Circumcision?

[BabbleFan]

Ignoring the (very well argued) points for and against circumcision, the whole issue comes down to parental choice. As a minor, under law, you are subject to the discipline and will of your parents. If, for whatever reason, a parent decides a certain course of action is best for their child, and this course of action is not deemed cruel or unusual - then we have little choice but to let them proceed. Whether we agree with the way someone treats their children, or raises them, there is little we can do about it unless their actions are illegal. As the situation stands circumcision is neither illegal or unusual, and must be the choice of the parent. IMO a loving parent would leave any permanent change to a child's body up to them (You wouldn't have "Guns'n'Roses" tattooed on your 3 year old). But as I say, this is my opinion. If a parent believes that circumcision is in the interests of their child, then more power to them, go for it.

 

[fairnymph]

^^^
I disagree.
The effects of cutting of the outside part of the ear (that is outside the skull) is about as harmful (and possibly less so), than cutting off the foreskin. Do you think parents should be allowed to trim their children's ears?
Where do we draw the line? Let's at least be consistent. If we allow some cosmetic bodily modifications (especially irreversible modifications) then we should allow them all. If we agree that such modification is wrong (which is my opinion), then we should forbid ALL modification, inluding circumcision.
This is NOT just an issue of "parental decision". It is a much larger human rights issue.

 

[min]

Human rights? I disagree--it's about our Western concept of human rights, which has been instilled by 400 years of Enlightenment thinking on the value of human life, reason, and progress.
Take female genital mutilation. I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it's horrible. *But*, FGM is so interwoven into the societes that practice it that not getting it done is almost as bad as going through it. In many cultures, an uncut woman will never be considered a "woman" by her people--she can never marry, and will always be an outsider. In a society where the only way a woman can subsist at a decent level is through marriage, the option of FGM can seem *very*persuasive.
Yes, FGM is ugly. *But*, I also know that that's just my Western upbringing talking; foisting my values on them is just cultural imperialism, IMO. Excoriating other cultures for their sexual practices will likely only make them defensive, and less likely to see things your way; if you want to change minds, present the facts, do what you can to help, but let them decide their own course for their society; if that means circumcising the next 10,000 generations of males and females, so be it--it'll change when the culture no longer has a need for it.
[ 19 April 2002: Message edited by: min ]

 

[pfunk]

with all of the problems in this world...
you actually want to eradicate the practice of circumcision?
Are you fukking insane?
Please, I implore you, find some more constructive activities to take up your time.
how about-
why brown hair is better than blonde hair
is the earth really round?
does chocolate milk come from brown cows?
or how about
more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. fundamentalist groups who pray to the invisible man in the sky (to use Carlin's words) say that God deplores killing, but it is okay so long as the people you kill don't pray to the same invisible man
the U.S. is a racist society, and despite legislation that upfront points to the contrary, the economic, social, and educational benefits for minorities since the Civil Rights Era has been negligible.
our current regime wants to drill in the Alaskan wildlife refuge (which was, thank God, held up in the Senate) and otherwise damage our already unhealthy environment.
Have you noticed how hot it continues to be each successive year? That is because of global warming, another interesting topic.
So... if you really feel that circumcision is all that important then be my guest.
But I am a guy, and I know that I can not speak for anyone but myself, but I am circumcised and was just after birth.
I have no ill will towards my parents, and
I'm sure it may have hurt at the time, but obviously I don't remember it, just like I don't remember the first time I shit my pants.

 

[LoP]

^^^^ This is a false dilemma.
Yes, all the issues you mentioned all need to be addressed, but addressing these issues is not exclusive to addressing issues of circumcision.
min: I agree with you, circumcision shouldn't be *illegal* but doctors should stop pushing it upon mothers, and people need to be informed about the (very few) benefits and (many) drawbacks of circumcision.

 

[pfunk]

all i'm saying is that it is funny to me that people are getting so worked up over an issue that isn't terribly important (in the grand scheme of things)
the procedure is relatively minor (it is)
"psychological damage" is negligible
the benefits to costs of remaining "intact" to being circumcised are also negligible
while these are generalizations, they are, for the most part, true.
(by the way, a false dilemma? that's pretty funny)

 

[fairnymph]

all i'm saying is that it is funny to me that people are getting so worked up over an issue that isn't terribly important (in the grand scheme of things)I disagree. I think that social conditioning blinds most people to the fact that circumcision IS a big deal. I am trying (and I will die trying) to undo this social conditioning.

the procedure is relatively minor (it is)
Cutting off an ear is "relatively minor". Do you condone cutting off kids' ears? I DON'T think circumcision is minor. I think genital mutilation is PRETTY MAJOR.

"psychological damage" is negligible
Not necessarily true. See the studies I cited earlier.

the benefits to costs of remaining "intact" to being circumcised are also negligible
Not true. 70-80% of the sensation in the penis is lost through circumcision. I don't consider that "negligible".
REGARDLESS of whether such things are negligible or not (which, I've argued, they clearly AREN'T), my main point here is -- can't you let people choose for themselves what they want done to their body?

 

[min]

<<70-80% of the sensation in the penis is lost through circumcision. I don't consider that "negligible".>>
How would one quantify 70-80% loss in "sensation"?
I think this is an honest question.

 

[east staines massiv]

i think the cleanliness issues which made circuscision important in biblical times (self preservation is the only obvious reason for a religion to addopt such a tradition) are well over ... we dont live in the dessert and most of us get to shower fairly reguarly so chease is no longer an issue .. and if it is, your obviously lacking personal hygene to the point that being circusized isnt going to stop you having other problems ...
so sawn off or shot gun? why is it really such an issue? every single girl i have been intimate with has told me they prefer sawn off's, but that might just be because i've had da snip .. personally i find uncirc'd dicks look like elephant trunks, but thats cos i dont see them very often.
diversity in dicks i say, and lets just all be greatful that female circumcision hasnt taken a strong hold in any non-archaic (read: non-fundamental) religions or cultures.
anyway, i dont mind fairnymph's comments, it's good to see someone have a strong opinion on matters of welfare that dont directly effect their standard of living. nice one.
and besides, my wang is one of my best assets, so im never going to feel bad having the chop. Im sure it'd look just as good in the sleeping bag
rspct.

 

[sleepingMyDayAway]

fairnymph,
with the survey supposedly indicating women prefer uncircumcised men, didn't the authors forget to mention that the survey participants were recruited from Anti-circumcision mailing lists?
isn't this also true for the NOHARMM Anti-circumcision survey, and others?
also why do you ignore, studies which indicate that circumcision has no effect on sexual sensitivity, Masters and Johnson, for instance, and NHSLS data which suggests a benefit of circumcision with respect to sexual dysfunction.
you also mention nothing about research showing that nerves severed in infancy have been shown to reconfigure themselves as the person grows up.
you mention nothing of the males circumcised in adulthood that report no or neglegible loss of sensitivity/pleasure.
please flame me all you want, but as someone that wouldn't have their own children circumcised, reading your anti-circumcision diatribes makes me think you're doing more harm than good to your side.
i think, you are interested in and will quote ANY research that is anti-circumcision, regardless of how biased it is.
i think you will reject ANY research that shows benefits of circumcision, regardless of how credible it is.
why? because, deep in your core, you believe circumcision is totally wrong and should be stamped out. Good for you!
but having said that, i don't think you're being intellectually honest in your approach to convince the readers on bluelight that circumcision is the evil practice you represent.

 

[haveanotherpill]

Cut.
I love it.
Looks so much better.
I do believe that I am *less* sensitive than intact males.
But oh well, I am happy that I was circumsized at birth.

 

[fairnymph]

with the survey supposedly indicating women prefer uncircumcised men, didn't the authors forget to mention that the survey participants were recruited from Anti-circumcision mailing lists?
I don't believe I ever even mentioned such a survey. Furthermore, I don't think it is reliable to consider whether women "prefer" one circumcised vs intact men -- because this is largely socially conditioned. I think it's pretty clear that there are women in both categories.

isn't this also true for the NOHARMM Anti-circumcision survey, and others?
Huh? Again, when did I mention any "survey"?

also why do you ignore, studies which indicate that circumcision has no effect on sexual sensitivity, Masters and Johnson, for instance, and NHSLS data which suggests a benefit of circumcision with respect to sexual dysfunction.
When you remove tissue, you remove nerves and nerve endings, thus you removed sensation. This is what I am referring to as "loss of sexual sensitivity" -- and this is simply factual -- less skin, fewer total nerve endings. End of story. And if you want to refer to some studies, please by all means, do so. But actually CITE them don't just refer to them.

you also mention nothing about research showing that nerves severed in infancy have been shown to reconfigure themselves as the person grows up.
Um, as I said above, there is a total loss of nerve endings. And obviously the foreskin does not grow back.

you mention nothing of the males circumcised in adulthood that report no or neglegible loss of sensitivity/pleasure.
There are some men who report only a small decrease in sensitivity. However, I do not consider this "negligible" and as I said in an earlier post, there is also the fact that in adult circumcision, the foreskin has (usually) already separated from the glans. This has a major impact on pain/scarring resulting from circumcision. Furthermore, neither this argument nor any other argument that you have proferred deals with my main problem with circumcision -- namely that it takes away a choice that every man should be able to make for himself.

please flame me all you want, but as someone that wouldn't have their own children circumcised, reading your anti-circumcision diatribes makes me think you're doing more harm than good to your side.
Do you see any flaming? I don't. I will admit that I have strong views, but I think that what I have to say needs to be heard.

i think, you are interested in and will quote ANY research that is anti-circumcision, regardless of how biased it is.
I do my best to quote research that is well-supported. Obviously I quote research that supports my view; who doesn't do the same? You can't argue effectively otherwise. This is a moot point.

i think you will reject ANY research that shows benefits of circumcision, regardless of how credible it is.
Look at some of my previous posts. If you had read them thoroughly, you would have observed that I admit that there are medical circumstances that necessitate circumcision. However, a large portion of the research showing "benefits of circumcision" IS exceedingly flawed. Furthermore, you are ignoring what I have repeatedly emphasized -- namely that any (minor) benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the more major/numerous risks and negative effects or circumcision.

why? because, deep in your core, you believe circumcision is totally wrong and should be stamped out. Good for you!
While true, this is separate from my belief that circumcision is irrational and medically poor practice.

but having said that, i don't think you're being intellectually honest in your approach to convince the readers on bluelight that circumcision is the evil practice you represent.
I make every attempt to reply to those who support circumcision/ argue with my claims -- and I will continue to do so. How would you like me to be any more intellectually honest? (btw, I find this last accusation rather insulting, but I will do my best to assume that you did not mean it to come across thus)

 

[*chaoscat*]

i'm very curious to know what it would be like to be with someone who WASN'T circumsized. i think it'd be neat.
There's no difference really. They all are the same when they are erect! And some guys look circumcized when they aren't.
For me it comes down to hurting a baby, and I would never hurt my baby unless there was a VERY good reason to. They are so delicate and sensitive that it is cruel to cause them unnecessary pain. It is not the parents decision, it is an individuals decision. Since it is possible to do when older, why not wait and let your child decide for himself?