But certainly he is okay with circumcisions in third world countries since, as he noted, it does prevent certain diseases that kill? I see no reason to do it in the first and second world countries, but other nations live in conditions like old world Israel... Like the pope's distaste for condoms in Africa. He can suck a dick (The pope can)

Yep, but as the video says, all of those potential risks (urinary tract, stds, etc) are better managed by simple hygiene or the use of a condom.

If there are legitimate medical reasons for a particular individual to be circumcised, then of course you should do it. But that's the rub for me. It is a surgical procedure that involves removing part of your body. It shouldn't be done just because some puritanical flake merchant hated sex.

Put it this way. We're all born with an appendix. It's utterly useless and every now and then, just straight kills you for no good reason. Surely every child should have this dangerous organ removed? Well, it turns out that's really not a good idea, because that would ultimately do more harm than good.

We don't go around doing random medical procedures for anything else, and the vast majority of the world gets along just fine with their dicks intact.

My last word on this is that I will continue to call it barbaric, because I'm trying (in my own tiny way) to change attitudes on this. Using milquetoast terms doesn't help that. I'm not going to change this myself, but hopefully I'm contributing to a gradual shift in attitudes where infant boys are not mutilated (even "harmlessly") on the whims of their parents.

edit: really really last word. Kudos to all involved for a thought provoking discussion. You can have a rational argument on the internet!

There's the rub...in many places, information IS hard to come by. If your Dr still believes it's a good thing for your child's health, and tells you so, you are likely to believe him/her. I agree, they SHOULD know by now, but that's not the same as saying they do know. If you think the information you have is correct, you would have no reason to think you need a 'refresher course' about it...sadly.
It seems we agree that this is something people should at least be educated about and should actually consider thoroughly before doing it to their children....or better yet wait until they can educate the child and let them decide...unless there's a medical need for it (or a good likelihood of one in the near future) like the ones described above.

Male circumcision is a far cry from 'female circumcision', which is really clitorectomy (I've never heard of a legitimate reason for that)....maybe if they cut the whole tip off they would compare, but that's not how it's done.

I misspoke, they're the crocodile people.....
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/newguinea-crocscars-pp

you are right, my modification of your hypothetical did muddy it a bit off topic, but was meant to show that there may be an unknown reason for the 'mutilation' that makes it beneficial rather than barbaric. That seems to NOT be the case for most circumcision...at least not in today's society....but perhaps there are reasons I don't know for it.

Whether he had one or not is irrelevant. The studies that were done on those who actually did have them later in life showed that it usually had either no effect on sex or actually improved it unless complications developed from the procedure (see the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Technical Report on Circumcision).

The benefits of newborn circumcisions are well-documented at this point (see for example the Mayo clinic's most recent report on the topic.) We know it also can reduce the risk of HIV infection in at risk populations.

Basically, if it does no harm and can actually have benefits, it's a valid medical procedure regardless of whether parents are choosing to do it for religious reasons or not.

Of course, should future research actually prove the risks outweigh the benefits then it should be stopped. We need to base these decisions on the medical evidence and not on our cultural prejudices.

Were you circumcised later in life so you are able to compare sex before and after? If not, then no, you can't say that.

That's a very firm categorical statement but in fact there are valid medical reasons why a parent might consider circumcizing their newborn.The following is from MedicineNet.co:

"Boys who are not circumcised as newborns may later have circumcision for the treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis. When done after the newborn period, circumcision is considerably more complicated."

My grandfather, father, and my son were all circumcised in their teens because of balanoposthitis. Why it seems to run in the family I don't know, maybe it's just random, but my father swore that no son of his would go through what he went through. Accordingly myself and three brothers were all cut and for myself I can say that my sex life has not suffered as a result. However, when my son was born we decided there was no good reason for circumcision. As it turned out we were wrong.

As for circumcision for any reason other than valid medical considerations, Ya, you're probably right.

Ok, I will grant your point about ignorance vs malice, and certainly for uneducated people in decades past it's understandable that they just went along with it because they didn't have access to the information.

But it's 2014 and it's still going on, and the US of all places. It's not like the information is hard to come by.

Call me crazy, but maybe when someone suggests cutting pieces off your child, you should take a few minutes to research it?

As I said before, what mentally competent adults do to their own bodies is their own business. The only reference I could find to the alligator people is 1950s horror movie, but I have no problem with it as you describe it.

Regarding the "hardcore nipple chafing" (and this conversation is REALLY starting to get weird now ), if there was a real, practical reason, then that certainly mitigates it, but then the analogy is kinda muddled, because there is no real practical reason for circumcision. It's purely a cultural/idealogical practice. Again, I don't have a problem with that in adults (you're not hurting anyone but yourselves), but it strikes me as a particularly messed up thing to do to defenceless infants.

Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

If you decide as an adult male that you want to be circumcised, that's your decision. But I have no idea how it is considered socially acceptable to mutilate infants like this.

The REAL Reason You're Circumcised has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Or being born in a hospital in a sane country.

The only reason circumcision is common in america is because of some wack job puritan superstitions in the mid 20th century.

Frankly, it's a fucking disgrace that it is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged to surgically mutilate your child's genitals.

If you're an informed adult and you want to hack at your penis for whatever reason, go nuts. But doing it to kids is nothing short of violation.

I'm only upvoting this because of a strong belief against circumcision.

Otherwise, a lot of her arguments are poorly presented, and I have a personal gripe against this trend of internet videos where jump-cutting and over-editing is accepted as a remedy for the inability to communicate ones thoughts.

Is that a joke?

Female circumcision is the mutilation of genitalia for cultural or religious reasons.

Male circumcision is different how exactly?

And to compare abortion with masturbation has always been pretty lame. Yes, the two are related like female circumcision and male circumcision, lol.

"Who is the judge of what is the right treatment?"

You're going to love this answer It is, of course.... the state, or more specifically the law.

I assume you believe that children are entitled to some protection under the law, regardless of what their parents believe? So really, we're not arguing over the principle... simply the extent.

Yes, at one point people thought slavery was fine and dandy, but eventually that was changed through legislation (it was kind of sad that some people were so ok with slavery they thought it was worth going to war for, but some people are idiots).

Now, there are issues today that I personally disagree with that may or may not be legal. Not providing your kids with medical treatment is a pretty easy one. Most people don't believe your rights as a parent extend to letting your child die because you thought Santa Claus would save them.

More difficult would be education. I am uncomfortable with the idea that parents can withhold information or outright lie to their children, but a lot of people seem fine with this.

On the more controversial end of the scale, I personally find it abhorrent that society tolerates the genital mutilation of infants in a weird combination of religion and misguided puritanism (btw this is not a slight on anyone circumcised, if you want to make that decision for yourself as an adult, go nuts).

Some of these things may change, some not. Some will come about through majority pressure, some through principled individuals making a moral argument that supercedes the tyranny of the majority.

But ultimately, yes, the community is the judge of what is acceptable practice when raising a child. It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternative.

@ChaosEngine I totally get what you are saying. I'm only taking issue with this statement: "it is still practiced in modern Islam."

Would you say that because Jehovah's witnesses refuse to have blood transfusions that it is a practice of "modern" Christianity? No, of course you wouldn't. Jehovah's witnesses are interpreting the Bible/Christianity in a very specific way but you can't claim their beliefs represent mainstream Christian thinking.

Similarly, while there are certainly those who claim female genital mutilation is required in Islam, they aren't mainstream or "modern" in any sense of the word, particularly when you see where the vast majority of FGMs are occurring and the populations (generally poor and uneducated) that are performing them.

So I find that claiming this is a practice of Islam actually conflates the discussion about Islam (and FGM) unnecessarily. About the worst you can say is that in the Koran, Mohammad meets a woman who performs FGMs and she asks him if what she is doing is wrong. He replies along the lines that no, it isn't necessarily wrong but that she shouldn't cut too much away and goes on to elaborate that it is the duty of men to be circumcised but an honor if a woman does it.

So, if you want to criticize Islam about FGM, you can point to this and note that the Koran doesn't denounce the practice--but it also doesn't explicitly require it either.