Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have not yet read this entire thread, but here is what i know from my own research and experience:
CONS:
1. Some see it as "genital mutilation" and compare it to female circumcision.
IMHO, this is a false dichotomy because in female circumcision, the entire cilitoris is removed.
The correct comparison would be female genital mutilation AND entire penis removal. OR male circumcision AND removing the clinical hood ONLY.
2. The baby has no consent in the matter.
Yet the baby cannot consent to ANYTHING so idk why "circumcision" is singled out of this. He does not consent to vaccinations, where he will live, who his parents are, etc. (The last one is a choice that I personally would have loved to have.)
3. Lack of sexual pleasure.
This makes sense in theory but can we ever miss what we never had? Maybe. Although both groups that i witnessed "having pleasure" seemed to be enjoying it equally.
Pros:
1. Hygiene and easier to clean (hopefully someone has provided the links by now.)
I have personally seen both circumcised and uncircumcised. I have seen clean uncircumcised penises, but the only one I've ever seen "unclean" was uncircumcised.
2. Less likely to get STDS (again, hopefully someone has provided the links by now)
This is the most compelling argument for me. If I had a child who became infected and this was only a tiny possible fraction of the reason, I would hate myself. Not to sentinel those diseases being passed onto other unsuspecting men and women.
3. Lack of sensitivity.
Yes, i am putting this in both places although I rarely see it mentioned as a "pro."
It's no secret that females take longer to orgasms than males. Female orgasms help conception. (Both backed up by research.) Thus one could argue that males being circumcised helps conception. With females having children later and later in our society, some people may see that "every lit bit helps" when it comes to fertility.
I am circumcised, my sons will be too, and from being in locker rooms and doing sports all throughout HS I have never seen a white person who isn't, and every girl I know considers uncut to be a turn off. If you are white and you don't want your son to be a the "wierd penis guy" in the locker room and to not be humiliated during his first sexual encounter when the girl says "ewww" then do it. If you don't, he will want to do it but be too scared to do it. There is no science behind it, it's just better looking and a cultural norm here amongst white people in the United States. It's easier maintenance, there is no pulling anything back you just clean it the same way you clean your thumb.
I think this has a lot to do with the culture of the town or location. You're right, I absolutely said "eww" (to myself) when I first saw one that was uncut. Even though Ive seen my share of uncut, i still prefer cut.
However when explaining this in a roomful of 20-something white males about 10yrs ago, they all looked at me like I was crazy and said that they were not circumcised. They weren't lying and religion had nothing to do with it. (At least I don't think so. Most were Protestant if anything.)
They all lived in the same county which was shocking to me. They were in their 20s about a decade ago so this means that 35 years ago in this place, no one was getting circumcised. It was not "trendy" to NOT circumcise back then so I'm really still in awe and a bit confused.
Maybe they were still doing home births back then in the late 70s/early 80s. When i asked them why they weren't, they just thought it was normal and had no explanation. This area was at least 99% white but the overall median income for this county was lowest in the state.
I think this has a lot to do with the culture of the town or location. You're right, I absolutely said "eww" (to myself) when I first saw one that was uncut. Even though Ive seen my share of uncut, i still prefer cut.
However when explaining this in a roomful of 20-something white males about 10yrs ago, they all looked at me like I was crazy and said that they were not circumcised. They weren't lying and religion had nothing to do with it. (At least I don't think so. Most were Protestant if anything.)
They all lived in the same county which was shocking to me. They were in their 20s about a decade ago so this means that 35 years ago in this place, no one was getting circumcised. It was not "trendy" to NOT circumcise back then so I'm really still in awe and a bit confused.
Maybe they were still doing home births back then in the late 70s/early 80s. When i asked them why they weren't, they just thought it was normal and had no explanation. This area was at least 99% white but the overall median income for this county was lowest in the state.
It does matter where you live. <20% of males in the West and Florida are circumcised. <38% in Texas. In those areas, someone who is circumcised will look different to them.
If you're raised in the midwest, nearly everyone is circumcised.
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. If it is his body do you let him choose what foods to put in it? If he wants cake and ice cream, no vegetables do you let him?
Medical evidence continues to mount over the health benefits of circumcision. By the time he is old enough to make his "own" decision it may be to late to prevent whatever affliction he has.
It is completely irrelevant what the rest of the world does. That is the equivalent of your teen saying, "well all my friends do.... (fill in blank with unwise activity)" and then you reply, "well if they jumped off a cliff, would you jump too"? If the benefits are there some other country doing it or not doing it do not effect the benefits.
The medical evidence continues to pile up on the benefits of circumcision.
Why do I think that so many of the virulent "no circumcision" people are the the same ones who mock skeptics on global warming for not believing the scientific evidence staring them in the face.
Excellent factual based post.
I also wonder if there is overlap with "anti-circumcision" and "anti-vaccination."
Depends if you live around Protestants or Jews/Catholics. Most people in the Northeast are circumsized.. Many in the South aren't.
I for one think it's a barbaric act.. We don't slice off the labia off women's parts.
The comparison to "female genital mutilation " infuriates me. If you absolutely need a comparison, it would be "clitoral hood removal."
I don't know why people make this comparison for effect or because they don't understand anatomy.
Perhaps some nurses can chime in on whether they have ever seen this needing to be done for a medical reason as some have already spoken about male foreskin.
I'm guessing that clitoral hood removal for medical purposes is not nearly as prevalent.
When my brother's wife was pregnant and they were discussing whether to circumcise or not my brother made it perfectly clear that his son WOULD DEFINITELY be circumcised. That is when my brother related his experience and that it had been very, very painful and at that point in time he had cursed our mother for not having had him circumcised.
My oldest brother was born at home with a midwife (back in the 50's) therefore he was not circumcised. Fast forward to his military service during the Vietnam war and a medical issue (not an STD or anything of that nature) arose where he HAD to be circumcised.
My brother's experience always stuck with me and I never gave it a second thought when my sons were born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P47P47
I knew a guy who had to be circumcised for medical reasons when he was 45. Although scrupulous about hygiene, he managed to get some kind of infection under his foreskin, requiring its removal. He said it was the worst thing that had ever happened to him, and seeing him during his recovery, I believed him. I also was convinced that if I ever had to make that decision for an infant boy, that kid would be getting cut, just to be sure that he'd avoid being plagued with that malady and cure.
But really a moot point since I have no children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StatenIslandJake1995
If my parents didn't have me circumcised I would despise them for ruining my sex life and making me go through it as an adult.
Really? It is the same as a woman keeping her labia clean. How about if we just cut off the labia than it would be much easier to keep things clean down there? Doesn't that sound silly?
Yes, it does sound silly because:
1. There is no medical evidence to back up the process and because it is not recommended by any major medical associations.
2. The "labia" hang, it is not an enclosed piece of skin. It cannot trap debris.
(Please see my post above regarding anatomy and false dichotomy.)
I knew a guy who had to be circumcised for medical reasons when he was 45. Although scrupulous about hygiene, he managed to get some kind of infection under his foreskin, requiring its removal. He said it was the worst thing that had ever happened to him, and seeing him during his recovery, I believed him. I also was convinced that if I ever had to make that decision for an infant boy, that kid would be getting cut, just to be sure that he'd avoid being plagued with that malady and cure.
But really a moot point since I have no children.
Dd's boyfriend has two brothers who had to be circumcised when they were older because of infections. Both of them circumcised their sons at birth to avoid them having to through it later.
If I had to make this choice I would choose to circumcise a son because circumcision reduces cervical cancer in the female partners of men and reduces the spread of STD's. Women shouldn't have to die over a flap of skin. If cutting off a flap of my skin could save dh's life, I'd do it.
No I wouldn't circumcise my potential future child. Just as I wouldn't cut off the tip of his nose or I wouldn't have my potential daughters clitoris hood removed. This whole debate is stupid. Your child might need an appendectomy, a hysterectomy, a tonsilectomy or a limb removed one day, should you remove them before they cause problems? I say this being a circumcised male. It's a ridiculous practice.
Dd's boyfriend has two brothers who had to be circumcised when they were older because of infections. Both of them circumcised their sons at birth to avoid them having to through it later.
If I had to make this choice I would choose to circumcise a son because circumcision reduces cervical cancer in the female partners of men and reduces the spread of STD's. Women shouldn't have to die over a flap of skin. If cutting off a flap of my skin could save dh's life, I'd do it.
Uh you could also just get an HPV shot and avoid sleeping with lots of people, especially unprotected, in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
