Here's my anecdotal two bits worth. There is a condition called phimosis (abnormally tight foreskin) which runs in my family. It can lead to chronic infections of the foreskin, urinary tract infections, kidney infections and ultimately lead to loss of kidney function. None of these are guaranteed to happen but they can't be predicted. My father was not circumcised at birth but required the procedure at the age of 15. He swore then that no son of his would go through the same thing so me and 3 brothers were circumcised. When my son was born we decided against it after much research but again he had to be circumcised at 9. Bottom line if a parent opts for circumcision for family medical reasons they shouldn't be condemned or criticized, but lacking a family history like mine I see no compelling reason for it.

Other than aesthetics, of course, uncut dicks are ugly.

I am circumcised and, while it may have been horrible to watch (or hear) for the people that were there, I can assure you I have no recollection of the procedure. That's not to say it's good or bad, just that it's not something the child is likely to remember, as painful as it may seem or be. And, considering the time period in which it was done, I'm sure my parents were told it was healthier to have it done.

I myself feel that it is a useless religious practice. And while sex may be "better" with a foreskin, it's been just fine for me without one. Trust me on this.

What I want to know is does the "restored" foreskin have the sensitivity of the "natural" foreskin?

Here's a tip for preventing the "problems" of not having a circumcision:

Wash your baby's penis, as you are giving him a bath (surprisingly genitalia needs to be washed), and also try to pull back the foreskin a bit while doing it just so it can stretch over time. That will prevent phimosis.

>> ^peggedbea:

When my son was born I was a radiology tech in a hospital. I was not for circumcision, I thought it seemed totally unnecessary. Then I got bombarded with horror stories from all the nurses I worked with and actually ended up having to do a procedure on a little boy whos foreskin looked like it had NEVER EVER been cleaned. It was 1. the only foreskin I'd ever seen and 2. totally traumatic. In the end my sons father INSISTED he have it done, and I was a little too fucked up from having just given birth to argue anyway. So the doc gave my son a chocolate dum dum and stuck that little plastic bell thing on his penis. He was maybe 3 hours old. He didn't cry, or even seem to care. The foreskin fell a few days later.
If I ever have another kid, I won't circumcise him. But I don't feel like a horrible person because I let my son get circumcised. I used to watch a lot of things about female circumcision, the mother's who do this to their daughters think they're doing the right thing. Because in that culture, no one will want her if she isn't cut. In that culture, women don't generally get to lead lives without men. In the end, I don't begrudge parents too much for wanting to raise children who will be accepted in their respective societies.
Yeah, I get it, it's altering someones body without their consent. But individual parents aren't horrific monsters for doing things within in their respective cultural norms. It's the cultures that are fucked up and wrong. And it's complete ignorance that lets these practices continue, not malice.


You are absolutely right about ignorance and tradition being at the core of the problem, and your story illustrates my point about community pressure. (Far from me the will to guilt-trip you, Ryjkyj or anyone else for circumcision(s) already performed, in optimal circumstances. Preventing future occurrences and raising awareness on the issue is the idea here.)

There is quite a big difference between the constraints of tribal culture in the deserts of Sudan and those of Americans, between "civilised" societies and those living in bronze age cultures. For one, we are (or at least can be) aware of such notions as "rights of the individual" and the like. Secondly, HYGIENE. @Kofi summed it up neatly, and your story adds to the illustration. Parents who "NEVER EVER" clean their child's weewee are guilty of child abuse (in the form of neglect), and should be regarded with horror and disdain, in an age when access to information has never been easier. That bronze age desert-dwellers with no running water would practice circumcision makes some sense, but that it be culturally accepted elsewhere is untenable.

FGM enrages and disgusts me far more than circumcision, and I argue strongly against the cultural relativism and cowardice (vis-à-vis Islam) which allows it to go one in "civilised" countries, while supporting its eradication worldwide. Male circumcision is a far lesser evil, but the one should not be used to dismiss/excuse the other.

When my son was born I was a radiology tech in a hospital. I was not for circumcision, I thought it seemed totally unnecessary. Then I got bombarded with horror stories from all the nurses I worked with and actually ended up having to do a procedure on a little boy whos foreskin looked like it had NEVER EVER been cleaned. It was 1. the only foreskin I'd ever seen and 2. totally traumatic. In the end my sons father INSISTED he have it done, and I was a little too fucked up from having just given birth to argue anyway. So the doc gave my son a chocolate dum dum and stuck that little plastic bell thing on his penis. He was maybe 3 hours old. He didn't cry, or even seem to care. The foreskin fell a few days later.

If I ever have another kid, I won't circumcise him. But I don't feel like a horrible person because I let my son get circumcised. I used to watch a lot of things about female circumcision, the mother's who do this to their daughters think they're doing the right thing. Because in that culture, no one will want her if she isn't cut. In that culture, women don't generally get to lead lives without men. In the end, I don't begrudge parents too much for wanting to raise children who will be accepted in their respective societies.

Yeah, I get it, it's altering someones body without their consent. But individual parents aren't horrific monsters for doing things within in their respective cultural norms. It's the cultures that are fucked up and wrong. And it's complete ignorance that lets these practices continue, not malice.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

So, if little toes help with balance, what does the foreskin help with?


I hesitate following @Payback 's excellent reply, but for clarity's sake

>> ^Ryjkyj:

So, if little toes help with balance, what does the foreskin help with?


A completely DIFFERENT sense of balance.

So, if little toes help with balance, what does the foreskin help with?

@Ryjkyj

I appreciate your sincere reply, and do not want you to take my comments as personal attacks; it is the fact that such a practice can be so widely accepted despite having no, and I repeat my claim, no ethical nor medical basis, that really angers me. As for "age of consent", I am talking about informed consent, which I imagine you gave/had when you first had sex. A baby/child cannot give such consent (whether an adolescent under community/family pressure can is another question).

You say: "Saying that circumcision is akin to cutting off toes is ridiculous." Au contraire, it is actually quite a good analogy if one implies the little toes; they are not primordial (but do help balance), and without them you can be sure of never getting ingrown toenails on said toes. One cannot have phimosis (a rare and almost always benign ailment) without a foreskin, ergo the analogy is applicable. I've got one with earlobes if you prefer...

Nowhere did I suggest FGM and circumcision are alike, and I never would. They are comparable, though, inasmuch as they are both cultural traditions from barbaric times, upheld by religious beliefs.

The pain factor is a red herring, to distract from the real ethical problem: tampering with someone's body, irretrievably, without their consent. In Africa, some tribes still scar their babies' faces to mark their belonging; would it be okay if done medically and under anesthesia? "I'll tell them, 'some people are scarred, some not', no biggy"?



@asynchronice

Look up "mutilation" in the dictionary; no sensationalism whatsoever. Maybe it seems that way because most of society is completely desensitized to the disgusting and unethical practice that is infantile circumcision.

Circumcision is like sex change in two ways:

1) It should be an adult's personal decision (to do it to themselves, of course).
2) It should NOT be done to kids.



"If you are arguing outside of the aesthetics or practicality, I don't have time for you."

I guess you don't give a shit about ethics and human rights then. Well fuck you.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^hpqp:
@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side

Pfft...
It seems your opinion was considered very popular back in 1971. I had no idea.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/385.full


Did you read the part about cultural bias? The article you linked starts off promisingly:

"The American public remains resolute in its support of newborn circumcision despite negative recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)." Oh, so if the majority wants it...

The writer of the article: Edgar Schoen, Jew, maintainer of medicirc.org and member of the "Hill of Foreskins" society (Gilgal society). Noooo bias whatsoever there.


As for the actual "medical benefits" of circumcision, give me a f*cking break. "Prevents phimosis"? That's exactly like saying removing your toes prevents ingrown toenails. Phimosis is not only rare, but usually easily cured, as are most cases of UTI (btw, all the other fancy names that follow phimosis in the article are variations of the same thing). No need for mutilating your baby.


The most horrible and aberrant argument is the one concerning STDs and HIV... seriously, wtf?

Kids should not be having sex before the age of consent*; argument null!

(*that includes not being sucked off by some herpes-infested mohel.)



After that, it comes down to three things: hygiene, condoms and choice. Personal choice, not parental or communal pressure.

If it's all about prevention (a big effing lie), why not take out their tonsils? Or appendix? Or cut off the earlobes? Why not sterilize anyone who already has HIV? See where this goes?

Be proud of your foreskin!

The sunburn I got today is hotter than this roast. You'd think that after all the years you've frittered away on this piece of crap site, that at least some of you could manage to say something at least mildly amusing or offensive.

No. Instead, I have to wade through the inane ramblings of wanker247, ritalinseed, dyslexicfuckbagtomorrow, dotdouche, kumpiss, blankfist, and begging4it, before I get to laura, who doesn't seem capable of even making an incendiary remark.

I see now that the intricacies of a roast are lost on plebians such as yourselves. At this point perhaps you want to remind me that I'm supposed to roast Mrs Fiks or whatever-the-fuck her name is. DON'T. GIVE. A FUCK.

I'm so disappointed that I'm going to go masturbate over my home-made photoshopped pictures of dag and lucky being anally violated by siftbot until my foreskin bleeds.

Now step aside, assholes!

operation foreskin

I think our main disagreement is really about what religion is, ie how to define it, And I'm struggling to get my view across. Are you familiar with the expression/story "Nail soup" Its a common folk-tale from I think sweden, and it concerns a homeless man/wanderer and a woman. Basically, the wanderer is looking for food and a place to sleep, and he convinces the woman to give him a place to sleep, but she says she doesnt have any food. But then the guy explains that he can cook world class soup on nothing but a rusty old nail. Naturally, the woman is skeptical, but agrees to let the man try, so he boils up some water and tosses the nail in. "Its really getting tasty now, he says, and if only.. well, I shouldnt say.." "No, go on", says the woman, now getting interested "Well.." he says "..its just that a pinch of salt would really do the trick, but its not strictly needed" so the woman gives him some salt, and then he keeps talking, and eventually they put in pepper, carrots, mushrooms, some leftover meat, and so on,(none of them actually needed, he explains) and it ends up being a really good soup, and the woman, of course, having been completely duped, breaks out the finest brew to go with it and impressedly exclaims "And all that on a nail!, Amazing!"

I think religion is a bit like that nail. If you take an average Christian, lets say, their lives, their morality, their views on sexuality, human rights, equality,community, world affair and whatnot is almost entirely free of influence from anything in the bible, but they will nevertheless THINK they've been informed by the bible and their religion, just like the woman who think shes eating soup cooked on nothing but a nail. But of course, its not the nail that makes the soup great. In fact, it would probably be better without it, and yet the nail gets all the credit. Thats how I view religion. Like a rusty nail, it really has nothing to offer in the "soup of wisdom", we have vastly superior methods of gathering information and making judgements about the world. To the degree that religion CAN influence your decision-making process, it would have to, by definition, be something unique to the respective religion. And whats unique about a 2-4000 year old attempt at philosophy? Well, for starters we know that the people who wrote it knew next to nothing about the world they lived in. They were primitive, frightened, superstitious peasants who thought the gods would punish them for being naughty in bed, who thought the creator of the universe cared which kind of bipedal ape should live in Israel, and that they had to cut of their foreskins to prove that they were from the right tribe.

This is not a good source of wisdom, and if you REALLY base your morality or actions upon this earliest and worst attempt at philosophy, you could just as well feed your family on nothing but nails.

EDIT 24.08.10:
So what I'm really saying is that i honestly dont think religion has any good to offer. And even if it does( as with certain quotes by jesus, certain aspects of Buddhism and so on) I , as an atheist, have no trouble just stealing those good ideas, not because they are or are not part of a religion, but because they are good ideas. I dont need to think Jesus is the son of God anymore than i have to think Einstein was the son of God to think that their ideas are brilliant. So whats left of religion? well its the empty shell of superstitious, unverifiable,highly improbable noise that we call dogma, and thats the part that go haywire, because it makes ridiculous and untrue claims about the world, and that makes people make bad decisions . If you really think, say that the "prophet" Muhammed had personal contact with the creator of the universe, as is the assumed belief of all proper muslims, what room is there realistically left for doubt and interpretation? why should you then be critical of any of the actions or claims that the prophet has made? This is precisely whats wrong with religion, it places an invisible barrier between certain claims and our duty to be critical and skeptical towards them, some religions more than others, and some forms of religion more than others, but basically thats what it does. By calling texts and scripture "holy", criticism is forbidden either directly and by force by some ruling authority, or, more commonly, but just as disturbingly, by people engaging in self-censorship of their mind, a kind of thoughtcrime mindset.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
There are still some logical arguments for male circumcision, not the least of which is the health factor, not for men but for women. If bacteria builds up on the end of the penis it doesn't necessarily affect a man. But even a little can become a problem for a vagina when introduced during sex. Think of that what you will, I would still call it a logical argument however.
To date, I've never heard a non-religious/non-misogynist-based argument for female circumcision.

Simple hygiene makes this argument completely void.

This is correct - but not only that, are humans really so flippantly egotistical that they see the culmination of millions of years of evolution, think 'i can improve that rofl'? Besides which, i suggest that if you're sleeping with a man who hasn't cleaned his foreskin properly you've got a few more problems than bacteria buildup.
I can't watch this video, i can't bear to see anyone, but especially women getting abused.
However i might suggest you change the "A modicum of self control on the part of men?" in the video description. It comes off as being misandrous and ignorant. If the man can have self control, so can the woman. If it's rape, asking for someone to issue some self control over their urge to rape seems very strange.


The "modicum of self-control on the part of men" is referring to the breast ironing, which is to destroy women's sexual attractiveness so men do not feel like having sex with them (consensually or not!). In general, though, all women oppressing techniques, especially in relation to sexuality (burkas, stoning/beating for adultery, etc.), are related to the misogynous view which blames women for being the sole cause of that great evil called sex, for which men have no responsibility.