Another Discussion on Circumcision

Remove all ads!

A poll was done here in 07 -- well, it's been 3 years, and I read an article that made we want to talk about it again.

Now, before I go any further, in the interests of fairness I want to acknowledge that these stats may have been massaged -- as I mentioned before in other threads, it can be done! However, if they are at least somewhat accurate, it's a really good reason to do some cutting

I know there are those (joacqin comes to mind) who see circumcision as a barbaric relic of ancient Abrahamic tradition, and just as vile as FGM. I can understand where's he's coming from. But this article isn't religious at all, that I can see, and seems to cite some good reasons for the practice. I mean, imagine if in Africa we could get some circumcisions done (and piss of some liberal types) and couple that with rampant condom use (and piss off some conservative types) -- if it saved millions of lives, I wouldn't care too much about who got pissed off.

 

What would the kid say if it was his choice, I wonder?

 

Just another way of disfiguring a human body, it causes a child unnecessary pain and distress. better methods could be found.

 

I see no real purpose for it unless you're a religious Jew, but I also see no real objection to it. The analogy to FGM is really bad. The sensory impacts are completely different.

 

I used to go with the "see no purpose for it" position as well until I read the article. Stopping the spread of HIV seems to me to be a pretty good purpose!

 

I read somewhere that circumcision is the ultimate act of optimism. Trim away a bit from something that hasn't fully grown hoping that you haven't cut off too much.

 

Hmm, maybe when they did mine they trimmed away most of my optimism!

OK enough silliness -- serious comments from here on out! HIV is serious stuff.

 

Well, even subsaharan African countries that have a high rate of circumcisions have AIDS-problems so making circumcision compulsory or more common won't make the problem disappear. It could ease the situation a little, but I'm not entirely convinced it would be worth it. I can imagine that a circumcision in areas with poor hygiene and lack of knowledge how the procedure is done with minimal risk for infections can be a risk by itself.

 

Why? A life without humor is no life ... you may as well go out and get circumcised.

Besides, none of this is new -- Rally or Spelly (I forget which) brought up this information three years ago. Of course the real solution in Africa (and everywhere else for that matter) is education not circumcision. Of course some people would claim that MEN are the problem and circumcision isn't enough (hmm ... I think my ex mentioned something like that...).

 

I saw an article on MSNBC about a month ago about a serious rise in deaths after male circumcisions due to poor hygiene and uncleaned surgical equipment.

In light of that, I don't know how much of a solution this really is.

 

Well, it IS a loose bit of skin without any major arteries or anything like that so there's no harm done removing it. Hygiene allowing, of course.

It's just that the idea as a whole seems so odd that I start pondering on stuff like:
- All other things being equal, it also improves mileage in vehicles carrying the individual (lighter weight), so is it an environmentally friendly act?
- How the idea was born? Cavemomma: "Look at our son, how fine he is!" Cavedaddy: "Yeah, except for this loose bit" <slice> Cavemomma: "WTF man, didn't we agree on no more shears inside the cave!"
- Why young boys only? Wouldn't it be a REAL test of manhood to do it at, say, age of sixteen?

 

Well, for Jews at least it was never a 'test of manhood', but a sign of participation in the covenant with God.

 

Um, I still have my foreskin, and I wouldn't exactly call it a 'loose bit of skin'. I certainly wouldn't appreciate anyone removing it, either.

Also, I think that pointing to some studies in sub-Saharan Africa to support the practice of circumsicion is the U.S is grounded in selection bias. I frankly couldn't care less what studies in sub-saharan Africa show, they aren't relevant to what occurs in first world countries.

Quite simply, I find that most parents often remove their child's foreskin for aesthetic or cultural reasons. They simply pull medical reasons out of their ass as an afterthought when they have their barbarism challenged.

Sexual intercourse usually doesn't occur until teenage years. At that time, the individual should have the right to consider all information and decide for themselves whether they want their dick sliced.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 57 seconds later... ----------

You could stop the spread of a lot of sexually transmitted infections by simply cutting your child's dick off.

 

I'm not being funny, but noone is going anywhere near my bell-end with a blade. Not a chance.

 

I think that's why parents have it done on their children at infancy. Because there is no way in hell that any sane adolescent or adult would let people slice off their foreskin, except to avoid imminent and serious harm.

 

your ear is a loose bit of skin without any major arteries or anything like that, but we dont go around removing them

 

Actually, I'd say that the foreskin feels more like the eyelids in regards to sensitivity and 'looseness'. When you remember that the eyelids ensure the eyes remain moist, while the foreskin helps the glans remain moist, you can only conclude that the comparison isn't a bad one.

 

Well, that's because a vast majority of us doesn't see a need to do such a thing. But if ears were all of a sudden considered the root of all evil (or whatever), you bet there would be infants without ears running around everywhere.

Heck, there are people that do voluntary AMPUTATION on themselves to make them look cool. "Tattooes and piercings are for sissies!"

 

I think that this debate is always going to be undecided in particular. Those with or without their foreskin are likely going to lead in favor of with or without. This is most likely because it wasn't any of our choices in the first place, and it's been a part (or not a part) of our bodies since we were children. To each party it's natural. To both parties it feels just like their big toe (or not having a sixth toe); it belongs there (or doesn't belong there).

Because of this, to me, it's as silly as arguing whether or not having a vagina or a penis is right. Either way, I think both are equally valid and are not life altering differences. This is barring the option that some loon doctor sliced an infants man-part with a rusty instrument. Makes me shudder and go owowow just thinking of it. But, with foreskin, you get heightened sensitivity, a natural part of you, and no pain as an infant. Without, you get slightly diluted sensitivity (which isn't always bad), and an easier to clean member.

However, to anyone who calls circumcision mutilation is being inconsiderate of any male who is in fact circumcised. If you disagree with parents for circumcising their babies, that's one thing. But to say that it is mutilation would surely make any man who (by no choice of his own) is circumcised feel awkward and instantly take the side opposite of yours. I tend to agree that most men who aren't a devout Jew wouldn't cut themselves down there. But in the end, it's all personal preference, and I don't think women really mind either way, so men shouldn't either.