|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:24 pm
A lot of Christians still circumcise for nonreligious purposes. But it's becoming a touchy subject as many consider it to be a cruel act babies should not be subject to the same way girls shouldn't be in other countries where it's popular.
You get the idea. Go.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:32 pm
Have you heard of canfap? It's a Canadian based cause against circumcision. They have a lot of facts about it and sport a video on their home page of a baby having the procedure done and if you listen long enough you can hear the baby gargling on his own vomit. Their point is to make circumcision on children illegal and only available to adults who choose to have the procedure done willingly.
I think it's a capitol idea. No harm in allowing a person the right to choose what they want done to their own body the same way they should choose their own lifestyle and beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:43 pm
EDITED: small typo
I remember running across this kind of discussion in a totally different site. Many of the people participating in the discussion were older women, some men, and mothers, so... you could imagine how heated it got. They eventually had to lock the thread because one person kept attacking another, and it just wasn't coming to an end.
So while I'm a bit leery coming into a topic like this, I do want to come in offering some thoughts. Not opinions, because honestly, I am on the fence with this topic still, so bear with me.
First off, we have a lot of people who find circumcision to be inhumane towards infants because of the pain it inflicts. I notice those people argue that just because a man can't remember the pain that he felt when being circumcised, that doesn't mean that the pain isn't any less significant when he was a baby.
I think this a valid argument. However, there are a lot of people who believe that circumcision can offer a lot of... hygienic benefits, if you get my meaning. But then others find that it might in fact cause health problems for men later on in life, though the same can happen to uncircumcised men.
THEN... you have the first group of people who want to make circumcision illegal because they believe it to be inhumane, but this is where it's not so simple, because circumcision happens to be a religious practice for some families.
So what then? Do we keep circumcision legal and allow parents to discern what's best for their own children? Or, do we make it illegal and at the same time infringe on people's freedom of religious expression? Hope that helps discussion a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:44 pm
A-B0T
Have you heard of canfap? It's a Canadian based cause against circumcision. They have a lot of facts about it and sport a video on their home page of a baby having the procedure done and if you listen long enough you can hear the baby gargling on his own vomit. Their point is to make circumcision on children illegal and only available to adults who choose to have the procedure done willingly.
I think it's a capitol idea. No harm in allowing a person the right to choose what they want done to their own body the same way they should choose their own lifestyle and beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:04 pm
 I don't buy the fact that it is more painful as an adult. Even if it is, what about all of those men out there that wish that their parents gave them the chance to decide for them self instead of going ahead and doing that barbaric procedure. I'm sorry but I don't see how a fit parent can consent to send their son off to get that done, it is too painful and the healing process too, many babies die due to infection and blood loss. As grown men they don't sit in diapers, chance of infection is less likely as they can clean it them selves. Also I have heard that some guys lose feeling down there, intercourse can become difficult since they loose sensitivity. Removal of foreskin makes sex less pleasurable, they have to try harder to feel fulfilled than a man who isn't circumcised. If you teach your child how to stay clean down there then hygienic reasons shouldn't be an issue, it's like brushing your teeth. Teach them how to do it right and you are less likely to have major issues. I know that I will not force unnecessary pain and force a procedure that could take my childs life just because society deems it necessary, it is just for looks and I'm not conforming. If you want to put your kid in danger then that is totally up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:13 am
While those are valid arguments, I remember coming across some men in that other thread who could disagree with you.
Some of them didn't have an issue accepting that they were circumcised as infants, and some of them never had a problem with sexual pleasure. I think that's going to be different from man to man, though. Some have noticed issues, and some have not.
I don't think a good amount of parents are circumcising their sons because they're trying to conform to cosmetic appeal or social standards (though some are, sadly). That's a generalization and is a bit presumptuous towards parents who think they're doing what's right for their babies, perhaps both physically and religiously. Because remember—it is a religious rite for some people to give to their sons; a religious rite that happens to not only be a part of other religions, but also from our bible in the OT by our God. I think that reality doesn't deserve to be overlooked, no matter how much one dislikes it.
And while you might not "buy the fact that it is more painful as an adult," it actually is; a man's foreskin is more developed than an infant's, thus it's more difficult and painful to remove.
I am still on the fence about it, though. There's just a lot to consider about it. But I think I digress; I couldn't go much deeper into the discussion myself for the above reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:47 am
I'm against infant circumcision. I don't live in the States, so it's not really common practise here anyway, but I don't understand why the States seems behind the rest of the western world in giving up the practise of removing a functional and useful part of a person's body before they're old enough to know what's being done to them.
There's no sound medical reason to routinely circumcise male infants at birth. The main reason it's still done in the States is for purely cosmetic purposes, and performing cosmetic surgery on someone without their consent would be considered wrong in just about every other circumstance, so why is an exception still made in the case of circumcision?
Here across the pond, civilisation has not collapsed when the majority of men still have their foreskins. It's a functional part of the male reproductive system and unless there's a specific problem with it, there's no reason to remove it that I can see.
I wouldn't say that parents who circumcise their male babies are automatically bad parents, just likely misguided, misinformed, or ignorant to why what's become such a routine procedure in their country actually serves no purpose and infringes upon the rights of their child.
If an adult male decides he wants a circumcision, that's his choice, which is kind of the point. As an adult, he has a choice. As an infant, he does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:57 am
ca adam While those are valid arguments, I remember coming across some men in that other thread who could disagree with you.
Some of them didn't have an issue accepting that they were circumcised as infants, and some of them never had a problem with sexual pleasure. I think that's going to be different from man to man, though. Some have noticed issues, and some have not.
I don't think a good amount of parents are circumcising their sons because they're trying to conform to cosmetic appeal or social standards (though some are, sadly). That's a generalization and is a bit presumptuous towards parents who think they're doing what's right for their babies, perhaps both physically and religiously. Because remember—it is a religious rite for some people to give to their sons; a religious rite that happens to not only be a part of other religions, but also from our bible in the OT by our God. I think that reality doesn't deserve to be overlooked, no matter how much one dislikes it.
And while you might not "buy the fact that it is more painful as an adult," it actually is; a man's foreskin is more developed than an infant's, thus it's more difficult and painful to remove.
I am still on the fence about it, though. There's just a lot to consider about it. But I think I digress; I couldn't go much deeper into the discussion myself for the above reason. I think you might be surprised how many people actually do circumcise their infant sons for cosmetic purposes alone. That perhaps combined with the misguided idea that "it's cleaner." A lot of Americans seem to have a rather absurd aversion to the uncircumcised p***s. I'm not exactly sure why, as a p***s isn't exactly a thing of grace and beauty on the best of days. It's an organ that performs a function. I wouldn't say it's ugly, exactly, but we don't try to make out livers attractive as well as functional, do we? I'm the first to sing the praises of the beauty of the human body, but human genitalia, in and of itself, has never struck me as one of the highlights. Not to mention that when erect, there's very little visual difference between most circumcised penises and most uncircumcised penises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:09 am
SinfulGuillotine I think you might be surprised how many people actually do circumcise their infant sons for cosmetic purposes alone. That perhaps combined with the misguided idea that "it's cleaner." A lot of Americans seem to have a rather absurd aversion to the uncircumcised p***s. I'm not exactly sure why, as a p***s isn't exactly a thing of grace and beauty on the best of days. It's an organ that performs a function. I wouldn't say it's ugly, exactly, but we don't try to make out livers attractive as well as functional, do we? I'm the first to sing the praises of the beauty of the human body, but human genitalia, in and of itself, has never struck me as one of the highlights. Not to mention that when erect, there's very little visual difference between most circumcised penises and most uncircumcised penises.
...Really? That's not superficial or anything... > > That's like that one lady who was giving her daughter botox.
However, I don't think Americans' "absurd aversion" is confusing (but again, it's not just Americans who feel that way, mind you. Let's not generalize here). It actually makes sense when you think about it on a social level. A lot of people have only ever seen circumcised penises, so when faced with one that isn't circumcised, it seems strange, even less attractive. I don't know why that's hard to understand. It's just a part of being human to have that kind of thought process, but I think being aware of it and being objective to it is something not a lot of people do.
There are still plenty of debates, though, on cleanliness of a uncircumcised p***s compared to a circumcised one. You will have a lot of doctors along with people like you and me who are going to be on either side or in the middle. Is the procedure necessary, though? No, it's not. I don't think it is, either. But should parents have the freedom to get their sons circumcised? That's the real question, because it involves more than just a straight yes or no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:16 am
Well as much as I hate the thought of it, I do believe in the separation of church and state. I think that if you are doing it out of cosmetic superficial reasons then it should not be allowed just because of the risks, your baby can die due to many infections and blood loss. If it is religion then fine, I still think it is stupid =/ But if your religion says to do it then go ahead. At least with religion backing you up you have a half decent reason why you are getting it done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:49 am
SinfulGuillotine The main reason it's still done in the States is for purely cosmetic purposes, and performing cosmetic surgery on someone without their consent would be considered wrong in just about every other circumstance, so why is an exception still made in the case of circumcision?
I can't say how it is over there, but like I've said already, it's more than just making it illegal or keeping it legal, because for lots of people, it's a religious practice. And in the US, we have the first amendment to consider. It's a much deeper issue than just, "Why is the US so far behind the rest of the Western world?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:58 am
If people would do some research instead of going by word of mouth they would find the whole "cleaner" issue is just a myth that has been debunked many times. Besides if cleanliness is an issues then why not teach your child how to properly maintain good hygienic standards down there? It is no different than brushing your teeth, if you do it wrong or halfway do it you will have big issues, do it right and you wont hardly have any. Instead of being sheep and following everyone else and what they say why cant people do their own research and see that "hey it's a myth" or "hey maybe I can teach my child how to wash instead of taking the lazy way out"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:13 am
Because we are "sheep" by nature. lol We're a social species, thus we are influenced by each other more than we think we are. It's easier to just listen to hearsay or go on Yahoo Answers and grab the most appealing answer to life's problems than it is to actually be objective and critical.
Everyone is influenced by something. I'm influenced by the information I've read and researched, as are you and everyone else. It's just that not many people know how to acknowledge that and think outside of the box, to learn how to be critical and not make assumptions based on speculation or what they've heard or briefly read somewhere.
It's like what Kierkegaard said: “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” Right on.
Anyway... lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:58 am
I can see how foreskin is more likely to collect smegma but it should be the male's responsibility to practice cleanliness when he reaches the age he's able to bathe himself. But no matter how you try to justify it the truth is it's his body and his right to decide what he wants his p***s to look like. A male should be allowed to ask for the procedure if he so wishes and have it done in a comfortable setting with appropriate painkillers and sedatives. And there will probably be a much greater chance of keeping it clean since it won't be as exposed to urine and feces and wait on someone to clean it for him. It's just much too unpleasant for infants to force them into it before they have a chance to tell you whether or not they actually want this part of their body taken away from them forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:41 am
ca adam SinfulGuillotine I think you might be surprised how many people actually do circumcise their infant sons for cosmetic purposes alone. That perhaps combined with the misguided idea that "it's cleaner." A lot of Americans seem to have a rather absurd aversion to the uncircumcised p***s. I'm not exactly sure why, as a p***s isn't exactly a thing of grace and beauty on the best of days. It's an organ that performs a function. I wouldn't say it's ugly, exactly, but we don't try to make out livers attractive as well as functional, do we? I'm the first to sing the praises of the beauty of the human body, but human genitalia, in and of itself, has never struck me as one of the highlights. Not to mention that when erect, there's very little visual difference between most circumcised penises and most uncircumcised penises.
...Really? That's not superficial or anything... > > That's like that one lady who was giving her daughter botox.
However, I don't think Americans' "absurd aversion" is confusing (but again, it's not just Americans who feel that way, mind you. Let's not generalize here). It actually makes sense when you think about it on a social level. A lot of people have only ever seen circumcised penises, so when faced with one that isn't circumcised, it seems strange, even less attractive. I don't know why that's hard to understand. It's just a part of being human to have that kind of thought process, but I think being aware of it and being objective to it is something not a lot of people do.
There are still plenty of debates, though, on cleanliness of a uncircumcised p***s compared to a circumcised one. You will have a lot of doctors along with people like you and me who are going to be on either side or in the middle. Is the procedure necessary, though? No, it's not. I don't think it is, either. But should parents have the freedom to get their sons circumcised? That's the real question, because it involves more than just a straight yes or no.You're right, the "absurd aversion" actually does make sense for the reasons you state. Here, if you're circumcised it's generally assumed you're Jewish or Muslim. Uncut penises are the norm, so I'm looking at this from sort of the opposite social standard. And "So he won't feel embarrassed changing in front of his friends" or "so women will find his p***s appealing" are indeed reasons that parents cite for circumcising their sons. To which I'd counter, when was the last time your friend even cared to get a good look at your genitals, let alone put you down for how they look? It's certainly never happened to me, or even ever saw it happen to anyone else, and yes, I had to change in front of my peers as an adolescent for Phys. Ed. just like everyone else. And if whether or not a man is circumcised is a deal-breaker for a romantic partner...seriously, find a better partner. The "bigger is always better" penile phallacy (lulz see what I did thar?) is bad enough. You get good at pleasing someone sexually through experience and communication. It doesn't matter if you're sporting a modest member or Cockzilla, cut or uncut, it all makes very little difference in how good a lover you are, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't belong in your bed in the first place. A loving partner should never make you feel bad about your body. Normally, I'm pretty hands-off when it comes to telling people how to raise their kids, provided there's no abuse. But I can't help but feel that removing a functional part of your child's body for no good medical reason is bordering on abuse. Not saying that parents who circumcise their sons are abusive parents, but I do believe they were abusing their child's right to bodily integrity when they chose to remove his foreskin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
