Uncircumcised Wonderland?

Queerty reports: It has been been said that “In America, uncircumcised guys are like unicorns—wonderful and rare.” Well, this November San Francisco voters could decide whether to unleash hoards of unicorns all over The City by the Bay by banning circumcision.

If approved, a city-wide ban on circumcision would almost immediately face court challenges for violating the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, “intactivists” behind the ballot measure call circumcision “male genital mutilation”, decry “circumstitions” calling non-circumcision unhealthier, and say that men should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to snip their bishop’s turtlenecks. 80% of the world’s males are uncircumcised.

  

209 thoughts on “Uncircumcised Wonderland?”

  1. Well, I know there’s a lot of talk about it but I’m circumcised and kind of glad. I likely wouldn’t have cared too much either way (as long as it works) but I’m cool with it. That is an infringement on freedom of religion because, as far as I know – I might be wrong – there’s no real scientific proof that it causes any harm. I mean its not being sewn shut or anything, its being clipped to make it easier to clean, so I don’t get the genital mutilation association, also, no one is being forced. Only Jewish people have to circumcise, the rest do it by choice. So its more of a social custom than a religious tradition.

    1. Actually, unless you’re being circumcised as an adult (which very few are), you are having it forced upon you as you have no say in the matter.

      Also, I would wonder what you call harm. There is proof that is causes decreased sensitivity to the penis in adults, scaring from the procedure can cause unnatural curving to the point of erections being painful, if too much skin is removed the skin can be unnaturally tight which can also makes erections uncomfortable or painful. Then there’s the risk of infection as it’s healing that’s present with any procedure where they cut the patient… hell of a place to get a deformity because of an infection from an elective procedure.

      Personally, I think banning circumcisions on infants is a great law so long as there’s an exception for religion (I’m not sure if any religions besides Judaism practice it, but I could be mistaken) or valid medical reasons (for parents saying it’s cleaner when they don’t have a foreskin, teach them to pull it back and wash it like you teach them to wash behind their ears).

      I’m all in favor of body modification, including but not limited to tattoos, piercings, tongue/genital splitting, subdermal implants, cosmetic surgery, tooth filing, and even circumcision on both males and females…. but only when the person receiving the modification is able to make the decision to have it for them self. I’d never pierce the nipple of an infant or give one a tattoo or liposuction…. why the heck would I cut off their foreskin (it does serve a purpose, folks)?

    2. By all means celebrate who you are and what you can’t change … but how is circumcision *not* genital mutilation? It mutilates the genitals. Period. They could have made your armpits easier to clean by cutting off your arms as soon as you were born, or your ass easier to wipe by cutting off your legs and buttocks. By all means celebrate who you are – but don’t go allowing the genital mutilation of minors in order to do so.

      1. “Mutilation [...] is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.”

        Since many people would claim that circumcision improves BOTH appearance AND function your cocksure stance doesn’t really hold, Rimmer.

        Some people have generated evidence that is does impair sexual activity; others that it improves it.

        Many man and women prefer circumcised cocks, too, so it’s not quite as black and white as you’d like to paint.

        Since I think it is fair to say that it is not NECESSARILY a bad thing, it would seem odd to ban it. Perhaps it should simply be discouraged – especially by professionals.

        In the UK there is very little circumcision these days (except when required for medical/religious reasons), a point which has been arrived at without the need for laws.

        I CERTAINLY don’t think this is a subject the average voter is sufficiently informed about to make a meaningful decision.

        1. Just because “many people” say something should we allow it? Many people like tattoos should we tattoo our babies?? If someone cut a piece of skin from another part of the boy its a crime, but because is religion lets give them a free pass…

          It is a final decision, a person should decide about his own body…

          1. >Just because “many people” say something should we allow it?

            I don’t think I suggested that. Rimmer suggested circumcision was obviously a bad thing and that therefore it shouldn’t be allowed. My point was that circumcision is not necessarily a bad thing and there IS room for debate here.

            >Many people like tattoos should we tattoo our babies??

            A tattoo is rather different as you ought to be aware. I don’t think I need to waste time pointing out how.

            > If someone cut a piece of skin from another part of the boy its a crime, but because is religion lets give them a free pass…

            It’s interesting that many people here are focussing on religious circumcision. As far as I am aware, religious circumcision accounts for a minority of the circumcisions in America.

            In fact there are several medical procedures carried out on babies because they are peceived to carry a future benefit. Cutting the lingual frenulum on a tongue-tied baby is a far more invasive operation, for instance.

            1. The question isn’t if circumcision is a bad thing but if remove peoples choices is…

              You are right about the tattoos, one can remove tattoos but one can’t get uncircumcised…

        2. I find it interesting that so many are so dismissive of male circumcision being called mutilation. I wonder, do you have the same opinion of female circumcision?

          After all, the arguments I’ve heard against female circumcision are the same as the ones used against male circumcision. Likewise, many cultures that have (or still do) practiced female circumcision have used the same arguments in favor of it that proponents of male circumcision use.

          1. Since I don’t have any sons I can’t very well go by what my doctors told me but I can go by what my friend’s doctor told him, it is much better to circumcise then not to, for cleanliness and other reasons. Don’t even try to compare male to female circumcision, female is an extremely painful procedure intended to exert control over the victim and reduce the pleasure of sexual intercourse for the girl where male circumcision is so painless (when done as a baby) that neither of my friends sons even noticed that it was happening.
            To say that parents don’t have the right to make the decision for their infant sons is like saying that they don’t have the right to make any other medical decision for them.

            1. If my parents decided to circumcise me without my consent, I would either kill them or sue them to death!

            2. I can assure you that if you had been circumcised at the same age that the girls you’re referring to, it would have hurt like hell as well. Maybe your friend’s doctor was one of the few that actually use a local anesthesia, but most do not and I can guarantee you those babies definitely feel it. If you doubt that, go watch this video (fair warning, it’s not fun to watch): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617#

              Further, when the foreskin is removed, sensitivity to the penis IS reduced, making sex less enjoyable for males. Not only because the foreskin is sensitive it’s self, but because the head of the penis is no longer kept moist and constant rubbing against clothing which would not occur with the foreskin.

              Removing the clitoral hood of girls at the same age we remove the foreskin of boys would be no more or less painful (and even if it is, they’re not old enough to remember it, that’s an excuse that a good many use for not numbing boys when they’re circumcised). I’m sure there’s just as much validity that it would help avoid UTIs as there is that removing the foreskin will help males avoid infection.

              In the end, being for one while being against the other is a double standard at best and hypocritical at worst.

          2. female circumcision is QUITE a different thin altogether, and to equate the two things is disingenuous in an argument – and really does nothing to advance your position.

            1. Yes the most EXTREME form of FGM is much more destructive to the genitals then westernized male circumcision. BUT most forms of female circumcision practiced in the world today are the “mildest” form which involves cutting off the female foreskin aka the clit hood. A tissue structure that not serves the same purpose but its actually they both develop from the SAME STRUCTURE in the human fetus. So comparing the two is quite logical.

            2. How is it different?

              The clitoral hood serves essentially the same purpose as the foreskin. Why shouldn’t we circumcise girls at the same age that we circumcise males?

              They won’t remember the procedure and won’t miss it when they get older. Surely it will be easier for girls to refrain from smelling like fish and lower the risk of yeast infections as well as UTI’s.

            3. And everything you say is true. It would make girls smell less and all that “extra” skin hides germs that cause UTI, and yeast infections!

              It sounds absurd to say it, because we know it as a culture that there is no need for it. Sadly there exists a double standard where we do not see the absurdity of male circumcision for “medical” reasons.

            4. I’m glad someone saw my point…. it’s much better then assuming that’s why they didn’t respond back.

    3. How is circumcision religious freedom? If a religion required the cutting off of a baby’s finger, would that be religious freedom?

    4. Thom:
      “… there’s no real scientific proof that it causes any harm.”
      ….. Assuming you would include MEDICAL proof as “scientific proof,” you are quite wrong. There are many cases of circumcision that either went wrong or reflected the incompetence of the person doing the circumcision. While there are fewer “complaints” of bad circumcision (how many boys do you know of or have heard of who would quickly volunteer to show their penises to “strangers” just to show off their penis displeasure — even if they call themselves doctors?) Also, how many boys do you think would willingly go against their parents (who decided it), again, to a “stranger?”

      Do you seriously think that there is ONLY “immediate physical” harm to circumcision? There is also psychological and visual harm as well.

      “also, no one is being forced.”
      ….. Really?? You seriously think that newborn baby boys actually have any say about the matter? Even with jewish boys who are to be circumcised by the 8th day (as I know it) don’t have any choice. No one under the age of true reason (usually under 13yo at least) would have any “choice” even if many of them were asked. There is parental and medical coersion, you know.

      “Only Jewish people have to circumcise, the rest do it by choice.”
      ….. You are truly ignorant about this subject. Just because the jewish are more “famous” for it, there are hundreds of millions around the world who are circumcised. And that includes many other christian religions as well as many muslims also.

      I personally don’t agree with that 80% uncircumcision assessment at all. I would peg it to be closer to 65-70%, tops. Even in Africa which has probably the most barbaric societies on Earth, many of them are circumcised. Also, don’t forget the populous christian Asians in Philippines, Korea and Japan.

      With the obvious exceptions for immediate medical reasons, I don’t think circumcision before puberty should be allowed at all and after puberty, only with the express consent of the individual male involved.

      Btw, I am “technically” cut but I feel a bit “lucky” as it is a very “loose cut” with at least half of my original foreskin not cut. Don’t know why, but maybe the doctor was either sympathetic or not very good at it (to my personal benefit).

      1. ‘There are many cases of circumcision that either went wrong or reflected the incompetence of the person doing the circumcision.’

        As I am sure you would agree, the cases where a procedure has gone wrong or been done incompetently do not form a case against that procedure’s value. Just as traffic accidents do not mean we should stop driving.

        1. TCave:

          That’s a pathetic argument to justify cutting up part of a boy’s anatomy. I was showing that there is indeed proof of physical harm (at the least). Additionally, you obviously ignored for your convenience the subtext after my statement about the lack of any accurate count of possible and probable “complaints.” (Probable being that if this were not such a “taboo” and embarrassing subject, I’m very sure a lot more boys would file complaints when they became “of age” to understand this.)

          Also, conveniently, you again ignored my second paragraph under that quote stating that there is definitely more than just “immediate physical” harm. Witness all the other comments in here against circumcision.

          If you’re going to refute me, please do it with intelligence and take my entire statement into context.

          1. Well I’d offer the same closing statement to you – because if you had read what I wrote you would see that my argument has nothing to do with justifying circumcision. I am merely illustrating that your argument against it is flawed.

            You also ought to be careful with the way you use the word ‘obviously’. I didn’t ignore anything ‘for my convenience’ I’m afraid. I ignored the sentence starting ‘While there are fewer “complaints” of bad circumcision [...]‘ because the sentence never started again after the parenthesis. It’s incomplete and does not make sense.

            If your point, as you now suggest, is that the stats for bad circumcision under-represent the truth, well I just refer you back to my original point about car crashes.

            As for your second point, I didn’t ignore it, I have already posted several times on this page on that theme. What do you mean by visual harm? I assume you mean it makes the penis look ugly. Well, many, many people disagree with that.

            As for psychological harm – I do not think that has been well documented. But I can assure you one thing: if we re-paint circumcision as a new great evil, those who have been circumcised will find themselves feeling pretty hard done by…

            And finally, I’d like to clarify that I wasn’t refuting you, I was rebutting you. I am sure you appreciate the nuance of difference given how much you bang on about intelligence.

    5. @Thom and all others who possess “religious freedom” ignorance:

      “That is an infringement on freedom of religion …”

      Let’s actually examine that statement of religious freedom. I’m speaking from an American perspective now (the rest of you are on your own). First, let’s look at the most basic element of that “freedom” — Our U.S. Constitution and it’s First Amendment (verbatim):

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

      You can read and possess reading comprehension, right? So, before any so-called “religious freedoms,” our First Amendment guarantees that all of us have freedom from religion. Read it again (and again, and again … if you can’t understand this).

      Now, where in our First Amendment does it state or describe either age or even mental capacity as any type of exception? Unless any of you religious idiots know of any invisible ink, I will state with absolute certainty that there are no exceptions or even any additional clauses that forbid our freedom from any and all religion first. And babies do come first before adults, am I right?

      So, by that definition, [American/USA] babies possess the exact same rights and freedoms. Go ahead, ask any baby if he/she truly desires to go to some church where he/she can’t cry at will. No, you didn’t/can’t/won’t ask a baby this? Then, by the virtue of being completely obvious, any parent(s) are forcing any and all religion(s) onto their child.

      Now, Argue that with any intelligence.

      1. In the bit you quote (in bold, right?) it simply says there should be no laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. I don’t see the bit you mention about freedom FROM religion? Would you care to point it out?

        Yes, of course a baby is unable to answer questions; but your argument does not follow a reasonable route from there. You are saying no explicit consent = forcing; and forcing = necessarily bad.

        Both these links are spurious. Even in adult law where the agents are both able to communicate, a lack of explicit consent does not necessarily mean forcing has taken place; and your logic here would mean that anything a parent does to its child before it is of a certain capacity is ‘forcing’.

        That’s a strangely potent word. You wouldn’t say a parent ‘forces’ a child to go in its cot. It just puts it there. When potty training you don’t ‘force’ the child to squat on the potty. You just sit it there.

        And if when the child is a bit older you do actually force it to do its homework (by which I mean use incentives/threats to do something it explicitly does not want to) I don’t think we can say that this is necessarily a bad thing. It might be, in some instances, it might not.

        In other words, the notion of forcing is subjective. You might say forcing religion on a child; others might say sharing with.

        What makes you so right?

        1. “In the bit you quote (in bold, right?) it simply says there should be no laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. I don’t see the bit you mention about freedom FROM religion? Would you care to point it out?”

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”

          If you can’t understand that fairly simple phrase (BEFORE your ‘beloved religious freedom’) then I just give up and leave you to your religious ignorance. It’s been explained. Only the religious would argue these points. I won’t argue with you anymore.

          “What makes you so right?”

          Our Constitution.

          1. I don’t see why you are being sarcastic about ‘my beloved religious freedom’. I have used the expression just once and that was in a post saying religious freedom was NOT a factor.

            I’m afraid maybe you don’t understand that fairly simple phrase. It means that no religion should become a national religion ie a religion intertwined with the operation of government &c. – as in the case of the established Church of England.

            That is not the same as saying we should have freedom from religion (especially as individuals). It’s really rather different. In fact, the accommodation interpretation of the first amendment acknowledges that religions should all be treated with an equal footing which implicitly justifies freedom TO religion, not FROM it.

            And you make an assumption if you think I am religious.

          1. Brilliantly stated? He doesn’t think an operation that reduces skin and sensitivity in an organ is mutilation. He also thinks that religion somehow has a right to force things on people. And that babies are not being forced even though they can’t give consent….somehow.

            He scares me. TCave is the kind of person that really makes me worry about humanity.

            1. Big Tip, I’d be more concerned about someone who choses to insult a stranger (quite rudely, too) who is making a considered contribution to an important question about our future.

              I guess you’ve resorted to swearing because you have nothing more worthwhile to contribute?

            2. It’s not that I don’t THINK it’s mutilation; I looked up the definition and saw that it wasn’t.

              I also didn’t say that I think religion has the right to force things on people (in fact I explicitly point out the fact that ‘religious freedom’ does not permit female circumcision and I think this is a good thing).

              I did call into doubt the notion of lack of consent necessarily meaning ‘force’ was used. I maintain that is a valid avenue for investigation. We don’t use that word for all sorts of things we do for babies so it is perhaps odd to use it here.

              Your post suggests you have decided to insult me either without reading the thread – or having read it, without understanding what I wrote (and without seeking clarification of what you did not understand). Humanity ought to be more worried about YOU.

              If there are reasonable things to say against my assertions go ahead and say them – and see if they stand up to argument.

            3. But you’re absolutely and 100% wrong. “To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.” Everything about this applies to circumcision. If you want to disagree with the English language, feel free to do so, while I feel free to plant a dunce cap on your skull.

              And yes, if someone does not consent to something, you are forcing them to do it. This is not a hard concept. You don’t use that word for doing things such as feeding babies or changing their diapers, but you very well could.

            4. Pieman:

              Very well said (and nicely stated — something I lost patience for after his ignorant posts). I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but every time he “disagrees” with some concept, he always presents some scatter-brained “argument” to cover his ignorance. Then he later comes back and states “I said this (or that) or I didn’t say this (or that).” And when he finally exhausts any “probable” argument, he then whines on about the curse words — “can’t you be nice to me?”

              You can show him physical proof all day long but he simply can’t comprehend how to accept it — he will only continue his hair-brained “arguments” which dribble off into infinity. He should be embarrassed “to fly” the flag of Japan as I’ve found the majority of (actual) Japanese to be considerably more intelligent.

            5. Yawn to both of you.

              Pieman, since some people think the cut cock is more attractive it is not necessarily disfiguring; since some people think it improves the cock’s function and appearance it is not making imperfect; and if you accept those two points (who am I kidding…) then it cannot be injury.

              As for forcing, exactly, people don’t use it for a great many things and they very well wouldn’t. There’s a nuance of meaning which you have identified but bizarrely refuse to take to its logical conclusion.

              PenboyX2, you won’t annoy me or make me go away by calling me ignorant.

              Yes, generally if you disagree with something you do well to present an argument to justify yourself. That’s not covering, that’s rather exposing the way you think.

              Regardless, some people, namely you, don’t properly read those comments and this is why I have to reiterate them. I’m sorry this annoys you but it doesn’t surprise me.

              I’m not whining – just pointing out that so far it seems you have run out of rebuttal and have turned to insult. It’s amusing to watch.

              As for physical proof NB post 69 where I asked you for some and you failed to deliver. Why not take this opportunity to amend that?

              And if you do happen to have some ‘physical proof’ that circumcision is necessarily bad do share it quickly. It would help resolve this issue.

            6. I think that chopping off someone’s head looks very sexy. I guess it’s okay if I decapitate you then because I find it attractive.

              And what is this nuance of meaning you speak of?

            7. As you can easily read above, my point wasn’t that if something is sexy it’s OK. So, moving on…

              As for our little forcing debate, well, you explicitly state in #32 that feeding a baby and changing its nappy amounts to forcing. (I happen to disagree, but let’s play by your definition/usage to be fair.)

              I assume you think this kind of behaviour is OK? In which case you also agree that forcing a baby is OK.

              However your argument up till now seems to be that circumcision is bad for the very reason that it is forced on the baby.

              But according to your own comments in #32, it’s a parent’s duty to force things on their baby (such things as hygiene and so on). Do you see the trouble now with sticking so vehemently to such a rigid definition?

              This is not to say it makes circumcision right – but simply that this reason, as long as we stick with your definition, cannot be the reason it’s wrong.

              Now, my point about potty training etc was not especially to equate those things with circumcision – but rather to show that the word ‘force’ doesn’t sit comfortably with the definition you have given because using the same word for both feeding/cleaning and circumcision implies they ARE the same thing – exactly what you accuse me of doing (#56)!

              [quote]It’s medically necessary sometimes, but overall, it’s not good. It’s like amputating any other part of the body; circumcision should only be done if it has to be[/quote]

              As you will see from my post #78 I am pretty much in agreement with you: that circumcision should not be done unless necessary, so I hope we can share that thought at least.

            8. According to my comments in #58 I said forcing was a grey area, which you agreed with. Did you forget you agreed with me? And no, using the word force to describe both circumcision and feeding does NOT equate them (have you ever tried to feed a baby something it doesn’t want to eat? It’s not as bad as circumcision but I think you could agree a certain amount of force is required). If I use the word “sport” to describe both football and baseball, does that make them the same thing? At this point I’m convinced you are slightly retarded.

              In any case, thank you for at least agreeing with me that circumcision is a last case scenario operation. Maybe we agreed all along but got caught up in semantics?

            9. Not at all. It IS a grey area which is why in my post above I take care to state whose definition of forcing we were using.

              However in the post you reference (the numbers unhelpfully change each time a post is inserted) the grey area being discussed is not at that point the definition of forcing specifically but “whether or not we can take decisions for a baby” and ‘the kinds of decisions which are and have to be taken” Small point but perhaps worth making.

              So now we’re quibbling over the meaning of equate :-) If you re-read my post you answered you’ll see I wrote this: “my point about potty training etc was not especially to equate those things with circumcision” so I think we are in agreement.

              In fact, you are the one who has suggested I was equating them when I demonstrably didn’t. What I did do was say that the fact we can and should force a baby to eat or be washed means the ‘forcing’ part of circumcision ALONE cannot be bad according to YOUR definition of forcing.

              And again I reiterate, “This is not to say it makes circumcision right – but simply that this reason, as long as we stick with your definition, cannot be the reason it’s wrong.”

              (Trying to point score with the ‘retarded’ quip doesn’t really help does it? I thought we were having a good discussion here… Remember you are the one who said feeding and circumcision were both forcing. That was because they share the property of non-explicit consent. Likewise football and baseball share properties, that is why they are both sports. Tangental I think.)

              I think we agree on the basic idea (but maybe do not sit at EXACTLY the same point on the spectrum – but at least towards the same end). However I disagree with the reasons for your stance and that, I think, is why we are debating.

              I would be delighted if we could come to a conclusion that circumcision was definitely bad and should therefore be banned. it would make everything so much easier.

              Trouble is, no argument saying that is watertight. And I do think it is worth testing arguments rather than accepting them blindly.

      2. PenboyX2,

        One thing I learned in a career of teaching is to never assume I had the final answer, and, especially, never to talk down to my students. They could, and often did, disprove something I thought was absolutely true. It got especially embarrassing when Wikipedia came along and all of my students had Internet access during class. I started saying, “I’m not sure about that — could someone look it up?” a lot more often. We’d usually get the answer, or at least a good discussion going, within twenty seconds.

        I submit that the basic flaw in your argument is that the U.S. Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. There have been all kinds of rulings on the Establishment clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
        The clearest violation to me is the “In God We Trust” on every piece of money the U.S. Mint produces, but the Supreme Court has ruled that that is permissible. (I’m definitely not included in that “We”. Matter of fact, I’m really looking forward to tomorrow when all the religious assholes get “raptured”.)

        If the Supreme Court says that circumcision is, or is not, protected by the Establishment Clause, then that is what the U.S. Constitution “says”, at least until a later Supreme Court overturns the decision.

        1. Scott:

          What about “under god” now in our Pledge of Allegiance? Another clear subversion of our Constitution. Just because the “justices ruled” that it wasn’t doesn’t make it better in my eyes when I can read the words of our First Amendment. And actually, they didn’t rule on the true merits of this case — they only ruled on “legal standing” of the Atheist father — so they made it very convenient not to rule on the actual religious issue (because every one of them that ruled that way was religious).

          What about our Supreme Court Justices “traditional” Red Mass in every October?

          What about every mention of god and anything else religious in just about every speech some politician makes (god bless …….)?

          Just a few examples showing the blending of religion and government. And, btw, none of our justices are even remotely infallible.

          And I never mentioned anything about the Supreme Court in that post — it was all about the Constitution/Amendment.

          1. I agree with your examples completely. It always amazes me how much religion pervades American politics, in spite of our supposedly strict separation of church and state.

            By the way, it’s Saturday morning local time on May 21st as I write this post, and there are no earthquakes or missing people yet. I’m still hoping. I really want those “Christian” assholes out of here.

    6. I don’t see how banning circumcision of babies is an infringement on freedom of religion. Since the babies in question have not yet decided which religion they want to follow. It’s more like violating their freedom of religion.

      Also forced circumcision means violating the right to an unharmed and unmodified body (dont know how you call it in english “körperliche unversehrtheit”). Obviously everyone should be able to do anything to their bodys she or he wants as soon as they have reached adulthood.

    7. “no one is being forced”
      “the rest do it by choice”

      sure, all these little creatures who just want to cuddle and have some milk wake up one morning and scream I WANT A KNIFE NEAR MY DICK NOW PLEASE <33

      epic fail o.o

    8. Just to be clear, a “complication-free” circumcision meets the dictionary definition of mutilation. Sorry if you don’t like that word, but that’s what it is. However, religious-based ritual mutilation has been part of humanity for thousands of years, and is part of the Jewish tradition. And it is indeed religious-based ritual mutilation.

      Unless, of course, you believe that evolution has been wrong, and foreskin showing up on every male penis for hundreds of thousands of years is “unnecessary.” If that’s the case, they’ll disappear on their own, and we won’t need to have this discussion anymore.

      1. You might have missed where this was discussed at length. It’s not ‘clear’ at all. Sorry.

        1. Yes, it’s very clear …. you’re just too argumentative and ignorant to understand.

          1. Oh, I’ll just shut up then. You should have said sooner.

            I’m glad we have someone as intelligent as you to work out and tell us exactly what is right and wrong.

            Perhaps you should go into politics? You’d be like the other politicians in more ways than this alone…

    9. Thom you are correct. there is no evidence that it actually causes harm. personally i think i an uncircumsized penis is pretty funky looking,.not sexually attracting to me nearly as much as a cut penis. there is no comparison..i will go one step further and say uncut penises are pretty ugly to me.
      i know i am going to get a lot of hate towards me, but thats just my personal preference. i think they should leave this alone and let the curtting continue if the parents want it. they should not be made to look like they hurt their baby or feel guilty for doing it… i am going right now to thank my mother for cutting off that gross piece of skin.
      now people leave us alone. if we wanna cut it , then by all means leave it at that ok?
      peace guys.

      1. Well, if you don’t think cutting off a huge number of nerve endings and reducing the sensitivity of the glans as well as the potential of having a very messed up circumcision – all for absolutely no good reason – are not harmful, you probably are not qualified to make that decision. The fact that you said “gross piece of skin” does not help your argument. It just makes me think you’re one of those people that thinks “well it’s my opinion so it’s right for everyone”. When there are a lot of people, that would rather have their foreskin back.

        By the way, have you ever seen a video of a baby being circumcised? I suggest you do, it might make you rethink the whole “not making the parents think they hurt the baby” thing. Quite honestly, I’d feel pretty bad about making my child go through that for a pointless surgery.

  2. “Easier to clean” is neither here nor there in the argument I dont think – whether your cut or not, if you don’t clean then your likely to get an infection. Although I will concede being uncut apparently entails a higher propensity for infection if not adequately maintained. that being said, I’m uncut and have never had a problem before. Isn’t the issue more to do with the desensitivity of the glans as a result of being permanently exposed? I have read that the positives that are proposed for male circumcision have a dearth of evidence to support them (eg cleaner), but I think the desensitivity issue is an important one. I would draw a parallel between that and say part removal of a womans clitoris. The rationale behind the idea doesn’t seem too logical if the evidence doesn’t support the proposed benefits of circumcision. I do agree though that a ban is not necessary or just, but effective dissemination of the evidence would be a much better option.

  3. Except people are forced to get a circumcision. Or do you think a baby can give consent? The parents give consent to do it, yes, but it’s not their lives they’re interfering with.

    1. Does a baby choose what it eats, wears, learns &c.? Of course parents act in loco parentis for everything from aesthetics to medical concerns…

      1. Yes, no and yes. A baby can spit food if he don’t like or ignore something… And as an adult he can decide what to wear regardless of what he used to wear… what he can’t do is get uncircumcised…

        1. “And as an adult he can decide what to wear regardless of what he used to wear”

          Then he’s no longer a baby, right? So, as a baby, his options are pretty severely limited. And sometimes that “spitting” doesn’t get him very far with some parents.

        2. THANK YOU! I hate when people make an argument comparing mundane choices like eating, or picking clothing to permanent body modification and try say both are on the same footing.

          1. Offering an analogy is not the same as saying things are of equal dimension.

            But you might like to look back through the blog to see that picking clothes is not considered by many people here to be a mundane choice ;-)

            1. An analogy is typically something of equal dimension as the purpose of the activity is to compare and clarify.

              Your second point is true, but even in the worst of situations clothing can be shed. You can wear thousands of pieces of clothing in your life time, but you only have ONE penis. It can only be circumcised once and never fully undone.

            2. That’s not true. The items compared in an analogy share some properties – that’s what makes it an analogy – but dimension does not have to be one of them.

              You are to me like the sun is to the world &c.

            3. The sun of of equal importance to the Earth as one person is to you. A new pair of shoes is not the same as genital mutlation.

              TRY HARDER.

            4. I hate internet debates that start random tangent debates on totally unrelated things. The point here is comparing choosing cosmetic surgery for a baby to choosing what to feed a baby are not in the same ball park. I dont care what you think an analogy is, if you agree that the two are different, then your already agreeing with my point.

            5. They’re potentially not the same thing, certainly, but if we are trying to establish a principle about whether or not we can take decisions for a baby we need to probe around the kinds of decisions which are and have to be taken.

            6. It’s a grey area though. The answer is that you need to both make decisions for your child and let him make his own. Can you see the difference between giving your child food/medicine and cutting off part of his penis that contains an abundance of nerves? If not, then I feel very sorry for you.

            7. I’m very glad to see someone acknowledge that this is a grey area. Generally people (on both sides of the argument) who only see things in black and white stop the debate from progressing.

              However the way you have expanded ‘circumcision’ into a very loaded phrase clearly demonstrates you have already made up your mind that circumcision is a BAD thing in and of itself.

              This, too, is an extremely grey area and it cannot be taken for granted in the way you are doing. You need only see the posts of the circumcised on this thread to see that circumcision is not NECESSARILY bad.

              If you agree to that (even leaving it grey) perhaps we can progress our debate?

            8. It’s medically necessary sometimes, but overall, it’s not good. It’s like amputating any other part of the body; circumcision should only be done if it has to be.

            9. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with circumcision. Just as I see absolutely nothing wrong with any form of body modification- tattoos, piercings, plastic surgery, etc…

              BUT I do have a problem when individuals force any form of body modification on a non-consenting minor/baby. All the reasons in the world for or against circumcision are not even relevant. This is a moral/individual respect issue.

  4. There are a lot of parts on your body you could get rid of without causing any “harm”. Nails? Hair? Your pinky finger? If you think about how often you have to go to the barber or clip your nails you might as well get rid of that stuff as well.

    And by all means, if you want to mutilate your body for whatever mundane reason, go for it. But don’t decide for your children. Their body, their decision. You don’t get to enact your religious freedom on other people.

      1. By which I mean have them accompany me until they are old enough to be left alone? Or should I hire a baby sitter while I indulge in spirituality?

      2. No.. you should not be “allowed” to “make” your children go to church. Give them a fuckin’ choice….

        1. I see. And if I take a left-wing newspaper should, when my child can read, I also buy a right-wing paper to make sure they are not indoctrinated?

          Besides, as mentioned above, this is not really a religious debate. Religious circumcisions as far as I know represent a minority.

          1. Here is something you may consider… Your God gave males foreskins… we are born with them. Did he do this just so we could cut them off to prove our faith in Him. Is that what your God does? Is he that insecure?

            1. ‘rejected':
              Very well put. I love it when the religious put their feet in their mouth with the very words they supposedly ‘worship.’

            2. It’s just that My God loves me unconditionaly… and I’m uncut… and gay… (just thought I throw that in for fun)

      3. “So I am not allowed to make my children go to church?”

        That’s pretty much it, isn’t it? FORCE THAT FUCKING CHILD IN A CHURCH. Yeah, that’s your answer for “religious freedom.”

        That is singularly one of the absolute worst aspects of any and all religions. SHOVE THAT FUCKING RELIGION DOWN THEIR TINY THROATS AND SLAP THEIR SMALL FACES SILLY IF THEY SHOULD CRY OUT IN ANY “CHURCH.”

        If that’s your reason, that’s fucking disgusting.

        “Religious circumcisions as far as I know represent a minority.”

        And you don’t know very much. Religious circumcisions are considerably more than just a “minority.”

        1. Why the foul language? And where does the slapping come from?

          Tell me, PenboyX2, if you ever had to go to a church do you think people would be able to make you believe?

          Oh, you obviously know the statistics, why don’t you post them?

          (NB Something can’t be ‘considerably more than just a minority’. Do you mean a majority?)

          1. I can not speak for PenboyX2, but I know as a child when I was forced to go to church, I witnessed children being slapped simply for fidgeting in the pews. Scared the shit out of me. I couldn’t wait to leave…

            1. ‘rejected':
              Yes, that was pretty much with my mother and me also — she would either slap me on my hand/wrist (if she felt/could get away with it physically) or just give me the “LOOK” — the silent statement of “Just you wait until we get home.” Which now not only succeeded in making me hate the church but the first hour after getting home. Within religious families, they find more reverence in that idiotic religion than they do in their own families. In anyone’s book, that is forcing and brainwashing. No child should have to deal with that — ever! I feel so badly for all the millions of children in all the stupid islam/muslin/(whatever else you want to call them) religions.

              I was bounced around between catholic and different “flavors” of baptist and probably a couple of other types from very young through military. I finally got the courage in the military to stop going and when the ‘chaplain’ (a high ranking officer) “asked” me, I flatly told him I’m sick of this shit and stop bothering me with all that bullshit.

      4. No, you are not. You should not indoctrinate people who are vulnerable with “religion” as that’s not how faith works. Let them believe what they want to believe, not what they are forced to believe!

        1. I’m afraid that’s not how faith works, either. Taking someone to church is not the same as forcing them to believe.

          1. “Taking someone to church is not the same as forcing them to believe.”

            You really have no idea what indoctrination/brainwashing is (or, more accurately, conveniently refuse to accept that is exactly what taking a child to any “church” is — who would have no possible true understanding of any of it for at least 10 years).

            Taking them to any church under those circumstances is exactly that: forcing and brainwashing. And why do you think you need to go to church anyway while bringing up a young child — and just use that as some lame excuse for “babysitting?” How about you and the others just stay at home and focus more on learning and social skills a child actually needs?

            If a child isn’t allowed to have the education of no religion any time during his growing up, then taking him/her to any one church/religious place is exactly that: forcing and brainwashing that child.

            You really need to learn exactly what individual freedoms are all about. Forcing a boy to have a circumcision before puberty is not allowing him his freedom to choose.

            1. This is pretty lame arguing. I’ll just say ‘you really have no idea’ what going to church actually entails in my culture – I can tell you really don’t from what you have written – so we’ll just have to leave it at that. You’re not equipped with the necessary experience to progress the debate further in this field. Never mind.

            2. In this case I have to support TCave. It simply isn’t possible to raise your child without influencing it one way or the other.
              Influencing someone isn’t the same as brainwashing though. Personally I don’t think parents should make their children believe what they believe but on the other hand if you are a true believer you will think raising you child as a christian for example means acting in it’s own good.

              Just to clarify this, I never went to church with my parents and I’m not religious.

          2. Telling them they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe is emotional coercion, especially in small children that take their parents and other adults words at face value. If you tell someone ‘this is the right thing’ all the time while they are young, that is indoctrination. Not to mention the strong emotional conflict some people feel as they become older and find they don’t believe the religion they were taught, so surely they must be a horrible person that’s going to hell.

            About the only time when circumcision is at all valid purely as a medical procedure (seeing as you’re so eager to talk down how many are for religious reasons) is when a male has phimosis, and even then there are alternatives. It’s worth noting though, its fairly normal for the skin to not retract at a young age, and as such a phimosis diagnosis would be difficult in an infant. A circumcised phallus has considerably less sensation, in part from the exposed glans rubbing against underwear material.

            I’m not necessarily advocating a ban, but your arguments are weak. You strongest is possibly your argument against it being mutilation, but even that is just an appeal to popular sentiment. Multiple people have outlined ways in which function is impaired, too. Also, I would reject your wikipedia-based definition, and substitute another from dictionary.com, because, you see, based on the word’s derivation the wikipedia definitions requirement for mutilation to impair form or function is questionable. The definition I feel is more accurate is that mutilation is “to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts”. the difference is mainly important semantics, but given that your argument is based on that definition, the semantics are rather important. If you were to question whether circumcision caused irreparable damage, I would argue that even the loss of sensation is enough to constitute irreparable damage.

            1. I enjoyed your comments, Joshua. Very interesting to read.

              I’ve never encountered a religion with such a Boschian interpretation of hell. I’m sure they exist, but all contemporary religion I have come across would condemn that kind of hellfire emotional coercion with as much (if not more strength) than you.

              There are, regardless, many things we teach children are right or necessary growing up which are then open to later reinterpretation. I would say there is a very fine line between teaching and indoctrination.

              I appreciate the switch away from the religious side of things and I agree that, as far as I know, the medical justifications for circumcision are few – although there are more than just phimosis. I wonder where you found your control for the sensitivity of phalluses? I can believe maybe some sensation would be lost – but I would have thought minimal and you don’t hear of many circumcised men complaining about unsatisfactory sex. Maybe they are out there somewhere.

              Re definition of mutilation, fair enough, wikipedia is not the finest source – although I find the definition quite workable in this instance. Of course a word like mutilate has many different nuances of meaning and it is possible to hunt down a definition which suits one’s argument.

              But even with your definition, many would say that circumcision neither injures nor disfigures nor makes imperfect. Some would say the very opposite.

              Quibbling aside, mutilation is picked by the anti-circumcision crew because it’s a very emotive word with potent connotations. We think of gangland punishments and torture.

              If you asked the man on the street whether he feels ‘mutilated’, I don’t think many would agree. Some, of course, but scarcely any.

              As for my arguments being weak, which ones? I’ve posted a lot on here on tangental details but I haven’t really taken the main issue head on.

              I am actually against circumcision mainly for the simple reason of why bother? I don’t, personally, buy into the supposed advantages so I think it’s a royal waste of time. But nor do I buy the reasons that suggest an outright ban.

              The thing I do feel strongly about is the unnecessary law proposal and the use of public vote.

              I’d like to see a drop in circumcisions achieved through better education and professional pressure; but I think it’s perfectly reasonable for circumcision to occur in some circumstances.

  5. Every single uncircumcised fellow I have been with was absolutely confident that he was careful to keep himself clean, and equally confident that he was completely presentable at the moment.
    and every single uncircumcised fellow I have been with had a bad odour and bad taste problem.
    They had no idea that they were gag-inducing!
    I will always prefer cut !

    1. Shouldn’t the parents do their job and teach their children to clean them selfs instead of getting the highway? This isn’t the middle-ages, we have knowledge and structures(pipe lines, etc) to keep it clean… At lest until the boy is old enough to chose…

    2. I will admit, I have never been with a cut guy before. But I have gone down on girls and intact guys. And the two guys i have given head to had NO bad taste what-so-ever.

      But really, why does this matter. Most girls taste HORRIBLY down there, yet we dont advocate the removal of parts of their lady bits.

      If you cant deal with some funny tastes now and again, then you really should not be having sex in the first place. Its natural. Deal with it.

      1. “If you cant deal with some funny tastes now and again,”

        That’s what I told myself after I’ve left a few restaurants here!

        Sorry, but I couldn’t help myself, that statement is so funny! ….. —> ….. Back to your regular scheduled circumcision debate. :)

    3. This reminds me of a Lou Reed lyric: “that miserable rotten slut couldn’t turn anyone away”…
      But who am I to make presumptions? :)

  6. This is an issue that really stirs up debate. Personally I prefer the appearance of a circumcised penis but that is probably due to conditioning as I grew up in the USA where being cut was the norm until recently. I am troubled about a ban, speaking as someone with Jewish ancestors it seems to infringe on freedom of religion and negates the potential health benefits (I know there are benefits in not being circumcised as well). I have no problem with good parental education on the pros and cons of the practice and then letting them make their own decision. I am against circumcision without anesthetic as was the case in ritual circumcision in the past.

    1. But shouldnt a guy decide what happens to his own body? Doesn’t seem at least slightly illogical that this decision is made by people that will have little to no contact or involvement with the penis? Shouldn’t the owner make those choices? Especially considering this is such a hot button issue with relitively reasonable arguments on both sides? Why should parents be involved at all?

  7. well for the pleasure aspect, uncut ftw!

    as for the odor and smell, take a shower or two, and wash? not exceedingly difficult :P

    1. But apparently it IS that difficult – the uncut fellows I have been with thought they HAD washed & were confident they were clean enough.
      And 100% of them had a very unpleasant odour and a boner killing taste. It might be a case of not being able to smell your own stink???
      I don’t know, but I have never experienced the same thing with fellows that were cut.

      1. Uncut Guy here. Must say, I know very well when I smell and when I don’t, and getting under there in the shower every day is not hard. I just think some guys idea of ‘clean’ is…well, poor.

        A drop of listerine on your bell end can solve the odour and taste problem, too. (Top tip)…obviously you have your own personal bottle of listerine though :)

        As for the actual subject, I think it should be left til the kid is old enough to decide for his self. End of.

      2. Part of the foreplay I have with my BF is to wash each others uncut penis’ , it’s fun!! Try it… (Just use a warm face washer, not a cold one.)

  8. If you’re an adult I believe you have the right to get circumsized if you so choose. However I believe people should be prevented from mutilating their children’s penis. They’re children, they don’t know what they want! When I was younger I used to believe in god and now I don’t. Praise science that I didn’t mutilate myself before it was too late!

  9. Some studies have indicated that the incidence of AIDS was up to 60% less frequent among those tribes in Africa that practiced circumcision. This is a relationship that has been noted around the world to a greater or lesser degree.

    1. This relationship is highly uncertain, there are a lot of studies which have reported no preventive effect and there’s quite some criticism on studies that say there is a preventive effect.
      Apart from that there’s only speculation about how this preventive effect could happen. I think saying that circumcision provides protection against HIV is misleading and discourages safe practice.

      1. Not sure how you draw that conclusion, Josh, the article you link to says:

        “Whether or not circumcision of adult males in the United States, notably men who have sex with men, will influence the incidence of HIV in this country remains a matter of debate.”

        But I agree that the HIV argument lacks weight. I think it is rather ancillary.

    2. And the studies done of guys who have had their cocks cut off and their assholes stitched shut had 100% less incidence of AIDS. OK, you fucking wise ass? You go cut your cock off and sew your asshole shut. Simple!

  10. Circumcised American here… I strongly resent my own circumcision and the unsightliness of the scar it’s left behind. TBH, while it may sound a bit dramatic, I rather feel robbed of experiences I’ll never have. Sure, sex is fun, but who says it wouldn’t be MORE fun if some asshole hadn’t said “fuck it, hack it off… it’ll still work!”

    As far as the religious excuse for genital dismemberment is concerned, how does “freedom of religion” trump a minor’s right to make non-emergency medical decisions for himself? Just because a kid could still walk reasonably well if you cut off a few toes doesn’t mean the hospital would accommodate that decision… why should they make that exception for the penis?? Secondly, it pisses me off even more that this practice has pervaded non-religious customs in the U.S. because if you HAVE to cut half a boy’s dick off, you should at least have some crazy millenia-old tradition to explain why you made his penis half as fun as it should be….

    1. You also should ask how “freedom of religion” can overlap the “freedom of religion” of others… Don’t kids have freedom of religion? Isn’t that discrimination by age? What about that equal rights mambo jambo that no one follows?

    2. “Circumcised American here… I strongly resent my own circumcision and the unsightliness of the scar it’s left behind. TBH, while it may sound a bit dramatic, I rather feel robbed of experiences I’ll never have. Sure, sex is fun, but who says it wouldn’t be MORE fun if some asshole hadn’t said “fuck it, hack it off… it’ll still work!”

      You’re buying into a popular Internet mythology wherein you are made to feel inferior, mutilated and lacking of sublime sensitivity because of circumcision. Unless the job was totally botched by the doctor, that guilt ridden thinking is pure bullshit. Never in my life have I looked backed and said, “Gee, If only I still had my foreskin so I could have had more spontaneous erections as a teen. Or, that my dick was even more sensitive so that premature ejaculation was my norm.

      And I don’t buy the argument that since the glans are unprotected from foreskin with a circumcision, the become more sensitive. Besides the naysayers report that without the foreskin, the glans dry out and become less sensitive.

      I think the true answer with respect to the actual functional part of this debate, lies in those who have had the procedure as teens/adults. I know two young adults who were circumcised as teens. Both say they are more sensitive now after the surgery and healing were over. Hmmmmm……….

          1. Perhaps sensitivity was a poor foundation for an argument, as that will always be subjective… the ethics of the whole practice are still very fucking dubious. Ethics aside, margins for error and chances of infection in medical procedures, however low, still exist for the sake of parental preference (NSFW): http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched.html
            So, if you’re circumcised and your junk works fine, remember there’s some kid out there who falls under the .01% of “sorry your dick is ruined but your parents asked for it..”

            1. I went to summer camps where I literally got to see thousands of boys naked over the yrs-whether they wanted to be seen or not. Also all the yrs of many sports. I never saw a cut penis with a ‘botched’ job. Granted, I’m sure it happened. But there are more serious things to worry about than botched circumcisions. As been said, the medical community should take a stand on this if it’s just a cosmetic concern for baby boys.

  11. Proud to be uncut and from Germany.
    Americans boys would look at me in the showers and just stare because they’d never seen someone uncircumcised back when I was in school.
    Proud to keep this ‘tip’. :)

  12. Very few males in America were circumcised a hundred years ago. Late in the 19th century “experts” in the field said that circumcision would reduce the incidence of that known evil, masturbation! This caught hold like so much other fiction in the minds of Americans and became routine.

    I say stop doing routine circumcisions. It’s barbaric. They also used to say that you should have your tonsils out so you didn’t get a sore throat. Lots of insanity passes as wisdom. This forum is not exempt from it. Nor is the medical profession which changes its stance on things with alarming frequency.

    Remember, just a few years ago, homosexuality was a known mental disease and categorized as such by psychiatry.

  13. While in high school I was facinated by my boyfriend’s beautiful, uncut penis. I also loved his smell but I guess he must have been unusual in that regard. I wouldn’t know as he was my only boyfriend but I do know he had an etremely rare and sensual skin scent overall. His girlfriends often talked about his sexy scent. He actually took secret pride in this which I happily supported.

  14. Cut guy here. I have been an advocate of a total ban on circumcision for all except medical reasons for some years.
    The religious argument is invalid. The child’s right not to be mutilated for the parent’s religious view, over rules the parent’s right to choose how to raise their child.
    The child is not Jewish. He is a child of Jewish parents. Only when he reaches a legally defined age of majority can he choose his religion and the trappings that go with it.
    Female circumcision, as practised by some African tribes, is illegal here in the UK and I guess in most Western countries. It is done purely for religious reasons. What is the difference then with a ban on male circumcision?

    1. As mentioned above the religious argument is only a small part of this. However, re children not being born jews, it’s not quite as clear cut (?) as with Christianity due to the inextricable linking of religion and race in this instance. There are many Jews who would dispute your claim.

      More on topic is the point about mutilation. Again, as discussed above, there are pretty thin grounds for calling this mutilation.

      Female circumcision IS quite different in terms of its physical effects (and we must recognize there are different kinds) and anyone who claims otherwise does not know their shizzle.

      Moreover, that female circumcision, even when religious, is banned while male circumcision isn’t demonstrates that the fact male c. is permitted is nothing to do with religious freedom.


  15. Rimmer:

    By all means celebrate who you are and what you can’t change … but how is circumcision *not* genital mutilation? It mutilates the genitals. Period. They could have made your armpits easier to clean by cutting off your arms as soon as you were born, or your ass easier to wipe by cutting off your legs and buttocks. By all means celebrate who you are – but don’t go allowing the genital mutilation of minors in order to do so.

    you are so correct. i couldnt have said it better…

    1. I reiterate:

      “Mutilation [...] is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.”

      Since many people would claim that circumcision improves BOTH appearance AND function, circumcision as mutilation is rather tenuous.

      1. I presume your tirade against foreskin is due to your jealousy of it and your inferiority for not having it?

        1. Not at all.

          And I’m afraid this thread is rather messy and hard to follow – but I am basically anti-circumcision.

  16. The American Academy of Pediatrics has published policy statements dating from the 70’s that state there is no medical need for neonatal circumcision with a presentation of normal anatomy. Since I completed my residency, I have seen a gradual decrease in boys being circumcised at birth; the tide does appear to be turning.

    1. I think this is the right way to go about reducing circumcision – from within the profession – as mentioned above. It’s worked very well in the UK.

      I think coming in heavy handed with laws and stirring up a great big religious debate is rather an obtuse way of going about it.

      1. “I think coming in heavy handed with laws and stirring up a great big religious debate is rather an obtuse way of going about it.”

        If religion never had anything to do with it, then your flimsy reasoning just might hold some water.

        1. I don’t follow. If religion had nothing to do with it my argument in that post wouldn’t exist.

          I will add, though, it’s not just the religious aspects of the debate which are regrettable.

  17. Here in Chile it’s more rare to see circumciced boys… the common thing is to keep your foreskin ’til you’re an adult, and then decide if you’d rather cut it off

  18. Doctors pledge to “do no harm” yet circ IS harm.
    Permanent harm.
    Perhaps someday a boy will file a lawsuit at the Dr. who cut him claiming child abuse. [frankly, it is...]
    And then it would be nice if he won.
    Then see how fast those doctors will stop performing those stupid ”routine” circumcisions.

    1. I really like that idea Dewboy! Take the doctors to court on child abuse charges. Perfect. Let them rot in jail for their cutting mania too.

      1. You need a brain transplant TCave. And in your case, it wouldn’t make any difference if it were successful or unsuccessful.

        1. I take it you’ve resorted to insulting me because you can’t contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.

          And what do you mean, it wouldn’t make a difference if it were unsuccessful? Are you saying you think I would be just as well off dead? Because I asked a valid question in a meaningful debate?

          I’m so glad I don’t live in the US.

    2. Yep. Blame the doctors for performing a procedure that was asked for by the parents.

      This is non-nonsensical, and would cause more harm to the medical profession than it would help.

      1. Doctors refuse to do procedures that are requested by parents all the time…or at least the good ones do. Most parents aren’t medically trained so it’s up to the doctor to say, “the benefit it not work the risk, I won’t do that”.

        The big upset in the media today is over a woman that claimed to have injected her daughter with Botox. I can guarantee you if a doctor did that, they’d lose their license and brought up on charges.

        1. That doesn’t change the fact that blaming the doctor for performing a perfectly acceptable (to society..maybe not to you) procedure is counter-productive.

          You need to be more concerned with educating parents, rather than prosecuting doctors.

      2. OK, there is a woman that fried her kid in the microwave. That’s just honky-dory too! Fuck your medical profession. It was only a few decades ago the medical profession was telling parents that masturbation caused insanity and a big shitload of other lies.

  19. Another issue probably best dealt with by raising awareness, discussion, and letting families make decisions based on facts and tradition. Trying to enforce things like this by laws is very dysfunctional, in my opinion.

    Personally, I’m not uncircumcised, and happy about it. But certain religions and traditions hold circumcision to be very important. There are health benefits that can be argued both ways.

    I think what should probably end is automatic circumcision by certain hospitals; and better communication between health care providers and parents about making the decision.

    Stewart

  20. Years ago I met the most exquisitely handsome youth one can imagine – more so, in fact, a veritable Apollonian Alkibiades, with the torso of a god [etc], but he said I could only sleep with him if I could muster 12 inches. At first I thought goddamn it and felt stultified, but then I had 3 inches removed by circumcision and we got on fine …

  21. How is this even an issue? There should be a NATIONAL BAN on infant circumcision. Its a cultural/ religious tradition of ADULTS forced on non-consenting minors, babies!

    I dont care what your opinion of circumcision is (it really does not matter). The rights of ALL boys need to be respected. And having the ability to decide if you want your body modified in a unnatural way is seems like a very basic right to me. We already protect girls from this stuff. Sure if there is a medical need (IF) then that would be allowed.

    Such a ban would not prevent ADULTS from practicing their faith, BUT it would respect the rights of children and their ability to make their on choices on religion as well.

    1. Imagine your child is born with an extra, lame arm coming out of its neck.

      You as parent have the option of having it amputated since if it is done at birth it will be less invasive.

      Would you?

      1. “child is born with an extra, lame arm coming out of its neck.”

        Is it possible for you come up with any more lame analogies?

      2. Foreskin is not in any way useless. Talking even purely in terms of sexual pleasure, a foreskin can have a most pleasant sensation when played with. It’s also not a mutation or abnormality. Tattooing was a better analogy than any you have come up with, because circumcision is, ultimately, in most cases purely body modification for aesthetic reasons.

      3. You cant really compare the natural structure of the penis to a freakish mutation, and say if you would cut off one, why not the other.

        In my eyes thats like you saying “Well if you are going to cut off the third arm on his neck, why not also cut off one of his main arms too?”

        The foreskin is a natural part of the body just like any other body part.

        1. You are also assuming the point that I haven’t yet made. But are saying you WOULD cut off the arm, then?

            1. I had a question to ask which would lead, potentially, to a point.

              I asked the question.

              No one’s answered so I can’t go any further.

              You’ve managed to reply twice without answering so you’re obviously playing silly games and aren’t really interested in what I have to say.

            2. Huh? I already answered your question. This is called a discussion. Its a back and forth. You asked a question I gave a response to that.

              I am here to discuss this topic, and exchange ideas, not to say things in a very specific way so I can help set up some predetermined response you have been waiting to give.

              It seems you are the one “playing games”. Now its clear from my previous response what I would do in that situation. So please proceed to make your point, and maybe even try to incoperate other parts of this discussion so far so your point does not come out too stale.

            3. - I don’t see where you reply to the question I asked. Its not clear what your answer is at all. I’m not being awkward I really can’t see. Unless you expect me to read between the lines when you try and rubbish my comparison before I have even made it.

              – Since you claim you don’t want to see my allegedly redetermined response, why did you write ‘If you have a point, why haven’t you made it?’ It is hardly a trap is it?

              – Again, rather than simply answer to let things progress you are playing silly games. If you do actually care about the discussion rather than some strange kind of one-upmanship, why not cooperate?

              – No, asking a specific question to understand how people think on a particular issue is not playing silly games. It is trying to pursue the issue with as much clarity of thought as possible. I am sure we share this aim.

            4. Seriously? You really cant understand that me saying
              ” You cant really compare the natural structure of the penis to a freakish mutation, and say if you would cut off one, why not the other.”

              I called a arm coming out of the neck as a freakish mutation.

              To make this super clear
              MY ANSWER: Yes I would have surgery to remove a third arm coming out of his neck.

              Now please, continue.

            5. Right, well in your original post you said:

              “The rights of ALL boys need to be respected. And having the ability to decide if you want your body modified in a [sic] unnatural way is seems like a very basic right to me.”

              Cutting off the extra limb is simply that, modifying the body in an unnatural way.

              (You will probably quibble over the meaning of the word ‘natural’, now, but I hope it doesn’t come to that. I think you ought to be able to see my point. Extra limbs – and many other deformities at birth – easily result from natural mutation or other natural causes. Before you say it, that sentence is not to suggest I think the foreskin is a deformity. That is beside the point (and a big kettle of fish about cultural perceptions of normality). Anyway there are other instances, too, starting from a ‘normal’ body where for whatever reason a similar decision for surgical intervention might have to be taken.)

              You will possibly also quibble over the fact that these aren’t the ‘same thing’. Well, on the one hand one might argue that cutting off a whole extra limb is a considerably more invasive procedure. I’ll willingly say that is open to rebuttal.

              Before you do, please note that is not my point.

              My point, I think, is simply this: parents do have the right – assuming, it might be worth adding, they are genuinely trying to act in their child’s interests, and with the guidance of professionals – to take even major decisions – surgical and otherwise – on behalf of their children. (And I picked that example because it was purely a ‘cosmetic’ one – the limb was not medically threatening.)

              And if a normal, loving parent – supported by professional advice – is not in a position to take that decision, I would suggest the government is DEFINITELY not.

              Again, as with the ‘forcing’ debate, this is not to say that circumcision is right – simply that it is not necessarily wrong because it is ‘body modification’ performed without consent.

            6. The point you bring up is a good one. When dealing with human rights, or boldily integrity- you have to ask yourself where is that line? Do we respect the “natural” form? Or do we respect the “standard” form. Trust me when I say I have a LOT of personal life experience in this area as I had a hypo and surgery was done to “fix” that so I would LOOK like the “standard male form” yet loosing the sensitivity, and the natural form that I so desire to have (and had at birth).

              So if your question here is: do I stand to protect the “natural” form or the “standard” form- I would say most certainly the natural form. People vale different things, and they project those values on children when making tough choices. My doctors as a baby saw more value in a body form THEY felt comfortable with rather then respecting where my values about my body. That it why I am against circumcision. Its OTHERS projecting THEIR values of the body on someone who logically, and rightfully should make those choices for themselves about themselves.

              That is why I believe parents DO NOT have the right to make those choices for their children. Simply because there is no logic in NEEDING to circumcise a healthy baby. Now I also understand my beliefs have to bend to reality because we do not live in a simple world. A child who has a 3rd arm coming out of his neck is going to most likely develop growth problems, back, neck issues. Breathing, maybe even eating problems all because of the extra weight/ pressure from a part of the body that was not designed to be there. In that particular case there are very significant reasons why to remove an arm at that age.

  22. I am 100% Anatomically Correct, with all O.E.M. parts intact. Had I been circumcized, I would never have missed my ‘skin’ – not knowing any different. But, anyone who would take it from me now better be bulletproof.

  23. I don’t even think there should be a religious exemption. If you want to be circumcised at 18, more power to you. Years from now, people will look back at the gender mutilation so many people are defending and think how barbarous we all were.

  24. Cut from birth here.

    I consider it was a criminal action but I know that my parents were misinformed.

    Uncut guys who wash at least once daily do not smell. That is a ‘circumstition’ (i.e. a lie!) by the pro-circumcision lobby. I wouldn’t want to suck on a filthy cut bloke’s dick either. Both would need a shower anyway.

    Complications with foreskins requiring circumcision make up a small proportion of intact boys. Many boys die every year from botched circumcisions. Nobody dies from having a foreskin. So why risk killing your child?

    The argument that ‘cut’ is ‘more attractive’ is because ‘cut’ is prevalent in the USA. Of the 80% of intact men in the rest of world, most of them would agree the butchered scar of circumcision is unsightly, so you can’t argue that ‘most’ people find ‘cut’ attractive, except within the States.

    I could go on but seriously, almost every medical institution in the world, including the USA, condemns routine infant circumcision. If you’re cut, like me, just get over it. Life dealt us a bad blow but stop making every other boy pay for it. RIC is abuse, it’s wrong and unless you are a Jew or a Muslim, there is no place for it in a modern, informed society.

    1. I assume you are highlighting that as a good thing?

      Or are there absolutes to be found somewhere? If so, do point them out for the good of humanity. It would be nice to have something we all agree on.

      1. There are absolutes in chemistry, physics, biology. In almost every science there are absolutes. That’s why laws exist. No one can break the law of gravity, for one.

        And moral relativism is neither good or bad, it’s just confusing.

    1. Welcome to international discussions on circumcision where people let what they’re used to cosmetically govern what they think is correct. It only takes a few minutes to see that most people who are defending circumcision are boys who have grown up with it.

      If people prefer cut cocks or uncut cocks, that’s not really a big deal. But cosmetic preferences shouldn’t dictate what we do to children who can’t consent to an unnecessarily invasive procedure. As for religion, we don’t approve of the religious circumcision of girls; we shouldn’t approve of it for boys either.

      Personally, I think all children should remain uncut, then at or after 18 years of age they can make a one-time decision to send a signed consent form back in time to let the delivering doctor know their true wishes.

      1. I don’t think I’m speaking only for myself when I say that pro-circumcision people are not really arguing that it is ‘correct’. I don’t think anyone thinks it should be universal – but should be an option for any of a number of reasons.

        And what is it about the ‘international’ nature of this discussion which makes it different form any other? Americans are renowned for their attachment to cosmetic concerns.

        Besides, the large percentage of Americans who are circumcised as babies are not done so as a direct result of a cosmetic preference. It’s mostly done as a matter of course/based on a snap decision about what is perceived as ‘normal’/’beneficial’. Hence my belief that re-education and pressure from within the profession are the best ways to stop it.

        1. I agree. I’m really tired of the naysayers trying to make me feel inadequate and ‘mutilated’. I can tell you if I had had a ‘fire hose’ growing up, the teasing would have been relentless. Not to mention that there would have been fewer boys to sexually experiment with; abhorred at the sight of my ‘fire hose’.

          In the 80’s there was a resurgence of interest in keeping boys ‘intact’. More recently the doctors have been cutting it off again. There really needs to be a stance from the medical community based on science/hygiene rather than ‘cosmetic’.

  25. As for if circumcision harms a baby or not, I can give you an immediate example. Cut an area 1″ to 1 1/2″ long and 1/8″ thick off of the end of a bratwurst. Now cut an area 1/4″ to 1/2″ long and about 2 to 3 cm thick off a Vienna Sausage.

    How about something a bit more substantial?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990302063210.htm
    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

    So that one says that there is no pressing reason to circumcise boys, and dispels some of the myths of circumcision, such as the cleanliness, which the AAP Society says is suspect. But how about one that hits a bit closer to home:
    http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
    So, how would you like it if you had a newborn baby with your partner, then have it come back dead? Now how would you feel about that seeing as how the procedure was said by the AAP to be unnecessary unless under emergency?

  26. Circumcision reduces the spread of HIV. For some reason, the epidermal makeup of the foreskin allows both better penetration and better passing of HIV virus (and probably other pathogens) both from an infected woman to an uninfected male, and from an infected male to an uninfected woman. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

    Furthermore, according to the fact sheet, “Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men.”

    In regards to what some other commentators here describe as a high risk of complications from circumcision, rates of complication range between 0.2-2%, and I quote: “The most commonly reported complications were pain or mild bleeding. There were no reported deaths or long-term sequelae documented.”

      1. This article describes how circumcision will not help gay and bi men in the Western world, “if only because many of these men are already circumcised.” No offense, but you should read your articles before posting them. Have you read the CDC factsheet? And in response to your comment about it only being effective for men in Africa, why would circumcision only produce a benefit for men in one area of the world?

        1. I’ve not read it, so this is only speculation, but perhaps it works in Africa because of lower levels of genital hygiene (to be expected in areas where clean water is not as abundant as it should be) allows the effect of circumcision to be noticable, where as other areas of the world, where hygiene is far easier, already have genital hygiene that’s optimal.

          TL/DR: the hygenic effects of circumcision are only going to be apparent where hygiene is lacking, and will not show any effect where hygiene is already high.

          Even TL/DR-esque: you don’t need to chop it off if you have the means to clean it.

        2. Sexual practices and general hygiene are the factors that most effect whether one gets an STD.When these types of studies are done, you have to remember who’s doing them.More often than not, the research is conducted manipulatively in order to get the conclusion they desire.

    1. Condoms also reduce the spread of HIV!
      tl;dr, not buying into ridiculous religious contraception bans > cutting off a part of your cock.

    2. As Josh says, the results are found mainly in Africa. While even in Africa there are studies which say there is no benefit of circumcision.
      Circumcision shouldn’t be used as a way to prevent HIV transmission, practising safe sex and the use of condoms should. It’s an unnecessary surgical procedure (if one doesn’t have foreskin related problems) and I’m glad not to live in the US and still have my foreskin.

  27. Does it even matter whether or not it’s mutilation?

    This is a simple issue to answer: it is an unnecessary medical procedure, and therefore should not be done.

    I should hope that any ethical doctor would refuse to perform surgery…which comes with all the inherent risks, however small, of such a procedure…that is being requested for reasons other than the restoration of health.

    Or TL/DR: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And a penis with a foreskin is not broke: it works perfectly fine.

  28. The people who are pro-circumcision come out with the old, “Religious Freedom Debate”, about the Religious right to circumcision. OK. But what of the Religious right of Non Jews and Non Muslims NOT to be circumcised? Where in “God’s Name”, gives them the right to automatically circumcise, for example Christians or Pagans ect after birth? If it’s against the right of Jews and Muslims to be refused the right to be circumcised, then it should be the right of other faiths NOT to be automatically circumcised? In Scotland, it is against the law to automatically circumcise baby boys unless the Parents are Jewish or Muslim, ( and sign agreements to this as well), or the baby boy has a very very tight foreskin, (which requires the consent of BOTH Parents and at least 3 Doctors). Otherwise it isn’t done, certainly not for cosmetic reason, fashion/fad reasons, or because the parents are fucking nuts. Same reason as you can’t Christen your child in Scotland, Popeye, Oliveoil, Shit for Brains or Cunt Features. It’s there for a reason to protect the child’s future. A child, except for Genuine Faith Reasons, should no sooner be circumcised at birth than have a Swastika or Hammer and Sickle tattooed on his arm, or an arrow with “Insert here at 14″, tattooed pointing to his arsehole.

    Whiterabbit.

    1. Did you hear about the parents who got their child taken away for naming him adolf hitler?It’s interesting that an “inappropriate” name, something that can be changed, is unacceptable, but cutting off a part of a child body, something that cannot be changed, IS acceptable.

  29. Any religious argument for circumcision is flawed and needs to be ignored.Religion deserves no consideration in this matter.As rational human beings,we don’t accept human sacrifice on the grounds of religious freedom.Yes, I’m aware human sacrifice can’t be compared with circumcision, but the basis of that argument is that we shouldn’t respect or allow a custom just because it’s religious.Primitive, barbaric practices should be eliminated.

    1. “Any religious argument for circumcision is flawed and needs to be ignored.Religion deserves no consideration in this matter.”

      Absolutely correct! — for this basic reason: Because there is no religion to consider. It’s impossible for any new-born baby to have any religion so therefore it is impossible to take away any religious freedom.

      People need to stop trying to argue that a parent’s religion is in fact their son’s religion when he has absolutely no mental capacity to accept anything religious.

      People also need to realize that 99% of the health/hygiene/cleanliness arguments are simply based on the religious deflecting their religious desires onto a “hygiene bandwagon” because of the intense negative backlash for the religious reasons to mutilate a boy’s penis.

      If you teach your male child how to clean his body and penis and how to urinate properly, it’s doubtful that there will be any hygiene problems with his penis/glans. Females are taught to use tissue to clean after urinating. Uncut boys can be taught the same thing. Only in Seinfeld can you not find a single square of tissue to clean with. :-)

  30. I so hope this passes. I know it wont but I’ll hope anyway. The religious nut bags will start claiming this is a violation of their freedom and either it wont go to vote or it wont get enough support. *sighs* Maybe one day.

  31. I can see how many people might find circumcising infants unfair, but I’ve heard the procedure is actually really painful, so I’m very glad that I was circumcised as an infant, because I would NOT want to go through that as an adult.

    1. It IS very painful as a teen/adult…not so much the surgery of course, but the recovery period. That’s why there really is no argument for doing it as a teen /adult unless it’s to correct a partially retracted and painful foreskin, or some hygiene issue. Doing it for cosmetic reasons at that point is mental.

  32. Excuse me folks, speaking as a (prejudiced obviously) 35 year old Jewish gay male, my cut cock has afforded me countless hours of incredimazing joy over the years.

    Just how much more sensation can there be?

    until they manage to accurately and empiricly measure pleasure directly from the brain, the debate over sensitivity at least will remain subjective.

    Also, it is quite confusing to follow all the arguments in this blog comment format. any way to move this discussion to the boards, Josh?


  33. Ron:

    Just how much more sensation can there be?

    Well maybe you would have known if they didn’t snip you at birth. xD

      1. I am not sure Nick ever equated regulation with Nazi socialism.

        If we can’t have a sensible discussion, what’s the point in contributing at all?

    1. According to your idea of “government regulation”, the fact that you can’t go out and rape or murder people is “socialism”.

  34. I love my circumsized penis, you guys can keep your nasty ass smegma, i wouldn’t mind every guy was circ, i think it’s way hotter than uncirc.

    1. I, personally, would not look twice at a circumcised penis as I find them ugly. And smegma is not a problem for hygienic guys… if you experience smegma on an uncircumcised penis you should probably set your standards higher :)

      1. I like both types of penises as long as people keep them clean. Although I do like uncut more, but it obviously has more to do with who it’s attached to. ;)

  35. I propose a bumper sticker:
    “I’ll give you my foreskin when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!”

  36. Nah i’m good. my penis is great, i ejaculate probably quicker than most of you with foreskin, if foreskin makes it even more sensitive then i don’t see how i’d last in bed. I just think it’s kind of ugly.

    1. fair nuff. i for one find this scar you american guys often have absolutely repulsive.

      1. “i for one find this scar … absolutely repulsive.”

        Repulsive, huh? Then you’re going to love this! I met a Filipino that had recently come to the USA (if I remember, around 3 years before). When it came time for the fun part, I truly couldn’t believe what I saw (if it hadn’t been directly in front of me and I could actually touch it). His remaining foreskin was still attached by his frenulum and it was hanging down at least 3-4″ below his penis (for Euros: 8-9cm) like a “string.” I kid you not.

        I found a way to make some sort of an excuse of why we couldn’t have any sex (something like not enough time … etc.). Being the over-so-curious person I am, of course I asked “Why/How?”

        He explained that the man who did it in his village had (obviously) made a mistake in the forest ** where it was done and had said that if [this person] attempted to remove it, [something to the effect of] “jesus would punish him and he would never get into heaven/it would be against the will of ‘god’ (something like that). Filipinos can be intensely religious.

        I had him dress as quickly as I could and drove him home. I’m sorry, but for me, if that’s not enough proof of complete religious stupidity, nothing is.

        ** Yes, for many Malay-type Filipinos in small villages/hamlets, it’s common to be circumcised outside and by just some older male in that village who may or may not have done it before (for this chap, it must have been the first time for this older man) — and the “older” man could easily be just 20-25 yrs old with (obviously) little or no experience. To make matters worse, they will blame their incompetence on some idiotic religious excuse. It’s a wonder he didn’t bleed to death. Oh, yes, to “combat” any pain the boy will suffer from, they will have him bite and chew on a small handful of leaves of some type. That’s it.

      2. LOL, so do I, even in pr0n.

        Love all the americunts trying to justify their mutilated members.

        It was done to stop you wanking by the large number of jewish doctors who do it automatically and it should be stopped.

        Anyone who thinks an unmutilated human body is ugly has some deep personal issues that need addressing.

        1. “even in [pr0n].” “Love all the [americunts] trying to justify their mutilated members. It was done to stop [you] wanking by the large number of jewish doctors who [do it] automatically and it should be stopped.

          Just can’t stop showing your ignorance, can you kinkynuts? It’s a hell of a lot more than just Americans who circumsize their boys (btw, where’s the “k” that you so love to put in our nation? Also, at the time when circumcision started being popular over here (in America), it was hardly only “jewish” doctors who were performing it. During that particular time, there weren’t that many jewish doctors over here. (And btw, the Jewish were emmigrating to England [notice the respect I show for your country] as well.)

      3. >fair nuff. i for one find this scar you american guys often have absolutely repulsive.

        It seems some of those who are anti-circumcision are as much motivated by the ‘evil’ of cosmetic concerns as the pros are meant to be…

  37. I am glad to have grown up in a household of atheists so my foreskin was saved, and am glad about it, I like my foreskin, and to the contrary of people saying circumcised penis’ have nothing different, to the uncircumcised other then the foreskin, just saying its wrong cause of the nerve endings in the foreskin.

Leave a Reply