
 
kellyb said:
...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627144210.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, the evidence the foreskin is sensitive is cited as a reason not to circumcise, but there is no data showing this has a dramatic effect on sexual pleasure or satisfaction. Circumcised men are not 'ruined'. In fact, for someone with premature ejaculation, maybe they would benefit from circumcision.

kellyb said:
...I think amputating children's sex organs is completely weird and wrong, and a human right's violation, personally.
Click to expand...
Notice the framing. :rolleyes:

Is removing a fingernail an amputation as well? A circ may be more than a nail trim but it is not an amputation any more than a nail trim is an amputation. And human rights violation? So would that also apply to an elective tonsillectomy?

It's one thing to discuss the issues. It's quite another to post your arguments framed as propaganda is framed.
 
rex said:
It meets the definition of mutilation.

Many cut males have recognised that it is mutilation, and have had foreskin restorations in order to increase sexual pleasure and protect the glans. Although the restored foreskin is not as good as the original, restored males consider it preferable to staying circumcised.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that if you went to the trouble of having a "restoration" you would be unlikely to say it wasn't worth it. But regardless, how about a link to some data?
 
Loss Leader said:
The religious authorities whom I trust recommended circumcision.

Don't bother writing back about how silly that sounds to you. I know it sounds silly to you. You wouldn't have written your post in the first place if it didn't sound silly to you. However, that is my entire justification. I will never change my mind, be persuaded by your argument or second-guess my beliefs. I have already gladly agreed that this may not appear rational to you. I have even conceded that non-Jews should probably not be circumcised because there is no objective medical justification.

However, this religious belief is more important to me than any argument you think you might be able to conjur against it. I ask that you not bother replying, not waste your time or energy and not concern yourself with my religious beliefs for even one second more.
Click to expand...
While not being a god believer myself, I think a minority of the people who argue against circumcision border on fanaticism. As such, I don't take their arguments very seriously. The evidence is not there that male circumcision is a big deal except to a few people who for whatever reason seem to be quite emotional about the issue.

It's 50:50 for or against. There is no overwhelming reason to decide one way or the other. The risk of serious health problems was important to me. Your religious convictions are important to you. The reaction of some people who are rather absurdly calling it mutilation and amputation remind me of gay bashers who claim some moral superiority based purely on individual reasons and not based on the evidence.

Yes, the evidence is there are nerve endings in the foreskin and the glans penis gets a bit tougher when it isn't covered. So what? There is no evidence circumcised men have less satisfactory orgasms or sexual experiences. And there is a medical benefit that is greater than the risk. It's a wash folks. Get over it. Quit imposing your fundamentalist mentality on people who don't see it your way.
 
six7s said:
I'm no microbiologist but... ain't it only sterile in an anaerobic environment?

Either way, I fail to see the relevance - bearing in mind that we are all the descendants of men with foreskins... ...
Click to expand...
The bladder is normally sterile. Bacteria will grow in urine if introduced.

But there is evidence supporting the conclusion that circumcised male infants have fewer urinary tract infections than uncircumcised male infants. That data is pretty clear.

As far as evolution, your argument ignores the fact there are many medical interventions we can use as humans that benefit us regardless of how we evolved.
 
rex said:
If you want me to be more accurate, it is the outside end that is cut off, exposing the glans inside and causing it to dry and become hard and keratonised. ...
Click to expand...
You've been reading propaganda.

How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
The uncircumcised penis consists of the penile shaft, glans, urethral meatus, inner and outer surface of the foreskin, and the frenulum, the thin band connecting the inner foreskin to the ventral aspect of the glans. A keratinised, stratified squamous epithelium covers the penile shaft and outer surface of the foreskin. This provides a protective barrier against HIV infection. In contrast, the inner mucosal surface of the foreskin is not keratinised15 and is rich in Langerhans' cells,10 making it particularly susceptible to the virus. This is particularly important because during heterosexual intercourse the foreskin is pulled back down the shaft of the penis, and the whole inner surface of the foreskin is exposed to vaginal secretions, providing a large area where HIV transmission could take place.

There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not,15 but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised.
Click to expand...
You are talking about skin here, either way, not the keratin one thinks of such as in finger nails. Are you trying to claim a circumcised glans penis gets as calloused as the sole of your foot? That is absurd!
 
Rufo said:
Semantics aside, what JoeEllison objected to was comparing - or rather implicitly equating - the procedures performed on women, sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", to circumcision as performed on males. One can argue about whether the term should be applied to females at all, but if one chooses to do so, it is important not to carelessly mention them as if they were similar.

The possible benefits or harms resulting from male circumcision can and are being discussed. If this was about the procedure Ayaan Hirsi Ali once went through, the pro side would have no medical case to make. At all.
Click to expand...
Not to mention female circumcision often consists of removing the clitoris altogether. That is the equivalent of removing the glans penis, not the foreskin.
 
I would just like to say that having read the exchange earlier in this thread, I have decided that I am going to get my girls breast implants if they are not large breasted. After all, all the men I have spoken to say they prefer large breasted women, and my girls might have psychological problems if they watch porn and see all the women there have much larger breasts than them.*







*Insert your favourite smiley here.
 
I believe you should have your son circumcized soon after birth. You should also have his appendix and tonsils removed. And as soon as his teeth come in, have them extracted and replaced with dentures.

You can never be too cautious.
 
*sigh*

All this back and forth chatter.

I don't really think it's akin to mutilation. I'm circumcised, sex works just fine, etc. Maybe it would be better the other way. I don't know, I tend to doubt it. It's certainly not akin to female genitile mutilation in any way, shape, or form.

But what it comes down to is that the people who are arguing that you should cut up the human body need a better argument than "it's traditional." The default position is "don't chop off pieces of the body." Not hard to realize why that's the default.

Now with 6 fingers/toes its well established that the extra finger or toe is worthless and just tends to get in the way and/or get ripped off at a bad time (Our hands/feet weren't built for 6, bad throwback). So we lop it off.

I don't see quite the same level of proof here. Without that level of proof, I'm inclined to say "don't cut the body needlessly."

That really is end of discussion, IMO. If you want to chop up your own body later in life, your decision. Me, I think that poking holes in the body and cutting parts of it off is silly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom