Ok Reader, boys and girls alike, it's time to weigh in and be heard on the great debate: Is male circumcision sensible, hygienic and wise, or a barbaric, abusive and thoroughly outdated practice?
I was driving around a few weeks ago and caught some ladies on NPR discussing body-mutilation and child abuse. I figured they were talking about tribal warfare in East Africa or a new MTV reality show, but no, they were talking about male circumcision and the fight to officially ban the practice in San Francisco. The law would've made it a crime to "circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years."
I started thinking, shit man, is getting sliced something akin to the horrendous acts of female genital mutilation? Have I been cockwashed into thinking male circumcision is the stuff of cleanliness and good form? What's more, the argument that every boy's penis should look like their dad's (penis, not the whole dad) will make for an endless cycle of circumcision - or fore-skinnedness, I suppose.
At some point one brave dad and mom will have to say, "I don't care that Bobby's prick won't look like yours/mine, let him keep his entire body." Once we take away the heritage or religious aspects of circumcision we're left with the medical and aesthetic necessity of it all.
It seems the medical jury is still out on this one. Like any polarizing issue you can find experts who echo what you want to hear. Some say more foreskin, more problems --harder to clean, more likely to cause infection, and so on. Other doctors, or those fore-skinned among us, almost categorically call bullsh*t on that argument. How dare you! My penis is cleaner than a whistle. So what, I need to wash for 8 more seconds than everyone else? Straw Argument? Slippery Slope? Just being Dicks?
So where does that leave us? The case in San Francisco ended with a federal judge ruling that this is a State issue not a city one and thus can not be on San Fran's November ballot. The city and nation will battle on...
And for me, on my personal quest for truth and evolution - I'm still hung.
Hopefully, collectively, we can move the debate forward. Please comment below on these Four Questions:
1. Do you believe circumcision has medical/clinical basis?
2. Do you believe a circumcised or a fore-skinned wang is more aesthetically pleasing?
3. Would you consider breaking rank and having your son's penis not look like yours?
4. Are you willing to let your son decide for himself, when he's older? [NOTE] All sides agree circumcision as an adult can be all sorts of pain.
This is a big issue for me, while I am a woman I can not imagine having my son's genitals mutilated. I'm not going to reject a man because he's had it done, but if he requires it o a child we have together, that is a deal breaker for me. MAYBE they were practical in a time and place where cleanliness was harder to come by, but they didn't become popular in he US till some time in the 50's (I think. Don't quote me on the date, I just know it's relatively recently popularized.) and it was advertised as a way to reduce masterbation. Yes, less sensitive skin means less skin to be infected, but the same is true of female circumcisions and most (not all, i understand it's a religious issue for some) Americans find them cruel and barbaric. The human genitalia is fine as it is, and barring certain rare medical disorders should be left alone.
Wow really? I thought the ship had sailed on this as no-way-no-how. (maybe its different in Australia) I would never judge a man on whether he is chopped or not. Penises differ just as much as boobs or vag, my ex swore he wasnt circumcised but had hardly any foreskin, the guy before him had plenty, the guy before him was chopped, its all the same to me. Besides, they all look basically the same when ready for action. Is it really an issue for men to have their sons business look the same as yours? I mean if I had a daughter shes not going to grow up with boobs like mine. I really dont know the religious arguments but if you believe in a god (any god), is it supposed to be omnipotent / omni-everything? Why would it create an imperfect body and expect us to slice n dice it? As for adult circumsision being a world of pain...who says it isnt to infants? Just because they cant tell you how much it hurts, I'm pretty sure it still would.
Umm, you know your argument is a bit weak. You argue that if someone believes in an omnipotent God, then why would they believe that God would create an imperfect human body. Are you trying to suggest that humans are perfect? Looked at the world lately?
People forget all the time that an omnipotent being can do whatever they want for whatever reason. There is no rational reason that omnipotence would imply that anything you create would be "perfect". Perfection is a human construct. If you were omnipotent, the word has no meaning. Anything you make is what it is. There is no way to say x is better than y.
Assuming we are actually creations, then humans are neither perfect nor imperfect. And having a creator doesn't have any implications to body modification. After all, going back to your original argument - if we were created "perfect", then why were we given the ability to make changes to ourselves? The concept of perfection is meaningless really.
Thinking forward to possibly becoming a parent someday, I can see how a boy between the ages of, say, 9 and 14 may have issues keeping his own junk as clean as it should be. If I had a son, I would want him to get circumcised. I have also been with an un-cut guy who couldn't pull his foreskin back. When he tried it hurt like a mo-fo, and it never stayed. Sex was never enjoyable for him because the head of his penis wasn't exposed, and after doing some research we found out it's a pretty common thing. Many people also say sex is less pleasurable for a guy who has been circumcised, but if the procedure is done when they are infants, men know neither the pleasure they are missing, nor do they remember the pain they may have felt (This is not the case however, with many forms of female circumcision which is most widely carried out after the age of 5.).
This fellow's condition was not normal. An adult man should be able to retract his foreskin easily. The condition is called phimosis. He should have seen his doctor about it.
For those interested in medical stuff, here's a link describing the condition. It might be considered NSFW, but the pictures are all clinical, not pornographic in any way.
http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/simpson1/
Not a fan of circumcision. I don't mind if they are or aren't, mind you, but no son of mine is getting it done. There is literally no medical reason for it, not even cleanliness. The only thing that is MAYBE medical is that someday they MIGHT get an infection from having foreskin while can be cured with a simple antibiotic.
Hmm,
There are a lot of things that are cultural. I think this one is pretty tough given that there isn't really any detriment to the man due to having the procedure. All babies undergo at least one surgical procedure (assuming we call anything involving a bladed implement surgery) at birth.
Frankly, I'm not sure where this "so the boy looks like his father" thing comes from. Who has ever actually used that as a reason to have their son circumcised? Typically, circumcision stems from a religious tradition.
While medical doctors may be in conflict over whether or not the procedure is medically necessary, there is evidence (though causality is hard to demonstrate here) that circumcised men have lower rates of HIV than uncircumcised (in Africa). Now, whether that is in fact due to the circumcision itself or due to the tradition of a family that would have their sons circumcised or some other tangential factor is up for debate.
My take - not going away anytime soon. You can argue that there is no medical reason for it. But, there isn't a medical reason against it either. Precedent lies with the parent's right to make such decisions for children.
I like your site and posts!
Very good!
My site is about cartier necklaces
,welcome to visit!
Thanks!
1. Definitely, friends bro needed it around 16 since his was too tight at one point when he was... you know...
2. No, I think it looks unnatural and rather weird
3. As long as it works, does it really matter?
4. Like piercings and tattoos and other mods, his body is his body.
Circumcising a boy's penis is genital mutilation. Some might argue that there are medical purposes for continuing this old custom, but I argue the body was built with it for a reason. As a woman, I believe a natural penis, when erect, is every bit as beautiful as a mutilated penis. And for any men who may feel awkward still having that skin, trust me, it's there for a reason.
I'd like to say that I believe uncircumcised is better, but then again I've never met a man (that I went down under the sheets with) that *was* circumcised. So I really only have a one-sided view. Nobody around where I live (Indiana) has it done to their kids, so maybe thats why I feel that way.
My take has always been:
Men have been going around with circumcisions for thousands of years, and they've been fine.
Men have also been going around without circumcisions for thousands of years, and they've been fine.
Having looked at the claims of both sides, they all pretty much don't hold up to common sense. But then again, if they just took a live-and-let-live mentality, they wouldn't have something to feel superior about.
Ha, how true that is!
But...if these people didn't have anything to feel superior about, the rest of us wouldn't get to enjoy watching both sides rage on each other! On a slow day, that's actually entertaining for me.
OK, so as the mother of 3 boys and one on the way I will vote FOR circumcision. My sister in law and brother in law opted not to circumcise their son (we are not Jewish/Muslim, it is not cultural for us) and their son ended up in the hospital at 2 months old with an e-coli infection contracted somehow through a urinary tract infection. My 3 boys have been cut and so will my 4th. I do not enjoy having this done to them, but I feel like it is cleaner, safer. Also, I prefer the look way more, probably because every guy I have ever been with has been circumcised... I guess that's the way it was in the 70's... Now living in California (as opposed to NJ, where my husband and I grew up) we are definitely in the minority.
1. Do you believe circumcision has medical/clinical basis? I believe it use to before we had running water. As a 28 year old uncircumcised male I have not had one medical issue with my foreskin in my entire life.
2. Do you believe a circumcised or a fore-skinned wang is more aesthetically pleasing? I think American girls like the chopped off one's since that is what they are use to, however 85% of the worlds Males are uncircumcised and it is illegal in many countries.
3. Would you consider breaking rank and having your son's penis not look like yours? No, I would not since I am uncircumcised.
4. Are you willing to let your son decide for himself, when he's older? [NOTE] All sides agree circumcision as an adult can be all sorts of pain. I'm wouldn't stop him, but what male would decide to chop a piece of their cock off on their own?
To each their own though...live and let live...either way the tool still works.
Well, I didn't have any say in the matter...
Well, stripping away medical/aesthetic opinions, would this law essentially make it illegal for people of some religions to practice it fully? Like, "who cares that it is sacred and traditional for people of the Jewish faith to circumcise their sons, we don't want ANYONE to, so we're making the whole thing illegal. Ha!" Don't we have even bigger laws AGAINST that in America?
Or would there be exceptions if religion was inolved? Even so, I would be against making it illegal. Live and let live.
I say uncircumcised is a lot more beautiful, natural and pleasing. I am a woman who has been with both men who have had it done and those who haven't. Cleanliness is not an issue at all. An uncircumcised penis is a lot softer an doesn't chafe like a circumcised. (this is what I have experienced.) I dont think I would do that to my son if I have one. My brother did it to his son (religious) and he has had problems with the foreskin getting stuck. The doctor has had to pull it back TWICE reopening the wound and causing a lot of pain to the poor baby boy.
Not worth it. Rather teach the child how to clean properly than remove a part if his body. Write a comment...
I can't weigh in on the potential medical benefits or detriments, nor can I weigh in on the aesthetics since I've only been with cut guys. However, as a Jew I take issue to banning circumcision, since I believe that we should be free to practice our religion as we see fit, and that most definitely involves circumcision. In that regard, no, I wouldn't break ranks with the father, since the father of my children would be circumcised. If for some reason my son was uncircumcised at 18, or he was circumcised but decided that he wanted cosmetic surgery to look like he still had a foreskin, that is his choice.
I struggled with this when I was pregnant with my first boy. (I have 3 now!) I am strong in my Christian faith, yet I hated the idea of doing this. I couldn't help but ponder so many thoughts and questions: really? you think it doesn't hurt??? how do we know if this IMMEDIATE assault on ones manhood doesn't effect them in some deep untouchable way?? and ummm...we can't teach our boys to clean themselves? Religiously I studied up. I'm sure some will still disagree, but here's what I concluded (and forgive me I do not have the scriptures at this point, but I'm sure they can be searched topically as I did): Jesus' death on the cross is refered to as the final blood sacrifice. One of the connections of circumcision was as though it was a blood sacrifice (in regards to Jacob I think?). As a Christian, I see it as disregarding His final blood sacrifice INSISTING on circumcision. Not preaching - just sharing how I made my decision NOT to do it.
We opted to not circumcise either of our sons at birth. My oldest son had to have his foreskin removed at 7 yrs old because it lost its elasticity. Had I known this was a possibility before he was born, I would have had them both circumcised as newborns.
We went over this in my mother baby clinical for nursing school. As far as cleaning goes, I'm fully on the side of as long as you're very careful it won't be a problem. That being said, there are plenty of cleanliness issues that won't happen if the kid is cut. That also being said, cleaning is only really a problem when the kid is old enough to take his own baths and young enough that he may not be as careful about cleaning as an older kid would be. So say 4-7.
I've been with a guy that was cut and a guy that was uncut. I think that uncut looks cleaner personally, but I would discuss it with my husband and let him have a say.
I don't have a care one way or the other. I have been with both and felt no difference. What I do know is my father-in-law had to have his removed at age of 63 and wishes to heaven that his parents had had him circumcised as an infant so he didn't have to deal with the pain, healing and a bit of embarrassment. The pain and healing time was far greater than that of when my sons had it at birth.
Well, from a rather frivolous view point, it's way easier to give a handjob to an uncut guy. Also I think it looks much better. But then, I'm from england where most every guy is uncut, so to me a cut penis looks weird and nastily scarred.
However, the guy I'm with now (and hope to be with for the foreseeable future) is cut, and it isn't an issue at all.
Having said that, there is no way I'd do that to my child, I see no reason to surgically alter the body you're given at birth.
Well, having changed diapers of numerous baby boys, yes, there is a difference. Infection is more likely if they are not circumcised, but that is if the parents/caretakers are negligent with diaper-changing, putting creams like Desitin, and general hygiene.
I come from a culture where circumcision is a must. Some guys don't go through the process until they are 30 years old (and they do it because they feel they have not entered real manhood until have been circumcised). Most parents though prefer to have them done while the boys are still babies, some go through it during elementary or even high school years.