The Big C: Circumcision

I want to make absolutely sure that everybody understands that I agree with this sentiment. Let's make it so we don't have to cut bits off our sons.But for as long as it's necessary to my sons to fit in to our sexual culture, I think it's wrong to prevent parents from opting for the procedure. To do so sentences them to great social ostracism, all to preserve a flap of skin. Doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

I know it's not. Quite frankly I don't find non-infibulating female circumcision that objectionable. I don't object to a token snip of the labia in order to fit the girl into the sexual culture. Enough to stop? Not really. People die from all kinds of corrective surgery that wasn't necessary but desired. Parents should know the risks, yes. I understand most gay men also prefer circumcised men. The combination of a foreskin and anal sex (for instance) would seem to be undesirable. For your own children, yes, you do.You think it's abuse to take away a part of their body. I think it's the greater abuse to leave them with something they'll be made to hate in the future. Neither of us can predict the future, but we can make our best guess about what's best for our children. That's all I'm trying to do - keep the option of circumsision open if my wife and I decide that's best for our child.

quote:

---

What annoys me is that parents consent to this surgery for their babies without having the first idea what it is they're cutting off. A father doesn't want to know, because then he'd realise what *he* was missing.

---

What annoys me is that I didn't know enough about circumcision before having it done to my son. Had I been as knowledgeable then as I am now on the subject, I would never have had it done.It pains me to remember that day. And now, my little 20 month old son will be undergoing another procedure on his penis (along with a hernia operation) to cut away the adhesions that have formed subsequent to the circumcision. Why does he have adhesions? Because no one bothered telling brand new parents that they needed to make sure and pull the skin back from time to time to keep adhesions from forming. All we heard was "you don't have to do anything - leave it alone." Uh huh... and here we are.It will take time, but it's already started. Circumcision is on it's way out in the U.S. And although I can attest to the many joys of a circumcised penis, I think it's the right path to take.If an adult man decides to go through the procedure (I personally know of two that have), that's his choice, but I agree, I do feel it's not in the child's best interest to perform such a procedure.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-06-2003]

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

But for as long as it's necessary to my sons to fit in to our sexual culture

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say this, did you?

quote:

---

To do so sentences them to great social ostracism

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say this, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

doctrbill writes:

quote:

---

I believe it was Rrhain who alluded to glands in the urethra

---

No, not the urethra. The glans. There are glands in the glans (Tyson's glands, to be specific) which keep it moist, provided the foreskin is there to keep the secretions there.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Primordial Egg responds to me:

quote:

---

With your argument comes an implicit idea of reverting to the norm, which is fair enough, really - although, in the case of circumcision, you've restricted the norm to be that which the boy in question was born with.

---

The same with the burn victim: We're going back to what you were born with.

quote:

---

And in situations where circumcision is the norm in society, you've previously argued along the lines that the child should have the -ahem- cajones to avoid teasing by declaring his penis a non-topic for conversation.

---

Not quite. I've argued that the, "But they'll be teased!" argument doesn't really fly since they will always be teased about something. To act as if circumcising a boy will allow him to have a happy, trauma-free childhood where he will never be subject to having all the other kids pointing and laughing is to be disingenuous at best.It's going to happen. Kids are cruel. They'll find anything and everything to make fun of each other over. I still remember the first day I went to school with glasses as a 2nd grader and how a friend of mine immediately bolted at the front door in order to tell the entire school that I had them. It will simply happen. It always does. To subject an unconsenting individual to unnecessary surgery under some idea that this will somehow remove that doesn't wash.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Ok, now you're just getting annoying. If you want to know what I said it's right there in the post. If you're trying to express shock at a position radically different from your own, that's fine, but all you're doing now is subsituting personal incredulity for logical argument. As you don't generally allow creationists to do this I'm surprised to see it from your own mouth (fingers?).

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Excuse me? You didn't just say this, did you?

---

​

Ok, now you're just getting annoying.

---

I know. You keep annoying me with your blase attitude about taking a knife to an infant.It's kind of like what happened to me in second grade. I was going to Catholic school (don't ask me why...my mother was Greek Orthdox, my father Lutheran...neither has a really good relationship with the Catholic Church.) But my mother, being Greek, had taught me the various Greek myths as a child...not realizing that I was buying it. So the teacher asks what the tallest mountain in the world is and I shoot my hand up: Mt. Olympus.No, no, it's Mt. Everest.No, it's Mt. Olympus. That's where all the gods live!(*blink!*)Yes. Mt. Olympus. When the gods took dominion over the earth, they needed a vantage point where they could look over all of humanity and so they chose the tallest mountain in the world, Mt. Olympus.(*blink!*)You can imagine the reaction of the nuns. A real, live pagan in front of them. Unrepentant. Doesn't understand the implications of what he's saying or who he's saying it to.So when you come on here and say that there is no sexual function to the foreskin, I have to blink in incredulity. Did you really just say that? When you say that being circumcised is a requirement, I have to blink in incredulity. Did you really just say that?It's as if you came along and said, "And as we all know, the earth is flat."(*blink!*)Excuse me? Did you really just say that?

quote:

---

If you want to know what I said it's right there in the post. If you're trying to express shock at a position radically different from your own, that's fine, but all you're doing now is subsituting personal incredulity for logical argument. As you don't generally allow creationists to do this I'm surprised to see it from your own mouth (fingers?).

---

But I ask you to justify your position. How can you possibly say that the foreskin serves no sexual function? How can you possibly say that being circumcised is necessary? That it results in "great social ostracism"?I asked you directly once and you didn't respond:Have you ever been around an uncircumcised penis during sex?Your statements seem to be indicative of someone who hasn't.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Well, that's fine. You might have done it a little clearer, however, so I could have known exactly what parts of my statements you wanted me to substantiate. General incredulity doesn't help mein fleshing out my position for you.Now, if you're done blinking, can we have a discussion? In this case, no, I didn't actually say that. What I said was that circumcision is as corrective a surgery as correcting webbed feet.There's no reason to un-web feet. There's even a potential advantage in swimming. But parents almost always choose to have their children un-webbed whenever possible. So far nobody is complaining about that. Sorry, I did mean to get to this, and forgot.I have no personally been around an uncircumcised penis during sex. On the other hand, men and women I know (and whose opinion I respect) have been around both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, and they are unanimous in their preference of circumcised penises. Even those who opted for circumcision later in life think it's better. Statistically circumcised men have more active and satisfying sex lives.If the foreskin has an effect on sex I'm afraid I must conclude it is a negative effect.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-06-2003]

Rrhain spake thusly: ​ We're going back to what you were born with.

Does this mean you would feel averse to cutting off a child's tail if (s)he came into this world with such an atavistic, but perfectly natural, feature? If it didn't cause any medical problems?------------------

quote:

---

All the boys think she's a spy

---

, 08-06-2003

quote:

---

(me) If a baby girl's genitals were simply "snipped" under surgical conditions to alter their appearance and engineering, would you be okay with that?

​

(you) If it was what society considered "normal", and would allow for a greater degree of acceptance among her sexual peers; and if enjoyable seuxal function was preserved, then yes, I would be ok with that.

---

That is sick.

quote:

---

I want to make absolutely sure that everybody understands that I agree with this sentiment. Let's make it so we don't have to cut bits off our sons.

---

And that is hypocritical. If you truly want to "make it so we don't have to", how about getting your head out of the sand and starting with your own child?

quote:

---

all to preserve a flap of skin.

---

This indicates that you consider the foreskin to have no value. I realise it's easier that way, but it's untrue. Unfortunately, parents, doctors and cut men have to persist with this fantasy in order to live with themselves - what they've done, and what was done to them.------------------
o--greyline--o

doctrbill, here's a link to the article in the British Journal of Urology (1996) about the anatomical structure of the foreskin:Erogenous Tissue Loss after CircumcisionConsidering the recent date of this article, it leads me to believe that the foreskin hasn't been studied much histologically until recently.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

What annoys me is that I didn't know enough about circumcision before having it done to my son. Had I been as knowledgeable then as I am now on the subject, I would never have had it done.
It pains me to remember that day. And now, my little 20 month old son will be undergoing another procedure on his penis (along with a hernia operation) to cut away the adhesions that have formed subsequent to the circumcision. Why does he have adhesions? Because no one bothered telling brand new parents that they needed to make sure and pull the skin back from time to time to keep adhesions from forming. All we heard was "you don't have to do anything - leave it alone." Uh huh... and here we are.

---

I think lack of information is the main reason parents do this - I can't think why they would decide to do it once they know the facts, particularly the value of the foreskin sexually and as protection for the glans. At the hospital where my sister gave birth, there are now little pamphlets about why not to circumcise, along with the "how to breastfeed" pamphlets etc. Childbirth is becoming demedicalised, which is a good thing.I just wanted to point out that for boys whose foreskins are left intact, you should *not* retract the foreskin (it's meant to be adhered to the glans until the child is about 3-5 years old - in fact, tearing it off the glans with a blunt instrument is part of the painful circumcision procedure). I don't know much about the care of a baby's circumcised penis, however.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

men and women I know (and whose opinion I respect) have been around both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, and they are unanimous in their preference of circumcised penises. Even those who opted for circumcision later in life think it's better. Statistically circumcised men have more active and satisfying sex lives.

---

This is certainly a strange statement to make without references. Here's a study that shows 6 out of 7 women prefer uncut penises (again from the BJU, based on survey results of presumably British women):Male Circumcision and Sexual Enjoyment of the Female PartnerA few paraphrased results follow.With an uncircumcised partner:- women were more likely to have orgasms, more likely to have a vaginal orgasm (ie. orgasm without clitoral stimulation), and had more multiple orgasms- women were less likely to have vaginal discomfort/drying (the anatomical reason for this is explained in the article)- women had more positive post-coital feelings.With a circumcised partner:- during prolonged intercourse women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with'- because of the need for the man to thrust harder (due to decreased sensitivity of the cut penis) women reported negative feelings more often such as irritablity, "sexually violated", "partner cared little about me", "other than my vagina partner wouldn't know I was there", thrusting out of sync, "he's working awfully hard", "disinterested", "my vagina doesn't like this", "pumping until it hurts me". (Can I just add that this conforms with my own experience in terms of the feelings of closeness and shared experience during sex.) Essentially there was a "striking" difference in that women "felt more intimate with their [uncut] partners".******************The researchers give the anatomical reasons why an uncut penis doesn't need to thrust so hard, relating to the special nerve endings in the ridged band I previously mentioned. "Circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more". (I realise women may *like* it hard and deep, but the point is that with an uncut partner you get the choice to have it either way!)Regarding non-vaginal forms of sex: "some respondents commented that unaltered [uncut] men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying" [ie. so they don't seek oral/anal sex as often].------------------
o--greyline--o