# One small cut for man not kind **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781 "2005-06-25T09:53:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/101 "2005-06-29T06:42:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t believe you,;… > I think you’re too lazy to look\*, or won’t accept anything that runs against your conclusions. > Also, you say “there are no studies” and then attempt to prove that infants DO remember specific events, so, uh… > > I suppose it makes sense that you claim to remember it, since some people claim they remember birth. And others claim to remember past lives they never had. So in that context I should be less surprised.\*\* > > . \*I think I already impugned myself for felony laziness above. \*\*Stab me and sink me, gentle interlocutor, and keelhaul me for violatin’ the iron rule of irony–not on this board…without them little faces to help folks thru the mist, as twere,… Forgive an old pirate’s way of askin’ you to put yourself in the baby’; s place, so to speak. of COURSE I have no present memory of my families’ faces beaming just as I got mydick cut–But it happened, I was there, that WAS my phenemonology and if you think it didn’t help make me the son of a bitch I am today, well, you sir or madam, are a true romantic… ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/102 "2005-06-29T06:59:40Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > 1. I am not glad to have lost the front of my dick, and if I could find the son of a bitch who cut me at the age of SEVEN DAYS (!!!) I will be pleased to return the favor, with significant interest, as it were. > If it were the little momzer’s earlobe CPS would be all over the Moil in a second. > , How is it as a Jew you can’t spell the word Mohel? :dubious: Also, as a Jew, you’d be aware that the reason you were circumsized involved the convenant with Abraham, and not the historical anthro-psychology theories you are spinning. What’s up with that? And fyi, provided the rest of your childhood was relatively untraumatic, your circumsion wouldn’t have any bearing on your present disposition. Please find something else to blame it on. Or, hey, better yet, stop making excuses and try changing into a more pleasant person, since you acknowledge you have “some issues.” Your argument would hold more water if even just one circ. man I knew felt the same way. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/103 "2005-06-29T07:33:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Doesn’t look like its that common of a proceedure either so I don’t think there is exactly a huge outcry to get foreskins put back on. I know the thought never even crossed my mind. > > -XT I’m unhappy with having been snipped. I wouldn’t undertake surgery, skin stretching or whatever else, but I’m still unhappy. The fact that not many people do this doesn’t prove they are OK with having been circumcized. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/104 "2005-06-29T07:33:53Z")
> [@inkleberry](#): > > How is it as a Jew you can’t spell the word Mohel? :dubious: > Also, as a Jew, you’d be aware that the reason you were circumsized involved the convenant with Abraham, and not the historical anthro-psychology theories you are spinning. > > What’s up with that? > > And fyi, provided the rest of your childhood was relatively untraumatic, your circumsion wouldn’t have any bearing on your present disposition.y. Well, there you would go and bring up Yahweh. Iwill just say this about that. If I were pitching Yahweh for his public relations account, the two things I would use to sell my services in lieu of his present crew are the stories presently going around about him, viz: 1. he has a sado-masochistic fetish going involving the ritual cutting of genitalia… 2. He is such an unreliable power hungry ball buster that he can promise is first adherant, that man who bore membership card number !(and he wasn’t even married to Yahweh like Kedija was to Mohammed–wives are easy pickings in the new despensation game…) promise him seed beyond number yada yada yada and then its, Hey, Abe Snuff the kid. Don’t fuck with me, Abe, snuff the kid. Abe;Hey, this was supposed to be the miracle kid… Don’t fuck with me Abe Oh shit, ok, I’ll snuff the kid. Just kidding, Abe. so anyway, I wouldn’t lean on Yahweh in the mutilation game because it might piss him off when he hears what you say about him, ya feel me? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/105 "2005-06-29T08:06:21Z")
It perhaps betokens a failure of imagination or a reliance on some [psychosexual statute o limitations, to arrive at a a defense of the practice which agrees that any sentient being with a framework for integratiing the experience into his personality would be a setrious risk for post traumatic type stress, but we take refuge in the confusionthat we suppose must attend the first week on earth. ok ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/106 "2005-06-29T08:08:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > But please please please…NOT foreskin pie! :eek: > > -XT while afaik never a pie staple, there is the urban legend linking ari onasis and foreskin upholstery, cetacean foreskin I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/107 "2005-06-29T09:22:19Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > There’s always the Tug Ahoy. Ah, someone called Smeghead comments on circumcision 😛 I thought I might need a quick chop in my early twenties because it felt a little tight down there, but for some reason during the act of coitus my foreskin suddenly loosens and (further research has discovered) the feeling of it pulling back adds quite a lot to sex and general bedtime tom-foolery 😃 Besides all that, I can keep my downstairs perfectly clean without the need for surgery. To me using a cleanliness excuse is sort of like insisting on having an airbag in your car so you can drive around without wearing a seatbelt. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/108 "2005-06-29T10:03:41Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > Well, I remember mine, and it hurt like hell and, furthermore, caused me to wonder considerably about the benevolence of the assembled near and dear, not ONE of whom raised a hand or voice to save my tiny baby dick from getting cut … > > If you have forgotten your encounter with the cult of Yahweh and it’s flesh-harvesting dyubbaks, I recommend a variation on the tibetan buddhist practices, in this case, not a meditation onthe wrathful deities, but the wrathful baby with the bleeding weenie… Yeah, yeah, sure. Whatever. You feel one way, I feel…well, I personally don’t really care one way or the other. Don’t like circumcision? Don’t have one. and don’t have your kid cut, either. End of story as far as I’m concerned. My entry iinto this was based on your earlier post, where you implied that circumcision at a hospital was marginally better than the traditional bris because the former uses anesthesia, while the latter does not. This is simply.not.true. I offered a few links and a devilishly clever search paradigm to help you avoid pulling stuff from your moist, dark nether regions. Rather than trouble yourself to learn something, you simply dismissed it based on the name of the web site, and ignored the article from the British Medical Journal which were at odds with your vast knowledge of the subject. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but sometimes they’re too stubborn to drink. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/109 "2005-06-29T10:30:28Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And for [another](http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Circumcision/circumcision.html) contrary opinion: Xtisme, sorry but I will take the considered advice of our professional medical associations over a quack geocities page that is both out of date and not overly honest. Firstly the Australian medical community was not undergoing a conversion to being pro-circumcision and since its unnecessary its incidence has now declined to less then one in ten males being circumcised. Secondly it refers to a 10 year old superceded policy statement from a body that no longer exists in this country. In fact the organisation your cite is using in its support morphed into the organisation that I cited and they dont now and didnt then recommend circumcision. They were not advocating circumcision in their 1996 statement, and in fact werent really advocating anything other then [The College believes informed discussion with parents regarding the possible health benefits of routine male circumcision and the risks associated with the operation are essential](http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/) . They additionally quoted [The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that it is its view that routine male circumcision should not be performed prior to the age of 6 months. It considers that “Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce.”](http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/) In their **current** policy statement which I cited they state [**there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.**](http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm) and [Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows **there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm** for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate](http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm) This is the joint position of the: Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons Urological Society of Australasia Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Paediatric Society of New Zealand ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/110 "2005-06-29T10:39:43Z")
> [@bizzwire](#): > > Don’t like circumcision? Don’t have one. and don’t have your kid cut, either. End of story as far as I’m concerned. Dont have one??? Like baby boys get to choose! That’s the problem isnt it? Infants being subjected to an unnecessary and potentially dangerous operation to satisfy a parent’s whim. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/111 "2005-06-29T10:47:38Z")
> [@Eolbo](#): > > Dont have one??? Like baby boys get to choose! That’s the problem isnt it? Infants being subjected to an unnecessary and potentially dangerous operation to satisfy a parent’s whim. Which is why I added > [@](#): > > and don’t have your kid cut, either . It’s craftily hidden in the second line. If you look very, very carefully, you should be able to find it. Happy hunting. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/112 "2005-06-29T11:01:01Z")
[QUOTE=bizzwire] Which is why I added . and don’t have your kid cut, either QUOTE] Yes by golly that certainly made a silly point stronger. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/113 "2005-06-29T12:39:37Z")
[QUOTE=Eolbo] > [@bizzwire](#): > > Which is why I added > . > and don’t have your kid cut, either > > QUOTE] > > Yes by golly that certainly made a silly point stronger. I honestly don’t understand you. You:“Dont have one??? Like baby boys get to choose!” Me: “Don’t have your kid cut” The unspoken assumption in my comment being “if you are opposed to circumcision of infants.” Is this too subtle, or is this some sort of cognitive dissonance thing? ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/114 "2005-06-29T13:12:11Z")
[QUOTE=bizzwire] > [@Eolbo](#): > > I honestly don’t understand you. > > You:“Dont have one??? Like baby boys get to choose!” > Me: “Don’t have your kid cut” > > The unspoken assumption in my comment being “if you are opposed to circumcision of infants.” > > Is this too subtle, or is this some sort of cognitive dissonance thing? Good golly again. Are you deliberately obtuse? As if its not abundantly clear by now I have no intention of subjecting any children I have to this barbarous ritual. I dont have the right to do that to any child of mine. I am not entitled to have bits chopped off them. They have the right to make that decision themselves when they come of age should they so choose. And parents that support circumcision, well they dont have that right either. Children are not property. Saying “Dont like it? Dont have one” is just silly given the lack of choice involved. Its as silly as saying “Dont like murder? Well dont get murdered then. Oh, yeah dont murder others either if you dont like it” ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/115 "2005-06-29T13:54:38Z")
[QUOTE=Eolbo] > [@bizzwire](#): > > Good golly again. Are you deliberately obtuse? No, not obtuse. Just not batshit crazy. > [@](#): > > And parents that support circumcision, well they dont have that right either. Children are not property. Well, this is where we part ways, then. This is just crazy talk. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/116 "2005-06-29T14:03:28Z")
[QUOTE=bizzwire] > [@Eolbo](#): > > Well, this is where we part ways, then. This is just crazy talk. Yep this is where we part ways. Muslims dont have the right to circumcise baby girls, we dont have the right to circumcise baby boys. If you think that’s crazy I feel sorry for you but sorrier for your children. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/117 "2005-06-29T22:15:23Z")
[QUOTE=Eolbo] > [@bizzwire](#): > > Yep this is where we part ways. Muslims dont have the right to circumcise baby girls, we dont have the right to circumcise baby boys. If you think that’s crazy I feel sorry for you but sorrier for your children. that was certainly a dental removal… I still believe that the anatomy involved is the reason, not the accidental location. I mean, really, “unclean”… Where is Margaret Meade when we need a savvy anthropologist to deconstruct the peculiar body rituals of the natives… ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781/118 "2005-06-29T23:39:45Z")
Interesting subject (well, at least mildly). First time I came across it was when I saw a study on tv asking women if they had had sex with men both circumcized and uncircumsized, and if so, what they preferred. A clear majority said they preferred uncircumsized because you feel more. In fact, I only remember those preferring uncircumsized do so because of an ick-factor, and for that reason mostly belonged to the camp that never tried both. Personally, I see advantages and disadvantages, in terms of feeling. Having that bit of extra skin to play with certainly does help with a number of things that many people don’t think of. Many of those are very TMI, but having two instead of one way of whacking off is an obvious example. However, let’s first look at some of the previous arguments we’ve seen. > [@](#): > > Cecil knows this because he has been inquiring once again on the Internet–not the most scientific technique in the world, but how else are you going to find out about things like this? I turned up four men who were circumcised as adults and were thus in a position to compare. Two said sex was better before, two said it’s better now. The two who bitched said that over time the foreskinless glans (the tip of the penis) became less sensitive. This may be due to abrasion from clothing. It certainly isn’t because the foreskin contains the greatest concentration of nerve endings, as some circumcision opponents allege; from an anatomical standpoint, God’s little mudguard is basically ordinary skin. > > Of the two satisfied customers, one was circumcised because he had a tight foreskin that split and bled copiously during his first attempt at intercourse–admittedly (and mercifully) not a common problem. The other guy just didn’t like the way his stalk looked. Now, he says, not only is he more sensitive, he doesn’t have problems with odors, splash when urinating, or get his foreskin caught in his zipper. Your kid’s prospective partners (in a moment of heterosexism, Cecil assumed they would be women) are also divided in their views; several said an uncircumcised man had more to play with, while others prefer the streamlined look. Not a very good research group. One of the ‘satisfied customers’ had medical problems. The other claims to be more sensitive, but would only be so because the procedure didn’t take place when he was 7 days old. Also, in the light of the not-satisfied customers, you could assume that this effect wears off and then some. > [@](#): > > This isn’t really helping you, is it? It gets worse. One cost-benefit analysis (Ganiats et al, 1991) found that circumcision had a “net discounted lifetime cost” of $102 and a health cost of 14 hours of healthy life. In other words, you wound up poorer and sicker–but only slightly. “These results suggest that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other and that factors other than cost or health outcomes must be used in decision making,” the researchers wrote. But I guess you knew that. Still, even if marginally so, this point would count against circumcision. $102 bucks wasted, times 75.000.000 (assuming roughly half of the U.S. men now have one). > [@](#): > > In English-speaking countries routine circumcision of newborns began in the latter 19th century as a quack medical technique intended to curb masturbation and other ills. So it definitely was introduced for the wrong reasons. > [@](#): > > Circumcision opponents, a passionate lot, decry the practice as “ritual genital mutilation.” In the light of the reasons for which it was introduced, I’d say rightly so. They are after all the exact same reason for the admittedly more serious femal genital mutilation practice we object against so much in Africa. > [@](#): > > Those unhappy with their circumcised members (a common complaint is that the skin is too tight, making intercourse and, yes, masturbation painful without lubrication) sometimes resort to “foreskin restoration,” in which the skin is stretched with clamping devices. Sounds awful, but they say it works. No numbers given here, so we can’t really quantify this factor. But a common complaint suggests something probably more common than, say, penile cancer. > [@](#): > > The medical establishment first began questioning the wisdom of routine circumcision in 1949; since 1971 the American Academy of Pediatrics has opposed it. Apart from cultures where it is done for ritual purposes, it remains common only in the U.S. I would, as others, be very interested in why exactly the U.S. is so different on this subject. It reminds me a little of a similar case in Sweden with women and the pill. There had been a scare in the eighties that the pill would cause breast cancer, after which many stopped taking the pill. This took place in most countries, but after that scare was debunked, the women in most countries started taking the pill again. But not, for some reason, in Sweden. I wonder if there is a similar reason in the U.S. I don’t believe it is U.S. conservatism towards sex, because in that case I can’t explain the difference with the U.K., which has as far as I know always been at least as prudish as the U.S. (or am I wrong?) > [@](#): > > but is dropping in popularity there–from 86 percent in 1975 to 71 percent in 1984, according to one study. Again it would be interesting to see with what, if anything, this is correlated. Obviously the doctors stance on this matter seems to be of considerable influence, witnessing how effective Australian doctors have been at discouraging the practice. > [@](#): > > So chuck it, eh? Not so fast. In 1989 the AAP withdrew its opposition to circumcision because accumulating evidence suggests it does have health benefits, preventing penile cancer and reducing urinary tract infections in infants. And circumcisees do wind up with a basically maintenance free tool. Bottom line? Your kid will survive either way. Flip a coin. But that did not mean the AAP concluded that all newborns should be circumcised, just the ones with problems. There current stance is that they cannot recommend the procedure to be applied to all newborns: [http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm](http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm). So I find I fully agree with the Australian review, which being from 2002 is one of the most up-to-date ones out there: > [@](#): > > The CPS recommended “Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed” (reaffirmed February 2001: (www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN†) and the AAP concluded “we cannot recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision”. ([www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm](http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm)). > > Following the present review of the evidence, the RACP concurs with these statements and endorses the 1996 statement of the Australian College of Paediatrics (now the Division of Paediatrics and Child Health of RACP) and Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons that “Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication". Until proven otherwise, I’m backing that. I already assumed that if a child has a chronic infection problem, circumcision is still an option, after all, and a lot of the research ‘favoring’ circumcision for purely medical reasons (rather than increase or decrease in sexual pleasure in men or women) makes a strict distinction between the two. If corrective circumcision took place, the data was either dropped or counted under circumcision. My two eurocents worth of contribution towards uncovering the SD on this subject. Regardless of complaints that the topic resurfaces yearly, apparently it is still a hot topic in the states, and Cecil’s comments are clearly too much out of date to be the definitive straight dope. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-cut-for-man-not-kind/309781.md?page=5)