Jump to content
Muscular Black Mr. T

circumcision

Recommended Posts

i was reading about Bobby Fischer the other day and he had the idea that circumcision was immoral and in some ways a crime against nature. hadn't really thought about it before but now that i have, it does seem kinda fucked up. would you consent to have a part of your dick cut off? i don't think so. yet it's regularly done to thousands of newborns who can't even give consent, a lot of times without anesthetics too.

and that's just male circumcision, female circumcision in africa is far worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asfggh    3890

is this just like religious circumcision, or do you mean its bad when people have it done for hygiene reasons? Apparently washing is hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ikr? you might argue that in the days of old religion washing was harder (and ppl didn't wash) so circumcision made more sense, but today it has no place

im operating under the premise that some religious practices were done for practical reasons, "unclean" food -> food poisoning, uncircumcised -> more infections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer not having foreskin, though to be fair I obviously haven't consciously experienced having foreskin. so in that regard, no, I don't care that mine was removed.

I think I can certainly agree with any operation done purely for health reasons, ie spleen removal, tonsils, etc, and I feel like this is in the same vein, and I would even argue that the motivation behind it being part of religious culture is health related...but that's an argument for a completely different thread.

so I guess the argument then is...should I have been made to wait to be circumcised until I was cognizant enough to make my own decision? ideally, maybe, yes, but as far as I know (and I have pretty limited knowledge about this, about the only mainstream shit I know is because of wilson's ask thread in csk), or at least what I've always heard, is that it's much more difficult/troublesome for them to be performed later in life. and the big question, obviously, is: who's to say these apparent health risks wouldn't strike before I became cognizant enough to decide?

edit: oh hey, you ninja'd MY remark this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but these "apparent health risks" are pretty much a moot point now that we're not living in caves and taking baths. pediatricians can easily educate parents (or better yet, they can educate themselves like parents should) on how to properly clean an uncircumcised baby, which provide at least the same, if not better "health" than an invasive, nonconsensual operation that permanently removes things. The studies that "showed" circumcision had health benefits took place in Africa with its primitive health practices, lack of clean running water, aka situations resembling the ancient middle eastern worlds that produced these religions. But in an age of advanced medicine and hygiene, why are we still using such stone age medical practices?

Anti-abortionists often about "protecting those who can't choose for themselves," but are silent on this issue. An older person can choose to get circumcised (which is still a relatively simple surgery), but no one can choose to have it undone.

>I prefer not having foreskin, though to be fair I obviously haven't consciously experienced having foreskin. so in that regard, no, I don't care that mine was removed. <

I was thinking about this...circular self-justification effect. But then i thought, decisions made with more information have more weight than decisions made with less information, and there's so much that's "okay" only because of ignorance. A lot of American slaves were "content" with their situation because that's all they knew.

But then there are reports of men who've undergone circumcision later in life and regretted it, and also of circumcised men who had their foreskin rebuilt and were happier for it. In psych there's a case study of a 3-yo boy who had his penis severed in a circumcision gone wrong; they gave him a vaginoplasty and tried to raise him as a girl but he strongly rejected it. Many years later he was able to get a reconstructed penis and become a relatively normal man, at least as much as he could be.

>and the big question, obviously, is: who's to say these apparent health risks wouldn't strike before I became cognizant enough to decide?<

Science, statistics, and uncircumcised men who turned out perfectly healthy thanks to simple, non-invasive cleaning. If the foreskin starts to be a problem it's still relatively easy to remove. Appendices aren't removed unless they start being problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus the Jew    986

I guess my case is different. I had to get one as a small kid because of an advanced case of infection. But yeah, I see what you mean. It really is wrong to do it under the pretense of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tacooo    1683

why would you mind being circumcised, you don't even know it's done to you when you're born and it's awesome to be circumcised

the female version is a fucked up way to show male dominance in fucked up countries

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I prefer not having foreskin, though to be fair I obviously haven't consciously experienced having foreskin. so in that regard, no, I don't care that mine was removed. <

I was thinking about this...circular self-justification effect. But then i thought, decisions made with more information have more weight than decisions made with less information, and there's so much that's "okay" only because of ignorance. A lot of American slaves were "content" with their situation because that's all they knew.

this is kind of a hard thing to answer, I guess. I could say that, even after understanding the alternatives to the best of my ability (ie without actually experiencing it), I would still say that I prefer my own situation (and would even go so far as to say I wouldn't take money/something valuable to me to be forced into another situation), but you could always just argue that that's because I'm used to all I've ever known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3DGoD    1689

the female circumcision is people taking thing too far and is usually done to make women less attractive as a means of lowering teen age pregnancy which is quite recent and rediculous

Male circumcision has proved quite helpful for many years in the case of infections i got circumcised at birth and i dont mind my rocket so i cant answer for anyone else, i believe its a case of weve been doing it for a while why stop now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you mind being circumcised, you don't even know it's done to you when you're born and it's awesome to be circumcised

the female version is a fucked up way to show male dominance in fucked up countries

that doesn't change the morality of it, you can't have sex with an amnesiac/vegetable and say it's not rape because they can't remember it, or fully realize what's happening to them. Babies show very visible signs of pain and stress when the procedure is done.

what makes circumcision awesome? First off it leads to chafing and keratinization. i was reading about the anatomy of the foreskin and there are actually thousands of nerve endings and sensory receptors packed in there more densely than on any other part of the human body, as well as other unique structures that can never grow back. I can't imagine there's no significant loss of sensation - admittedly, that's hard to quantify because people only have their own dicks for reference. The reports of some men (chafing, loss of sensation) who underwent circumcision later in life is troubling though. Then there are also men who went through foreskin restoration and both they and their partners say it's a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

Being cut significantly lowers the transmission rate of HPV, I'm fine with it for that exact reason.

I'm gonna get all bitter now about how i didnt get to keep my umbilical cord now.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can get it yourself when you're old enough to be sexually active, plus the benefit is not comparable to safe sex practices. nor is the umbilical cord comparable to the foreskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

what, removal of something you dont need for a tangible health benifit without your consent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your premise is wrong, the tangible health benefit of circumcision in developed countries is spurious at best. the umbilical cord is meant to be removed, failure to do so results in death both for mother and newborn. most other mammals instinctively know to gnaw through it, and in the few that don't the umbilical cord naturally falls off within days. Just as nature designed the umbilical cord to fall off for a reason, it designed the foreskin to stay on for a reason.

vast majority of uncircumcised men do not suffer anything adverse from it (and exceedingly few choose to voluntarily undergo it unless they have phimosis etc), especially in countries where they are taught how to keep the foreskin clean. the health benefits were only there in undeveloped countries where men had poor hygiene and routinely practiced unsafe sex (which is why it was practiced in ancient religions).

another analogy, with Civil War medical and hygiene practices amputation followed by cauterization had "health benefits" because they didn't know about antiseptics and wound dressing which could provide much better results at much lower bodily loss. Similarly, circumcision had health benefits only because they didn't know about cleaning under the foreskin, condom use, and showering after sex.

In a society that can easily practice all three, why are we still hacking off body parts without consent? Because we haven't bothered to question the sense of practices dating back to ancient Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

this isnt some cleanliness thing, this is a "strong relation to reducing spread of HIV" and "proven to drastically reduce spread of HPV" this isnt some "secret cleanliness" thing or "we learned to clean it so it doesn't matter

Protip: Some people like to procreate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

also please do not equate the functional usefulness of foreskin with a limb. At best you could connect it maybe with an appendix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

Lets not overlook the fact a child cannot legally consent to -anything-; under your reasoning breastfeeding is battery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3DGoD    1689

that is quite the contrast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not overlook the fact a child cannot legally consent to -anything-; under your reasoning breastfeeding is battery

Breastfeeding like the cutting of the umbilical cord is an important part of the body's design. Breastfeeding has numerous significant benefits over formula feeding.

Human breast milk is the healthiest form of milk for human babies.[1] There are few exceptions, such as when the mother is taking certain drugs or is infected with Human T-lymphotropic virus, HIV, or has active untreated tuberculosis. Breastfeeding promotes health, helps to prevent disease, and reduces health care and feeding costs.[2][3][4] Artificial feeding is associated with more deaths from diarrhea in infants in both developing and developed countries.[5] Experts agree that breastfeeding is beneficial, but may disagree about the length of breastfeeding that is most beneficial, and about the risks of using artificial formulas.[6][7][8]

On top of these undisputed benefits another way to see it is the correct thing to do is that infants of all mammalian species will instinctively seek out and suckle a nipple even if it is not directly presented to them. It has no permanent effects other than the baby not dying of starvation and leaves its body intact.

Once they've grown out of infancy no one has a problem with being breastfed (unless they contracted HIV through it), whereas some formula-fed people do have problems. From this we can further infer what choice should have been made. There has to be very compelling medical evidence to justify the non-consensual destruction of body parts, evidence that simply does not exist.

And no, the foreskin is not on the level of a limb, that was an exaggeration for the sake of illustration. Nonetheless it serves medically demonstrated functions that are permanently destroyed:

Protection. The foreskin protects the sensitive glans throughout life from adverse conditions, such as the abrasiveness of clothing. Without the foreskin, the glans becomes dry and calloused and desensitized.

Pleasure. The foreskin is a unique structure filled with delicate nerves and a rich blood supply. The foreskin enhances sexual pleasure, especially as it glides over the corona (ridge of the glans) during sexual activity.

Sensitivity. The foreskin is a highly nerve-laden structure, containing approximately 10,000 nerve endings. It is this structure that gives the man his most pleasurable sensations. It also helps to retain glans sensitivity. Circumcision removed this structure and over time sensitivity decreases, making it more difficult to achieve satisfactory stimulation.

Lubrication. Much as the way your eyelid lubricates and protects your eye, the foreskin keeps the glans moist and sensitive. This effect is helpful during sexual penetration as the penile shaft glides within its own skin sheath rather than directly, chafing one's partner. Without the foreskin, many couples need additional lubricants.

>this isnt some cleanliness thing, this is a "strong relation to reducing spread of HIV" and "proven to drastically reduce spread of HPV" this isnt some "secret cleanliness" thing or "we learned to clean it so it doesn't matter

Protip: Some people like to procreate. <

So if someone chooses to be sexually active with multiple partners, let him choose then whether the benefits outweigh the costs for the procedure? The operation is no more difficult on an adult body than on a newborn's body, if not easier because the adult can tolerate more anesthetics. On top of that even in ideal situations the cost-benefit in this arena is dwarfed by the use of purpose-designed tools like condoms, antimicrobial lubricants, and vaccines, which are very effective at reducing transmission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

And mine was an underexaggeration; my appendix issue is certainly relevant however as, again, a child cannot give consent.

The issue with the adult circumsicion is the procedure is both easier and less painful prior to pubescense.

The only areas of the genitalia LESS sexually sensative than the foreskin are the scrotum, the anus, and the space between the scrotum and anus (2009, Schober et al). Stop posting propaganda studies as fact

Inflammation of the glans is MORE COMMON when uncircumsized, so uh, yeah. And its not like the smegma frequently occuring in uncircumcised men is going to be great for sensation... or for chafing for that matter. Incidentaly, stating that wearing clothing will callous your penis is hilarious.

Back on point though, looking past STDs and sexual sensativitiy, circumcision helps reduce risk of UTIs (which suck dick, trust me). So here's the best way to look at it - there's pros and cons in either direction but if it's going to be done, it should be done early due to pain constraints (yes it still hurts but memory is off and anesthetic is used now) - its the parents decision as to whether they'd want to give one more layer of protection against things like this or not, and THEIR job to address the issue internally. Consent doesn't factor into it, it's like a flu shot. Sure a kid might not want it, and it might not be necessary to even protect them from the flu, but ultimately it's still the parent's call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twitter    2057

i am circumsized because i had urinary problems when i was less than a year old. does this count as immoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34657

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3DGoD    1689

i am circumsized because i had urinary problems when i was less than a year old. does this count as immoral?

If you were left with urinary problems would it be moral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Techno    1453

my nephew had to have it done at 6 because it was constricting his penis. just saying it isn't only infection thats a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×