Circumcision

[kaya_9]

I just read the OP, so am replying only to that...Seems like 'God' or as I like to think of It, 'the force that animates all Existence' could care less whether you chop your peen. I think It 'cares' about where our Spirit is in translation. That's jus' me...I don't buy into that dogma shit though.

 

[CFC]

Yes of course because i am happy with myself and would want my child to be. Your insinuating that it is bad and my thoughts need to be grounded in logic rather then experience. If I dont care then why not get it done so my child and myself are similar?

You seem to be of the belief it is somehow bad, i do not share that belief and feel it is neutral. I ask again why would i make my kid different then me for the sake of something i dont care about?

I'm not insinuating that foreskin amputation is 'bad', which is a value judgment.

I'm stating that circumcision can result in significant unnecessary risks, and that to undergo the procedure without a medical need is both illogical and overrides the right of your child to make that decision for himself as an adult.

I appreciate that you don't care about that.

 

[swilow]

Foreskin amputation is a touch hyperbolic. But relatively accurate. Are you cut CFC? Show me!!

Parents make choices for their children, its what parents should do. This is really no different. There are benefits and they outweigh the drawbacks. I've never met anyone that experienced a negative from it. Noone posting in this thread has mentioned sexual issues. In terms of medical intervention, this is overwhelmingly benign.

I'm fine with it and that's good because its permanent.

 

[tokezu]

I dont view it like that I never correlated it with a medical need. Again as it has never done me wrong, I am not comparing my sex life to others, and I have never cared what others think. For those reasons why would I do the opposite? That sounds like not trusting my own experiences as being accurate.

I replied because my cousin was going on some insane rant about how he feels mutilated to which I said "I could never think of that part of me as "mutilated" sounds like some kind of body issue or self worth thing to me" no offense but thats how i see it. Because i am 100% happy with being me I wouldnt change any of that especially something so benign and non-issue. I would have the procedure done on my son for those reasons.

Because to you it seems like a non-issue? Given the slightest chance that your hypothetical son would feel different about it (say like you cousin), why would you take the chance at all? Are those experiences that differ from yours not equally valid and should be considered as well?

I don't know, I hope it's true when you and others here say that you don't think you were being harmed in any way by being circumcised. It's certainly not my wish for you to feel that way just to prove my point. But you see, it feels somewhat similar to talking with people who claim that being beaten by their parents hasn't harmed them at all. It may really be true, who am I to say... but it's hard to ignore the possibility that they just don't realize how much it has harmed them. Especially if they go on and repeat the cycle.
That is not to say, of course, that circumcision and beating your child are on the same level. But it seems to me that at the heart of the matter it is the same issue. Both are violations of the child's right to physical integrity and I think as long such a violation can be avoided, without clear detrimental effects for the child, it should be avoided.

 

[Yourbaker]

Comparing physical discipline with circumcision is not that off. Both have their roots in Jewish law and both were carried over into the Christian bible. While most people have dropped the religious connection generations ago they both run hand in hand.

At 13 I decided my parents and the Christian faith were horribly confused when I realized they had misunderstood the bible badly enough to have my penis cut. It has never had an effect on my sex life other than being asked more then once if I was Jewish just before sex, I am not.

I dismiss this now as minor and I really don't care, it did affect my relationship with my parents negatively, much more so then the physical discipline I received. It is impossible to know what your hypothetical child will be and the world they grow up in will not be like yours, if you do this to your child, be well educated before hand so you can be prepared for what may backfire horribly.

 

[szuko000]

I don't know, I hope it's true when you and others here say that you don't think you were being harmed in any way by being circumcised. It's certainly not my wish for you to feel that way just to prove my point. But you see, it feels somewhat similar to talking with people who claim that being beaten by their parents hasn't harmed them at all. It may really be true, who am I to say... but it's hard to ignore the possibility that they just don't realize how much it has harmed them. Especially if they go on and repeat the cycle.
That is not to say, of course, that circumcision and beating your child are on the same level. But it seems to me that at the heart of the matter it is the same issue. Both are violations of the child's right to physical integrity and I think as long such a violation can be avoided, without clear detrimental effects for the child, it should be avoided.

My question is why would i feel "harmed" by something that doesnt effect my existence? It seems to be making a big deal out of nothing its like how people with port wine stains learn to exist with them. Sounds like a self acceptance issue. I have never met anyone who cares and have asked several people as a result of this topic coming up twice. It seems to be if your happy with yourself you dont care, i think its way more a body acceptance issue then people make it out to be.

My father said "i thought it was in the bible" good enough for me my parents were raised religious so I understand that reason its rooted in tradition and has nothing actually religious about it. Thats cool i love my parents and respect their decision. I would have it done for my child as its rooted in family tradition and i would prefer he be modeled after "the great szuko" because i am the best and thats how i want my child to feel.

This body acceptance thing coupled with the idea that you can blame both society and your parents "forcing" it upon you makes it a great candidate for those who dont accept themselves and want to push that on others. My cousin actually reinforces this stereotype because he is a loner that literally pens letters to representatives about meaningless stuff like this, he clearly doesnt love himself and it makes sense he would dislike this about himself too.

This is just my opinion I am sorry if it comes off as crass but its literally a nonissue to me so its hard to understand the whole "im upset by it"

 

[tokezu]

You say "body acceptance" but it seems what you mean is "not objecting to the fact that somebody else decided over your body", I think there is an important difference.

I have never met anyone who cares and have asked several people as a result of this topic coming up twice.

Yeah, except of course for your cousin who feels that he was mutilated. But he obviously doesn't count because he is a loner. 8)

 

[szuko000]

You say "body acceptance" but it seems what you mean is "not objecting to the fact that somebody else decided over your body", I think there is an important difference.


Yeah, except of course for your cousin who feels that he was mutilated. But he obviously doesn't count because he is a loner. 8)

No he simply does represent the subsect of people who dislike themselves for a variety of reasons and push that on to others, hes done this all his life. You are viewing it as "someone did this to me" and i am viewing it as "this is the way i am" why would you view it as "someone did this to me?"

The only possible reason i can see for this would be you dislike yourself, you singled out something that can be pushed onto others and use religion or logic as the devise to carry your ideas. So basically because you can say "they did this to me" it allows your self hate to be pushed onto others and diffused, especially when you can say your religious parents did this when you were incapable of making a decision. Otherwise it would appear as if you were born this way, it doesnt stop any sexual desire and the single only reason i can see against it is its unneeded. Mind you this is not an attack against anyone its just the way i see it as someone who loves himself a lot (like a lot a lot)

 

[tokezu]

The only possible reason i can see for this would be you dislike yourself

Is it really that unthinkable that someone would dislike the fact that permanent decisions were made about his body without his consent? You can accept yourself and still object to what was done to you, those are not mutually exclusive.

the single only reason i can see against it is its unneeded.

And that doesn't give you pause for thought? Of course parents have to make decisions over their children's bodies all the time, but when it poses no harm to wait until the child can decide itself, shouldn't that always be the default option, especially when the decicsion has permanent effects?

 

[szuko000]

Is it really that unthinkable that someone would dislike the fact that permanent decisions were made about his body without his consent? You can accept yourself and still object to what was done to you, those are not mutually exclusive.



And that doesn't give you pause for thought? Of course parents have to make decisions over their children's bodies all the time, but when it poses no harm to wait until the child can decide itself, shouldn't that always be the default option, especially when the decicsion has permanent effects?

Its the idea that "it was done to you" that i see as wrong. I view it as "This is how the great one looks" It was not a decision without my consent anymore then my name and yes i view that as "what the great one is called" These are traits of mine and in essence the view things that make me the person i am. In my own mind i am an egotistical narcissist, it does not translate into my interactions with people dont worry. I do not see how someone with love for themselves could hate themselves, even if it was "a decision they didnt make" You are literally talking about your body you grew up with and then discovered others might be different, so somewhere along that you decided to hate that part of you thats how it sounds.

It is in my mind that no one would pick it at that age and for that i dont find the argument true. Thats like saying "lets have prepubescent children decide whether they will have sex in the future" how many of them would choose to have sex with girls? The issue i have with that argument is i wouldnt have picked it for fear of pain, thus i wouldnt be me, if i had to wait until an age i could decide i would be a different person. I do not want that for myself so i am thankful it was decided at an age that i do not remember in the slightest.

Personally I think i look amazing circumcised and i love the way i look. Not trying to pry but do you love your life and the way you look? I wouldnt change a single thing about who i am or what i look like... would you?

 

[tokezu]

Yes I know, you love how your cock looks. You can stop repeating it.

Its the idea that "it was done to you" that i see as wrong. I view it as "This is how the great one looks" It was not a decision without my consent anymore then my name and yes i view that as "what the great one is called" These are traits of mine and in essence the view things that make me the person i am. In my own mind i am an egotistical narcissist, it does not translate into my interactions with people dont worry. I do not see how someone with love for themselves could hate themselves, even if it was "a decision they didnt make" You are literally talking about your body you grew up with and then discovered others might be different, so somewhere along that you decided to hate that part of you thats how it sounds.

Where do you come up with "hate themselves"? All some people are saying is that they would have preferred to have a say in how their genitals look.

It is in my mind that no one would pick it at that age and for that i dont find the argument true. Thats like saying "lets have prepubescent children decide whether they will have sex in the future" how many of them would choose to have sex with girls? The issue i have with that argument is i wouldnt have picked it for fear of pain, thus i wouldnt be me, if i had to wait until an age i could decide i would be a different person. I do not want that for myself so i am thankful it was decided at an age that i do not remember in the slightest.

I don't know what you are talking about in regards to children making decisions about sex. Wait until they are old enough to make an informed decision themselves, that's my whole point. Is it that important for you to believe that you are living the best possible life imaginable and that if you would have been a slightly different person, that you would neccessarily be worse off? If you have so much love and acceptance for yourself, not being circumcised couldn't really have been that much of a problem for you, no?

Personally I think i look amazing circumcised and i love the way i look. Not trying to pry but do you love your life and the way you look? I wouldnt change a single thing about who i am or what i look like... would you?

I like my uncircumcised cock just fine, even if I don't look like "the great one". Thank you for your concern. 8)

 

[szuko000]

If your uncircumcised then why put up an argument against those that are? And of course you look like "the great one" that is your self view it isnt implied against anyone else. I had assumed since you find it such a big deal you were upset with "what happened to you" but thats not the case then... so you upset about "what happened to me?" or do you just think it shouldnt be done because it doesnt match your beliefs?

Its just like any other cultures weird traditions, you can mock them and say they are not your own but you shouldnt try to change them because they dont match with your own thoughts. My whole point is "thank god my parents chose this before i could know what pain is" as oppose to "i would have preferred the option."

Also if you dont dislike the way you are why would you want to change anything? How did it even come to be a thought if you didnt like the way it look, simply because you were denied one choice in your life?

 

[Xorkoth]

I don't think anyone is hating on people who are circumcized... more like just wanting people to be able to make the decision for themselves.

It's interesting how much heat this topic generates in people. I think some good points have been made, it's been thought-provoking for me. If I ever have a son, I will probably have it done since most people do it here and no one I know has had issues with it, and kids are fucking mean to other kids in school when they discover differences in them, but I think it's a really valid point that a person should be able to make the decision for themselves. I doubt many would choose to do it as an adult though, unless there happened to be a medical reason.

I probably won't have kids though. Maybe. I dunno yet.

 

[szuko000]

^ Yeah I changed that word because i figured it would provoke way more then I wanted. Its more of a slang like "hating on me for.." doesnt mean literally hating. I dont plan on having kids but as Tokezu knows all to well how i feel about that part of me ill refrain from restating the fact but yeah i would expect my son to feel the same way.

To me the whole thing is when someone states they dont like it i really dont understand where they are coming from. Then the argument seems to be "because i wanted a choice" that doesnt make any sense to me either because in my mind its like my birth name I didnt have an option and it never bothered me. In these 3 days i have thought more about it then i ever have in my life, weird lol. Literally never knew people could not like it or want a choice until Easter dinner when my cousin brought it up and it was determined he was the only one that felt like that. His whole stance was "backwards religious practices" to which i kept saying its a family tradition i never thought of it as biblical. And thats my thought on it, just like i wouldnt go to some tribe and say lip disc is wrong.

Its my view Im not upset by others challenging it i just dont understand the argument... much like the african tribe who lip discs and gets told by some crazy europian they are wrong.

 

[CFC]

Foreskin amputation is a touch hyperbolic. But relatively accurate. Are you cut CFC? Show me!!

Parents make choices for their children, its what parents should do. This is really no different. There are benefits and they outweigh the drawbacks. I've never met anyone that experienced a negative from it. Noone posting in this thread has mentioned sexual issues. In terms of medical intervention, this is overwhelmingly benign.

I'm fine with it and that's good because its permanent.

Amputation is how it's rightfully described in the literature and literally what it is. Genital multilation is another accurate term for circumcision. It's a term nobody contradicts when describing female genital mutilation. Perhaps if we adopted these accurate terms, people would stop and think a bit more rather than pretending the operation is just a trivial aesthetic or religious issue with non-relevant outcomes.

As for benefits - have you done any more reading on the subject since last week? The overwhelming weight of research continues to demonstrate how unnecessary and harmful circumcision can be. It also continues to demonstrate how ineffective circumcision is in HIV prevention (another canard that's often wheeled out).

I also see anecdotes being swung around as 'evidence' - ie that "I" don't know anyone who has had any trouble with circumcision and "I'm fine" etc. But do we really think men are going to be completely honest about a matter which is as overwhelmingly bound up in their self-esteem as their cocks and sex lives? The bullshit lies we men tell each other about our sexual prowess are infamous and the subject of a million books, movies and pub tales. It's one reason I think so many men here are (perhaps subconsciously) being quite defensive, perhaps projecting their own anxieties.

Anyway, since we can all throw around anecdotes, let's instead look at what some actual research says. I thought we could start off with a short easy-to-read article covering some of the commonly documented psychological harms:

Circumcision’s Psychological Damage
Narvaez, D. (2015)

The circumcision of children has myriad negative psychological consequences that the CDC has failed to consider. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child. We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination and deeply respect this fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005). As children cannot advocate for themselves, they need adults to understand the complexities of their emotional experiences and provide them special protection. We oppose the CDC’s circumcision recommendation and encourage all parents to do the same in order to protect their children from physical and psychological harm.

Full article >>here<<

Next up, let's have an overview of some of the potential physical harms. This book is a good one (and one that I had to read when I was an advisor on the subject some years ago). Here's a couple snippets of the intro. You may be able to read the whole book following the link or possibly on Google books. I know some of the articles within have also become journal articles in their own right, so may be available:

To quote:

96.2% suspected or were confident that circumcision had resulted in a reduction of the normal male capacity for sexual response and pleasure.

(Stable link to book: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-2679-4_11 )


Next is a general collection of some of the vast library of literature covering physical harms, moral consequences and so forth:

Long-Term Consequences of Neonatal Injury
Beggs, Simon
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2015, Vol.60(4), pp.176-180

In this review, the impact of neonatal surgical incision on nociceptive circuitry is discussed in terms of the underlying developmental neurobiology. The changes are complex, occurring at multiple anatomical sites within the CNS, and including both neuronal and glial cell populations. The altered sensory input from neonatal injury selectively modulates neuronal excitability within the spinal cord, disrupts inhibitory control, and primes the immune system, all of which contribute to the adverse long-term consequences of early pain exposure.

Neonatal Circumcision Reconsidered
Rhinehart, John
Transactional Analysis Journal, 1999, Vol.29(3), pp.215-221

This article discusses the present status of neonatal circumcision in the United States and presents clinical findings regarding the long-term somatic, emotional, and psychological consequences of this procedure in adult men. These consequences are seen as typical of complex posttraumatic stress disorder. They emerged during psychotherapy focused on the resolution of prenatal, perinatal, and developmental trauma and shock experiences. Their relationship to phenomena such as trauma, shock, somatic decisions, discounting, and scripting is described

Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark
Frisch, Morten ; Lindholm, Morten ; Grønbæk, Morten
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2011, Vol. 40(5), pp.1367-1381

Findings were stable in several robustness analyses, including one restricted to non-Jews and non-Moslems. Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men [...] notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.

After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
Merkel, Reinhard ; Putzke, Holm
Journal of Medical Ethics, 22 July 2013, Vol.39(7) pp.444-9

Non-therapeutic circumcision violates boys' right to bodily integrity as well as to self-determination. There is neither any verifiable medical advantage connected with the intervention nor is it painless nor without significant risks. Possible negative consequences for the psychosexual development of circumcised boys (due to substantial loss of highly erogenous tissue) have not yet been sufficiently explored, but appear to ensue in a significant number of cases. According to standard legal criteria, these considerations would normally entail that the operation be deemed an 'impermissible risk'-neither justifiable on grounds of parental rights nor of religious liberty: as with any other freedom right, these end where another person's body begins. Nevertheless, after a resounding decision by a Cologne district court that non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes bodily assault, the German legislature responded by enacting a new statute expressly designed to permit male circumcision even outside of medical settings. We first criticise the normative foundations upon which such a legal concession seems to rest, and then analyse two major flaws in the new German law which we consider emblematic of the difficulty that any legal attempt to protect medically irrelevant genital cutting is bound to face.

Adult Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce the Risk of Incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis Infection: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Kenya
Supriya D. Mehta, Stephen Moses, Kawango Agot, Corette Parker, Jeckoniah O. Ndinya-Achola, Ian Maclean, Robert C. Bailey
J Infect Dis (2009) 200 (3): 370-378.

We examined the effect of male circumcision on the acquisition of 3 nonulcerative sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Circumcision of men in this population did not reduce their risk of acquiring these nonulcerative STIs. Improved STI control will require more-effective STI management, including partner treatment and behavioral risk reduction counseling.

Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates
D Sidler, J Smith, H Rode
SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, Volume 98, Number 10: Pages 762-766 (2008 ).

Male non-therapeutic infant circumcision is neither medically nor ethically justified as an HIV prevention tool. Circumcision is not equivalent to successful immunisation. There are far more effective prevention tools costing considerably less and offering better HIV reduction outcomes than circumcision.

Finally, the WHO and UNAIDS appear to be basing these multi-million-dollar prevention programmes on limited and in some instances biased information. In order to prevent confusion and parents making misguided decisions on behalf of their infants, and to offer effective help in alleviating the suffering that is being created by HIV/AIDS, a much broader review process would be called for. Such a process would involve more objective scientific opinion, and the involvement of a representative panel of African experts, such as paediatric surgeons and neonatologists.

Religious circumcision, invasive rites, neutrality and equality: bearing the burdens and consequences of belief
Johnson, Matthew Thomas
Journal of Medical Ethics, Jul 2013, Vol.39(7), p.450

The decision of the German regional court in Cologne on 26 June 2012 to prohibit the circumcision of minors is important insofar as it recognises the qualitative similarities between the practice and other prohibited invasive rites, such as female genital cutting. However, recognition of similarity poses serious questions with regard to liberal public policy, specifically with regard to the exceptionalist treatment demanded by certain circumcising groups. In this paper, I seek to advance egalitarian means of dealing with invasive rites which take seriously cultural diversity, minimise harm and place responsibility for the burdens and consequences of beliefs upon those who promote practices.

Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae
Boyle, Gregory J ; Goldman, Ronald ; Svoboda, J Steven ; Fernandez, Ephrem
Journal of health psychology, May 2002, Vol.7(3), pp.329-43

Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

Do the Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh the Risks? A Critique of the Proposed CDC Guidelines
Earp, Brian D
Frontiers in pediatrics, 2015, Vol.3, pp.18

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have announced a set of provisional guidelines concerning male circumcision, in which they suggest that the benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks. I offer a critique of the CDC position. Among other concerns, I suggest that the CDC relies more heavily than is warranted on studies from Sub-Saharan Africa that neither translate well to North American populations nor to circumcisions performed before an age of sexual debut; that it employs an inadequate conception of risk in its benefit vs. risk analysis; that it fails to consider the anatomy and functions of the penile prepuce (i.e., the part of the penis that is removed by circumcision); that it underestimates the adverse consequences associated with circumcision by focusing on short-term surgical complications rather than long-term harms; that it portrays both the risks and benefits of circumcision in a misleading manner, thereby undermining the possibility of obtaining informed consent; that it evinces a superficial and selective analysis of the literature on sexual outcomes associated with circumcision; and that it gives less attention than is desirable to ethical issues surrounding autonomy and bodily integrity. I conclude that circumcision before an age of consent is not an appropriate health-promotion strategy.

I realise this info won't likely change most intransigent minds. But bear in mind that your (potential) children might be fucked up by a decision that you casually make if you base all your knowledge and limit yourself to your own experience.

 

[Xorkoth]

I appreciate your post and the research you presented, thanks. Just wanted to point out though that the culture is probably largely responsible for a lot of the figures in measures of harm. I mean if you poll people in a culture where most are not circumcized, then psychological harm and low self esteem are going to show up much higher, because they are going to feel different from their peers. Whereas, growing up where I did, I remember a kid getting picked on for being uncircumcized, which probably led to self-esteem issues (I know for myself, I got picked on a lot, for other things, and it was basically the ONLY reason I have ever had self-esteem issues... being singled out for being different is a huge factor in developing self-esteem issues as a child, and related psychological problems). Likewise, the emotional harm measure there. I can honestly say, being objective about it, that I have never felt emotionally harmed by being circumcized. I've never felt like my parents mutilated me. But, had I been picked on for it because I was some "weird freak" for being different (children can be so cruel), I can easily imagine that I would have developed resentment towards my parents about it, and would have reported feeling emotional and psychological harm.

I see this study was done in America, interesting. I'm curious about the age groups and demographics used for the study participants. I really do think that perception has so much to do with this issue. It's difficult for me to imagine that 75% of all circumcized men feel they were psychologically harmed by it, and that 44.7% feel they have difficulty with intimate relationships, unless early childhood trauma related to the derision of peers/authority figures is a factor. If everyone was circumcized, we would probably only be talking about the possible physical issues such as reduced pleasure (which I admit may well be the case, since I have no point of comparison). It just doesn't make sense to me that removal of some skin from the penis would be so strongly correlated with emotional and psychological problems, in a vacuum.

Also, difficulty in intimate relationships and substance abuse appear across demographics, in all cultures, in some percentage of people. I think it would be a huge stretch to try to claim that circumcision increases the rate of substance abuse or difficulty in romantic relationships because these issues arise from an incredibly complex collection of factors, basically they arise from neuroses developed which relate to difficulty with the culture one is brought up in, both externally and in the family unit, and may even be influenced by biology/genetics.

 

[CFC]

^^ Those statistics from the images were gathered from research limited to the US (predominantly West Coast I believe) - so a country where most men are circumcised.

 

[CFC]

I really do think that perception has so much to do with this issue. It's difficult for me to imagine that 75% of all circumcized men feel they were psychologically harmed by it, and that 44.7% feel they have difficulty with intimate relationships, unless early childhood trauma related to the derision of peers/authority figures is a factor.

We can only work from the data we have. If it seems difficult to believe, then perhaps the problem is moreso that this issue is not as widely discussed as it should be and therefore something of a surprise.

Here's a website that has done a good job of documenting a wide range of research listing a variety of adverse physical (excluding psychological) outcomes with varying percentages of overall harm from 4.7% to over 50%. Also documents a variety of other potential issues.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

If you have a strong stomach, you can also have a look at some of these images and stories of circumcisions gone wrong. It starts to make the issue a little more real. It also makes you ask whether you really want this happening to your own child, no matter how small the risk may be in theory.

NSFW:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html
https://www.yourwholebaby.org/complications-from-circumcision/ (click the links)
http://listverse.com/2016/05/01/10-horrifically-botched-circumcisions/
http://www.senslip-europe.com/circumcision----disasters.html

These are just the tip of the iceberg really, you could Google these all day. The number of men affected is clearly not trivial.

 

[swilow]

Damn, I got schooled :D

 

[tokezu]

CFC, great post! I think the question you raised about how many men feel harmed but are embarrassed of admitting that is a very important one.

Xorkoth, I appreciate that you wouldn't want you child to be bullied. But are you really saying that the best response to the problem of bulllying is to make sure that your own child will pass as 'normal' (whatever that might be)?

If your uncircumcised then why put up an argument against those that are? And of course you look like "the great one" that is your self view it isnt implied against anyone else. I had assumed since you find it such a big deal you were upset with "what happened to you" but thats not the case then... so you upset about "what happened to me?" or do you just think it shouldnt be done because it doesnt match your beliefs?

I am not arguing against people that are circumcised. Where do you get that from? I am arguing against the practice of involuntary circumcision. Do you understand that there is a difference? You seem to think that I am saying you should feel bad about being circumcised, but I am not. All I am saying is that you would have every right to be upset about it. If you like your body as it is, that's great! But I do think "what happened to you" was an unjustified infringement on your right to bodily autonomy.
We have come a long way when it comes to the recognition of bodily autonomy, it used to be widely accepted that parents have the right to beat their children and I'm not talking about just a little slap. Only like 20 years ago, where I live, the courts started to recognize the right of married women to decide what happens with their own bodies. Up until then legally speaking rape within a marriage didn't exist, because by virtue of getting married the women had already given consent to sex, claiming more or less "if you said yes in front of the altar you can't very well say no in bed". (Not to mention all the bodies governments have seized to play war with each other.) As somebody who has a body himself and wants to decide what happens to his body, I don't find it particularly hard to empathize with people whom that decision was taken from.

Its just like any other cultures weird traditions, you can mock them and say they are not your own but you shouldnt try to change them because they dont match with your own thoughts. My whole point is "thank god my parents chose this before i could know what pain is" as oppose to "i would have preferred the option."

I am not trying to force anything on anybody (but guess who is ), I am simply speaking my mind. You don't want to decide over your own body? That's the only way I can understand the second sentence, but I doubt you meant it like that? You did say that you understand that circumcision is unneeded, so it can't really be about your parents having made the difficult but ultimately necessary decision, right?

Also if you dont dislike the way you are why would you want to change anything? How did it even come to be a thought if you didnt like the way it look, simply because you were denied one choice in your life?

What? Sorry I don't understand at all, was that even directed at me?

but yeah i would expect my son to feel the same way.

Expect as in "you think he would like it" or as in "you think he should like like it"? Because...

I would have it done for my child as its rooted in family tradition and i would prefer he be modeled after "the great szuko" because i am the best and thats how i want my child to feel.

sounds a little like you want your hypothetical child to be happy with himself, but only if that happiness is based on being like you. You say that accepting your body is important, but apparently you would not be willing to accept your son's body in it's natural state.

To me the whole thing is when someone states they dont like it i really dont understand where they are coming from. Then the argument seems to be "because i wanted a choice" that doesnt make any sense to me either because in my mind its like my birth name I didnt have an option and it never bothered me.

Come on, you really don't see the difference? You constantly say that you are not bothered by it, as if that was a reason not to let others decide for themselves. Some people are bothered by the names their parents gave them. Does that mean parents shouldn't give their children names? Of course not, because doing so is arguably necessary and if as an adult the child still really doesn't like it it can simply be changed. Circumcision on the other hand is not necessary and of a permanent nature.