Circumcision - Surgical vaccination, or genital mutilation?

[Moonshadow]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/circumcision-support-from-royal-australasian-college-of-physicians-to-cut-hiv-risk/comments-e6frea8c-1225926474441

So, this topic has me fairly incensed over it. Religious reasons, or actual legitimate medical reasons aside (having a foreskin that is too tight and makes it painful to get erections, for example), I have no idea why this barbaric practice is still happening.

I've read many a person's opinions on the matter, and everyone who is for it seems to have the same excuse, namely that they think it looks better, and that it's cleaner.

For one thing, it's a penis. It's not there to look pretty, it's there to serve a procreational purpose, and as for the hygiene, if parents aren't teaching their children how to wash properly, then I think they probably shouldn't be parents. Thats like, basic parenting 101.

Circumcised men also seem to think that just because they're mutilated, they're somehow less likely to catch STD's, and forgoe the use of condoms, which are really what's stopping that, not having part of your body lopped off.

That's another part of the arguement that annoys me too. "But if we chop it off, they won't catch x!" Really now? I can apply that logic to other things too. If we chop off everyones breasts, no one will get breast cancer! Better yet, lets just euthanise everyone, death seems to prevent people from catching anything.

So. Thoughts? Please don't stray into the afore mentioned religious reasons, and no pictures please.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Reviewed the thread and the issue, and decided to give this thread a chance. Re-opened.

[SMEE]

The Rainbow mod: Also, please keep the discussion away from real world religions, politics and avoid overly sexual discussion about the matter.

[AtlanteanTroll]

How does being circumised mean you think you shouldn't use a condom? Second, people don't choose to get circumised, their parents choose it for them.

[CrimsonAngel]

As long as I can't remember it.

[KnightDisciple]

How much can be said on this?:smallconfused:

I mean, none of us woke up and said "I shall get circumcised today". It was a choice by our parents. I really doubt any parent who made that choice did so to cause their child pain, or "mutilate" them (everything still works fine, so it's comparatively light "mutilation"), or any such things. For one reason or another, they made a decision that they felt was a good choice, and was performed by trained professionals in a clean, precise manner.

Those of us who won't be having kids soon might keep the issue in mind, but there's not much to be done. Those who will soon have kids in some manner or another will make the choice they feel they need to make.

That...pretty much covers it, doesn't it?:smallconfused:

[onthetown]

It just seems to be mainstream right now. "Source X said that if we do it, we'll save our baby boy from diseases and it'll look great!"

But it's the parents' choice, for whatever reason they do it, and I don't think it really has any long-term effects. I worked in an office with a doctor who did circumcisions, so you learn to look past the fact that it's an unnecessary surgery (except for the reasons you noted in the original post) and just see that it's not your life and not your child's life. If you don't like it, don't have it done.

[CrimsonAngel]

I'm glad my parents didn't need to show me how to wash my foreskin. That would be awkward for both of us...

[AtlanteanTroll]

It just seems to be mainstream right now. "Source X said that if we do it, we'll save our baby boy from diseases and it'll look great!"

It's not like circumsions are new though.

[John Cribati]

I can think of exactly one way that my life would be different if I lacked a foreskin, and it would be something completely and utterly superficial that I've already worked out myself, several years ago. Though I hear that the lack of the foreskin makes the glans (that's the head, right?) a but less sensitive or something, but as I still have my foreskin, I cannot judge that for myself. And I'm far too old to see what it would be like for the sake of science.

I wonder if the Mythbusters would be up to it?

[ghost_warlock]

Only major issue with it, that I'm aware of, is that doctors sometimes (alarmingly often) slip up and nip more than they mean to, causing irreparable nerve damage. Affected individuals report lower than normal degrees of enjoyment/satisfaction with intimate activities.

Really, though, this is the sort of thing we should come to expect with unnecessary, elective surgery.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Unnecessary how? Now maybe, but it was had more use back in the middle ages. I'd get out my Health Book, but I hate that page.

[JoshuaZ]

The literature about whether circumcision helps prevent STDs and if so which STDs and how much is really complicated. See for example these two (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089625) articles (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10726934) about HIV transmission. For some other diseases the result is more clear cut. There's similar disagreement about HPV. See for example this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16997378).

What seems more clear is that circumcision protects against a large variety of opportunistic infections. But it isn't clear whether that protection justifies routine circumcision. Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2702407). This historically made sense when overall hygiene was poorer and antibiotics were not an option. But it may even make sense today; the exact statistics here are important.

Discussing this issue in any useful way likely requires more medical background than most people on this site have.


That's another part of the arguement that annoys me too. "But if we chop it off, they won't catch x!" Really now? I can apply that logic to other things too. If we chop off everyones breasts, no one will get breast cancer! Better yet, lets just euthanise everyone, death seems to prevent people from catching anything

Bad comparison. We engage in surgery all the time in order to prevent problems. And in fact, for people with a high risk of certain cancers, there are circumstances where an organ will be removed proactively. There are complicated trade-offs involved in these sorts of decisions. (I think that the vast majority of people when thinking about whether or not to circumcise there children aren't thinking in detail about these issues. Humans are rarely rational creatures and this is one example of many where rationality is in general not high.)

[John Cribati]

I have been quoted. Truly this is a day to rejoice.

[Runestar]

I guess it is part of their culture. Circumcision probably served some purpose in the past (I think nomads in desert places circumcised themselves for hygiene purposes, because they bathed like...once a month?)

While this is no longer relevant today, the practice endures because of tradition, I suppose.

[Seffbasilisk]

Circumcision does not improve the health. The only reduction in chance of infection and such, is that there is less to become infected.

If I travel two hundred miles in fifty days, and you travel fifty miles in twenty days, yes, you have gone faster...but your argument is somewhat lacking.

It decreases sensitivity, and has no practical gains aside from the fact that a number of people enjoy the look of a damaged schlong.

There are quite a number of articles on this, and with even mild google-fu, it should become readily apparent.


For the record, no one has ever taken a knife to that part of me, and if anyone attempts to do that, or to damage my son in such a way, they will regret it.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Their are studies that says it increases sensitivity too. Their are studies that say whatever you want.

[JoshuaZ]

Circumcision does not improve the health. The only reduction in chance of infection and such, is that there is less to become infected.

Do you have sources for this? As far as I'm aware the primary mechanism for a reduction in infection is that it is easier to keep clean and less likely to develop an area that is conducive to microbial growth. This is why for example circumcision is the standard response to repeated episodes of balanitis.



If I travel two hundred miles in fifty days, and you travel fifty miles in twenty days, yes, you have gone faster...but your argument is somewhat lacking.

I can't parse this. Who are you addressing this to and what are you talking about?




For the record, no one has ever taken a knife to that part of me, and if anyone attempts to do that, or to damage my son in such a way, they will regret it.

Since as far as I am aware no one is advocating mandatory circumcision this seems irrelevant.

Edit:

Their are studies that says it increases sensitivity too. Their are studies that say whatever you want.

This is not a good argument. Medicine advances. We might run into trouble. We might have conflicting data about some things. And yes, some people will lie or distort data (often unconsciously). This is not a good reason to reject medicine or medical data. There are good reasons that life span has increased drastically over the last hundred years. And most of those are due to medicine. The arc of science is long, but it bends towards understanding.

[Vaynor]

Their are studies that says it increases sensitivity too. Their are studies that say whatever you want.

Could you explain how?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Could you explain how?

If I could find it again. I was looking this stuff up a few years ago, so I may be remembering stuff that isn't true.

And if it less sensitive, that just means you go longer.

[Raistlin1040]

As with many controversies, I just don't see the big deal. Personally, I think circumcision is medically helpful, but definitely not necessary. Calling it genital mutilation however, is somewhat offensive hyperbole.

[John Cribati]

In some cultures, a girl will get her equipment sewn closed (with a small opening for excretion and... monthly purposes) until she's married. That, sir is genital mutilation. Circumcision isn't the same as castration. It's just taking off a few centimeters of skin.

[Lord Seth]

I'm not an advocator of circumcision, and it seems the potential medical benefits of it are unnecessary as long as you're not stupid, but throwing out words like "barbaric" or "mutilated" for this is unnecessary hyperbole (as is comparing it to euthanasia). It's taking off a small amount of unnecessary skin. Now, female circumcision, that's an entirely different matter.

[Zevox]

I find it impossible to care about the matter. I was circumcised, apparently for religious reasons (though that's odd, since my family is Catholic, not Jewish, but I honestly don't care enough to ask about it), and as near as I can tell it has impacted my life not at all. Sooo.... meh.

Zevox

[Lycan 01]

I was a few days old when my parents decided to have it done on me, since... well... I'm not sure why. Tradition, culture, religeon, medical, lots of good reasons. I personally don't have a problem with being the way I am, so no complaints here...

[Dienekes]

Ehh, it's as mutilating as getting ears pierced or a tattoo. Don't see the need to get all worked up about it really.

[ghost_warlock]

Unnecessary how? Now maybe, but it was had more use back in the middle ages. I'd get out my Health Book, but I hate that page.

Unnecessary as in "was this surgery really necessary?" The answer being "no, life expectancy is not dramatically affected either way by removal of the foreskin."


And if it less sensitive, that just means you go longer.

Not necessarily; there's other factors involved there. Ejaculation can be achieved by pressure alone, with little-to-no accompanying enjoyment of the experience.

And, besides, there can also be scar tissue.

[Serpentine]

In the approximate words of Dr. Mum, "Like chopping off your foot because you might get an ingrown toenail." Possibly practical once upon a time, but no longer with good hygeine and the like. Definitely, absolutely completely and utterly should not be automatically done at birth, as I've heard it is in some places.

So... A vote for genital mutilation.
edit: And that's for technical reasons, not just "emotional" or "ethical" ones. It is surgery performed on the genitals to alter their appearance for non-medical purposes. It's genital mutilation, regardless of whether you think it's good, bad or neutral.

For the comparison with piercings and the like: technically they are mutilation as well. But more importantly, I don't think they should ever be done without the person's informed knowledge and consent either - I find babies with pierced ears pretty disgusting.

[Coidzor]

Other than the fact that half the time this thing comes up those who have been circumcised are either patronized or demonized...

[CynicalAvocado]

Other than the fact that half the time this thing comes up those who have been circumcised are either patronized or demonized...

I have yet to be either patronized or demonized

[TSGames]

I had no idea this was such a sensitive topic...

[Skeppio]

Neither did I. :smalleek:

I just know I'm not circumcised and I couldn't really care either way.

[Serpentine]

It is possible to be against the practice without being against the people who have had it done.
If you say, "I am circumcised", I'll say "that's nice dear."
If you say, "I am getting my newborn son circumcised because it's the done thing", I will say "I think that's a terrible idea, you're mutilating his genitals for no good reason without his consent!"

If anything, I'll patronise and demonise your parents :smalltongue:

[ghost_warlock]

I had no idea this was such a sensitive topic...

Sensitive body part -> sensitive topic? :smallwink:

Really, I think the issue is more that it's an elective surgery most often performed on infants without their consent. Whenever you're dealing with teh bebbies you're going to run into some controversy.

[Seffbasilisk]

If anything, I'll patronise and demonise your parents :smalltongue:

Oh, I agree with you. I just found the above, especially quote-worthy.

For those propositioning it as cleaner, or 'natural': I urge you to consider, if it were biologically more sound, to remove that piece, would not evolution have come into play? How is it more natural to damage oneself, or one's children?

I will admit, certain organs (I'm looking at YOU appendix) seem superfluous now, but research is beginning to determine their utility, and even so, removing them without just cause is, at the very least to me, barbaric.

[Coidzor]

For those propositioning it as cleaner, or 'natural': I urge you to consider, if it were biologically more sound, to remove that piece, would not evolution have come into play? How is it more natural to damage oneself, or one's children?

Evolution doesn't work that way.

[Xefas]

If you say, "I am circumcised", I'll say "that's nice dear."

I am circumcised!

My junk is aesthetically closer to a mushroom than to one of those biscuits with the hot dog baked into it, and I want everyone to know! Everyone. This is serious information.

If/when I have a child of my own, and if the gods have chosen to openly curse me with all of their spite and wrath for my often flagrant hubris by making that child a boy, then I doubt I'd have him circumcised. Not for anything so grandiose as "Right" or "Wrong", but rather because I don't see a point either way, and if, in the future, he'd prefer to go the mushroom route, he could get that done himself. I assume it's much harder to get a foreskin reattached after the fact.

[Raistlin1040]

I would quote that if it wasn't such a dodgy topic that could be interpeted poorly.

[RabbitHoleLost]

If/when I have a child of my own, and if the gods have chosen to openly curse me with all of their spite and wrath for my often flagrant hubris by making that child a boy, then I doubt I'd have him circumcised. Not for anything so grandiose as "Right" or "Wrong", but rather because I don't see a point either way, and if, in the future, he'd prefer to go the mushroom route, he could get that done himself. I assume it's much harder to get a foreskin reattached after the fact.

I'unno. I can't imagine a child really caring if he was circumcised as an infant or not.

I'll throw my lot into the "I don't see why this is such a big deal" grouping.
Granted, I'm unlikely to ever have children, but, eh...

@V VT, You are amazing. Srsly.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Well, let me offer another way of looking at it. I survived circumcision when you were just a gleam in your donor's eye. I was born to pain. I am the phallic 300.

My parents chose it for religious reasons, and I now I have, by arguments here, 'battle scars'. That, my friends, is manly.

So while you're over there being proud of your 'extra flesh', I'm charming the ladies with my rugged masculinity.

400 babies!

Go ahead and cry. I won't think less of you.

:furious: RAWR! :furious:


I had no idea this was such a sensitive topic...
Ba dim tshhh! (http://instantrimshot.com/) :smallamused:


Edit: This post brought to you by someone who doesn't give a horse's pitoot either way.

[thubby]

it's cosmetic surgery on a baby that exposes them to potentially life altering risks. however rare mishaps are, they happen, and there's no reason to expose a baby to them for something so trivial.

i generally don't fault couples for having it done, they usually just don't know better.
doctor's have little excuse. it is their job to advocate for their patient and they do have the information.

[Zevox]

Evolution doesn't work that way.
What he said. Evolution depends upon random genetic mutations being passed on through a species long enough that it becomes the standard, theoretically (but not necessarily) because it helped members of that species survive and procreate. It isn't some fix-all force which causes everything about a species to tend towards maximum efficiency.

Zevox

[thubby]

Ba dim tshhh! (http://instantrimshot.com/) :smallamused:

my avast just went nuts clicking this. :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

It is possible to be against the practice without being against the people who have had it done.
If you say, "I am circumcised", I'll say "that's nice dear."
If you say, "I am getting my newborn son circumcised because it's the done thing", I will say "I think that's a terrible idea, you're mutilating his genitals for no good reason without his consent!"

If anything, I'll patronise and demonise your parents :smalltongue:

And then you patronize me for bringing up a common problem with it as a subject matter for an internet discussion... And in terms like I was personally calling you out for it. :smallconfused:

Um. Ok.


Circumcised men also seem to think that just because they're mutilated, they're somehow less likely to catch STD's, and forgoe the use of condoms, which are really what's stopping that, not having part of your body lopped off.

Consider the OP's blanket generalization that circumcised men are malicious or ignorant enough to have unprotected sex just because they're circumcised and that may reduce their change of contracting an STD. You don't see how that could be regarded as inflammatory, to say the least?

You don't see how going on and on about how mutilated the junk of the circumcised is doesn't make a significant portion of the audience feel anywhere from completely uncomfortable to have their genitalia deconstructed and couched in completely unflattering and unmanning terms especially when such is regarded as a civil discussion to outright alienated or directly attacked?

You don't see how using "oh, they're mutilated" in such a dismissive way as even potentially taken in an unflattering and negative way?

[RabbitHoleLost]

it's cosmetic surgery on a baby that exposes them to potentially life altering risks. however rare mishaps are, they happen, and there's no reason to expose a baby to them for something so trivial.

i generally don't fault couples for having it done, they usually just don't know better.
doctor's have little excuse. it is their job to advocate for their patient and they do have the information.

Fact: Being born is a life altering risk.
Cutting the umbilical cord is a life altering risk.
Giving babies vaccinations are life altering risks.
Choosing to breast feed or bottle feed your child are both life altering risks.

[DeadManSleeping]

I'm glad my parents didn't need to show me how to wash my foreskin. That would be awkward for both of us...

YES. THIS. Thank you, my parents had enough Talks to give me as-was.

Also, I think the things look silly. That's pretty much my justification. No flappy bits on the happy bits, please.

In fact, I might perhaps decide that I'd like it better this way if I hadn't been circumcised. And then I'd be stuck, because getting circumcised as an ADULT gives you some horrible trauma. I don't want horrible trauma, but I don't want a foreskin either. And, honestly, I've never head a GUY say "Oh, but I love my foreskin! I wouldn't want to live without it!" I'll listen to a guy if he says it, but I've sure never heard it.

Would I circumcise my male children if I had any? Yes. I don't personally see any big downsides. It's no more genital mutilation than an appendix removal is organ damage. It doesn't do anything, and there is the potential for bad, even if it is small.

I'm sure my opinion is considered evil by everyone else. I can live with that.

[thubby]

Fact: Being born is a life altering risk.
Cutting the umbilical cord is a life altering risk.
Giving babies vaccinations are life altering risks.
Choosing to breast feed or bottle feed your child are both life altering risks.

1) is mandatory
2) also mandatory to, you know, living.
3) are protection from crippling and perhaps life threatening diseases.

4) you have to pick one of them. and to my knowledge you cant mutilate your child by bottle/breast feeding.

[RabbitHoleLost]

3) are protection from crippling and perhaps life threatening diseases.
That doesn't stop a growing number of parents from thinking that they're just a way for the government to make money.
Seriously.
Thousands of parents a year refuse to vaccinate their babies on moral grounds.

4) you have to pick one of them. and to my knowledge you cant mutilate your child by bottle/breast feeding.
Yes, but either way you choose, there's some argument out there that you are ruining that child's life.
Well, usually if you choose to bottle feed, you get a lot of moral flak. Seriously.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

my avast just went nuts clicking this. :smallconfused:
Odd. Just gives you a button to push which makes a rimshot sound.

[Serpentine]

An appendix is only removed if it becomes a life-threatening risk. A healthy foreskin is not a life-threatening risk. Thus, removing it is mutilation.
I am circumcised!That's nice, dear :smalltongue:
And then you patronize me for bringing up a common problem with it as a subject matter for an internet discussion... And in terms like I was personally calling you out for it. :smallconfused:

Um. Ok.I had to think hard about what your problem was. Then I realised that my "that's nice dear" is, by its nature, patronising. My fault: I use it as a teasing way of saying "I don't really care either way", and I expected everyone to know that. So, replace it with "I don't care".
Is that what the issue was? Because other than that, I don't know what it is.

edit: My cousin is one of those vaccination-deniers :smallsigh: She comes from a real neuvo-hippy area that is notorioius for it. As a result, they have outbreaks of whooping cough :smallsigh:

[Trog]

Seriously guys? /This/ is what we've come to for topics of conversation?

By all means let's all argue that the way /our/ penis is currently is better than the way /others'/ are. 9_9 Give me a break. There is no "best" way and there's no way to prove it one way or another.

But don't listen to old Trog, by all means continue the pissing contest.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

But don't listen to old Trog, by all means continue the pissing contest.
See ba dim tshhh! above :smallbiggrin:

[Zevox]

I had to think hard about what your problem was. Then I realised that my "that's nice dear" is, by its nature, patronising. My fault: I use it as a teasing way of saying "I don't really care either way", and I expected everyone to know that. So, replace it with "I don't care".
Is that what the issue was? Because other than that, I don't know what it is.
I suspect his problem may be that you were dismissive of his statement simply because it did not apply to you personally.

Zevox

[Zeofar]

From Merriam Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of MUTILATE
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Dictionary.com:


1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


Beside that, the OP is generally a bit hyperbolic, and in my view, it really seems to discredit his point since it seems like he is thinking as much as the people he condemns. Word choices like "chop it off" really seem to indicate that the procedure isn't totally understood, and the further comparison to euthanasia and preemptive removal of breasts implies that something is fundamentally and totally damaged or ruined, which simply isn't true. Also, if you're genuinely running into people who think that circumcision is a cure for STD's, you need to reconsider what kind of crowd you're running with.

I don't really have any further points, since it is mostly up to personal choice, but some of the attacks here are a bit extreme.

[Melayl]

Ok, at the risk of giving out too much information, I'll join this discussion.

I don't view it as mutilation. I do view it as a useful hygiene aid. Trying to keep an infant's foreskin clean when they have their usual loose stool is a real bugger. Trying to teach a young boy to retract the foreskin to pee, clean off, and then put the foreskin backup, plus teach them to get it properly clean when they bathe (and getting them to actually do all of the above) is also a bugger. And yes, you do need to put it back up, each and every time, or it can constrict and cause damage and possible loss of the glans.

I was circumcised as a child, and have never, to my knowledge, had any adverse effect from it. When our son was born, we chose to circumcise him, for the reasons mentioned above, and so he wouldn't have that "why does daddy's look different than mine?" reaction when he got older.

I have no problem with those who choose not to have their sons circumcised. I will warn them, though. I work at a surgical hospital, and we see several circumcisions for children ages 5 and up, as well as adults. And let me tell you, it really is a traumatic event for kids. And for some of the adults, as well. It also seems to be a more painful experience (but that could be psycological on the part of the patient).

Just my two cents.

[thubby]

That doesn't stop a growing number of parents from thinking that they're just a way for the government to make money.
Seriously.
Thousands of parents a year refuse to vaccinate their babies on moral grounds.

the anti-vaccers? they fail at a basic understanding of the science involved. vaccines in principal are great. the safety of any one in particular is a simple matter for the medical journals.


Yes, but either way you choose, there's some argument out there that you are ruining that child's life.
Well, usually if you choose to bottle feed, you get a lot of moral flak. Seriously.

I've seen those arguments. from what I've seen it's all pseudo-psychological silliness.

[Lord Seth]

An appendix is only removed if it becomes a life-threatening risk. A healthy foreskin is not a life-threatening risk. Thus, removing it is mutilation.Not by any definition of "mutilation" I found when I looked it up in dictionaries.

[RabbitHoleLost]

I've seen those arguments. from what I've seen it's all pseudo-psychological silliness.

Exactly my point.
I think this whole debate is just as silly and arbitrary as the arguments of breast/bottle feeding.

Edit: It comes to my attention that maybe you thought I was trying to argue one way or the other, when, in truth, I just don't care :smalltongue:

[Kris Strife]

Being circumcised actually prevents you from getting cancer on your... you know. My Grandmother's brother wasn't circumcised (they didn't do that in England at the time) and he died from cancer that started there.

This is hard to talk about on a board with filters.

[Innis Cabal]

I don't think the vast majority of people care. Most men certainly don't care what other men do with their penis's unless it's in close proximity to them but that just gets into whole other issues not relating to circumcision. I know I don't care what another young man does with his penis unless we're dating.

[Kneenibble]

For one thing, it's a penis. It's not there to look pretty, it's there to serve a procreational purpose, and as for the hygiene, if parents aren't teaching their children how to wash properly, then I think they probably shouldn't be parents. Thats like, basic parenting 101.

Now now.
It's there to serve a procreational and a recreational purpose. If it can look pretty it should: hoods are ugly and smelly and for those of us excused from procreation, aesthetics are everything.

[thubby]

Being circumcised actually prevents you from getting cancer on your... you know. My Grandmother's brother wasn't circumcised (they didn't do that in England at the time) and he died from cancer that started there.

This is hard to talk about on a board with filters.

the foreskin is still skin so of course it's as prone to cancer as the rest of you.

[RS14]

This is hard to talk about on a board with filters.

'Penis' is anatomical rather than sexual, and isn't filtered. Some slang terms are however filtered.


Now now.
It's there to serve a procreational and a recreational purpose. If it can look pretty it should: hoods are ugly and smelly and for those of us excused from procreation, aesthetics are everything.

So get it removed once you're an adult. There are all sorts of cool body mods, but for the most part, we would never think of performing them on children.

Elective surgery of any sort on children rubs me the wrong way.

[junglesteve]

{scrubbed}

[junglesteve]

Ok, at the risk of giving out too much information, I'll join this discussion.

I don't view it as mutilation. I do view it as a useful hygiene aid. Trying to keep an infant's foreskin clean when they have their usual loose stool is a real bugger. Trying to teach a young boy to retract the foreskin to pee, clean off, and then put the foreskin backup, plus teach them to get it properly clean when they bathe (and getting them to actually do all of the above) is also a bugger. And yes, you do need to put it back up, each and every time, or it can constrict and cause damage and possible loss of the glans.

I was circumcised as a child, and have never, to my knowledge, had any adverse effect from it. When our son was born, we chose to circumcise him, for the reasons mentioned above, and so he wouldn't have that "why does daddy's look different than mine?" reaction when he got older.

I have no problem with those who choose not to have their sons circumcised. I will warn them, though. I work at a surgical hospital, and we see several circumcisions for children ages 5 and up, as well as adults. And let me tell you, it really is a traumatic event for kids. And for some of the adults, as well. It also seems to be a more painful experience (but that could be psycological on the part of the patient).

Just my two cents.

Can I just say I was taught literally none of this and my penis is healthy and working at 100% efficiency. Also, where did you get your info about foreskin constriction? My foreskin doesn't constrict anything...

You also don't need to roll it back down every time. If I were to roll my foreskin back and then zip my pants back up and walk around like that, eventually it UNFURLS LIKE A GLORIOUS SAIL and sets itself back to its natural position. All without it constricting and magically destroying my penis.... This **** is experience, not hearsay.

Also on people having circumcision done on 5 year olds... WTF? Adults well that is their choice. I honestly would never have someone put a sharp thing near my boys.

[thubby]

{scrubbed}

[Extra_Crispy]

Ok my two cents:

First off I am circumcised, (yes I know serp "thats nice" :smallwink:) was as a new born and have never had any problems.

Working in a hospital, I am an RN, I have seen both circumcised and not. And the only thing I can say is that I have never had to clean pus and other very disgusting "stuff" from that area when the man was circumcised. I have seen restrictions on the penis by people with the foreskin but mostly when that area gets edema from fluid overload. Without the foreskin that is not a problem. Though that should not be a problem with children. Finally no matter how well you clean yourself that area still gets damper and damp dark places are a breeding ground for bacteria. While in a healthy individual, and someone who does clean well, there will probably never be a problem but the one time that your immune system in lagging and/or you dont do such a good job cleaning there could be a big problem.

IMHO: Circumcision is better it really does not hurt anything. (yes there are chances of something going wrong, but there are also chances that if you keep your foreskin of bad things happening also)

[Malfunctioned]

I suppose I am member of the phallic 300 as well.

It's never really hampered me in any way, a couple of jokes from my friends but not in any meaningful way. So yeah; no foreskin, no problem.

[rakkoon]

I've always thought that only Americans and orthodox jews did that. Not a topic one discusses with friends often but I have never actually met someone that was circumscribed as far as I know.
Didn't know it was actually that widespread.
Hmm, how to breach this subject in a work environment...would lunch time or coffee breaks be the best time?

[thubby]

I've always thought that only Americans and orthodox jews did that. Not a topic one discusses with friends often but I have never actually met someone that was circumscribed as far as I know.
Didn't know it was actually that widespread.
Hmm, how to breach this subject in a work environment...would lunch time or coffee breaks be the best time?

depends on if you want to choke or scald your workmates. :smalltongue:

[Vaynor]

I've always thought that only Americans and orthodox jews did that. Not a topic one discusses with friends often but I have never actually met someone that was circumscribed as far as I know.
Didn't know it was actually that widespread.
Hmm, how to breach this subject in a work environment...would lunch time or coffee breaks be the best time?

I certainly hope you don't know anyone who has been: (take your pick)


a : to constrict the range or activity of definitely and clearly <his role was carefully circumscribed>
b : to define or mark off carefully <a study of plant species in a circumscribed area>
a : to draw a line around
b : to surround by or as if by a boundary <fields circumscribed by tall trees>
a: to construct or be constructed around (a geometrical figure) so as to touch as many points as possible



Now now.
It's there to serve a procreational and a recreational purpose. If it can look pretty it should: hoods are ugly and smelly and for those of us excused from procreation, aesthetics are everything.

It's really not a problem if you wash yourself with any regularity whatsoever. If aesthetics are the problem, that should be the person's choice, not their parents'.

[Serpentine]

Not by any definition of "mutilation" I found when I looked it up in dictionaries.Monty brarken forum backup...
I had a long post but it got et. Suffice to say, I posted a link to the wikipedia article on "genital mutilation and modification", a bunch of definitions (but someone else has already posted some), and explained that, terminalogically speaking, the only reason to call female circumcision "genital mutilation" and not to call male circumcision "genital mutilation" is that the latter is socially acceptable. Which is not to say I think they're equally harmful or serious, but nonetheless they are of a kind.

[potatocubed]

There are medical reasons to get circumcised, you know.

At least there are for adult men. (The foreskin is unlikely to become life-threatening, but it can interfere with sexual function.)

For children and women of any age... I'm not convinced.

[Serpentine]

For the record, I only disapprove of childhood circumcision for non-medical reasons. Once you're an adult (or at least old enough to make decisions), you can do whatever the hell you want with your body.

[Asta Kask]

There are some studies showing that it reduces the risk of catching certain STDs, including some viruses that cause cancer on your foreskin. However, there are also studies saying the contrary. The evidence is ambiguous and that's hardly surprising - it's very difficult to do studies on this because there are lots and lots of confounding factors.

I think it's a risk (admittedly small) without a clear benefit (unlike vaccines, where the risk is miniscule and the benefits are clear). And since two-year olds are unlikely to catch STDs I submit that circumcision can wait until the boy is a man and can make his own choices. By all means, have your foreskin cut off, burned and the ashes strewn into the wind if you wish, but keep your hands off your sons'.

[Project_Mayhem]

In a purely linguistic sense, it probably is mutilation - that's to disfigure by injuring, and it is inarguably injuring, and it inarguably changes the form substantially. The phrase genital mutilation has some pretty heavy negative weight, which depending on your bias you may want to avoid or invoke.

My personal opinion falls into the 'it's horrendous' camp. For kids that is. If you get to 18 or 21 and wanna lose the foreskin, that's your call. It's probably safer than a prince Albert. But yeah, if I heard a friend was gonna do it to their kids I would probably be seriously disturbed, and try and talk them out of it

Edit: I'm also convinced that the only reason averagejoe unlocked this was because he originally wrote that he's 'nipped the topic in the bud' without realising the connotations.

[Extra_Crispy]

Serp I understand where you are comming from. You feel that the parents are taking away the childs right to decide what to do with there own body. And in many instances I completely agree with you, the child should have the choise when they get older and understand, BUT (there is allways a but) parents make decisions all the time limiting or even changeing a child for safety and their own good.

Take for instance a guy I used to know. He was born with 6 fingers and 6 toes. No bones in the extra digits so they were useless but they were not hampering him. His parents had them removed. A purely cosmetic surgery that made him "look better" yet it was probably the completely right thing to do as who knows what could have happened. Even putting aside the bullying, since they were useless he could have gotten them caught on things and cut up causing bleeding and infections. Should the parents have waited and let the child decide?

Children do not know all the good and bad things about having things like that done it is up to the parents to weigh both sides and decide what is best for their child. In the circumcision debate I am for it but I will not degrade or berate others for deciding against it. My sister decided against it for her 2 boys. It was their decision and I respect that.

[Project_Mayhem]

Well hold on - the vestigial finger thing is a different situation - as you pointed out there were good reasons for doing that. A better analogy to make would be something like, I dunno, cutting off bits of the ear, or removing the nails or something - not necessarily harmful but unnecessary.

Also, I'm reading a lot about foreskins being dirty. That's a myth. Assuming you shower every day, and pull it back to clean it (4 seconds) you aren't going to have any trouble. Indeed, as I understand it, it does more to protect the penis from infection

[Serpentine]

BUT (there is allways a but) parents make decisions all the time limiting or even changeing a child for safety and their own good.But what is the "own good" of circumcision that warrants surgery? You don't have to wash it as well, you're slightly less likely to get certain diseases mostly thanks to having less flesh to get diseased, you might be slightly less likely to catch some STDs? That doesn't even come close to warranting surgery to me.

Take for instance a guy I used to know. He was born with 6 fingers and 6 toes. No bones in the extra digits so they were useless but they were not hampering him. His parents had them removed. A purely cosmetic surgery that made him "look better" yet it was probably the completely right thing to do as who knows what could have happened. Even putting aside the bullying, since they were useless he could have gotten them caught on things and cut up causing bleeding and infections. Should the parents have waited and let the child decide?Useless vestigal digits that are a birth defect and present a real risk of damage is very different to a physical feature that is exactly the way it's meant to be and causes no harm by its existance.
But, to take your own example, I recently heard about a child that had 15 fingers and 16 toes (or something like that). I was disappointed to hear that the parents had them removed (although I understand it), and upon reflection I don't think I would have done so unless they posed a genuine health risk. If he wanted it done later, I would've gladly paid for the procedure, but if it's not a problem, surgery is not warranted.

[Extra_Crispy]

Again I agree with you, IF you clean it there SHOULD be no problem. Most of my patients and most of the people that have not been circumcised take care of things and have absolutely no problems. And no as far as I know the fore skin does not protect from penis from infection, as seen with people that do not take as good of care of that area. Those people have much higher rates of infection and such then ones that do not have foreskin and also do not take as good care.

Just to reinterate, I am much like others here, I dont care one way or another if parents circumcise there children, that is their choise. But my point is that it is THEIR choice. They should weigh both sides and make a decision because the child can not and it is much more dangerous and painful to have it done later if the now adult wants to have it done. Parents have to make decisions like that for their children all the time, it is their right to make those decisions as long as they feel it benifits their child.

[Serpentine]

Although I am against the circumcision of infants, it isn't something I really feel very strongly about - I wouldn't stop being friends with someone for doing it or anything, I mean. What I'm really, completely against is those hospitals in which the surgery is performed as an automatic, normal practice, possibly without even the information of the parents, much less their consent. Thankfully, as far as I'm aware it has never happened in Australia, and I hope it no longer occurs in the US (I would be even happier to be told that the documentary which informed me about this practice was wrong).

[SMEE]

The Rainbow mod: The discussion entered politics and religion.
Thread locked. Don't restart it.