. . . that is the question! 

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

Views: 8311

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Short answer: I am circumcised, but I wouldn't cut my own son. Never thought abt it much until I had a college roommate who was intact. I asked him abt it and he said beither he nor his three brothers ever had any problems with it. Curious, I investigated the topic more online, and I am convinced that the benefits of a foreskin (more general protection of the glans, more sexual pleasure coming both from the glans' greater sensitivity and the additional pleasure receptors in the foreskin itself and the particularly the frenulum) outweigh the possible risks. Modern hygiene negates most of the potential issues with being intact; most Europeans aren't circumcised and the problems many of us Americans are so converned abt are rare there. By comparison, a woman is much more likely to contract breast cancer, or a person get appendicitis than a man get penile cancer or phimosis or any of the other possible maladies, and yet we don't routinely remove those body parts! Foreskins exist for a reason; let's trust God and nature that it's not a superfluous bit of skin, but rather, an integral part of a man's penis.

You guys are great! When circumcised men refuse to circumcise their kids, it rekindles my faith in humanity.

A big part of the issue of why circumcision is still around is that the procedure, as well as causing physical damage, tends to impart a subconscious psychological need to circumcise in the victim, so circumcised men revisit the practice by insisting it's done to their own sons. The stories I had heard suggested to me that this need was almost insurmountable, because what a victim has to accept when he refuses to do it to his sons is that what was done to him by his caregivers was wrong and damaging. That is a hard thing for many people to admit.

Clearly, many of the men here were either not affected by this psychological trauma, or they found it possible to overcome it. This gives me great hope that this practice will soon end, and that is something I hadn't believed in a while.

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!!

So I had sex with a new girl two nights ago, and she said to me, "I haven't had a cut guy in a while.  Tell me where you're sensitive."

So we fell to talking about the differences in where I and uncircumcised guys were sensitive.  Pretty different, in fact.

I think circumcision is a bad practice, as I've said before.  I really think you shouldn't permanently cut something off of a human being's body until they're old enough to consent.  But that's just an ethical scruple.  I feel zero anger toward my parents for their decision.

I guess my conversation with her made me realize why I don't myself feel victimized or unhappy about my parents' decision.  I can see that ethically it was a bad decision, but I've never once wished I still had my foreskin.  For those of us who are cut, while maybe we haven't been given the fullest freedom of our bodies, but we haven't really been crippled either.  I've never felt I'm missing out on anything.  I'm just sensitive in different places.

So I guess I'm one of those circumcised guys who wouldn't circumcise my own kids (which I don't have) but I don't feel angry about it.

An amazing blowjob is an amazing blowjob, whatever you're working with.  So I guess circumcision is logically and ethically bad, but it's not the end of the world.  So take heart, ye who wish you still had your foreskins.

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

Oh, I completely agree with you.  It is a bad practice.  Just saying that I'm lucky.  Sure, if people are upset, they have a right to be.  I'm a huge Hitchens fan as you may know.  I've seen this video before.  I agree with him.  But life is still good.  So just wanted people to take heart and not be too depressed if this has been done to you.

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?

 

RSS

Latest Activity

Profile IconJosh Solo, Wallace Jones, Christopher J Stanley and 8 more joined Art of Manliness
12 minutes ago
Sir replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"I saw Triumph of the Will with the sound off.  IDK what he was saying, but he looked righteous and furious.  I suppose it worked for his audience.  Modern people need someone to look righteous and calm and measured and say the…"
32 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"2 more scandals for each candidate. Poll changes sides 3 times. Hillary wins. Conservatives collectively shit themselves. Trump sues someone. Another Benghazi hearing. Nothing really changes."
57 minutes ago
Sir replied to Braeden P.D.'s discussion Post-Mortem Symposium
"I can see asking WTF were you thinking of Hitler, Marx, and IDK much about Xerxes.  But what would your question mean as addressed to Washington, Einstein, and the actor?"
2 hours ago
Frank replied to Braeden P.D.'s discussion Post-Mortem Symposium
"1. George Washington 2. Carl Marks 3. Adolf Hitler 4. Xerxes "Spelling" 5. Albert Einstein 6. Rick Grimmes "the Walking Dead". I know he is an actor and not dead. But I would like to have all these people sit down with a list of…"
5 hours ago
Frank replied to Braeden P.D.'s discussion Post-Mortem Symposium
"She was not deleting emails lol"
5 hours ago
Frank replied to Max Z's discussion Not enlightened enough...
"Plenty of ways to exorcise your mind. Podcasts youtube, documentaries. I have a hard time reading at times due to being legally blind. But I do love books It takes a bit longer to read than most people. I may learn braille some day, but remember…"
5 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"Idk if this is political, so better safe than sorry: I admire one facet of Hitler. I think he was a great orator. I know that's not a novel thought but people act as if admiring one trait is the same as admiring the man. Also, the Nazis had…"
7 hours ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service