If I had a choice, I’d go with barbaric. I never really got the whole “medical excuse”…I think it was something made up by doctors too ashamed with what happened to their own penises and wanted to make a scientific explanation for it. If I ever have children, I would not have them circumsised…the biggest reason being that it’s something that should be their own choice, and if they want to be circumsized, then they can have the operation performed later in life. Oh, and if somebody is going to be turned down in bed solely based on the way their penis looks, especially if there’s nothing unnatural about it, then that woman shouldn’t deserve the pleasure that she would have received.
Footage (RealPlayer) of an actual circumcision is available HERE.
I consider the practice to be barbaric in most cases.
There are some minor advantages and disadvantages each way. However, I don’t think a parent should have their child circumcised for the same reason I don’t think a parent should have their kid tattooed…
I think that circumcision is bad, and I think it’s morally wrong to circumcise a child without a legitimate medical reason. However, I also don’t find it a terribly huge deal, certainly not on the level of female circumcision. If I was a doctor, I would refuse to circumcise a baby, and would strongly counsel the parents against doing so, but if people I know have their son circumcised, I’m not going to raise the issue. I see no reason, outside of religious ones, that parents WOULD circumcise their kid. If you really care, then let him make his own decision when he turns 18, fully aprised of the gravity of the decision.
Barbarism vote here. The child is strapped down, does not receive any aneasthetic or pain relief and has skin with nerves and capillaries cut off. I have never heard a child scream in such agony as when this was being done. It is horrible in my opinion.
As for medical reasoning, there are cite after cite from medical journals (American and otherwise) that say circumcision at birth is not medically necessary (unless there is a real problem with the penis or genitals). The most commonly cited reason (IIRC) for this procedure is so the child will look like daddy. I’m sorry, but all boys look like daddy when they are born - all males have foreskin at birth.
It’s a farse that is finally seeing a decline in paractice in the US.
Wow, looks painful. Of course, I don’t remember my own circumcision. I’m sure it was an emotionally traumatic moment in my life, which will stay with me forever. Probably accounts for the general demise of America in the latter part of the last century. Yeah, that explains it.
FWIW, I’m damn glad I’m circumcised. I prefer it (aesthetically speaking). Not that there’s anything wrong with the alternative, but I like being circumcised (as does my girlfriend).
I think it is everyone’s business - everyone who one day may have a son. It’s not about passing judgement, it’s about opening up an issue for debate.
I have very mixed feelings about circumcision. I come from a family where males aren’t circumsized.
On the one hand I have male friend A, forced to get a very painful circumcision at the age of 18 for medical reasons. (Had it been removed as a baby it would arguably have been less traumatic and never caused him the problems he later had).
On the other hand I have male friend B who was circumcised as a baby, is hugely angry about it to this day, partly because he finds erections painful because (in his explanation) “they removed too much skin.” He feels violated.
On the one hand to me as a woman circumcised members generally look nicer, appear cleaner, etc.
On the other hand I can’t help feeling that the foreskin is a natural part of the body that men are supposed to have, as much as we are supposed to have earlobes, eg.
Every thread you’ve involved yourself in has been original and to do with you then I take it :dubious: There are also new people who may want to say something about it. Don’t read it if you don’t want to.
Coming from a country that doesn’t do it unless it’s actually necessary I don’t get it at all. While I don’t see it as barbaric I do see it as futile and antiquated.
I do have a son, I did allow him to be circumcised, and I am not a barbarian, istara.
And rather than hear the shouts of “barbaric” and “cruel” and whatever other words you guys can come up with, I’d rather you just minded your own damn business and made the decision for your own child instead of calling people names and pissing them off because they made a choice you personally didn’t like.
Oh, and I’m glad that my son’s penis is your business. Are we gonna see circumcision protests outside the hospitals soon? I’m sure we are. :rolleyes:
Awww he’s cute when he’s pissed.
From this site, the medical benefits are:
Reduced risk of urinary tract infections, 10 times more likely in uncircumcised infants.
Reduced risk of HIV infection for homosexual circumcised men.
Reduced risk for STDs
Greatly reduced risk of penile cancer
Improved genital hygiene
Reduction in cervical cancer in partners of circumcised men
So are all these benifits evident if you put the US against Europe?
If they are I’ll take back “futile”
I guess you’d have to ask those that compiled the statistics but I presume it would be North Americans, Jews, and Moslems vs. the rest of the world.
As I recall, the study that showed this (which was essentially an epidemiological population study in Africa) has come under attack for the methodology it used.
Particularly since that study became an excuse for a kind of “let’s circumcize all the Africans!” campaign.
Yes Tracer that study was totally flawed as they used only very small samples, furthermore they didn’t actually bother to find out if the people they were sampling were circumcised or not they just assumed from the tribe they came from.
The truth is that any of medical advantages may be outweighed by the medical disadvantages of circumcision. IIRC the practice of circumcision on male children without medical necessity or religious reasons has been outlawed in Sweden.
Of course it’s barbaric! You’re cutting off a piece of a pretty important (understatement) organ! And for what? To discourage masturbation?
Yep, that’s what “hygenical reasons” mean, folks. It’s unhygenical to masturbate, so they mutilate your privates.
How can you just decide that it’s “useless”? It’s a part of your PENIS! Have you so little respect for your manhood that you’d promote unneccessary trimmings to the defining organs of a male?
If you’ve been circumcised, then that part of your body is not there, so how do you know if it was sensitive or not?
My husbandm who is not circumcised, says it is extremely sensitive.
Depending on which study, between 60-65% of boys in the US are circumcised nowadays. This isn’t a huge difference either way. So kids born today have a roughly equal chance of being with or without foreskin. So no one is going to be the ‘odd man out’.
Disputed. Penile cancer rates in Denmark are essentially the same as in the US, and Danes do not get circumcised except for religious reasons.
But even if there was a clear indication: As it happens, more men get breast cancer than penile cancer. Would you defend surgical removal of male infants’ nipples to prevent male breast cancer later in life?
I’d be curious to see the demographic breakdown of those stats because in my “world” (Upper Middle-High Class White), I’d WAG the number to be closer to 95%.
Maybe my manhood is big enough to not miss the trimmings? Hmmm…I don’t know if I like the sound of that.
Marc