POLL: Circumcision?

Remove all ads!

UK.

AFAIK, circumcision is not a standard procedure for babies.

 

Seeing as we in the western world are in such an uproar over female circumcision (aka gender mutilation) I find it a bit hypocritical that we see no problem with as culturally based mutilation of small boys. The foreskin is there for a reason, it protects and serves so to speak. It is a religious tradition that due to some confused doctors in the US turned into medical nescessity but all doctors I have spoken to and all info I have read shows that although it isnt in no way extremely harmful the downsides of circumcision far outweighs whatever benefits it might have. The main result is that head of the penis gets desensitized and in that sense it is familiar with the cutting away of the female clitoris.

I also find it appaling that civilized people willingly and for no good medical reason wants to cut away a bit of their child forcing the boy to endure quite a bit of pain and recovery. The appendix is a truly redudant piece of our bodies, yet you do not see many people cutting away unless it actually causes trouble.

I find it as disgusting to mutilate a boy as I find it to mutilate a girl even if the consequences for mutilation of the female sex organ are far more severe. If an adult man wants to have his dick carved we cant really stop him but forcing a child, a baby to suffer through it with no choice in the matter is in my opinion cruel.

 

Genital mutilation of small children , peer pressure.

You need to have some serious brainwash not understand why this is outright wrong.

Christians used to burn non-believers at the stake, belief system evolves.
Those who violates non-consenting people's integrity should not be tolerated.

 

AFAIK it's legal but most men are not circumcised. I could be wrong on both points though.

Otherwise I agree fully with joacqin.

 

Circumcision is a masturbation prevention method. Stops men from jerking it so that they will give their seed to women, not to the floor...or paper towel, whatever you use. Maybe not in all cultures, but definitely in the US culture...the country was founded on Puritan morality, hence nudity there is still considered worse than murder.

 

circumcising a boy too young to know it is just mutilation and cruelty. if there is a good medical reason, then good.

as for HIV, yes it does lower the transmission rate.

but what does that matter? if you dont want HIV, dont sleep around, and wear a condom. far more effective than the 60% or so percent claimed by not possessing a foreskin.

it does decrease sensitivity, so there really is no point in doing - just old fashioned medical practice from the country that elected george bush twice in a row.

 

Oh yes, masturbation prevention. Here's what Dr. Kellogg recommended:

Yo! That will teach'em to keep their fingers on the blanket all of the night.

 

Rags, was that from Dr. Kellogg, or Dr. Mengele? OUCH!

 

Apparently belief systems do NOT evolve, if you're suggesting one does not tolerate Judaism's requisite rite of entry - you're proposing destroying a religion because it 'violates non-consenting people's integrity'.

And remember that Christians used to burn plenty of Jewish non-believers at the stake during the Inquisition..."You've come a long way, baby!"

 

Rally,
from the cornflakes man.

 

The medical reasons brought up by Rally are really appealing if you're a member of Mötley Crue.

For a long time I didn't understand why Americans so often associated hand cream with masturbation. Then it hit me that without a foreskin you need a lubricant to masturbate.

Saying it's a "hygiene issue" is just beyond ridiculous. Seriously. Why don't we pull out all our teeth? It's not like we're gonna brush them anyway. They'll just turn brown in our mouths.

 

While I'm not going to argue that circumcising a child (who definitely isn't going to want it done....pain is pain, after all, and babies aren't fond of pain) is anywhere near as bad as, say, ritual human or animal sacrifice, there are many religions worldwide that do them. In the US, and most western nations, we only allow animal sacrifice if it is done in a manner we consider "humane" (which means we do ban a lot of sacrificial practices where animals are concerned, but still allow many others to be conducted) and we never allow human sacrifice (obviously). The reason has nothing to do with us being "against their religion". It's about protecting the rights of both humans and animals (limited though they may be, even animals have a few government protected rights).

An argument against circumcision may or may not be a good argument to make, but it certainly doesn't constitute antisemitism or religious discrimination if the underlying justification is based in protecting the rights and physical well-being of the child.

Coming from the other angle, it never occurred to me that you wouldn't need a lube if you had a foreskin. Hmm.....maybe I should've had my kids circumcised after all........

 

Not to turn the topic to masturbation, but why wouldn't you need the lube?

 

First off the penis is selflubricating even if you keep it clean and secondly if you have a foreskin it is that you pull back and forth over the head which greatly diminishes friction. Lube might still be nice but it is by no means nescessary.

As a side note I wonder how many people we are horrifying and embarrassing with this discussion?

 

I did not even know that lube was so widely used. I suppose this kind of discussions is exactly what internet is for.

 

I didn't even know lube was necessary....

 

me neither, in fact the idea seems rather off-putting (I can see why it may be an anti-masturbation technique)

[ May 02, 2007, 13:48: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

USA so I won't repeat what's already been said.

 

@rags -

Um, if you're talking about Doctor Kellogg, NO. That was the cereal maker's brother.

Will Keith Kellogg - the cereal industrialist

John Harvey Kellogg - the doctor, sanatarium operator and holistic medicine advocate