circumcision, should it be allowed?

[Gamer4Fire]

Okay... Are you going to tell me what your logical reasons for disfiguring a child is or are you just going to sit there and feel smug? I could post one ups like that all day long, but it wouldn't really get the conversation anywhere.

 

[snex]

Circumcision has reasons behind it;

yeah the same reasons that female circumcisions have - religious ones.

you removing my gall bladder has no tangible reasoning

and what if he was your parent and you were an infant and it was part of his religious tradition to remove it for you?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Spoiler

node error

 

[Deleted member]

I guess I should quit the one-liners. When Gamer4Fire of all people tells you you're being smug, you probably are doing something wrong.

Umm..where to begin?

First off - there is no conversation here. This a pathetic thread. What did circumcision ever do to you?

The reason why I'm being smug is you're basically calling my **** some disfigured knob. Which is entirely untrue. If you want to believe that extremely literally circumcision makes ***** disfigured because that is how you define disfigurement, then go ahead. But you'd be an idiot.

Aside from religious reasons, medical reasons, or hygenical reasons..have you ever thought it's performed for aesthetical reasons?

Fail thread demands fail posts. Why don't you explain to me why you are so deeply and personally offended by circumcision, a process that is so utterly benign? Did circumcision ever touch you as a boy, Gamer?

 

[Miharu]

Aside from religious reasons, medical reasons, or hygenical reasons..have you ever thought it's performed for aesthetical reasons?

If it's alright to do such things from a purely aesthetic standpoint, would it be appropriate for your parents to shave your eyebrows, and keep them that way, for the sole reason that "eyebrows make you look ugly"? As far as I know, eyebrows aren't needed for your survival in any way, shape or form.

The point is, circumcision is by far and large unnecessary in this day and age.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

... Why are you being so hostile? Perhaps you have envy of the magic wood for those who didn't have theirs pruned.

Otherwise, let me address your post line by line.

I guess I should quit the one-liners.

Yes, you should quit the one liners when they contain absolutely no substance or at least a joke.

When Gamer4Fire of all people tells you you're being smug, you probably are doing something wrong.

When I tell you anything, you should definitely listen.

Umm..where to begin?

You should have begun with your first post in this topic and not your forth.

First off - there is no conversation here.

Then what are we doing? Dialogue?

This a pathetic thread.

Then you are pathetic for posting here. I find it interesting, in a morbid sense.

What did circumcision ever do to you?

It ransacked my city and destroyed my life. [/drama]

The reason why I'm being smug is you're basically calling my **** some disfigured knob.

Just because you have a disfigured knob doesn't mean you should be acting smug (quite the opposite).

Which is entirely untrue.

Which is entirely true.

If you want to believe that extremely literally circumcision makes ***** disfigured because that is how you define disfigurement, then go ahead.

I'd have to agree with what the dictionary defines as disfigurement.

But you'd be an idiot.

That does not make me an idiot.

Aside from religious reasons, medical reasons, or hygenical reasons..have you ever thought it's performed for aesthetical reasons?

You haven't cited any of the above reasons, and I will not comment on your fascination with pricks.

Fail thread demands fail posts.

No, a fail thread deserves to die. You keep posting, it stays alive, it doesn't fail.

Why don't you explain to me why you are so deeply and personally offended by circumcision, a process that is so utterly benign?

Because I lost my best friend to roving circumcisers. (j/k) I thought we already pointed out how it wasn't benign, but then again some people have trouble reading through threads before posting.

Did circumcision ever touch you as a boy, Gamer?

I thought that I had already pointed out that I'm actually a touring test and I'm passing.

 

[Deleted member]

Hahahaha.

I hope when I die I'm quoted that much in the history textbooks. Maybe as the guy who had a disfigured knob.

 

[Crimson King]

I'd rather hear the female perspective on this issue. I have never heard a woman complain that her man was "cut/uncut". So really, it doesn't matter that much.

 

[snex]

Aside from religious reasons, medical reasons, or hygenical reasons..have you ever thought it's performed for aesthetical reasons?

the idea that my parents should get to decide on how my genitalia should look for aesthetic reasons is somewhat disturbing. why are they even concerned with the aesthetics of my genitalia? are they taking peeks? does it disgust them to see the natural shape of a ***** (you know, the way god made it) when they change my diaper?

I have never heard a woman complain that her man was "cut/uncut".

im not aware of any consensus on it. the opinions of women on it seems to be split. but really, is that an argument? if women like them cut, and you care what women think that much, then do it yourself when you turn 18. your parents shouldnt be deciding for you.

and if the idea of circumcision never entered our culture to begin with, women wouldnt like them cut, because it just wouldnt be an option.

 

[Deleted member]

Aesthetical reasons are for people who are cognitive

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Aesthetic reasons are for people who are perceptive? I don't get it.

 

[snex]

Aesthetical reasons are for people who are cognitive

what the hell are you talking about??

 

[Deleted member]

cognitive: of, relating to, or being conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words)

Otherwise known as people who can think for themselves

You guys are nitpicking a silly point. I am merely trying to state that there are women who prefer men who are cut. That's about it. It's not mutilation; it's not disfigurement. I'm done with this stupid thread and I hate all of you and I hope you all go slip on banana peels as that would be highly comical and I would probably laugh.

<3.

Now bye.

 

[Crimson King]

You are using a hypothetical situation to prove your point. "If circumcision never existed..." But it does, and most of the responses I have heard is that uncircumcised looks freakish and they wouldn't touch it.

 

[snex]

You are using a hypothetical situation to prove your point. "If circumcision never existed..." But it does, and most of the responses I have heard is that uncircumcised looks freakish and they wouldn't touch it.

women would say the exact same thing about pinky fingers if our society cut the pinky fingers off of infants.

what you have presented is not an argument that circumcision should be allowed, but rather an argument that society is stupid.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

what you have presented is not an argument that circumcision should be allowed, but rather an argument that society is stupid.

I think you should automatically assume that society is stupid.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

I'd rather hear the female perspective on this issue. I have never heard a woman complain that her man was "cut/uncut". So really, it doesn't matter that much.

I know, I'm not "most parents," but I can't help but think that most parents' decisions to circumcise children has nothing to do with their boy's future success in the sack. It may be a small factor in the decision (or rather, a factor that most people dislike to bring up in conversation), but I'm going to field the guess that the primary reasons for it are religion, traditional, or hygienic in nature.

 

[Eor]

I'm thinking about getting mine cut for aesthetic reasons. I see it the same as a tattoo, parents shouldn't force it on their kid, but the kid is welcome to it if he wants to.

Also, these debates generally fall along ***** lines. No one wants to debate that their ***** is inferior.

 

[snex]

I'm thinking about getting mine cut for aesthetic reasons. I see it the same as a tattoo, parents shouldn't force it on their kid, but the kid is welcome to it if he wants to.

Also, these debates generally fall along ***** lines. No one wants to debate that their ***** is inferior.

i am cut, and i am against it. hypothesis falsified.

 

[Scar]

I mean the problem with the whole "waiting for someone to choose for themselves" thing is that it's incredibly painful. This is kind of a big point, and people really can't throw "just do it when you're 18" around willy-nilly.

INCREDIBLY PAINFUL. I mean isn't this a reason we're against it on the infant, because it's so painful? But at least the baby isn't conscious of the pain, at least not to the same extent as an 18 year old.

Yes, if you shower regularly and clean your stuff then circumcision is almost irrelevant and is only an aesthetic thing. But some people don't shower that much and if we're talking straight risk reduction, then it's clear which side you should be on.

So aesthetics. What I know is that women say that cut *****es have "more character." This is a good thing in their opinions. As far as I have heard (which is pretty far), no women prefer uncut, and some stay away from them. Yes, by the way, it is very important to me how the womenfolk will respond.

women would say the exact same thing about pinky fingers if our society cut the pinky fingers off of infants.

what you have presented is not an argument that circumcision should be allowed, but rather an argument that society is stupid.

I don't buy the pinky finger thing. It really isn't the same thing at all, and you keep bringing it up, I just don't agree. I can play piano better than everyone without pinky fingers. I can also enjoy sexual stimulation as well as anyone uncut. So like... I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Also, regardless of whether society is stupid or not we are all agents of that society. We don't need to completely conform to its stupidities, but in some areas it's best regardless of what's right and wrong.

Example: Another debate was about Santa Claus. I personally don't see any benefit in pushing Santa on kids, but I can't just tell my kid there's no Santa. If I did, the kid would be completely different from the rest of the community. That's a terrible decision.

In this situation, I think it's best to just cut at infancy. The ladies won't complain (as opposed to "they might"), and you'll be cleaner as an added bonus.

 

[snex]

perhaps you should ask european women. most european men are uncut, and guess what european women prefer! wow its like magic, women prefer what is most prevalent!

and you can say its not like a pinky finger all you want, but it in fact is exactly like it. nobody NEEDS a pinky finger, and if nobody had one, nobody would notice the difference in piano playing, because wed ALL have the same disadvantage!

by the way, tattoos are painful too (so i hear) and yet people still get them. people even get things that are far more painful than circumcisions. if you are over 18 and have a strong stomach, look up "bmezine" im pretty sure people will still get circumcisized if we make them wait until they can consent to it. and if not, so what? who CARES if circumcision goes away? why are you so stuck on keeping it around?

 

[Scar]

perhaps you should ask european women. most european men are uncut, and guess what european women prefer! wow its like magic, women prefer what is most prevalent!

and you can say its not like a pinky finger all you want, but it in fact is exactly like it. nobody NEEDS a pinky finger, and if nobody had one, nobody would notice the difference in piano playing, because wed ALL have the same disadvantage!

by the way, tattoos are painful too (so i hear) and yet people still get them. people even get things that are far more painful than circumcisions. if you are over 18 and have a strong stomach, look up "bmezine" im pretty sure people will still get circumcisized if we make them wait until they can consent to it. and if not, so what? who CARES if circumcision goes away? why are you so stuck on keeping it around?

Ok, but we're in the USA, and I'm assuming we're talking about the US. If we were talking about Europe then that really should be specified, as we'd be having a different conversation entirely on the topic of conforming to a society.

I find it important to note, also, that your claim that women prefer what is most prevalent actually helps my point more than yours. A lot more. It translates directly into, "Since most males are circumcised in the U.S., most women will prefer circumcised men and therefore men should be circumcised."

On the pinky topic, yes, we would all have the same disadvantage if everyone cut off their pinkies at birth. Everyone except for the geniuses who decided not to cut off their firstborn's pinky... then that person would have a clear advantage. A clear advantage, mind you, that uncircumcised males do not boast.

Also, don't compare tattoo pain to circumcision pain. Maybe to "prince albert" pain, but not many people get that done. Yes, some people will still choose to circumcise, but that much pain is too strong a disincentive for as many people as would be circumcised to do it at 18 years old.

 

[snex]

I find it important to note, also, that your claim that women prefer what is most prevalent actually helps my point more than yours.

it doesnt help your point at all. it means that if we ban performing this barbaric practice on unconsenting infants, NOBODY WILL MISS OUT ON ANYTHING!

Also, don't compare tattoo pain to circumcision pain. Maybe to "prince albert" pain, but not many people get that done. Yes, some people will still choose to circumcise, but that much pain is too strong a disincentive for as many people as would be circumcised to do it at 18 years old.

boo-hoo, another barbaric practice will be confined to weirdos with pain fetishes. im playing the worlds smallest violin right now.

 

[Scar]

it doesnt help your point at all. it means that if we ban performing this barbaric practice on unconsenting infants, NOBODY WILL MISS OUT ON ANYTHING!

So you want to stop it entirely. We're not talking about actionable advice here, we're just talking about theory? I'm talking about the former, so it appears that we're having different conversations.

If so, then I guess it can go one way or the other. If we're talking about going back in time and wiping the slate clean and removing circumcision, or making some sort of pact with everyone in the world that no one will circumcise.

The debate evolved into a different context when women were brought into it, though. What we were debating then was whether or not US parents should circumcise infants at birth on principle, all other things equal.

btw I still stand by my point that the pinky thing is stupid, dude. It's just not relevant.

btw2: unconsenting infants = redundant. Where the hell are all the consenting infants?

 

[snex]

there isnt a single thing you can say about foreskins that doesnt also apply to pinky fingers. the analogy holds. you just dont like it because you know how disgusting and barbaric it would be if parents cut off the pinky fingers of their children. i bet that in a society where pinky removal was the norm, women would prefer men without pinkies.

dont think so? look at societies with ritual scarring, lip discs, neck stretching, or any of the other crazy **** that people in third world countries do. ever heard of ancient chinese foot binding?

 

[Scar]

there isnt a single thing you can say about foreskins that doesnt also apply to pinky fingers. the analogy holds. you just dont like it because you know how disgusting and barbaric it would be if parents cut off the pinky fingers of their children. i bet that in a society where pinky removal was the norm, women would prefer men without pinkies.

Ok, but like... the difference is that people with and without foreskin lead very very similar lives. People with foreskin do not boast any overwhelming, life altering advantages.

People with pinkies do have overwhelming advantages. They can press 5 keys at once. They can type on bigger keyboards. They can do lots of things much better. So even if the societal norm was to cut off pinky fingers at birth, and it was done to nearly all infants, the %0.01 who didn't have it done would be considerably better at a lot of stuff.

I'm pretty sure that's enough to mess up the analogy. The people with foreskin are analogous to the people with pinkies, and the people with pinkies hold a considerable advantage to those without, unlike those with foreskin and those without.

Yes, people with foreskin can debatably enjoy a marginally better sex life. But that's not a considerable advantage. A considerable advantage would be "they can unconditionally enjoy a much more satisfying sex life."

Also, we are getting off point. Just wanted to point that out.

 

[snex]

People with pinkies do have overwhelming advantages. They can press 5 keys at once. They can type on bigger keyboards. They can do lots of things much better. So even if the societal norm was to cut off pinky fingers at birth, and it was done to nearly all infants, the %0.01 who didn't have it done would be considerably better at a lot of stuff.

the people i know with 4 fingers (my grandmother being one) have no problems at all.

even if foreskins had no use whatsover, that is no reason to not object to their forced removal. what if we start cutting off earlobes of infants too?

 

[Scar]

Earlobes is a much better analogy. I didn't say people with 4 fingers would have problems, just that people with 5 would have clear advantages. It has yet to be demonstrated that that claim is untrue.

But let's just go with earlobes. I completely agree. Same exact thing.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Please stop posting your signature. All the movement is very distracting.

Let us change it to earlobes. How would you feel if earlobes were removed from children at birth (or shortly after). But lets not confine it to males, lets say all children have their earlobes removed at birth. What possible logical reason could anyone have for doing this?

 

[Scar]

Please stop posting your signature. All the movement is very distracting.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. As for the earlobes thing, there's no point in doing it and it should probably be stopped. In that society, we can't talk about getting rid of it, though, without establishing first why they do it. I guess we'd have to stick with religious reasons to get anywhere with circumcision.

Without factoring aesthetics and preferences and prevalence into the discussion (which I feel is necessary if we actually wanted to do something about it), then I mean it's all a matter of like cleanliness. Women have to keep themselves clean the same as any uncut male.

I don't think there is an overwhelming number of women dying or becoming seriously ill due to unclean ******s. So I guess it'd be fine to get rid of circumcision altogether. I wonder, though, if complications can result from intercourse more easily between say "moderately clean" uncut men and "moderately clean" women, same as dirty women. I wonder if it stacks.

...or if it's exponentially related??

 

[Wikipedia]

the idea that my parents should get to decide on how my genitalia should look for aesthetic reasons is somewhat disturbing. why are they even concerned with the aesthetics of my genitalia? are they taking peeks? does it disgust them to see the natural shape of a ***** (you know, the way god made it) when they change my diaper?



im not aware of any consensus on it. the opinions of women on it seems to be split. but really, is that an argument? if women like them cut, and you care what women think that much, then do it yourself when you turn 18. your parents shouldnt be deciding for you.

and if the idea of circumcision never entered our culture to begin with, women wouldnt like them cut, because it just wouldnt be an option.

This is an interesting double edge sword, this is the same type of argument used against abortions. From knowing you on the site, snex, I assume you are pro-choice, this is because mostly the religious are against abortion. I find it interesting that you feel the women should have the choice to take her child's life but not to cut off some extra skin on the penis.

 

[Digital Watches]

Duke, are you seriously trying to pull that abortion nonsense into this?

You anti-abortion (Call it what it is) people argue like your premise (that life begins at conception) is assumed from the start to be true. Abortion isn't "taking a life" because, in the opinion of any sane, rational person, they haven't been born yet, and are therefore not considered a living human (otherwise you had better start counting sperm and eggs. BIRTH CONTROL IS MURDER. WET DREAMS ARE MURDER. OVULATION WITHOUT CONCEPTION IS MURDER. etc.) by said sane, rational people.

Irreversibly mutilating someone who IS alive and does not consent to the procedure for any reason other than "it will save their life" or "it will prevent a much more serious problem that is guaranteed or as good as guaranteed to happen if we don't do this surgery" is MUCH more immoral than not allowing a "potential" life to become a baby.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

This is an interesting double edge sword, this is the same type of argument used against abortions. From knowing you on the site, snex, I assume you are pro-choice, this is because mostly the religious are against abortion. I find it interesting that you feel the women should have the choice to take her child's life but not to cut off some extra skin on the penis.

What?!? Talk about arbitrary. They aren't the same thing at all. And I'm NOT going to argue my point, because for all intents and purposes, you're pretty much hijacking the thread.

The pinky finger analogy does not hold. I know this because I personally play a plethora of woodwind instruments... every single one of them requiring a dexterous pinky. If you could reconfigure every modern woodwind instrument in the world to not require a pinky finger (which would probably cut off their range and ease of play), then I'd agree with your point. But as for now, it's impossible.

Oh, and to tie it back in, I don't need my foreskin to play a flute. I still have mine, and I've been offered the opportunity to have it removed, but I decided against it (mostly out of how awkward the conversation was, since it was my MOM). I might consider to have it done on my own, but I haven't put that great of thought into it yet.

 

[Wikipedia]

Duke, are you seriously trying to pull that abortion nonsense into this?

You anti-abortion (Call it what it is) people argue like your premise (that life begins at conception) is assumed from the start to be true. Abortion isn't "taking a life" because, in the opinion of any sane, rational person, they haven't been born yet, and are therefore not considered a living human (otherwise you had better start counting sperm and eggs. BIRTH CONTROL IS MURDER. WET DREAMS ARE MURDER. OVULATION WITHOUT CONCEPTION IS MURDER. etc.) by said sane, rational people.

Irreversibly mutilating someone who IS alive and does not consent to the procedure for any reason other than "it will save their life" or "it will prevent a much more serious problem that is guaranteed or as good as guaranteed to happen if we don't do this surgery" is MUCH more immoral than not allowing a "potential" life to become a baby.

Ouch, you jumped the gun there a little bit. I haven't pulled any abortion nonsense into anything, in fact, you are the one pulling abortion into. I was very careful with my wording in my post; first, I do not claim to take any stance on abortion, you have no idea what my person opinion is on abortion. Regardless, you do not take into account that I might be playing Devil's Advocate

The point is, that the supreme court ruled that the baby is still a part of the mother so it is up to her if the baby is aborted or not because it is her own. Therefore, an easy loophole to go through for circumcision is to keep the umbilical cord attached while performing the procedure.

Settle down Digi, you are making yourself look bad. Read my post again, I never brought up an argument against abortion. Quite the contrary, I just want the law to be consistent. I think the mother should be able to decide whether the baby is circumcised for the same reason why she can decide to abort the child.

 

[Digital Watches]

Ouch, you jumped the gun there a little bit. I haven't pulled any abortion nonsense into anything, in fact, you are the one pulling abortion into. I was very careful with my wording in my post; first, I do not claim to take any stance on abortion, you have no idea what my person opinion is on abortion. Regardless, you do not take into account that I might be playing Devil's Advocate

Does claiming to be playing devil's advocate make your argument immune to scrutiny? If so, I should do that more often.

The point is, that the supreme court ruled that the baby is still a part of the mother so it is up to her if the baby is aborted or not because it is her own. Therefore, an easy loophole to go through for circumcision is to keep the umbilical cord attached while performing the procedure.

Oh, forgive me, I wasn't aware that the supreme court decision on abortion extended to a born baby whose umbilical cord hasn't been cut.

Settle down Digi, you are making yourself look bad. Read my post again, I never brought up an argument against abortion. Quite the contrary, I just want the law to be consistent. I think the mother should be able to decide whether the baby is circumcised for the same reason why she can decide to abort the child.

It's a bit childish to try to say "I'm not playing! You can't tag me!" here, don't you think?

Of course you brought up abortion, and took a stance on it at that. Even the claim that abortion is to, and I quote "take [the] child's life" is quite a clear position, and claiming that allowing an already-born child to be mutilated by its parents is necessarily covered under the same law as that which allows a pregnancy to be terminated is a position not only on abortion, but a fairly transparent attempt to link it to this circumcision debate. Gotta give you points for one thing though: it's clever to try to disguise your opinions as objective assessments of the facts.

 

[blue_dragon]

Does a child get to choose what it is fed? If it goes to school? Who it's parent's are? There are certain things that children can't choose.

The chance of implications from the surgery is 1:350,000. Very, very low for a surgery.

There are severe effects which can occur from not circumcising (see Louis XVI of France). These can even lead to sterility in extreme cases. And while adults can do it, it is much more painful and dangerous for them to have it. Much safer for circumcision to be had as an enfant than an adult.

While parents must think carefully about it, government intervention is not needed. It does not infringe upon it's rights, nor endanger it.

 

[snex]

are you seriously comparing what a child gets fed to what parts of its anatomy its parents get to CHOP OFF? wtf? maybe if they get fed POISON!

and think about what youre saying for a second... humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without circumcising themselves. if foreskins were so problematic, dont you think they would have, oh i dunno, EVOLVED AWAY ON THEIR OWN? everything you posted was a complete lie, and every continent other than north america proves it.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

are you seriously comparing what a child gets fed to what parts of its anatomy its parents get to CHOP OFF? wtf? maybe if they get fed POISON!

and think about what youre saying for a second... humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without circumcising themselves. if foreskins were so problematic, dont you think they would have, oh i dunno, EVOLVED AWAY ON THEIR OWN? everything you posted was a complete lie, and every continent other than north america proves it.

Foreskins function in the facilitation of self-lubrication and protection. That was an advantage before KY Jelly and pants were invented. Now that it's not necessary, it's perfectly up to choice. I agree in so much that if not circumcising was so dangerous, then it would have been less prominent in the gene pool.

If humans still evolved today, and females did show a preference for cut males, which I'm confident that they do today, then natural selection would favor less prominent foreskins.

 

[Digital Watches]

Foreskins function in the facilitation of self-lubrication and protection. That was an advantage before KY Jelly and pants were invented. Now that it's not necessary, it's perfectly up to choice. I agree in so much that if not circumcising was so dangerous, then it would have been less prominent in the gene pool.

If humans still evolved today, and females did show a preference for cut males, which I'm confident that they do today, then natural selection would favor less prominent foreskins.

I think you have an ill understanding of how evolution works. First off, there's no reason to believe that humans have stopped evolving. Secondly, such a preference would have to be a big enough dealbreaker for the uncut male to be unable to get a mate because of it. Last but most important is that this would only really happen if we STOPPED circumcising, since whether a baby is circumcised has nothing to do with genetics!

 

[AltF4]

First off, there's no reason to believe that humans have stopped evolving.

Completely Off Topic: You, know I've always wondered about that. I would bet that modern medicine has all but stopped human evolution. People don't die from stupid things any more, they just get medicine and keep on procreating, you know?