Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 07:59pm

They say the first cut is the deepest.

I personally never thought much of it for most of my life, but after discovering a great deal of the anti-circumcision movements out there, I've learned a great deal about what I've been missing. Worse, what I'll never have again. In my case I had a Jewish doctor. *Gah*.

In all fairness I don't know if that's the reason he talked my mother into it, but he told her it's "cleaner" and would help prevent infection. After a lot of research I discovered that's all bullshit, and they have basically removed (if I remember correctly) 5 square miles of healthy, extremely sensitive erogenous skin consisting of special components like the frenulum, and meissner's corpuscles as two examples.

All in all, I'm quite annoyed at this mutilation done to me against my will, and I personally think it should be outlawed as severely as female genital mutilation. Of course it's not as SEVERE, but it's no more beneficial either.

What do you think? Should parent's the right to do this to their children for religious reasons?

Obviously the extremely rare cases involving a medical reason would be fine.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-30 08:01pm

i think the main reason it's supposedly about preventing infection is due to alot of lazy guys not wanting to pull back their foreskin and wipe it off every once in awhile with soap. being circumcised, i can honestly say i don't remember anything of it happening, as of course i was too young at the time. i'm fairly certain most guys don't. personally i don't really see it as any big deal, unless someone tries to expect you to get a circumcision after you're so many years old that is. then it's a different story, but otherwise no biggie.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-03-30 08:06pm

If not for the religious aspect of it, circumcision would probably be outlawed as an unnecessary mutilation.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 08:15pm

i don't remember anything of it happening, as of course i was too young at the time. i'm fairly certain most guys don't. personally i don't really see it as any big deal, unless someone tries to expect you to get a circumcision after you're so many years old that is. then it's a different story, but otherwise no biggie.

I don't remember it either, but that's not really the point. The biggie is what you are MISSING that you'll never know. The sensitivity is FAR greater for an uncircumsized male. Not to mention masturbation is a lot easier. May people who were uncut for most of their life and then got a circumcision say that the "gliding" sensation they used to have with the foreskin was incredible, and they miss that feeling especially. Also they claim the natural sensitivity dropped dramatically once the glans started drying out completely, and the inner pink skin became rougher. It makes sense of course.

So in any case, why would you think it would be no biggie for someone to do this to you as a child without a valid medical reason? Or worse in my opinion, a STUPID reason like religion?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-30 08:20pm

The excuse that it's about hygiene is crap as far as I can see. If anything, the foreskin actually staves off infection by covering the most sensitive area of the penis which if harmed can lead to major damage to the organ.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-30 08:21pm

mainly i just don't see it as that big of a deal because i obviously don't remember it happening. i certainly don't see any real need for it to have happened, however as it was so long ago i can view it with no emotional attachment at all. plus, it's not like i'll ever realize what i'm missing pleasure wise, so it doesn't affect me that way either.

however i certainly wouldn't support it, if it was for any reason other than a legitimate medical cause.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-03-30 08:26pm

Im the same stance as Darth Zod. Since their is no real benefit or reason to get it done, then yes technically it shouldnt really be done at all. Also, the "religious" reasons behind it are ridiculous and I don't think the proceedures should be done on that basis. HOWEVER, being a circumsized at birth person myself, Im not crying over it.

I do not really consider myself "mutilated" in anyway since my dick works, feels and looks fine and I resent the idea that I should feel degraded or less a man over something so trivial. Even if it would be more sensitive with the original skin on it, Im not going to get worked up over that. If the proceedure had actually damaged my dick like preventing it from getting an erection or mangled its appearance, then I would be pissed.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 08:27pm

What's particularly interesting, is that you can "restore" it to some degree. I didn't believe it when I first heard it, but there is a lot out there on it. I did it myself for awhile, and I ended up with far more skin then before, as I was quite tightly cut. It's a HELL of a lot easier to masturbate now, and there is no chafing when someone else tries it.

However you have to restore for a year or more to really get close to full coverage. It's not as good as the real thing, but people who have done it say that the difference in sensitivity is amazing. You actually start lubricating the glans again once it's covered. At least there's somewhat of an option out there. I want to go all the way, but I've been lazy.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-03-30 08:28pm

I was hearing one time on NPR about an actual scientific study comparing African HIV patterns and US HIV patterns. And it seems that the only societal difference that they had been really able to single out that kept people in the U.S. safer was... circumcision. So there's one strike against it being bullshit. Of course, that's just their opinion, they could be wrong.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-03-30 08:34pm

I've never come across a single convincing medical argument for circumcision on infants.
Adults are a different story, apparently there's a condition that results in the foreskin becoming too tight to allow for erections without extreme discomfort.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 08:35pm

I do not really consider myself "mutilated" in anyway since my dick works, feels and looks fine and I resent the idea that I should feel degraded or less a man over something so trivial.

If your fingernails were removed, would you still say that you weren't "mutilated"? Sure you could still use your hands, but they wouldn't be completely intact, would they? It's still mutilation.

Certainly you shouldn't feel degraded or less a man. It's not important to your IDENTITY as a man.

Im not going to get worked up over that. If the proceedure had actually damaged my dick like preventing it from getting an erection or mangled its appearance, then I would be pissed.

Actually, this happens with a far greater statistical occurence over the so called "reasons" for removal that they claim are preventative for phimosis and other problems. Do a quick search and you'll see a lot of botching. Especially idiots that do it to their kids at home because it can cost money to do in the hospital.

I was hearing one time on NPR about an actual scientific study comparing African HIV patterns and US HIV patterns. And it seems that the only societal difference that they had been really able to single out that kept people in the U.S. safer was... circumcision. So there's one strike against it being bullshit. Of course, that's just their opinion, they could be wrong.

Yes this is apparently a possible fact, but so what? Its a red herring. The problem is with hiv, not the penis being uncircumsized. Take it a step further and say it's reasonable to never have intercourse so that all STD's will be stopped for good. Let's just auto-inseminate, and auto-eroticate.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2004-03-30 08:50pm

circumcision, has been shown to reduce infections, especially with STDs if I recall correctly, thus i'd see it as a public health move, and parents have the rights to agree to any medical proceedures for their minor children.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-03-30 09:00pm

If your fingernails were removed, would you still say that you weren't "mutilated"? Sure you could still use your hands, but they wouldn't be completely intact, would they? It's still mutilation.

At birth? No I wouldnt, since my brain isnt developed enough to remember it or register it as an important or negative event. Also, fingernails do not exist for the reasons that foreskin does. Assuming you lost your fingernails forever, that actually impedes the usefullness of your fingers which play an important role in daily life. But losing foreskin just reduces sensitivity and does not impede the actual usefullness or of your penis.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-30 09:08pm

NapoleonGH wrote:circumcision, has been shown to reduce infections, especially with STDs if I recall correctly, thus i'd see it as a public health move, and parents have the rights to agree to any medical proceedures for their minor children.

Actually, there are no national or international health organisations in the West that advocate circumcision in this day and age. It is purely a religious procedure for purely religious reasons in infants.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 09:11pm

circumcision, has been shown to reduce infections, especially with STDs if I recall correctly, thus i'd see it as a public health move, and parents have the rights to agree to any medical proceedures for their minor children.

Even if this was DEFINITIVELY proven, it would still not be a valid reason in my mind. It sounds like a dangerous slippery slope. It's behaviour that matters with STD, not the ability to contract them easier.

I don't think parent's should have that right when it's something at best potentially useful to lessen some STD's or functional problems, but much more likely to be of no value whatsoever. In fact you can still define it as harm because the function is not as GOOD as it would have been originally. Later in life, the circumsized penis gets more and more desensitized, and this could be completely avoided if the foreskin was left where it belongs.

Also, circumcision is almost never done with anaesthesia, and I'm sorry, it's obvious you are causing the baby excrutiating pain. Look at this link and watch a video of it and tell me what YOU think:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fo ... %20Videos/

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-30 09:13pm

How about some evidence Napoleon?

I take it then clitorectomies are fine by you then?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-30 09:15pm

NapoleonGH wrote:circumcision, has been shown to reduce infections, especially with STDs if I recall correctly, thus i'd see it as a public health move, and parents have the rights to agree to any medical proceedures for their minor children.

Most of those claims date back decades and fall into the category of "common knowledge", ie- totally unsupported with legitimate studies. And the only infection risk associated with uncircumcised penises is if you never wash them. Someone who walks around with a filthy germ-encrusted dick is looking for trouble anyway.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 09:18pm

At birth? No I wouldnt, since my brain isnt developed enough to remember it or register it as an important or negative event.

Oh come ON Icehawk. It still doesn't change the fact you were mutilated.

Also, fingernails do not exist for the reasons that foreskin does. Assuming you lost your fingernails forever, that actually impedes the usefullness of your fingers which play an important role in daily life.

And losing your ability to have better sensitivity the rest of your life doesn't play an important part? What will you say when you're 65-70 and the sensation is markedly reduced and so erectile difficulties become more likely. Is this not interfering with natural "function"?

But losing foreskin just reduces sensitivity and does not impede the actual usefullness or of your penis

See above

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-03-30 09:20pm

If you look at the word : "Mutilation"

mu·ti·late tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1)To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2)To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

3) To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. - Dictionary.com

Circumcision only really falls under the third definition. It may be "mutilation" but its clearly not such a serious black and white issue as say, cutting off an arm or an eyeball or something. Sure you are changing it and thus making it "imperfect" in the way of sensitivity, but thats pretty much it. Its not actually being seriously damaged or impeded in its use throughout life. It really comes down to how much importance you wish to put on that sensitivity.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 09:26pm

I would say it falls under both the second AND third.

You are damaging it irreperably, because even with restoration, you will still never recover for example the frenulum. They say that it's been shown to have a major stimulating effect on orgasm. From personal experience I can tell you that someone WITH one finds it an extremely pleasurable area to have.

Now don't get me wrong, or course I'm not saying it's anywhere near as serious as the loss of a limb. Then it would be like losing the ENTIRE dick, but I think the fingernails example was a pretty accurate analogy.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-03-30 09:36pm

You are damaging it irreperably, because even with restoration, you will still never recover for example the frenulum. They say that it's been shown to have a major stimulating effect on orgasm. From personal experience I can tell you that someone WITH one finds it an extremely pleasurable area to have.

But its not actually "damaging" it irreperably, so much as changing it irreperably. To damage means to impair the usefullness or value of something.

Again, it comes down to how usefull or important "full" penis sensitivity actually is in ones life.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-30 09:49pm

But its not actually "damaging" it irreperably, so much as changing it irreperably. To damage means to impair the usefullness or value of something.

I don't understand why you're splitting hairs. It's the same thing.

How could FORCIBLY removing healthy tissue by a scalpel, or similar cutting instrument not be construed as damage?

It doesn't make any difference as to the reasoning behind it, or whether it was wanted for cosmetic purposes. Even piercing your ear is still "damaging" it.

Again, it comes down to how usefull or important "full" penis sensitivity actually is in ones life.

Considering that most people consider sexual pleasure to be extremely important to their life, I would think most would care a great deal. More importantly though is the ACTUAL point I raised in the first place.

Why should the parents be allowed to make this decision. They shouldn't. It should be a personal choice ONLY unless a medical reason is present. I'm very upset that it happened to me, and although I don't hate my parents, if someone asked me if there was one thing I held against my parents it would be that. Although it could be blamed a bit more on the doctor I suppose...

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-30 09:53pm

Well, Icehawk does this mean you support clitorectomies?

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2004-03-30 10:04pm

I was circumcised for religious reasons. I don't remember it, I don't hold it against anyone, and I don't especially care either. In all honesty, I'm glad it happened back then, because I most certainly would NOT want to go through that even as a 5 year old, let alone an 18 year old.

Besides, after speaking to a number of my female friends stated their preference for circumcised over uncircumcised.

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2004-03-30 10:05pm

Pardon the grammar. Should read "Besides, I consulted a number of my female friends at one point and many expressed a preference of circumcised over uncircumcised.)