A question about the circumcision debate

EvilPundit · 2011-09-24T22:28:23+00:00

I take the same stance I do with piercings and other types of similar cultural body alteration: since it doesn't mutilate or fundamentally alter the function of the body part, it is up to personal choice.

But in infant circumcision, the choice isn't being made by the person affected. I think that's one of the main issues.

DanCorb · 2011-09-24T23:02:03+00:00

it is up to personal choice

And that's exactly where the issue is. A baby can't consent, so it's not personal choice.

mr-rubber · 2011-09-24T22:57:14+00:00

since it doesn't mutilate or fundamentally alter the function of the body part,

this premise is false. it removes a large portion of the organ, with many nerve endings.

MagicOctopus · 2011-09-24T23:02:55+00:00

but personally it hasn't ever bothered me.

Probably because it is a part of your religious identity and it isn't uncommon at all in the society you live in. Cultures can adapt to anything. Chinese girls having their feet bound or Muslim girls having their clitoral hood "snipped" off could also make the argument that it didn't /doesn't bother them.

The foreskin has a lot of functionality that you may not be aware of, and because it was taken away before you had any sense of consciousness you believe that the way your penis functions is the way penises should function- if that makes sense. You are not able to identify any of the inconveniences or issues that you experience from being circumcised until you learn more about the natural physiology of the penis.

We believe that circumcision is different from a piercing because it is not a minor alteration to the genitals that can easily be fixed. In fact it is one of the more dramatic things that can be done to a penis. It impairs movement of the skin over the glans and desensitizes the glans itself.

How can parents choosing something for their child be labeled a personal choice? It would only be so if the child was choosing it for themselves.

ProfessionallyGay · 2011-09-24T23:48:51+00:00

Desensitizes the glans of the penis.

Here is one parallel that I draw to bring insight (I think it's a minority opinion):

It is generally accepted by the West, that female circumcision is bad because it's motivations are socially construed biases (not medically informed) on how girls should exist in the world - virgin, pure, and without sexual desire. Type 1 female circumcision, the removal of clitoral hood/prepuce, has the effect of deadening nerves on the clitoris which is the only known human organ with the sole function of pleasure. By removing the prepuce, a woman's pleasure (and sexual desire) would be severely lessened - a woman can still be aroused, but to a SIGNIFICANTLY LESSER degree.

Male circumcision is very similar to this type of female circumcision in that what is being cut is structurally analogous. The glans of the penis is analogous to the clitoris, and the foreskin is analogous to the clitoral hood/prepuce - its the same tissue during fetal development. So like a woman who has been circumcised, a circumcised man will experience less sensitivity/pleasure on the glans.

So as a result, uncircumcised men have much more fun during love making! We gay men have an insight to this debate because, well, we're exposed to multiple penises and having one ourselves, we know how they function. Circumcised guys don't know what they're missing! The sensitivity to an uncircumcised penis is intense - it makes love making and orgasms so much more enjoyable!

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES...Why do we want someone dictating how you will experience pleasure for the rest of your life? Nature knows what it's doing when it gave you a foreskin. Pleasure is freedom! Freedom is happiness! Let penises be free from circumcision!

MagicOctopus · 2011-09-24T23:02:55+00:00

Are you really in favor of non-consensual genital cutting? How are you with non-consensual labioplasty? I hear it's a real boon in backwards Muslim countries--being raised Muslim, do they have just as much a cultural right to practice non-consensual labioplasty as you do non-consensual circumcision?

MagicOctopus · 2011-09-24T22:27:00+00:00

[permanently deleted]

iongantas · 2011-09-25T01:05:47+00:00

since it doesn't mutilate or fundamentally alter the function of the body part, it is up to personal choice.

Well, actually it does mutilate and fundamentally alter the function of the body, plus it isn't left up to the choice of the person to whom it is done. So, wrong on both counts.

2011-09-25T11:02:21+00:00

From a European point of view the whole notion that there is a "debate" about circumcision is just ridiculous.

Blaidd_Dwrg · 2011-09-25T00:13:15+00:00

I agree that it's a personal choice and anyone old enough to make that decision should be allowed to do so. I do not agree that the parent has the right to make that decision. A parent's role is to protect and nurture. My children do not belong to me, they belong to themselves. I am merely taking care of them until they are old enough to take care of themselves.

My eldest daughter started high school this year. I decided she was old enough to get her ears pierced if she wanted to do so. She did, so we got them done at the start of the summer holidays to give them plenty of time to heal before the start of term.

Ear piercing is a very minor form of body modification, but I still wouldn't inflict it on a baby because it's not my body so it's not a choice that I have a moral right to make. Just because the baby in all likelihood won't grow up to resent you for it doesn't make it right.

biglebowski55 · 2011-09-25T04:24:28+00:00

Don't pierce your baby's ears either, honestly. Let your kid decide if he wants to cut parts of his body, when he's old enough to make a decision. I think it's ridiculous to pierce kids' ears before they even ask for it. Off topic, I know, but I can't handle to flood of negative feelings I have about routine circumcision enough to even enter that discussion.

BigEddie · 2011-09-25T08:06:34+00:00

people like the OP piss me off.

TheBananaKing · 2011-09-25T02:02:02+00:00

since it doesn't mutilate or fundamentally alter the function of the body part, it is up to personal choice. (Why) Do you feel circumcision different than this?

Because it does

_Toast · 2011-09-25T15:13:52+00:00

Circumcision does indeed alter the function of the penis, it can't work the same without the foreskin. The foreskin protects the glands, and has about twenty thousand nerve endings. It does other things too. I chose to get a piercing, while I didn't choose to be circumcised; they did it even though I was probably crying pretty hard and wanted the doctor to stop. I would never circumcise my child, or pierce his ears. Male circumcision can only be a permissible social act if female circumcision is legal; it wouldn't be biased then.

hopeless_case · 2011-09-25T19:06:20+00:00

Although I have yet to see scientific evidence that seems widely agreed upon discouraging circumcision

I take it by that you mean, you don't see any scientific evidence that circumcising an infant harms their overall quality of life as an adult.

What more evidence do you need, than the fact that the foreskin is richly enervated with nerves (stretch receptors), and that you don't have to interview many uncut men before you find a few that talk about how pleasurable the sensations of the foreskin are during intercourse and foreplay?

Yes, not all uncut men are that into sex, or pay close enough attention to the sensations to talk about the sensations coming from the foreskin itself, but so what? You could probably greatly reduce the sharpness of color perception in a lot of people and they would not consider it a great loss. Does that mean that there is little scientific evidence of harm in a procedure that dulled color perception?

There will be some fraction of people for whom the perception of color plays a greater role in their life and who would notice the loss, if they went through it. Some fraction of those are destined to be great artists for whom the perception of color is crucial to the work they may choose to build their professional life around. Such a loss for them could easily end their careers, if they experienced it as an adult, after having known a sharp perception of color and been drawn to the life of an artist.

Now, if such a person had their sensation dulled as an infant, then they would either not pursue visual art, instead exploring another of the talents they were born with, and never realize what they were missing, or still pursue visual art and not achieve the great success they would have (and probably still consider themselves lucky to be a moderately successful artist). Again, they would not realize what they had lost.

Returning to the middle ground, someone for whom color perception would not figure into their main talents, but where it would be a bigger part of their life than for the average person, being done as an adult they would know a serious, but not devestating loss. Being done as an infant, their life would not be as rich as it was destined to be, but would still be fulfilling and they would achieve the same overall level of success.

My bottom line is this. The human body is born with a large set of capacities, and there is a great variation in which subset of those any person will make significant use of in their life. There are many capacities that most people will not make significant use of. For any given capacity, though, there are some number of people who will make significant use of it. Since we can't know exactly which of the capacities any given infant will eventually find a significant place for in their life, we need a pretty big reason to delete any of them.

The only excuse for removing a sensory (or other) capacity from an infant, is that failing to do so would endanger the infant's life (or another set of capacities that most people would find much more significant; for example, if removing a pinky finger would prevent an infant from going blind, almost every adult would have wanted their parents to have sacrificed their infant pinky finger so as to retain vision).

Just because the given capacity (the sensations from the foreskin) is one that a lot of people don't think about much about (or are forbidden by convention from having casual conversations about) does not mean that it is OK for a parent to sacrifice it (absent clear medical cause).

The only scientific evidence I need to see, given this moral argument I just made, is that you don't have to look far to find uncircumcised men who are conscious of the sensations their foreskin provides during sex, and who would dearly miss it if they had to be circumcised (or who dearly missed it once they did have to be circumcised as an adult). Even if that is only one in twenty people, I would still consider that a serious violation of the right of an infant to a whole body.

I am curious to hear your reaction to my post, even if you don't want to argue my points. Do you buy my moral argument, but reject the scientific one (namely, that you wouldn't have to look far to find men who are conscious of the role their foreskin plays in their sex life and would dearly miss it if circumcised as an adult)?

If you genuinely are trying to expand your depth of thought on these issues, and not merely trying to justify your existing beliefs, I would encourage you to ask uncircumcised men about the role the foreskin plays in their life. Don't take my word for it.

lipsofthedevil · 2011-09-24T23:36:49+00:00

Because it doesn't make any sense to me, one of the first things you do when a boy is born, you chop the end of his dick, that alone is absurd to me. I am not really familiar with what justification different religions give for this practice but since it has been going on for centuries apparently I don't thing it was on some health/scientific issue.

Another thing people talk about in support of circumcision, "you get your tonsils removed", "you get your appendix removed", but is it really comparable to circumcision? You get your tonsils removed because of a medical problem and not almost immediately after you are born, I actually still have tonsils, they haven't caused me any trouble. Same with your appendix, you get it removed when it is inflamed and not right after birth. So circumcision is now a very old/outdated practice like foot-binding, breast ironing, female circumcision (of course you can say all these practices are not on the same scale, but the reason for all of them is the same, cultural, religious practice etc). Now consider that this practice was popularized in America by Dr.Kellog to lessen sexual pleasure and curb masturbation in young boys, and girls, but female circumcision never took off because people thought it was absurd and rightfully so.

Another thing you mention, ear piercings, now a foreskin is more sensitive than the head of the penis, which makes it the most sensitive part of male human beings body, this area is not comparable to a mostly senseless earlobe, also if you get pierced as a child, your ears can heal and close which doesn't happen with the foreskin.

Now, there is the health issue, that circumcision makes it harder to get infected with STDs, STIs and HIV, those studies/surveys have been questioned enough to be doubtful of this practice. Even if you were to consider these studies, they were done in Africa where is a significantly higher rate of HIV-AIDS, so the "pool" is much different that of the rest of the world. I have seen positive effects of female cirumcision (labiaplasty) online, I have no idea how valid or credible this information is though, http://www.mothering.com/community/t/457108/benefits-of-sunna-circumcision#post_5190658

My opposition to circumcision is that there is no reasonable justification to do it newborns. Of course if there is medical problem like phimosis or something, then you might have to consider circumcision, that is fine but a non-therapeutic circumcision on a newborn baby? No.

Zombie_Lover · 2011-09-25T02:40:21+00:00

I am circumcised, my son is not. I just didn't want him to go through any more pain than necessary. I had already roped him in with his crazy ass mother. And before you criticize, she was institutionalized twice within three months because she was a threat to herself and society. But apparently I am attractive to crazy. And attracted to crazy. I am a mess.

ghebert001 · 2011-09-25T23:12:13+00:00

I understand you're jewish and your circumcision was most likely done as a result of your parents' religious beliefs. With that said, my belief is that if it were not for religious justification, you might be a fully intact man today. Some people use religious belief as justification for terrorism. Circumcision and terrorism are two very different things, however my point is that just because something is done with religious belief as its justification, doesn't make it right. I feel that it is not right to remove part of a baby boy's penis for any reason other than it being medically necessary.

Title	A question about the circumcision debate
Author	MagicOctopus
Upvotes	21
Comments	48
Date	September 24, 2011 10:17 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/kqd4j/a_question_about_the_circumcision_debate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-question-about-the-circumcision-debate.1034153 https://theredarchive.com/post/1034153

Comments