And as a side note id like to tell you a little bit about MY DICK

*related=http://videosift.com/video/College-Humor-Engagement-Rings-Are-A-Bullshit-Scam

College Humor: Engagement Rings Are A Bullshit Scam has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

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.

While I agree it's improper, I think 'barbaric' might be a little far in most cases. I feel like now it's mostly due to good intentions paired with misinformation, a little religious preference, and just a dash of surgical 'barbarism' for aesthetics. Perhaps there should be at least a push to re-educate the doctors and suggest they actually discuss the pros and cons with parents, not just ask 'you want?'.
Somehow I feel if it were up to the individual once they were of age that there would be a lot fewer of them. ;-)
I did find it interesting to learn it's hilarious 'origin' here in the US though.

I've known the whole "Kellogg was a puritanical nutjob" origin for a long time now.

It's probably why I find the whole thing so distasteful.

Sorry, but it is intentionally cutting off part of a human for no good reason. Just because people were misinformed previously or they thought the invisible sky father said they should doesn't justify it. As far as I'm concerned, it's equivalent to bound feet (although obviously nowhere near as painful).

It is barbaric, especially the orthodox Judaic version, which adds unsanitary and frankly kinda creepy to the mix too.

Try this thought experiment.
We have discovered a new island in the middle of the pacific. Miraculously, they have had no contact with the outside world since humans arrived there. When we arrive we find all the women are missing their left nipple. It turns out this is ritualistically cut off at birth. "It's not a big deal" they say. "the baby gets over it quickly and it doesn't affect them in later life".
Ok with this?

OK, if you KNOW there's no good reason for it and do it to your child anyway, that's more barbaric. If you believe, because of misinformation, it's a good thing for the child and is safe, to me it's much less barbaric. People do harmful things all the time trying to do the right thing, intent and level of understanding should be considered when judging others, that's all I'm saying.
and in your analogy, I would be semi OK with that (if there's a male equivalent so it's not just sexist mutilation) because the social issues of not being accepted are far worse than having only one nipple, totally OK with it if it's by choice at the accepted age of choice or 'adulthood' (even if the other choice is leave the tribe).

EDIT: same hypothetical, is it OK if it's explained that they have to remove the nipple because otherwise they can't use the tools available needed to hunt without constant, often deadly bloody and infected hardcore nipple chafing, and so they would either likely starve or would likely be killed at birth because the tribe couldn't support them?

I'm 100% OK with the rituals of the 'alligator people' in Africa that cut themselves to look like they have alligator skin, done in adolescence or later by choice as I understand it, and that's certainly 'barbaric' by most standards.

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.

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.

A medical procedure to address a medical problem is fine. I wouldn't advise healthy women to have mastectomies on a whim...

However, the majority aren't for medical problems. The following video is an ad about people who do an unnecessary procedure to infants and children out of ignorance. I tried to sift it but the embed is broken or something, so be warned, while only stills, it's NSFW and somewhat graphic.

Let me know how you feel about genital mutilation for no good reason after you watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-t93r4ejlE

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.

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.

Have always gone with "Barbaric" as an opinion on this topic. Will never do this to my children. Enrages me that it's done to so many.

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.

I think it's the 'does no harm' part that is being disagreed with. Some people consider this harmful (rightly or wrongly) and/or dangerous, others think not doing it is harmful/dangerous.
Studies like the one you cite seem to show the benefits outweigh the 'harm', and that the 'harm' is minimal... without relying on opinion.

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!

Mutilation unless it's done medical reasons. There is no real reason for it what so ever. Stupid practice, each parent should be sued that does this.

We mostly agree then, just differ on our level of distaste. Not being a parent, I'll even concede that my opinion is less important on this issue than most other people.

As an aside, the appendix is not actually useless or vestigial as previously thought. It's been found to be like a small pocket off your intestine where beneficial bacteria can be preserved when something happens to the rest of the intestinal floura, to 're-seed' your intestine after (if) the issue is resolved.

To say, "see, no harm done" is like cutting off your baby toes at birth. you never had them, so you never missed them. But the toes are still missing. Why? because someone thought it would be a good idea.

Now, the foreskin isn't being removed for no reason at all, it's being removed because someone with power had really-sick, messed-up, uneducated attitudes towards sex. Then they wanted to control everyone else's attitudes towards sexuality. So they came up with this sadistic surgery to stop teenage boys from masturbating. The thing is, this is all in the name of religion as well.

So, regardless if you feel like you've lost nothing in the process, you are continuing the mutilation in the name of one or two people's interpretation of religious beliefs and purposefully hacking off pieces of new born babies.

I have no idea how anyone can think, oh, ya, well, they did it to me so... I must do it to all my children.
That is just messed up....

OK, seems, I have a strong opinion on this.. I'll disengage now

And you cant say it either. So the point is moot. It's like a child born without a leg saying it doesn't affect his life any differently than if he had another leg. You're basically saying hey legless, you don't know because you never had that leg.

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)

And you will please notice that I didn't.

Off (or "over") the top of my head I'd say that extra skin facilitates movement, requiring less lubricant. Glad no one chopped part of my *anatomy off.

Adding video to channels (Anatomy) - requested by Zawash.

as an Israeli (sort of) Jew, I can definitely relate to the "I got my penis cut off, so should my son have his" kind of mantra. If I had continued to live in Israel and had a son, it would be practically impossible to keep my son's penis intact without causing an uproar with my family and my surroundings. Almost everyone in Israel would still hold those old theories about hygiene and health as a way to hold off any real discussion about what it really means.

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

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

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

EDIT: Sorry I said anything, It really is not my battle here.

Don't misconstrue (or misunderstand) my words.

I said it's ignorant to just blindly state everyone who circumcises is barbaric and misinformed and that otherwise everyone is only possibly motivated by religious or aesthetic reasons.

The bottom line is we were not sure about doing it one way or the other, but we decided to give our boys what we know is the best chance against contracting HIV (heterosexually) among other things.

Finns probably have a lot less disease to worry about spreading around.

Yes, like everything in life, there may be valid reasons that could convince anyone to do it or to not do it. In my case, we made an informed decision that the foreskin isn't necessary and the only real consequences of it removed would be beneficial. Others don't feel that way, and that's fine. I'm not going to shove my opinion down everyone else's throat or call them names for disagreeing.

It would be nice to be afforded the same courtesy.

Sorry I said anything, I just ignored my own cardinal rule: never read any commets, certainly NEVER ever respond to any.

I did not mean to be rude. Just sometimes I respond before I think it through..

I agree we should not let "it isn't natural" be a counter argument, that is after all the same argument anti-vaxxers use.

"No harm" is where I doubt the report you link (though I guess you do not actually mean NO harm). I see a lot of cited reviews in the Mayo report on the negatives of not being circumcised and very few on the negatives of being circumcised which leads me to suspect bias, or that less research has been done there. There are also pretty big flaws in some of the reviews I had access to (for example one of the randomised studies on sexual dysfunction that is cited by a review are entirely based on self-report [and some results were puzzling and not explained] and only over a few years - this still proves nothing when it is done to infants though I doubt it has large effects on sexuality if any). Unfortunately I can't access most articles due to being at home.

Of course my scepticism could very well be a cultural prejudice to it being "wrong" and me searching for minor flaws in their argument.

I get it. Commenter's remorse. Happens to all of us (except choggie). Don't let it bother you too much. : )

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Sift of the week. (12 inches, cut)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

We're all listing our penis dimensions right?

As I recall the study that said circumcision reduces HIV was horribly flawed - the group that was circumcised was told to abstain from sex during healing and if not then to use a condom and taught in their use, while the uncircumcised group were just left to their own sexy devices.

Ultimately though this isn't a debate about science, I've been in multiple debates about it on the internet and it's always circumcised people saying it's good and uncircumcised people saying it's bad. Sure, there's occasionally lumps of science in the mud being hurled back and forth, but mostly it's just mud.

I'm not! And I can prove it! http://i.imgur.com/rlo2kkc.jpg

I look at it like this: It's like cutting off the tips of your fingers to avoid nail issues. You will 100% have no problems with cuticles, broken nails or ingrown nails, but it's a bit of a hassle to have done once you've grown up, so we did it to you as a baby instead.

No thanks. If I get pressing issues, we can take care of it then, otherwise no touchy.

Circumcision of a person without consent and without immediate medical reason should be made illegal. It's unbelievable in this day and age that it occurs and is seemed as normal, and yet people scream foul play over female circumcision.

Barbaric practice, needs to go. We don't accept unnecessary female circumcision, there is no reason to accept male. It offers significant drawbacks and no benefits to a healthy baby born into a western civilised country.

If you're likely to live and have sex with members of a population in which HIV is rife, i could see it being used to save a couple of lives out of every few hundred thousand. However if you live in a country where HIV is uncommon, circumcision is not any kind of protection - the child is not going to grow up using circumcision as a defence against STDs especially when trivial solutions exist that provide 99.999% protection. So you've taken away a wealth of nerve endings in the skin and furthermore deadened the sensitivity of the tip by exposing it to 'rough' surfaces, but there's no benefit.

That "prevention" method (above) only works in the same way as pre-emptive breast removal works. You'd only recommend it to those massively at risk.

Barbaric definitely is the word. And archaic. And the words "improper use of statistics and research to come to a poor conclusion". A bit like the fallacy of autism/immunisation that people bang on about to this very day despite it being bollocks of the highest order. Christ, even if it were true (which it categorically isn't), i'd rather my kid have ASD than die from polio or any of the other countless diseases that literally killed millions before being eradicated through immunisation.