Circumcision.

  • Thread starter Carbonox
  • 286 comments
  • 15,700 views
11,573
Finland
Intercourse, PA
Carbonox
This subject was briefly mentioned in the god thread, and I figure it could raise a bit of separate discussion as it's one of the many ethical questions of life, so off we go.

Now, personally I believe in free will. If an adult person really wants to get rid of his foreskin for whatever reason, then so be it, there should be no questions asked. However, when it comes to mutilating children, whose word (if it even exists, as this is performed on infants too) doesn't matter one little bit for the ones making the call, I stand hard against it, and will hope that it eventually gets illegalized fully in the western world. That's no different from assaulting a baby in its cart out on the streets if you ask me.

It's only really acceptable if done in the worst HIV areas of Africa, where it might actually save some lives. However, all the other reasons, particularly social, are just so plain idiotic, no facepalm memes could ever compensate. Preventing masturbation? Dear nutjobs, back-and-forth movement is the most natural thing in the world. I should know, I'm a daily wanker and won't be ashamed to admit. This is my body, no one else has any right to decide what I do with it.

All the respect for those Jewish and Muslim organizations who refuse to mutilate their children.
 
Yep I pretty much agree with you. Involuntary mutilation is very obviously wrong. But for some reason, when religion is involved it's suddenly okey dokey.
 
I'm a daily wanker and won't be ashamed to admit. This is my body, no one else has any right to decide what I do with it.

:lol:

Out of context quote FTW! :lol:

I'm one who thinks it is what it is. I know people who have had it done at a young age and as adults for medical reasons. Hell, I even went to the doc myself to enquire about it when I hit puberty.

I'm not sure if I can condone the circumcision of an infant for the sake of religious or cultural effect. I personally wouldn't have my child done unless it was recommended for sound medical reasons.

I do know, however, that many of my American friends have been 'chopped' because of the cleanliness issue, but as a non-chopped person I can say this is only an issue if one decides to be a dirty git and not wash. It's like brushing one's teeth; do it regularly and its fine, not so often and things get nasty. :scared:
 
I'm a daily wanker and won't be ashamed to admit. This is my body, no one else has any right to decide what I do with it.
:lol:

Out of context quote FTW! :lol:

Signature material. :lol:

Edit: Medical reasons, personal choice/preference is valid reasons.

As for cleanliness, the solution is called soap and water.
 
Last edited:
Signature material. :lol:

For sure.

Circumcision is one of those issues which is different to everyone, like the gun arguments and such.

I have been told that having the foreskin helps to keep the penis more sensitive and therefore helps to make intercourse more enjoyable. I think after chats I've had with friends that this is a fair assumption.
 
For sure.I have been told that having the foreskin helps to keep the penis more sensitive and therefore helps to make intercourse more enjoyable. I think after chats I've had with friends that this is a fair assumption.

Yes. Parts of the foreskin is very sensetive as well.
 
I stand VERY firmly against it. I see it as child mutilation.

Most of the pro circumcision arguments fall flat on their face.
 
I had a student have it done at 9 years old. The poor kid could barely move from the pain. When I asked why it was done he told me his mum had insisted that it was healthier for him. I actually suspect she wanted the foreskin to turn into some rich woman's moisturising and revitalising cream. I was deeply saddened for the kid. Can't remember his name though now.

EDIT: Nelson was his name. And his mum was pretty hot so she didn't really need the cream, if that was her intention.
 
I'm against it for infants, if you're an adult it's your own choice.
I feel sorry for any jewish children that have been subject to their "traditional" method of circumcision.

 
Last edited:
Carbonox
I'm a daily wanker and won't be ashamed to admit. This is my body, no one else has any right to decide what I do with it.
:lol:

Out of context quote FTW! :lol:
Signature material. :lol:
I literally fell from my chair :lol:
W3HS
EDIT: Nelson was his name. And his mum was pretty hot so she didn't really need the cream, if that was her intention.
:lol:


As far as the topic at hand, I'm against it, religion/cultural/tradition wise I really don't see the point of it.
 
Last edited:
With all medical procedures there is a failure rate. If the procedure is medically necessary, you weigh the risk and accept it or lose your child.

If the procedure is cosmetic, there is no reason to weigh the risk because it's not a necessary procedure. And the risks of infant circumcision are death or gender "reassignment" (another cosmetic procedure), depression and then death. Should be game over at that point, surely?
 
As far as the topic at hand, I'm against it, religion/cultural/tradition wise I really don't see the point of it, but I will support it if it's used for controlling the birthrate in areas in which it's redemeed necesary.

How is circumcission controlling birth rate? We're not talking castration here.
 
Indeed not - not when you're suggesting castrating children to control certain populations is a good thing.

They tried that once. You can guess where, when and why, but if you think of Jews, the disabled, gypsies and homosexuals and the 1940s, you won't be far off.
 
I was thinking more in ways of sterilization ... for some reason.

And I didn't meant that way, is just that in poor countries with low rate of literacy and high rates of poverty tent to have high birth rates due to poor future planing and sexual education, so they should limit the amount of kids they can have (say for example they have ... 4+ kids and they have no way to mantain them, then they should sterilize them). I understood it in that way, sorry. And I still think I sound like Joseph Goebbels anyway, not that I think that way (or like the german ruling party in the late 1930's, early 1940's).

And I'm aware I might be misunderstanding the concept of sterilization, so I might not be braining well ... as a whole.
 
I don't believe it's fair to rob your child of the most sensitive and nerve filled skin in the body for the sake of religion or a very dubious health argument. It's something a man should decide for himself when he's a man, not something parents should decide for their kids when they're infants.
 
I was thinking more in ways of sterilization ... for some reason.

And I didn't meant that way, is just that in poor countries with low rate of literacy and high rates of poverty tent to have high birth rates due to poor future planing and sexual education, so they should limit the amount of kids they can have (say for example they have ... 4+ kids and they have no way to mantain them, then they should sterilize them). I understood it in that way, sorry. And I still think I sound like Joseph Goebbels anyway, not that I think that way (or like the german ruling party in the late 1930's, early 1940's).

And I'm aware I might be misunderstanding the concept of sterilization, so I might not be braining well ... as a whole.

I doubt anyone could force the issue. Instead we need to spread the word of Durex to those countries.
 
I'm glad we haven't had a son. Because I've been struggling with this question myself.

The medical reason may not be very compelling (otherwise kids wouldn't have it done long beyond the age where they won't notice the pain), but it's there... somewhat. Still, it's a measure of how ingrainedly Catholic my upbringing was that it wasn't till past thirty that I realized that I would not want to circumcise my child... that I would leave the decision up to him. Up until recently, I figured I would have it done, period.

That's good programming. The word for uncircumcised people here is an expletive for Christ's sake! :lol:

But since starting a family, I've realized how much we've come to take these things for granted. I won't do anything permanently scarring to any of my kids for no reason. Thus, neither of my girls has had their ears pierced. We've left it up to them. I was thinking of whether to make them wait till adulthood or teenhood, but since the first kid has shown an aversion to piercing, I'm glad that I don't have to decide, yet.
 
I had a student have it done at 9 years old. The poor kid could barely move from the pain. When I asked why it was done he told me his mum had insisted that it was healthier for him. I actually suspect she wanted the foreskin to turn into some rich woman's moisturising and revitalising cream. I was deeply saddened for the kid. Can't remember his name though now.

Its because he was 9 when they did it. Its harder to do it as you get older. You do it when the child is a baby so it comes off easier and with less pain.

Even if it might be cleaner and medically better, wouldnt you take every chance you can to try to make your child the healthiest he can be?

Also, chicks don't dig the skin :yuck:
 
Last edited:
I don't think it should be done unless you have a bad case of phimosis (don't google or wiki it unless you want to look at dicks) that keeps you from "functioning" normally.
 
Learn your little boy to pull the skin back every day to clean the German Helmet. Prevents most problems. Cutting the skin off for is being cleaner is utter BS. If that would be the case your dad doesn't know how to clean his willy.
 
I don't think it should be done unless you have a bad case of phimosis (don't google or wiki it unless you want to look at dicks) that keeps you from "functioning" normally.

I don't even need to try googling it to look at dicks. I only have to go to school for that.
 
It cracks me up every time someone says "I want them to look like their dad!" Ok, would you be ok chopping up your little girl's lips in order to make her look like mommy? That being said, the clitoral hood is the organ that most directly translates to the foreskin. It serves no purpose other than to keep the most sensitive part of the body an internal organ.
 
According to my medical doctor. about 1 in 4 males sufferes from too tight a foreskin. It used to be and probably still is diagnosed at an early age through the usual child health screening (assuming most countries do this). A torn foreskin can lead to infections, scar tissue and a bunch of other nasty things once the male gets sexually active. There is a hygiene issue if the foreskin can't be properly pulled back for washing.

Circumcision is a standard medical treatment (again assuming - country wise) as much as removing an appendix or tonsils, and as long as it's done by a qualified doctor there's not much risk.

The alternative, and I can't believe they still seriously suggest this, is trying widening the fore skin by stretching it. No body part of mine ever got wider by stretching, by the amount of food I stuff in my mouth it would be several meters wide by now. I can't detect any effects on my ears either, and I wear earplugs on a daily basis and sometimes at night.

A circumcised penis is so much easier to keep clean, much more pleasant to look at (my and my gf's opinion) and a bit less sensible, but in a very good way (again, to my and mf gf's opinion).

There is no reason whatsoever to not circumcise a male, and given I personally know men who still suffer from too tight a foreskin at the age of 40 (!) because shame and guilt prevented them and their parents from ever addressing the issues.

Sometimes I wonder if we are falling back into the dark ages :nervous: Yes, operations can go wrong, but that's true for almost everything involving medicine and a sharp instrument. Usually, there's not much to worry about. Gender reassignment, my giddy aunt. That's the same as not having an operation because one is afraid Dr. Frankenstein removes the wrong leg, kidney or brain.
 
I'm American and yes you guessed it, I was chopped. But I got lucky and it was very, very loose. I don't agree at all. It takes away from stimulation from what I've read. It is possible to restore the foreskin but not the same as being born with it. I'm totally against it, especially as I wasn't able to make the choice myself. Granted, being circumsized is visually more appealing.
 
According to my medical doctor. about 1 in 4 males sufferes from too tight a foreskin. It used to be and probably still is diagnosed at an early age through the usual child health screening (assuming most countries do this). A torn foreskin can lead to infections, scar tissue and a bunch of other nasty things once the male gets sexually active. There is a hygiene issue if the foreskin can't be properly pulled back for washing.

Circumcision is a standard medical treatment (again assuming - country wise) as much as removing an appendix or tonsils, and as long as it's done by a qualified doctor there's not much risk.
Phimosis. Medically necessary.
The alternative, and I can't believe they still seriously suggest this, is trying widening the fore skin by stretching it. No body part of mine ever got wider by stretching, by the amount of food I stuff in my mouth it would be several meters wide by now.
Except that your stomach does indeed stretch and your gut will show the effect of it as you get older.

For a mild phimosis, retracting it frequently will do the job. For a severe one it won't. And circumcision becomes medically necessary.
A circumcised penis is so much easier to keep clean, much more pleasant to look at (my and my gf's opinion) and a bit less sensible, but in a very good way (again, to my and mf gf's opinion).
Cosmetic - not medically necessary. You can make decisions on cosmetic surgery as an adult.
There is no reason whatsoever to not circumcise a male
Except that it's not medically necessary in the vast majority of males and comes with very real risks. There is no reason to give your child cosmetic genital surgery.
Sometimes I wonder if we are falling back into the dark ages :nervous: Yes, operations can go wrong, but that's true for almost everything involving medicine and a sharp instrument. Usually, there's not much to worry about. Gender reassignment, my giddy aunt. That's the same as not having an operation because one is afraid Dr. Frankenstein removes the wrong leg, kidney or brain.
Those are valid risks. If the operation is medically necessary then they are risks you have to weigh up for your child. If the operation is not medically necessary because you want your son to have an easier to clean, more pleasant to look at (also, who the hell looks at a child's penis and makes aesthetic decisions?) and a bit less sensible penis, these are risks you should not be weighing up for your child.

It's body modification. You can make these calls for yourself as an adult.
 
Last edited:
Back