Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

This got brought up elsewhere, and I didn't want to derail that thread. Also I don't think we have a thread specifically to discuss circumcision, although it's been brought up here and there.

My basic stance is that circumcision is unnecessary unless it's for a medical reason. Why would anyone want to cause unneeded pain and introduce potential surgical complications? The foreskin is a perfectly normal and natural part of the body which males are born with. There's no reason to have it cut off unless it's causing pain or other medical issues, in which case you should consult with your doctor.

Some people have religious or cultural reasons for circumcising their male children. This, in my opinion, is pretty stupid; one's faith or inclusiveness doesn't depend on cutting off a piece of skin. I'm sure you can come up with alternate, non-painful ways of symbolizing whatever you're trying to represent.

Some people say that circumcision promotes cleanliness, due to smegma that can potentially build up under the foreskin. This is really easy to solve: just pull back your foreskin and clean under there every time you shower! You should be doing that once you hit puberty anyway.

Some people point out that circumcised males have a lower chance of acquiring HIV. Maybe it's lower, but it's definitely not anywhere close to zero, so you shouldn't be trusting circumcision as a form of 'protection'. The actual solution would be to use a condom every single time. Or get yourself and your partner tested for STIs, and agree on another method of birth control.

I would be OK with circumcision if the person really wants it done to himself for personal reasons, and is old enough to make the decision for himself. Otherwise, no.

Most neo-natal units have special clips they put on baby dicks because circumcision is mandated by state law.

And, to nip this part in the bud so to speak, the point of female circumcision is that women are inherently evil and will go seeking an orgasm from anyone for as long as they have the ability to do so.

There's a 21 page discussion in the XKCD forums about infant circumcision, if you want to read that...

Apparently circumcision has several health benefits, mainly disease prevention, and helping in making penile higiene easier, but most of these benefits can also be attained by having good higiene and protecting yourself by using a condom.

Doing it just because of religious reasons is stupid, yes, and as you said, it would be important to really analize the benefits and to decide if the parents have the right to have the child go through an aesthetic, non-crucial change like this.

My personal opinion is that if the parents can make an informed choice, and decide that it's in the best interest of the infant, I see no problem that it be done. If the parents are just doing it because Jenova says so, well, I'd say that's being stupid and going against the rights of your child.

[I'm talking about male circumcision. Female circumcision seems inherently stupid and not worth discussing.]

This post has been edited by Itu: 11 January 2012 - 07:33 PM

I am generally against circumcision. Although I feel it's alright if a man wants to go have it done on himself it's his choice, but that's the thing, he chooses for himself.

I always feel really bad for the babies that have no choice. I honestly wouldn't put my baby through that pain. They may not remember it later, but it would still hurt them a lot.

And while it's true that there's a slightly lower chance of getting various STD's when you're cut, it's such a slim margin.

And as for smegma, one can go a week without washing and there wouldn't be much, if any smegma built up at all. But maybe that varies.

This post has been edited by Ellie: 11 January 2012 - 07:26 PM

A MAN CHOOSES

My son gettin that shit cut out. The man is choosing.

I find it hard to decide precisely what to think about male circumcision because nobody can seem to agree what the effects are. It either significantly or not at all aids hygiene and helps prevent AIDS; it either has no effect on sexual pleasure or greatly reduces it; when performed on infants it is either mostly painless due to poorly-developed at that point in time nerves, or quite unpleasant. It's hard to find any data I know I can trust.

It probably doesn't help that it's difficult to survey infants, and very few people get circumcised at a time in their life when they will be able to compare sex before and after.

esalaka, on 11 January 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

A slave obeys?


I don't think any person would chose to have any part of their body cut off unless they were extremely devoted to their religion. I guess it if we stopped doing it to babies it would transform into a symbol of devotion to the religion. I don't know what else there is to say on the subject the health benefits are minimal so the only reason is for religious reasons. Does anyone know what happens if the circumcision doesn't take place in the religious sense? Is the person just never allowed back in or is there a reason they can't do it at a later date?

Fun fact in some African tribes the practice is done because the foreskin symbolizes the female soul in the male and they remove it to remove this anomaly. Likewise the clitoris symbolizes the male soul in the female.

wacko, on 11 January 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

I have real problems with point out of all of it, in the Jewish culture it is vital that you have a circumcision to truly be Jewish, its more then just symbolic. Its a thousand year old tradition that you just can't change now, even if you don't agree with it you should still respect others who have to follow it to be in the religion and its not really fair to call it stupid.

Leaving_a_Comment, on 11 January 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I'm curious, why is it vital?
I do think that in order to be a part of a religion having to be mutilated is kinda weird.

Leaving_a_Comment, on 11 January 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Yes guys why are we disrespecting religious traditions? It's okay to let them burn witches, mutilate little kids against their will and stone heretics to death. You should all be ashamed for bashing it like this.

This post has been edited by Itu: 11 January 2012 - 09:29 PM

jackkuro, on 11 January 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

From what I know it is done to show a man's participation in Israel's people convent with God. If they don't recieve circumcision the recieve the punishment of Kareit. The punishment is basically they lose the spiritual connection with God.

As a Jew, I was circumcised.
I am aware of the health benefits.
They gave me a cotton ball soaked in wine to suck on. Apparently, I didn't even notice part of my dick was cut off.
Plus, I personally think it looks better. But is that sort of weird? I think it is. Whatever.
I was so flippin' young I don't even remember it. I can't imagine what it'd be like to have a cumbersome sheath-like skinflap. God that'd be weird.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 11 January 2012 - 09:33 PM

I used to have a foreskin but then I took issues to the penis.

True story. I can only remember the hospital food, though.

Dr. Klaus, on 11 January 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Same here (Except for being a Jew. I was born Lutheran). It looks fucking weird. Im absolutely fine with being circumcised before I had a choice; its not like it will change your life. It's some extra skin; who really cares?

This post has been edited by Rex: 11 January 2012 - 09:49 PM

Rex, on 11 January 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

In the States? That's odd.

Regardless, Lutheranbros?

Christianity in a nutshell.



I think I'd rather fuck an epileptic Edward Scissorhands before letting these people around my dick.

esalaka, on 11 January 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Yes, in the states. *lutheranbrofist*

Jerk, on 11 January 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Most here will have had it done in a hospital very shortly after birth, not by bloodthirsty penis-destroying christian cults.

This post has been edited by Rex: 11 January 2012 - 10:00 PM

Even if they didn't espouse chopping my dick off, I still wouldn't whip it out around them if I thought any of them didn't have arthritis bad enough that they'd have a chance of winning a game of keep away.

It's like they were possessed by Apache Indians as revenge for, you know, killing all of them.

Point: Religion is dumb. Mutilating yourself for your superstitions is even dumber. But mutilating other people for your superstitions can be pretty funny.

Circumcision is outdated and has been scientifically disproven. I don't like how the foreskin is named because it's a misnomer -- it's made up of the same mucous membrane the eyelids are, and just like so it has a self-cleaning process. Smegma is not objectively dirty because it does not infect the penis, and it can be cleaned off with ease anyways.

It's hard to believe that the foreskin somehow increases risks of STDs and HIV; there is really no concrete proof that shows it doing so. The main argument I hear is that the foreskin can be cut during sex, but how much hardness and pressure would it take to do that? I'm sure with that same pressure it would cut the glans (head of the penis) if it weren't for the foreskin.

Oh by the way, I an incredibly strongly against infant circumcision; they go through the worst pain in their life.

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 11 January 2012 - 10:54 PM

Circumcision is child abuse and should be outlawed no one has the right to abuse a child that way male or female and there is no legitimate medical reason to do it it also reduces sexual pleasure.

I think saying that it's child abuse is a dumb sensationalist thing to say that sways people because most people don't have abuse in mind but for the sake of surgery. Just say it's not good all in all.

Your all just jelly because American girls prefer their men circumcised

Rex you must be the coolest guy around.

I'm glad you've seen the light

Seppucrow, on 11 January 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

It's no different then if you were to cut off a child's finger for no reason it most definitely is child abuse. If you were to circumcise a girl is the US you wold see jail time but it's normal to do the same to a boy.

RickAstley, on 11 January 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Wait

Wait what

I don't know, it gets subjective, but people who are for it don't have abuse in mind; the rest is a grey area to me, but for me I wouldn't call them so.

RickAstley, on 11 January 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Its more like taking someone's tonsils out. Saying its akin to cutting off a finger is just stretching it a bit too far.

No, I think circumcision can be compared to cutting off a finger because it's mutilation. To mutilate is to permanently cut off a part of your body. I think it's superficial to say that's it's done for "no reason", because people tend to have a reason in mind.

Rex, on 11 January 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

I disagree the foreskin serves a purpose and should stay where it is and there is no medical reason to remove it.

I was circumcised at eight days old, as per Jewish traditoin. To be frank, I don't give a fuck. My penis works just fine, I am perfectly capable of feeling sexual pleasure, and the foreskin would have had to come off anyway considering I was born with hypopsadias. Furthermore, I feel that having foreskin would just feel weird at this point in my life, seeing as I've gone so long without it.

Also, Rick Astley, don't be ridiculous. Male circumcision and female circumision are two completely different things. In men, it's removing a completely unneeded bit of skin. In women, it's cutting off their freaking clitoris. You know, the most senstive erogenous zone in the female body? Kind of a difference there.

This post has been edited by Smash Genesis: 11 January 2012 - 11:19 PM

Seppucrow, on 11 January 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

There reason is a shallow religious and traditional reason.

Oh, I should've addressed this first, but I forgot to mention all the functions of the foreskin. Read here, there's a bunch of articles about it. Also Smash, the foreskin is actually very sensitive especially during sexual arousal, it has a large network of nerves that give it feeling -- the same way how the clitoris is considered the most senstive erogenous zone.

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 11 January 2012 - 11:22 PM

Smash Genesis, on 11 January 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

Firstly the foreskin has lots of nerve ending just like the clitoris secondly not all female circumcision involves removing the clitoris sometimes just folds of inner vaginal skin is removed.

Oh God now i'm just stuck on the fact that my eyelids are made of the same stuff as foreskin and its freaking me out.

This post has been edited by Leaving_a_Comment: 11 January 2012 - 11:29 PM

Seppucrow, on 11 January 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

Well, time to look into foreskin restoration.

I could probably understand if a girl wanted to trim the meat curtains.

Smash Genesis, on 11 January 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

It's possible but I don't think the nerves grow back and your going to need to pay a plastic surgeon.

Jerk, on 11 January 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

There are plastic surgeons that do that.

NSFW

Leaving_a_Comment said:

Pardon me for asking, but are you Jewish?

If you will note, I did not restrict that statement only to Jews. There are other religions and cultures that practice circumcision. Are you suggesting, for example, that female genital mutilation in Africa should be continued as a cultural practice? Personally, I believe that one should avoid inflicting unnecessary surgeries on anyone, least of all children who cannot give informed consent.

Dr. Klaus said:

It's not weird to prefer a circumcised penis. Definitely some uncut men will later decide to get circumcised, whether because of penile issues or just because they prefer the look of a cut penis. However, the choice should ideally be made by the owner of the penis, rather than having it forced on him. After all, by the same token, your son just might prefer an uncircumcised penis to a circumcised one.

The baby's head just got all smashed in trying to fit through a 14 mm diameter passageway. I don't think a quick snip is gonna put it in any more shock than it already is in, as opposed to being a fully grown adult and having more to cut off.

Wacko I am okay with your sentiments, but I prefer there should be no circumcision at all, because I think it encourages doing more of it which leads to infant circumcision which I am extremely against.

Purin, on 12 January 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

So are you saying circumcision gives off no pain at all?

Problem is, the complications of doing it when you're older are many many more. It's much better to do it when you're just born if you're gonna do it at all, but you can't know if you want to do it when you're a little newborn. There's the issue.

That's why your parents take the medical choices for you when you're unconscious or in a coma, a choice has to be made then.

This post has been edited by Itu: 12 January 2012 - 12:04 AM

Oh, and what complications are these?

No. I didn't say that. Baby is already going through enough at the present time. It's not like they don't anesthetize either.

How much pain does a baby go through when circumcised compared to going through birth?

Seppucrow, on 12 January 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Adult Circumcision - American Family Physician

Kaplan: Complications of Circumcision

Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review

Sorry, can't go through this too much right now, just refer to these links. Gotta go right now.

This post has been edited by Itu: 12 January 2012 - 12:08 AM

Man my circumcision was so painful. I still remember it to this day.