Another Discussion on Circumcision

Remove all ads!

the same can be said of the foreskin. on the other hand while people dont generally remove their ears, they still disfigure them with peircings for decorative purposes, others may find these peircings an abomination - by removing the ears as an infant, they could prevent these peircings, which can cause infection, pain and disfigurement.

 

Or you could teach your child to look after themselves properly to avoid pain, infection and disfigurement

I willingly disfigured my ears when I was young and my mother helped make sure I had no problems healing. I would, when able, like to continue with further voluntary disfigurement for aesthetic purposes. It was, and will be, a personal choice. Something I wish for myself and will take care of myself to prevent complications, damage and illness. Same as looking after yourself in general.

As for voluntary amputation. The DPW scene is frankly discomforting, and a healthy, sound individual will not attempt to pursue amputation of a healthy, useful part of their body. The most common reasons are mental disorders relating to munchausen and a form of body dysmorphia where a single part of the body is blamed for all the ill-being a person experiences and they truly believe removing that part of themselves will make problems go away. I only know of one overt expression of amputation/physical relocation of body parts and it's extreme and illegal - it was evidenced in twins who go by "Addition and Subtraction" - I think you can guess what sort of things they attempted.

I have no religious, social or health reasons personally to endorse circumcision. I would not force or will it upon an unwilling child or adult who had no reason to undergo the procedure. From what I understand, loosely, the practice is more socially practiced in America than in the UK. On an international teenage/student forum a similar discussion took place and there was a large divide between european and american views. A lot of the american teens (who posted) had reason to beleive that not having the procedure was 'dirty' including a large proportion of girls who had been encouraged and advised not to sleep with men who were uncircumsized. The topic was in the end closed down from the insults arising from both sides.

From responses on here I'm guessing (Hoping!!) it was largely a generational thing where it was perhaps more popular at a time and more widespread.

 

I've been thinking about having Ashley done. Not for religious reasons or anything but because when he goes to the toilet he sometimes shouts 'It's stuck!' and you can see the he's started to wee and then it seems to build up under his foreskin before it actually comes out. Not sure when causes it though so I'll ask the GP first!

 

Well, I'm circumcized, but I certainly don't think it should be compulsory. Ideally, I think you should not be routinely circumcized as an infant and wait until you are old enough to decide for yourself.

 

Hurting someone's feelings has absolutely nothing to do with whether circumcision is or isn't mutilation.

I don't think this thread is about winning converts (or not losing people that already subscribe to a certain viewpoint). Making someone change their opinion based on emotions alone won't result into any constructive arguments form that person's part, but self-censorship can be outright detrimental to to a good debate. However, I agree that going out of one's way to offend someone isn't a good thing to do.

That being said, I think that part of your post was a mere digression and not a call to self-censorship or political correctness.

Now onto my personal opinion: The thing that actually outrages me is infant circumcision. The reasons are:

1) It is not done with the child's consent. Adults can choose to do whatever they want with their bodies, but they should have a really good reason when doing something to someone else without their consent.

2) It is something that goes against the self-preservation instinct. Animals (humans included) that don't have critical thinking skills and are not motivated by other in-built mechanisms (perilous mating rituals and group mentality come to mind) disagree with and try to avoid anything that goes against their self-preservation instinct. In other words, you can count on the baby's disapproval of the circumcision. I have ridden roller-coasters in my teens because I knew that I wouldn't be harmed and I would be considered cooler by my peer group.

3) Its consequences are permanent and not necessarily good or wanted by the receiving party. The small benefits it can provide are easily replaced and even outmatched by education, soap and condoms. Furthermore, the person can feel victimized by the loss of their foreskin when they grow up. If an adult is not happy about being uncut, they can go and have it done, but not vice-versa.

 

Help me! Help me! I'm a victim! I think I'll go sue my parents for the lifelong loss of my foreskin -- I miss it terribly (even though I don't remember it) and have suffered greatly with the loss ... umm ... I think I've suffered ... actually no one has ever made any comment in bed about it ... but I'm sure they must have been just keeping the ridicule in ... in fact, now that I mention it I'm rather certain of it. I'm positive that's why their jaw drops....

 

I struggle to understand how circumcision ever became a religious thing. Is it the 11th commandment on the back of the stone tablet? What religious purpose could there possibly be in it?

 

I know alot of women that are really disturbed when a man has foreskin. They actually don't know what to do and think something is wrong.

 

Man was supposedly created in god's likeness. But god had a really small willy, and no foreskin, so to partially correct god's mistake, they decided to remove the foreskin. Fortunately, they decided not to do anything about the size thing.

 

I'm REALLY sensitive and ticklish so I'm VERY glad that I've kept all 100% of me and not having an uncomfortable time walking in tight jeans.

And some women disturbed by foreskin? Meh, that's why we have so many different ones to choose from. =)

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

Truly, I vote for child's choice - wait till he's sixteen and let HIM make the decision. He's the one that has to live with it.

 

HB, God commanded Abraham to be circumcised and to have all the men in his family circumcised, and all their children, forever, as a sign of their separation. They are to be set apart from the rest of mankind, and this is to be the symbol of it. That's how it got there for Judaism, at least. I don't know about any other religions.

 

Wait, hang on. Why should I care what women think?

 

Or rather, why would you care about women that actually care about such a thing? Being indecisive is one thing, FORCING a belief like that on their potential future partners is worse.

 

How did God command the woman to be marked? Why did God need to have the men marked on their willies? I'm not sure what to think of a God that wants to perve at men's willies in order to check which men are on his side. Isn't he omnipotent? Shouldn't he just KNOW, without having to get them to take their pants down?

 

Circumsision is there to make it harder for a man to pleasure himself and I would even go so far as to say that it is also there to somewhat diminish the pleasure derived from sex as a circumsised penis is a lot less sensitive than an uncut one. This is why I have stated in the past that male and female circumsision in the grand scheme of things pretty much amounts to the same thing even if the female one is way more invasive, dangerous and repellant.

 

So, in short, circumcision is like a patch that god released once he realized that he accidentally made men to be too easily excitable. =)

 

I don't think it was for God to know, so much as for people. And I don't think He commanded anything for the ladies. I guess he presumed the men would look after them. Call Him sexist if you must, I'm just telling you the story.

I'm pretty sure Joacqin's explanation and the Jewish explanation are unrelated. Plus, if it were meant to be a correction, He'd have required it of everyone. He didn't, just the Jews.

 

Never heard either of these before -- besides, the most sensitive portions are not removed. I doubt there is any less ... extracurricular solitary activity going on with circumcised versus uncircumcised. The only issue might be ... timing.

 

Why do you think a circumsised man lasts so much longer than an uncircumsised? It is because the tip isn't as sensitive as it is "supposed" to be. The foreskin protects it, I guess the anology would be the difference in sensitivivity between a calloused hand and one without callouses.

An uncircumsised man masturbates by pulling the foreskin back and forth, without one I guess you have to just pull your hand back on forth around the head something that as I understand things tends to need some kind of lubricant.

I really do not think this is a major issue and most people are happy with how they are, if not life would be kinda sucky. What I think is a major issue is to do the procedure on infants, let men who want a circumsision get one when they are old enough to get tatoos or piercings or other things. Strapping down a baby boy and cutting off a part of his body for religious or esthetic reasons is just horribly wrong.

 

Wow, babies don't get "strapped down" during a circumcision.