Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

To start with, I don't have any issues with circumcision being done to informed individuals who want the procedure. What I do have an issue with is the procedure being done to infants or minors who don't understand the benefits and drawbacks of it, and can't consent to it.

Now, it's worth noting that the scientific benefits and drawbacks of circumcision are not fully clear. There is a fair amount of disagreement on just what results it produces. If it was the case that circumcision was 100% (or closely enough) proven to be healthy and non harmful to infants, then I could support it being done to infants.

However, this is not the case. Here are a few studies showing that it isn't fully proven to not be harmful.

http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Considering this, I don't think that it's right to allow the procedure to be done on infants when it isn't fully proven to be beneficial and non harmful. I also think that this sort of medical reasoning should trump religious reasons for circumcision in all cases.

What are your thoughts?

I think a lot of reasons for Circumcision is bullshit

• It's tradition
  Never a good reason
• His father is circumcised
  A complete non-reason
• It's cleaner
  Not really, a foreskin is not any harder to clean than a penis would be anyway, just soap and water
• It's healthier
  How? Most studies that say that have been debunked
  and of course the grand daddy of them all
• It's my religion
  Yes, it's your religion, but it's not his religion. What if he grows up believing something else? Why do you get to enforce your beliefs as a physical, mostly irreversible change on you child?

I don't really have an opinion either way, not being part of a religion or culture that demands it and not planning on having kids, but "what if he grows up believing something else" is just as bad an argument as all the other ones you listed. What if he grows up to believe in the anti-vax movement, or you're not religious but he turns out to be and you've denied him an important ritual that loses its significance when performed in adulthood? Why do you get to enforce your beliefs about anything on your child, if you're going to go that route?

From what I've gathered over the years in this debate the jury is out on whether it's inherently beneficial or harmful. I personally have chosen to leave the decision of whether or not to circumcise my future children to the father. I feel that the fact that I don't have the genitals involved in circumcision sort of leads me unable to fully understand the true circumstances that go behind the decision to circumcise or not. I can look at the studies all I want, but there's just going to be that level of understanding that I will never have (unless a female equivalent of the procedure became a common part of western culture) My current boyfriend says that in the even that we had kids he would want to have them circumcised, and I'm ok with that,

I feel one should not shame a parent that circumcises their child. The parent has the right to decide whatever medical treatments and procedures the child does or does not receive, and seeing as circumcision isn't really a particularly dangerous procedure (no procedure is completely safe, mind you) and is safely practiced across the western world I don't see it as being morally bankrupt to circumcise your child. It's all about personal choices.

@Ryumaru Borike:

Why do you get to enforce your beliefs as a physical, mostly irreversible change on you child?

There are many ways to restore the foreskin, you know. I wouldn't describe it as an "irreversible change". Parents have to make many irreversible changes to their child may resent them for later in life, but that's just the name of the game.

From what I’ve gathered over the years in this debate the jury is out on whether it’s inherently beneficial or harmful.

Again, that doesn't strike me as a good reason to allow it as a medical procedure to be performed on those who cannot consent to it.

Speaking as someone who has been circumcised all his life…

It's an infliction of an irreversable, unnecessary body mutilation on an infant who cannot give consent. That's all I need to make my determination. The fact that it ruined my chances of having a normal sexual life without some kind of severe treatment or operation is certainly a factor though.

Again, I am of the opinion that people should just do what they think is best. Completely banning the practice on infants seems extreme to me personally. This is a big part of many religions, mind you. While some may not find that a good enough excuse to circumcise, many parents believe that including their child in their religion and practices is of the utmost priority. Unless there was cold hard solid proof that the practice was harmful on infants, would it not be a breach of religious freedom for the practice to be banned?

@Crimson Locks

Millions of people believe that lopping off a girl's clitoris is "for the best". Do you support parental rights when it comes to that?

Come on Lisa, you should know everything wrong with that statement:
"or you’re not religious but he turns out to be and you’ve denied him an important ritual that loses its significance when performed in adulthood?"
So we should enforce circumcision on the off-chance the child might become religious?
"What if he grows up to believe in the anti-vax movement"
Completely and utterly irrelevant.
"Why do you get to enforce your beliefs about anything on your child, if you’re going to go that route?"
Me not enforcing my beliefs on my child by letting him choose himself when he's older is me enforcing my beliefs?
@Crimson
"There are many ways to restore the foreskin, you know. I wouldn’t describe it as an “irreversible change”. "
That's why I said mostly, and the procedure can cost up to $50,000 and has about a 60-70% success rate.

>circumcised entire life
>still can JO just fine

Honestly I get more insulted that someone is ethically offended on my behalf. I didn't know the difference between a circumcised dick and a "regular" one until a few years ago, and it seems that people today still don't know if there's much of a difference. It feels no better or worse and I couldn't POSSIBLY know if it was better or worse, I'd have to take someone's word for it. So why get mad for people like me?

People are more getting mad for themselves and children who don't know better who might grow up wishing they still had it

I don't see why people feel so strongly either way. IMO the benefits and drawbacks balance each other pretty evenly. While circumcision carries a small risk of infection, the foreskin itself is also susceptible to infection itself, so simply avoiding circumcision won't help significantly in that regard.

As for the religion argument… why does it matter? If a child is circumcised and decides to become an atheist later, it's not like Richard Dawkins will excommunicate him for his lack of foreskin. To my knowledge, there are no major religious or nonreligious groups where not being circumcised is any obligation.

Personally, I think the foreskin is fucking hideous, but that's not much of a reason to strongly favor circumcision. I don't care and I don't understand why others do.

To everyone in this thread saying "I'm circumcised, and I don't feel any different"- how could you possibly know that? You'd literally have to possess another person's body. On the other hand, we have actual research that shows it has important functions. You can read about them here, though be warned of the NSFW photos.

The foreskin is not an infection magnet, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits seeing how there is no benefits

You're missing the point. People don't want their foreskin so they can be a part of a religion :/

Here is one reason why There are studies showing a Circumcised Penis is less sensitive than an Uncircumcised penis

You can find several examples of foreskin disease just by Googling it. Posthitis, phimosis, balanoposthitis, penile cancer, etc. etc. etc. (Not sure if I can provide links since anything involving foreskin disease would have NSFW pics, just google these if you want to.) It's not necessarily easily infected, but the risk of foreskin infection is similar to the risk of infection resulting through circumcision.

"Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent." – 2007 WHO report on circumcision

Fact is, it's not absolutely known what the foreskin does, so any reasoning based on its function wouldn't be entirely stable.

Personally, I think the foreskin is fucking hideous, but that’s not much of a reason to strongly favor circumcision. I don’t care and I don’t understand why others do.

I care because many people were never given the choice to decide that for themselves.

What you are basically saying is there is no solid facts on whether circumcision is beneficial or harmful, wouldn't that mean it's best to just leave the foreskin be?

Also, of course it can get infected, just like any part of your body can, but it's not the disease ridden piece of skin people think it is

Ryumaru Borike said

Most studies that say that have been debunked…

Circumcision helps reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV by as much as 60%

It also decreases the likelihood of multiple infections of HPV

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also concluded that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Benefits such as:
>prevention of urinary tract infections
>transmission of some sexually transmitted infections
>penal cancer

The AAP also determined that circumcision "does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction."

@Consent
Other things infants can't consent to:
>immunization
>post-birth surgeries
>what they eat/drink
>if they're born intersex, which sex they are given (except in Malta)
>what medications they take
>where they travel
>pretty much everything since they're infants
Part of being a parent is making decisions you feel are best for your child.

Exactly, I'd have to live an entirely different life and retain all previous sensory input from this one to know any different. I can still derive pleasure from activity to that region, I've not had any sort of health problems before, and I don't foresee any possible ones coming up anytime soon. I don't FEEL any different from an uncircumcised person and I'm sure an uncircumcised person doesn't feel any different from a circumcised person. Both can't possible feel any different because both haven't been the other, not in any case I've heard thus far, the only way to possibly feel different is to be told that.

Viewing your link I even realize why a circumcised dick might be off-putting for some. I see an uncircumcised dick and think "that's not how it looks, nor how I want mine to look" because I just see something completely alien to what I've experienced my entire life. I bet the reverse is true for some perhaps.

If the health benefits are negligible either way, then what does this matter to people? If a circumcised man can still derive pleasure from his tool and stay healthy, what does arguing this any more matter?

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also concluded that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

Again, that's rather contentious.

http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

I'm okay with non consenting decisions being made for the child when it is provably for their best interests. In this case however, circumcision hasn't been proven to be a certain good decision in terms of health benefits.

I care because many people were never given the choice to decide that for themselves.

I was never given that choice and I don't give a shit. Several people in this thread were never given that choice and don't give a shit. Not having a foreskin has never hurt me.

What you are basically saying is there is no solid facts on whether circumcision is beneficial or harmful, wouldn’t that mean it’s best to just leave the foreskin be?

That's the thing. If we don't have solid facts on wether it's beneficial or harmful, then it doesn't matter what's done with it. It's like the tonsils of the groin in a way – keep it, remove it, doesn't matter.

To everyone saying that we don't know anything else…

You're right. We can't compare for ourselves. That's… kind of part of the reason why we don't care. All we know is that the equipment we have now isn't half bad, and that we're not ready to get jealous of people on the other side of the fence, and that we're tired of people trying to tell us that we should be, especially since most of them (i.e. all of them who have ever bitched about it in earshot of us) can't compare for themselves either.

Sorry if I'm speaking for anybody who doesn't share these thoughts, but I'd be surprised if I were.

Just because you don't give a shit doesn't mean others shouldn't. If you don't really care either way, why are you still commenting on it?

This actually goes for a lot of people. Why should the conversation not happen just because you don't care about it?

Uncut master raw checking in.
My dicks been fine all my life, I dont see drawbacks to having it, so I don't think it's necessary. Should it be banned? I don't know.

@xTSGx

So let me get this straight- there are many decisions that a parent has to make about their child, and therefore a parent should be able to make every decision for their child? It honestly seems like that's the rationale you're making.
The whole point is that this is a nonessential, essentially irreversible operation (and I'm living proof that it can cause damage to one's sexual life). That is something specifically that should not happen without the consent of the individual. Let the actual person decide if the supposed health benefits are legitimate.

Just because others give a shit doesn't mean we should.

We aren't asking for you to give a shit

I commented saying I didn't give a shit, and people started arguing with me anyway.

You were talking about avoiding circumcision because there's no significant reason to do it? That's how I feel about the circumcision debate. If neither side can make a strong case, than the argument doesn't need to exist. It's a waste of perfectly good breath.

You might not be, but plenty of people are.

• First off, I'd like point out that I actually got a urinary track infection from a damaged urethra that the doctor point out would not have happened with a foreskin, so I'm dubious of that claim.

• From the very link you posted for HPV
  "However, studies exploring a potential association between male circumcision and HPV infection have produced conflicting results" "There is no consistent association of HPV acquisition with circumcision status, indicating that circumcised men may be no more protected from initial HPV infection than their uncircumcised peers" "These findings indicate that circumcision modulates HPV persistence rather than acquisition"
  The findings are not concrete, and affect infection length, not acquisition.

• Also This says Circumcision does not lower penal cancer rates, while this points out there is more deaths caused by circumcision complications than penal cancer anyway

*Also this follow up the HIV study tells otherwise

• Also, I'd like to point out that besides the surgery, none of those cause near-irreversible physical changes.

Like I said, most of these studies have been debunked or are inconclusive with counter evidence present. I'll update you if I find something on the STD business

Your comment wasn't "I don't give a shit" but "why do people give a shit?"
You asked why people cared in regards to religion, people answered, you answered back, that doesn't sound like not caring

@Genry maybe people asking or trying to get support?

Ooooooh I was wondering how long it would take before someone compared male circumcision to female genital mutilation.

The two practices, while in theory similar, are two different procedures, done for totally different reasons, and have extremely different health risks. Male circumcision is done for a multitude of reasons in western culture. Could be for religious practices, because the parent believes it has health benefits, because of aesthetics, or just because that's what's common in the culture and the parents are going with the flow. FGM, according to wikipedia, is "rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics". You'll notice male circumcision is not done to control male sexuality or maintain their "purity". The only thing they really have in common is that they're done for aesthetics. Oh, and we didn't even get to the part about health risks behind FGM, which include "recurrent infections, chronic pain, cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits." What's the risk behind circumcision again? Oh yeah, you may get an infection that you could get after any procedure and maybe it effects your sexual pleasure. Or maybe it doesn't. The jury is out.

Don't even try to compare the two practices, because they are far and away different from each other.

Oh yeah, and nice try making it sound like I support barbaric practices because I vouched for the parent's right to make health choices for their baby. You did your best.

I can't. That's my experience.
To get graphic, because at this point I feel like I have to clarify, the only place I can feel sexual stimulation is at the frenulum, i.e. where the underside of the glans connects to the shaft. Everywhere else is dead. As a result, I'm unable to masturbate like a normal man, and until the problem is corrected (assuming it can be, which isn't guaranteed), I will not be capable of intercourse. I guarantee you that I'm not the only person affected in this way.

@Crimson "The only thing they really have in common is that they’re done for aesthetics."

And that they are both genital mutilation. One might have a more malicious reason and have more side effects, but they are similar in what they basically are. Clitoris mutilation is far worse, don't get me wrong, but it's not two completely different worlds.

Also, those decisions are mostly based off of faulty and old beliefs,you wouldn't support a parents right to bleed their baby for a cold would you? And most circumcisions are done for aesthetics or tradition, not health reasons anyway.

0.9999…=1 wrote:

I can’t. That’s my experience. To get graphic, because at this point I feel like I have to clarify, the only place I can feel sexual stimulation is at the frenulum, i.e. where the underside of the glans connects to the shaft. Everywhere else is dead. As a result, I’m unable to masturbate like a normal man, and until the problem is corrected (assuming it can be, which isn’t guaranteed), I will not be capable of intercourse. I guarantee you that I’m not the only person affected in this way.

You’re not alone, I also have the same thing, my Glans is mostly numb, also scarred from damage my Foreskin would have protected it from. I still don’t get how doctors can say circumcision does not affect sexual pleasure when you are cutting off one of the most sensitive parts off and reducing the sensitivity of another significantly.

"MY PERSONAL ANECDOTES AND BIASED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE MORE VALID THAN YOUR PERSONAL ANECDOTES AND BIASED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH"

Serious debate dude, if you aren't going to contribute, just leave.

@0.9999…=1

I apologize if what I said made you feel obligated to get personal, I know opening up like that can be hard (or perhaps easier through anonymity) but I don't want you to feel like I don't care about your struggle. I also don't want to lose sight of what I feel the debate should be about, and that's whether this benefits my fellow man or not.

like a normal man,

In my experience, no one is created equal in their sexual experiences. To get philosophically bullshitty on you a bit, we're all different and those differences bring us together. Don't let anyone ever tell you that you are not normal. You are you, and that's exceptional. I'm sorry you feel like you've suffered because of this and I really do wish you the best in seeking what makes you happy.

Also, those decisions are mostly based off of faulty and old beliefs,you wouldn’t support a parents right to bleed their baby for a cold would you? And most circumcisions are done for aesthetics or tradition, not health reasons anyway.

r u srs?

She called him out for equating things that aren't the same and you respond by comparing it to something not even remotely similar? Bleeding someone to heal them is a universally discredited practice that not only doesn't work but actively harms the patient and can easily lead to death. Circumcision on the other hand is a medical procedure that if done wrong can make sex harder.

@Crimson Locks

Oh yeah, and nice try making it sound like I support barbaric practices because I vouched for the parent’s right to make health choices for their baby.

That was not my intention at all. I also never said that the two were equivalent.

In your post that I replied to, you essentially pointed out that parents who have their boys circumcised believe they are doing what is best for them. This is true. But here's the reality- so do the parents who sign off on FGM. You say that the jury's out on it's health affects. I wouldn't necessarily call that statement wrong, but the whole idea is that you don't let a person get something cut off of their body without their permission unless you know that it's necessary and won't cause damage.

You’ll notice male circumcision is not done to control male sexuality or maintain their “purity”.

If you look back into the past, you'll find that wasn't always true.

You are missing the point of the comparison. A lot of reasons doctors give as to the benefits of Circumcisions are old, discredited or in dispute, yet people are making permanent "health" choices for their children based on them, is a ridiculous as parents making health choices based on discredited bleeding techniques.

Okay, okay, you want me to spell it out?

One minute you're saying "You don't know what it's like to have a foreskin; how could you make an informed judgement on how important it is?" and the next you're saying "If only I had my foreskin back, I could get harder, better, faster, stronger!"

Also, I'm not inclined to take any scientific study seriously that ends in something like this:

Circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of the mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

This indicates that the researchers collected and interpreted results under the assumption that "cut = badong! uncut = gnodab!" That's called agenda-focused research, and it's not cool.

@0.9999…=1:

If you look back into the past, you’ll find that wasn’t always true.

I'll admit you got me there, which is my own fault for not double checking the history

@Genry:
I suggest you refrain from making all caps strawman posts like you did above, even if this weren't serious debate. This is a very heated discussion by nature, so all of us should keep that in mind and make sure our posts stay constructive to the conversation and less insulting to other users.

@Genry We've been saying this whole topic this subject is in dispute with research both ways

Also, where did I say any of that? I never said any of that.

Also, a study that underlies the possible effects of the research the study overs? Must be bias! That study was made in response to the earlier, incompleted study with the purpose of determining the effects of circumcision in HIV prevent, which caused many people in the community where the study takes place to forgo condoms, thinking circumcision is all the protection they need. This was indeed a concern and the reason why the second study was funded, so of course they are going to comment on it.

In dispute is very different from entirely discredited. You are comparing doctors saying "Some of us think this helps and some of us don't" to them saying "this definitely does not help and will hurt or possibly kill you".

Some stuff is in dispute but a lot of the standard stuff doctors tell parents have been discredited, like the "cleaner" part or "Rife with infections"

I feel like this is pretty relevant.

Source

I do feel like my genitals have been mutilated by being circumcised. Although you can technically get it bad it isn't entirely the same. There is a large number of nerve endings and it is known that it is a very pleasurable area so having it cut off feels rather cruel, especially since the few methods of getting it back do not restore those nerves. I don't think it should be done, if your kid grows up to be 20 and still wants to be in the religion then he can knowingly go get one. Though if all you need to do to get into heaven according to Christians is to believe in Jesus and repent for your sins, I don't know why God still wants the tip of everyone's dicks as proof.

I am not circumcised and in my country it is very uncommon. I personally think it should stay that way. I am against circumcision.

@Consent
Other things infants can’t consent to:
>immunization
>post-birth surgeries
>what they eat/drink
>if they’re born intersex, which sex they are given (except in Malta)
>what medications they take
>where they travel
>pretty much everything since they’re infants
Part of being a parent is making decisions you feel are best for your child.

Yes because feeding, preventing disease and having life saving surgeries is completely the same as having your foreskin cut off. It's not like the majority are just for basic survival.

The difference is, you can get your foreskin cut off at whatever age you please. It's an option that the child can later on in life choose. Vaccination, surgery and medication tend to be decisions the parent will only have a small window of time to choose (and to point out again, they are mostly life and death things, where as circumcision is not).

If its for religious reasons, I'm pretty sure your god can wait till the child at least a teenager to decide if he wants to be mutilated.

This is a debate that I prefer to leave to the men out there who have had their dicks ruined by circumcision (of which there are plenty). It's those guys who have a position to argue. I think they have every right to demand at the very least: stronger control over the procedure by professional surgeons. So no more babies end up with .5 of a cock

I've been snipped flawlessly and my dick works perfectly fine, which I believe throws me out of the whole debate.

My personal anecdote of how circumcision has not negatively affected me in any way is really all I can say. Good for me, woohoo. But my outcome is meaningless compared to the men who suffered the tremendous loss of losing a penis.

It's those guys that matter, not me. And I can't deny their struggle just by saying my own circumcision worked okay.