The controversial topic of male circumcision is quite popular in the West (where it is still heavily in practice), and in recent years there has been a lot of heavy debates on this matter, with both sides hitting each other back and forth in a never-ending frenzy (much like other political debates). I am curious to ask what is your stance on circumcision? Especially if you are a parent or expecting a newborn?

People who support circumcision often say that this process helps to bring a male offspring closer to their religious deity (very popular in the Middle Eastern religions), makes it easier to clean around the shaft, and overall reduces the likelihood of getting certain diseases. Also, that there are women and gay men who prefer circumcised penises because it makes them look more "appealing" as a "valiant soldier proudly carrying his helmet into battle" rather than an uncircumcised "anteater" penis.

Opponents of circumcision, however, argue that such a surgical procedure is "immoral" (due to the fact that the newborn cannot consciously think for himself, leaving the decision up to his parents and it may impact his life either for the better or for the worse) because a "part" of the penis has been artificially-removed, thus decreasing the sensitivity of the reproductive organ. They also argue that with or without circumcision the risks of catching certain illnesses and diseases is not really significant either way.

What do you think? Should doctors continue to circumcise more newborns or not if allowed by their parents? And why?

Discuss.

Unless required for real medical reasons, it should never be performed on infants, ever. It's a stupid, outdated and needless surgery with no real benefits.

Outside of Jews and Muslims, its only popular is the U.S. The civilized world abandoned it as barbaric a generation ago.

I find it kinda ridiculous that there's all this fervor about female circumcision and how it's a horrible, barbaric thing, yet male circumcision is considered anything but horrible or barbaric. And this is coming from a circumcised person. They're cutting part of the penis off. If anything gets me more fucking squeamish than spit (I fucking HATE saliva), it's penile injuries or mutilation. I remember my youngest brother not getting circumcised until he was 6 months old, and for the next 4 months his penis was a fucking yellow sheet of wet paper with a little round dome on top. It was absolutely repulsive and it repulses me to this day to not only think of that, but to also think that my penis was once like that as an infant. The only reason it's performed anymore is because this country, in all its retarded Christian glory, thinks that it's good because their ancestors did it to make boys not have as much pleasure during sex.

Uh. Comparing female "circumcision" (a dreadful, completely non-explanatory term--please refer to it as it is: female genital mutilation) to male circumcision is about as fallacious as you can get.

I echo Morrigan's sentiment, and to a degree Scorntyrant's (though I would use "stupid" and/or "supersticious" instead of "barbaric").

What Morrigan said. If you're filthy enough to not be able to clean your junk uncircumcised, then getting a circumcision isn't going to help you.

Another one in the Morrigan camp here. Nothing but an outdated and fairly barbaric practice (and an element of religious indoctrination in Jews and Muslims to boot).

I can't say I know what it's like, but I can only imagine that being circumcised is a bit of a downer. Though I guess the circumcised fellers don't usually have a point of comparison so they wouldn't know what they're missing.


Not exactly. They're nowhere near the same ballpark in terms of how horrible they are, but there's some room for comparison in that both cases are a clear violation of an infant's rights to a whole and intact body.


This is especially weird since circumcision in America is only a fairly recent practice. It was rare until the early-mid 20th Century. It has no long traditional history in this regard at all.

Meh, plenty of other things to get annoyed about in the world. Unnecessary yes, but it's not some horrific limb amputation or something that absolutely ruins someone's life. Female circumcision is a whole other matter, of course... but male circumcision, yeah, it's not really something to get too worked up about, right?

I wonder if there's been any research done as to whether it lowers someone's quality of life, I'd assume that there'd be no noticeable difference.

It's the principle of the thing, really. I don't like the idea of babies getting a permanent body modification before they are able to consent to it.

It's also hard to deny that it causes the infant a fair bit of pain and it's far from unheard of for complications to occur with horrifying results.

I don't see the big deal. If parents want to circumcise their child, so be it. I don't really agree with those who say it's taking away a right of a new born. I also don't understand those who say that the child in question will be "robbed" of extra stimulation?pleasure later in life - you won't miss what you don't have, speakin' from experience, and I certainly don't feel "mutilated", or "deprived" in any way, shape or form. And never had any complaints either.

I wanted to have my son circumcised, but never did. But if he was, I can guarantee that both he and I would not have had any problem with this, now or in the future.

There are some reasons off of the top of my head that can explain why some people can't see how grotesque this act is.

While the infant isn't anaesthetized, he isn't viewed as a fully conscious being. The pain is forgotten we assume, and the parents are not as attached or defensive as they later would be. I cannot imagine a rational father letting his three or six month old son having his foreskin cut off. As caspian mentioned there probably isn't going to be any noticeable difference in quality of life between the clipped and unclipped, but the further research goes into human development the more it appears that babies and children are very "sponge-like" and are affected more than it seems. So yes, not only is it pointless, superficial and based only on religion, but our principles should lean towards not doing it given what we learning.

Also, the reason circumcision isn't seen as weird is because we've been indoctrinated with it. It won't ruin my day knowing that someone wants to circumcise their son. But let me ask a hypothetical question: would you consider it - knowing full well that the procedure would be a success - if the rest of the world was uncircumcised? He'd be a little bit of a freak in the gym showers, wouldn't he?

Darkeningday thinks that male and female circumcisions can't be compared (she gave it away by calling the latter "genital mutilation", so I don't know what it'd be called to cut off a man's foreskin). While female circumcisions are almost certainly disastrous, they both exist for the same reason: deprivation of "sinful" pleasure and to ensure that the girl's a virgin by her wedding night, all for religious sickness. While some doctors have claimed it's healthier for a man to be cut, others and evidence to the contrary have overwhelmed them.

I figured women preferred circumsized wangs. That is all I need to know.

In certain cultures they also prefer men with chicken leg bones through their noses and lower lips stretched to roughly 7" EP size. It's all about culture and being told from a very young age what "normal" means, and also limitations on what is available in the first place.

I'd guess that in the civilized world, women prefer their men intact.

Women probably prefer it clipped in the US, Israel and the Muslim world (as far as women's preferences in dong are even considered in the latter). As for elsewhere, I don't think so.

From non-American women I've only ever heard pro-foreskin opinions. I've even heard an English woman claim that she finds a man with no foreskin about as appealing as a man with no lips.

Muslims and Jews have some very strange ideas about hygiene, that's for sure. Pigs are so unbearably dirty in comparison to other animals and having a foreskin means your penis is nigh-on impossible to clean.

I asked my dad a few years ago, "Why didn't you guys get me circumsized?" His response? "I thought we did ::shrugs shoulders::".

Think about it objectively, from an outsider's perspective. If we discovered a tribe for whom it was common practice to cut off their newborn children's ear lobes, we'd think that was horrific and barbaric, yet we do basically the same thing.

Fuck off.

I was circumcised as an infant because, at the time, it was still thought to provide significant medical benefits. I don't feel like I'm lacking anything and a foreskin isn't anything I'd want if I had the option to magic one on there. My sex life has been fine without it and I wouldn't want to bang any gross British women anyway. If I have a son, I don't think I'll get him circumcised, because the medical community has moved away from it. Performing surgery of any kind for no medical reason is pretty dumb.

Also, people really need to get over the "EWWWW" factor here. The issue is about medical reasons for doing so and an infant's rights.

Christopher Hitchens and a Rabbi "Discussed" this once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS6ZQqlUJ6s

My exact thoughts when it comes to this particular subject.

You know, hmm, I'm circumcised (Muslim parents) and even to me wangs look better without slipcase. Whether it was necessary or not is an entirely different question, and since I don't give a shit about spiritual reasons then I say it isn't a necessary thing to do. This isn't 600 AD so washing up isn't uncommon.

The argument of the penis being less sensitive in circumcised men is actually a benefit if you look at it from the perspective of (generally) being able to please the woman for a longer period of time. I don't know, I'd assume less stimulation would suggest a longer duration of performance before climax. For women, this would be a positive.

It's a custom of the culture you grow up in. I happen to be circumcised but I'm not for or against either side of the issue. I hate to put parents in the position of choosing something like circumcision which the child may not want in the future, but it beats leaving that decision up to an outside party.

I will say a lot of American women (including a few female friends whom I've heard an opinion from) prefer circumcision. One girl actually told me she turned away an uncircumcised guy after he dropped his pants.

This one is confusing me. Maybe I'm just weird, but when I get an erection the foreskin tends to pull back behind the head anyway, so I don't see how it would matter during sex.

There's a few things wrong with that statement. First, decreasing the sensitivity of the penis is not the only method of increasing endurance. I don't even see it as a desirable method. And maybe you didn't intend this but you've presented a fairly androcentric view point of sex, considering that the majority of women will not reach orgasm through penetration. So yeah, weak argument.

Anyway, I'm obviously against circumcision.

Napero's right, though.



You're not weird. When erect there is no significant difference in appearance, so the whole aesthetics argument is completely stupid. They only look different when flaccid, and I don't know of any woman who finds looking at that interesting, cut or not.

But "it's" not their personal property is it? They're supposed to be guardians and teachers until it can fend/decide for itself. Not lop bits off, pierce it with earings or perform cosmetic surgery, unless life threatening.




Grammar edit, it's its

Derp #1. I don't believe I ever said that.



Derp #2. I never said it was. Keep in mind I wasn't using my argument necessarily as a defense for circumcision. I've already stated I'm neutral on the issue. I was merely turning the point of decreased sensitivity around. Those against circumcision argue that it decreases the level of sensitivity of the penis. What I'm arguing is that this isn't necessarily a completely negative result if a man can perform for a longer period of time.



And finally derp #3. Completely wrong. I'm presenting a gynocentric view, for I believe the female's pleasure should come before the man's. A majority of them do receive pleasure from penetration even if it doesn't always (or never) result in an orgasm. If a man can hold out longer, all the better for women who do enjoy it.

Again, I'm not for either side. It's unfortunate for the man's sexual needs if the level of sensitivity is lowered after circumcision, but if it was proven to be true that it helps him last longer during sex, it could be taken as a positive.

I agree with Caspian and Crushed. I was circumcised when I was 2 for a problem with my urethra, so it wasn't really a choice of my parents. I don't feel I have something lacking and I'm happy with my penis, it didn't changed my life and probably will not. But, in a way it is an archaic procedure and in a fully secular and modern society, it should be removed.

The subject of woman's orgasm shouldn't be discussed, I think it's independant of circumcision.

That falls under the "medically relevant reason". Routine circumcision doesn't.

Why go through all the trouble of ‘that’s not what I said’ only to present the same argument? Even if you don’t feel strongly about the position you are still advocating for it. Circumcision is unnecessary to achieving greater endurance or to giving pleasure to a woman, so I don't see any positives relating to sexuality.

Also, saying ‘derp’ is pretty stupid. I’m not really sure how that caught on.

I'm not tackling the issue as a whole, just that one argument. I've made my point very clear. Dismiss it entirely if you wish, it doesn't bother me.

Putting words in people's mouths is just as stupid as a South Park reference, but at least they are funny.

I don't think that parents should be allowed to modify their childrens' bodies to their liking, which means that I largely agree with Morrigan's view on the subject. Having said that, it's not exactly barbaric from a physical point of view. The main problem is when circumcised/uncircumcised kids are brought up in areas where the opposite is most common. Sometimes this can't even be foreseen, such as when parents move to another country shortly after their child gets it done. The fairest way is to side with nature and let the children make the decision later in life. Most will choose to leave it the way it is and therefore the practice will die.

On the subject of women's preferences, they generally don't care what it looks like un-erect anyway, so I doubt it matters. I hope this is a comfort to some of you!

I think that parents should wait until their kid is able to make decisions on his own and then tell him about circumcision and if it's something he wants to go through with. I think 12 or 13 is a good age to do that at. Unless it's for a legitimate medical reason, deciding for the kid when he's a newborn is a complete violation of the newborn's rights.

Frankly, I don't treat it like a serious issue but it should definitely be banned. Most guys don't give two shits, but what about the minority who do? Is anyone willing to find my foreskin so I can sew it back on?

Sigged.

As for my stance on it, I could care less. I had it done soon after birth, don't remember a goddamn thing about it, and don't have any problems with it today. Sure, it is a violation of the child's rights and is rather inhumane, but honestly? 10 years after the circumcision will it really matter? It's not like it's some traumatic life altering event. Most people don't even remember having it done, and I'm sure most will say, like bassistneededlolnot said, they don't give two shits about it.

Exactly how I feel. I really don't see what the big deal is. I'm not sure if its accurate or not, but I remember reading somewhere that circumcision can reduce the chance of getting certain STDs.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd bet using a condom and not boning anyone with syphilis or something would be much more effective...

That seems to be the trend with a lot of things in regards to Americans...

My opinion is that it's a completely useless body modification that is horribly antiquated and is only kept around for religious purposes. It actually hinders the penis' ability to please the woman (or man, I suppose), so I've heard.