Is circumcision moral?

[SMOGZINN]

Since when was a foreskin a preventable disease?

It is not Polio, now is it? Of course we use science to protect infants from transmissible diseases. Go for all the immunity shots your son can acquire.

But a foreskin is there to protect the developing glans and not as some weird inverse test of your 'faith'.

You already know that, why are you being so silly?

Nice straw man you have there, mind if I have a whack at it?
Literally millions of men are circumcised and enjoy a healthy sex life. It is not even in the same ballpark as female circumcision. It is a minor and routine procedure that if it was done to any other part of the body no one would even think twice about. No one is complaining about vestigial tails being removed.

 

[alzan]

How would you know though?

And how would your wife know?

:hmm:

Many would argue that having foreskin is actually better for sex in many respects......

I had more than one girlfriend who had both cut and uncut guys, she loved my cut cock and told me why she preferred cut vs uncut.

My wife has no reason to lie to me so I accept that she likes cut cock.

There is many more reasons why it's there also.

To protect SENSITIVITY of the head, which BTW is EXTREMELY sensitive. And to reserve it for sexual intercourse.

Something most people that are circumcised wouldn't know.......as that sensitivity/feeling goes completely out the window as your penis head is constantly touched > in time sensitivity goes away.

read: circumcised men don't get the full/complete feeling during sex.

Then there is woman's end too......without the foreskin, the agitation to vagina is greater and requires more lube, which often women cannot produce/keep up with > which leads to pain/soreness etc.

Bullshit My wife loves the fact that I can go for a few minutes to 20 minutes, she hates to give me up once I'm in.

We've used lube for many years since it heightens my wife's post-menopausal pleasure and tendency to be dry. Moot point

 

[Caravaggio]

Nice straw man you have there, mind if I have a whack at it?
Literally millions of men are circumcised and enjoy a healthy sex life. It is not even in the same ballpark as female circumcision. It is a minor and routine procedure that if it was done to any other part of the body no one would even think twice about. No one is complaining about vestigial tails being removed.

Whack on pal.

Just for the record I have never argued that circumcision affects your sex life, although others here have indeed done so. I favour informed choice over compulsion.
I have my foreskin in place and only a man who has had foreskin sex before post foreskin sex can really be a judge about his own views on the experience.
However, there must be many women who have had sex with both 'cut' and uncut males.

My straw poll, which has zero validity, of course, is that women with some experience in this field, favour the circumcised over the 'uncircumcised' such as me.
Much of the data seems to relate to incidence of Clamyddia. In other words, dirty uncircumcised men are more of a problem than than their circumcised peers. This strikes me as a powerful argument in favour of basic hygiene over dirtiness.
It does not support universal circumcision, IMHO.

 

[Murloc]

So you don't believe there was any functional reason why the practice was started that has been lost to us over the years as it was adsorbed into religious ceremonies? I find that hard to believe.

Because in the desert, you just have sand to clean yourself. And there's sand flying around.

An uncircumcised penis has a more sensitive glans (this is useful of course) so it's painful if sand gets in there between the foreskin and the glans.

That's why jews and muslims have it: they're desert religions invented by desert people.

Christian religion was already Rome-centered before they formalized this stuff.

I don't live in the desert.
Nowadays arabs use underwear so it's really not a problem anymore, if it was not for religion setting traditions in stone.


Anyway this is not an issue of utility or not: it's an ethical issue of mutilating babies instead of letting them decide when they actually have willpower and a way to express what they want.

 

[moonbogg]

Nice straw man you have there, mind if I have a whack at it? (LOL wish someone asked me that before going right on ahead and doing it anyway)
Literally millions of men are circumcised and enjoy a healthy sex life. It is not even in the same ballpark as female circumcision. It is a minor and routine procedure that if it was done to any other part of the body no one would even think twice about. No one is complaining about vestigial tails being removed.

Tails are evolutionary leftovers that sometimes occur and they are no longer a common or functional part of our anatomy. There was a time when they may have been though. For instance, if you removed monkey tails today, that would not be wise because it is a common and functional part of monkey anatomy, yet in 3 million years maybe it won't be.
If you are all into removing random parts of our commonly accepted anatomy, why not chop off your ear lobes? You will be a more aerodynamic swimmer and they will also discourage people from piercing their ears and cluttering their heads with silly jewelry. Sounds about as legit as chopping off the skin on someone's peepee, but foreskin is way worse to remove actually.

I had more than one girlfriend who had both cut and uncut guys, she loved my cut cock and told me why she preferred cut vs uncut.

My wife has no reason to lie to me so I accept that she likes cut cock.

And cut it certainly is. When I was a young boy, I thought everyone had that light colored ring around the penis. I was surprised when I caught a glimpse of my friend's penis in the boy's room at school. His penis looked like an okra pickle the way it tapered down at the top. I thought it was a Mexican thing and was just normal for him. I felt sorry for him because his penis looked funny. Little did I know, the joke was on me years later when I realized that the light colored ring around my penis was SCAR TISSUE.

My friend's Okra dick? That was a whole penis. A normal penis. Mine was hacked up and scared. I had the funk down below while his was legit. I was pissed that no one ever told me. I felt taken advantage of, tricked, and disrespected. Where was the sovereignty over my own body? It was yanked away from me at child birth, along with my missing foreskin.

Okra for reference:

 

[ControlD]

Because in the desert, you just have sand to clean yourself. And there's sand flying around.

Thanks for that post, that is interesting. I'm not arguing for or against circumcision at this point, was just trying to understand the origins of the practice. I have seen lots of speculation but never really a consensus opinion on the matter.

Obviously this is an emotional issue for a lot of people. If I was still of the age where I was fathering children I guess I would have to weigh the pros and cons before making a final decision on the matter. I know my parents had their sons circumcised because at that time (the 1960's) it was widely believed to be the healthier alternative. Perhaps that was flawed thinking. I honestly haven't seen enough on either side to say with 100% certainty.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I had more than one girlfriend who had both cut and uncut guys, she loved my cut cock and told me why she preferred cut vs uncut.

It's a more of a society thing in US and stigma that goes along with it.

And looks

My wife has no reason to lie to me so I accept that she likes cut cock.

I'm also pretty sure she would not tell you that she love another guys cock more.

Bullshit My wife loves the fact that I can go for a few minutes to 20 minutes, she hates to give me up once I'm in.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

We've used lube for many years since it heightens my wife's post-menopausal pleasure and tendency to be dry. Moot point

And there is no need to use lube when uncircumcised....

Not really a moot point

 

[notposting]

I'm not so cynical as you; as I previously said, my pediatric surgeon and parents made some really good decisions the day I was born. I don't think the circ was a bad decision,

I would recommend reading this: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

It obviously comes from "a certain point of view" but is worth reading, IMO. Skim through it at least.

As for circumcision, a lot of the arguing on the topic seems defensive, especially for those who have had it (and I don't mean to pile on, here).

When the anti-circ advocates use "whole" "intact" "mutilation" and other words/phrases like that, I bet a HUGE portion of the adult male circumsized population that might consider their overall viewpoint immediately thinks, "F U" and resolves to circumsize any boys they have.

 

[moonbogg]

I bet a HUGE portion of the adult male circumsized population that might consider their overall viewpoint immediately thinks, "F U" and resolves to circumsize any boys they have.

Hey, its their conscience. They will have to live with it. After circumcision is widely accepted as barbaric and insane, their kid will still have the scars left to tell the story of their bad decision.

 

[ControlD]

When the anti-circ advocates use "whole" "intact" "mutilation" and other words/phrases like that, I bet a HUGE portion of the adult male circumsized population that might consider their overall viewpoint immediately thinks, "F U" and resolves to circumsize any boys they have.

I don't believe that at all and I certainly would hope that isn't the case. I cannot fathom a parent making medical decisions for their children based on spite for an unrelated and unknown group of people. I guess if they do their children are going to have a lot worse things to worry about than whether or not they have an intact foreskin.

 

[Caravaggio]

I would recommend reading this: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

It obviously comes from "a certain point of view" but is worth reading, IMO. Skim through it at least.

Thanks for the link 'not posting', it is rare indeed for these debates to be swamped by scientific fact. But a delight when it happens.

I agreed with their conclusions which seem to have had influence on recent Danish and Swedish policy.

The composition of the pro-circumcision group was most revealing.

 

[alzan]

I would recommend reading this: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

It obviously comes from "a certain point of view" but is worth reading, IMO. Skim through it at least.

As for circumcision, a lot of the arguing on the topic seems defensive, especially for those who have had it (and I don't mean to pile on, here).

When the anti-circ advocates use "whole" "intact" "mutilation" and other words/phrases like that, I bet a HUGE portion of the adult male circumsized population that might consider their overall viewpoint immediately thinks, "F U" and resolves to circumsize any boys they have.

There's no debate for me; I'm 56yo, out of the baby-making game and too late to get the circumcision reversed even if I wanted to. I still think it's a decision best left to the parents and the doctor.

If people in other countries or this one want to outlaw the practice I'll push for parental decision since that's where it belongs, not in the hands of government and lobbying groups.

 

[Caravaggio]

There's no debate for me; I'm 56yo, out of the baby-making game and too late to get the circumcision reversed even if I wanted to. I still think it's a decision best left to the parents and the doctor.

Did you read the link suggested by 'notposting' in 133?

Of course you can find a doctor who will support your view! As the article says, the unnecessary removal of American foreskins is a big industry worth $1.25 Bn/year.
The American foreskin removal business is in the hands of people who have themselves been ritually circumcised. They have got you by the balls from your first phone call. Your heart and mind clearly followed.
In nations where ritual cutters have less influence, we find a very low rate of circumcision.
Are you arguing that British, Canadian, Australian, Danish and Swedish doctors are all mistaken?

 

[ControlD]

This isn't a bad read from a slightly less biased point of view:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/circumcision-what-does-science-say/

 

[alzan]

Did you read the link suggested by 'notposting' in 133?

Of course you can find a doctor who will support your view! As the article says, the unnecessary removal of American foreskins is a big industry worth $1.25 Bn/year.
The American foreskin removal business is in the hands of people who have themselves been ritually circumcised. They have got you by the balls from your first phone call. Your heart and mind clearly followed.
In nations where ritual cutters have less influence, we find a very low rate of circumcision.
Are you arguing that British, Canadian, Australian, Danish and Swedish doctors are all mistaken?

No point.

Dude I could care less. I was circ'd 56.1 years ago. I doubt if these doctors in Britain, Canada, Denmark and Sweden were alive back then and even if they were they probably weren't working on this article.

If were interested in creating a son at this point I would be sure to have him circ'd just because it seems like, if you'll pardon the pun, it would "get under your skin".

No, I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned my parents and my pediatric doctor made the right decision for the situation.

 

[Caravaggio]

No point.
If were interested in creating a son at this point I would be sure to have him circ'd just because it seems like, if you'll pardon the pun, it would "get under your skin".

That's a new one. You plan to hurt your yet to be conceived, imaginary son to piss ME off?

Isn't that a bit like shooting Ted Nugent to get back at Obama?

You might consider yourself beyond "baby-making" but you are never too old to start a course in basic medical ethics.

 

[alzan]

That's a new one. You plan to hurt your yet to be conceived, imaginary son to piss ME off?

Isn't that a bit like shooting Ted Nugent to get back at Obama?

You might consider yourself beyond "baby-making" but you are never too old to start a course in basic medical ethics.

I have no intention of creating a baby of any gender; check your sarcasm meter.

Why would I shoot Ted Nugent? He still plays a pretty mean guitar.

Basic medical ethics? You mean like how in only a couple of states and a few enlightened countries someone with a terminal condition/illness can't make the perfectly sane decision to die on their own terms and the medical ethicists and doctors say "We can't and won't condone this, we won't sell you the drugs you need."

 

[Caravaggio]

...Ted Nugent? He still plays a pretty mean guitar.

we must be talking about different people...

I'm referring to the hypocritical right-wing, nut job, draft-dodger, Theodore Nugent. The man who wraps himself in the American flag whilst refusing to fight for the State it represents. Surely you know the guy I mean?
The man who lays bait for baby deer then shoots them, the chap banned from 'hunting' in California. The guy who shat himself on crystal meth and pretended to be too mentally ill to serve his country. The man who denies his drug-fuelled past.
That guy with the fenced zoo who shoots his own animals behind a chain link fence.
Are we Discussing the same person?

Basic medical ethics? You mean like how in only a couple of states and a few enlightened countries someone with a terminal condition/illness can't make the perfectly sane decision to die on their own terms and the medical ethicists and doctors say "We can't and won't condone tihis, we won't sell you the drugs you need."

I completely agree with you on end of life voluntary euthanasia.
But I fail to see the connection between voluntary self-deliverance at the end of life and involuntary, unnecessary, dick-cutting at its beginning.

In earlier posts you have said that you trust doctors to judge on your behalf about important decisions concerning your kids. Now you are saying exactly the opposite. That you distrust doctors to make end of life decisions, unless they live in Oregon, of course.

 

[Nograts]

Buddy of mine had a convo recently about this. He's not cut and I am. When we were in Afghanistan together he got phimosis, was super painful. He was in a lot of pain for I think around a month before it went away. He also complained a lot about having to peel it back to clean himself. I have none of these problems.

When his son was born he had him cicumsized. He wants to get circumsized but he is terrified of the pain.

My two sons are circumsized like me. It has zero to do with religion, and purely a family tradition / hygiene thing for me. They can bitch about it when they're older too, but I think like me, they won't think anything about it. I think more than likely they will be most grateful that I did it when they were newborns, and they don't even remember it.

 

[ThinClient]

I don't see it as just religious; there are health reasons as well.

No.... no there is not.

That's like saying you should chop off your hands because of the health reasons. The notion is mind-bogglingly ignorant.

 

[ControlD]

No.... no there is not.

That's like saying you should chop off your hands because of the health reasons. The notion is mind-bogglingly ignorant.

Of course there are. Read two posts up. Phimosis only occurs in non circumcised men. There is plenty of debate and no firm conclusions on a number of other issues as well. To say there is no benefit whatsoever to circumcision is just as disingenuous as to say every man needs to be circumcised.

The real question should be whether or not the benefits are worth what is given up. I sort of thought that's what this subforum was about, a place to discuss issues without people yelling "moron" "idiot" or whatever other insults they feel like throwing about. Of course the thread was started under false pretenses anyhow, but it really should have been moved to OT if there is going to be zero moderation. Hell, the whole subforum should be shuttered.

 

[Caravaggio]

Buddy of mine had a convo recently about this. He's not cut and I am. When we were in Afghanistan together he got phimosis, was super painful. He was in a lot of pain for I think around a month before it went away. He also complained a lot about having to peel it back to clean himself. I have none of these problems.

That's a useful post Elevenpog.
Phimosis is quite common in the uncircumcised. You were lopped early so you had the mystery of 'peel back' sorted for you. All of this is mentioned in the excellent Wiki review on the topic.
As an uncircumcised male develops, the penis, once tightly joined to the foreskin, loosens its connection. As the male's balls drop, spontaneous erections enlarge the penis and one becomes aware of 'new tissue' beneath the foreskin. Idle exploration during these periods of self-examination make a chap want to pull the foreskin back a bit more each day. By puberty the average lad can peel-back enough to reveal the whole glans. When wanking kicks-in the job is done and we spend the rest of our days chugging away happily until we can persuade girls (or partners) to help us with the task.
But for some boys who have been told that sex is sinful and that chugging will make them blind, there is a delayed discovery of these eternal truths and a residual guilt about self exploration. I have spoken to doctors who have seen male patients who have still not completed full pull back at 40. This is v. rare and means that a full hard-on is likely to be painful. And all manner of crap is nesting under the foreskin. Nasty.
Phimosis is usually associated with delayed pull-back.
We just need to educate people so these changes are reframed as natural, not sinful.

 

[alzan]

we must be talking about different people...

I'm referring to the hypocritical right-wing, nut job, draft-dodger, Theodore Nugent. The man who wraps himself in the American flag whilst refusing to fight for the State it represents. Surely you know the guy I mean?
The man who lays bait for baby deer then shoots them, the chap banned from 'hunting' in California. The guy who shat himself on crystal meth and pretended to be too mentally ill to serve his country. The man who denies his drug-fuelled past.
That guy with the fenced zoo who shoots his own animals behind a chain link fence.
Are we Discussing the same person?


I completely agree with you on end of life voluntary euthanasia.
But I fail to see the connection between voluntary self-deliverance at the end of life and involuntary, unnecessary, dick-cutting at its beginning.

In earlier posts you have said that you trust doctors to judge on your behalf about important decisions concerning your kids. Now you are saying exactly the opposite. That you distrust doctors to make end of life decisions, unless they live in Oregon, of course.

So you don't see the difference between end-of-life decisions and circumcision?

A baby has no language to discuss circumcision, transfusion, incubation, etc. with it's parents and/or doctors. Someone at end-of-life, barring mental incapacity, has language as well as logic and reason to put forth convincing arguments as to their wishes to children, spouse, doctors, etc. That's just one of the differences.

Like I keep saying, my parents and doctors made a lot of decisions that I didn't have a say in, but here I am 56 years later for better or for worse.

If you choose not to have your son circumcised that's your decision to make; if another couple chooses to have their son(s) circumcised that's their decision to make.

 

[moonbogg]

Of course there are. Read two posts up. Phimosis only occurs in non circumcised men. There is plenty of debate and no firm conclusions on a number of other issues as well. To say there is no benefit whatsoever to circumcision is just as disingenuous as to say every man needs to be circumcised.

The real question should be whether or not the benefits are worth what is given up. I sort of thought that's what this subforum was about, a place to discuss issues without people yelling "moron" "idiot" or whatever other insults they feel like throwing about. Of course the thread was started under false pretenses anyhow, but it really should have been moved to OT if there is going to be zero moderation. Hell, the whole subforum should be shuttered.

You attempt to discredit the thread? The thread was started honestly and some people have interest in this discussion. The tide is turning in the US with regard to people's opinion on circumcision. The reason for that is very clear, or at least it should be clear if one's judgment isn't clouded by harmful traditions and ancient religious practices that should have been discarded long ago.

Not cutting at a baby's penis in the name of tradition and religion = progress.

 

[ControlD]

You attempt to discredit the thread?

I realize that was written in poor taste (although I believe the thread title vs. the content is misleading). I would have edited it out but I waited too long, so I apologize.