Male circumcision is wrong and unfortunate. Leave babies' genitalia alone!

[Quantess]

Cutting of the female genitalia is even worse, since it entails slicing off everything there is to slice off (often with an old local woman wielding a dull razor blade), and sewing the poor little girl up together so there is a hole to pee through. Happens to millions of girls every year.

Anyway, back to the topic: Circumcision is cruel and unnecessary in this day and age, when most people have easy access to showers.

Babies are not old enough to decide for themselves, so leave their genitalia alone!

[WillowTree]

1. I'm satisfied with allowing parents to make medical decisions for their children.

YMMV.

[PersonNumber503602]

9. It seems like a vanity thing more many these days

Not necessarily done for religious reasons, but rather because the parents don't want their sons to have "weird" looking foreskin.

So in cases like that, I don't see much difference in parents deciding that their newborn's nose is too large and should have plastic surgery to make it look "right". It would be one thing if the nose had something medically wrong with it or was deformed, but it seems odd to allow parents to have a medical procedure performed on their children for aesthetic reasons.

[TipTok]

56. Religious reasons aren't any better...

[yeoman6987]

130. Doesn't AIDS virus happen more frequently with those with foreskin?

I heard that somewhere.

[BigDemVoter]

132. Yep.

World Health Organization published a study in the 90's. . . . Since then, I think there were 2 more big studies. I will try and post a link.

[yeoman6987]

133. Thanks!

[Marr]

175. There are so many factors at play there, you can't legitimately claim a causal connection. /nt

[MellowDem]

13. It ain't medical...

In the vast majority of cases.

It's mostly related to very patriarchal, very misogynist religions and cultures, and it's not practiced in much of developed world because it has no medical benefits in those places.

[nichomachus]

52. Really

So, if parents decided to treat their child's illness with prayer instead of using a known effective medicine, you would have no complaint when the child died?

[Quantess]

115. Is there routinely illness involved regarding the necessity of cutting babies' genitalia?

If so, please let us know which illness that entails.... yikes

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. I've come to the opinion that it's not medical, it's aesthetic.

I wish I had a do-over when it comes to parenting.

[Doremus]

65. Me too.

When she had her little boy 1.5 years ago, my daughter taught this old grandma the facts about circumcision.

I wish I could travel back and undo my stupid decision when her brother was born.

[Mariana]

148. Yep.

They do it so the kid will "look like Daddy" or some such bullshit. They don't get the kid a nose job if that doesn't resemble Daddy's, but the penises have to match. It's really weird.

[DesertFlower]

153. i doubt whether my dad was

circumcized. he was born out of wedlock and i don't think grandma had the money. my first husband who is now 75 was not because his parents didn't have the money.

[Mariana]

156. Back in the day, it was strongly recommended by many doctors.

My grandfather probably wasn't circumcised, either, but my father was, because the doctor told my grandparents it was "healthier". Appearance didn't have anything to do with the decision. I don't think that's as true today. I don't know for sure, but I suspect very few intact men want their sons to be circumcised for "health" reasons nowadays.

[DesertFlower]

158. my dad was born in 1921. i don't think

any of my uncles were either. my maternal grandmother gave birth to 7 children -- all at home with the midwife.

[Mariana]

164. My dad was born later, 1938

in a big city hospital. The doctor expected complications, which did arise. Anyway, that's why she had it done, the doctor told her it was "healthier". She told a great story of the doc coming by the house to check to make sure he was healing properly, bending down to take a close look, and my dad choosing that exact time to let loose ...

[Crunchy Frog]

190. From what I've seen as a health care worker, most men born in the 1920s have been intact.

A good percentage of men born in the 30s are intact. In men born after 1940, the only intact one I've seen was a young disabled man, the son of foreign born parents.

My seven year old twin sons are intact.

[BigDemVoter]

159. I work in a hospital, and they circumcise children like they're on a factory line!

[HuckleB]

60. Well, it is supported by the AAP, after a long exploration of pros and cons.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-aap-policy-on-circumcision/

[Mojorabbit]

81. +1000 nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. To be fair:

The AAP's recommendation is purely scientific. There is also an ethical component to the argument, in which the AAP does not wish to involve itself.

If I ever get the spare time, I'd like to look into what medical ethicists have to say about it.

[Ms. Toad]

199. It is not purely science.

"They point out that complications are infrequent and far less likely in the newborn period than if circumcision is performed later in life."

So to support a recommendation that male babies have circumcisions, they cite that it is safer than having them as an adult.

That means that a large part of the question they were reviewing was not whether males should be circumcised - but when.



That is akin to saying science supports amputating your big toe in infancy, because it is safer to amputate it now than later in life.

[MellowDem]

87. And the US...

Is one of the few places in the developed world where it is endorsed as some sort of medical procedure. Every other place says it's completely unnecessary, and given our privatized healthcare system, I'm leaning more towards what Europe has to say on the matter.

[davidn3600]

100. Would you be OK with parents not vaccinating their kids?

[WillowTree]

161. I think not vacciniating kids is not a good decision.

That said, I am in favor of allowing parents to raise their own children.

[uppityperson]

186. Are you comparing not vaccinating with not circumcising?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

104. It is not medically necessary.

Remember it's not your penis so don't make life long irresersable decisions for it and your son's future sex life.

It's not your penis. Leave it alone! When was the last time an adult man let his parents have a look at his dick to see how it was doing? When was the last time parents inquired how sensitive their adults son's penis was? Would an adult man let his parents make decisions about his penis?

If an adult man wishes to be circumcised, he can do so, but he cannot get his foreskin back if his parents decided they did not like it for some bullshit reason.

If you really believe an unmulilated penis is unhealthy for an adult man, let the owner of the penis decide what to do about it as an adult. Maybe on his 18th birthday you can present your argument. Good luck with that lol.

My son's are adults and are grateful to have normal natural willies and have thanked me for not having them mutilated to suit my fancy.

[Skittles]

149. perhaps men should make the decision for themselves

[yodermon]

3. Only if you're also going to spank them while smoking in an Olive Garden with a Pit Bull and

breastfeeding, while reading a Will Pitt thread.

[MellowDem]

16. I guess it shows some bias...

that on DU, male genital mutilation is seen as a silly and funny controversy on par with whether people like the Olive Garden.

Then I'm reminded of just how conservative the Democtatic Party actually is.

[yodermon]

34. I am actually against circumcision as well.. Just, good luck getting a discussion going on DU

regarding this topic.

[Quantess]

64. Well hello, yodermon!

NO, you most likely meant that I should continue with a scientfically backed argument, that male circumcision is needless. And irreversible. And WHY?

[lame54]

4. Go team Mushroom Head...

Thanks mom and dad - good call

[HughBeaumont]

43. +1,000,000.

Thanks, mom, for not making my dick look like one of these -

[Crunchy Frog]

191. So we're okay with body shaming now?

As long as the recipients are male?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Shrug.

I'm chopped, and I'm fine with it. I'm glad my parents had it done so early, I hear it's incredibly painful if you wait til you're an adult to do it.

[hfojvt]

15. that's my response too

some MRAs get all upset about circumcision. As a guy who went through it, I am not aware of any damage that it has done to me. So I cannot share that outrage.

[MellowDem]

21. You wouldn't be...

And I ain't no MRA, but if you lost some sensitivity to sex from having part of you lopped off, which is likely, you'd never know. I have no idea why that makes it OK to allow parents to perform a purely cosmetic surgery in most cases without the child's consent. There's a reason most of the developed world does not do circumcision and it's a recent cultural practice in the US.

[hfojvt]

26. many things are done to children

without their consent.

In fact, the law says that children of a certain age can NOT legally consent to sex because they are supposed to be to young to know what they want, or what is good for them.

I was fed lima beans without my consent and I am still traumatized by that.

[MellowDem]

30. And yet...

Parents aren't allowed to give their babies nose jobs or tattoos, or, if they did, it would be seen as immoral in our society by many, why is that? Circumcision goes one step farther, not only being a permanent cosmetic change, but also cutting off some nerve endings for sex, and resulting in some complications for some for no medical gain at all.

It's basically a minor harm and a minor violation of personhood compared to other atrocities in this world, but just because it's relatively minor doesn't make it right and doesn't make it worthy of continuing. The answer for why people circumcise is tied to lots of other messed up things as well, and it's basis is patriarchal, misogynist religions and cultures.

[LanternWaste]

71. Not illegal for a parent to consent to an infant's tattoo in most states.

Not illegal for a parent to consent to an infant's tattoo in most states.

Nor is it illegal for parent to give consent to facial piercings for their children (which too, is a minor harm with no medical gain and violation of person-hood which doesn't make it right-- move goalposts now and insert distinction lacking relevant difference to rationalize).

[MellowDem]

19. You didn't have the choice to do it...

So not sure what you're "glad" about.

This is a cultural norm in the US, so it's not really any breaking news that many people are "fine" with it, the question is whether people should be fine with it. In many other developed nations, they aren't fine with it.

There is no medical benefit for the vast majority of people in the developed world, making it a purely cosmetic procedure that does diminish the senisitivity of the penis to some degree (that a person will never be able to tell because they never had a choice in it).

For something so cosmetic and medically unnecessary, with some inherent risks, it blows my mind that it isn't something left up to the child to make their own mind up on when they're old enough to do so.

[KamaAina]

24. I imagine it would be far more painful for an adult

[MellowDem]

27. Maybe he wouldn't have gotten it done...

Is the point, but he never had a choice. In fact, I bet few men in the US would ever get a circumcision as an adult for cosmetic reasons, which should tell you something about the usefulness of circumsizing babies for no medical reason.

[CTyankee]

72. My husband converted to Judaism as an adult but had thankfully had the circumcision

done by his Protestant parents when he was born. He staunchly defends the practice. So do my Jewish friends. I think it is mistake to argue the point with them. I hate to see the way some here get riled by a religious practice, but I understand the POV they have, absent a religious bias.

Funny, my Jewish primary care doctor agrees that it is an unnecessary practice from the health perspective...

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. It's painful for a tiny infant too.

Don't want to witness that ever again.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

105. You don't know anything different.

You have to be fine with it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

112. And unless they decide to get snipped as adults, neither do the uncut guys know any different. nt

[Laffy Kat]

6. ....

[HassleCat]

7. It may fall out of favor

Or it may not, due to religious rules. Not eating pork made sense 1500 years ago, before we understood trichinosis, where it came from, etc. Now there is no reason to refrain from eating pig meat, but a billion or so people think it's a horrible thing because the imam or rabbi told them. Same deal with circumcision.

[Doremus]

69. 50/50 now

As more people become aware of the facts, the barbaric practice is slowly retreating into the past where it belongs.

[killbotfactory]

8. But it's a beautiful tradition commanded by the genocidal misogynist God of ancient warlords!

I don't know why God didn't just tell them to keep their bits and pieces clean, or the importance of soap and how to manufacture it, or about how germs and disease are spread in general, but I'm told he works in mysterious ways.

[Quantess]

141. Apparently, if your OWN culture says a knife cutting a baby's genitals is proper and healthy

then we must keep on cutting and slicing, no matter if similar modern human cultures who don't practice male circumcision also bathe in running warm water, nowadays, and likewise stay clean and fresh.

Dön't even get me started on Female Genital Mutilation. FGM is a classified Human Rights Abuse.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Dude, I was just asking what you planning to eat for dinner. nt

[Orrex]

11. I like these threads because I like finding out that I've been traumatized

Otherwise, I might miss it altogether.

[TexasProgresive]

14. Me too

But then my circumcision was medically necessary, so I've been told. Little boy babies can pee a stream to hit the cealing, I just dribbled. That's the story my Mom told.

[MellowDem]

25. Many Muslim women...

Wearing burkas in the Middle East are perfectly content with it.

Whether a person is traumatized or not isn't an argument of whether a cultural practice is moral or right.

In fact, it's usually a distraction from addressing any real argument.

[Orrex]

36. I have participated in many of these threads over time

Those who are opposed to the practice often thinking nothing of labeling circumcised males as traumatized or mutilated, which is an odd position for a progressive to take.

While we're at it, opponents like to use the term "intact" to describe uncircumcised males. "Intact" is the term used for animals that haven't been castrated. Therefore, a man who is circumcised is said to be castrated.

If indeed the practice is a brutal and unjust as is claimed, then the last thing the "victim" needs is name-calling.

[MellowDem]

40. I haven't said either...

That the "victims" are traumatized or somehow lesser. But just because people willingly go along with a practice doesn't make it right, FGM is supported by many women who experience it themselves, and that would be considered a much more drastic measure.

I know most guys circumcised here don't care, that's how cultural norms work, it's changing the perspective that's tough to do.

[MellowDem]

48. I think that is some of it...

No one wants to think they could have had more sexual pleasure if they had been given a choice, and sex still feels really good, and no one wants to think of their parents as the "bad guys", and that does lead to why it is perpetuated.

[emulatorloo]

57. Great tool for if one thinks you've been cheated: Your-skin cone

Not safe for work as there are illustrations as how to put it on

http://tlctugger.com/your-skin-cone/

"The Your-Skin Restoration Cone by TLC Tugger lets you comfortably keep your own skin rolled up over your glans so your glans and “inner” skin (between the circumcision scar and the glans) can regain natural health and sensitivity."

Looks like a good product and not expensive.

[Orrex]

49. Nor did I claim that you had.

But having been in many of these discussion, that's usually the arc they wind up following. At some point we can also expect a sort of tongue-clucking as someone suggests that circumcised males simply want to pass on their mutilation to another generation. Etc.

Incidentally, I reject any argument that likens circumcision to female genital mutilation, even indirectly. The two are about as similar as a manicure and chopping off someone's fingers. That comparison has already been made in this thread, as it is always made in these threads.

[MellowDem]

68. But the reasoning is the same...

in both cases, the child is having a medically unnecessary, cosmetic surgery done on them without a choice, and I think a lot of people that try to defend male circumcision are uncomfortable with that, so they focus on the fact that female circumcision cuts off a lot more. But that doesn't address the argument and does nothing to defend the practice of male circumcision.

It would be akin to saying that female circumcision that only removed the clitoral hood and left the clitoris really is just fine, because you left the important parts. That doesn't really address the core of the argument or reasoning behind the legitimacy of it.

[Orrex]

92. The comparison is still invalid, whatever the reasoning

Anyone who compares them doesn't understand either of them, and they trivialize the impact that female genital mutilation has on its victims.

You are reasoning by analogy, and the analogy is faulty.

Regarding the clitoral hood argument, is phimosis a common occurrence in girls or women? Does the removal of the hood in women lessen the incidence of penile cancer or impede the transmission of HIV?


The more that one argues that the two are similar, the more it becomes clear that they are nothing at all alike.

[MellowDem]

99. As cultural practices...

The reasoning behind them is very often indeed the same, that is, culturally driven. Cultures and religions that are inherently misogynstic and patriarchal. And the defense of both takes on the exact same tone.

The difference is the severity of the procedure, but that has nothing to do with the reasoning behind justifying either. In that case, they are very often the same.

Most males are not circumsised in the world for medical reasons.

I haven't been comparing the two in terms of severity or injury, just pointing out their justification comes from the same place in most cases, and that should make people who defend male circumcision uncomfortable, and make them wonder why the rest of the developed world doesn't do it.

[Orrex]

111. But that comparison is so broad as to have no meaning

Everything we do is a cultural practice. Why not liken the wearing of t-shirts to the process of circumcision, in that case? Both are equally traumatic long term, after all.

You can compare any element of our culture to any other and justify it as a cultural practice. The choice of the subjects says more about the person making the comparison (and that person's agenda) than about either subject.

[MellowDem]

117. You make no sense

The reasoning is not that broad at all, and misogyny and patriarchy is a lot of it.

Comparing thr reasoning for male and female circumcision makes sense. Comparing either to t-shirts is where your agenda of wanting to avoid this discussion shows. People should be embarrassed for defending male circumcision, and they often freak out when it's pointed out the same mentality and reasoning is used to justify FGM.

[Orrex]

120. That's garbage

Your entire "argument" depends on foolish analogies and arbitrary associations. You haven't made a single compelling point since you started posting.

And you have once again compared circumcision to female genital mutilation, so you exploit that latter trauma in an effort to score emotional points about a minor surgical procedure. You can dress it up by falsely equating "the same mentality and reasoning," but that's a bullshit argument that will only convince those who already agree with you.


I think we're done here, and the discussion has gone pretty much as I expected.

[MellowDem]

140. You're the one defending a "minor surgical procedure"

Without the consent of the child, and notably avoiding any compelling reasoning for it, and definitely avoiding how the religious and cultural roots of circumcision and FGM overlap. So far, you have just express OUTRAGE that someone has pointed out the disgusting nature of the reasoning behind it. You haven't made a point at all. Much less addressed any of mine. Goodbye.

[Orrex]

157. You pretend it's about consent, but I don't believe you.

Please present a list of other procedures and practices for which we defer to the choice made by the newborn.

[MellowDem]

160. Nothing cosmetic like circumcision...

with no medical necessity. What completely cosmetic, medically unnecessary cutting do we allow for parents to do to their kids outside of circumcision? Elective plastic surgery, Botox, nose jobs, breast augmentation or reduction, these are things left to adults to decide, and those don't also usually involve snipping away nerve endings in sex organs.

[Orrex]

170. So you don't have a list. Got it. That's called "special pleading"

Circumcision has been repeatedly shown to have medical benefit. You may dispute this, but since you're not a physician I have no reason to take your word over our doctor's. Therefore it's not "completely cosmetic," so your basis for objection is revealed to be worthless.

Further, your "completely cosmetic" threshold is bullshit in the first place. Imagine that a child had a significant but easily correct cosmetic deformity of the face that would cause no health problems. Further, let's suppose that the correction would be simple if done in infancy but more involved later in life, with greater pain when the child is older. Would you demand that the parents wait until the child reaches the age of majority before letting the child decide for himself?

I've heard all of your bullshit arguments before, laced with all of the same bullshit moralizing and claims of concern over choice. It's still bullshit.

[MellowDem]

178. I gave you a list...

Unless you think parents should be able to do all of those things. Why not address that point?

The vast majority of the developed world and health organizations see no medical benefit at all for circumcision for elective reasons. It's seen as an elective procedure, period. The most that some might say is that it makes it easier to keep clean, which is not a medical necessity, it's just a matter of showing people how to properly clean themselves.

If there is some deformity that circumcision would correct, then that's a different matter, but I'm talking about routine circumcision where there is no medical need.

[Orrex]

179. You gave yet another list of bogus analogies

If there is some deformity that circumcision would correct, then that's a different matter, but I'm talking about routine circumcision where there is no medical need.

Why would that be a different matter, exactly? I stipulated that it would have no medical impact, so how would that be different? Please be specific.

[MellowDem]

180. How is it bogus?

Try backing up your claims.

If a "deformity" has no medical impact, then you need to define deformity. Are you saying if the penis isn't aesthetically pleasing to the parents?

It the penis can function just fine, how are you defining deformity?

[Orrex]

181. Your list is bogus for a bunch of reasons

And I'm calling it "bogus" because "bullshit" might be considered impolite.

Elective plastic surgery, Botox, nose jobs, breast augmentation or reduction

Four out of five of those are invasive surgery typically requiring general anesthesia. As such, we can discard those outright.

As for Botox, if you can find a board-certified physician in the US who recommends that procedure for an infant, please post his or her name here.

If a "deformity" has no medical impact, then you need to define deformity. Are you saying if the penis isn't aesthetically pleasing to the parents?

Yes, and you're full of shenanigans if you think that this doesn't already happen with physicians' endorsement, especially if it's as simple a procedure as snipping off a tiny flap of skin.

[MellowDem]

182. You're making my point...

Those wouldn't be used on infants because it is seen as immoral, no matter the tastes or beliefs of the parents. Whether anathesia has to be used or not is irrelevant to the point, even if they could be done without anathesia, it would be seen as immoral.

I know it happens, that's the point, it shouldn't happen. It's a permanent cosmetic choice that does involve the cutting of nerves, it's not just a "flap of skin", and it shouldn't be the parents choice to make purely cosmetic, permanent decisions for their children, and on top of that it carries a risk of injuring the child for no medical benefit.

[Orrex]

184. Are you a pediatrician? No? Then your opinion is close to meaningless.

You will forgive me if I value the recommendations of a trusted physician more than the preachy blathering of an anonymous internet blowhard.

Please document the incidence of injuries when the procedure is performed by a qualified physician under sterile conditions. I know that they occur, but your hair-on-fire concern about it makes it seem like such injuries must happen 7 out of 10 times.

Your claim that it carries no medical benefit is an outright lie, so all points based on that claim (i.e., your entire argument) can be discarded.

For that matter, parents make TONS of permanent decisions for their children with no medical benefit and equal or greater long term risk than circumcision. Since you haven't provided any examples of other permanent medical decisions for which the parent must defer to the newborn's preferences, you are relying on the fallacy of special pleading, perhaps in the vain hope that no one will notice.

I get that you don't like it, and that's delightful, but it's not up to you. If you don't think parents have the authority to make decisions about their own children, then who the fuck do you think you are to claim that authority for yourself?

[MellowDem]

185. Lots of pediatricians...

Disagree with your trusted one. Again, there's a reason the US is the only developed country in the world where circumcision is seen as a routine medical procedure.

Foreskin ISN'T a medical condition that needs to be treated, that's the point.

The main benefits of circumcision I've seen are that its easier to keep clean if you never retract the foreskin (duh) to clean it, and that's about it. Unless you live in a region ravaged by an HIV epidemic, there's not a big benefit, especially when condoms are much better at guarding against the same risk of STD.

I wasn't hair on fire about the circumcisions gone bad, just that it's a completely unnecessary risk.

I think it's fair to say lots of people don't think parents should be able to give their baby a tattoo, for example, or that even if they're allowed to it is immoral to impose the parent's own aesthetic tastes on a child that is irreversible. That doesn't keep the parent from making tons of other decisions for their child, but the child has some bodily autonomy as well, and circumcision is just a socially normative violation of that autonomy, at least in the US. What decision making power is the parent losing if they can't get circumcisions for their child for purely cultural or religious reasons? The child can always choose to do so later on of their own volition. What if the child doesn't want to partake in that part of the culture or religion of their parents, too bad?

[Mariana]

183. I think many people consider the very presence of a foreskin

to be a deformity that needs to be corrected. I think most have it done because the parents don't like the way an uncircumcised penis looks. The "health benefits" are a rationalization in most cases. You notice you rarely if ever hear anyone say, "Gosh, you know, I really didn't want to have my sons circumcised, but I just couldn't argue with all the health benefits, so I told them to go ahead and do it."

Edited to say, leaving religious considerations out of this. I'm not talking about those who have it done because they think God wants them to. I'm talking about those who have it done because THEY want to.

[Doremus]

74. They are indeed victims.

Like any medical procedure there are botched circumcisions and tiny babies are left maimed or worse.

They are victims in the truest sense of the word. Your insinuation that they aren't is offensive.

[Orrex]

96. No shit. Good thing I made no claims about botched circumcisions.

Your attempt to pin that on me is obvious bullshit, by the way.

The discussion was about the procedure itself. It is intellectually dishonest to focus only on the outliers while pretending that they are representative of the whole.

[Drahthaardogs]

144. My parents are rich, I am not....

Do you think I should lawyer up? I am feeling pretty traumatized over here. Surely some lawyer will take up my cause. Do you think I will have to testify on the stand and show the jury the damage? If so, I better hit the gym a little harder. I kind of let loose this last Christmas season and put a few lbs on.

[Codeine]

126. They say I have diminished sensitivity.

As if men need to finish even faster!

[GummyBearz]

134. Yea

That's one benefit I have thought about in the past regarding my mushroom stamper

[Quantess]

12. I actually mean it seriously, after having 2 uncircumcised boyfriends.

No joke, this time.
I do tend to joke around, but this topic is serious for me.

[hfojvt]

23. you didn't mention that

are you then saying that an uncircumcised male is able to please a woman in a way that most mutilated men cannot, and/or they experience more pleasure themselves?

Ah, what might have been ...

[MellowDem]

31. By chopping off the foreskin...

A place packed with nerves, you're going to lose some nerves, and who knows how much sexual pleasure, because a person will never know otherwise, which is why such a cosmetic surgery should be a choice for adults. Well, one of the reasons at least.

[Quantess]

35. You are obviously free to imagine whatever you want to, no matter what I said or didn't say.

Too much information for everyone, for your benefit: The 1st uncircumcised boyfriend was unsexy to the extent of being a turn-off, and my current boyfriend is supersexy.

It's not about that.

[woolldog]

17. I'm happy, I'm cut.

Looks better, imo

[MellowDem]

37. Compared to what?

You never had a choice, and you never had anything to compare it to.

Lots of people are content with immoral cultural practices the world over. That's not an argument.

How many men would get circumcised as adults if they got the choice? Not many. And what we think "looks better" is heavily impacted by surrounding society, so it's not really surprising that where circumcision is a cultural norm, it would be seen as more beautiful etc., but again, that's not an argument, but a similar excuse for other cultural practices we condemn.

[Orrex]

53. Comparisons between infant & adult circumcision are invalid

The nerve involvement in adulthood is vastly different from in infancy, not to mention the fact that the newborn will have no memory of it.

I'm not saying that your underlying point is invalid, but the comparison is faulty and doesn't bolster your argument.

[MellowDem]

84. How is the nerve involvement different?

And the pain of the surgery isn't really the worst part of it to me, it's the violation of choice.

If it is needed for medical reasons, I think that is a different question, but it's not like babies routinely have their appendix removed as a precautionary measure.

[UglyGreed]

107. People will do

what society dictates, right or wrong, meaningful or meaningless. Here in the US it has become the norm and of course those who are cut will say it is great and normal men left intact will be considered the odd ones. it is what it is

[Orrex]

108. "Intact" is offensive term in this context

"Intact" describes an animal that has not been castrated; ergo, a man who is not "intact" has been castrated.


Anyone who uses that term, and anyone who attempts to justify the use of that term, is more interested in insulting than in discussion.

[UglyGreed]

114. And calling me not normal

weird, strange and my private part does not look good because it is not cut is fine??? Been through that in my teen years......... tell me what other way I can describe someone who still has their foreskin????

[UglyGreed]

116. Let me add those

comments were from other men not women who were my girlfriends. They never had any problem neither has my wife.......

[Orrex]

118. Who said it's fine? Anyone who calls you abnormal for that is an asshole.

Point them out to me, and I will be happy to explain it to them in no uncertain terms.


But the fact that you have been insulted is no justification for insulting others, especially not if we accept the idea that a circumcised male is a victim.

[UglyGreed]

121. I used the term intact

to describe a man who still has his foreskin, big deal. I did not call anyone castrated which means to remove the testicles of (a male animal or man). You know what I meant and you decided to take it to another level......... whatever

[Orrex]

122. It is a big deal, because you're using a term without knowing what it means

Now, having had it explained to you, you elect to continue using the offensive term. You can pretend that the word doesn't mean what it means, but that just means you're intellectually dishonest.

Your failure to understand what you're writing is not my responsibility.

[UglyGreed]

123. Intact also

means complete.... If you are circumcised I'm sorry I offended you.............

[UglyGreed]

124. example

If the myelin sheath remains intact the nerve may grow and repair itself correctly.

[UglyGreed]

127. it's cleaner, cuter, and more mouth-friendly.

[uppityperson]

187. Erect penises look the same, whether circumcised or not. They are quite easy to keep clean too. And

"cuteness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Being circumcised has nothing to do with being "mouth-friendly", what an odd concept.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

[UglyGreed]

188. It was someone else's comment in this thread

I thought the person I replied to would like to see it. BTW I agree, I have a clean "one" myself and never had any problems. And as far as I know my brothers, father, cousins and their fathers never had any problems with hygiene either. If you don't take care of your body as a whole I'm sure that part will suffer also.

[Orrex]

113. Comparisons between appendectomy and circumcision are invalid

One is invasive surgery, and the other is a minor external procedure.

The violation of choice is also a favorite red herring, and it amounts to the fallacy of special pleading.

Please present a list of other procedures and practices for which we defer to the choice made by the newborn.

[saturnsring]

18. i predict that by the end of this day this p[ost will have a hundred responses

[jonno99]

167. You were correct!

[saturnsring]

171. thank you very much.

[meaculpa2011]

20. My father was circumcised when he was 80...

and it was excruciating. My cousin at 40--same thing.

BTW: What if someone was to suggest that women should not have any say in this matter?

[Quantess]

22. Guys in europe, after a few drinks, when the topic comes up...

They are so surprised when I tell them that about 90 to 95% of American men are circumcised.

"WHY?!" Is the typical response.

[meaculpa2011]

32. Guys in Europe also ask...

why Americans shower every day.

[Quantess]

41. I appreciate your humor. This is a serious topic.

I always love humor, but, come on.
I am asking for serious responses, serious reactions or insights.

[meaculpa2011]

47. Yes it is, and this is a serious answer...

It's a matter of choice. As parents we make choices for our children every day.

[Quantess]

51. Circumcision is unnecessary, it just is.

Cosmetic Surgery.

[TubbersUK]

58. Wow !!!

90% - I'm just amazed.

Just told my partner and, yes, his immediate response was "why?".

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Because culture and because doctors recommend it - or at least don't object. n/t

[TubbersUK]

70. Thanks :)

[Quantess]

136. "culture" so so sons will look like their dads?

It's just cosmetic surgery, get real.

[subterranean]

82. I don't think it's quite that high.

A national survey conducted about 15 years ago found that 79% of U.S. men were circumcised.
The rate is highest among non-Hispanic white men, somewhat lower for black men, and lower still for Hispanic and foreign-born men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision#United_States

[Waldorf]

28. I'm circumcised as are both of are sons. If I had another son we would make the decision to

have it done again. I don't consider it cruel at all.

[MellowDem]

39. The real question...

Is why you were circumsised and why you circumcised your sons, lots of cultural practices are seen as normal until they aren't, and circumcision in the US is relatively recent as a cultural norm, and is not at all in the rest of the developed world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I don't have a foreskin in this debate.

[jonno99]

33. There are pros & cons to male circumcision. Female circumcision? I'm not aware of any "pros".

And no, I'm not interested in a debate on male circumcision; however, to compare it to the negative impact of FGM is just plain silly.

IMHO...

[MellowDem]

38. There are no pros....

For the vast majority of people in the developed world.

[jonno99]

42. You appear to have strong feelings on this topic. What I wonder is - if you could - would

deny others the choice of circumcising their boys?

Or would you be content to simply educate others - to bring them to your side?

[MellowDem]

46. Would you deny a husband the choice...

Of whether his wife could abort? Would you deny parents in parts of Africa the choice of practicing FGM? Maybe you think these are bad analogies because they're more drastic, but isn't the reasoning the exact same?

Would you deny parents the choice of giving their baby with a nose they didn't like a nose job? Or how about a penis enlargement surgery for their baby? How about a face tattoo for their baby? If so, then the reasoning for why is probably similar to mine for male circumcision.

I think that denying the choice of the child, for a medically unnecessary, completely cosmetic surgery is always wrong.

As for how it would be implemented, I don't think bans would be very effective, I think it would have to be educating and persuading others that it's an immoral practice.

The big area this would cause conflict in the law is religious rights, the right of the child vs. the right of the parents to enforce their religious beliefs on their child through surgeries. I think it should be banned with a small fine, because I know that these circumcisions will continue regardless for a long, long time. Religious privilege is great in this country, and spreading general herpes to babies by sucking the penis of blood as part of a religious ritual will never be "outlawed", unfortunately.

[Mariana]

151. I think the boys should have a choice. nt.

[UglyGreed]

45. .

[PufPuf23]

106. John Harvey Kellogg

John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. (February 26, 1852 – December 14, 1943) was an American medical doctor in Battle Creek, Michigan, who ran a sanitarium using holistic methods, with a particular focus on nutrition, enemas, and exercise. Kellogg was an advocate of vegetarianism and is best known for the invention of the breakfast cereal known as corn flakes with his brother, Will Keith Kellogg.[1]

snip (lol)

A member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Kellogg frequently held a prominent role as a speaker at church meetings. He promoted a practical, common sense religion.

snip (lol)

John Harvey Kellogg is best known for the invention of the famous breakfast cereal, Corn Flakes, in 1878.

Snip (giggle)

Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol to a young woman's clitoris. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[8] he wrote:

“ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. ”

further

“ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”

and

“ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ”

He also recommended, to prevent children from this "solitary vice", bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages and electrical shock.[8]

In his Ladies' Guide in Health and Disease, for nymphomania, he recommended

"Cool sitz baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphae..."

(ouch what a sick fuck)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

[UglyGreed]

128. And after his fine

work many have had this done.

[PufPuf23]

145. I was shocked by what I found about Kellogg after watching the video you posted

I have known many 7th Day Adventists (there is a community of 7DA in the rural town where I grew up and now live in age) and in general have found them fine for religious folks although conservative.

I knew about Kellogg and cornflakes and the sanitarium but did not realize what a sick creep he was about sex and neither was I aware that his teachings have so much to do with the history of circumcision in the USA.

[UglyGreed]

147. Strange how somethings

come to be isn't it?

[DetlefK]

177. +1

[ileus]

50. I didn't mind, my son didn't seem to mind.

I can't work up enough poutrage right now, but I'll try maybe later.

[UglyGreed]

54. My son's slicing

did not go as well as yours. He had to have a second surgery at the age of one. Pretty scary and he was not the same after the surgery. Of course I can not prove that the anesthesia caused his problems but the question will always linger in my mind. BTW my wife felt it was the right thing to do so he would fit in and I finally agreed. Peer pressure never ends it seems.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. "didn't seem to mind"

Were you there?

I was, there for my son's circumcision, and I can tell you that he minded a great deal.

[HuckleB]

55. New AAP Policy on Circumcision

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-aap-policy-on-circumcision/

"Back in 2008, I tried to look objectively at the scientific evidence for and against circumcision. I got a lot of flak from commenters who focused on the ethical issues rather than the scientific evidence. I concluded that the evidence showed small benefits and small risks, and I didn’t advocate either for or against the procedure. At the time, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ position was:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

On August 27, 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a revised Circumcision Policy Statement saying that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The revised policy is based on the findings of a multidisciplinary task force that did a systematic evaluation of the peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010. The new statement has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

..."

----------------------------------------

One more link: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/circumcision-separating-science-opinion/

Just FYI.

[meaculpa2011]

78. Apparently many on this board only...

accept science that coincides with their worldview.

[HuckleB]

80. It's certainly a debate within the world science community, still.

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Nonetheless, the demonization of it seems a bit heavy handed.

More on the issue: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/circumcision-separating-science-opinion/

[MellowDem]

89. The AAP...

Is only one medical organization, the rest of the developed world disagrees with them. And considering the US is the only developed nation where this is widespread as some sort of medical procedure, it's not surprising.

[HuckleB]

90. That may be.

The question remains whether or not the science matches up, which is what really matters, and when one looks closely at what the AAP explored, it was not taken lightly.

[MellowDem]

97. Other organizations have explored it...

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

You can read theirs as well (the AAP quote is in there too).

[HuckleB]

98. I know that fully well.

I also note that I yet have to find that others did the same exhaustive research, over years of meetings and exploration, that the AAP did. That may be because the AAP exists in a place where the practice is common, so an exhaustive research process was deemed mor necessary. Note that the AAP itself simply states that the benefits outweigh the risks. They do not make a recommendation for or against it.

The bottom line is that the hyperbole on this board is simply not helpful.

I am done wasting my time here. Have a good day.

[jonno99]

165. Thanks for your very informative input - it's greatly appreciated. nt

[LanternWaste]

66. I'm certain this particular topic has not been discussed fewer than 21 times on DU

I'm certain this particular topic has not been discussed fewer than 21 times on DU before, and that this is most assuredly not flame-bait.

[nichomachus]

67. A funny story about circumcision

In the Catholic Church, Jan. 1 is the Feast of the Circumcision. As little Catholic school students in the first and second grade, we didn't know what that meant -- and we asked the nun. She said circumcision was a ceremony where the baby got his name (these nuns had a very strong Irish influence, complete with repressed sexuality, and she may have actually believed that).

So, like all good little school kids, we believed her and went on our way. Years later, when I heard someone say that someone else hadn't been circumcized, I was very confused because he clearly had a name. I finally figured it out, but it was confusing for a while.

[11 Bravo]

73. Mine went OK, and I'm glad I had it. But I asked my sons ...

what their feelings were. Both of them (23 and 19) told me that they can't remember it, but they believe that helmet > anteater.

[UglyGreed]

95. Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction

The human foreskin is highly innervated,5 21 29 and vascularized29 sensitive erogenous tissue.6 29 It plays an important role in normal human sexual response and is necessary for normal copulatory behavior.40 An understanding of this role is now emerging in the scientific literature. Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function.

This page brings together, in one place, scattered material relevant to the study of the role of the foreskin in human sexuality, and the dysfunction caused by its amputation.

Summary of the literature

Protection. The foreskin in the adult male either partially or completely covers the glans penis.40 The foreskin protects the glans penis from friction and from dryness.28 The foreskin maintains the sub-preputial space in a state of wetness with prostatic, vesicular and urethral secretions.17 The glans penis is covered with mucosa, not skin, so the wetness is essential for optimum health. There may be a correlation between wetness and sensitivity. Removal of the prepuce by circumcision results in a change in the appearance of the glans penis. The color tends to change from a red-purple to a light pink in caucausians and the texture changes from a glossy finish to a matte finish and becomes dull rather than shiny. Some believe that the epithelium of the glans thickens after removal of the foreskin to provide additional layers of protection and that this keratinization deadens sensation.10 Morgan (1965) said, "Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors.11 Bigelow (1994) observed that improvement in glanular sensitivity is the most frequently reported outcome of foreskin restoration.26 Pertot (1994) reports that the glans becomes softer after foreskin restoration.27 These older papers do not recognize the sensitivity of the foreskin itself.

Some doctors who are associated with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University have carried out measurements of glanular sensitivity in both circumcised and intact males.53 54 Bleustein et al. (2003) claimed to measure overall penile sensitivity, but their methodology made that impossible. Even though the high innervation,6 21 29 40 the sensitivity,12 39 51 and the erogenous nature,6 of the foreskin had been reported previously, the foreskin inexplicably was not tested. The foreskin was held back out of the way53 54 and the contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity was not determined. Their studies reported little difference in glanular sensitivity between circumcised and intact males.53 54 If that is the case, then the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere.57 The most likely location is in the foreskin.57 Denniston reported loss of sexual pleasure in a survey of males circumcised in adulthood.61 The most recent study finds that the intact penis is about four times more sensitive than the circumcised penis.67

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

[MineralMan]

75. Is it circumcision week on DU already? Sheesh!

The time's just flying by.

[NightWatcher]

76. I thought we had 5 more shopping days before Circumcision Day

I've ordered several tiny turtle neck sweaters but the yet to arrive.

[msanthrope]

172. they had to jam it in before the swimsuit issue week. nt

[ZombieHorde]

77. You can take the people out of the stone age, but you can't take the stone age out of the people.

Circumcision in some third-world countries may be a good way to slow down the spread of HIV and other problems, but circumcision is absolutely not needed in first-world countries. The practice is absurd in my opinion, and it's one of the reasons I just can't take the human race very seriously, unless I'm in a pissy mood.

[Aristus]

79. Male circumcision is analogous to female circumcision only if the glans penis is removed,

along with the prepuce. Obviously, that doesn't happen in routine male circumcisions. Nor is it intended to. It's purely cosmetic. I'm circumcised, and despite all those posts above talking about how I've been deprived of an elevated level of sexual satisfaction, I don't mind saying I've had in the past, and continue to have, mind-blowing sex with my wife, whom I adore. Sexual satisfaction is more than simply physical.

FGM, however, is abusive, pure and simple. It's not mandated by any of the Abrahamic faiths, and is done to deny sexual pleasure to women, restricting it to men only. It should be outlawed everywhere, and the practitioners punished severely.

[R.A. Ganoush]

83. Finally!

Something to break the monotony of the GDP shit-flinging.

This should tide us over until the new SI swimsuit issue comes out in a few weeks.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

85. because hygine is something little boys are really, really good at...

I have no strong feelings, but I do know a pediatric urologist.

[Quantess]

138. You don't bathe regularly?

How difficult is it to keep clean "down there"? Too much to ask for a man or a boy?!

What...?!

[elleng]

88. I've let my daughters and their adult husbands,

none of them Jewish fwiw, make this decision, and they all opted FOR. They're educated and well-informed. No cruelty involved.

[MellowDem]

93. It's weird...

the people that practice FGM think there is no cruelty involved either. You aren't addressing what makes male circumcision immoral, and that's taking a choice away for a purely cosmetic surgery with no medical benefit and some medical risk.

There's a reason the US is the only developed country in the world that has it as a routine medical procedure, and it's not because of our awesome healthcare system.

[elleng]

94. 'Immoral?'

[Quantess]

102. FGM3, FGM type3

"female genital mutilation 3" I just tried looking it up on google.

I see that there already have been mysterious deletions.

[smirkymonkey]

119. There is NO comparison between male circumcision and FGM. None at all.

You would have to remove the entire penis for there to be a comparison. I have no opinion on the matter as I am not male and I don't have children, so it's not something that has ever come up for me so I don't really know the pros and cons. However I know that it is important to a lot of Jews, so I don't think I would outlaw it.

[MellowDem]

196. There is when it comes to the reasoning behind it...

it's very similar reasoning that overlaps quite a lot. Perceived hygiene, social acceptability, fear of exclusion, tradition, religion, etc.

FGM is important to a lot of females that practice it. But that's not an argument for whether it is moral or not. Lots of immoral things are important to people.

[pbmus]

91. Erection looks circumcised, nonerect looks like I have a protective cover...

And when you wear titie whities that cover comes in handy..

[doxyluv13]

101. CDC Encourages Circumcision even for Adult Men

Here's the info:


https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circumcision-120314

[Quantess]

110. Sounds like an American thing. (no text)

[shanti]

103. it usually depends on the father

if he's in the picture. most men want their sons to look like them, esthetics and all that. all 4 of my sons were circ'd, as their father's wanted it. i really don't think it's necessary though, and remembering the piercing screams of two of them in the pediatrician's office was intense.

it's definitely not necessary, imo.

[HuckleB]

109. I'm a father who was circumcised, and we didn't circumcise our son.

We looked at the evidence available at the time, and it didn't make sense. If he was born in the past few years, the evidence base now available might have led us to a different decision, but it would be a difficult, close decision.

At the end of the day, though, aesthetics should not be part of such decisions.

[Codeine]

125. Happily circumcised.

I'm glad it was done -- it's cleaner, cuter, and more mouth-friendly.

My stepson isn't, and the poor little dude is having issues with it being too tight. And it's ridiculous looking.

[JPnoodleman]

129. If I have sons I don't plan to circumcise them...

While I don't know if its cruel, its seems an unnecessary vanity project. Plus its completely culturally irrelevant to me.

[GummyBearz]

131. Wow it is circumcision debate month already? Time flys

Circumcision must have not been that bad for me... I don't even remember it!

The missing foreskin on my tally whacker so far hasn't been a problem in my life. The wifey says it doesn't matter much but likes it the way it is. What is the next step down this road? A push to get what was taken off sewn back on?

[wildbilln864]

135. never been a problem for me &

I close to 60. And uncut.

[Quantess]

137. What gives an adult the right to do cosmetic surgery on a baby?

Make no mistake, it's cosmetic surgery!

How about just not putting a knife to genitals, unless medically necessary? Keep the sharp blades away from the genitalia.

[jonno99]

166. Oh please, the answer is right in your own thread. But of course you know that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7582961

[Takket]

139. circumcision is not cruel

I am circumcised, and have no memory of it. I certainly wouldn't call it cruel. And I am happy my parents did it. They are wonderful people who raised me well and I resent your implying that they are cruel.

And "babies are not old enough decide for themselves" is a silly argument. This is why children have parents.

[LeftyMom]

143. I had outpatient surgery without anaesthetic with a few days old. I can't remember of course,

but that's less a sign that it wasn't terrible than that brains just don't work that way. My mother still turns white talking about it, and my grandmother- no shrinking violet- swore just being in the room was one of the worst things that ever happened to her. Apparently I didn't have a good time, it took a Velcro board and four strong adults to hold me still, and I was a sickly newborn.

Of course I was a girl and it had nothing to do with my genitals so there's no weird defensive mechanism involved.

There wasn't a choice in my case: I had a birth defect that needed corrected immediately and because I was born early and my lungs were a bit dodgy the drugs available at the time were too risky. Why on earth somebody would do something like that to a newborn if they had a choice?

[CTyankee]

174. when my son was born in 1961, my ob suggested it and I deferred to my husband.

Since he was circumcised, he opted for it. When my son's little boy was born, they opted for it too. I think because daddy was. I don't really know...

[MellowDem]

197. Having no memory of something...

doesn't make it moral. Lots of good people do immoral things, like circumcision, because it's socially normative. Parents shouldn't decide the aesthetics of their child's genitals. That's not something a child needs a parent for.

[Yo_Mama]

142. There are health benefits. I know of none in FGM.

It seems to me that this is a personal decision; having it done at infancy has obvious benefits, including way less trauma/cost.

Lower rates of penile cancer, HIV, etc.

Let people choose.

[bigwillq]

146. I am glad I was cut.

And I am not a fan of uncut penis, most I have been with have been smelly and dirty.
If a mother and father choose to keep their child uncut, then they need to teach them how to clean it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

150. I love my Little General.

Cut.

[NowSam]

152. I am very happy with mine

and delighted and grateful that my parents had me circumcised.

[CBGLuthier]

154. I don't think anyone should be circumcised while eating at Olive Garden if there are

breast feeding women present and corn flake fried chicken on the menu.

[beac]

193. You win!

[DesertFlower]

155. my first husband was not and sometimes

he didn't clean it properly. when we split i only dated jewish guys to make sure.

when my son was born in '61 i had him circumcized, but every time i heard a baby cry i wondered if it was him they were doing. if i had to make that choice today i don't know what i'd do.

[liberalhistorian]

162. I couldn't agree more, which is why,

when my son was born almost twenty-five years ago, I was adamant about not getting him circumcised despite practically being ordered to by the hospital medical staff and my own family (his father couldn't be bothered to be in the picture until he was about two years old. When he did find out our son wasn't snipped, he was pissed, but fuck him). Apparently, it was the "thing" to do, and I was the only parent in over a year who didn't want their baby son circumcised. Yet they couldn't give me any kind of viable medical reason as to why it was medically necessary to have it done, other than "it's what's done". One of them tried to give me the "for hygienic reasons" spiel, but I just made it clear that I and my father and stepfather were perfectly capable of teaching him how to keep it clean and healthy.

My son is the only guy his age that he knows of that is "whole" and he's very glad and grateful that I stood my ground. I've always told him it should be his own choice and decision, and it's sickening to think that so many other boys never had that choice.

ANY genital mutilation, in both men and women, is abusive and wrong.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

163. It's not just "cosmetic". It's functional impairment for both sexes.

As a woman who has experienced both kinds, but a lot fewer uncut, the foreskin has many important benefits to men and women. After I tried sex with an uncut guy, it was far more comfortable. I thought, "Oh, so this is how it's supposed to be." It makes intercourse much easier and more comfortable for women. If I had a son, there is no way I would have him circumcised. It's useless and barbaric. I wish adults wouldn't mutilate their sons just because it's a custom, not to mention removing thousands of nerve endings.

Here is a site that explains the situation: www.sexasnatureintendedit.com

[bhikkhu]

168. I don't care one way or another

Of all the things I grew up brooding over, all the injustices of society, through the deeply angst-ridden teenage years and angers of youth, I can't recall ever caring that I had been circumcised against my will as a baby. Cleanliness is easier, which I suppose is the main advantage and not an unreasonable reason.

Female circumcision is a whole different matter.

[Monk06]

169. The real reason was it was a lucrative sideline for doctors after WWII That and Protestants wanted

to distinguish themselves from Catholics lol

[msanthrope]

173. got to go with the cut version, based simply on mouth feel. nt

[MariaThinks]

176. i agree. Prefer uncircumcized myself.

[Fearless]

189. Agreed on all counts.

[Jim Beard]

192. When I see such intense discussion by a few making huge post numbers,

I have to ask myself why? Why the intensity? Are they trying to connect it to female mutilation although it is denied?

Did their parents wait until he was a teenager to have him circumcised when it would have been painful?


I suspect its like almost all other things that get a few so intensely angry like abortion.

I think the real reason is the cost to insurance companies. How much does this procedure cost a year and how much will an insurance company make because they will stop the service but not lower premiums.

This is just a guess but I saw too many facts and answers too, too fast.

[Mariana]

194. I thought insurance normally doesn't pay

for medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery, which are the overwhelming majority of circumcisions. Do they really pay for elective circumcisions?

[Jim Beard]

195. Circumcision Cost

[link:http://health.costhelper.com/circumcision.html|

Typical costs:

For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs for circumcision typically would consist of a copay ranging from nothing to $50, depending on the plan, or coinsurance of 10%-50%. Routine circumcision for infants often is covered by insurance companies, though some consider it cosmetic. For example, Kaiser Permanente[1] covers routine circumcision for newborns, but covers the procedure only when medically necessary -- such as for recurring infections or cancer -- for older children and adults. On a forum at BabyCenter.com[2] , members discuss their experiences with insurance coverage of circumcision.

For patients not covered by health insurance, circumcision for a newborn infant typically costs $150-$400 for the doctor fee, and possibly an additional facility fee, which can increase the total to $800 or more. For example, Gentle Circumcision[3] in California charges $150 to circumcise babies up to seven weeks old. Pediatrics Northwest[4] , in Washington state, charges $170. Pediatric Associates in Iowa charges $250. Premier Pediatrics[5] , in North Carolina, charges $300 to circumcise newborns up to two weeks old. And Canyon View Medical Group[6] , in Utah, charges $343. If the procedure is performed in a hospital after birth -- instead of in the physician's office -- a hospital facility fee can add $100-$400 or more to the total cost. For example, Community Memorial Hospital in Ohio charges a $138 facility fee for a circumcision. And Knox Community Hospital in Ohio charges a $227 facility fee. And University of North Carolina Hospitals[7] charge a $400 facility fee.

For patients not covered by health insurance, circumcision for an older child or adult male typically costs $800-$3,000 or more. For example, Gentle Circumcision[8] charges $850 for children 1 to 17 years, $1,500 for adults if local anesthesia is used and $3,000 for adults if general anesthesia is used. Harold Reed, M.D.[9] charges $250 for an initial consultation and $1,750 for the surgery, including doctor fee, anesthesia and facility fee, for a total of $2,000. And The Circumcision Center[10] in Georgia charges $2,500 if the foreskin is retractable and $3,000 if the foreskin is not retractable.

edit to make paragraph breaks

[MellowDem]

198. For me, it's because...

this is a progressive board where people are supposed to know better, but lots of people defend circumcision using the exact same thought process conservatives make on a wide array of issues, and they don't even recognize it.

So, its mainly the unique hypocrisy on this and some other issues that gets to me and I imagine some others as well.