. . . that is the question! 

Other than for religious reasons, what are you arguments for or against circumcising baby boys? 

Views: 8549

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm still unconvinced. As a result of what I've read in here, I'll probably not only circumcise my sons but, just to be safe, my daughters too. You can never be too careful. 

haha!!

I don't think anyone's saying that circumcised guys must be angry about it. However, I think one of the important points is that there is good reason, for those who are angry about it, to be angry about it, especially given that there are folks here and elsewhere who find it a subject for humor. One of the biggest problems with circumcision is that people who are mature enough that it never enters their heads to make jokes about rape, child abuse, animal torture or female circumcision find it so easy to make light of male circumcision. As Christopher Hitchens famously said "Genital mutilation is no joke":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4yS08N0xeU

Ian, & Brad,

I just watched the video, and indeed, genital mutilation is no joke.  I think that any person that advocates the same, should be called to answer for it.

We should understand, however, that the wholesale removal of the frenulum and ridged band that is performed in hospitals and back-alleys around the world today, bares little resemblance to the circumcision described in Genesis.  The removal of half the skin of a normal penis was not done until 140 years after Christ was born.  It was done in retaliation for those Jews that wanted to restore the tip of the foreskin that had been cut off. 

Brad,

I'm glad that you are still able to climax even after half of the skin on your penis was removed, but the fact that you can have an orgasm isn't the same as the full range of sensitivity that you could have. 

A study published in the British Journal of Urology International found that there are significant differences between what a circumcised, and an uncircumcised man feels.

Researchers measured fine-touch sensitivity of the penis at 17 specific sites on the intact (non-circumcised) penis and the remaining 9 sites plus two scar sites on the circumcised penis. The results surprised the research team, according to Morris Sorrells, MD, lead researcher, who said, "The most sensitive part of the penis is the preputial opening. The results confirmed that the frenulum and ridged band of the inner foreskin are highly erogenous structures that are routinely removed by circumcision, leaving the penis with one-fourth the fine-touch sensitivity it originally possessed." Five sites on the penis-all  regularly removed by circumcision-are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis. Researcher pediatrician and statistician Robert Van Howe said, "Oddly, the most sensitive site on the circumcised penis  is the circumcision scar itself."

Brad, you can do that test yourself.  Your girlfriend wisely knew that what would be pleasing to an uncut man, would not do much for you, because those parts are missing.  Further, if you think about it, the most sensitive place left, the little bump on the front of the shaft, if you were lucky enough to have a surgeon that didn't gouge it out, is only the scarred remainder of what was your frenulum.

 

Here is a summary of the full study.  http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

 

And the full study.  http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

 

 

@ David -- it's true what you said abt the modern practice of circumcision being a lot more radical of a cut than it was in biblical times. The brit milah that was commanded for the Israelites was only the removal of the overhanging tip of the foreskin, mostly a symbolic act. And yes, it was arnd 140 years after Christ that the practice "brit peri'ah" was introduced, where the entire outer foreskin was removed, and often the frenulum. And it was indeed done as a reaction to Hellenization, like you said. And it has stayed that way ever since for Jews and then also for the secular practice. Historically, starting with the Apostle Paul, the Christian church has generally taken a stance against the practise, saying it is deviod of spiritual
meaning within the new covenant, essentially being replaced by baptism.

Reading this thread makes my feelings that I'll never get to raise a son go bye-bye.

Gives me the willies! And no clear answer; I see it as a barbaric ritual foisted on babies, but I also see what a pain in the ass going the other route can be. 
And then there's the whole getting naked with daddy thing...yikes.

Girls have been so much easier.

Carl,

Having had both boys and girls, I can say that raising each is wonderful, and yes -- different.

I wouldn't give away the joy of having sons for anything, and really up until the time they entered puberty, I had nothing to worry about, or task that needed doing.  The foreskin is a natural structure.  Your dog, your horse, and any other mammal you have ever met, has a foreskin, and manages to survive, and thrive with no outside care.

 

If you ever were to have a someday teenage son, and he wanted to clean under his foreskin.  Great.

 

Trust me, the average teenage boy will figure out how his penis works, foreskin and all, whether you tell him or not. 

 

Sharing some bonding time with your son is purely optional, but think about it, if you aren't comfortable talking about hygiene, how can you really expect that he will turn to you when it becomes a matter of who to have sex with?

 

But I don't have a son.

My wife let me get a male dog, so I would not be the only guy in a house full of females.

And we neutered him right away as per the adoption agreement, lol.

Carl, how can you say there's no clear answer and that the other route (i.e. leaving the kid intact) is a pain in the ass after reading my post about iatrogenic damage?

I never got to raise a son, but if I had, in my mind there's no question of what the right and proper thing to do about his penis would be. In my view, loving parents do not mutilate their kids' genitals - end of story. To me, it doesn't matter what excuses people make in support of genital mutilation - it's wrong. Even if circumcision did stop infections (which it clearly doesn't), reasonable people do not amputate body parts to prevent infection. I mean, surely you've heard of antibiotics.

No argument there, maybe you skipped where I wrote  I see it as a barbaric ritual foisted on babies.


Interesting evidence here that it is not so cut and dried (no pun intended).

No matter, I won't have to make that decision.

 

All I can say is - I am so grateful that my parents had me circumcised. The uncircumcised look and all that goes along with that is not for me.

RSS

Latest Activity

Portnoy replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"Reading comprehension fail on my part with the Treyvon, my apologies. I wanted to recognize this on its own."
11 minutes ago
Vendetta replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"The beer summit it definitely one, where he said that "the police acted stupidly" without knowing any of the details, which when they emerged revealed that the police were notified of two people breaking into a house (Gates and his…"
28 minutes ago
Shane replied to Braeden's discussion Trump's Afghanistan Declaration in the group The Great Debate
"I'm not trolling. I just don't think you're serious."
55 minutes ago
Portnoy replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"I would appreciate one as well. I'm thinking it will revolve around the "beer summit" or when he said that Treyvon could have been his kid."
1 hour ago
Portnoy replied to Braeden's discussion Trump's Afghanistan Declaration in the group The Great Debate
"Not serious? Troll elsewhere, good bye."
1 hour ago
derick bean posted a status
1 hour ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"Kids"
1 hour ago
Shane replied to Braeden's discussion Trump's Afghanistan Declaration in the group The Great Debate
"I was quoting you. If I'd known you weren't serious I wouldn't have read it, and you could have saved the time and not written it."
1 hour ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service