NationStates Jolt Archive

And the basis for moral values on things such as murder and robbery is that they do harm without consent.

Yeah, but "harm" is subjective.

If the person to whom it's been done says he or she has been harmed, who are you to argue?

I think the practice on infants is barbaric. The child should have some say in what bits people remove from their body.
On the other hand as an adult or an adolescent I think it is less of an issue as you have much more say in it... but then again I'm in Africa where it's traditional for the pubescent boys to go out into the bush and "become a man"
My main problem with circumcision at puberty is the conditions under which it is practised in my country. Namely: out in the wilderness, not hygienically, and by non-medically trained traditional healers. It isn't uncommon for some of the boys to die from these circumstances, in fact it's expected that some do.
I believe in this day-and-age it should only be done when the child has come to an age where they can make an informed decision about it, they agree to it, it is done by medical professionals and in a place where there is little risk of infection... like a hospital. Or when it becomes medically necessary for a patient.

Heh, if it helps against AIDS, then hell yeah. It may be an 'abhorration' but what happens to someone's body when he is fighting, and later dies from, HIV/AIDS is a lot worse then what your demagogue attitude says about circumcision.

What are everyone's views on circumcision?

Personally I think its an abhorrent practice, and is one of those cases where it would be justified to step in despite religious beliefs. Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions), that doesn't mean it should be allowed without consent of the patient. While its not perfectly proved, several studies have shown that circumcision results in less feeling in the penis (and therefore less pleasure during sex), although some other studies have shown the opposite. However logically it makes sense that when a sensitive part of your body is exposed that it will become less sensitive (think calloused hands/feet). Add this to the fact that the procedure is extremely painful, provides no definite benefit to the individual, and in infants cannot be performed with general anesthesia, it is simply barbaric. Of course there is also the possibility of infection and that the doctor makes a mistake and removes the entire penis. However many people, without religious reasons, continue to have this procedure performed on their children.

Nocirc.org (http://www.nocirc.org/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Those nutty religious people...:rolleyes:

Heh, if it helps against AIDS, then hell yeah.

Problem is that that is a claim without much evidence. It might be true, but the world of medicine does not know. So for all we know it could be a rumour started by fans of circumcision to get critics of their backs...

Problem is that that is a claim without much evidence. It might be true, but the world of medicine does not know. So for all we know it could be a rumour started by fans of circumcision to get critics of their backs...

The World Health Organization?

Problem is that that is a claim without much evidence. It might be true, but the world of medicine does not know. So for all we know it could be a rumour started by fans of circumcision to get critics of their backs...

I really don't care either way, but really, I have to mention a WSJ article talking about how it, for whatever reason, helps prevent AIDS. The doctors hypothesized it was because no 'fluids' were caught in between the foreskin and whatnot. I personally believe it's just because circumcised guys are usually Christian and thus, have less partners of dubious nature.

Yet still, it's more then a unfounded rumour.

Problem is that that is a claim without much evidence. It might be true, but the world of medicine does not know. So for all we know it could be a rumour started by fans of circumcision to get critics of their backs...

How could it prevent AIDS if your partner has it, not you?

Does the WHO actually say it ?

Yup. (http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf)

The World Health Organization?

Does the WHO actually say it ?

Yup. (http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf)

I stand corrected. *bows*

Yup. (http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf)

You win.

And Hamilay wins the thread.

And Hamilay wins the thread.

Not entirely. That circumcision helps preventing HIV is not that convincing a reason to have it done to an infant.

"Hey son - I will snip this bit so that you in 14 years or so will be able to fuck around slightly safer if you so desire and are too stupid to take other precautions"

But yes, I was taught something I did not know. It has not changed my position, but it has made me reevaluate it.

And Hamilay wins the thread.

But yes, I was taught something I did not know. It has not changed my position, but it has made me reevaluate it.

...

I've done something useful! :p

"Hey son - I will snip this bit so that you in 14 years or so, when you want to fuck around, you will have a better chance at not being infected, if for some crazy reason your condom breaks (1/3 of the time), by a incurable, and horrible disease that is characterized by your body being infected by dozens of usually rare diseases."


QFT

Not entirely. That circumcision helps preventing HIV is not that convincing a reason to have it done to an infant.

For you, perhaps. And that's entirely a choice that's up to you. But why should the rest of us be bound by your subjective, untrained opinion?

QFT

If condoms would break 1/3rd of the time they would not be used. Please do not change my quotes and fill them with lies, m'kay ?

Other than that, please point out why the snip has to be performed on the infant and cannot wait till he is close to the age where having sex actually becomes a realistic scenario ?

For you, perhaps. And that's entirely a choice that's up to you. But why should the rest of us be bound by your subjective, untrained opinion?

See above. If the goal of the snip is to help prevent an STD, why do it to someone who is not sexually active and cannot consent to it - while they would be able to at an age where STDs
are actually an issue ? It after all is not your body.

See above. If the goal of the snip is to help prevent an STD, why do it to someone who is not sexually active and cannot consent to it - while they would be able to at an age where STDs
are actually an issue ? It after all is not your body.

But it is my child's body. And has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, we make medical decisions for our children, without their consent, all the time. Innoculations and immunizations, dental work, tonsels removed. It's not a good argument to say that it's not my body, we accept that parents have a right to make certain decisions for their children.

I have yet to see one convincing argument as to why this is different. Again, if YOU think the risks are outweighed by the benefits, fine, raise your family that way. But I'll ask again, why should I be bound by your opinion?

we accept that parents have a right to make certain decisions for their children.

Only on the assumption that the child would consent to it if he or she were informed and of full mental capacity.

We can make no such assumption for circumcision.

But I'll ask again, why should I be bound by your opinion?

To tell the truth, I see no reason why parents, specifically, should be sovereign on this question.

Children are not property.

Only on the assumption that the child would consent to it if he or she were informed and of full mental capacity.

We can make no such assumption for circumcision.

Actually we can, because, as pointed out, a great many who are circumcised choose to do so with their children, showing that, yes, most do respect and agree with the decision made.

Now will some disagree? Yes. That's the problem with assumptions, sometime's their wrong. That's part of the risk analysis. Some may not like the fact that parents did it without their consent.

Just as, I am sure, there are those who resent the fact that their parents removed their appendix without their consent. Assumptions on this matter can never be done with absolute certainty. All that can be asked is that it be done with reasonable certainty. The fact that a few may object does not change that presumption.

To tell the truth, I see no reason why parents, specifically, should be sovereign on this question.

Children are not property.

And yet, you have no problem with parents deciding to innoculate, or have dental work done, or have an appendix out, or any other of a series of things. It seems you have no problem with parental authority, up until the point when it involves something you personally object to.

Funny that, isn't it?

But it is my child's body. And has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, we make medical decisions for our children, without their consent, all the time.

For conditions that are relevant. If you believe your baby daughter should go on the pill to prevent her from becoming pregnant - should you be allowed to give it to her even though pregnancy will not be an issue for quite some time ? Or amputate a leg just to prevent it from getting infested in the future ?

Again, if YOU think the risks are outweighed by the benefits, fine, raise your family that way. But I'll ask again, why should I be bound by your opinion?

That completely depends on the question of how far you believe parents may go with the bodies of their children. I indeed cannot force you. I can only poke at things I perceive as flaws in your reasoning, as you can with mine.

For conditions that are relevant. If you believe your baby daughter should go on the pill to prevent her from becoming pregnant - should you be allowed to give it to her ? Or amputate a leg just to prevent it from getting infested in the future ?


And once you can show that circumcision can cause demonstrable medical harm I'll agree that those analogies are propert. Until then, they're crap.

Honestly, if you can't make an argument without relying on wildly innacurate analogies is it really that good an argument?

Actually we can, because, as pointed out, a great many who are circumcised choose to do so with their children, showing that, yes, most do respect and agree with the decision made.

Now will some disagree? Yes. That's the problem with assumptions, sometime's their wrong. That's part of the risk analysis. Some may not like the fact that parents did it without their consent.

Just as, I am sure, there are those who resent the fact that their parents removed their appendix without their consent. Assumptions on this matter can never be done with absolute certainty. All that can be asked is that it be done with reasonable certainty. The fact that a few may object does not change that presumption.



And yet, you have no problem with parents deciding to innoculate, or have dental work done, or have an appendix out, or any other of a series of things. It seems you have no problem with parental authority, up until the point when it involves something you personally object to.

Funny that, isn't it?

Yes, only in the case of appendectomies there is usually an immediate life threatening situation for the child, and I doubt that 30% of those who have had appendectomies regret that their parent's saved their lives. 30% is the number of circumcised males who oppose circumcision in infants according to the poll- while in no way a majority I never thought it would be- I don't feel that those 30% of circumcisions are OK and until someone is able and willing to consent I think its wrong absent serious medical benefits (ie. saving lives).

i hear it increases friction for the receiver increasing stimulation. one source only. otherwise, i'm entirely against involuntary genital mutilation.
I've never noticed any difference associated with increased friction due to lack of a foreskin. I suspect that if there is any difference, individual differences in technique and size are much bigger factors.

Actually we can, because, as pointed out, a great many who are circumcised choose to do so with their children, showing that, yes, most do respect and agree with the decision made.

Still, not relevant. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's father did not want his daughter to be circumcised, so her grandmother took her to have the operation done behind his back. Great many supporters of FGM are circumcised women themselves, and it doesn't make it any more acceptable.

And once you can show that circumcision can cause demonstrable medical harm I'll agree that those analogies are propert. Until then, they're crap.

Well there are the standard risks involved in any surgical procedure: Infection of the wound and uncontrollable hemorrhage, both of which can be lethal, especially to an infant, and with less medically trained family practicioners there's always the possibility of persistantly humorous accidental amputation.

Precisely the reason I can't STAND IT when a guy has it uncircumcised. He plays with it and plays with it and plays with it because it's just a loose flap of skin.
What's wrong with playing with oneself in the privacy of one's own room?

On that note, as a woman I prefer circumcised because it has in my experience been CONSIDERABLY cleaner when it is so(it's naturally easier to clean that way)...
And I as a woman prefer uncut men. It's rare to find a guy who's circumcised whose head doesn't have a funny rubbery texture.

On that note, as a woman I prefer circumcised because it has in my experience been CONSIDERABLY cleaner when it is so(it's naturally easier to clean that way)...

So basically you've been with uncut men who don't know how to maintain their personal hygiene. Unless a guy has an abnormally tight foreskin, which is an actual medical condition treated by circumcision, cleaning under it is really not a chore at all.

Now will some disagree? Yes. That's the problem with assumptions, sometime's their wrong. That's part of the risk analysis. Some may not like the fact that parents did it without their consent.

Yeah. And since those who want to be circumcised can always be circumcised later, it makes no sense whatsoever to circumcise people at a time when they cannot consent.

Obviously, we find that in other circumstances there is no choice: we may not be able to wait to treat a child who has a medical problem. We know, indeed, that if the child were informed and of full mental capacity, he or she would almost certainly object if we did not treat him or her. But this simply does not apply to circumcision. We can wait. There is no reason not to.

The only exception is the case of Jewish circumcision, which must be done at the time when an infant is incapable of consent. And there, I can see an exception to the principle.

Assumptions on this matter can never be done with absolute certainty. All that can be asked is that it be done with reasonable certainty.

No. All that can be asked is that they be done with as much certainty as possible.

I have a way to do it with perfect certainty: wait until the child can consent--at least more than they can immediately after birth.

And yet, you have no problem with parents deciding to innoculate, or have dental work done, or have an appendix out, or any other of a series of things. It seems you have no problem with parental authority, up until the point when it involves something you personally object to.

I already explained my standard. It's perfectly consistent.

My point, in the bit you replied to, is that it makes no sense to me that the parents of the child alone should be entitled to decide what's best for the child. Provisionally, of course, it might be convenient to leave most decisions to them--generally they have the best interests of the child at heart--but that is very far from a matter of right, and restricting that sovereignty for the sake of the child's welfare is perfectly legitimate.

I've had surgery performed on me while on local anesthesia, and surprisingly the anesthetic wore off before the wound had healed and even with pain killers it hurt quite bad for quite a while.
Any operation done under any kind of anasthesia will suffer from this, whether cosmetic surgery or a quadruple bypass.

Still, not relevant. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's father did not want his daughter to be circumcised, so her grandmother took her to have the operation done behind his back. Great many supporters of FGM are circumcised women themselves, and it doesn't make it any more acceptable.

FGM is not goddamn circumcision. It's not a cutting around.

Uncircumcised penis > Circumcised penis

The equation is easy to follow. And before anyone objects, as a gay man who's had the occasion so see, manipulate, and enjoy both, I call "Argument of Authority"(tm).

Plus, my first boyfriend was circumcised late in life due to medical needs. He's told me it's never been the same, and that he lost a lot of sensibility after the procedure.

Being uncut myself, if I ever see anyone try to mess with my penis(with the intent of circumcision, of course! :p), that person had better damn be a fast runner, because otherwise I'll have to protect my beloved foreskin. With extreme prejudice. :gundge:

FGM is not goddamn circumcision. It's not a cutting around.

No, infant circumcision is merely the removal of something without immediate medical need or benefits- unless of course you plan to have your baby boy fuck people with HIV.

Why are people so unwilling to wait till the kid turns twelve or so and can have at least some say ?

I've had surgery performed on me while on local anesthesia, and surprisingly the anesthetic wore off before the wound had healed and even with pain killers it hurt quite bad for quite a while. And that wound wasn't even in my genitals. I can't even begin to comprehend how it would feel to have an open wound in one of the most pain sensitive parts of male anatomy, having no access to pain medicine, and not having the mental capacity to understand the pain's temporary nature.

I've found that circumcised men have a hard time understanding just how sensitive an organ an uncut penis is, so let me say just this; just feeling the fabric of my trousers sliding against the exposed glans of my penis has been on occasion so painful, that I could not ever, ever consider taking a knife to an infant's privates without an acute and dangerous medical condition requiring it.

And the preventive medical reasons for circumcision? Infant UTI is rare and easily treatable without surgery, which, by the way, is often a sort of a last resort for doctors, since even minor surgery always entails risks. Penile cancer falls in to the category of extremely rare, with botched circumcisions killing and maiming more people than it does. For HIV a more effective, less dangerous method is to discourage unsafe sex and intravenous drug use, but I suppose circumcision could be considered in areas where the Vatican has the power to torpedo any attempts at the aforementioned. And as for hygiene, well I don't know about you Americans, but we Europeans have this fantastic invention called 'bathing'.

In addition, a healthy foreskin is sexually active tissue and removing it diminishes sexual pleasure. It can make men last longer, on the other hand uncut men can be more gentle lovers. Which is better in the sack falls in to the category of personal taste and aesthetics, but it does seem unfair to take the choice away from the people most directly affected by it.

As for religion and culture, I would say that it's all fun and games until someone loses a body part. I wouldn't allow a Jew to have their child circumcised any more than I would allow a Christian to tattoo a cross on their child's forehead. Permanent decisions like those should be made by the children themselves when they're old enough to make them. Religion shouldn't get a free pass just because it's religion.

And finally, comparing male and female circumcision is definitely not silly. They're similar procedures often done for similar reasons, only difference being that in FGM they usually cut off a bit more. Is that really a good message to send? "It's not the unnecessary cutting of a healthy part of a child's sexual organs that's wrong, it's the degree of how much you take that matters."

Pain and sensitivity are hard to measure, you really can't make an argument like that either way.

You're saying that circumsized men don't enjoy sex as much!? I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with you on that one.

That's hilarious! Europeans inventing baths! It took quite a few centuries to convince those Europeans that bathing was good for you.

Male circumcision is known to have health benefits, where it's questionable in the case of females, so it is silly to compare them. As well, male circumcision is performed in sanitary conditions more often than for females.

The difference I see is that circumcision (for the purposes of this discussion) is preventative, rather than a cure for an existing medical issue. Using your analogy, circumcision would translate to removing all of a child's teeth and implanting dentures because at some point the child might develop dental problems.

Not at all. "All of a child's teeth" is more analogous to "all of the child's genitals," and circumcision is more like removing say, wisdom teeth.

Male circumcision is known to have health benefits

To sexually active men who should be old enough to decide if they want those benefits or not. Not to babies or children - unless another WHO report will now be produced.

In which case I will have to take a second bow ;)

To tell the truth, I see no reason why parents, specifically, should be sovereign on this question.

Children are not property.

Just merely the parent's responsibility.

In your rather confused world, then, would we be asking the children if they wanted shots, if their tonsils should be removed? If they say no, what then? We have children dying form malaria all over again?

If a chil under the age of 5, or maybe it's 6, commits a crime, that child isn't thrown in jail. The parent is the one who recieves the punishment. Thus, by extention, the justice system is saying that the child is not a independent entity from its parent(s).

There is no question about 'free choice' for someone who cannot even say 'momma'.

No, infant circumcision is merely the removal of something without immediate medical need or benefits- unless of course you plan to have your baby boy fuck people with HIV.

Why are people so unwilling to wait till the kid turns twelve or so and can have at least some say ?

What the hell does that have to do with what I said? I never mentioned male circumcision in my post. I only mentioned FGM, and pointed out, correctly, that it does not qualify as circumcision because it does not involve a cutting around.

That's hilarious! Europeans inventing baths! It took quite a few centuries to convince those Europeans that bathing was good for you.

Having feck all to do with here and now, not to mention the person's argument. :/

I am restored (meaning I was circumcised however I regrew my foreskin due from skin stretching techniques). Anyway I like having foreskin a lot better and the whole cleanliness thing is just bullshit. It is not hard to clean at all. Circumcision is wrong, uncivilized and should be illegal. But hey what do I know besides what it is like to be both.

Having feck all to do with here and now, not to mention the person's argument. :/

Well he basically said that Americans have shitty hygiene and that we don't take baths, which I found highly ironic.

I am restored (meaning I was circumcised however I regrew my foreskin due from skin stretching techniques). Anyway I like having foreskin a lot better and the whole cleanliness thing is just bullshit. It is not hard to clean at all. Circumcision is wrong, uncivilized and should be illegal. But hey what do I know besides what it is like to be both.

WTF?

WTF?

:upyours: I am not the first one asshole. It has been around since roman times. Why don't you educate yourself by looking up foreskin restoration on wikipedia.

Well he basically said that Americans have shitty hygiene and that we don't take baths, which I found highly ironic.

I don't think he meant that seriously....Then again, I wasn't really in this topic. *shrugs, walks out muttering*

:upyours: I am not the first one asshole. It has been around since roman times. Why don't you educate yourself by looking up foreskin restoration on wikipedia.

You claimed that it's bullshit that circumcision promotes cleanliness. You also said that circumcision should be illegal. It wasn't the foreskin "restoration", although I don't see why the hell you'd want to grow it back.

Nothing wrong with it at all and I'd rather be circumsized when I'm a few hours or days old and not deal with how much more painful it would be at an older age. Hoorah for circumcision and no it wasn't done for religious practices either. If you're circumsized and you're whining because you didn't get a say be glad because by the time you were old enough to know what it was and actually have a say you would be whining it wasn't done to you when you didn't know what was what.

Male circumcision is known to have health benefits, where it's questionable in the case of females, so it is silly to compare them. As well, male circumcision is performed in sanitary conditions more often than for females.
What the hell benefits does male circumcision have? Unless there's something wrong later in life, it's unnecessary surgery. Yes, it's silly to compare it to FGM, it's more like actual female circumcision which is practiced in some parts of the world (where the clitoral hood is removed or snipped) however, this procedure is only preformed on adult women who choose to have it done for religious reasons.

I've also had an opportunity to see some examples of circumcision that was preformed on men when they were infants that didn't turn out particularly well. I'm not sure how much I can describe this without being too graphic though. However, some guys who are cut have perfectly nice penises and though my sampling isn't really statistically significant, it's been my experience that the nice ones aren't the norm.

What the hell benefits does male circumcision have? Unless there's something wrong later in life, it's unnecessary surgery. Yes, it's silly to compare it to FGM, it's more like actual female circumcision which is practiced in some parts of the world (where the clitoral hood is removed or snipped) however, this procedure is only preformed on adult women who choose to have it done for religious reasons.

I've also had an opportunity to see some examples of circumcision that was preformed on men when they were infants that didn't turn out particularly well. I'm not sure how much I can describe this without being too graphic though. However, some guys who are cut have perfectly nice penises and though my sampling isn't really statistically significant, it's been my experience that the nice ones aren't the norm.

I have to admit thats scarier than I thought... I guess I can count myself among the lucky since me nor anyone else has noticed any defects.

What the hell benefits does male circumcision have? Unless there's something wrong later in life, it's unnecessary surgery. Yes, it's silly to compare it to FGM, it's more like actual female circumcision which is practiced in some parts of the world (where the clitoral hood is removed or snipped) however, this procedure is only preformed on adult women who choose to have it done for religious reasons.

I've also had an opportunity to see some examples of circumcision that was preformed on men when they were infants that didn't turn out particularly well. I'm not sure how much I can describe this without being too graphic though. However, some guys who are cut have perfectly nice penises and though my sampling isn't really statistically significant, it's been my experience that the nice ones aren't the norm.

Go read the rest of the thread, there is plenty of stuff about the benefits of male circumcision. Your second thread paragraph doesn't make a point, so I guess I'm done.

There is no question about 'free choice' for someone who cannot even say 'momma'.

Next time, follow the argument, and maybe your point won't be irrelevant.

I have to admit thats scarier than I thought... I guess I can count myself among the lucky since me nor anyone else has noticed any defects.

Yes, you, and I, and the other 99% of us whose circumsicisions look normal can count ourselves lucky, I'm guessing. ;) Too funny.

Well...there's evidence that leaving the foreskin intact leads to certain types of cancer.

This is of course easily addressed by simply keeping the bloody thing clean in there.

But...given the butt-headedness of humanity, and the (usual) privacy of elimination and intimate personal grooming, no way to enforce that any given individual will do that on a regular enough basis.

I'm neutral on it. Keep the foreskin intact, clean it regularly. Do it *after* you brush your teeth, though! :eek:

Go read the rest of the thread, there is plenty of stuff about the benefits of male circumcision. Your second thread paragraph doesn't make a point, so I guess I'm done.
The rest of the thread doesn't really address the benefits of circumcising male infants. There isn't a single non-negligible risk to keeping foreskin unless you're counting having unprotected sex with high-risk persons and decreasing the risk of HIV, but putting a condom on it knocks that risk down significantly more and provides more benefits (i.e., decreased risk of unwanted pregnancy, reducing the risk of other sexually transmitted infections et c). Penile cancer is extremely rare, as are problems associated with tight foreskin (the latter of which can be solved with non-surgical methods like stretching in many cases or partial circumcision instead) so really, what are the real benefits of infant circumcision apart from making the son look like the father?

I have to admit thats scarier than I thought... I guess I can count myself among the lucky since me nor anyone else has noticed any defects.
It's not really defects... it's stuff like scarring, funky colouration, a dried-out sort of texture, the skin is always tougher, I mean, not like calloused (though it's possible that there are cases of this too) but definitely not as soft as the skin on uncut ones (though this varies for each individual). Overall, it just doesn't seem to be too frequent that they're very nice. On the other hand, I haven't encountered an uncut one that isn't nice.

Basically, I'm not saying that I've ever seen one that's deformed, I've just seen some that are pretty ugly.

Meh, I have no problem with foreskin removal. Mine is gone and its absence hasn't caused me any problems, my penis works (or should the verb be "plays"?) just fine. Not deformed or anything, though it has an odd noticeably darker stripe along the underside, but that's kinda cool if you ask me.

I am against all forms of surgery done without patient approval, and that includes giving birth. I still haven't forgiven my mother for making me leave the womb.

Any operation done under any kind of anasthesia will suffer from this, whether cosmetic surgery or a quadruple bypass.

Umm, yes, that sort of was my point.

Go read the rest of the thread, there is plenty of stuff about the benefits of male circumcision.

Negligible, and don't come even near outweighing the risks of unnecessary surgery. The number one reason for performing circumcision isn't "he won't get AIDS", it's "it was done to me, so it will be done to my kid." Please don't call it a medical procedure, because it's really no more of a medical procedure than breast augmentation or rhinoplasty.

FGM is not goddamn circumcision. It's not a cutting around.

Oh, well that's the defining difference, is it? I guess I rest my case.

You're saying that circumsized men don't enjoy sex as much!? I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with you on that one.

I made no such claim.

That's hilarious! Europeans inventing baths! It took quite a few centuries to convince those Europeans that bathing was good for you.

Well I didn't think you had bad hygiene before, but if Americans perform circumcisions for hygiene reasons, it only follows. Oh, and from the other medical reasons listed I imagine you haven't discovered antibiotics and condoms either.

Male circumcision is known to have health benefits, where it's questionable in the case of females, so it is silly to compare them. As well, male circumcision is performed in sanitary conditions more often than for females.

Oh I'm sure you'd find some comparable small health benefits if you had people looking really hard. This isn't the case with FGM, because people supporting it aren't educated enough to try and wrap it in a nice, comfy cover of medicine.

Still, not relevant. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's father did not want his daughter to be circumcised, so her grandmother took her to have the operation done behind his back. Great many supporters of FGM are circumcised women themselves, and it doesn't make it any more acceptable.


Well there are the standard risks involved in any surgical procedure: Infection of the wound and uncontrollable hemorrhage, both of which can be lethal, especially to an infant, and with less medically trained family practicioners there's always the possibility of persistantly humorous accidental amputation.
But don't you know, that could never happen..... *cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) :rolleyes:

Oh, well that's the defining difference, is it? I guess I rest my case.

That's the reason why FGM does not qualify as circumcision. The reasons why FGM is different than MALE circumcision are more in-depth.

But don't you know, that could never happen..... *cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) :rolleyes:

Eh. They used a machine that isn't supposed to be used for circumsiscion. Not a good example. ;)

FGM is not goddamn circumcision. It's not a cutting around.
um.. again no.

From our really ah... good friends over at the WHO.

"Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:"


"- excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris"

"- pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue"
All of which forms of FGM.

Eh. They used a machine that isn't supposed to be used for circumsiscion. Not a good example. ;)
Doesn't matter.

They were referred for circumcision at the age of 8 months. On 1966-04-27, the surgeon, Jean-Marie Huot, and the anaesthesiologist Max Cham performed the circumcision
Nice try though. ;)

Doesn't matter.



In ancient times, a surgeons performed C-Sections using a saw or un-sterilized knives. The woman was usually killed; therefore C-Sections are dangerous. Yeah? :p

(Wild stuff, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_section#History)

The fact that malpractice during a circumscision can cause damage doesn't mean circumscision shouldn't be done. Painfully obvious, but the internet teaches us that for some, nothing is obvious enough. :D

Just merely the parent's responsibility.

In your rather confused world, then, would we be asking the children if they wanted shots, if their tonsils should be removed? If they say no, what then? We have children dying form malaria all over again?

If a chil under the age of 5, or maybe it's 6, commits a crime, that child isn't thrown in jail. The parent is the one who recieves the punishment. Thus, by extention, the justice system is saying that the child is not a independent entity from its parent(s).

There is no question about 'free choice' for someone who cannot even say 'momma'.

The issues with consent is not that parents shouldn't be allowed to do anything without their child's consent. Its that since children can't consent parents shouldn't be allowed to do everything they want to without limits. Or in other words we don't let parents starve their kids, beat them to death, or amputate limbs just for the hell of it.

The debate is on whether circumcision is an acceptable parental choice, like choosing to make kids go to Sunday School, or unacceptable, like tying them up in a closet for 8 hours.

Those who think parents shouldn't be able to circumcise their sons think that the health benefits are negligible, about as effective as cleaning the foreskin regularly, and the loss of sexual sensitivity is a major loss of liberty. They also feel that if the benefits are so apparent adult men would opt to have their penises circumcised voluntarily.

Those who are for letting parents circumcise their sons say that their are major health benefits to the operation, the loss of sexual function is negligible to nonexistent, and that circumcision is a major part of cultural and religious identity.

There's nothing about the phrase: "Genital mutilation." I like.

Those who think parents shouldn't be able to circumcise their sons think that the health benefits are negligible, about as effective as cleaning the foreskin regularly, and the loss of sexual sensitivity is a major loss of liberty. They also feel that if the benefits are so apparent adult men would opt to have their penises circumcised voluntarily.

Those who are for letting parents circumcise their sons say that their are major health benefits to the operation, the loss of sexual function is negligible to nonexistent, and that circumcision is a major part of cultural and religious identity.

Slight nitpick: some of the opponents instead state that:
- Most health benefits are not relevant until the child is sexually active, so there is no reason to not wait until then, when the child is old enough to make a choice himself.
- The crux of the matter is if parents should be allowed to subject their children to unnessary medical procedures

Slight nitpick: some of the opponents instead state that:
- Most health benefits are not relevant until the child is sexually active, so there is no reason to not wait until then, when the child is old enough to make a choice himself.

Nitpicky, if true.

- The crux of the matter is if parents should be allowed to subject their children to unnessary medical procedures

I think the crux of matter is should parents be allowed to subject their children to unnecessary medical procedures that cause long-term harm. The harm being loss of some sexual function.

I think the crux of matter is should parents be allowed to subject their children to unnecessary medical procedures that cause long-term harm. The harm being loss of some sexual function.

To me, "it was not neccessary and the child was not allowed to decide for themselves" is harm enough.

Personally I think its an abhorrent practice, and is one of those cases where it would be justified to step in despite religious beliefs.

Abhorrent? Meh. It's just archaic (of course, we're talking male circumcision and not female sexual mutilations, that's a different thing). As many other traditions are.
The only thing is that even such a small and almost insignificant mutilation - it's comparable to piercing, after all - shouldn't be forced by parents on kids : it should be the choice of the single individual, and to make such a choice, one should be a fully responsible adult.

Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions),

Circumcision preventing AIDS is a myth, and a dangerous one too.

The advantage of circumcision in ancient times was to lessen the risk of infections (like clamydia etc) in cultures with poor personal hygiene: no foreskin means no safe skin "pocket" for the bacteria to thrive in.
Since the Romans implemented soap, aqueducts and thermae on mass scale (that is, bathing and washing themselves), circumcision has become totally useless.

If you want to prevent STDs (not just AIDS, but hepatitis, clamydia, gonorrhea, herpes...) better:
1.wash your penis often (at the very least, once/day and after every sexual intercourse) with lots of soap
2.use toilet paper after urinating
3.use condoms

Circumcision preventing AIDS is a myth, and a dangerous one too.

I thought so as well, but a WHO article claiming the opposite was posted a while back. So adults can indeed have some benefit from it.

To me, "it was not neccessary and the child was not allowed to decide for themselves" is harm enough.


I get where you are coming from but really it is no different than getting a child's ears pierced while they are still young. In that the amount of actual harm is in most cases negligible, and the actual effect it has on life or the quality of life is about the same.

I thought so as well, but a WHO article claiming the opposite was posted a while back. So adults can indeed have some benefit from it.

I remember something like that. IMS there is some kind of cell in the foreskin that essentially brings bacteria and viruses to your immune system so it can kill them. So yeah, if that's right then being circumsised means that if you're having unprotected sex with someone who's HIV+ then you're slightly less likely to contract HIV.
I get where you are coming from but really it is no different than getting a child's ears pierced while they are still young. In that the amount of actual harm is in most cases negligible, and the actual effect it has on life or the quality of life is about the same.
Aside from the fact that the child can let the piercing heal if they want. They can't grow their foreskin back if they wanted to.

Aside from the fact that the child can let the piercing heal if they want. They can't grow their foreskin back if they wanted to.


Yes true, but there really is no problem with not having a foreskin. In fact why would you want it back once it's gone anyway?

Yes true, but there really is no problem with not having a foreskin. In fact why would you want it back once it's gone anyway?

You don't have to have a reason to want something that used to be attached to you.

You don't have to have a reason to want something that used to be attached to you.

The point being though, is there is no difference between the circumcised and the non circumcised, apart from a bit of flappy skin.

It is not a life threatening procedure, it makes little difference sexualy with or without, we may as well be talking about whether or not it is okay to get your three year old girls ears pierced, because ultimately they make the same sort of difference to you life.

So "it does not actually do any damage" leads to "feel free to do it" ?


Again it is on par with deciding to get your childs ear pierced. would you agonies much over that?

I get where you are coming from but really it is no different than getting a child's ears pierced while they are still young. In that the amount of actual harm is in most cases negligible, and the actual effect it has on life or the quality of life is about the same.

So "it does not actually do any damage" leads to "feel free to do it" ?

The point being though, is there is no difference between the circumcised and the non circumcised, apart from a bit of flappy skin.

It is not a life threatening procedure, it makes little difference sexualy with or without, we may as well be talking about whether or not it is okay to get your three year old girls ears pierced, because ultimately they make the same sort of difference to you life.

You always chose not to wear an earing, but foreskin doesn't grow back. Any permanent medical decision, without any signifigant threat to their well being, should ultimately be left up for that person to decide. Regardless of how mundane or silly it may be, it's their body their choice.

I always had pretty much an "Eh, what's the harm here" attitude towards infant circumcision. I'm Jewish, most babies I know get it done, plus, I dated a guy back in college that wasn't circumsized and it was kind of gross. :eek: Then I listened to a pretty long rant about it (by Jocabia, actually...Hi Jocabia!) and it definitely made me think. I guess I'll have to see what I think when it comes to my own baby, if I ever have one.

You always chose not to wear an earing, but foreskin doesn't grow back. Any permanent medical decision, without any signifigant threat to their well being, should ultimately be left up for that person to decide. Regardless of how mundane or silly it may be, it's their body their choice.

Again true, but when you have had your ear pierced you know that the hole is always there? So in both case there is a bit of missing skin.

Can you see any problems with a mother wanting to get her three year old girls ears pierced, especially if the rational for doing it is the old 'Ohh do it know so she wont be so aware of the pain'.

Really this shouldn't be a big deal, it isn't a big deal.

Parents are meant to make desicions for and about their children. How harmful is this to a child? Any more harmful than sending your kid to his new school in his big cousins out of date hand-me down cloths?(let me tell you from experience, this is way more harmful than not having a foreskin)

So "it does not actually do any damage" leads to "feel free to do it" ?

Why on earth shouldn't people feel free to do things that aren't damaging?

I've yet to meet a circumcised male who was upset about the fact that he'd been circumcised. Most guys are very protective of their genital regions, so it makes sense that NON-circumcised men would be less than thrilled at the suggestion of having sharp objects near their junk, but so far I've yet to hear a single circumcised fellow tell me that he wishes he still had foreskin. Meanwhile, I've encountered several uncircumcised men who had wished at times that they were circumcised, and I know at least one man who chose to get a circumcision as an adult.

Not having a penis of my own, I base my views of this subject on what penis-owning individuals tell me, and on the medical realities of the practice. From what men have told me, and from what I know of the medical realities, it appears that male circumcision simply isn't a big deal.

Why on earth shouldn't people feel free to do things that aren't damaging?

Let me rephrase that.
If action A neither really hurts nor benefits person B, should person C be allowed to perform action A on B without B's consent ?

I've yet to meet a circumcised male who was upset about the fact that he'd been circumcised. Most guys are very protective of their genital regions, so it makes sense that NON-circumcised men would be less than thrilled at the suggestion of having sharp objects near their junk, but so far I've yet to hear a single circumcised fellow tell me that he wishes he still had foreskin. Meanwhile, I've encountered several uncircumcised men who had wished at times that they were circumcised, and I know at least one man who chose to get a circumcision as an adult.

Not having a penis of my own, I base my views of this subject on what penis-owning individuals tell me, and on the medical realities of the practice. From what men have told me, and from what I know of the medical realities, it appears that male circumcision simply isn't a big deal.


Indeed, it is not as big deal. I personally consider it more harmful to force a child to eat brussel sprouts! Ughhhhh.

Let me rephrase that.
If action A neither really hurts nor benefits person B, should person C be allowed to perform action A on B without B's consent ?

If person C is person B's Dad and action A was for medical reasons, then yes of course.

Let me rephrase that.
If action A neither really hurts nor benefits person B, should person C be allowed to perform action A on B without B's consent ?
If person B is a minor child, and person C is the legal guardian of person B, then person C gets to make medical decisions for person B. Such are the laws of my country.

I've yet to meet a circumcised male who was upset about the fact that he'd been circumcised. Most guys are very protective of their genital regions, so it makes sense that NON-circumcised men would be less than thrilled at the suggestion of having sharp objects near their junk, but so far I've yet to hear a single circumcised fellow tell me that he wishes he still had foreskin. Meanwhile, I've encountered several uncircumcised men who had wished at times that they were circumcised, and I know at least one man who chose to get a circumcision as an adult.

Not having a penis of my own, I base my views of this subject on what penis-owning individuals tell me, and on the medical realities of the practice. From what men have told me, and from what I know of the medical realities, it appears that male circumcision simply isn't a big deal.

What were their reasons for this decision?

What were their reasons for this decision?
The guy I knew who got the circumcision as an adult simply told me that he didn't like the foreskin, and hadn't liked it for a long time. He'd told his parents about it when he was a teen, but they said he should wait until he was an adult and then see how he felt about it. If he still wanted to have it removed then he could do so. He did.

His complaints about his foreskin (at least the ones he told me) were that he didn't like how it felt and looked. It was basically an aesthetic issue for him, I guess, like how some people don't like their nose and decide to have it altered.

Of course, I also have a very good friend who got his penis pierced, so I may just have friends who are really into penis modification. :D

Of course, I also have a very good friend who got his penis pierced, so I may just have friends who are really into penis modification. :D

Everyone needs a hobby I suppose :p

The last thing we need is the government involved. On the level of personal preference, I would never do it to my child, although I am circumcised. Why should you care if another parent does it to her child? It's frankly none of your, or my, business.

If person C is person B's Dad and action A was for medical reasons, then yes of course.

I deliberately mentioned "no damage or benefits for B". There is no real reason for the procedure to take place, except that C wants it to. C is the only person that does benefit from action A- because C gets to do what he/she wants.

So.. may C do it to B without B's consent ?

And yes, answering "yes" to this has far reaching consequences. So think carefully.

The guy I knew who got the circumcision as an adult simply told me that he didn't like the foreskin, and hadn't liked it for a long time. He'd told his parents about it when he was a teen, but they said he should wait until he was an adult and then see how he felt about it. If he still wanted to have it removed then he could do so. He did.

And he could do it, because the decision was left to him. It might be a mite bit trickier if he had been circumcised and later wanted to get his foreskin back.

Also, I'm not too surprised that in US, where people are brainwashed into thinking that an uncircumcised penis is somehow unclean and dirty, uncut men would be very self-conscious about their bodies and wanted to blend in better. Still not a justification for routine circumcision.

I deliberately mentioned "no damage or benefits for B". There is no real reason for the procedure to take place, except that C wants it to.

May C do it to B without B's consent ?

If C has guardianship over B, sure why not, apart from the fact that it would be a waste of B's time, but it's not like a baby has much to do anyway.

However this point is moot as circumcision has both benefits and possible damages like pretty much all medical procedures.

I'm not circumcised and I'm pretty sure that it's not common practice here, but it's not a completely useless operation and has few disadvantages, compared to some other things that parents are allowed to do to their kids.

Should all babies be circumcised/parents encouraged to circumcise their children 'just because'? Certainly not.

Should parents looking to circumcise their children be provided with all the information, and have the procedure done safely by a competent professional in a hygienic environment? Certainly.

Should parents be banned or even actively discouraged from circumcising their children? Nope.

And he could do it, because the decision was left to him. It might be a mite bit trickier if he had been circumcised and later wanted to get his foreskin back.

This is true. However, as I said, I have never encountered a male who had been circumcised as a child and wished that he could get his foreskin back.


Also, I'm not too surprised that in US, where people are brainwashed into thinking that an uncircumcised penis is somehow unclean and dirty, uncut men would be very self-conscious about their bodies and wanted to blend in better. Still not a justification for routine circumcision.
I don't think it's reasonable to say that US folk are brainwashed as you describe. Most people I know don't really care one way or the other.

At any rate, you're right that such perceptions would not be "justification" for routine plastic surgery. They also aren't justifications for outlawing circumcision. After all, how many women and girls get boob jobs specifically because our culture has a fetish for big tits? How many women and girls starve themselves to try to attain an aesthetic ideal in our society? These individuals are subjecting themselves to far more serious medical risks, and far more long-lasting health impacts. Yet we don't ban boob jobs. Instead, boob jobs remain one of the most routine operations performed in our country.

Parents get to make medical choices for their children. As a parent, you would be allowed to make life and death decisions for your child. You are allowed to decide if they receive life-saving treatment. You are allowed to decide if they will receive critical immunizations. It seems pretty fucking silly, in view of this, to declare that the foreskin is off-limits.

I deliberately mentioned "no damage or benefits for B". There is no real reason for the procedure to take place, except that C wants it to.

May C do it to B without B's consent ?

Yeah sure, as I have said, it is a parents job to make desicions for and about their children. If I went to a fair, and wanted my boys face painted(because I think it looks cute) then of course I can get this done, with or without his consent.

Should all babies be circumcised/parents encouraged to circumcise their children 'just because'? Certainly not.

Should parents looking to circumcise their children be provided with all the information, and have the procedure done safely by a competent professional in a hygienic environment? Certainly.

Should parents be banned or even actively discouraged from circumcising their children? Nope.
Right on. Give parents accurate information and let them choose what they believe is best for their child.

I've seen parents who get their baby girl's ears pierced. Personally, I think that's weird and wouldn't choose to do it to my kid, but as long as they're having it done in a medically-safe manner it's not really anybody else's business.

Yeah sure, as I have said, it is a parents job to make desicions for and about their children. If I went to a fair, and wanted my boys face painted(because I think it looks cute) then of course I can get this done, with or without his consent.

And that is the crux of the matter. Is the child a toy, to be used for the parents amusement, or a person ?

And that is the crux of the matter. Is the child a toy, to be used for the parents amusement, or a person ?

No you read to much into my words. I was Jewish and wanted to get my boy circumsiced for faith reason, then I am allowed to do that. If as I was my boy needed to be circumsised for medical reason, then I am also allowed to do that.

There has been all over the news and in our papers today(UK) a story about the mother of a severely disabled 15 year old girl wanting to get her daughter an hysterectomy, so that she does not have the added miscomfort of period pains nor suffer periods themselves. Her daughter has the mind of an 18 month old child and this will never get any better, the mum is pleading with the NHS to allow her to go ahead, as she argues that it will give her daughter a better quality of life, and ensure she does not suffer needlessly changes in her body that she will not be able to comprehend.

Now lets get some perspective here, compared to the choices both moral and medical that this woman and her doctors are involved in, taking away a foreskin is nothing.

Ohh and for the record, I fully support this mother. It is after all her job to make these sorts of decisions.

And that is the crux of the matter. Is the child a toy, to be used for the parents amusement, or a person ?
Neither, legally speaking.

So if you would, what country are you from, just curious?
Sorry for the very very very late reply. (I had some exams...)

I am from the Philippines. I was circumcised when I was 9, if I can remember it correctly. Here, you would curse your parents if they didn't have you circumcised... ;)

Also, I believe that while the parents still has the authority over their children, there should be at least consultation with the child, depending on his level of awareness. We cannot just simply do a medical procedure on a pediatric patient... of course, we need the consent of the parents, but for practical reasons, we need to consult the child too about the procedure.

As for me, I was consulted... but the future of being taunted by the country's menfolk (and womenfolk) convinced me to undergo the procedure. (but my father would have me undergo it whether I like it or I like it very much...)

...and no, our cultural customs may seem irrelevant to the OP, as we perform circumcision primarily before puberty, something like (and viewed as) a rite of passage. Which explains circumcision's links with our culture, not religion...

No you read to much into my words. I was Jewish and wanted to get my boy circumsiced for faith reason, then I am allowed to do that. If as I was my boy needed to be circumsised for medical reason, then I am also allowed to do that.

I am not disputing the second, and not actively disputing the former; though I vehemently dislike the idea of parents that place their own religious beliefs above the possible desires of their offspring. But that is a battle I will never win.

My focus now is entirely on the question if considering the child to be the means to an end (a subject to have action A performed on) is acceptable or not. And if so, what the limits are.

To use a silly and contrived example: a baby whose penis was stroked by a pedophile will not suffer from that later in life if he never finds out. Does that mean there was nothing wrong with the action of the pedophile ? He after all benefitted from it and noone was hurt.

Right on. Give parents accurate information and let them choose what they believe is best for their child.

I've seen parents who get their baby girl's ears pierced. Personally, I think that's weird and wouldn't choose to do it to my kid, but as long as they're having it done in a medically-safe manner it's not really anybody else's business.

Right, no one else's business? What about the child's business? Peforming an irreversible procedure on the genitals of a child because you felt like? Don't give me crap about how they can't choose, I'm sure they do, actually. I somewhat doubt that any infant wants this done to them, I know Iknow, "IMUNIZATIONS!!" But I don't think having a foreskin was ever the scourge of the planet. As far as social and religious reasons, I think we should live in a more progressive society where its ok to be as you were born and not have to face mutilation for other's asthetic benefit. Also, you deny that any circumcised men would want their foreskin back, but I for one would have liked mine, or at the least a choice whether or not to keep it (which sounds as ridiculous as a choice whether or not to chop off a finger or two, just because). In fact, we could, if there was a custom and religion that supported it probably have a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate for parents to decide to chop off the pinky fingers of infants, since they mgith want to get it done later and it'd be better to do it now while it still costs so little and the bones arn't fully formed. We probably also wouldn't find any evidence in studies done of actual harm done, but I doubt that many people would think it wasn't child abuse to cut off the fingers of a child because you thought it was a good idea.

Anyway I'm just here to say that what my parents did to me was wrong and I don't think it should happen to another person. Those who have voted against infant male circumcision and who are circumcised may also feel this way (though the poll doesn't imply one way or another necessarily).

I am not disputing the second, and not actively disputing the former; though I vehemently dislike the idea of parents that place their own religious beliefs above the possible desires of their offspring. But that is a battle I will never win.

My focus now is entirely on the question if considering the child to be the means to an end (a subject to have action A performed on) without it significally benefitting or hurting the child is acceptable or not. And if so, what the limits are.

To use a silly and contrived example: a baby whose penis was stroked by a pedophile will not suffer from that later in life if he never finds out. Does that mean there was nothing wrong with the action of the pedophile ? He after all benefitted from it and noone was hurt.


I think what you are talking about here(and very rightly too) is degrees. What sort of actions are harmful, or not. In the grand scheme male circumcision is really quite harmless, both physically and mentally.

I see no moral quagmire with the choice of the parent to get their boys child circumsiced.

I think what you are talking about here(and very rightly too) is degrees. What sort of actions are harmful, or not. In the grand scheme male circumcision is really quite harmless, both physically and mentally.

Not entirely - I am looking at the underlying reasoning. Technically your "have my childs face painted because I like it" example for instance violates Kants second imperative:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"

That would make it the equivalent of a deadly sin - yet very few people give a damn.
I guess what I am mostly arguing against is reasoning like "It pleases me, and while it does involve you it doesn't actually hurt you - so your opinion is irrelevant".

To those women who voted that infant circumcision was wrong, do you think it is OK or that it would have been OK, if when you were an infant your parents decided to remove a portion of your clitoral hood as an infant, after all its cleaner that way and I personally know alot of men like the look, and the you'd probably have wanted it done then as opposed to have to going through the trouble today... lets go ahead and get it done.

Right, no one else's business? What about the child's business? Peforming an irreversible procedure on the genitals of a child because you felt like? Don't give me crap about how they can't choose, I'm sure they do, actually.

Legally, they cannot choose. Minor children cannot make their own medical decisions, nor can they make most other personal decisions for themselves.

Personally, I think this is simply an accurate reflection of the needs of children. A minor child often will not want to do things which are wise or advisable in the long run. It would be irresponsible for the child's parents to abdicate their responsibilities to care for their child by insisting that they let their 4 year old over-ride their adult judgment.


I somewhat doubt that any infant wants this done to them, I know Iknow, "IMUNIZATIONS!!" But I don't think having a foreskin was ever the scourge of the planet.

I don't think anybody is arguing that. I'm certainly not. So why are you bringing it up when talking to me?


As far as social and religious reasons, I think we should live in a more progressive society where its ok to be as you were born and not have to face mutilation for other's asthetic benefit.

Again, I'm not arguing against that. Why are you acting as though I am?


Also, you deny that any circumcised men would want their foreskin back,

No, I don't. I simply say that I have yet to meet a man who was circumcised as a child and wanted to get his foreskin back.


but I for one would have liked mine, or at the least a choice whether or not to keep it (which sounds as ridiculous as a choice whether or not to chop off a finger or two, just because).

Ok. Though I do think it is silly to compare the foreskin to one's fingers.


In fact, we could, if there was a custom and religion that supported it probably have a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate for parents to decide to chop off the pinky fingers of infants, since they mgith want to get it done later and it'd be better to do it now while it still costs so little and the bones arn't fully formed. We probably also wouldn't find any evidence in studies done of actual harm done, but I doubt that many people would think it wasn't child abuse to cut off the fingers of a child because you thought it was a good idea.

I have read medical studies of the impact of circumcision. Researchers have actually looked into this topic at great length. Believe me, if there is one subject that medical research does NOT shy away from, it's anything to do with the penis.


Anyway I'm just here to say that what my parents did to me was wrong and I don't think it should happen to another person. Those who have voted against infant male circumcision and who are circumcised may also feel this way (though the poll doesn't imply one way or another necessarily).
It appears that you're mostly angry that your parents made a decision for you when you were a child. You don't seem particularly pissed about the foreskin itself, it's the principle of the action that bothers you.

Frankly, I don't have the least sympathy for you. Parents make choices for their children. Sometimes we don't like those choices. Sometimes we wish our parents had done different. But if there's one thing I can tell you with 100% certainty, it's this:

Your children will feel exactly the same way about you. You will make choices for them which they will dislike. You will make choices that they look back on and say, "Geez, Dad, why did you have to do that to me?" Even if you are a great parent and they love you bunches. You will not be perfect.

Heck, given how silly our universe is, you'll probably end up having a son who is pissed off that you didn't have him circumcised when he was a baby. :D

To those women who voted that infant circumcision was wrong, do you think it is OK or that it would have been OK, if when you were an infant your parents decided to remove a portion of your clitoral hood as an infant, after all its cleaner that way and I personally know alot of men like the look, and the you'd probably have wanted it done then as opposed to have to going through the trouble today... lets go ahead and get it done.
Actually, no, it's not cleaner. Removal of the clitoral hood does not provide any of the known benefits that removal of the foreskin can provide (note: CAN provide, not "always does" provide).

But setting that aside, I don't think I'd be likely to care, in that case. Unless I experienced some sort of injury or lasting harm as a result, I wouldn't feel strongly about it one way or the other.

Really this shouldn't be a big deal, it isn't a big deal.


Mountains out of mole hills...

Not entirely - I am looking at the underlying reasoning. Technically your "have my childs face painted because I like it" example for instance violates Kants second imperative:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"

That would make it the equivalent of a deadly sin - yet very few people give a damn.
I guess what I am mostly arguing against is reasoning like "It pleases me, and while it does involve you it doesn't actually hurt you - so your opinion is irrelevant".

Heh indeed, but there are very, very, very few people who live their lives in such a philosophical manner.

The average man in the street has 'other fish to fry' and will hardly philosophies at all, nope critical thought is not the tool of the masses.

To those women who voted that infant circumcision was wrong, do you think it is OK or that it would have been OK, if when you were an infant your parents decided to remove a portion of your clitoral hood as an infant, after all its cleaner that way and I personally know alot of men like the look, and the you'd probably have wanted it done then as opposed to have to going through the trouble today... lets go ahead and get it done.

Totally a different thing. Get 100 woman who have been 'circumcised' and a 100 men who have been circumcised, and ask both groups 'How has it effected your life' You'll find that the vast majority of men will shrug their shoulders and answer 'not at all'.

If I have children and one of them a boy.. their penis is not getting snipped. Only .. if down the road I was to see some major malfunction would my boy be snipped.

Totally a different thing. Get 100 woman who have been 'circumcised' and a 100 men who have been circumcised, and ask both groups 'How has it effected your life' You'll find that the vast majority of men will shrug their shoulders and answer 'not at all'.
Well, to be fair, that's because most women who have been "circumcised" did not receive a well-established sanitary procedure from a medical professional. They had their genitals cut up by a non-doctor, using methods that have not been vetted by any legitimate medical organization.

I honestly don't know what a female equivalent of our current male circumcision practices would be. Removal of the clitoral hood isn't actually a good comparison, particularly since the clitoris is so much more neuron-dense than the head of the penis. The clitoris is not a penis analog, after all, so removing the hood of the clitoris is not the same as removing the foreskin of the penis.

If anything, perhaps removing some of the labia would be a somewhat similar procedure.

Actually, no, it's not cleaner. Removal of the clitoral hood does not provide any of the known benefits that removal of the foreskin can provide (note: CAN provide, not "always does" provide).

To be perfectly fair, I've never seen any kind of study done on this. There are those who argue that it is cleaner, just as many argue that it is cleaner to remove the foreskin. Of course, with proper hygiene, cleanliness really isn't a problem, circumcised or not.

Considering that removal of the clitoral hood would also lead to keratinization and less exposed mucous membrane, it is possible that removal of the clitoral hood would reduce the transmission of certain types of diseases. This seems to be the reason that removal of the foreskin can do so - viruses and bacteria can enter the body more freely through mucous membranes than through keratinized skin.

My real problem with discussion of the medical benefits of circumcision is that no study has demonstrated any statistically significant benefits in a country where safe sex and good hygiene are the norm. Studies carried out in Britain, for instance, have shown no difference in disease incidence between circumcised and uncircumcised men. When those same studies are carried out in countries with general hygiene issues and a taboo on safe sex, a difference is evident. This suggests to me that, whatever difference circumcision may confer, it is insignificant in comparison to just keeping clean and using protection.

Now, if a parent is convinced that the medical benefits are there, I could certainly see that parent choosing circumcision as preventative medicine. I don't think there is enough there for it to be routinely recommended in 1st world countries, however. And I vehemently disagree with plastic surgery carried out because of the parent's personal religious viewpoints. Do whatever you want to yourself as a result of your religion, but your religion does not entitle you to make permanent changes to the body of someone else.

To be perfectly fair, I've never seen any kind of study done on this. There are those who argue that it is cleaner, just as many argue that it is cleaner to remove the foreskin. Of course, with proper hygiene, cleanliness really isn't a problem, circumcised or not.

I'm not having any luck with PubMed, but I did read a study on this at one point.


Considering that removal of the clitoral hood would also lead to keratinization and less exposed mucous membrane, it is possible that removal of the clitoral hood would reduce the transmission of certain types of diseases. This seems to be the reason that removal of the foreskin can do so - viruses and bacteria can enter the body more freely through mucous membranes than through keratinized skin.

Given that we're talking about the vagina, however, I tend to doubt that the clitoral hood is going to make much difference. Think about the sheer surface area of such tissue down there, and the regions most likely to be contacted during disease transmission. Also, the potential problems with hoodectomy are more severe because of the innervation of the clitoris itself.

Again, I don't really think that removal of the clitoris is a good analog for male circumcision. Removal of portions of the labia would be a better comparision (IMO).


My real problem with discussion of the medical benefits of circumcision is that no study has demonstrated any statistically significant benefits in a country where safe sex and good hygiene are the norm. Studies carried out in Britain, for instance, have shown no difference in disease incidence between circumcised and uncircumcised men. When those same studies are carried out in countries with general hygiene issues and a taboo on safe sex, a difference is evident. This suggests to me that, whatever difference circumcision may confer, it is insignificant in comparison to just keeping clean and using protection.

Absolutely. I think that removal of the foreskin is, at best, very slightly beneficial, but over-all is simply neutral. I don't think it significantly increases or decreases any medical risks or benefits. It's basically a cosmetic procedure.


Now, if a parent is convinced that the medical benefits are there, I could certainly see that parent choosing circumcision as preventative medicine. I don't think there is enough there for it to be routinely recommended in 1st world countries, however.

Agreed.


And I vehemently disagree with plastic surgery carried out because of the parent's personal religious viewpoints. Do whatever you want to yourself as a result of your religion, but your religion does not entitle you to make permanent changes to the body of someone else.
We allow parents to make far, far more serious medical decisions for their children based on their religious views. Frankly, I don't see how you're going to be able to know whether a parent is making a given choice based on their religious views or their secular views. I mean, what if a parent tells you they just want the foreskin removed for medical reasons, but really they're doing it because of religious/cultural pressures?

If parents are allowed to choose to have their child circumcised, the that's that (as far as I'm concerned). Their reasons for having it done are irrelevant from the legal standpoint.

To be perfectly fair, I've never seen any kind of study done on this. There are those who argue that it is cleaner, just as many argue that it is cleaner to remove the foreskin. Of course, with proper hygiene, cleanliness really isn't a problem, circumcised or not.
Actually, the reason why they say it's cleaner is that it's actually easier to clean a penis without foreskin... and smegma can accumulate (faster? easier? choose an adjective) with an uncircumcised penis... but it is pretty obvious, though, circumcised or uncircumcised, penile hygiene is very important when it comes to preventing penile diseases.

Given that we're talking about the vagina, however, I tend to doubt that the clitoral hood is going to make much difference. Think about the sheer surface area of such tissue down there, and the regions most likely to be contacted during disease transmission. Also, the potential problems with hoodectomy are more severe because of the innervation of the clitoris itself.

I agree. Everything is a matter of degree. =)

We allow parents to make far, far more serious medical decisions for their children based on their religious views.

And I have a problem with that, too. Medical decisions should take medical benefits into account. Religion shouldn't be an issue until a child is old enough to profess his own religion and actually understand the implications of a given decision based on religion. While I'm not yet to the point that I push for changing the law, I would not be adverse to charging parents who, for instance, refuse medical treatment for their children based on their own personal religious views with neglect.

Frankly, I don't see how you're going to be able to know whether a parent is making a given choice based on their religious views or their secular views. I mean, what if a parent tells you they just want the foreskin removed for medical reasons, but really they're doing it because of religious/cultural pressures?

You wouldn't know, unfortunately. If they can come up with some other excuse that is allowable, no matter how much bullshit they might be feeding you, there's not much you can do about it.


Actually, the reason why they say it's cleaner is that it's actually easier to clean a penis without foreskin... and smegma can accumulate (faster? easier? choose an adjective) with an uncircumcised penis... but it is pretty obvious, though, circumcised or uncircumcised, penile hygiene is very important when it comes to preventing penile diseases.

Easier, yes. Less surface area and you don't actually have to get up under the foreskin. Most circumcised men can get along fine by simply letting the soapy water drip down over it and they don't even have to touch their penises in the shower! Of course, it isn't horribly difficult to keep an uncircumcised penis clean. It just means that a man *gasp* has to touch his penis to do it and a parent *gasp* has to discuss penile hygiene with a son. It's those two that people can't seem to get around. Touching the penis is dirty, right? And parents feel icky discussing penises with their children.

And I have a problem with that, too. Medical decisions should take medical benefits into account. Religion shouldn't be an issue until a child is old enough to profess his own religion and actually understand the implications of a given decision based on religion. While I'm not yet to the point that I push for changing the law, I would not be adverse to charging parents who, for instance, refuse medical treatment for their children based on their own personal religious views with neglect.

Fair enough.


You wouldn't know, unfortunately. If they can come up with some other excuse that is allowable, no matter how much bullshit they might be feeding you, there's not much you can do about it.

Obviously I'm not somebody who's going to argue in favor of parents pushing religiosity on their children, let alone parents using religion to prop up medically unsound operations for their children.

However, I tend to think that the physical realities of the procedure should be what determine things, not the opinions of the parents.

If a procedure is okay to receive for secular reasons, then why would it be less okay if done for religious reasons? And vice versa? Likewise, if a procedure is already not okay to receive for secular reasons, then religious belief shouldn't be seen as making it any more (or less) okay.

Touching the penis is dirty, right? And parents feel icky discussing penises with their children.


Shit man what planet are you on? Ohh hold it you must be talking of them strange parents?

Legally, they cannot choose. Minor children cannot make their own medical decisions, nor can they make most other personal decisions for themselves.

Personally, I think this is simply an accurate reflection of the needs of children. A minor child often will not want to do things which are wise or advisable in the long run. It would be irresponsible for the child's parents to abdicate their responsibilities to care for their child by insisting that they let their 4 year old over-ride their adult judgment.

What need are being dealt with in circumcision?


I don't think anybody is arguing that. I'm certainly not. So why are you bringing it up when talking to me?


Again, I'm not arguing against that. Why are you acting as though I am?


Earlier in the thread alot of people brought it up, I just wanted to lay it to rest before someone else brought it up again.

No, I don't. I simply say that I have yet to meet a man who was circumcised as a child and wanted to get his foreskin back.


Ok. Though I do think it is silly to compare the foreskin to one's fingers.


I have read medical studies of the impact of circumcision. Researchers have actually looked into this topic at great length. Believe me, if there is one subject that medical research does NOT shy away from, it's anything to do with the penis.


It appears that you're mostly angry that your parents made a decision for you when you were a child. You don't seem particularly pissed about the foreskin itself, it's the principle of the action that bothers you.

Frankly, I don't have the least sympathy for you. Parents make choices for their children. Sometimes we don't like those choices. Sometimes we wish our parents had done different. But if there's one thing I can tell you with 100% certainty, it's this:

Your children will feel exactly the same way about you. You will make choices for them which they will dislike. You will make choices that they look back on and say, "Geez, Dad, why did you have to do that to me?" Even if you are a great parent and they love you bunches. You will not be perfect.

Heck, given how silly our universe is, you'll probably end up having a son who is pissed off that you didn't have him circumcised when he was a baby. :D

Well, if he's pissed off, let him be- if hes a man he'll buck up and get it snipped for himself, I have no sympathy for those who are afraid or unwilling to make their own choices in life and would rather have them made by everyone else. And, yes my main issue is that my parents made an irreversible change in my anatomy without my consent with no (or precious few) beneficial results for me. Perhaps if I knew what it was like to have a foreskin I'd be more pissed off, maybe I'd be less. However I can never know because they never gave me a chance. And when my son comes to me upset about his uncircumcised penis, I can tell him at least he had a choice.

What need are being dealt with in circumcision?

I think you missed my point.

Small children should not be empowered to make their own medical decisions, because they lack adult judgment and the ability to understand the subjects sufficiently. A minor child should not be expected to evaluate the costs and benefits of medical procedures the way an adult can, because a child is simply not capable of the same level of analysis. It would be like expecting a 4 year old to be able to compete in an adult marathon race. They're not equipped to do so, and it would be profoundly unfair to insist that they do so.


Earlier in the thread alot of people brought it up, I just wanted to lay it to rest before someone else brought it up again.

*shrug* Okay.


Well, if he's pissed off, let him be- if hes a man he'll buck up and get it snipped for himself, I have no sympathy for those who are afraid or unwilling to make their own choices in life and would rather have them made by everyone else.

Again, you appear to have missed my point.

We're talking about parents and minor children right now. If you think that your newborn infant should be making his own choices in life, then you are not a responsible parent. Plain and simple.

Regardless of what you choose regarding circumcision, YOU ARE MAKING A CHOICE FOR YOUR INFANT. You are either choosing that he will grow up without a foreskin, or you are choosing that he will grow up with a foreskin. You happen to believe that it's right to make one particular choice. That's your right as a parent (in my opinion). Just please don't act as though you are magically rising above the realities of parenting and making medical decisions for your child.


And, yes my main issue is that my parents made an irreversible change in my anatomy without my consent with no (or precious few) beneficial results for me. Perhaps if I knew what it was like to have a foreskin I'd be more pissed off, maybe I'd be less. However I can never know because they never gave me a chance. And when my son comes to me upset about his uncircumcised penis, I can tell him at least he had a choice.
Again, that's up to you. I'm certainly not advocating that anybody be forced to circumcise their child.

There is nothing wrong with it. I wonder why anyone wouldn't want to be circumscised, after all it makes you cleaner.

Easier, yes. Less surface area and you don't actually have to get up under the foreskin. Most circumcised men can get along fine by simply letting the soapy water drip down over it and they don't even have to touch their penises in the shower! Of course, it isn't horribly difficult to keep an uncircumcised penis clean. It just means that a man *gasp* has to touch his penis to do it and a parent *gasp* has to discuss penile hygiene with a son. It's those two that people can't seem to get around. Touching the penis is dirty, right? And parents feel icky discussing penises with their children.
Uncircumcised males have to retract the foreskin to clean the area of the glans. It usually ain't the issue of touching the penis. Only stupid people would promote that idea.

Though I agree about the issue of parents talking to their children about sex in general. I kid my parents because even though I'm nineteen now, they still won't talk to me about how they made me. ;)

I kid my parents because even though I'm nineteen now, they still won't talk to me about how they made me. ;)

Really? Man that is astounding! heheh sometimes I feel I go too far the other way with my kids, but they seem okay!

Uncircumcised males have to retract the foreskin to clean the area of the glans.

Indeed, but it isn't as if that is really difficult. We all have places we have to use a little more effort to clean.

It usually ain't the issue of touching the penis. Only stupid people would promote that idea.

There are a lot of stupid people out there. I've met more than one guy who wouldn't actively clean his penis in the shower because he equated rubbing soap on it to playing with himself.

Though I agree about the issue of parents talking to their children about sex in general. I kid my parents because even though I'm nineteen now, they still won't talk to me about how they made me. ;)

*boggle* My mother talked with me about sex from the moment I started asking questions. I just don't understand the situation in which parents are so terrified of talking about it.

I personally think circumcision is against the rights of defenceless child of either gender.

As an uncircumcised male I'd rather have half of my toes cut out - a procedure which would cut my foot troubles in half surely must be benefical to me! :rolleyes: - than let anyone snip my penis

I personally think circumcision is against the rights of defenceless child of either gender.

As an uncircumcised male I'd rather have half of my toes cut out - a procedure which would cut my foot troubles in half surely must be benefical to me! :rolleyes: - than let anyone snip my penis
Side note:

You'd be surprised how important your toes are! I once broke one of my little toes, and I was limping for a couple of weeks. And that was just the littlest toe on one foot!

Back on topic:

Your response fits with my past experience. The only "anti-circumcision activists" I've encountered in person are men who are not circumcised. Men who are circumcised seem to not have particularly strong feelings on the subject, generally speaking. My partner is circumcised and doesn't especially care. He likes his penis and doesn't feel that he's missing out on anything. (Yes, we've talked about this subject.) However, he is also very protective of his genital area, and really really hates the idea of any part of his equipment being removed or abused. I would imagine that if he had not be circumcised as a child, he probably wouldn't want to be circumcised as an adult, seeing as how he doesn't fancy having sharp things anywhere near his groin.

Your response fits with my past experience. The only "anti-circumcision activists" I've encountered in person are men who are not circumcised. Men who are circumcised seem to not have particularly strong feelings on the subject, generally speaking. My partner is circumcised and doesn't especially care. He likes his penis and doesn't feel that he's missing out on anything. (Yes, we've talked about this subject.) However, he is also very protective of his genital area, and really really hates the idea of any part of his equipment being removed or abused. I would imagine that if he had not be circumcised as a child, he probably wouldn't want to be circumcised as an adult, seeing as how he doesn't fancy having sharp things anywhere near his groin.

IIRC, Jocabia is very much anti-circumcision, but was circumcised as a child. I remember him talking about his parents apologizing to him in the last monster thread on this topic. I've also seen material out there dedicated to "foreskin restoration" for men who have been circumcised, but want a foreskin. It can either be surgically done or done by stretching the skin until it eventually covers much like a foreskin. Of course, the nerves aren't there, so it isn't exactly a foreskin, but this is something that some men do.

Side note:

You'd be surprised how important your toes are! I once broke one of my little toes, and I was limping for a couple of weeks. And that was just the littlest toe on one foot!

I'm well aware of the importance of toes. I have a tendency of ingrown nails and once the whole nail of my big toe blackened and fell off after a game of cubeball ("soccer" with a soft but heavy cube). :eek:

I'd still lose half of my toes than piece of protective skin off my penis.

And remember, if you had no little toes you wouldn't have broken it/them in the first place...

The only "anti-circumcision activists" I've encountered in person are men who are not circumcised. Men who are circumcised seem to not have particularly strong feelings on the subject, generally speaking.

Yes, but it's all about having a choice: If I had my smaller toes cut out as a baby I'm pretty sure I wouldn't miss them coz I would have never known any better (assuming it was common enough practice to slice the feet of children).

I get where you are coming from but really it is no different than getting a child's ears pierced while they are still young. In that the amount of actual harm is in most cases negligible, and the actual effect it has on life or the quality of life is about the same.
But piercings can be removed and they'll heal over. Foreskin doesn't grow back.

Plus piercings aren't surgeries.

IIRC, Jocabia is very much anti-circumcision, but was circumcised as a child. I remember him talking about his parents apologizing to him in the last monster thread on this topic. I've also seen material out there dedicated to "foreskin restoration" for men who have been circumcised, but want a foreskin. It can either be surgically done or done by stretching the skin until it eventually covers much like a foreskin. Of course, the nerves aren't there, so it isn't exactly a foreskin, but this is something that some men do.

And on the flip side, I'm uncircumcised but don't care about the issue either way.

IIRC, Jocabia is very much anti-circumcision, but was circumcised as a child. I remember him talking about his parents apologizing to him in the last monster thread on this topic. I've also seen material out there dedicated to "foreskin restoration" for men who have been circumcised, but want a foreskin. It can either be surgically done or done by stretching the skin until it eventually covers much like a foreskin. Of course, the nerves aren't there, so it isn't exactly a foreskin, but this is something that some men do.
Oh, yeah, I know that there are such "restoration" options out there. My point was simply that the crusade against circumcision isn't being led by men who were circumcised as a child. It's primarily led by men who aren't circumcised and don't think anybody else should be. To me, that's significant, because I evaluate the personal impact of circumcision based on what men who have been circumcised tell me. And I've yet to meet one who expressed any serious problems with it.

Again, my point is simply that I don't think this is a major issue at all. If somebody doesn't want to circumcise their kid or get circumcised themselves, then they shouldn't do so. If they do, then that's their choice.

From what I've seen, the likelihood of a boy growing up and being pissed about having received a circumcision is no greater than the likelihood that a boy will grow up and be pissed that he didn't receive a circumcision. Indeed, I've found the opposite to be the case to a certain extent. With that in mind, if we're talking about parents making the best choice based on what their child will want when he's grown, then it seems to me that it's even money at the very least. It also appears to be pretty neutral from a medical standpoint.

So it's neutral from a medical standpoint and neutral from an "emotional" standpoint. Which is why I think it's up to parents to make the call.

But piercings can be removed and they'll heal over. Foreskin doesn't grow back.

Plus piercings aren't surgeries.

I'm talking about the actual effect it has in your life. Heh and certianly pierceings are surgeries.

Yes, but it's all about having a choice: If I had my smaller toes cut out as a baby I'm pretty sure I wouldn't miss them coz I would have never known any better (assuming it was common enough practice to slice the feet of children).

Yeah, right. You'd just be hobbling around a cripple all your life, noticing that everyone else has functioning feet and you don't and wondering what the difference is? Heh.

But your whole analogy is false. Someone with no toes is a cripple, just as most victims of female genital mutilation are also crippled, but I am not a cripple even though I don't have a foreskin.

And it really pisses me off too, these kinds of emotive, "slogan" based "arguments" where the premise is that X is Y, and Y is bad, therefore X is bad. "Meat is murder," "abortion is murder," "circumcision is child abuse." Then if I go, "well no, abortion isn't murder" then the response can be "oh, so you support murder!?"

Now of course in this debate, I can not only be a supporter of "child abuse" (since I am not anti-circumcision) I can be a victim too (since I am circumcised)! Wow! It's like an aborted fetus that is pro-choice!

Again true, but when you have had your ear pierced you know that the hole is always there? So in both case there is a bit of missing skin.
The hole isn't always there. One of my sisters had her holes heal up on her, I've had to re pierce mine a couple of times. If you leave the earrings out for ~1-2 years they'll heal up.

Can you see any problems with a mother wanting to get her three year old girls ears pierced, especially if the rational for doing it is the old 'Ohh do it know so she wont be so aware of the pain'.
Yes, I can see a problem with that. Piercings shouldn't be done on infants or really small children. Apart from freaking them out, piercings will migrate and will be harder to line up, so you'll end up with holes that aren't symmetric or are oddly placed as they age.

I got my ears pierced for the first time when I was 6 because I asked my parents if I could have them pierced and they declared that I was "old enough" to get it done. The only decisions I wasn't consulted about growing up were actual medical ones (inoculations and going to the doctor/dentist/optometrist) I wanted to get braces long before I got them, I chose to go into French Immersion when given the option et c. Children should be given a say in issues that affect them unless there are proven benefits to such an action, especially when it comes to irreversible decisions.

I'm talking about the actual effect it has in your life. Heh and certianly pierceings are surgeries.
No they're not. Wisdom teeth removal doesn't even count as surgery and it involves local anesthetic.

I'm well aware of the importance of toes. I have a tendency of ingrown nails and once the whole nail of my big toe blackened and fell off after a game of cubeball ("soccer" with a soft but heavy cube). :eek:

I'd still lose half of my toes than piece of protective skin off my penis.

Hey, I'm not saying you should have anything removed that you'd rather keep. I'd be ticked if somebody insisted that I get something cut off from my special area, too. It's my junk, thank you very much, and I'd rather not have sharp things down there, either! :D


And remember, if you had no little toes you wouldn't have broken it/them in the first place...
If my toes were removed then the problems I had with the broken toe would simply continue for a longer period, until I (possibly) became able to compensate. :(


Yes, but it's all about having a choice: If I had my smaller toes cut out as a baby I'm pretty sure I wouldn't miss them coz I would have never known any better (assuming it was common enough practice to slice the feet of children).
Well, in this case we could draw an analogy to the practice of foot binding in some cultures.

See, you certainly WOULD notice the loss, because we have toes for a reason. Our feet simply don't work as well without toes. Think of the way you walk, normally. Your toes are part of how you maintain your posture and balance, and they are critical for normal walking motion.

Now, if it were normal to remove toes, then it would also probably be "normal" to be unable to walk and stand the way we currently consider to be normal. This is like how women/girls with bound feet were "normally" unable to walk without pain, and how they "normally" experienced a range of persisting medical problems related to the foot binding.

Normalcy really isn't a good standard, in other words. In some places it is normal for 17 year old girls to get boob jobs. In other places it is normal to deny life-saving medical treatment for children. Both of these are crappy (in my opinion) because both result in decreased health for the children in question.

Circumcision, when performed correctly, does not result in decreased health for the individual. It also doesn't generally improve one's health. It's just a cosmetic change.

So toe removal isn't really a good parallel. A better comparison might be, say, having one's external ear re-shaped. Or having a cosmetic nose job.

Yeah sure, as I have said, it is a parents job to make desicions for and about their children. If I went to a fair, and wanted my boys face painted(because I think it looks cute) then of course I can get this done, with or without his consent.
But the face paint will wash off (not that you'll be able to get the kid to sit still if he isn't willing to have his face painted in the first place). You can't take your infant to a tattoo parlour and get "property of Peepelonia" tattooed on his ass.

Now of course in this debate, I can not only be a supporter of "child abuse" (since I am not anti-circumcision) I can be a victim too (since I am circumcised)! Wow! It's like an aborted fetus that is pro-choice!

Then what *is* circumcision according to you, assuming it is done for the parents and not the childs sake ?
What, for that matter, is any action that is done to the child (without seriously damging it) solely to make the parents happy ?

Yes, but it's all about having a choice:

But this choice has for, the majority of men, zero impact on that mans life. There are far more important choices that your parents will make on your behalf than whether or not to have you circumcised.

Would you argue so about the not having any say in what infant school you attended?

Or whether or not you are raised as a veggie, or in any one particular faith(I find myself agreeing with Dawkin's, that this is a far worse evil).

Your parents have control over your life until you reach a certain point. The issue of choice, is a non issue.

It's general anaesthetic that qualifies something as surgery isn't it? or is it the incision?
I'm not sure what qualifies something as surgery. Piercing totally isn't surgery though.

No they're not. Wisdom teeth removal doesn't even count as surgery and it involves local anesthetic.

It's general anaesthetic that qualifies something as surgery isn't it? or is it the incision?

Damn I should really know this

The hole isn't always there. One of my sisters had her holes heal up on her, I've had to re pierce mine a couple of times. If you leave the earrings out for ~1-2 years they'll heal up.

Heh subjectivity in action, I have not had any thing in my ears for at least 15 years, and guess wot? Yep the holes are still there, and in my tounge, and in my nose.

Wisdom teeth removal doesn't even count as surgery and it involves local anesthetic.

Of course it counts as surgery.

Anesthetic used doesn't have any impact on whether its surgery or not. But I had a general anesthetic when I had mine taken out.

So toe removal isn't really a good parallel. A better comparison might be, say, having one's external ear re-shaped. Or having a cosmetic nose job.
So should a parent be able to give a minor child a nose job without the child wanting one if there's nothing wrong with the nose in the first place?

No they're not. Wisdom teeth removal doesn't even count as surgery and it involves local anesthetic.

I don't know where you are but certainly here in the UK, you can't perform a piercing without a license. It is counted as surgery in law and as such you need to sign that bit of paper giving your consent and the licensed piercer the go ahead.

Then what *is* circumcision according to you, assuming it is done for the parents and not the childs sake ?

Removal of the foreskin.

Sorry, I guess I meant a GLOBAL PANDEMIC OF CHILD ABUSE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE UN, THE WHO AND ALL MAJOR GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE OF THE SECRET JEWISH CABAL THAT CONTROLS THE MEDICAL-MEDIA INDUSTRY.

Removal of the foreskin.

Sorry, I guess I meant a GLOBAL PANDEMIC OF CHILD ABUSE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE UN, THE WHO AND ALL MAJOR GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE OF THE SECRET JEWISH CABAL THAT CONTROLS THE MEDICAL-MEDIA INDUSTRY.

Look at the motivation behind the action, not the action itself.

No they're not. Wisdom teeth removal doesn't even count as surgery and it involves local anesthetic.
Erm, having one's wisdom teeth out most certainly can count as surgery.

Having my wisdom teeth out was a pretty major operation, as a matter of fact, because one of them was twisted in such a way that removing it risked damaging nerves to my tongue. They had to cut me open quite a bit. I was under full general anesthetic for the procedure.

I also had to have some teeth removed when I was little. I had four baby teeth pulled because they weren't coming out. Unfortunately, the local didn't work for some reason, and when they started pulling I started screaming. My mother had to make the call: should they leave the teeth partly pulled, should they risk putting me under with a general (not advisable for a small child), or should they just pull them out quick and brutal? She told them to just pull the teeth, and she held my hand while I screamed my head off.

If, as my mother, she was allowed to make that choice on my behalf, I have a hard time seeing why the foreskin should be uniquely protected.

But the face paint will wash off (not that you'll be able to get the kid to sit still if he isn't willing to have his face painted in the first place). You can't take your infant to a tattoo parlour and get "property of Peepelonia" tattooed on his ass.

Hahaha only coz, that aint my real name so I wouldn't have it tattooed on my boys arse, and coz he has to be 18 years old before he can get tats!

Then what *is* circumcision according to you, assuming it is done for the parents and not the childs sake ?
What, for that matter, is any action that is done to the child (without seriously damging it) solely to make the parents happy ?

Umm like going to bed at a certian time, or eating all of your dinner, or doing your chores?

Of course it counts as surgery.
Not according to the dentist who preformed my wisdom teeth removal or anyone I know.

Anesthetic used doesn't have any impact on whether its surgery or not. But I had a general anesthetic when I had mine taken out.
That doesn't mean that shoving a small needle through an ear is surgery.

Removal of the foreskin.

Sorry, I guess I meant a GLOBAL PANDEMIC OF CHILD ABUSE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE UN, THE WHO AND ALL MAJOR GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE OF THE SECRET JEWISH CABAL THAT CONTROLS THE MEDICAL-MEDIA INDUSTRY.

*shrug*

And abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Edit: Though I think I may be slightly inaccurate here. I'll let Bottle correct me as necessary.

Umm like going to bed at a certian time, or eating all of your dinner, or doing your chores?

In general those actions are done with the benefit of the child in mind.
However, indeed assume they are not. Assume the parents always want the child to go to bed solely for selfish reasons.
Is there a philosophical/moral/ethical/whatever wrong here, or is everything fine and dandy?

So should a parent be able to give a minor child a nose job without the child wanting one if there's nothing wrong with the nose in the first place?
No, because the medical risks and fall-out from such a procedure would be totally unjustified.

For one thing, putting a small child under general anesthetic is a bad idea. You only do it when you really, really have to. For another thing, the bone and cartilage in that region of a child's face is not fully formed. You risk doing serious and permanent damage when you fuck around with it. There can certainly be medically sound reasons for taking these risks, but cosmetic changes do not meet that standard.

Hahaha only coz, that aint my real name so I wouldn't have it tattooed on my boys arse, and coz he has to be 18 years old before he can get tats!
1. I don't know your real name so using your sn seemed appropriate and I figured that you could mentally insert your real name.
2. Why do you think he has to be 18* to get tats? Perhaps because he'll be old enough to make his own decisions about how his body should look by that age? Why shouldn't the kid have the same option about his genitals?


*although here 16 year olds can get tats if their parents consent to it

No, because the medical risks and fall-out from such a procedure would be totally unjustified.

For one thing, putting a small child under general anesthetic is a bad idea. You only do it when you really, really have to. For another thing, the bone and cartilage in that region of a child's face is not fully formed. You risk doing serious and permanent damage when you fuck around with it. There can certainly be medically sound reasons for taking these risks, but cosmetic changes do not meet that standard.
Then why is amputation of perfectly healthy foreskin which has no medical benefits and is unnecessary surgery "because the parents want it" perfectly alright?

Heh subjectivity in action, I have not had any thing in my ears for at least 15 years, and guess wot? Yep the holes are still there, and in my tounge, and in my nose.
Your body's ability to heal itself sounds really bad. One of my friends who had her tongue pierced for 2 years took it out for three hours to have dinner with her grandparents and it healed up.

Not according to the dentist who preformed my wisdom teeth removal or anyone I know.

Then he was just being modest.

That doesn't mean that shoving a small needle through an ear is surgery.

As to that I don't know.

See, you certainly WOULD notice the loss, because we have toes for a reason. Our feet simply don't work as well without toes.

There's no study to suggest this...And I didn't say remove all the toes, only half of them. ;)

Think of the way you walk, normally. Your toes are part of how you maintain your posture and balance, and they are critical for normal walking motion.

But if I had less toes due to a childhood surgery I wouldn't walk 'normally' but I'd walk in a way that suits the number of toes I have.

As anecdotal evidence I recall an article in a local science mag of a tribe in Africa where a genetic mutation and preference have caused a situation where two toed feet (I think it is called cleft feet) is actually prevalent and found in majority of the tribe.

A bit of googling found this:
http://www.chester.ac.uk/~sjlewis/DM/Babies.htm

Circumcision, when performed correctly, does not result in decreased health for the individual. It also doesn't generally improve one's health. It's just a cosmetic change.

It's a mark of cultural oppression and should be classified as child abuse if it's done without the consent of the target.

I also had to have some teeth removed when I was little. I had four baby teeth pulled because they weren't coming out. Unfortunately, the local didn't work for some reason, and when they started pulling I started screaming. My mother had to make the call: should they leave the teeth partly pulled, should they risk putting me under with a general (not advisable for a small child), or should they just pull them out quick and brutal? She told them to just pull the teeth, and she held my hand while I screamed my head off.

If, as my mother, she was allowed to make that choice on my behalf, I have a hard time seeing why the foreskin should be uniquely protected.
Your teeth weren't being removed for cosmetic reasons, they were removed because they were probably obstructing the path of adult teeth or because there's something wrong with them and they weren't coming out on their own when they should.
Removing the foreskin just after birth is just completely unnecessary.

Then why is amputation of perfectly healthy foreskin which has no medical benefits and is unnecessary surgery "because the parents want it" perfectly alright?
You seem to be totally changing the subject.

You asked, "So should a parent be able to give a minor child a nose job without the child wanting one if there's nothing wrong with the nose in the first place?"

I replied, No, because it's medically unsound to do so.

It is medically neutral to remove the foreskin, under normal circumstances. Kind of like how it is medically neutral to get a kid's ear pierced, provided you do so in a safe and sanitary manner. Personally I may not think it's a great idea, but I also don't think it's a great idea to name your daughter "Chastity."

In general those actions are done with the benefit of the child in mind.
However, indeed assume they are not. Assume the parents always want the child to go to bed solely for selfish reasons.
Is there a philosophical/moral/ethical/whatever wrong here, or is everything fine and dandy?

Like most thinks, we need to take thinks on a one to one basis.

Is it wrong for the Mum who has had enough of her two fighting children to send them to bed early for the totally selfish reason of getting some peace and quite?

No I don't belive so.

Is it wrong for the Dad who has cooked dinner to force his kids into doing the washing up, while he goes and sits down, has a beer, and watches TV?

Again no I don't belive so.

When it comes to morality and ethics nowt is clear cut and simple. Is it moral wrong to take the foreskin from the penis of a boy ages 18months? One of the questions we need to answer is, by this action do we cause the child to suffer?

Well we surly cause him pain, but not for ever, it could be argued that he may suffer some physoclical problems, but that is highly doubtfull.

As Bottle has pointed out it really does only seem to be uncircumsied men that have a problem here. I got done early on in my life, for medical reasons, my brother got snipped at the same time(in case it was hereditry) neither me nor my brother are at all bothered, my other brothers with their skin seem about the same as us two. Niether my kids nor my nepthews have been done, and we are all quite happy, with or without, big deal about nothing, really it is, it really is.

Umm like going to bed at a certian time,
Which has definite benefits such as being alert during the day while the child will be going to school.

or eating all of your dinner,
Which can have definite benefits (so long as the kid isn't being given too much food) especially in terms of getting the proper nutrition a child needs to grow.

or doing your chores?
Which has the definite benefit of teaching a child about responsibilities and being part of a family.

What definite benefit does circumcising an infant have?

1. I don't know your real name so using your sn seemed appropriate and I figured that you could mentally insert your real name.
2. Why do you think he has to be 18* to get tats? Perhaps because he'll be old enough to make his own decisions about how his body should look by that age? Why shouldn't the kid have the same option about his genitals?


*although here 16 year olds can get tats if their parents consent to it

Coz that's the law. Tats also count as surgeries. He may be able to get one with my consent when he is 16(in fact I'm pretty sure that he can) I wont be giving it though.

Your teeth weren't being removed for cosmetic reasons, they were removed because they were probably obstructing the path of adult teeth or because there's something wrong with them and they weren't coming out on their own when they should.

I'm not sure why you think you can assume such things about my dental care.


Removing the foreskin just after birth is just completely unnecessary.
It wasn't necessary for me to have braces for 4 years, either. I would have been perfectly fine without them, I just would have had a raggedy smile.

I notice all the "it's child abuse" conspiracy crowd tends to ignore lil ole me when I sit here and make snarky comments about whether I am "victim" of this "child abuse" and if so, why I firmly disagree that I am.

I guess it's hard to champion someone's "rights" if they are actually arguing against you vehemently. So you have to ignore them.

Wah, it's child abuse, its psychologically scarring, its emotionally and physically brutalizing whether or not it actually is!

I notice all the "it's child abuse" conspiracy crowd tends to ignore lil ole me when I sit here and make snarky comments about whether I am "victim" of this "child abuse" and if so, why I firmly disagree that I am.

I guess it's hard to champion someone's "rights" if they are actually arguing against you vehemently. So you have to ignore them.

Wah, it's child abuse, its psychologically scarring, its emotionally and physically brutalizing whether or not it actually is!
Circumcision was fun. ;) I got to eat in my favorite restaurant afterwards as a treat. And my dad stayed with me to help me clean the wound... great lesson in father-son bonding.

but I also don't think it's a great idea to name your daughter "Chastity."

Yeah, you're just asking for a divine lesson in irony there.

What definite benefit does circumcising an infant have?

Errr it gets rid of that flappy bit of skin?

I notice all the "it's child abuse" conspiracy crowd tends to ignore lil ole me when I sit here and make snarky comments about whether I am "victim" of this "child abuse" and if so, why I firmly disagree that I am.

I guess it's hard to champion someone's "rights" if they are actually arguing against you vehemently. So you have to ignore them.

Wah, it's child abuse, its psychologically scarring, its emotionally and physically brutalizing whether or not it actually is!
Heh. When I asked my partner how he felt about lacking a foreskin, he laughed.

He said (and I'm paraphrasing, here) that he and his penis were very good buddies, and he'd never felt that their relationship was missing anything.

Circumcision was fun. ;) I got to eat in my favorite restaurant afterwards as a treat. And my dad stayed with me to help me clean the wound... great lesson in father-son bonding.

Heh I can't remember I was rushed into the hospital pissing blood one!

You seem to be totally changing the subject.

You asked, "So should a parent be able to give a minor child a nose job without the child wanting one if there's nothing wrong with the nose in the first place?"

I replied, No, because it's medically unsound to do so.

It is medically neutral to remove the foreskin, under normal circumstances.
So you missed the earlier references to various medical groups citing the unnecessary nature of infant circumcision and advising against the routine removal of foreskin? There are a number of things that can go wrong and any unnecessary surgery, especially on a child who isn't consenting to this idea is just stupid.

Kind of like how it is medically neutral to get a kid's ear pierced, provided you do so in a safe and sanitary manner.
Having minor surgery isn't at all the same as having ears pierced. I also don't agree with having a child's ears pierced without their consent either because there are no benefits to such an action.

Personally I may not think it's a great idea, but I also don't think it's a great idea to name your daughter "Chastity."
Well, at least the kid can change her name when she gets older, a boy has to go to great lengths to regrow his foreskin.

Heh I can't remember I was rushed into the hospital pissing blood one!
Funny story:

My father got a vasectomy shortly after my little brother was born. I was about 9 years old at the time, and I was worried because Daddy was just laying on the couch looking like he was sick. In my family there's no taboo when it comes to talking about sexual stuff, so my mother told me honestly why Daddy was in pain.

The funny part is that I misunderstood things slightly, and for years I thought that "vasectomy" and "circumcision" were the same thing. This led to a very interesting conversation with one of my first boyfriends.

But if I had less toes due to a childhood surgery I wouldn't walk 'normally' but I'd walk in a way that suits the number of toes I have.

As anecdotal evidence I recall an article in a local science mag of a tribe in Africa where a genetic mutation and preference have caused a situation where two toed feet (I think it is called cleft feet) is actually prevalent and found in majority of the tribe.

A bit of googling found this:
http://www.chester.ac.uk/~sjlewis/DM/Babies.htm

Lo, bit more googling and we have a wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma

I hereby promote a culture of removal of children's toes in order to lessen foot trouble at an older age.

Or perhaps awaiting informed consent before doing unnecessary mutilation of genitals because of wrong sex would be more rational?

Is it wrong for the Mum who has had enough of her two fighting children to send them to bed early for the totally selfish reason of getting some peace and quite?

No I don't belive so.
It's also teaching children that misbehaving isn't acceptable.

Is it wrong for the Dad who has cooked dinner to force his kids into doing the washing up, while he goes and sits down, has a beer, and watches TV?

Again no I don't belive so.
Teaches children responsibility.

When it comes to morality and ethics nowt is clear cut and simple. Is it moral wrong to take the foreskin from the penis of a boy ages 18months? One of the questions we need to answer is, by this action do we cause the child to suffer?
That's not the issue. The issue is whether parents should be able to make unnecessary and permanent cosmetic changes to their child without the child's consent.

Well, at least the kid can change her name when she gets older, a boy has to go to great lengths to regrow his foreskin.
It can't be done. Foreskin cannot "regrow". The only way someone might recover the lost skin is through skin graft, and even then, the sensibility and nerve receptors are not fully recovered, and the loss of sensation on the glans does not necessarily revert either.

It's a procedure that's final, and that's why I strongly oppose it unless the person undergoing it is old enough to understand what it entails, and consents to it.

I'm not sure why you think you can assume such things about my dental care.
I think it seems pretty likely the case though... so tell me, removing your baby teeth that weren't coming out on their own was purely cosmetic then?

It wasn't necessary for me to have braces for 4 years, either. I would have been perfectly fine without them, I just would have had a raggedy smile.
Did your parents choose to give you braces without talking to you about it at all?
I mean, I remember nagging my parents for two years to get braces before my mouth was developed enough to get them.

Errr it gets rid of that flappy bit of skin?
How is that a benefit? Penises are perfectly fine with that flappy bit of skin.

Coz that's the law. Tats also count as surgeries. He may be able to get one with my consent when he is 16(in fact I'm pretty sure that he can) I wont be giving it though.
Yeah, it's the law that you can't go about making unnecessary cosmetic changes to your children via tattoos. Why should you be able to amputate their foreskin which is an unnecessary cosmetic procedure?

Is it a general view in North America that circumcised penises are more attractive?

It should be the child's choice when he is old enough tomake the choice. I mean, if a kid wants decreased sexual sensation, he can have it. But it's not his parent's decision.

Is it a general view in North America that circumcised penises are more attractive?

They are disgusting and I have a hard time looking at them.

Heh I can't remember I was rushed into the hospital pissing blood one!
Who did yours? Mine was done by a pediatrician... complete with anesthesia, and sutures and stuff... but once the anesthesia wore off - :eek:

Is it a general view in North America that circumcised penises are more attractive?

I think it's one of those "what you are familiar" with type of things.....

Until I was about 16 I didn't understand what it meant to be circumcised because I had never seen an uncircumcised penis. I just couldn't understand what it meant or what was missing, or what an uncut penis even looked like.

Why should you be able to amputate their foreskin which is an unnecessary cosmetic procedure?

It's interesting that you can take the last 25+ pages of discussion including numerous citations to reputable health organizations that cite numerous documented health benefits of circumcision and yet be able to define it as a "cosmetic procedure".

Is it a general view in North America that circumcised penises are more attractive?
Just the US, don't be lumping the rest of us in with them.

So you missed the earlier references to various medical groups citing the unnecessary nature of infant circumcision and advising against the routine removal of foreskin?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of what it means to be "routine".

Have you managed to find a single citation to any medical group that recommends NOT getting a circumcision? Any single one? At all?

I think it's one of those "what you are familiar" with type of things.....

Until I was about 16 I didn't understand what it meant to be circumcised because I had never seen an uncircumcised penis. I just couldn't understand what it meant or what was missing, or what an uncut penis even looked like.

I'm 20 and I still don't know what one looks like...I was never to eager to go out and solve that mystery.

All of the cited health benefits refer to adults in countries with poor hygiene- not to kiddies in western countries.

Oh, countries with poor hygiene. You mean like those tropical third world islands like Manhattan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/nyregion/05aids.html?fta=y)?

Lowered risk of urinary tract infection and lowered risk of HIV infection are benefits. No matter how you try to twist it or complain about it or say "well there are OTHER ways!" it's still a benefit. Decreased risk of certain bacterial and viral infections is a benefit. No matter how you may define it, it's a benefit.

It's interesting that you can take the last 25+ pages of discussion including numerous citations to reputable health organizations that cite numerous documented health benefits of circumcision and yet be able to define it as a "cosmetic procedure".
You haven't provided any real health benefits! The reduction in HIV transmission rates is better with condoms than circumcision, the penile cancer is negligible to begin with and really, there aren't any benefits to circumcising infants at all.

I had to be circumcised in my late teens for medical reasons. I'd rather not be.

It's interesting that you can take the last 25+ pages of discussion including numerous citations to reputable health organizations that cite numerous documented health benefits of circumcision and yet be able to define it as a "cosmetic procedure".

All of the cited health benefits refer to adults in countries with poor hygiene- not to kiddies in western countries.

Unless there is a direct problem, circumcision is cosmetic in the cases where this poll is about.

I'm 20 and I still don't know what one looks like...I was never to eager to go out and solve that mystery.

erect they look about the same...

it's not a huge difference. I can understand being pissed that your parents made a decision without your consent or whatever, but really, I don't see how it makes any big difference in your sex life one way or another......but I haven't ever had a penis, so I guess I wouldn't know.

You haven't provided any real health benefits!

You don't think cutting the risks of a deadly and fatal virus in half is a benefit? You have a strange definition of benefit


The reduction in HIV transmission rates is better with condoms than circumcision

When the man uses a "pull out" method, the risk of pregnancy is decreased than if he did not do it at all. If a man swore to you to pull out in time, and even if you trusted him, would you suddenly not use birth control because, after all, you're already using SOME degree of "protection"? Or is the fact that ONE method does reduce risks, that suddenly means that TWO methods don't compliment each other?

You would make a very good point if condoms and circumcisions were mutually exclusive. However, they are not, so the fact that condoms also provide HIV protection really isn't relevant.

Yes, a condom provides reduction in risk of HIV transmission. So does a circumcision. Someone with a circumcision but not using a condom is probably more likely to get HIV than someone who uses a condom but is not circumcised.

However someone who uses a condom and is circumcised has the lowest risk of the three. Yes, congratulations, you repeated an argument that was raised 20 pages ago, which is that a condom is better prevention than a circumcision when it comes to HIV.

Now respond to the point that was made 19 pages ago, which is that a condom and a circumcision is better than a condom alone.

It's interesting that you can take the last 25+ pages of discussion including numerous citations to reputable health organizations that cite numerous documented health benefits of circumcision and yet be able to define it as a "cosmetic procedure".

From what I've read, that's really what it boils down to - in a 1st world country, anyways.

In places where sanitation, hygiene, and safe sex are all hard to come by, they find significant differences in health issues between circumcised and uncircumcised men. When they do similar studies in areas with good sanitation and hygiene, where condom use is common, they don't find such differences.

erect they look about the same...


This is true *nods*

However someone who uses a condom and is circumcised has the lowest risk of the three.

But when they do comparisons in areas where condom use is common, they generally don't find any significant difference at all between circumcised and uncircumcised men, suggesting that the contribution from circumcision in such areas is so negligible that an additive effect cannot be demonstrated.

erect they look about the same...

it's not a huge difference. I can understand being pissed that your parents made a decision without your consent or whatever, but really, I don't see how it makes any big difference in your sex life one way or another......but I haven't ever had a penis, so I guess I wouldn't know.

I couldn't care less.

It's just a flap of skin, it's not like my father cut it in half because he was jealous...or did he?

From what I've read, that's really what it boils down to - in a 1st world country, anyways.

Then why does the NEW YORK Department of Health recommend it?

But when they do comparisons in areas where condom use is common, they generally don't find any significant difference at all between circumcised and uncircumcised men, suggesting that the contribution from circumcision in such areas is so negligible that an additive effect cannot be demonstrated.

care to provide a source for that?

You don't think cutting the risks of a deadly and fatal virus in half is a benefit? You have a strange definition of benefit
Not when non-surgical methods that have additional benefits that exceed the so-called benefits of the surgical ones.

When the man uses a "pull out" method, the risk of pregnancy is decreased than if he did not do it at all. If a man swore to you to pull out in time, and even if you trusted him, would you suddenly not use birth control because, after all, you're already using SOME degree of "protection"? Or is the fact that ONE method does reduce risks, that suddenly means that TWO methods don't compliment each other?
Uh... I wouldn't fuck someone if they didn't use a condom unless I was planning on having a kid. Period.

You would make a very good point if condoms and circumcisions were mutually exclusive. However, they are not, so the fact that condoms also provide HIV protection really isn't relevant.
So the fact that in couples with one HIV positive partner where condoms are always used properly, the other partner does not get infected with HIV in any studies means that men need to have an additional barrier? I don't really see how it's necessary at all.

Someone with a circumcision but not using a condom is probably more likely to get HIV than someone who uses a condom but is not circumcised.
Actually, no. Someone who uses a condom properly every single time is pretty much not going to ever get hiv through sex.

Now respond to the point that was made 19 pages ago, which is that a condom and a circumcision is better than a condom alone.
Not really.

to presume 100% efficiency, even when used correctly, is ascinine

to presume 100% efficiency, even when used correctly, is ascinine
To ignore various studies which have found 99-100% efficiency is asinine. This number is much better than your 50% for circumcision alone crap.

I have nothing to back this up, but my mother told me once that pain in early childhood leads to sensitive and overly-emotional adults.

I think it seems pretty likely the case though... so tell me, removing your baby teeth that weren't coming out on their own was purely cosmetic then?

Pretty much, yeah. It was so that I could get braces put on.


Did your parents choose to give you braces without talking to you about it at all?

Yes. They talked with me about it after the decision had been made, but I wasn't consulted about it.


I mean, I remember nagging my parents for two years to get braces before my mouth was developed enough to get them.
I got mine pretty early. I know I had them in 4th grade, though I can't remember exactly when they were put on.

I have nothing to back this up, but my mother told me once that pain in early childhood leads to sensitive and overly-emotional adults.

not in the first week or so after birth.

So you missed the earlier references to various medical groups citing the unnecessary nature of infant circumcision and advising against the routine removal of foreskin? There are a number of things that can go wrong and any unnecessary surgery, especially on a child who isn't consenting to this idea is just stupid.

Unnecessary =/= harmful.


Having minor surgery isn't at all the same as having ears pierced. I also don't agree with having a child's ears pierced without their consent either because there are no benefits to such an action.

*Shrug* That's your call.


Well, at least the kid can change her name when she gets older, a boy has to go to great lengths to regrow his foreskin.
And he'd have to go to great lengths to have it removed, too. Either way, he's got to have an operation to change his penis.

I have nothing to back this up, but my mother told me once that pain in early childhood leads to sensitive and overly-emotional adults.

Freud would say that pain in early childhood develops the child into a masochist. Who eventually sleeps with his father after fantasizing about his mother.

care to provide a source for that?

There really isn't a single source I could give you, as my opinion has been pulled from quite a few. I've seen lots of discussion on this issue and I've looked at a lot of the various studies that proponents and opponents bring forth. I don't, however, save all of those studies after I read them.

One of the things I've noticed is that studies performed in Britain, for instance, tend to find no significant difference in disease transmission. Studies performed in various African countries, on the other hand, quite often do. In fact, the vast majority of the major studies people will bring up have been carried out in African countries.

After looking into this issue several times in a fair amount of depth, I'm simply not convinced that there are any significant health benefits that would convince me to have a son circumcised. And, interestingly enough, major health organizations in the US have been progressively moving away from recommending circumcision. When my brother was born, medical organizations generally held that routine circumcision should be recommended by doctors. These days, they no longer recommend routine circumcision - some pointing out that the health benefits and risk/benefit analysis simply aren't clear enough to do so - and leaving it to the parents to decide on their own.

I'm sure some people (like you, apparently) are fully convinced that the health benefits are significant. Others (like me) simply aren't. I'd rather not make permanent changes to my child's anatomy when I simply don't see a medical necessity.

Unnecessary =/= harmful.
When it involves anesthesia on an infant, I think it's generally more harmful to do it than not.

And he'd have to go to great lengths to have it removed, too. Either way, he's got to have an operation to change his penis.
Yeah, and the operation to get circumcised later in life is easier than the operations required to regrow foreskin (which won't ever be the same). Besides, circumcising an adult is less likely to result in errors or growth issues.

I have nothing to back this up, but my mother told me once that pain in early childhood leads to sensitive and overly-emotional adults.
When you compare the physical trauma of being born to the physical trauma of a circumcision, I'd say it's unlikely that a baby will be psychologically scarred by receiving a circumcision. :P

I'm sure some people (like you, apparently) are fully convinced that the health benefits are significant. Others (like me) simply aren't. I'd rather not make permanent changes to my child's anatomy when I simply don't see a medical necessity.

And you know what, as I have said numerous times in this thread, that's FINE. Totally fine. You absolutly have that right.

Just as long as you, unlike the OP, wouldn't presume to try and tell me how to make decisions for my children.

Pretty much, yeah. It was so that I could get braces put on.
That's really weird... I've seen kids whose baby teeth hadn't come out and usually they have problems related to having an extra couple of teeth in their mouth and the like.

I got mine pretty early. I know I had them in 4th grade, though I can't remember exactly when they were put on.
I got mine in grade 5. I wanted them since second grade when my classmates took to calling me a bunny rabbit or beaver.

When it involves anesthesia on an infant, I think it's generally more harmful to do it than not.

Circumcision is NOT normally performed using a general. If somebody is using general anesthetic on newborn babies for a purely cosmetic procedure, then yes, that would be deeply fucked up.


Yeah, and the operation to get circumcised later in life is easier than the operations required to regrow foreskin (which won't ever be the same). Besides, circumcising an adult is less likely to result in errors or growth issues.
Again, it's pretty neutral as far as I'm concerned.

If you circumcise the kid while he's a baby and he ends up being fine with it, then he has a penis he likes and doesn't have to have any operation that he is consciously aware of.

If you don't circumcise the kid while he's a baby and he ends up being fine with it, then he has a penis he likes and doesn't have to have any operation that he is consciously aware of.

If you circumcise him and he doesn't like the outcome, then he faces the possibility of having a penis operation as a grown up. Not fun.

If you don't circumcise him and he doesn't like that outcome, then he faces the possibility of having a penis operation as a grown up. Not fun.

I got mine in grade 5. I wanted them since second grade when my classmates took to calling me a bunny rabbit or beaver.
I didn't particularly care. I liked having colors on the braces, I suppose, but I hadn't really given any thought to it before I got the braces on.

Circumcision is NOT normally performed using a general. If somebody is using general anesthetic on newborn babies for a purely cosmetic procedure, then yes, that would be deeply fucked up.
Isn't local anesthetic also bad?

If you circumcise the kid while he's a baby and he ends up being fine with it, then he has a penis he likes and doesn't have to have any operation that he is consciously aware of.

If you don't circumcise the kid while he's a baby and he ends up being fine with it, then he has a penis he likes and doesn't have to have any operation that he is consciously aware of.

If you circumcise him and he doesn't like the outcome, then he faces the possibility of having a penis operation as a grown up. Not fun.

If you don't circumcise him and he doesn't like that outcome, then he faces the possibility of having a penis operation as a grown up. Not fun.
Except that surgeries to regrow foreskin don't replicate the original, so it should be left alone and left up to the kid when he reaches adulthood.

I didn't particularly care. I liked having colors on the braces, I suppose, but I hadn't really given any thought to it before I got the braces on.
Hmm... well, I suppose if some adults start getting pissed that they had braces growing up and want their crooked teeth back then this might be a bit different...

Then why does the NEW YORK Department of Health recommend it?

Beats me. It might still be a sanitation and hygiene issue, though.

None of the following recommend routine infant circumcision: American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Urological Association. For the most part, all of them say that the possible risks and benefits should be discussed, and that the decision should be completely left up to the parents. They make no recommendation either way.

And when you get out of the US, it seems that you're even less likely to find a medical association actually recommending it.

It would appear that the closest thing to a medical consensus in 1st world countries is that there is no consensus and that the medical community isn't going to tell you what to do either way. They won't tell you that you should do it, and they won't tell you not to. They'll simply explain, as best they can, the risks and benefits, and leave it to the parents. Depending on the area or even the particular doctor, they may lean one way or another on it.


Just as long as you, unlike the OP, wouldn't presume to try and tell me how to make decisions for my children.

Well, I might presume depending on your motives, but I'm not seeking any changes in the law - so you'd be perfectly able to ignore me. =)

I realize that someone else might read the same papers I have and come to the conclusion that they should use circumcision as preventative medicine. I'm not going to blame them if they then get a son circumcised - they are doing what they believe to be in his best interest. As I said earlier, I have a huge problem with doing it for religious reasons, but there's nothing that can be done about that from a legal standpoint if parents can do it for medical reasons.

Isn't local anesthetic also bad?

I don't think it necessarily is. I'm not an expert, though. I think using something like lidocaine is pretty harmless for normal infants.


Except that surgeries to regrow foreskin don't replicate the original, so it should be left alone and left up to the kid when he reaches adulthood.
And surgeries to remove the foreskin in adulthood will result in the penis being different than if it had been cut for the male's entire lifespan.

You can't undo the past, in either case.

And surgeries to remove the foreskin in adulthood will result in the penis being different than if it had been cut for the male's entire lifespan.

You can't undo the past, in either case.
Yeah, but a circumcision later in life won't result in a penis that's worse than a penis that's been circumcised at birth. If anything, the fact that it's bigger and the surgeons can better see what they're doing should result in fewer complications.

Yeah, but a circumcision later in life won't result in a penis that's worse than a penis that's been circumcised at birth. If anything, the fact that it's bigger and the surgeons can better see what they're doing should result in fewer complications.

except for the fact that a larger penis means more surface area, and a higher risk of infection as a result, I would guess

except for the fact that a larger penis means more surface area, and a higher risk of infection as a result, I would guess
Yes, because having an infant that wears diapers should totally help prevent infections.

Let's say that circumcision hadn't been around until now and someone all of the sudden came up with the idea that we should cut off the foreskin of all newborn boys. What do you think you would think of it then? You still think that you would find it okay or just sick?

Let's say that circumcision hadn't been around until now and someone all of the sudden came up with the idea that we should cut off the foreskin of all newborn boys. What do you think you would think of it then? You still think that you would find it okay or just sick?
I don't think it's any more (or less) weird than many other things humans do to modify their bodies. Given that our culture considers it normal for a female human to implant balloons in her breasts, and "vaginal rejuvenation surgery" is a hot new fad, I don't think I would find circumcision particularly bizarre even if I'd never heard of it before.

I don't think it's any more (or less) weird than many other things humans do to modify their bodies. Given that our culture considers it normal for a female human to implant balloons in her breasts, and "vaginal rejuvenation surgery" is a hot new fad, I don't think I would find circumcision particularly bizarre even if I'd never heard of it before.
Yeah, if you look through bme.com you can find men who do weirder things to their penises.


However, these are adult men, not infants.

I don't think it's any more (or less) weird than many other things humans do to modify their bodies. Given that our culture considers it normal for a female human to implant balloons in her breasts, and "vaginal rejuvenation surgery" is a hot new fad, I don't think I would find circumcision particularly bizarre even if I'd never heard of it before.

Yeah, but these are grown-up women who choose to get implants. Wouldn't you find it bizarre if parents all of the sudden decided to give implants to their newborn girls?

Yeah, but these are grown-up women who choose to get implants. Wouldn't you find it bizarre if parents all of the sudden decided to give implants to their newborn girls?
We live in a world where there are parents who choose to cut off their daughter's clitoris and labia and then sew her vagina closed, all without any form of anesthetic, performed by a non-professional in a non-sterile environment.

We live in a world where parents would repeatedly and continually break the bones of their child's feet, permanently crippling her and leaving her with life-long pain and infections, because having tiny, twisted feet was considered beautiful.

Seriously, male circumcision is pretty small potatoes, in the grand scheme of Weird Things Parents Do To Their Children. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right or anything, but how could anybody possibly be shocked by male circumcision, given all the other things people do to their children's bodies?

Yeah, if you look through bme.com you can find men who do weirder things to their penises.


However, these are adult men, not infants.
To be sure. But the question was if I would find it weird. I wouldn't, considering that body modification is pretty common throughout the world and throughout human history.

Having minor surgery isn't at all the same as having ears pierced. I also don't agree with having a child's ears pierced without their consent either because there are no benefits to such an action.

What so then only things that have benefits should be done? Actually I'm mightily glad of that, now I can tell my youngest that he can't have that expensive pair of new trainers(he'll get the cheap ones) as there are no benefits to it.

Surly though some things that are beneficial are also subjective? I see no benefit in me seeing any type of councilor for any problems I may have, but lots of people do feel the benefit.

If a circumcised kid grows up to love his smooth penis, then surly he has the benefit of being happy in his life. How can you know which of the desicions you make on behalf of your children will be beneficial in the future?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether parents should be able to make unnecessary and permanent cosmetic changes to their child without the child's consent.


Ohh I thought the issue was about male circumsicion?

But yes of course we should be able to do this. We actually do it every day don't we. Hair cuts, ear piercings.

What so then only things that have benefits should be done?

If done to other people without their consent ? In principle yes - the action
should benefit them or it is wrong of you to do it.

But, as you said, very few people actually live that philosophically.

How is that a benefit? Penises are perfectly fine with that flappy bit of skin.

You didn't ask what benefit, you ask what does circumsicion do. Ohh and penises are also perfectly fine without that flappy skin.

You don't think cutting the risks of a deadly and fatal virus in half is a benefit? You have a strange definition of benefit

Oh for f's sake...

Look at this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/HIV_Epidemx3.png). First spot the more developed countries where safe sex is a norm, say US, Canada, western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Now spot the ones that practice routine circumcision on infants, that's US and South Korea. Do you spot any significant difference? Or let's make it easier, any difference at all?

As for UTI and penile cancer, preventing an obscure, practically non-existant or a curable disease does not turn an unnecessary cosmetic surgery a valid medical procedure.

If done to other people without their consent ? In principle yes - the action
should benefit them or it is wrong of you to do it.

But, as you said, very few people actually live that philosophically.
I should hope not. Most choices parents make regarding their children are neutral. Like getting the kid a haircut. The kid would be fine without one, after all. Or getting the kid a new toy just because. The kid would be fine without a toy right now, but sometimes it's just nice to make Junior smile.

There's very often a large disagreement over what would "benefit" a child anyhow. Some people think it benefits a child to spank them, others think the opposite. Some people think a child benefits from living in a home where no sugary foods can be found, others think the opposite.

As for UTI and penile cancer, preventing an obscure, practically non-existant or a curable disease does not turn an unnecessary cosmetic surgery a valid medical procedure.

... we shouldn't try to prevent curable diseases?

I don't see how it's relevant that circumcision is cosmetic surgery. If a procedure has medical benefits reasonably outweighing the risks it is medically valid, regardless of what reasons it's actually performed for.

Who did yours? Mine was done by a pediatrician... complete with anesthesia, and sutures and stuff... but once the anesthesia wore off - :eek:

Heh naaa I think you misunderstand, lemme explain.

I was born with one functioning kidney, and one fucked up one, although all of this wasn't known at the time. So one day when I started pissing blood, and my dad rushed me into the hospital, the doctor there said 'ohhhh yeah his foreskin is too tight, we'd best have that off'

It should be the child's choice when he is old enough tomake the choice. I mean, if a kid wants decreased sexual sensation, he can have it. But it's not his parent's decision.

Bwhahahahha! Ohhh really?

I have nothing to back this up, but my mother told me once that pain in early childhood leads to sensitive and overly-emotional adults.

Bwahahah yeah and my dad told me that all black men are muggers!

... we shouldn't try to prevent curable diseases?

If you can prevent the small chance of an easily curable disease by deforming surgery, or alternatively wait for the unlikely event of that disease manifesting and then treating it with antibiotics, which would seem more appealing to you?

I don't see how it's relevant that circumcision is cosmetic surgery. If a procedure has medical benefits reasonably outweighing the risks it is medically valid, regardless of what reasons it's actually performed for.

If it's done for cosmetic reasons, it's a cosmetic surgery. It's a medical surgery if it's done for, you know, medical benefits. Benefits which in this case are sort of insignificant, at least if you live in a developed nation. Some people have this funny notion that doing irreversible cosmetic surgery to people when they are not able to give their consent is sort of wrong.

If you can prevent the small chance of an easily curable disease by deforming surgery, or alternatively wait for the unlikely event of that disease manifesting and then treating it with antibiotics, which would seem more appealing to you?

I'd rather prevent my child from becoming sick, personally.

Also, are you aware of how insulting it is for you to suggest that all circumcised men are "deformed"? My partner certainly doesn't feel that way about his penis, so why do you feel entitled to tell him that he's deformed?


If it's done for cosmetic reasons, it's a cosmetic surgery. It's a medical surgery if it's done for, you know, medical benefits.

Many surgeries are both. For instance, my cousin had a nose job because she was having breathing problems, but a plastic surgeon helped to ensure that the result was a nose that was cosmetically pleasing.


Benefits which in this case are sort of insignificant, at least if you live in a developed nation.

You may feel they are insignificant benefits. Others disagree with you.

There are adult men who disagree with you, in fact, and choose to be circumcised. I suppose you're quite comfortable telling all of those men that you know what's best for them, though. Just like you're comfortable telling parents that you know what's best for their child better than they do. Perhaps you could also tell them which hairstyles are appropriate, and whether or not to allow their child to get his ear pierced?


Some people have this funny notion that doing irreversible cosmetic surgery to people when they are not able to give their consent is sort of wrong.
Yes, some people feel that way. Others don't. We're all on board with that concept.

That is a funny notion. When I was 10 years old, I never gave my consent to have one of my kidneys taken out, but I'm bloody glad that my parents insisted that it be done.

You're glad your kidney was taken out for cosmetic reasons? Damn, I'd be kind of pissed of that.

Some people have this funny notion that doing irreversible cosmetic surgery to people when they are not able to give their consent is sort of wrong.

That is a funny notion. When I was 10 years old, I never gave my consent to have one of my kidneys taken out, but I'm bloody glad that my parents insisted that it be done.

You're glad your kidney was taken out for cosmetic reasons? Damn, I'd be kind of pissed of that.
Do you realize that you are arguing that a parent has the right to decide if their child's organs will be removed, but they don't have the right to decide if their child's foreskin will be removed?

If parents are intelligent enough and trustworthy enough to be choosing whether or not their son has his kidney out, how on Earth can you turn around and claim that you don't trust their judgment regarding his foreskin?

... we shouldn't try to prevent curable diseases?

Conservative treatment in the event of UTIs , rather than surgery as prophylaxis, would be much cheaper here.

And don't forget that penile cancer is relatively rare

I'd rather prevent my child from becoming sick, personally.

You'd subject your child to a treatment that is more painful and dangerous than the disease he is unlikely to catch in the first place? Well good for you, I guess.

There are adult men who disagree with you, in fact, and choose to be circumcised. I suppose you're quite comfortable telling all of those men that you know what's best for them, though.

Could you point out exactly where I've said that an adult can't do with his own body what he pleases?

Do you realize that you are arguing that a parent has the right to decide if their child's organs will be removed, but they don't have the right to decide if their child's foreskin will be removed?

I make a distinction between medical and cosmetic procedures, as I have pointed out earlier. More than once, actually. Also I wouldn't allow a parent to take their child's kidney out because THEY (not the doctor's, mind you) think there MIGHT, some time in the FUTURE, be something wrong with that kidney. Even though I'm sure having only one kidney would reduce the chances of contracting some kidney-related illnesses.

You'd subject your child to a treatment that is more painful and dangerous than the disease he is unlikely to catch in the first place? Well good for you, I guess.

Now you're starting to lose it. A circumcision is not more dangerous and painful than penile cancer. Particularly since if the circumcision is performed when the child is an infant, he will have absolutely no memory of it.


Could you point out exactly where I've said that an adult can't do with his own body what he pleases?

Why should I? That's not what I said.

You referred to circumcision as "deforming surgery." Why do you feel the need to claim that circumcised men are deformed? Why do you think that you are qualified to tell them how they should feel about their penis?


I make a distinction between medical and cosmetic procedures, as I have pointed out earlier. More than once, actually.
A purely arbitrary distinction, as we've established.


I wouldn't allow a parent to take their child's kidney out because THEY (not the doctor's, mind you) think there MIGHT, some time in the FUTURE, be something wrong with that kidney. Even though I'm sure having only one kidney would reduce the chances of contracting some kidney-related illnesses.
So who should be empowered to make these medical choices, if not the parents?

We don't even allow it for dogs anymore unless for a proper reason - why humans?

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(dog))
In the USA we're allowed to neuter our pets. In fact, we're strongly encouraged to do so. If we're allowed to remove a dog's testicles completely, I think it's a bit weird to say that it would then be wrong to circumcise him.

At any rate, with a few notable exceptions men are not dogs, nor are dogs men. The rules which govern medical care for humans are not the same as the rules for veterinary care of animals.

Conservative treatment in the event of UTIs , rather than surgery as prophylaxis, would be much cheaper here.

And don't forget that penile cancer is relatively rare

Oh, sure. I just brought that up because that sounded to me like blanket reasoning for diseases in general.

We don't even allow it for dogs anymore unless for a proper reason - why humans?

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(dog))

In England and Wales, ear cropping is illegal and no dog with cropped ears can take part in any Kennel Club event (including agility and other nonconformation events). Tail docking is legal for a few working breeds, but only when carried out by a registered veterinary surgeon. See below for more information. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom, has said that they consider tail docking to be "an unjustified mutilation and unethical unless done for therapeutic or acceptable prophylactic reasons".

Now you're starting to lose it. A circumcision is not more dangerous and painful than penile cancer. Particularly since if the circumcision is performed when the child is an infant, he will have absolutely no memory of it.

I thought we were talking about UTI. As for penile cancer, you might read up on a concept called expected value. Circumcision probably is more dangerous and painful, if you take into account the odds of contracting penile cancer and how much circumcision even affects those odds.