Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

In short my opinion on circumcision is: It should only be done with the consent of the owner of the penis. If somebody is 16/18/21 (or whenever you think informed consent is possible), then its OK. However, strapping a baby down and cutting their genitals in my book is child abuse.Of course, I understand that there is a cultural aspect of it, and I'm not calling people who have done this child abusers per se, but its freaky deaky stuff. Does a lower rate of a rare event mean anything significant? Every male I've ever met (with a few exceptions) are uncircumcised, and none of them have these problems, nor have I heard any 'friend of a friend' stories. Breast cancer is much more common, but I wouldn't condone surgical removal of breast tissue at birth, nor would I condone apendectomies for babies, tonselectomies, and any other minor surgical procedure which might lower (or eliminate) the risk of one thing. I don't think this is true. If it is true, it's a trivial amount. I've always been against the social factor...its the adult version of 'Well Johnny was playing with fireworks...' which has the adult response of 'If Johnny mutilated his son, would you jump over a cliff?' (something like that anyway ) There are other factors, sexual in nature. Most of these however are unreliable. I would be interested to hear some good studies on the subject. I saw a rather anti-circumcision program recently (it was for the most part balanced, but it was clearly biasing to the anti-), it had guys who had been 'restored' and they claimed that the sex was more sensual and ultimately more intense. Their wives said that sex was less harsh feeling, because without the foreskin the penile ridge can be discomforting, and can lead to lubrication issues.Of course, the problem with all this is that it is anecdotal in nature...though they did demonstrate it using simulation apparatus...I'm not convinced that their apparatus was an accurate depiction. I've never heard this complaint before, so I feel it might be exagerated.Abe: A further sexual note, masturbation. Having seen a fair amount of porn, I've seen uncircumcised guys masturbate. My penis is far too sensitive to apply that kind of direct pressure. This entirely piece of further anecdotal evidence (and experience with other areas of the body) leads to consider the possibility that being permanently exposed reduces sensitivity of said area.Another reason why the age of consent should be reached before the procedure is undertaken - after all, most guys who are uncut as adults would not consider removing a part of themselves for anything other than religious reasons. If this is the case, then removing that skin without consent is cruel.

---

My advice: See if you can't witness the procedure on another child before hand. If you would be happy putting your son through that procedure...

---

NOTE: I appreciate I use emotive language at times. I hold no animosity towards those who are circumcised or those that have had their children circumcised. I feel it is the practice that is cruel. Most parents that endorse this practice do not do with malice aforethought, and thus I do not feel they are cruel.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 16-January-2006 05:11 PM

One can have the skin replaced surgically, from skin grafts (I believe the skin comes from the scrotum, but I could be dead wrong). The other way is by stretching what skin is already there, using weights/elastic straps.I can't look into it too much because I am at work right now, and looking at pictures of cocks is frowned on

I dunno about that. Sure, that would decide whether or not they 'fit in' at high school...but High School is a blip in life and whether or not you fit in there is irrelevant to the rest of your life. When I was at High School, if somebody pointed at your cock and said 'Hey look, its circumcised', you would suffer the consequences of 'What the hell are you looking at my cock for, are you gay or something?'In short, if the reason why one would surgically alter a baby's genitals is so that they will fit in at high school, then there is something screwed up going on.

I mean no offence by this, but it might sound offensive. I saw this opinion voiced recently (in the program I mentioned earlier). I really don't understand the rationale of having your son's penis share a common trait with your own. I don't have a son, so I'm not in a position to talk I guess.That said, I don't know if my father's penis is circumcised, I imagine it isn't, but as a son I really don't have any desire for my own penis to be fashioned after my fathers. Actually, that kind of freaks me out.Heh, maybe I'm just easily freaked out? Its really only a big issue in societies where circumcision is considered the norm. Here in the green green lands of Britain, its a non-issue. I guess its only as information between cultures is becoming more fluent (due to both the internet and international television), that people begin to question there own cultural practices. I can't help but think that looks arrogant, but it works both ways, Britain has changed attitudes in many things over the last generation and is becoming both more Americanized and Eurocentric. Its odd - societies are almost becoming able to pick and choose their own culture. That's really interesting, thanks. I think this ties in with my earlier edit:

quote:

---

A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.13 There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.31

---

Ben, it seems (and I could easily be wrong) that you are essentially arguing that there is no absolute definitions of morally right and morally wrong. I agree.However, cultures and traditions change (and thus morality) because of the attitudes of the people in them. At the moment it isn't considered child abuse to circumcise a child that much is obvious. Culture and tradition dictate our morality on this issue.The point is, that there is a fast growing body of people within the US culture who believe that circumcision should be considered child abuse, and they provide their rationale. After all, in any other context, strapping a baby down and damaging their sexual organs would be considered abuse. Possibly even indecent assault, child abuse and a host of other charges. There are only two reasons why it isn't considered child abuse:1) Our fathers did it, their fathers did it, and their father's did it etc2) A post hoc rationalization of hygiene which has dubious credibility.

---

Of course, if your central argument doesn't revolve around the concept of absolute morality...then you can probably disregard the above