The Big C: Circumcision

Didn't you answer your own question?

Um, only if you use a death grip, or something...This isn't the case among my (largely circumcised) male friends.Around where I'm from, circumcised penises are largely preferred.

What value does it have? Certainly none sexually. I know plenty of people that, old enough to decide for themselves, opted to have the circumcision done. And it was sufficiently painful that they wish they had had it done in infancy.While myopia or crooked teeth may be the condition of the majority of Americans, nobody whines about glasses (or more painfully) braces on children. As far as I'm concerned, circumcision is just corrective surgery.

Considering all the studies that confirm that circumsized men experience less in the way of sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised men, and that they experience no less in the way of sexual pleasure, and that their mates (in this country at least) tend to prefer their circumcision, yes, I guess I did say that.

Because the AMA is not in the habit of reccomending medical procedures that don't have a clear benefit. It would surprise me if it was not the case that the AMA did not recommend ear-piercing, either. For that matter, neither does wearing glasses. There's no health detriment to not having 20/20 vision. But people want it. So they wear glasses to correct a misfortune of birth. I don't see that nerve density is a be-all-end-all metric of sexual pleasure. That seems needlessly simplistic. Not to mention that the glans itself contains as many nerve endings that might very well not be stimulated in the presence of the foreskin. From all reports, the foreskin reduces friction during sex. I happen to enjoy the friction of sex. If the foreskin reduces that then you can keep mine.

I find I don't much care for the characterization of a circumcised penis (for instance, mine) as "abnormal". I can't see that there's likely to be much headway (if you'll pardon the pun) in this discussion if such a vast gulf of viewpoint separates us.

But the historical and cultural reasons are very relevant. In a context where a lack of circumcision carries with it deep social stigma, circumcision is as corrective a surgery as getting rid of webbed feet.If you don't like circumsision, that's fine. Change culture, then, so that it's no longer neccesary. But as long as it's necessary to have a fulfilled sexual life in this culture, then I'll plan on having it done to any sons of mine.

Male circumcision is not comparable to clitorectomy. While the justification may be largely similar the effects are anything but. If indeed it does die out by the time I have sons then they won't be circumcised. It's not a matter of having them look like me, but rather having them look normal to their sexual partners. If uncircumcised penises become normal in this culture then that's what they'll have. As it stands that is not the normal condition in my community.I don't care if they look like me. I care that they look like all the other guys in the locker room. Perhaps if you were not a boy in high school you might have difficulty understanding.

Yeah, I'd say that largely describes girls age 16-25. Human beings in general, perhaps. Plenty of teenagers do those things with their parents blessing anyway. You don't seem critical of braces to straighten only barely-crooked teeth, or parent-sanctioned tanning, or even girls stuffing their bras. Despite that these are as socially-driven "corrections" as anything listed above.Quite frankly, if you're odd or different in high school, you get dumped with shit that lasts you most of your life. I went through that. I imagine that most of us here did, too. Why would I wish that on my kid? Why would I burden a son with one more reason to get picked on in an already stressful evironment?

And what I find interesting is that you keep insisting it's an outrage even though the vast majority of persons to whom it's happened don't mind, either.If it's such an outrage, why aren't more circumcised men outraged about it? And what prompts you to be so outraged on their behalf?

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.

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.

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?).

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]