Male Circumcision

I am uncircumcised. Call it a desire from a hippie mother who birthed me in the 70's. I've started to consider it recently. All women I've dated could never tell unless I was not erect and pointed it out. Upon consideration, it seems that circumcision is genital mutilation. I mean, some countries still practice female circumcision... The foreskin contains many nerves that are likened to the clitoris. The reasons for circumcision are no longer relevant in my opinion. If you can wipe your ass, you can clean your cock. Why do we still do it? There is no anesthetic used. A baby can only cry. It's tortuous. If it could verbalize the pain, would we change our behavior? What is the point?

Why is it still relevant? Why do we still allow it?

 

There seems to be some medical evidence for very slight health benefits. But basically, it's well within the spectrum of medical choices that parents make for their kids. If it seems like a good idea, fine, do it. If it seems like a bad idea, fine, don't do it.

The only overriding reasons I can think of to do it would be for religious reasons, if one were a Jew or a Muslim, and of course, if one is neither, then it should be entirely optional.

 

Google: "mohel herpes"

Here's a happy muslim baby ( @ 45sec agonized screaming begins ) :

Not very comforting.

 

I am circumcised. Perhaps it is because I don't know of being anything else, but I am happy with being such and would not want to change. It was done for religious reasons and while I'm sure it wasn't pleasant at the time I cannot recall any of it. Regarding anything to do with my upbringing I respect my parents decisions.

 

The mohalim who use the method responsible for the awful and aberrant incidents you've googled come from a tiny minority of the ultra-Orthodox community. They are fundamentalist zealot wackos. Most ultra-Orthodox mohalim do not use such a method, much less Orthodox mohalim, much less non-Orthodox mohalim. In fact, many Modern Orthodox and non-Orthodox mohalim are also doctors. And even those who are not use sterile equipment, clamps, and proper hygiene. Topical anesthetic is sometimes used, but I have been to many a bris ceremony where it was not, and the baby was simply given a drop of sweet wine or grape juice (the sugar acts as a mild euphoric, effectively masking most of the pain). In fact, I cannot recall ever being at a bris where the baby screamed the way that the video you posted depicts. Perhaps the Muslim circumciser in the video is as aberrant for his tradition as the ultra-Orthodox mohalim in the article are for the Jewish tradition.

In any case, I have helped several adult men convert to Judaism who were not circumcised, and had to be circumcised for conversion. One and all expressed the wish that their parents had had them circumcised when they were too young to recall the experience, and young enough to bounce back quickly.

I know I am certainly glad to be circumcised, and would hate to have had to go through it as an adult, or any older age.

Circumcision is a foundational, core rite of identity for Judaism and Islam. If that is a problem for you, the best answer is not to be Jewish or Muslim. Then there is no reason why you cannot refuse to circumcise your son.

 

I am circumcised, my sons are not. I have no memory of the procedure, and am quite comfortable without a foreskin, but I certainly wouldn't inflict it on any other male without good medical cause (and there are some). My neighbour is a urologist, and discourages circumcision, but will do it if asked. He has done numerous adult circumcisions for both medical and religious reasons, and says the patients at least know the implications going in, so he's more comfortable with that than with an infant procedure. And he has some horror stories of infant circumcision gone wrong... it does happen.

 

I'm circumcised, but would not do it to another person. I think it is barbaric. ( and this from a cayvmann )

 

I wish I had my foreskin. It was done for no reason but because 90% of people did it back then.

It is a stupid 'tradition' and the medical 'studies' are pretty biased. There is no real world evidence to back up their claims.

 

I don't have a penis, but if I did... it would probably be without a scarf. As such, I've always wondered exactly how much sensation I'm really missing.

Let's say I'm a nymphomaniac... a total rabid vagina-pounder / chronic masturbator. I've obviously been doing what I've been doing because it feels amazing. How awesome is it to do said activities with a foreskin? I gotta wonder. It can't be that much different, can it? As it stands, having the old lady's lips wrapped around my gorgetless cervix halberd is pretty much the best sensation ever. Short of being shitfaced or having returned from some torturous shooting class that involves muscle failure and a lack of sleep, I have yet to find myself in a situation where I'm not in the mood for some frisky and enjoying said frisky with my butchered member. I mean, my self-cleaning wang doesn't seem to be broken. Not in the least. Would having a foreskin make me blow a load in two minutes from a handjob? If so, I'm glad I don't have one. My brutalized, numb cock tends to serve me better.

I'll never know what I'm missing. And I'm kinda okay with that: sex is really kinda fantastic and rewarding the way it is.

That said, I'm not sure about circumcision. I'm not having kids, so I guess I don't have to worry about that one.

...

Further reading:

Links to "Circumcision" debates from old TFP.

 

I'm cut. My son isn't. Living somewhere where HIV prevalence is relatively low, condoms are free, and cultural notions of sexuality don't routinely involve witchcraft or the misguided ramblings of some sexually repressed bishop/cardinal/pope (US Catholics seem to tend to ignore those assholes), I don't see any nonreligious reason for anyone to be cut. I think circumcision is one of those cruel things that people do because they've become so accustomed to rationalizing away all their qualms about it that it no longer registers as cruel. If circumcision wasn't already an established practice, there's no way it would catch on.

There is credible evidence that circumcision can reduce the probability of HIV transmission during unprotected intercourse. However, instead of having my son circumcised to protect him from teh AIDS, I'm going to settle for a combination of teaching him how to use a condom and hoping for the best.

 

I'd like to ask about this, specifically, Why is it the case that parents are permitted to pick and chose which bits of another human being they'd like to have removed or holes punched in? Are children not entitled to bodily autonomy?

 

There isn't any credible evidence I've ever seen. We went over that in the past threads. You can't stop a medical study after the newly circumcised men have healed and noticed that the rate both groups were getting HIV were close. But, the uncircumcised control group weren't told to not have sex or do drugs or do anything to get HIV during the period when the men you had surgery on their Penis were healing. It was definitely within the margin of error or chance of sleeping with an HIV+ partner.

Now, people are just repeating this 'fact' without looking into it at all...

 

With all due respect, you don't understand clinical research. When am in-progress study finds overwhelming evidence of a protective effect in a treatment compared with a control, then the people responsible for advocating on behalf of the study participants will typically end the study early because it is unethical to deny the effective treatment to the control group. We've been over this before. Why do you think your concerns weren't considered by the PIs on these projects?

 

Why don't they go to San Francisco then and find thousands of men who were circumcised at birth and compare it to the same number of uncircumcised men? I doubt it will be the 50%-60% number these researchers claim. Even if they HIV tested everyone tomorrow (and found that they were free of the virus), and then watched both groups for the next year (along with noting how many partners they had), that would be a better medical study.

It is unethical to state that it is an effective treatment when it hasn't been prove and a lot of the uncircumcised men got infected during the time when the circumcised men weren't having sex. I will agree that you can greatly reduce the HIV rate if you rip open the skin of the penis every 6 weeks and have a bandage on it.

And yes, sometime in science to get the truth, you have to be unethical and be an unbiased observer. And since circumcision doesn't stop 100% of the HIV transmissions, they should have let it play out. You can recommend and show your findings to the participants if you want to be fair, I'm sure that a lot of them wouldn't have undergone a circumcision anyways.

 

is this another one of those "one way or the other, it doesn't matter so go free-will yourself" threads?

 

Negatron.

This is one of those threads where ASU2003 graces us with flashbacks to the stuff that was posted half a decade ago back on TFP 4.0. I posted the links to the dozen previous debates for a reason. I want this flashback to be thoroughly nauseating and involve many of Martian's colorful zingers.

Granted, if new information on dick skin has come up since this topic was last beaten to a pulp, I wanna hear it. Show me the SCIENCE!

 

You're attempting to refute facts that exist in reality with facts that only exist as a result of some imaginary study you've conducted in your head. I'm unmoved.

I'm not going to argue with you about the details of the multiple controlled studies that have found a protective effect from circumcision in populations with a high prevalence of HIV. I've read the papers. They seem legit to me. They've apparently passed through the peer review process. Your criticisms seem not only unwarranted, but completely confused about what is necessary in clinical research to a) ensure the least possible harm to the participants and b)ensure that the data can be analyzed and interpreted in a meaningful way.

 

The only purpose it serves as a religions reason is that it explains something about the religion or its followers
As somebody stated here, it has merely become an identity, once it is an identity it becomes so personal, it is hard to question it or allow someone to question it

Trust me with time, victims turn perpetrators...

I am uncut. But would happily get cut if there is advantage in it. Like it can give me proloooooooooooonged performance? or running multiple orgasms? To curve however I would like? There must be convincing reasons for me to cut mine.

Someone said they respect their parents decisions. I respect you for that. Seriously! But it is not about you me or our parents. It is about whether we shall be good followers and/or good leaders.

 

Parents get to make such choices because they're parents. They get to make decisions they think are important for minor children. They get to decide if a boy gets an extra flap of skin taken off, or if a girl gets her ears pierced, or if any kid gets a birthmark or mole removed. They get to decide whether and for what their kids get vaccinated. They decide what kinds of medical treatment doctors will give their kids in the event of crises. They decide where and how to educate their kids, what language(s) their kids will speak, how to dress their kids, how to cut their hair or not to cut it, and what kind of food to feed them.

Parents make all kinds of decisions for their kids because we presume that parents should have the right to dictate what is in the best interests of their offspring, until such time as the children are of legal age, or at least of the age of reason and capable of actively and effectively participating in their own decision-making. There are a thousand and one aspects of the lives of minor children that we place in the realm of parental oversight, and do not propose that somehow it is an abrogation of the rights of the children. Many, if not most, have major lasting effects on the future life of the children far greater than circumcision. And, generally speaking, we do not question the right of parents to raise their children: to see after their health, to clothe, feed, and educate them, to raise them in whatever cultural tradition is embraced in the household, to raise them with whatever religious beliefs are embraced in the household, and to value the things the parents value.

There is simply no reason why circumcision ought to be singled out to be treated differently, especially as it is entirely optional. If you don't believe in there being any value to circumcision, don't circumcise your sons. If you do, then do so.

 

And society gets to dictate what child abuse is. It is against this law to do any small cutting on baby girls, even type 1a. Why shouldn't this apply to boys as well with the addition of foreskin?

There are no exceptions for religion, appearance, or because it was done to them and they don't know anything else. The only exception is if there is some real medical reason.

Have there been any studies done by atheists in Russia/China or socialists in Latin America? They might be more credible, but still, you run into the problem of not knowing how many HIV infected people someone slept with as to the real chances of contracting the disease. And all that will do in the best case is to slow the rate of transmission a little. You would spend millions on circumcising babies that could go to encouraging long term monogamous relationships, condom use, or easy testing.

I don't understand why this topic keeps coming up on this and other forums.