MSNBC

It's great that they criticise female circumcision but how about the same for guys? Any mutilation of a body, whether it be ear piercing or circumcision, should not be allowed without the consent and understanding of the child - really that should be around 10-12yrs old. I don't care what religion says - it should not be forced upon children.

IMO, circumcision is OK, but cutting any part of a pretty p***y is bad.

To be honest, I have never heard of female circumcision. How does that even work?

female genital mutilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/female_genital_mutilation

Most common type is removal of the clitoris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

lol. Thank goodness we have the WHO. What other organisation could we count on to consider an issue for 60 years and then, at long last, conclude the absurdly obvious?

What are you saying is okay... choosing to do it to yourself or forcing it upon children?

lol.

but circumcision changes nothing really. I mean, it doesn't limit the guy in any way, it's just a hell of a lot cleaner.
Now female circumcision? Pure evil, and outlawed by many religions (islam included).

You can do some googling on that and it'll reveal that circumcised penises are supposed to get less sensitive.

There are many articles about the pros and cons, everyone just believes in their own head

Agreed, its something of a very sensitive manly nature and I believe that the decision should only be made by that person alone, no one else.

lol, 'sensitive manly nature'

Sure, you may believe that to be true and may not mind, but why should it be forced upon you when you have no choice? The human body is designed to have it. It is widely reported to reduce the sensitivity of men, much like the procedure does for women, yet people happily criticise female circumcision and happily accept male circumcision. It is just plain wrong to do it without consent. What about the apendix? It can cause complications later in life so why don't we operate on all children and have it removed? Circumcision is a backwards practice for backwards people.

It's far more common in the US than the rest of the world (with the highest rates being in the Southern states). In the US the percentage circumcised in 1979 reached 85%, whereas the rest of the western world is around 10-20%. I don't know what the hell happened over there and why it became so much more accepted, it's just the rest of the world doesn't have the same need to lop off part of a child's body - it was actually promoted as cleaner by the American Academy of Pediatrics and they even [wrongfully] claimed it could reduce chances of cancer, though they have now changed their position.

http://www.nocirc.org/position/

The excuse that it make you cleaner is just that, an excuse. There is no solid proof that you can get sick because you weren't circumsized. As a matter of fact, there is no proof at all.

yeah, i know nothing of female circumcision, but male circumcision is perfectly healthy, and in fact, doctors argue that circumcised males are healthier than those that are non-circumcised. whether or not this is true is irrelevant, the fact is, it doesn't make you potent to disease after being circumcised.

i see nothing wrong with circumcision. as it was said before, it doesn't limit the man in any way. a responsible parent can make the right decision about whether or not to circumcise his or her baby. and if he isn't circumcised as a baby, he can always opt to do it as an adult.

personally, i'm glad i was circumcised as baby, because it'd suck a LOT more if i chose to do it now, being that i can't remember a thing about it as an infant.

What?


See the difference here is - you wouldn't do it nowadays because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

And as for the cleaner, what - didn't your parents teach you how to wash yourself?

Oh I get it, it's the easy way out from actually being a parent that teaches your children, just snip a little here, a little there and hey - no need to talk about 'the private parts'.

No kidding. Male genital mutilation is no big deal to most people, yet threatening a man's genitals is considered a pretty goddamned big deal ("I'll cut your dick off," "I'll cut your balls off," "I'll kick you in the nuts").

What it comes down to is this: walk up to any man on the street and give him the option: "Excuse me sir, but if you'd let me cut part of your dick off you can spend thirty seconds less each day in the shower. Are you interested?"

Walk up to any circumcised man and give him the option: "Excuse me sir, but if you'd let me cut a little more of your dick off you can spend even less time in the shower each day. Are you interested?"

Cutting off any part of the body, except when that part of the body is dead or threatens the life of any of the rest of the body, is WRONG and to think that it's done regularly to the penis--of all parts--is an affront to our sense of civilization.

Some people may still not care--it may still not be a big deal to know that it's done--and that's perfectly ok by me. But some people do care very passionately about it and with very sound reasoning behind caring their argument should be given more weight when we're talking about doing it to people that have no voice in the matter, who can't decide for themselves. If you don't care, if it isn't a big deal, then those statements go both ways--not being mutilated is no big deal and you don't care.

Don't make an irreversible decision to cut part of the most sensitive part of the body off of your child for them. There is no argument that can be made that can rationally call for amputation (or what it truly is, mutilation).

Read more before deciding to pull out the knife:

http://www.mgmbill.org/

There isn't really an arguement you can make in support of it, but what's the arguement against it? 'It's wrong' doesn't really do it for me.

What's the difference to the guy if it happened before he can even remember? Even if it does decrease the pleasure of sex, so what? How would he even know what he's missing? It's like asking somebody if they'd have been happier if they were never born. How could you possibly have any basis to compare in the first place, you know?

Indeed, like asking someone born without a hand if they miss having a hand, how could they possibly know that they're limited? It's not like the knowledge would be freely available to them that they could enjoy life potentially more with 2 hands (think about everything that requires 2 hands). I'd say it shouldn't be an option at all, I'd gladly have more fun and 30 seconds more in the shower, hell I spend ages in the shower anyway so it'd be no difference. Then again I do agree that he wouldn't really know what he's missing as obviously as someone missing a hand, and that it is nowhere near as bad as what is done to girls.

That isn't the same thing at all. Having decreased 'sensitivity' during an activity that you occasionally spend a few minutes doing (and presumably still enjoy) is pretty different from being unable to function properly in every-day life. There's no lack of function, it's just a vaguely different reaction to it.


(Anyway i don't support forced circumcision for anybody, i'm just wondering what kind of arguements people are using against it if not the old 'it's not your body' stand-by.)

o' natural is the only way

I'm still a supporter of leaving the baby like it is. Why alter something that was given naturally to the baby?

It's different for guys. We have alot more that's sensitive down there, whereas if a girl doesn't have her clitoris, she's lost alot of sensitivity. I'm not particularly against male circumcision, since it's just removal of skin, but to cut off someones clitoris is plain mutilation.

You cannot support one form of circumcision and not the other. You either do it to both or do it to none. Who are we to judge what is mutilation and what isn't. Both forms can be judged to be mutilating.

Firstly there are three different types of female circumcision, though this is what is said about Type I:

""Clitoridotomy" (which is also called "hoodectomy" as a slang term) involves the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood. The United Nations Population Fund states that this is comparable to male circumcision." (Wikipedia)

Type II is slightly more extensive, whereas Type III is very drastic and is the one that is most criticised. However, the point I am making is why should any parent have the right to do something so drastic and permanent to a child? That is not a point you can just shrug off.


Firstly there is no "even if is does decrease the pleasure" - it is fact. As an uncircumcised man I can tell you that when the foreskin is retracted the skin underneath it is very sensitive - remove the foreskin that protects it and have it constantly rubbing against your underwear and the skin toughens up and becomes less sensitive. A circumcised man can have rashes and dryness that are typically prevented by the foreskin. Secondly, remove people's eyes at birth and they grow up not knowing what they've missed - it's still wrong.

Blind people can still function properly, it is an insult to say they can't, they just don't have the full range of abilities that a fully abled person does. The point is where do you draw the line? How about finger nails? Hair? Toes? If you remove a toe it doesn't compromise a person's ability to function, they just have reduced ability (in this case ability to walk/balance is slightly reduced, comparable to the loss of sensitivity through circumcision) - it's still wrong for a parent to choose to do that. Unless it is for strictly medical reasons (as stated in the British Medical Association guidelines) it should not be carried out. When a child is older (13 is a typical age for that sort of responsibility) they can decide for themselves whether they want to have it done... however, if their parents have already gone and done it they cannot take it back and decide to keep it.

It's not different for guys (for Type I/II at least - Type III is barbaric), it's just more accepted culturally (particularly in the US).

No that's not accurate. Male circumcision removes foreskin, female circumcision removes the clitoris, so to compare if you did similar female circumcision to a man you'd be removing the head of the penis.
But at the end of the day the only reason to circumcise a man is medical, and the medical reason is based on cleanliness. Instead of circumcision a parent should sit down with their child and explain to them, if/when I have children I'm never going to hold back on information or detail when it's needed. Why be vague?
Afaik there is no reason to circumcise women (at least that I would deem acceptable).
If my example in the post above seems extreme, I was trying to get across an idea, not say it is exactly the same as, I'd much rather be circumcised than have 1 hand, as I still function well enough (read: enjoy myself) like I am - though I wouldn't object to more. Hedonism ftw.

Edit: What's type 2, if 1 is the removal protective skin and 3 is the complete removal of the clitoris?
Or is type 1 reduction and type 2 removal of the skin?

I still do not buy this medical excuse. From what I can see, there is absolutely no excuse to circumsize a male other than it being "cleaner" for you, when in reality, there is less than a 4% chance to get infected, assuming you never clean it out (stats were from BMJ (British Medical Journal). There was a study a few months ago by an American Medicine Journal from New England that said that circumcision is lowering drastically and should even out at 50/50 for new borns in the coming years in the US.

In Canada you gotta pay $200-300 when your baby is born to get it circumsized, this went into effect a few years ago I think. I support circumcision but I don't think it should be mandatory. Leave it to the parents and their beliefs.

The argument against it does not even need to exist: there needs to be an argument for it. To say that there must be an argument against it is the same as saying there must be an argument against removing your eyes at birth, or your thumbs, or the tip of your tongue. I don't need to argue why not; there is no question why not as there is no rational argument in support of it.

On the matter of arguing against the reasons for it: cleanliness is not something that is handled with surgery. It is something that is handled with soap, water, and care. Armpits generate foul odor from apocrine glands in the skin. By burning the skin--thus destroying the hair follicles and covering the area with scar tissue--the odor will be almost entirely eliminated. Is that an appropriate way to move towards greater cleanliness?

If you take the time to read the link I posted, you'll find a very helpful FAQ that answers this question even further. http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm would be the page.

If it weren't this way, what would be the problem with cutting one of your testicles out? After all, even though "it's wrong," that's not a good enough reason not to do it.

What's the difference if it happened before he can remember? If you can't remember pain you experienced does that mean the pain never happened? Not remembering pain necessarily happens after experiencing the pain. By your same reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to inflict any other kind of pain on an infant because the child will never remember the pain. Not only that, but the pain can be on the level of having your genitals cut without anesthetic and could last for years. What's the big deal? They won't consciously remember it.

Regarding the decrease of sensitivity during sexual pleasure, you've got your facts mixed up. It's not a matter of "never know what he's missing." Sexual pleasure decreases gradually over time due to the build up of keratin on the penis. This is caused by the penis being unprotected by the foreskin and constantly rubbing against the body and clothing. Sexual pleasure most definitely decreases over time, so the pleasure that was once experienced diminishes with time.

Even then, when posed the way you pose it, it's like having one eye removed at birth. While your capacity for vision has been diminished it hasn't been lost, but since you never experienced life with full vision how can you know you're missing anything?

I hope this answers your questions. Your arguments (or perhaps they were only questions) come up empty. It always comes back to "Can I cut part of your dick off to save you some time in the shower?" So, can I?

Find a guy who has two penises. Circumcise one leave the other alone. Let him "test" it. Any experiment that doesn't follow those steps won't justify it for me.


Isn't that basically it?

I didn't get my circumcision until I was 12. It doesn't feel any different. Only it doesn't feel as itchy as it did when I didn't have it circumcised. And those white thingies that collected behind the foreskin don't appear anymore. So I'm pretty glad I got mine circumcised. Less hastle.

Guess what?

People tend to shower more often than once every month, hence their personal hygiene tends to be a little better than "oh look at all this stuff that's gathering here, lol!".

Exactly. It's really insignificant for a guy, but for a girl it's totally different. I honestly wouldn't have been bothered if my parents had had it done at birth.

ew!



Much agreed dude.


I was never "cut".
Im happy for it too. If somone wants to go chopping on my "lad" i would expect to be informed about it first.

No. Just ask someone that has had it done later in life.

Hey! Give me some slack I was 12 back then. Didn't even know what the penis was used for other than peeing!

They were mostly only questions. As i already said, i don't support non-consensual circumcision on the sole basis that it should be up to the individual. I just don't think 'it's less sensitive' is a very good arguement.

How has it got to the stage where cutting off skin at birth is almost considered routine? And now people have to come up with reasons why it's right to leave it there, it's ridiculous. And the fact that there are now products available to recreate the foreskin shows that there are enough people out there that are displeased with what has been done to them.

There was a documentary on BBC 3 a few weeks ago called 'Circumcise Me', can't find it anywhere except ed2k, you should watch it. What it seems to boil down to in the US is that you have to pay for the procedure ($100?) so people are making lots of money.

Let's not forget that this is also a surgical procedure and as with any surgical procedure (however minor) there are risks.

Actually, the UN said that Type I female circumcision was comparable to male circumcision.

NEway, it's black and white to me. You either respect the rights of other people or you don't. I know I wouldn't like anyone messing with my body, so I would certainly not force that upon anyone else. I don't have any problem with circumcision - I disagree with it but it is my right to do so - but I do have a problem with it being FORCED upon very children that have no say in the matter.

'however, if their parents have already gone and done it they cannot take it back and decide to keep it.'

actually, there is a reversal operation. they stretch the skin over the head and basically make a new foreskin.

also, the arguement for? how about the fact that virtually every STD study, from HIV to herpes finds that men with uncut penises contract and spread STI's more than circumsized men. the cells of the foreskin shed easier inside of a vagina than other cells of the penis.

i'm circumsized, it wasn't at birth when i was about 7-10 years old i had enumerous operations on my unit and i guess they just lopped it off. Sex life is not hindered, and i think you'll find instances when it is due to circumsion are quite rare.

i can see why not to circumsize a male boy, for sure. i just don't really see why it's so bad if a competent parent decides for their child. that's what parents do, God bless 'em.

I don't know what you're talking about, i already said i disagree with it. My contention was basically that there are many other, far more important, reasons to be against it than the fact that it's less sensitive.

edit: Well, maybe not many other reasons. One or two i guess.

lol your arguement about pain just shows the way the world is going. pretty soon the baby will be sueing the doctor for slapping it on the butt. and as for pain not being remembered/not existing, well, that's the tree falling in the woods arguement, isn't it?

as for pleasure 'decreasing with time', that doesn't make much logical sense. skin is skin, after all, even if penile. sure, if i wore gloves all the time except when i did some really important task my hands might feel whatever it was slightly more. i'm sure if a guy wore silk boxers for a few weeks this same scenario would happen.

also, i'm glad the WHO is using it's time and resources for such precious matters such as this, rather than something insignificant like the bird flu or HIV.

This thread makes me hold my crotch in utter pain. Torture? It's torture even to hear someone talk about cutting/smashing/etc of the genitals.

Thank god you got it done then. Now you can take less showers than you did before and not witness that dirtyness under your foreskin from lack of washing yourself

Firstly, the reversal operation is very crude and nothing like having a proper foreskin. Secondly, a three year old doesn't have to worry about STD's. Once the child is 13, which is a reasonable age (and way before most people have sex), they can decide to have it done themselves. I know parents make decisions for a child but forcing a circumcision on them should NOT be one of those decisions - I personally think it should be illegal. Parents shouldn't be allowed to bleach black children's skin, cut off toes, pull out fingernails, circumcise them or anything else - that should be for the child to decide when they are old enough to do so.

As I said I have NO problems with circumcision - I do have a problem with it being forced upon a child for non-medical reasons.


So the WHO should only focus on the number one issue of the day and ignore everything else... do you have any idea how retarted that sounds? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard all day!

Think this discussion has had all the points made at least twice now. . .

I'm going to reply to a bunch of people at once.


This shows your inability to visualize, rationalize, deduce, and a complete ignorance about the scientific method, the topic at hand, and while it's troubling that proving things to you requires jumping through impossible hoops it's satisfying knowing that those of us who adhere to reason know better.


To equate slapping on the butt, which is done to stimulate the baby into breathing and has tangible medical benefit, which leaves no mark and has pain lasting only a few seconds, with cutting part of his dick off is to attempt to distract from the true argument and is a straw man.

The whole "tree falling in the woods" thing is an inaccurate analogy as well. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, no one hears it. If a knife cuts part of your dick off and you're there to feel it, you are there to feel it. If you are there to hear the tree and later forget you heard it, the past does not magically change and the event un-happen.


This isn't something that's up for debate. This is acknowledged medical fact. Take the time to read up on the fact that it happens before saying it doesn't make sense. In any event, the skin of the head of the penis is very, very different than the skin on your hands. The penis is made to be sensitive so as to induce orgasm so as to provide for procreation. The penis is used rarely. Your hands are used constantly and provide your primary method of physical interaction with everything.


As I said, it isn't a matter of arguing "don't do it because it decreases sensitivity," it's a matter of the person that wants to cut part of a man's penis off arguing effectively for doing so. If that argument were effectively made, the decrease in sensitivity argument would be a part of a larger argument that would be intended to show that the benefit of circumcision is outweighed by its negative effects.


If you read the link to the mgmbill faq, one of the questions is: "Can circumcision be reversed?" And the first sentence replies: "The unique nerve endings that are cut off during circumcision cannot be restored." There is no reversal of circumcision, there is only a workaround.


How about the fact that virtually every case of STD transmission has resulted from genital-to-genital contact? If the entire head of the penis were removed at birth there would be nearly no pleasure from sex for men and STD transmission would fall dramatically. Men with full length penises would be the agents of disease.

That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face and is an after-the-fact argument in support of circumcision. If we ritually cut out one eye of newborns and found--hundreds of years later--that in the one-eyes the incidence of pink-eye was diminished when compared to the two-eyes, would that be a justification?

In any event, your information is factually incorrect (and you can verify that through studying the matter, perhaps on Wikipedia or Google or the mgmbill.org site among others).


Agreed. It is a necessary part of human existence for parents to decide for their children. But it is also a necessary part of human existence for the strong to defend the weak, and today the weak are having their genitals ritualistically mutilated. We stop parents from abusing their children, even in the name of their religion, yet we permit an irreversible highly painful abuse of their genitals? How is that consistent, appropriate, or right?

You seem to have changed direction in your argument halfway through.

Ahem.

circumcision removes many nerves which make sex more exciting. You don't need a scientist to prove that, nerves make you feel. The more nerves, the more you feel. Right? Right. Take that out and what you got? Slightly less fun (but still fun) sex.

And it doesn't make it cleaner. For christ sake how many times do you guys shower? Is it that hard to wash it? Stroke back, wash, rince stroke front Done!

Oh wahtever, back on topic.

female circumcision is ****ing barbaric. male circumcision, whatever, it's just skin for most people but unlike what religion claims, it doesn't make it cleaner. It should only be removed IMO if it causes any problems in the near future.