Male circumcision

kylith

My name is URL wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think it's me that's missing the point.

Why is religion a legitimate reason to perform unnecessary surgery on a toddler? And why the hell should people accept that it is? I don't care if making it illegal upsets a few fundies.

An individual's right to bodily integrity should far outweigh the religious beliefs of another, or their right to subject someone else to needless and irreversible surgeries!

There's ignorance in the general public on this issue alright, but it ain't among those who see a problem with it.

On the religion front: surely, I think anyway, that religions should ban infant circumcision for the reason that: they see it as part of a covenant between the person and their god. By allowing circumcision they are allowing the parents to make that covenant instead of the individual. Surely it would be much, much more meaningful, religiously, for a person to make that choice for themselves when they reach the age of majority.

endacl

kylith wrote: »

On the religion front: surely, I think anyway, that religions should ban infant circumcision for the reason that: they see it as part of a covenant between the person and their god. By allowing circumcision they are allowing the parents to make that covenant instead of the individual. Surely it would be much, much more meaningful, religiously, for a person to make that choice for themselves when they reach the age of majority.

Makes sense. Leave it till the boy is 18. No more religious circumcision within a couple of generations,

Galwayguy35

Very Bored wrote: »

Can a male enjoy sex if he doesn't have a foreskin? Yes.

Can a female enjoy sex if she doesn't have a clitoris? No.

Different.

I never said he couldn't, I was pointing out that the foreskin has a function, thought that was very clear from my original post.

You do read the post you reply to I assume.

NachoBusiness

Can't believe I'm talking about this in AH, but anyhoo..

I have extremely tight foreskin (only goes back over thee head of thee penis when flaccid) and it's a myth that this not bother women. I have seen this touted a lot (not just in the video posted). Women do care and I would say the vast majority of women I have slept with have commented on it and most of those have said that they were used to foreskins that either were not there, or where easily retracted and would prefer that.

I hummed and hawed over getting the chop for years because of it and even went and seen a specialist but he was an all or nothing guy and I was after a procedure I had read about online where they only remove a quarter inch or so of foreskin so that only the tight portion is lost and the rest remains.. but he had no interest in performing such a procedure and so I opted out.

I am speaking as a 40 year old guy by the way, that had girls in the 1990s act a little grossed out by the presence of unretractable foreskin and so I would imagine, with how mainstream porn has become this past 15 years or so, that the pressure from girls on guys to have a penis that looks more streamlined will be even greater today than it was for me back then. Not that that is a reason to get it done, but just that imagine there is far more pressure on young men today to be circumcised than there ever has been before.

Wibbs

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I hummed and hawed over getting the chop for years because of it and even went and seen a specialist but he was an all or nothing guy and I was after a procedure I had read about online where they only remove a quarter inch or so of foreskin so that only the tight portion is lost and the rest remains.. but he had no interest in performing such a procedure and so I opted out.

Inadequately trained doctor to be frank and it seems there's quite the number of them, given that all off is the go to response, even for mild cases. IMHO they simply don't have the training and skills to pull it off(missus!), or the not invented here syndrome is in full flow. There was an Embarrassing Bodies episode that had a similar case to yours and they did that lesser procedure on the NHS, yet from what I've read you can't get it here even going full private.

Very Bored

My name is URL wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think it's me that's missing the point.

Why is religion a legitimate reason to perform unnecessary surgery on a toddler? And why the hell should people accept that it is? I don't care if making it illegal upsets a few fundies.

An individual's right to bodily integrity should far outweigh the religious beliefs of another, or their right to subject someone else to needless and irreversible surgeries!

There's ignorance in the general public on this issue alright, but it ain't among those who see a problem with it.

Except that its not only fundamentalists that want it so stop trying to use hystrionics to suggest that it is. It is common place across all Jewish and Muslim communities. To suggest all those people are fundamentalists is highly insulting.

endacl

Very Bored wrote: »

Except that its not only fundamentalists that want it so stop trying to use hystroniocs to suggest that it is. It is common place across all Jewish and Muslim communities. To suggest all those people are fundamentalists is highly insulting.

It's not commonplace across all Muslim communities.

Very Bored

endacl wrote: »

It's not commonplace across all Muslim communities.

The vast majority of Muslims do it as it is a Koranic belief.

Very Bored

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I am speaking as a 40 year old guy by the way, that had girls in the 1990s act a little grossed out by the presence of unretractable foreskin and so I would imagine, with how mainstream porn has become this past 15 years or so, that the pressure from girls on guys to have a penis that looks more streamlined will be even greater today than it was for me back then. Not that that is a reason to get it done, but just that imagine there is far more pressure on young men today to be uncircumcised than there ever has been before.

The bulk of porn watched in this part of the world would come from America where a circumcised performer would be the norm.

NachoBusiness

Very Bored wrote: »

The bulk of porn watched in this part of the world would come from America where a circumcised performer would be the norm.

Eh, yeah.. that was my point. Will edit post to make that clear. Had thought it already was.

Very Bored

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Eh, yeah.. that was my point. Will edit post to make that clear. Had thought it already was.

With respect, how can you make clear you mean circumcised when you wrote uncircumcised? It was a typo, which all of us, myself more than most, are guilty of at times, but the misunderstanding wasn't my fault.

jackofalltrades

Very Bored wrote: »

Can a male enjoy sex if he doesn't have a foreskin? Yes.

Can a female enjoy sex if she doesn't have a clitoris? No.

Different.

So you're basically saying that genital mutilation is acceptable as long as the person can enjoy sex afterwards?

My name is URL

Very Bored wrote: »

Except that its not only fundamentalists that want it so stop trying to use hystrionics to suggest that it is. It is common place across all Jewish and Muslim communities. To suggest all those people are fundamentalists is highly insulting.

Is it or is it not a fundamental practice in Judaism and Islamic sects?

But supporters of circumcision argue that there is no real alternative. Circumcision is a religious and cultural act that is fundamental to their religion.

They believe that circumcision is divinely mandated. The reality is that few Jews are willing to break what they believe to be a covenant with God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/circumcision_1.shtml

How is it insulting or histrionic to say that those who insist on continuing with fundamental practices are fundamentalists? =/

NachoBusiness

Very Bored wrote: »

With respect, how can you make clear you mean circumcised when you wrote uncircumcised? It was a typo, which all of us, myself more than most, are guilty of at times, but the misunderstanding wasn't my fault.

Are you serious? I am not saying I didn't make a typo, in fact I said I would edit it and have done so now, but my post was quite clearly talking from the perspective of guy who is not circumcised, felt pressured to get circumcised and is saying that that pressure must now be worse considering how much porn has gone mainstream. I find it bizarre that anyone would read the following, even with the typo that occurred after it, and think that I was somehow suggesting that mainstream porn is responsible for pressuring men to keep their foreskins, but there you go.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I am speaking as a 40 year old guy by the way, that had girls in the 1990s act a little grossed out by the presence of unretractable foreskin and so I would imagine, with how mainstream porn has become this past 15 years or so, that the pressure from girls on guys to have a penis that looks more streamlined will be even greater today than it was for me back then.

Very Bored

My name is URL wrote: »

Is it or is it not a fundamental practice in Judaism and Islamic sects?


How is it insulting or histrionic to say that those who insist on continuing with fundamental practices are fundamentalists? =/

The vast majority of Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons in childhood. Just because it is a fundamental tenet of the religion does not mean those who practise it are fundamentalists. Baptism is a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion. Do you consider all Christians who practise this tenet to be fundamentalists?

Very Bored

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Are you serious? I am not saying I didn't make a typo, in fact I said I would edit it and have done so now, but my post was quite clearly talking from the perspective of guy who is not circumcised, felt pressured to get circumcised and is saying that that pressure must now be worse considering how much porn has gone mainstream. I find it bizarre that anyone would read the following, even with the typo that occurred after it, and think that I was somehow suggesting that mainstream porn is responsible for pressuring men to keep their foreskins, but there you go.

Except that the vast bulk of porn watched in this part of the world is American and so the mainstream porno penis is circumcised.

NachoBusiness

Very Bored wrote: »

Except that the vast bulk of porn watched in this part of the world is American and so the mainstream porno penis is circumcised.

facepalm.jpg

Very Bored

NachoBusiness wrote: »

facepalm.jpg

Classy.

kylith

Very Bored wrote: »

Except that the vast bulk of porn watched in this part of the world is American and so the mainstream porno penis is circumcised.

So fcking what? That doesn't mean that circumcision is right or good.

The reason that circumcision is the norm in the states is due to the puritanical drive of the Victorian era. It's harder to masturbate if you are circumcised (hence why circumcised men use lube and uncircumcised men don't need to). Over time this has transmuted into a belief that circumcision is cleaner and healthier, which is rubbish. It's no cleaner than if you wash under your foreskin. It's only healthier in the same way as getting a mastectomy means you can't get breast cancer: it's harder to get penile cancer if a large portion of the skin of the penis has been removed. There may be a reduction in contracting STDs, but that risk is removed pretty much entirely by using a condom.

Very Bored

kylith wrote: »

So fcking what? That doesn't mean that circumcision is right or good.

The reason that circumcision is the norm in the states is due to the puritanical drive of the Victorian era. It's harder to masturbate if you are circumcised (hence why circumcised men use lube and uncircumcised men don't need to). Over time this has transmuted into a belief that circumcision is cleaner and healthier, which is rubbish. It's no cleaner than if you wash under your foreskin. It's only healthier in the same way as getting a mastectomy means you can't get breast cancer: it's harder to get penile cancer if a large portion of the skin of the penis has been removed. There may be a reduction in contracting STDs, but that risk is removed pretty much entirely by using a condom.

A user said that mainstream porn would put more pressure on men to be uncircumcised. I said it wouldn't in this part of the world as most porn which is consumed in this part of the world is American and most of the actors there are circumcised. Subsequently, if there are any women which are devouring porn films, and as women generally don't watch porn en masse from my experience there would be few of them, then in Ireland the penis they would see as normal would be circumcised. That's what I was talking about, I didn't profer it as any evidence that circumcision is better than non-circumcision.

I also don't think it is correct to dictate to other people how they live their lives. We've just had a referendum which gave freedom to a section of the population, now people, in this thread at least, are trying to dictate how people worship. Personally, I think those things which people use to put giant holes in their ears are possibly unhealthy and certainly unwise but its not my place to ban them from using them.

130Kph

kylith wrote: »

So fcking what? That doesn't mean that circumcision is right or good.

The reason that circumcision is the norm in the states is due to the puritanical drive of the Victorian era. It's harder to masturbate if you are circumcised (hence why circumcised men use lube and uncircumcised men don't need to). Over time this has transmuted into a belief that circumcision is cleaner and healthier, which is rubbish.

I’m doing now what I rage against when reading other threads from the beginning – i.e. here I’m only reading the last few posts. So I don’t know if this is a light hearted thread or semi-serious. And also I’m a fan of your posts

But when you say uncircumcised men don't need to use lubrication, can I just say that I’m uncircumcised (like nearly all males in this country) And yes, I don’t need to use lube but, my foreskin may as well be not there when I have an erection because this skin unfolds due to the enormo … well, you know the rest.

Maybe male foreskin is like the appendix i.e. not really necessary. It could be an example of an all too familiar evolutionary cul-de-sac.

kylith

Very Bored wrote: »

A user said that mainstream porn would put more pressure on men to be uncircumcised. I said it wouldn't in this part of the world as most porn which is consumed in this part of the world is American and most of the actors there are circumcised. Subsequently, if there are any women which are devouring porn films, and as women generally don't watch porn en masse from my experience there would be few of them, then in Ireland the penis they would see as normal would be circumcised. That's what I was talking about, I didn't profer it as any evidence that circumcision is better than non-circumcision.

I also don't think it is correct to dictate to other people how they live their lives. We've just had a referendum which gave freedom to a section of the population, now people, in this thread at least, are trying to dictate how people worship. Personally, I think those things which people use to put giant holes in their ears are possibly unhealthy and certainly unwise but its not my place to ban them from using them.

I think you're placing too much emphasis on what is seen in porn. I'm a woman. I watch porn. I prefer an uncircumcised penis. You are, presumably a man. Many women in porn have breast implants. Do you therefore want to have sex only with women who have implants?

No-one wants to dictate to people what they can do and how they can worship, what we are saying is that it is for an individual to decide whether they want to be circumcised as part of their expression of their religious faith, NOT for their parents to decide at birth. Isn't it better, in a deity's eyes, for a person to decide to be circumcised for themselves rather than to have the decision made for them?

The same goes for cultural circumcision, which is much more prevelant in the US than religious circumcision. If a person wishes to have it done for themselves then they can. Isn't that better than to have no say in the matter and have it done as a baby when the open wound on their genitals is kept in a nappy and, basically, bathed regularly in urine and faeces? Not to mention the fact that it is unavoidably traumatic for a baby to go through an unnecessary operation without anaesthetic. I just don't understand how someone can have a baby and then decide to have one of its first experiences in life to be of excruciating pain.

130Kph wrote: »

I’m doing now what I rage against when reading other threads from the beginning – i.e. here I’m only reading the last few posts. So I don’t know if this is a light hearted thread or semi-serious. And also I’m a fan of your posts

But when you say uncircumcised men don't need to use lubrication, can I just say that I’m uncircumcised (like nearly all males in this country) And yes, I don’t need to use lube but, my foreskin may as well be not there when I have an erection because this skin unfolds due to the enormo … well, you know the rest.

Maybe male foreskin is like the appendix i.e. not really necessary. It could be an example of an all too familiar evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Well good for you But I bet that when erect the skin on your penis does move during masturbation. The skin on a circumcised penis doesn't at all.

It's not an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It protects the head of the penis, maintains its sensitivity, keeps the head moisturised, and helps maintain lubrication during sex.

The appendix isn't a cul-de-sac either, just so you know. It acts as a refugium for gut bacteria during, for example, gastroenteritis. Allowing for them to recolonise the gut more quickly. A foreskin or an appendix are no more redundant than having two kidneys; just because you can live without too much hassle without one doesn't mean that it should be gotten rid of.