Current Events > Do think banning circumcision would be a bad idea...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...because it would be an attack on religious freedoms (cultures that practice circumcision on infants) and parents that want to circumcise their sons for non-religious reasons?

Only female circumcision
---

What if it's within someone's culture to perform female circumcision? Not all forms of female circumcision is as extreme as removal of the clit.

I think so. Foreskin is useless and gross anyway.

It would be a bad idea because uncircumcised penises look gross.
---

Circumsision should be a thing. I can't even imagine someone giving a spontanious bj to uncircumcised dick. Enjoy the taste lol. Cirrcumsized penis looks better, and is cleaner.

If i had any kind of sex life, and i was happy about my dick in size and shape i would get my foreskin removed immediately.
---

There's at least a reason for male circumcision. Female circumcision is stupid. The clits main purpose is for pleasure. So taking that off clearly states they want to limit a woman's pleasure.

I mean if banning both stops the latter go for it. Do it when they're adults if they want to if it's that important. And if she wants to then then go for it.
---

Yes.
---

infant circumcision should be banned

if an adult wants to get it done, they should be able to for whatever reason(religion, health, etc)
---

Female circumcision can just be removal of the hood. Male circumcision is done to reduce pleasure to prevent men from pleasuring themselves. Both forms of circumcision are done to reduce sexual pleasure.

lilJoe457 posted...

There's at least a reason for male circumcision

No there isn't.
---

Anisoptera posted...

Female circumcision can just be removal of the hood. Male circumcision is done to reduce pleasure to prevent men from pleasuring themselves. Both forms of circumcision are done to reduce sexual pleasure.

lol wut?
---

and no woman likes anteaters

99% of the world is not circumcised.

There's no reason for it, at all.

Iodine posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Female circumcision can just be removal of the hood. Male circumcision is done to reduce pleasure to prevent men from pleasuring themselves. Both forms of circumcision are done to reduce sexual pleasure.

lol wut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention

Anisoptera posted...

Iodine posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Female circumcision can just be removal of the hood. Male circumcision is done to reduce pleasure to prevent men from pleasuring themselves. Both forms of circumcision are done to reduce sexual pleasure.

lol wut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention

Umm ok. It obviously didn't work so I don't get the point of this.
---

Iodine posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Female circumcision can just be removal of the hood. Male circumcision is done to reduce pleasure to prevent men from pleasuring themselves. Both forms of circumcision are done to reduce sexual pleasure.

lol wut?

That's what it was originally done for. The foreskin has a lot of nerve endings and they thought that by cutting it off it would reduce pleasure and keep boys from masturbating and having premarital sex.
---

Iodine posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Iodine posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Female circumcision can just be removal of the hood. Male circumcision is done to reduce pleasure to prevent men from pleasuring themselves. Both forms of circumcision are done to reduce sexual pleasure.

lol wut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention

Umm ok. It obviously didn't work so I don't get the point of this.

It means that circumcision became the norm due to decades of misinformation about health. It became so normalized that people don't think twice before doing it and that being uncircumcised was shameful. Right now you can go up to a random person and ask them if they prefer uncut or cut and they will tell they prefer cut despite never experiencing dealing with an uncircumcised person in real life. There's even fathers on Gamefaqs that got their sons circumcised and plan on circumcising all of their sons .

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

infant circumcision should be banned

if an adult wants to get it done, they should be able to for whatever reason(religion, health, etc)

I'd want it done when I can't remember it even happening. That's why it is done in infancy.

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

infant circumcision should be banned

if an adult wants to get it done, they should be able to for whatever reason(religion, health, etc)

Yep.

wah_wah_wah posted...

I'd want it done when I can't remember it even happening. That's why it is done in infancy.

Not the choice of others to make.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

infant circumcision should be banned

if an adult wants to get it done, they should be able to for whatever reason(religion, health, etc)

I'd want it done when I can't remember it even happening. That's why it is done in infancy.

You may not remember the actual act of circumcision, but it has long term psychological damage.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

Sir Will posted...

Not the choice of others to make.

It's not "others" it's your parents. They are primarily responsible for any care you are going to get in infancy because obviously an infant cannot verbally or otherwise consent to surgeries.

StucklnMyPants posted...

It would be a bad idea because uncircumcised penises look gross.

This is the most bizarre rationale ever to justify removing part of an infant's body.

If there is a valid health benefit, at least that's a decent starting argument.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Sir Will posted...

Not the choice of others to make.

It's not "others" it's your parents. They are primarily responsible for any care you are going to get in infancy because obviously an infant cannot verbally or otherwise consent to surgeries.

Parents aren't medical professionals. They shouldn't be allowing a circumcision or permanent without a proper medical reason.

Anisoptera posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Sir Will posted...

Not the choice of others to make.

It's not "others" it's your parents. They are primarily responsible for any care you are going to get in infancy because obviously an infant cannot verbally or otherwise consent to surgeries.

Parents aren't medical professionals. They shouldn't be allowing a circumcision or permanent without a proper medical reason.

They can have their kids ears pierced. What's the difference?
---

Anisoptera posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

infant circumcision should be banned

if an adult wants to get it done, they should be able to for whatever reason(religion, health, etc)

I'd want it done when I can't remember it even happening. That's why it is done in infancy.

You may not remember the actual act of circumcision, but it has long term psychological damage.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

I'd have to find the source studies because it is well-known and established that memories do not form in infancy, so this sounds like Freudian bullshit to me but if they are peer reviewed and duplicated then I can't really argue with that.

Anisoptera posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Sir Will posted...

Not the choice of others to make.

It's not "others" it's your parents. They are primarily responsible for any care you are going to get in infancy because obviously an infant cannot verbally or otherwise consent to surgeries.

Parents aren't medical professionals. They shouldn't be allowing a circumcision or permanent without a proper medical reason.

There are health benefits to circumcision. It is not merely a cosmetic procedure.

what is the prevalence of phimosis among uncircumcised adult males?

jsb0714 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Sir Will posted...

Not the choice of others to make.

It's not "others" it's your parents. They are primarily responsible for any care you are going to get in infancy because obviously an infant cannot verbally or otherwise consent to surgeries.

Parents aren't medical professionals. They shouldn't be allowing a circumcision or permanent without a proper medical reason.

They can have their kids ears pierced. What's the difference?

Piercing isn't as extreme and is one of those norms that shouldn't be done but are that are still culturally acceptable. Much like spanking a child as punishment. Parents shouldn't do it, but it's done anyway and social workers are probably not going to do much about it.

wah_wah_wah posted...

There are health benefits to circumcision. It is not merely a cosmetic procedure.

I don't argue that there were health benefits back when people only bathed once a month, didn't understand proper hygiene, and didn't have any sort of medical treatment for infections. What's the health benefit in modernized nations in 2017. Real question. And is that worth the decreased sexual pleasure that both the man and woman get to experience if the man is uncircumcised?
---

The health benefits are very minor. An intact male that achieve the same benefits with proper hygiene and using protection when engaging in sex.

bob742omb posted...

what is the prevalence of phimosis among uncircumcised adult males?

Phimosis is actually pretty uncommon and be treated with steroid creams and stretching. Even in extreme situations circumcision is hardly necessary.

The Admiral posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

There are health benefits to circumcision. It is not merely a cosmetic procedure.

I don't argue that there were health benefits back when people only bathed once a month, didn't understand proper hygiene, and didn't have any sort of medical treatment for infections. What's the health benefit in modernized nations in 2017. Real question. And is that worth the decreased sexual pleasure that both the man and woman get to experience if the man is uncircumcised?

Less chance of penile cancer. There is no proof it decreases sexual pleasure.

I circumcised my son. 100000 dollars says he won't give a shit either
---

The foreskin provides natural lubrication.

ManWithGun posted...

I circumcised my son. 100000 dollars says he won't give a shit either

When he gets older tell him why he's circumcised and have him study up the history of circumcision or have him watch a documentary on circumcision (Penn And Teller's episode on Circumcision). Maybe he'll care about it when he knows about the damage it causes and how religious groups are preventing circumcision from getting banned.

Anisoptera posted...

ManWithGun posted...

I circumcised my son. 100000 dollars says he won't give a shit either

When he gets older tell him why he's circumcised and have him study up the history of circumcision or have him watch a documentary on circumcision (Penn And Teller's episode on Circumcision). Maybe he'll care about it when he knows about the damage it causes and how religious groups are preventing circumcision from getting banned.

I'm not religious tho
---

ManWithGun posted...

Anisoptera posted...

ManWithGun posted...

I circumcised my son. 100000 dollars says he won't give a shit either

When he gets older tell him why he's circumcised and have him study up the history of circumcision or have him watch a documentary on circumcision (Penn And Teller's episode on Circumcision). Maybe he'll care about it when he knows about the damage it causes and how religious groups are preventing circumcision from getting banned.

I'm not religious tho

Then why get him circumcised if not for cultural reasons? Hygiene? He shouldn't have to worry about that when he has access to a shower, soap, and running water.

Because there's nothing wrong with circumcision that's why.
---

ManWithGun posted...

Because there's nothing wrong with circumcision that's why.

Go do some research on the "effects of circumcision" or watch some videos on Youtube on "why circumcision is wrong"

Saying "it looks better!" isn't a good enough reason.

Anisoptera posted...

jsb0714 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Sir Will posted...

Not the choice of others to make.

It's not "others" it's your parents. They are primarily responsible for any care you are going to get in infancy because obviously an infant cannot verbally or otherwise consent to surgeries.

Parents aren't medical professionals. They shouldn't be allowing a circumcision or permanent without a proper medical reason.

They can have their kids ears pierced. What's the difference?

Piercing isn't as extreme and is one of those norms that shouldn't be done but are that are still culturally acceptable. Much like spanking a child as punishment. Parents shouldn't do it, but it's done anyway and social workers are probably not going to do much about it.

You're making an alteration on your child that they had no say on. Same with circumcision. Don't try to use "extreme" either to attempt to make some point. Cutting off an infant's toes would be extreme, not some piece of skin.
---

Removing the foreskin on an infant is extreme and shouldn't be done. It puts the child in extreme stress and pain. The pain lasts for weeks and leave the child vulnerable to infection during the healing process. The pain and stress makes bonding with the mother more difficult. The foreskin is very sensitive.

Anisoptera posted...

Removing the foreskin on an infant is extreme and shouldn't be done. It puts the child in extreme stress and pain. The pain lasts for weeks and leave the child vulnerable to infection during the healing process. The pain and stress makes bonding with the mother more difficult. The foreskin is very sensitive.

Literally bullshit.
---

ManWithGun posted...

Because there's nothing wrong with circumcision that's why.

The point is you subjected your son to a unnecessary medical procedure for no reason.
Botched circumcisions are a thing, infections are possible, and it's even possible to die from it.
I mean you could say "there's nothing wrong with it" towards a lot of things. Like why not get his fingernails and toenails removed? I mean he doesn't really need them anyways...

Honestly I go back and forth on wether or not I'd circumcise my son if I had one. I'm circumcised and idgaf that I am and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't gaf if I wasn't. But I have to achnowlege that culturally at in the US circumcised dicks are the norm and I've heard stories from girls ik about them making fun of uncut dick, how gross they are, and even heard one of my friends telling a dude she'd be right back and them leaving after she saw his dick and that he was uncut.
I'd hate for him to ever have to deal with anything like that.

The fact that it's an unnecessary medical procedure makes me lean towards no, and then I could just give him that choice where if he's older and decided he'd rather be circumcised then he can do it. But at the same time I acknowledge that it's much easier to just have something like that done when you're a baby and won't remember it or anything anyways. So idk.
I'm circumcised btw.
---

Anisoptera posted...

Removing the foreskin on an infant is extreme and shouldn't be done. It puts the child in extreme stress and pain. The pain lasts for weeks and leave the child vulnerable to infection during the healing process. The pain and stress makes bonding with the mother more difficult. The foreskin is very sensitive.

Is this your gimmick?
---