Time to end circumcision?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Soubrette

Victor - out of interest, do you know if there is alot of pressure on Jewish people to perform circumcisions on their sons - even if they aren't Jewish in the religious sense?

Yes. There is pretty heavy cultural pressure. This of course assumes that our secular jew is participating in jewish culture.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ben Shniper

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.

Exactly. Choose for yourself whatever you wish; don't force a permanent, irreversible, damaging physical change on your children.

The most obvious benefit of circumcision is its requirement for joining several religious orders to have been circumcized. This is a free country. If people wanted to cut off their own finger, or sterilize themselves by medical procedure, or change their breast or penis or but size, they can.

Indeed, Anyone should be free to do it to themselves.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I don't think it'll fit you any more

Personally, I think that having any sort of surgery "because you don't want to be different" is the worst sort of reason - even more so, perhaps, when it's on a part of your anatomy that isn't on public display (heh! my lousy fingers typed "pubic display" first time )

I'm sure that if you waited until the boys were old enough to choose for themselves, you'd get a 100% "No thanks!" vote.

Thinks about "body art" and what people voluntariliy choose to do to modify their bodies. I can imagine some males would get circumcised, just to be different.

 

[Fade]

There is no good reason to have your child circumcized. The chance to develop a urinary tract infection is offset by the likelihood that you will develop complications resulting from the circumcision later in life.

I have been with a guy who's surgery was botched. His erections are bent in a way that is painful for him if too much pressure is put on him in a certain way. He can't enjoy penetrating intercourse because of this. He is sexually crippled (or at least was, have no idea if he corrected it) all because his mother decided that mutilating her children was a-okay.

It's a barbaric practice that we need to do away with non-consensually.

When the child grows up and wants to get snipped, more power to him, but the option ought to be non-existant for parents at any time in their childs life.

 

[subgenius]

It's continued because its a money maker.

Forty skins a week and a chance to get ahead.

(Sorry I just had to revive that old one.)

 

[kourama]

I thjink I can offer a somewhat unique perspective.

I had it done when I was 18.

First, I had too much skin removed and had painful erections for about 6 months until the pink skin stretched out.

I lost a LOT of sensitivity. Before, just exposing the glans to the air felt arousing. I remember that during an exam afterwards, the doctor manipulated the glans with a gloved hand and I swear I felt absolutely nothing at all.

The tip of the penis often catches against my underwear and that is very uncomfortable.

Sex is OK, but with a condom on, I basically have to be in the right mood, or it just won't work since I can't feel a damn thing.

Climax can be a bit painful, but after all these years, it's not something I notice much anymore.

I do remember that the glans stayed quite sensitive for a coupe of weeks after the operation, and I've heard that wearing a condom or something to cover the tip constatntly will restore sensitivity in a couple of weeks. Must try it...

I tried to restore my foreskin through stretching, but since I've been so tightly cut, it didn't work, although it does feel a lot better that the skin isn't so tight now.

What else? I was left with a scar which is painful even now, 12 years later.

No woman I have ever been with (since the GF I had when I was 18) really cared wether I was cut or not.

Before the operation I never had any of the problems that I've heard about. I never had any UT infection. Actually, the first infection I ever had was afterwards. Never had the head 'caught' outside the foreskin. Never caught the foreskin in my zipper.

I did feel 'different' though. The only pornography I had seen up to that point was american, and all the men were circ'd. Though, I never felt that I was too different that my peers.

Summary: I regret having it done, but it is not a complete tragedy, since sex is not the biggest part of my life anyway.

 

[Skeptic]

It would also not be harmful per your reasoning to tattoo a child at birth. I disagree that it is not harmful. There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read.

...dooming the child to a lifetime of lasting longer during sex...

I have an amputation of a couple of fingertips. They are on my left hand, so I can function normally. Would it be ok to amputate fingertips for religion or beauty?

No, but removing a piece of skin is not the same as amputation.

 

[Skeptic]

it seems to decrease women's sexual pleasure.

???

This--like the claim that it decreases the sensitivity of the penis--seems to me like an urban legend. Everybody here seems to forget that, when the penis is erect (during sex or mastrubation) the foreskin withdraws and the penis "grows out" of it--which means that the foreskin plays little role in either activity, from either the man's or the woman's point of view.
From personal experience, I must say that I found not the slightest evidence for either claim. Besides, shouldn't the removal of the foreskin, if anything, make the penis MORE sensitive to stimulation, since there is more direct contact?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

...dooming the child to a lifetime of lasting longer during sex...

"Dooming" indeed. how about letting them decide?

Remember, theproblem is not circumcision here, but involuntary circumcision.

This--like the claim that it decreases the sensitivity of the penis--seems to me like an urban legend.

neither is an urban legend. penile sensitivity is decreased; and women do report enjoying intercourse more with circumcised penises. the difference is sometimes negligible, and sometimes drastic; it depends on a number of physiological variables.

Everybody here seems to forget that, when the penis is erect (during sex or mastrubation) the foreskin withdraws and the penis "grows out" of it--which means that the foreskin plays little role in either activity, from either the man's or the woman's point of view.

that's simply not true. Yes, the foreskin retracts; but it's still mobile. The skin on a circumcised penis is a lot tighter than on an uncircumcized one, and the sheath of uncircumcized penis can glide back and forth on the shaft, acting as a permanent lubricant of a sort.

From personal experience, I must say that I found not the slightest evidence for either claim.

Do you have pre- and post-circumcision sexual experiences to draw upon?

Besides, shouldn't the removal of the foreskin, if anything, make the penis MORE sensitive to stimulation, since there is more direct contact?

It's the other way around. Glans penis is usually protected by the foreskin; when the foreskin is removed, it constantly rubs against clothing and stuff, eventually developing a thin layer of dead cells -- a callus of a sort, about 10 cells thick as i recall; it acts similarly to a very thin condom, in terrms of decreasing sensitivity.

 

[kourama]

it seems to decrease women's sexual pleasure.

???

This--like the claim that it decreases the sensitivity of the penis--seems to me like an urban legend.

nope. read my post above.

Everybody here seems to forget that, when the penis is erect (during sex or mastrubation) the foreskin withdraws and the penis "grows out" of it--which means that the foreskin plays little role in either activity, from either the man's or the woman's point of view.

nope. I had to push the foreskin back on myself if I wanted to expose it, otherwise it would stay in. Also, when uncut, sex requires less in-and-out type motion, and more sort of gentle massaging. The in-and-out motion is all you really have when you have no foreskin.

From personal experience, I must say that I found not the slightest evidence for either claim. Besides, shouldn't the removal of the foreskin, if anything, make the penis MORE sensitive to stimulation, since there is more direct contact?

No. Less. If you pull off your fingernails, the quick will get tougher. If you cut off your eyelids, the surface of your eyeball would get tougher (and your vision would blur). Exposing sensitive skin toughens it up, it doesn't make it more sensitive.

 

[kourama]

*SNIP (so to speak)*

No, but removing a piece of skin is not the same as amputation.

Yes it is.

Medically, amputation of a digit is more serious than removal of foreskin, especially on an infant. What's at issue here, I think, is whether it is any less right to do it.

If I claim it is better to gouge out an eye that to remove both legs, does gouging out an eye somehow become more moral because it is less dramatic?

Of course not. Is it right to mutliate someone's genitals without their consent? no.

 

[Troll]

Circumcised at birth, so I have no experience with the extra foreskin. But after having had the partners I have had I would have probably had it done later anyhow given their preferences.

DrBenway pretty much described the difference between male and female circumcision.

It may not be the most logical thing to say at the moment, but one could ask themselves simply, "How many adult women would volunteer to be circumcised versus how many adult men would?" It does sort of bring the point to light.

For men it's not all that inhibitive or preventive. The opposite is true for women. Men can still get all the pleasure with a circumcision, it's harder to next to impossible in the case of women. Which is why female circumcision is mostly practiced in cultures where they have a different view on male dominance in a relationship as a whole.

 

[Christian]

There is one other medical benefit that hasn't been mentioned.

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, although rare (2/100,000). The disease makes it a consideration.

(Only 2 flights out of 100,000 crash *kind of thing* )

 

[corplinx]

I tried to convince my brother not to have his baby boys circumcised. He went ahead with it anyway because he didn’t want them to be different.

He did it because he didnt want his kids to be different? There's a good reason. I can just imagine his boy standing at a urinal while two other guys watch going "look at the uncut nerd".

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

There is one other medical benefit that hasn't been mentioned.

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, although rare (2/100,000). The disease makes it a consideration.

Circumcision also increases the risk of prostate cancer, albeit only a little. Either way, there's no sufficient reason to force a permanent surgery on a child.

Also, penile cancer strikes almost exclusively at rather advanced age, by which time the person had enough time to decide for themselves whether they wish to be circumcised. This excuse certainly has zero bearing on circumcision of children.

 

[Darat]

Curious to know how a doctor squares the ethics of elective surgery (that does carry some risk) on a child that cannot consent to the procedure when there is no immediate medical reason for the operation?.

I don't suppose a doctor would perform purely cosmetic surgery on a three year old (not counting reconstructive surgery etc.).

 

[Kiri]

Wait, it makes us beautiful?

Sign me up!!!

I rather think UNcircumcised penises are more... uh, aesthetic.
I wish MINE had remained unaltered!

 

[a_unique_person]

Don't really disagree with you...I am opposed to circumcision...just wanted to point out that for a variety of reasons -- cultural, etc. -- we do in fact, surgically alter our animals.

cropping tails is almost gone here. cropping ears is illegal. the pain involved is huge.

 

[Kiri]

Yes indeed, and I have heard that circumcision has been recommended in order to prevent boys masturbating. Yikes.

Obviously, this doesn't work...

 

[a_unique_person]

I just wish people would quit spouting the crap (imho) that there are super solid medical evidence that it's a good thing and admit that they do it to conform to culture.

I am circumcised, but none of my boys are. Just one more barbaric relic that is dying out.

Now, as for body piercing, where the hell did that come from. Ears, ok, but nipples, eyebrowes?