~ archived since 2018 ~

A Discussion on Circumcision

[deleted]

January 5, 2013

3 upvotes

Let me start by saying that I am a male that was circumcised as a baby. I have never felt that this was irregular or that it should even be anything to think about or note. However, since I subscribed to this reddit recently, I've seen circumcision described as mutilation. This terminology confuses me, and makes me feel as if I'm supposed to believe there is something wrong with me.

Merriam-Webster gives these definitions for the verb mutilate - "1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect; 2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of." Based on these definitions I fail to see the connection. When I searched dicitonary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate?s=t) I was presented with a similar definition - "1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts; 2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part."

With this in mind, I would like to know why circumcision is being referred to a "genital mutilation" and ask why it seems the folks here have such an issue with it. Can you please enlighten me?

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	A Discussion on Circumcision
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	3
Comments	73
Date	January 5, 2013 1:44 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/15zg08/a-discussion-on-circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-discussion-on-circumcision.1603308 https://theredarchive.com/post/1603308

Comments

[–]n0t13379 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, you asked two questions.

why circumcision is being referred to a "genital mutilation"

Well, that one's fairly simple.

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

They injured your penis by removing the foreskin. The foreskin has several uses. It shields a mucus membrane that was never meant to be exposed, and it has a metric shit ton of nerve endings. It's not the most important part of your body, but it's still useful.

As for your second question

why it seems the folks here have such an issue with it

I think most people are angry because it's a procedure that's primarily performed on infants, and it's not medically beneficial. Even if you disagree with me, and think that foreskins are useless just because you don't feel that your life would have been better if yours hadn't been taken from you, "not super useful" is not a sufficient justification for removal. If it was, we'd all have our appendices removed at birth, and those things have no use to us, and are pretty much entirely detrimental.

I see here that you may point out that removing an appendix is a major operation, while removal of a foreskin is less major, but 1) Infants still die because of the surgery. 2) If I proposed that we start removing all childrens' earlobes at birth because earlobes serve no purpose, everyone would look at me funny.

Circumcision was normalized due to religious and anti-maturbatory reasons. If you didn't grow up in a culture where circumcision was the default, and someone tried to introduce the idea, you'd realize exactly how silly this procedure is.

[–]hamm3rhand1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]n0t13373 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In all fairness, it doesn't actually kill that many kids, I for the study I read it was about 100/year, and that might not have been just the US. However, on the issue of HIV, I don't consider this a good motivation for the procedure for a couple of reasons.

The first is that the majority of the studies that find circumcision to be beneficial have serious methodological issues, not the least of which is that they are almost all carried out in high risk populations, mostly in Africa. There seems to be really limited evidence that the results of these studies would be replicated if they were performed in first world countries. And actually, on that note...

The second is that HIV rates are sufficiently low in the developed countries that reducing HIV transmission leads to negligible aggregate differences. If circumcision was an important factor in HIV rates for a country, we would expect the UK and Europe to have higher rates of HIV/AIDS infection than America does because they circumcise a lot less than we do. They don't. America's HIV/AIDS infection rate is about triple that of the UK. This is because circumcision is a shit way to stop STD transmission. Stop carving up penises and wear a fucking condom.

The third and most important reason (to me anyway) is that your infant or toddler isn't going to be having sex. When they're old enough to have sex, that's a time at which they can make an informed decision for themselves if they want to undergo circumcision for aesthetic reasons or as a way to combat std transmission or whatever reason they want really. I don't need to force it on them as a newborn.

[–]hamm3rhand-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

if you are interested, the commenter above and i have had some discussion about the study that you mention and the issue with the studies in africa. Yes there are a lot of studies in africa but there have been some in the US that were mentioned in the original link i posted.

It also mentions UTI's as being significantly less likely among circumcised men, among other things, but i do agree that STD's is a common concern. However, i wouldn't be opposed to cutting my kid's chance in half or more of getting an STD if he makes a stupid mistake in the future if i can take care of it with a simple, common procedure now. Its just different strokes for different folks i guess. I don't really see it as that much of a difference as say, trimming of the little bit of ligament that holds the tip of your tounge to the bottom of your mouth - sometimes it is too far forward or too thick and it might make it a bit more difficult for the kid to talk later. Its certainly not a necessary procedure, but if it helps the kid out in any way, i'll give my child that chance.

[–]Eryemil3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

if you are interested, the commenter above and i have had some discussion about the study that you mention and the issue with the studies in africa. Yes there are a lot of studies in africa but there have been some in the US that were mentioned in the original link i posted.

There haven't actually been "lots" of studies in the developed world. The one you quoted is interesting but about as defitinitive as this

Pretty much every potentially authoritative paper on the subject is based on the African trials, but lets assume that their findings are not only accurate, despite the flawed methodology, but universal and lets examine exactly why circumcision is not a valid means to prevent HIV infections in the developed world. Keep in mind that HIV is more common in the US than in Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia:

61% of all new HIV infections in the US occur among MSM, men who have sex with other men. Heterosexual sex accounts for 27% of infections while injected drug users makes up 9%. There is zero evidence of any kind that circumcision has a positive impact on M2M transmission as the vectors are completely different and it obviously does nothing to prevent it in drug users.

Of those 27% who are heterosexuals. 23% of them are women. Do you see where I'm going with this? Not only is there no evidence that male circumcision has a positive effect on M2F transmission, there's actually some evidence that the opposite is true.

And of course circumcision is not vaccine. Even in areas undeveloped countries where HIV is endemic, and assuming you accept the results from the African trials, it'd only confers protection of 38% to 66%. Keep in mind that this reduction in HIV transmission after circumcision amounts to about 5 to 12 non-circumcised men per thousand infected per year, and about 3 to five circumcised men per thousand in countries where HIV is endemic; what the numbers may be in the developed world, once again assuming that these results are accurate, we do not know. Together with the factors I've mentioned above, this makes circumcision an extremely poor way to prevent HIV in the developed world.

But we're arguing here about whether circumcision is justified as a means to prevent HIV. Even if it were this cannot an does not justify infant circumcision. Infants are not sexually active and haven't even begun to make any sexual choices that could impact their sexual health in any way. They simply do not need to be protected from HIV which not only makes the potential impact factor of RIC on HIV transmission in the developed world even less, it completely voids HIV as a justifiable reason for infant circumcision.

It also mentions UTI's as being significantly less likely among circumcised men

You're using loaded words. Not only are the results not significant in any way; they are specific to very young boys, not males throughout their life.

A commonly quoted numbers show that UTIs could be 3 to 10 times more common in intact boys. What that doesn't tell you is that the actual risk for UTIs in intact boys is only 1%. Even using the most optimistic of numbers, you would have to circumcise hundreds of healthy boys that would have never gotten a UTI in order to prevent a single one.

I don't really see it as that much of a difference as say, trimming of the little bit of ligament that holds the tip of your tounge to the bottom of your mouth [...]

Then you need to educate yourself. No discussion is completely one-sided and this one is certainly not. Do you know why men have a foreskin?

[–]hamm3rhand-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thanks for the time to write such a long response. A slight correction, I didn't say that there had been "lots" in the developed world but rather "lots" in africa. I do find the paper that you linked interesting, and will read it in full when I have a bit more time, but i did look at the abstract.

Also, the "loaded words" i'm assuming you are referring to is the significantly less likely? I quoted that from the article i cited, which i assume that means statistically significant. I did not intend to draw from the discussion by being inflammatory. I did see that it mentioned that UTI's are rare, however i did miss the <3 months part. It was just an aside that I thought would be interesting, as the original topic was if it had any medical benefits.

As far as the doing it to infants thing, I think that if it is beneficial to be done, this would be the time to do it, as they have dedicated caregivers to watch over them during recovery and it would be the time that would cause them the least trauma. Yes, everyone knows that infants are not sexually active, but this is a procedure that may provide some lasting protection throughout their lives, and so you might as well do that while it would cause the least disruption and trauma to the individual.

I never said it was one sided, the whole reason we are having this conversation is that it is obviously two or more, and I am educating myself currently. Yes i know why men have a foreskin, but I don't recall hearing of anyone who had been circumcised having any issues as i have heard from people with foreskins (frenulum tearing, cleanliness problems leading to infections, etc). I am circumcised and do not believe myself to have suffered any lasting harm from it, nor have I ever heard of someone having problems due to circumcision.

Though i realize that that anecdotes are not evidence, they tend to be a major factor that people use in making decisions. If you don't mind me asking, have you ever heard any circumcised males have any medical issues due to being circumcised? Because I've heard of people having medical problems due to not being circumcised, but not vice-versa.

And i really don't see it as very different than that procedure. it is a cosmetic, possibly beneficial procedure done on children before they have an opportunity to make medical decisions of their own. But that is my personal opinion, and i suppose it is really not relevant to the overall discussion so i apologize for bringing it up.

[–]Eryemil0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hamm3rhand-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes.

Was my argument not thorough? I noticed you didn't offer a rebuttal. I am asking for one now. Prove to me that circumcision is a justifiable preemptive measure for HIV in the developed world.

I want to see a proper cost-benefit analysis from you.

contains extra skin to help prevent tightness during erection. Helps protect the glans of the penis from sunburn and frostbite. Keeps the glans moist. Provides some extra erotic stimulation. Helps keep semen from exiting the vaginal canal. Acts as storage for extra skin to help make a gliding motion during intercourse.

Somewhat correct, still extremely disingenuous how you use weasel words to undermine the most important functions though. As to why I ask this; you are advocating amputation of a body part that you do not even understand for nebulous potential benefits that you cannot substantiate.

Let me tell you about the functions of the foreskin; lets break it down into three categories:

Sensory:

The foreskin is itself an erogenous zone but more importantly it is attached to the frenulum —which is usually excised along with it during circumcision. The frenulum is the most densely innervated spot in the penis and generally the most responsive to conventional sexual stimulation.

The foreskin also contains meissner's corpuscles which are the mechanoreceptors that are most sensitive to the lowest vibrations which is very likely the reason why it is the most fine-touch sensitive spot in the male genitals. No other part of the penis comes even close in terms of the ability to detect subtle changes in texture such as, for example, the ridges that make up the fingerprints or the papillae of the tongue.

Structural:

The penis is generally an internal organ; while in humans it tends to hang outside the body this is not the most common arrangement by far. While many other mammalian species also have penises that protrude from the body in all cases they maintain and internal/external arrangement where the prepuce has evolved to encompass the length of the penis or even partially fuse with it as is the case for us humans. All mammals have foreskins no matter how evolutionarily separated from other mammalian species.

So, why is the foreskin a universal feature in our class? There are very likely many reasons but two key ones are that the penis is a very important organ and also a very fragile one. If you look at an illustration of a penis you'll notice that the foreskin is in fact folded, basically double sided. The side that faces the outside is normal skin but the inside of it, as well as the glans, is not skin at all but a mucous membrane.

This mucosa is very thin and susceptible to dehydration and prone to damage due to friction both of which cause the surface of the glans and inner foreskin to thicken and become discolored and cracked—basically a callus. here's a side by side comparison

Also, and this is an important one I think: circumcision reduces the volume of the penis and thus its apparent size, not only due to the loss of the foreskin itself but the stretching tissue along the more rigid structure inside the penis.

Mechanical:

From an engineering point of view, the penis is a beautiful machine. The foreskin provides a full range of frictionless motion that is almost as long as the total size of the penis. This shape makes it so that the piston-like movement will stimulate both the foreskin itself and the glans as well as the receptive partner and it facilitates both masturbation and penetration. Also, it creates a seal within when thrusting that is less likely to scoop out both lubrication and ejaculate.

[–]hamm3rhand0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Was my argument not thorough

no it was not, after my last post you just made a yes or no question, and then a snide remark wherein i decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond. However you chose to ignore what i wrote and say i used "weasel words", when i covered all the main points that you mentioned there, if in a more brief fashion.

a body part that you do not even understand >

are you a physician? a urologist? a urologist's assistant? Have you had specific penis education outside the norm? If not, then I think we both have about the same understanding of our respective penisis from owning one and having access to the internet.

I tire of this discussion, since you haven't presented any new information in quite a while. I am done with this for now, so unless you have anything constructive to add I'll not be replying. Have a nice day!

[–]Eryemil1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Avalon812042 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

None of thoe studies have ever been done in a first world setting or hold up to real world data. IE: America which has one of the highest circumcision rates also has one of the highest STD transmission rates, while countries in Europe have some of the smallest circumcision rates and some of the lowest STD transmission rates.

And for the death thing. 9 times out of 10 the cause of death isnt listed as circumcision, its hemorrhage.

THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90 LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS

Dan Bollinger Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

[–]hamm3rhand1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The page i linked you mentioned studies done in this Unites States, including [this one](Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman DR, et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual African American men attending Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinics. J Infect Dis. 2009;199:59-65.) which shows "among heterosexual men with known HIV exposure, circumcision was associated with a statistically significant 58% reduction in risk for HIV infection"

Ah yes, I saw that one journal article (the only one ever cited among many websites anti-circumcision) and skimmed most of it and read the part where they made the claims of deaths. They do not have any definitive proof of deaths caused by circumcision, and according to their own words use "common-sense calculation" to "arrive at a reasoned estimate". This sounds like a lot of guessing to me. I do not appreciate the majority of the wording in the article (it is very inflammatory and out of place in an academic article) I think it is rather odd for a journal, not to mention that i have never heard of this journal before and have no idea of its affiliations. Now, if a well known, reputable source such as the journal "Pediatrics" had published this article, or the article had been written by someone other than a website, I would be more inclined to accept its results.

Overall, I would much rather take the word of the CDC as reputable over that of this journal.

Edit: apologies for the formatting, i'm not sure why it didn't hide the link as it shows in the formatting guide

[–]Eryemil1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hamm3rhand0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PartTimeBadman8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PartTimeBadman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PartTimeBadman6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Avalon812043 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Avalon812041 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PartTimeBadman3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My main point is that, provided that circumcision does not deprive the man of the ability to have sex and urinate, I don't understand how circumcision harms the male penis.

I don't understand how you don't understand that literally chopping off a fairly sizable part of your penis is harming it. Just because you retain some of the functionality, it doesn't mean you're not majorly deprived because of it.

Keep in mind that this practice has no reasonable benefit to it and is performed way before the child can really comprehend what's going on. Ignore your preconceptions and digest that for a second; your parents allowed someone to permanently and irreparably sever part of your genitals, for no reason, without your permission or knowledge.

Imagine now, that you've just woken up and your ears are hurting. You get up, look in the mirror and see that your earlobes have been removed. You phone your parents and they cheerfully inform you that they paid a doctor to break into your room and hack off your earlobes. What would your reaction be? Would you be delighted that they had made this medical decision for you?

[–]GotMyTowel420 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, seeing as I am now an adult and fully legally responsible for myself, I would not be happy that my parents had made such a decision. If it was something that they had decided while I was still under their legal guardianship, I would be upset with the lack of earlobes based on the fact that this is something that is not so easy to cover up.

Perhaps I don't understand the fact that I apparently only retain partial functionality of my penis because I have no memory of having a foreskin. Having never experienced anything that I would describe as failure to experience sexual stimulation, perhaps I don't know what I'm missing out on. My understanding of the human body is that the feeling of orgasm is created by the brain, so the missing nerve endings don't (if my understanding is correct the nerve endings are used for stimulation that allows the brain that feeling and allows for ejaculation) keep the man from reaching orgasm or ejaculate. With this in mind, I'm currently seeing circumcision as similar to the earlobes with the exception that it can be covered up. It would be as if I got tattooed as a child, with no memory of any pain, no physical damage caused by it, and the ability to cover it up. That is how I currently see it.

[–]PartTimeBadman4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40574 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40573 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40570 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I suppose that, if it were in a place that it could be hidden and did not cause excessive pain to the child, it would not be that big of a deal. Many people already have asked me about cutting off earlobes. While this does seem similar to me, missing earlobes would be much more noticeable to the general public than a missing foreskin. Having never gotten a tattoo, I can't speak to the level of pain. However, if there were a completely painless way to tattoo a spot that would not be revealed to the general public (inner thigh for instance) I would not see a problem with something like that. It's my understanding (and I will conceded that this is not a very educated understand on the subject) that as long as it does not become infected, a tattoo causes no physical harm. Does my conditional opinion seem that ridiculous to you?

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, it is ridiculous, and I'm starting to believe you are either a troll or just completely ignorant.

and did not cause excessive pain to the child

Is circumcision painless?

missing earlobes would be much more noticeable to the general public than a missing foreskin.

Does this matter?

if there were a completely painless way to tattoo

There isn't. And there isn't a completely painless way to circumcise, either.

It's my understanding (and I will conceded that this is not a very educated understand on the subject) that as long as it does not become infected, a tattoo causes no physical harm.

You have a very misguided opinion, then. Yes, infected tattoos cause the most harm (much like infected surgery wounds...), but the act of tattooing skin is not a harmless procedure. Needles pounding your skin thousands of times per second isn't exactly harmless.

So you think that tattooing a swastika or a penis on an infant's inner thigh is ok because nobody will see it? Do you not care about that infant's future thoughts about their own body?

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, I'm not a troll. At this point I would say that I'm ignorant, which is why I asked in the first place. I would imagine there is pain involved in circumcision, but having been circumcised myself I don't remember experiencing any pain. I'm still young enough that I don't know much about the birth process, but I'd imagine that there are other parts that could be painful.

In response to your earlobe question, I suppose the reason it matters, in my mind, is that not having my foreskin is something that (if I am still able to use my penis) is simply something that might look different. The only problem I would see with not having my earlobes (as to my knowledge they have nothing to do with hearing) is that it would look funny to not have them. This is why I see a parallel.

I certainly wouldn't condone tattooing a symbol that has been used to express hate, like a swastika. I have no real opinion on tattooing a penis right next to a penis. I would simply say that, if it were a cultural norm or tradition like I know circumcision to be in some cultures, I would not see tattooing something on someone still to young to make their decisions for themselves (in a legal sense) as something that would be unethical.

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I used the term legal rights because children that are getting circumcised as infants do not have the ability to think for themselves. If you were old enough to think for yourself and research for yourself, I would think that parents denying an informed rejection to circumcision would be acting unethically. My thought is that if the parents are acting in what they believe are the child's best interests when they have him circumcised as an infant are acting ethically. They are trying to do what is best for the child. In the case of a tattoo in our culture, I would say that it is less ethical than trying to circumcise a child. I bring up cultural norms because it is conceivable that a culture could tattoo their infants. If one person wasn't tattooed, it could potentially lead to torment by others in the culture. Another example of a cultural norm was the Spartan practice of tossing weak children off a cliff. I believe that you could also ethically justify this by saying that in such a warrior culture, a child that is deformed or excessively week could grow up and be tortured violently. If this were the case, it could be stated that it would be more ethical to kill the child than let if grow up to know such pain. While I would certainly not like to live in a society with a norm like that, I bring it up because I believe that cultural norms do play a role in ethics.

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I appreciate the sentiment, but people actually are saying I should be mad. Someone tried to tell me I should get checked out by a psychiatrist. I certainly don't feel mad that it was done. In sitting here responding to the comments people have left, I had a brief talk with my dad about it and it was his understanding that it was more sanitary to be circumcised. Whether he's actually right or not, he acted in what he believed was my best interest.

People seem annoyed, if not angered by my ignorance on this subject. To be honest it's kind of hurtful. I'm not sure how many of these commenters that can't believe I don't have a problem with the procedure are even circumcised themselves, so I'm not sure any of them actually even understand where I'm coming from. I have never had a problem with my penis so I truly don't understand why it is so bad. How can I? I'm not sure that people realize telling me I'm missing nerve endings means nothing to me if I never knew what it was like to have them. As well, I feel like my inability to remember any pain from the procedure effectively means I never experienced any at all.

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i saw that below. i dont think that person told you to get checked out because you arent mad about being circ'd, though.

that kind of undisturbable faith in your parents is not healthy and you should consider examining it with a psychiatrist of some sort.

that person was talking about how disturbing it is that you think a parent tattooing an infant is ok.

im sorry to hear that your father was misguided, despite having good intentions. ive never had a problem cleaning my intact penis.

the disturbing part of your viewpoint is that you dont see the problem with permanently altering a baby's genitals for unnecessary cosmetic reasons. if you turn 18 and want to snip your dick, fine by me. hell, if you are 16 and want to snip your dick, fine by me. the problem is not that dicks are getting snipped, the problem is that it is an irreversible procedure done for no good reason (an overwhelming majority of the time at least) is being routinely performed on non-consenting infants. what if the kid grows up and feels horrible for being modified by their parents? wouldnt the logical option be to abstain from such a procedure until the child could make an informed decision for themselves? its the same reason why i wouldnt tattoo or pierce my kid based on my desire.

im sure you enjoy sex/masturbation just fine. and so do i. but you cant argue the facts that your are experiencing these things in a different way, to a lesser extent, because of lost nerves in your penis. i know you dont really care, because youve never known anything different, but that is not the point. not remembering the pain is not the point. the point is that nobody should go through that without consent for no reason when it is irreversible.

[–]GotMyTowel420 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reason I don't understand the consent issue is that I don't understand why someone would be upset about being circumcised. Keep in mind I have never had any problems with my penis. I can't even conceive of anything different except for the look. People are up in arms about how it's irreversible, but as someone that's never even heard of someone being unhappy with having a penis that's been circumcised, I don't understand how it's a problem. The only think I can think to compare it to is wisdom teeth. I had to have mine removed because of pain, but I know people that still have theirs. In my mind, my mouth works just as good as someone's mouth that still has theirs (wisdom teeth). This is effectively how I see the foreskin. It leads to a different, but not worse experience than not having it.

You mentioned that I'm experiencing sexual things to a lesser extent, but I don't see how that could be. If my understanding of the body is right, the feeling of orgasm is created by a chemical reaction in the brain, not by the nerves in the penis. The only purpose that the nerves in the penis serve is to provide the signals to the brain that it's time for orgasm.

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GotMyTowel420 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suRubix-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Avalon812043 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suRubix1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Avalon812041 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suRubix0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hamm3rhand0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cutsman40573 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

not even just that... by circumcising for this reason, you are sexualizing an infant child. i hate it. just because he has a penis automatically means that he will be having sex with (multiple) partners who may be HIV+.

do these people not think that abstaining from cutting his dick and then teaching him about condoms when he is old enough to have sex is the better option?

"Hey Johnny, you might notice that you want to have sex now. Remember to always use a condom. Also, some people think that this surgery can help prevent diseases, if you think that is something you want to do, we fully support you."

sounds much better than:

"Hey Johnny, when you were a little boy, mom and I thought that we should cut off the most sensitive part of your penis. Its okay though, you dont remember the pain, and now, according to some studies with little to no basis in fact, you might be less susceptible to STDs. Youre welcome!"