Regarding the use of the word ‘mutilated’, the people I have seen using this word are typically men who, upon having discovered what they might have had, look at what they were left with and feel…mutilated. Also, in the case of the men who begin restoration, and experience an immediate improvement in their sexual sensations (which is common, though not universal), many of these become angry at having missed this all their lives. Yes. They do feel mutilated. Why shouldn’t they say so?
I wouldn’t agree with them telling OTHER men that they are mutilated, but I certainly think they have a right to express their own very real and very negative response to finding out their willy has been altered, and that what they always considered ‘normal’ is about as ‘normal’ as doberman with prick ears - it’s what you usually see, but it ain’t the way nature made them.
You know, I felt pretty damned mutilated after my first (created necessity) cesarean section. And I think my feelings were valid, even though by the time it happened, it was needed. I don’t still feel that way, but I did feel that way at the time. It’s entirely possible that had I not managed a VBAC eventually, I would still feel that way, I don’t know.
Feelings are real, even if you don’t agree with them. You can’t argue with feelings, they simply are. And you can’t say to someone, “You shouldn’t feel that.” Each person has a right to feel what they feel…and then, perhaps, with the receipt of new information and time and so on, to process those feelings and let them go.
None that I can think of. AFAIK the lowered risk of infections, and cancer conferred by circumcision can also be attained through thorough cleaning and proper hygiene. The procedure is simply an added expense in what is already a very expensive time.
I actually have advised my Christian friends not to have their sons circumcised.
Absolutely. I just don’t believe that “because it’s done wthout their consent” is a “compelling reason”. For reasons that other posters and me have already stated regarding parents and their decisions for their children.
Had I access to the newer research that’s known in THIS day and age at the time my son was born, I might NOT have had it done. At the time, the cleanliness, safety, health issues were still being touted by the medical community. My son is a teenager, so I don’t KNOW what I would choose should I mysteriously find myself pregnant with a boy baby at this advanced age.
As to my sexual preference for circumcised men? That’s a totally separate matter, particulary since the man I would possibly choose for an SO would have been that way a LONG time, and his being that way had nothin to do with a decision by me. But my feelings on that wouldn’t change based on what should or shouldn’t be done to baby boys,
And I’m not of a faith (former baptist) that believes in it for religion’s sake, so I don’t have a dog in that fight.
It’s easier to keep clean, and it looks better. That’s two reasons that are more than valid enough for me.
The only major drawback I can see is the slight chance that your kid will grow up to be a whiney little fuck who blames all his problems on his willie.
An uncircumcised penis is hardly a difficult thing to wash (granted, mine is so massive in proportion that the task is never-ending - like painting the Forth Bridge)
I have to point out that these reasons are also used to justify the various forms of female genital mutliation. Though even the backward, brutal, misogynistic cultures that indulge in such practices probably have a more sympathetic and kind attitude toward its victims than displayed here.
I was thinking about why we should criminalize circumcision, when we don’t criminalize other things parents do without their children’s consent, some of which have permanent mental and physical consequences.
The truth is we do criminalize some things - abuse and neglect, for instance. And I think what they have in common with circumcision is that they are fairly discrete and identifiable, whereas things like feeding your kids “too much” junk food or not paying “enough” attention to them are too diffuse, lengthy, and subjective for the law to intervene. CanvasShoes, I hope you see that I at least did consider your argument here - not all of us are fringe loonies obsessed with willies.
The inflammatory language is a straw man for at least the more sensible participants in the debate, but in cold sober terms explain to me objectively why you weren’t basically mutilated or abused? How exactly do you not fit within those definitions? The only answer I can think of is that you consider that a given practice cannot be abuse or mutilation if it is considered commonplace in a given society.
I mean sure, circumcision is so common that it’s pretty hard to think of it as mutilation and abuse, but exactly where do you draw the line in objective terms?
Answer these questions Miller:
How far could one go with cutting parts of your body off before you would consider yourself mutilated?
When you’ve answered that question, where would you draw an objective line between the chopping that you would consider mutilation and chopping off your foreskin which you do not?
Similarly, describe to me how far your parents could have gone with cutting off parts of your body before you would consider them to have abused you?
Then when you’ve answered that, draw an objective line between the chopping that you would consider abuse and chopping off your foreskin which you do not consider to have been abuse?
Presumably the fact that in our particular culture we just haven’t happened to come to consider the earless look be more attractive to be the only thing standing between you and removing your children’s outer ears at birth?
Seems like some people are of the opinion that circumcision doesn’t cause harm. I think that’s wrong; circumcision is harm, just as sticking a hypodermic in someone to vaccinate them or draw blood is harm (although in this case we could describe it as justifiable or necessary harm - a little prick of pain and a small hole that will heal invisibly is worth it for protection against the risk of fatal or debilitating disease).
Circumcision is unnecessary harm. It may be fairly minor harm, it may also be harm from which complete recovery is normal, but it should not be performed except in cases where it is intended to prevent a greater harm.
I’m pretty sure we could push a knitting needle through the tongue of a very young child and it would not only carry a very low risk of complications, but would heal completely, leaving no scar at all. Unless we have a really good reason to do that, it is entirely the wrong thing to do.
I’m just saying… you know.
Anyhow, I’d have 50 foreskins and 20 dicks given the chance. I’m not doing my sons. I have no religious reason to do it. So, heck no. But people with religious reasons… Sure thing man, just make sure the doc is good.
And I notice that the anti circ-crowd still hasen’t posted anything aproaching proof or a scientific basis for their claims, continuing to rely on anecdotes from whiney little fucks.
I did. And I’ve considered the non circ side as well. Though I still don’t consider it ‘mutilation’ and so on. I can see that the case for not having it done to your son would be a viable option (religion aside, though as I said, my former and current faith don’t require it).
I haven’t seen that ANYONE in this thread has seemed loony, the same can’t be said of some of the posters in the other threads that were linked to here.
I believe Miller said KEEP clean. Not GET clean. Wherever there is skin, folded over other skin, sweat, secretions etc are going to build up and can be pretty rank by the end of the day.
I have enourmous breasts, and I have NO problems washing them thoroughly and well when I shower. Even with a bra, that little area on my ribcage, where they fold over when I’m sitting, or leaning over, well it’s boobage BO somedays, even WITH baby powder.
After a day spent working out, working at my job, driving around for my job, out in the field for my job. I wouldn’t want anyone to get near that area anymore than i’d want them near my underarms. UGH
I have never seen, smelled nor tasted anything odd or offputting on a circumcised penis that’s been 'worn" all day long. An uncircumcised one may have been well washed that morning, but come afternoon? Ugh, no more clean than sweated upon armpits or boobage overhang.
I didn’t gloat. This is gloating: I have a foreskin and you don’t! Neener, neener, neener!
BTW, pizzabrat, the node was a question that basically asked for deep psychological analyses of the anti-circ crowd. And if you’re arguing something, it’s a pretty ineffective debate tactic to ask everyone else to justify not agreeing with you. The anti-circ crowd is really trying to effect a change in the status quo - parents currently have the legal right to clip their sons, and many still do it. It’s up to the antis to prove that this needs to change.
As I said, I don’t personally think circumcision’s a great idea, unless you practice a religion that requires it. I don’t see why you should alter your kid. But in this case, none of you have demonstrated any harm from it beyond the lunatic ravings of a small crowd of people whose self-conception depends on their penises. And so I see no reason to change the right of parents to get their kids clipped. After all, the vast majority are fine with it as adults - even happy that it was done. You want to make parents stop? The burden’s on you, then. Because as far as I can tell, the effect of it’s pretty damn small. So I see this as one of the many things parents may do to their kids that I don’t personally think are great, but that I can’t justify or argue with. I mean, we do have certain freedoms in this country. And until you guys manage to come up with a convincing argument, one of them is gonna be the freedom to clip your kid’s dick.
I guess I gotta wonder if circumcision deadens sensation as much as some people try to claim, why is it there are so many of us cut one-minute wonders?
Great g’damn, I have enough trouble holding back now, even as a baseball fan. I cannot imagine how quick things would be if I had one of them Ultra-Sensitive Hooded Heads ™.
Well, I’m female and see no need for circumcision in this day and age. My argument is that men are born with their penises a certain way and that there are no truly compelling [to me] reasons to dramatically and permanently alter a male baby’s genitals at birth. As catsix mentioned earlier, why does burden of proof always seem to rest on the anti-circ crowd?
My boyfriend is uncut. His penis is always clean, it looks great, and it brings both of us plenty of good times. I’m just wondering why many people feel it’s up to me to in essence “prove” somehow that it was a good decision on his mother’s part to keep this perfectly good body part whole and untouched, rather than up to a “pro-circ”-er to prove that a part should have been lopped off at birth. Do you at least understand the rationale here?
I don’t think the comparisons to female circumcision stand very well, but I can think of a similar analogy:
<lengthy analogy>
Here in America [and in other places], many people think that shaved pubic hair on looks really good. Shaved pubes are also, arguably, easier to keep clean, though it’s not a huge difference and unshaved genital regions are perfectly capable of being kept clean. Since shaved pubes [arguably] look better than unshaved and are [arguably] easier to keep clean, would this justify giving newborn babies an operation to keep hair follicles from growing on their pubic regions? I don’t know about you, but my answer is “hell no” and this is coming from a person who shaves her crotch every two days religiously. Pubic hair is natural, lots of people prefer it to be present, and it doesn’t hinder cleanliness anywhere near significantly. If you grow up and feel like shaving or getting hair removal surgery, go ahead! If you grow up and feel like getting circumcised, have at it! But it isn’t necessary to make suge a huge, IRREVERSIBLE change in a small child.
</lengthy analogy>
HOWEVER!: I can understand why a circumcised male who is happy with his penis would feel threatened/offended/annoyed/whatever by anti-circ people who shrilly cry that circ’ed males are mutilated and missing out on a lot of pleasure in their dick and etc. Hell, even someone saying “Yeah, I wouldn’t circumcise my son!” would probably grate me if I were a cut male, just because of the implication that circ’ed penises are inferior or undesirable. It’s a touchy subject all around, and I understand why some people feel so strongly for one side or the other. This is one of those debates in which careful wording and a little sensitivity from all sides can go a very long way. (Ooh god, count the unintentional penis-puns in that last sentence. :eek:)
