This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Ban on male circumcision

15681011

Comments

  • I think regardless of stance on circumcision, we should all be able to agree that banning it from being done on infants would cause more problems than it would fix. Looking at the comments of that video you posted, nobody decided they wanted their foreskin back until they started reading about foreskin. To me, that just makes it seem like there are no obvious downsides to being circumcised, and that if you want to find any you have to really dig. Personally, even knowing what function the foreskin served, I still don't really care that mine is gone.
  • I think regardless of stance on circumcision, we should all be able to agree that banning it from being done on infants would cause more problems than it would fix. Looking at the comments of that video you posted, nobody decided they wanted their foreskin back until they started reading about foreskin. To me, that just makes it seem like there are no obvious downsides to being circumcised, and that if you want to find any you have to really dig. Personally, even knowing what function the foreskin served, I still don't really care that mine is gone.
    In other words, ignorance is bliss. That's very helpful. Thank you...
  • edited April 2011
    If that's the way you want to read it, then that's your deal. Also, the first part of my post is pretty relevant so maybe you could look at that when you're not busy.
    Post edited by P_TOG on
  • Further, you have not "proven" any medical worth to it, at least none that requires the genital mutilation of infants, and that you are considering this a textual Buzz Aldrining makes you look like a complete and utter fucking moron.
    First, you're making that all too common Internet mistake of simply ignoring arguments: there is conclusive evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS, and there is debated but extant evidence that it may reduce risk of HPV, penile cancer, and UTIs. Wikipedia also mentions evidence of a reduced risk of balanitis and some skin conditions.

    Moreover, you should pay some goddamn attention to the fact that nobody here is arguing in favor of enforced circumcision, merely that parents should have the option of whether or not to have their child circumcised.

    I should point out that I think you're grossly overexaggerating the harm to a child due to a circumcision. The only major harm is the very small risk of complications, most of which are minor, for a procedure that, at worst, will also make it harder for the kid to masturbate when he grows up, while making his penis more aesthetically appealing to a majority of potential sexual partners.

    You equate circumcision to cutting off a toe, which is not a good analogy. With a missing toe (especially the big toe), it becomes significantly more difficult to walk, and one will probably never be able to dance, run, or be athletic in any number of ways. I think the best analogy I can think of is closer to piercing a newborn's ears, which is similarly an aesthetic change with little effect.

    Male circumcision is not mutilation - it is not crude, it does not significantly reduce the usefulness of the penis, and it is not traumatic in any meaningful sense. It is, if anything, plastic surgery, although without the need for plastic.
    If you talk about male circumcision and female genital mutilation in the same breath one more time, without taking an aside to point out how the two are incomparably different things, I swear I will come through the Internet and burn your fucking house down.

    You asked earlier if the fact that the newborn forgot the pain from the circumcision, and if that made the pain less important. As cold as it may seem, the answer to that question is unequivocally yes. If the harm only comes from pain, and the pain is totally forgotten, then the harm disappears with it. I will say that again - there is no long-term harm caused solely by the pain of circumcision, since that pain is forgotten and completely unable to be remembered.

    As for doing it to a newborn rather than a consenting adult, there is no sufficient cause to ban the procedure from being done to an infant. First, there are people who have religious reasons for circumcision, and bearing in mind that the benefits at least match the harm, that alone is reason enough not to ban circumcision. Secondly, there are the aforementioned benefits (and they have been shown to exist, if you say that they aren't proven you're simply wrong): there are immediate benefits, and some that don't really matter until the child becomes sexually active - and in many cases, that is well before majority, when somebody could get the procedure.

    From this, I conclude that circumcision of newborn males should be left up to the choice of the parents.
  • edited April 2011
    while making his penis more aesthetically appealing to a majority of potential sexual partners.
    Addendum - presuming he only has sexual partners in the USA or other Majority-circumcised countries. Partners in other countries, at best, don't care, at worst, may find uncut penises more appealing. Dear Americans - Please stop assuming that everyone thinks like you do. Roughly half the world has a much lower circumcision rate than you do - in fact, here, the majority of states and territories stopped offering non-therapeutic circumcision as a hospital provided procedure, and our highest national circumcision rate, in one of the few places that still offers non-therapeutic circumcision, is still sub-20% - And it's a reasonable assumption that in countries where the circumcision rate isn't over 70%, people really care a hell of a lot less about the apparent aesthetic appeal of a circumcised penis.

    If you're really that worried about the aesthetic appeal of your son's penis - or yours - Check this list and only visit countries around the same circumcision rate as yours or above.
    It is, if anything, plastic surgery, although without the need for plastic.
    The plastic in Plastic surgery doesn't mean it involves one of the substances we call plastic, it's from another definition, meaning able to be molded or malleable. In the same way that you could say that Clay is a plastic substance.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited April 2011
    If the harm only comes from pain, and the pain is totally forgotten, then the harm disappears with it.
    I don't agree with this reasoning. Harm is still harm, whether it is remembered or not. Of course, the longer that pain is remembered, the worse the overall harm.
    By your reasoning, if I kill someone the harm I've done disappears after they die, because a dead person clearly can't remember the harm that's been done to them.
    From this, I conclude that circumcision of newborn males should be left up to the choice of the parents.
    Every reasonable person in this thread agrees that this choice should be the parents' choice. However, I still hold that if they choose to circumcise their child, they made the wrong (morally wrong) choice.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • If the harm only comes from pain, and the pain is totally forgotten, then the harm disappears with it.
    I don't agree with this reasoning. Harm is still harm, whether it is remembered or not. Of course, the longer that pain is remembered, the worse the overall harm.
    By your reasoning, if I kill someone the harm I've done disappears after they die, because a dead person clearly can't remember the harm that's been done to them.
    The key word there was only. Murder does additional harm besides the pain of the person's death; murder causes psychological pain to the deceased's family, and removes all of the potential good the victim could have done had he not been murdered, among other things. Circumcision has potentially none of those harmful side effects, and in a case without complications, circumcision's harm disappears when its pain is forgotten.
  • edited April 2011
    The key word there was only. Murder does additional harm besides the pain of the person's death; murder causes psychological pain to the deceased's family
    Let's say they don't have a family.
    and removes all of the potential good the victim could have done had he not been murdered, among other things.
    It also removes all the potential evil the victim could have done, which is great! I think arguments with respect to future 'potential' do not hold water; after all, a single fertilised human egg has plenty of 'potential good', yet this is clearly not a good argument against abortion.

    Here's another hypothetical: What if you torture someone in a way that causes no lasting physical harm, but you drug them so that they won't remember it afterwards? Is that perfectly okay?

    Your conception of harm is deeply flawed, because in due time all will be forgotten - after all, the universe will eventually end. Since when the universe ends no one will be around to remember any of the harm that's been done, doesn't that mean none of the harm anyone ever does matters at all? That kind of argument is often made by religious people, who say that in the absence of eternal life, nothing matters at all. I think it's just plain stupid.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Your conception of harm is deeply flawed, because in due time all will be forgotten - after all, the universe will eventually end. Since when the universe ends no one will be around to remember any of the harm that's been done, doesn't that mean none of the harm anyone ever does matters at all? That kind of argument is often made by religious people, who say that in the absence of eternal life, nothing matters at all. I think it's just plain stupid.
    I'll admit, I wasn't particularly careful when I made that definition of harm, but I assure you that I didn't mean to make an ashes-to-ashes argument, because that kind of argument can go fuck itself. By long-term, I meant on the timeframe of a few months or years, maybe a generation at most.
    The key word there was only. Murder does additional harm besides the pain of the person's death; murder causes psychological pain to the deceased's family
    Let's say they don't have a family.
    and removes all of the potential good the victim could have done had he not been murdered, among other things.
    It also removes all the potential evil the victim could have done, which is great! I think arguments with respect to future 'potential' do not hold water; after all, a single fertilised human egg has much more 'potential good' than a fully grown human being, yet this is clearly not a good argument against abortion.
    I guess I have to change my definitions somewhat, because killing a sentient human being is the worst thing one can possibly do. In my experience I've found that people are generally productive, and on average people tend to do more good for society than harm, so cutting a life short harms society by robbing it of that productivity, and harms the person by robbing him of his hopes and dreams for the future. On the abortion argument, the short form of my justification is that up to a certain point, the developing fetus is not a person. It's not a perfect definition of my beliefs, but it covers most cases and still holds that circumcision is a very low-harm procedure, and the benefits almost always outweigh the harm done.
  • I guess I have to change my definitions somewhat, because killing a sentient human being is the worst thing one can possibly do.
    It isn't. There are plenty of things that are far, far worse, e.g. killing six million sentient human beings.

    I agree that the harm of circumcision is relatively slight, but only as long as the pain is managed very carefully. The studies shown here suggest that there is a severe pain response unless effective methods like DPNB or ring block are used, and that in the absence of appropriate pain management there can be deteriorated feeding behaviour for one or two days, and 4-6 months later a more severe pain response during vaccination. I'd say that the use of effective pain management should be made mandatory for circumcision rather than merely recommended.

    As for the benefits of circumcision, the only one significant enough to potentially warrant circumcising a newborn is the reduction in urinary tract infections, but I don't think this is sufficient to warrant the pain of the procedure and the risk of complications. I'll find time to respond to TWS' point about UTIs later.
  • edited April 2011
    I guess I have to change my definitions somewhat, because killing a sentient human being is the worst thing one can possibly do.
    It isn't. There are plenty of things that are far, far worse, e.g. killing six million sentient human beings.
    That's doing the worst thing you can possibly do six million times. I admit that I really should have added a caveat like "to an individual" or something similar.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • That's doing the worst thing you can possibly do six million times. I admit that I really should have added a caveat like "to an individual" or something similar.
    Well, you can still do worse to an individual than kill them, e.g. torture for a period of many years.
  • edited April 2011
    Further, you have not "proven" any medical worth to it, at least none that requires the genital mutilation of infants, and that you are considering this a textual Buzz Aldrining makes you look like a complete and utter fucking moron.
    First, you're making that all too common Internet mistake of simply ignoring arguments: there is conclusive evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS, and there is debated but extant evidence that it may reduce risk of HPV, penile cancer, and UTIs. Wikipedia also mentions evidence of a reduced risk of balanitis and some skin conditions.
    Risk of penile cancer is already low (lower than male breast cancer) and the argument is basically the same as reducing risk of skin cancer by removing your fucking skin. Doesn't really sound like good reasoning to me. The risk of UTI is also negligible and of course forgets that there is additional risk of infection coming from the procedure itself. HPV and and HIV is also retarded argument considering that this is hardly an argument for circumcision of INFANTS, who aren't really known to contract sexually transmitted diseases, are they now? People who want that additional protection against STDs can still get a circumcision one they are mature enough to decide to do so, which is the same age as they are mature enough to decide that they should have sex.

    Oh, and could you people please stop trying to pretend that any of the potential medical advantages have ever been the reasons for the majority of circumcisions? These have been entirely post hoc discoveries, if they are even true at all. Nor are they given nowadays as the reasons for circumcisions. The reasons for circumcisions given today commonly, are either religious (in which case circumcisions are imposed in order to reduce sexual pleasure!), aesthetically (see later), or tradition (in itself a complete fallacy).
    Moreover, you should pay some goddamn attention to the fact that nobody here is arguing in favor of enforced circumcision, merely that parents should have the option of whether or not to have their child circumcised.
    Considering that the parent makes the decision without a thought about what the child itself wants, I don't really see any difference here.
    I should point out that I think you're grossly overexaggerating the harm to a child due to a circumcision. The only major harm is the very small risk of complications, most of which are minor, for a procedure that, at worst, will also make it harder for the kid to masturbate when he grows up, while making his penis more aesthetically appealing to a majority of potential sexual partners.
    What a retarded fucking argument is that? Here I have to stand and hear how I'm ignorant and only let my own opinion stand, and you bring this completely subjective claim as an argument which is on a worldwide scale the complete minority. Not to mention that "oh it looks better" isn't any sort of argument for an amputation for something the average normal male is born with, which is neither harmful nor impeding! Churba already bitchslapped you about this claim, but it's still breathtakingly inane.
    You equate circumcision to cutting off a toe, which is not a good analogy. With a missing toe (especially the big toe), it becomes significantly more difficult to walk, and one will probably never be able to dance, run, or be athletic in any number of ways. I think the best analogy I can think of is closer to piercing a newborn's ears, which is similarly an aesthetic change with little effect.

    Male circumcision is not mutilation - it is not crude, it does not significantly reduce the usefulness of the penis, and it is not traumatic in any meaningful sense. It is, if anything, plastic surgery, although without the need for plastic.
    How about chopping off an earlobe? That's perhaps a better comparison. Would that be acceptable for a parent to do? Would that count as mutilation, even if done by a trained plastic surgeon?

    Oh, and removing the foreskin does reduce the function of the penis (protection, gliding mechanism, nerves) and can be traumatic in people who are old enough to actually develop a trauma (i.e. have developed enough of a brain capacity for it).
    If you talk about male circumcision and female genital mutilation in the same breath one more time, without taking an aside to point out how the two are incomparably different things, I swear I will come through the Internet and burn your fucking house down.
    Jesus fucking christ. I've said over and over and over again that female circumcision IS BY FAR FUCKING WORSE THAN MALE CIRCUMCISION. My problem is that people still can't get into their fucking heads that male circumcision is still something bad, something harmful and something that violates the persons rights as a human. These things are true for both cases. One is worse than the other, yes, but they're both mutilations of the bodies of children without their consent. Apparently you people have something against me being opposed to both for the same reasons and want to draw some arbitrary line for which gender those reasons are permissible, and for which they aren't. That is pure sexism.


    I'll leave the bits about pain and harm to lackofcheese.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • RymRym
    edited April 2011
    Risk of penile cancer is already low (lower than male breast cancer) and the argument is basically the same as reducing risk of skin cancer by removing your fucking skin.
    Again, you superficially if at all address any of the real arguments made against your crusade, while continuing to rail on against everyone else who's being far more rational and not actually responding to any of their points.

    You've lost this argument pretty hard. Your already weak position takes no account of scale or degree, and it's from a ludicrous position of decisional privilage. The vigor of your argument, compared to the triviality of the cause, is laughable. Your core philosophical position regarding parents making decisions with their childrens' consent is poorly conceived at best.

    I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Well, it seems I've tired of making the same arguments over and over again, so I'm going to stop. Congratulations, you've won an Internet argument the way all Internet arguments are won: by holding a position and ignoring counterarguments until the other person gives up.

    Still gonna burn your house down though.
  • Congratulations, you've won an Internet argument the way all Internet arguments are won: by holding a position and ignoring counterarguments until the other person gives up.
  • edited April 2011
    Risk of penile cancer is already low (lower than male breast cancer) and the argument is basically the same as reducing risk of skin cancer by removing your fucking skin.
    Again, you superficially if at all address any of the real arguments made against your crusade, while continuing to rail on against everyone else who's being far more rational and not actually responding to any of their points.

    You've lost this argument pretty hard.
    Please tell me exactly what is wrong about what I said? The reduced risk of penile cancer by means of circumcisions comes from the fact that circumcision removes tissue that can potentially become cancerous, or is in high risk thereof. That is the exact same thing as saying that removing your skin is a good means to reduce the risk of skin cancer.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • edited April 2011
    Churba already bitchslapped you about this claim, but it's still breathtakingly inane.
    Woah Woah woah, slow your roll, son. I didn't bitchslap anyone about it, I simply noted - for the second or third time - that the "More aesthetically pleasing" argument applies mostly in the USA and other Extremely high Circumcision rate countries. I then noted - generally adressed, not specifically - that people outside the US do not think the same way, and that it's an argument that assumes they do, or assumes that your child will never leave their own shores or encounter a Non-American (by birth or by being raised there) person who might be their sexual partner. It's Flimsy because it assumes way too much, that's all, it's not "Breathtakingly insane", Particularly for a group of people mostly born and/or raised in the US where that is - to the best of my knowledge - the prevalent opinion. It's no more insane or unreasonable than when Whaleshark asked me yesterday what I meant calling the Beckhams a pair of right Planks, because it was slang that he didn't know about, because it's not something he's exposed to regularly. Nobody is getting aggressive about it, so I'm being mostly polite about it.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited April 2011
    Churba already bitchslapped you about this claim, but it's still breathtakingly inane.
    Woah Woah woah, slow your roll, son. I didn't bitchslap anyone about it, I simply noted - for the second or third time - that the "More aesthetically pleasing" argument applies mostly in the USA and other Extremely high Circumcision rate countries. I then noted - generally adressed, not specifically - that people outside the US do not think the same way, and that it's an argument that assumes they do, or assumes that your child will never leave their own shores or encounter a Non-American (by birth or by being raised there) person who might be their sexual partner. It's Flimsy because it assumes way too much, that's all, it's not "Breathtakingly insane", Particularly for a group of people mostly born and/or raised in the US where that is - to the best of my knowledge - the prevalent opinion. Nobody is getting aggressive about it, so I'm being mostly polite about it.
    Churba is right, and I was arguing from an Americocentric perspective out of force of habit. Therefore, I will admit that the aesthetic argument is only applicable in America. However, we did mention a study earlier in this thread that found a majority of American women preferred the noncircumcised, IIRC.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • Atleast another thing they've proved that you CAN restore your foreskin back through treatment. The circumcision doesn't have to be exactly permanent thanks to methods that can be surgical or not.
  • edited April 2011
    Atleast another thing they've proved that you CAN restore your foreskin back through treatment. The circumcision doesn't have to be exactly permanent thanks to methods that can be surgical or not.
    And, if you gather up enough foreskins, you can make an attractive wallet that turns into a suitcase when you rub it right.
    Churba is right, and I was arguing from an Americocentric perspective out of force of habit.
    It's entirely forgivable - It's just what you know, it's not like you can suddenly be not-american. If it's any consolation, until I'd spoken to Americans on the issue, I honestly thought nobody really cared about it.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • RymRym
    edited April 2011
    Please tell me exactly what is wrong about what I said?
    Really? You realize this is the same game the woo-woo idiots and Ron Paul fanatics play on the Internet. You've already been told. The arguments have already been made. Your posts were just mostly parallel to the real debate, ignoring everyone else's points along the way and being extremely selective in what you responded to. Couple this with your alarmist and indignantly outraged tone, and you're being a fair simulacrum of many poor arguers of our forum's past.

    Usually, when someone posts a sentence like this, it's a sure sign that they've already lost, and have no interest in actual debate.

    1. You have failed to convince anyone here that traditional male circumcision is worthy of action or even consideration by anyone other than the parents of a young child.
    2. You rail against it, but have no thesis, point, solution, or even suggestion as to what action should be taken. If no action, then what are you arguing for?
    3. You've ignored all considerations of scale and degree. While not a full fallacy, it renders your arguments laughably naive, and hysterical sounding, nevermind removing any pretense of a sound debate. No one but a philosopher gets to ignore degree and scale, and they give up their right to relevance for the privilege.
    4. You make sweeping assumptions as to the utility/cost valuations of everyone else here, begging the question.
    5. In such a profoundly ambivalent situation, and absent degree or scale of harm, should intelligent adults not be able to make their own decisions? If you don't want to let adults decide on something so trivial, then what's the point of being an adult? What's the point of making decisions? At some point, people have to be free to make even poor decisions. Each decision you take away, no matter how small, takes away not only freedom, but choice, the very principle of being a (perceived) self-moving being. What's the line? You're setting it pretty damn high.

    Do you have a core point? A specific thesis that's relevant? Do you want to ban male circumcision? (You've presented no rationale for even attempting such a thing). Do you want other people to stop? (No one cares enough, and there are plenty of equally valid arguments on the opposite site of the issue). Are you claiming its some inherently immoral thing? (This is irrelevant to the practical reality, and you've not made a strong enough case for anyone to care).

    The default position is neutral indifference. Almost all of us hold this position. You've failed to present enough of an argument to sway us. Several of the counter-arguments have. I was completely neutral, but I am now slightly in favor of male circumcision due to specific points made against you of which I was unaware. I'll end by being a jerk and thus noting that your entire argument has served only, in my case, to improve my conception of male circumcision. I am MORE for it now than I was before this thread.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • And, if you gather up enough foreskins, you can summon the no-god Mog Pharau, entering the world into a perpetual death. 144,000 would be their number.
  • @Rym: Gives a whole new meaning to "come before."
  • That is the exact same thing as saying that removing your skin is a good means to reduce the risk of skin cancer.
    No, it's the exact same thing as having a large mole excised. Which is common fucking practice, often done proactively, and often at the request of the patient - or the parent in the case of a minor.
  • edited April 2011
    I did not belief Rym was actually this stupid, but he has in fact proven me wrong.

    Here's my core belief: The unnecessary surgical intrusion on a person can not ethically be defended and serves at most for the satisfaction of the person ordering or performing said intrusion and in worst cases causes significant harm to the person being intruded upon. This is true for any person performing or ordering that intrusion, including the parents of the person being intruded upon.

    I'm actually assuming that most people agree with that sentiment. After all, at least I'm assuming, this is the rationale behind the opposition of female circumcision. It is also the rationale why female circumcision, and all other forms of unnecessary surgery on children, is prohibited by law. What I am questioning is why there is any form of exception for male circumcision in that regard. Male circumcision, though to a far lesser degree than female circumcisions (though there are also different practices with varying degrees of harm, all of which are banned), also causes harm and permanent damage to the child, as well as being an invasion to the child's privacy and depriving him of his human rights.

    Consider this: One form of female circumcision is pricking the clitoris with a needle in order to draw a single drop of blood. Nothing else. That practice is rightfully and absolutely correctly banned by federal law in the united states. Yet, the complete removal of a boys foreskin is common practice, accepted and often even encouraged. Why?


    I'm especially aghast about Rym's point #5. I'm in fact all for personal self-determination. If you want a circumcision, vasectomy, whatever, for yourself, and are a legal adult. Go ahead, knock yourself out. The problem is that we aren't talking about that. We are talking about amputation surgery, largely for reasons of aesthetics, tradition or religion, on a child. That is not a matter of personal freedom, that is a matter of parental responsibility. And if there are parents who recklessly endanger and harm their children, it is society's obligation to step in and prevent it, or punish those parents and keep them from doing that to children ever again.

    Now how can that be accomplished? The same way that we prevent female circumcision. The exact same thing we were in fact talking about at the very start of the thread: By laws that prohibit the practice of it and punish those that engage in it. Oh, and it is outright idiotic to tell me that nobody even cares about this matter at all, or at least enough to make any measures of prevention, when this thread started from such a law being on the table in San Francisco.

    P.S.: BTW, great strategy by you Rym. Rather than answering the question I asked, you deflected and attempted an ad hominem argument calling me someone bad at arguing.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • That is the exact same thing as saying that removing your skin is a good means to reduce the risk of skin cancer.
    No, it's the exact same thing as having a large mole excised. Which is common fucking practice, often done proactively, and often at the request of the patient - or the parent in the case of a minor.
    Only in cases where the mole has been determined malignant, which is hardly something you can say about the foreskin.
  • edited April 2011
    The default position is neutral indifference. Almost all of us hold this position. You've failed to present enough of an argument to sway us. Several of the counter-arguments have. I was completely neutral, but I am now slightly in favor of male circumcision due to specific points made against you of which I was unaware. I'll end by being a jerk and thus noting that your entire argument has served only, in my case, to improve my conception of male circumcision. I am MORE for it now than I was before this thread.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY&t;=52
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • edited April 2011
    (This is Kate, not Adam. I didn't realize he had used my computer. Sorry for any confusion.)

    This thread got too massive too quickly for me to read the entirety of it, but if I have a male child I will probably have him circumcised for the following reasons in descending order of importance:
    -Cleanliness and health concerns. To those of you that say that isn't a problem in a first world nation, I would like you to note how prevalent infections and STD's are, even in a modern society. This becomes especially worrying in a nation that does not guarantee health coverage to its citizens.
    -Some years ago I read a peer reviewed article on a study regarding sexual and gender developments in children. I can't find it at the moment, but it had some rather interesting insights into how children learn about their own bodies via their parents interaction and that there was some nontrivial evidence suggesting that male children whose penises (whether uncircumcised or circumcised) were different from their father's, they met with a good deal of confusion and insecurity about their bodies at some key points in their prepubescent development. Since my husband is circumcised, I would prefer to have them "match" their father in order to eschew this confusion and insecurity.
    - Sex feels good for the man whether the penis is circumcised or not and I really haven't seen any hard evidence that reveals that males are traumatized or their sexual pleasure is reduced by circumcision.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • edited April 2011
    That is the exact same thing as saying that removing your skin is a good means to reduce the risk of skin cancer.
    No, it's the exact same thing as having a large mole excised. Which is common fucking practice, often done proactively, and often at the request of the patient - or the parent in the case of a minor.
    Only in cases where the mole has been determined malignant, which is hardly something you can say about the foreskin.
    You are simply wrong in this fact. Having survived skin cancer twice I can tell you that in many cases malignancy is determined by testing a skin growth after all or part of it is removed from the skin.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
Sign In or Register to comment.