Poll of the Day > Why do they call it circumcision instead of male genitalia mutilation?

(+) Yeah! (+)

_AdjI_ posted...

And poor hygiene is pretty inevitable when dealing with a bedridden patient who needs a nurse to wash him. Yay! Context!

So we should mutilate an infant's penis on the basis that a nurse may find it gross 60-80 years down the road?
So basically, what you're saying is that men should have to spend their entire lives with a mutilated penis because someone who isn't even born yet has the potential to be grossed out by it? That's a terrible reason.
And might I remind you that it's her job. She's not supposed to enjoy it, she's supposed to do it well.
Nobody likes their jobs. And if the bedridden man is suffering from poor hygiene then she isn't doing that job very well, is she?

Yeah, I'm gonna say this isn't really a justifiable reason, and infections can be prevented from properly cleaning yourself, as well as not having sex with STI ridden thots.
---

Why do guys have a foreskin if we wasn't supposed to have a foreskin?
---

LinkPizza posted...

There are many times where you might not. For example, I wouldnt ake shower at jut before school. Lots of people did. And would usually wash off in the sink before school. When playing sports, you could get very sweaty. If someone had gun class first period at school. Then had to stay that way for the rest of the day (no showers at school), then stayed late because they played a sport and had a game at a school that was far away. And would be coming home after, they could be without soap and water for a while. Though, I dont know how long you would have to be without it. Theres also camping if someone forgets to bring it...

Finding the time to clean yourself is just part of good hygiene. Furthermore, it's not like you need to wash an uncut dick every hour. Even if you're being highly active, a daily shower is plenty (people aren't necessarily going to want to put it in their mouth before that shower if you've been sweating all day, but that's going to be pretty true regardless).

Aculo posted...

depends. i'm glad my dad took me to have it done when i was a baby. to make that decision now as an adult would be difficult. but i gotta admit, i am enjoying the benefits!

I'm glad you're happy with it, but that doesn't change that it's the wrong thing to do. People should have agency over their own bodies. Period. Conceptually, circumcising a baby is no different from giving somebody a tattoo while they're passed out drunk, which I think we can agree would not be cool at all.

_AdjI_ posted...

Cosmetic surgery on people who can't consent is not okay.

This. My son is uncircumcised simply because there's no actual reason to do it other than "tradition" and I'm not so sure a genital-slicing tradition is really worth continuing.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

The term genitalia mutilation sounds much more barbaric though.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice though, it's just been normalised, like when Christianity was forced on our Pagan homeland.

Its interesting that circumcision is not a Christian practice, but Jewish

And on top of that, the real reason is very barbaric : foreskin is a sacrifice to god

wwinterj25 posted...

Why do guys have a foreskin if we wasn't supposed to have a foreskin?

We have an appendix, too...

_AdjI_ posted...

Finding the time to clean yourself is just part of good hygiene. Furthermore, it's not like you need to wash an uncut dick every hour. Even if you're being highly active, a daily shower is plenty (people aren't necessarily going to want to put it in their mouth before that shower if you've been sweating all day, but that's going to be pretty true regardless).

Yeah. I said Im not sure how long it would take. Also, the pint was that sometimes, you make not have access to a daily shower depending whats been going on in you life and stuff like that.

_AdjI_ posted...

I'm glad you're happy with it, but that doesn't change that it's the wrong thing to do. People should have agency over their own bodies. Period. Conceptually, circumcising a baby is no different from giving somebody a tattoo while they're passed out drunk, which I think we can agree would not be cool at all.

Maybe. But that would also be saying a kid should be able to get a tatto as a child. And lots of people would bot be happy about that, either. Maybe someone should have control over their bodies until a certain age. At least a little. Though, even if things change, I will say Im glD that it was this way when I was born. Haha.
---

Aculo posted...

Preventing balanitis
You can reduce your chances of getting balanitis by:

-keeping your penis clean
-avoiding harsh soaps and other skin irritants
-using soap substitutes, such as an emollient
-practising safe sex to avoid an STI
-using latex-free condoms if you have a latex allergy

*circumcision not listed*

Hmmm?
---

foreskin's purpose:
-protects the glans when not in use
-provides lubricant
-adds stimulation for sexual intercourse

LinkPizza posted...

We have an appendix, too...

Only we don't know why that is to my knowledge. With foreskin we do. I'm not and never will be for cutting parts of my natural look completely off. Trimming of hair and nails is fine though.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Why do guys have a foreskin if we wasn't supposed to have a foreskin?

Not necessarily the best argument because the concept of vestigial structures (biological features that no longer serve a known purpose, like the human appendix) exists.

_AdjI_ posted...

Not necessarily the best argument because the concept of vestigial structures (biological features that no longer serve a known purpose, like the human appendix) exists.

No long being required doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.
---

LinkPizza posted...

We have an appendix, too...

Contrary to popular belief, the appendix does in fact have a function.
The fact that you can live without it does not make it useless.
---

vocedelmorte posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

The term genitalia mutilation sounds much more barbaric though.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice though, it's just been normalised, like when Christianity was forced on our Pagan homeland.

Its interesting that circumcision is not a Christian practice, but Jewish

To be fair, Judaism arose and was codified in a very different world from that in which Christianity arose. For ancient Jews, water and soap wouldn't have been readily available, so hygiene would have been difficult and infections not uncommon. Toss in that basically any illness was seen as punishment from a divine entity because Germ Theory wasn't around, and you get the belief that God wanted Jewish foreskins to be cut off. Same sort of basis as for not eating pork or shellfish (both can potentially be very dangerous if not cooked or prepared properly). Christianity, however, arose in the Roman empire, and they'd figured out the whole hygiene thing by then.

You could bring up wisdom teeth, but there's no downside to having them removed even though they are growing in properly. Also it's a medical procedure done with anesthetic when someone is old enough to not be traumatized it. A baby is still learning how to cope and the procedure can't be done with any pain relief.

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

We have an appendix, too...

Only we don't know why that is to my knowledge. With foreskin we do. I'm not and never will be for cutting parts of my natural look completely off. Trimming of hair and nails is fine though.

Its different for everyone. I like my natural looks of things that people can see all the time. And I like the new look of my penis. Well, not exactly new, but non-natural looking...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its different for everyone. I like my natural looks of things that people can see all the time. And I like the new look of my penis. Well, not exactly new, but non-natural looking...

Here is the deal though. Unless someone had been circumcised as a adult how on earth would they know how their junk would have looked without doing that? The answer is they won't. In the USA circumcision is more normal though so uncut dicks probably look strange to most USA folk. Over here though it's uncommon to see a circumcised penis so seeing one looks odd.
---

Although it's difficult to try to convince people that circumcision is wrong, it's still good to spread awareness with facts even when they want to justify it for cosmetic reasons or "I was cut and my penis still works". People for circumcision will justify it for social or cosmetic reasons meanwhile people against it will talk about human rights and how it's actually an unnecessary medical procedure. They have no other argument other than resorting to insults, something superficial, or how they believe it isn't very harmful since they are still able to enjoy sex. Or how it's not as bad as female circumcision or how uncircumcised children are more likely to get bullied.

_AdjI_ posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

The term genitalia mutilation sounds much more barbaric though.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice though, it's just been normalised, like when Christianity was forced on our Pagan homeland.

Its interesting that circumcision is not a Christian practice, but Jewish

To be fair, Judaism arose and was codified in a very different world from that in which Christianity arose. For ancient Jews, water and soap wouldn't have been readily available, so hygiene would have been difficult and infections not uncommon. Toss in that basically any illness was seen as punishment from a divine entity because Germ Theory wasn't around, and you get the belief that God wanted Jewish foreskins to be cut off. Same sort of basis as for not eating pork or shellfish (both can potentially be very dangerous if not cooked or prepared properly). Christianity, however, arose in the Roman empire, and they'd figured out the whole hygiene thing by then.

Exactly. There is just no reason to cut off foreskin. Health benefits were proven to be insignificant. But cut penis robbed off more sexual pleasure man could experience. And all this 'uncut is gross looking' was enforced to encourage mutilation. While erect uncut penis is looking basically the same as cut, but without ugly scar. And flaccid penis look doesn't matter, no one saying vagina is ugly because of all the skin folds that protecting it, so lets cut it off

_AdjI_ posted...

While still being the same basic procedure. A male circumcision differs from even a female circumcision as a procedure, let alone from the other forms that female genital mutilation takes. The difference is not just in the level of danger involved, but rather the wider range of procedures that necessitates the use of a blanket term.

Driving in India differs from Driving in England as a procedure, let alone from the other forms that Indian traffic dodging attempts takes. The difference is not just im the level of danger involved, but rather the wider range of reckless driving that necessitates referencing india as particularly bad driving.

_AdjI_ posted...

And poor hygiene is pretty inevitable when dealing with a bedridden patient who needs a nurse to wash him. Yay! Context!

A nurse would do daily cleaning, ya dingus.

_AdjI_ posted...

You disagree that "circumcision is male oppression!" loses some weight when any number of millions of happily-cut men can show up and say "I don't feel particularly oppressed by it"? Because that doesn't seem like a very sensible position to hold. You're going to have far more luck with the "cosmetic surgery on people who are unable to consent is bad" angle, rather than trying to turn it into a story of gendered oppression (especially when the female variant is unambiguously a matter of gendered oppression, for reasons stated above).

Fucking up a dick is fucking up a dick, no matter how much you want to downplay the damage to suit your mindset.

Aculo posted...

that's a small part of the definition, but let's be honest. taking the skin off is infinitely more pleasing to the eye, and more specifically, the female eye that has to look at your gross dong dork, ok?

Mine's pretty neat (and unscarred), but they're not really meant to be eye candy.

Aculo posted...

lmao you have a strange concept of what a cut wangus looks like, my bro. mine has never been dry or cracked, nor have a heard of anyone else having these issues, ok?

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/circumcised-vs-uncircumcised#hygiene

your penile skin may be more likely to get dry, chafed, or irritated without the foreskin.

VincentAdultman posted...

I'm an Army medic, after any field exercise, guess which penises get infected and which ones don't. Theres benefits to circumcision.

The weirdoes using their foreskin as a dirt cup.
---

Also part about foreskin as sacrifice to god, have to do more with proving faith initially.
Like, someone in bible was ready to sacrifice his son, so jew father sacrifice part of his son to god

vocedelmorte posted...

Also part about foreskin as sacrifice to god

I'm sure god has use for your foreskin, ok?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

Also part about foreskin as sacrifice to god

I'm sure god has use for your foreskin, ok?

It's a neat pinky ring.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/circumcised-vs-uncircumcised#hygiene

it also says this on that page:

Smegma can make your penis smell and even lead to glans and foreskin inflammation (balanitis). This can make pulling back your foreskin difficult or impossible. If this happens, its known as phimosis. Phimosis and balanitis can both require medical attention if left untreated.

which made me think, "jesus christ, what the hell is phimosis???"

to which i was answered by google:

A condition in which tight foreskin can't be pulled back over the head of the penis.

which sounds goddamned nightmarish. holy fuck, the more i read about these conditions of being uncircumcised, the more i want to up the budget for my dad's christmas gift to thank him again for getting me cut when i was an infant, ok?
---

Phimosis can be treated with steroid creams and stretching. You can get treated and still keep your foreskin. Smegma only builds up because of poor hygiene. Both are easily treatable and don't justify circumcision.

Anisoptera posted...

Phimosis can be treated with steroid creams and stretching. You can get treated and still keep your foreskin. Smegma only builds up because of poor hygiene.

i'll skip any and all of that and just be thankful i was cut, ok?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Its different for everyone. I like my natural looks of things that people can see all the time. And I like the new look of my penis. Well, not exactly new, but non-natural looking...

Here is the deal though. Unless someone had been circumcised as a adult how on earth would they know how their junk would have looked without doing that? The answer is they won't. In the USA circumcision is more normal though so uncut dicks probably look strange to most USA folk. Over here though it's uncommon to see a circumcised penis so seeing one looks odd.

You cant. And that fine. You get the general idea of how it would have looked. You may not know exactly, but thats fine. In the end, Ive seen uncircumcised ones on many, many, many other people. Its not horrible. But I personally prefer how uncircumcised looks. Just a preference...

Anisoptera posted...

Although it's difficult to try to convince people that circumcision is wrong, it's still good to spread awareness with facts even when they want to justify it for cosmetic reasons or "I was cut and my penis still works". People for circumcision will justify it for social or cosmetic reasons meanwhile people against it will talk about human rights and how it's actually an unnecessary medical procedure. They have no other argument other than resorting to insults, something superficial, or how they believe it isn't very harmful since they are still able to enjoy sex. Or how it's not as bad as female circumcision or how uncircumcised children are more likely to get bullied.

The other side acts the same. Calling circumcised people names. And being mad at them for the sole reason of being circumcised. People can do what they want. And lots of people, including circumcised people know the risk. And the doctors even tell the parents before they do it, I would think. You have to get consent and all. We know the risk, but like our penises still...

GanglyKhan posted...

Why do you all care so much about penises?

Serious flags being raised ITT, non sarcastically.

We probably care about ours for obvious reasons. For others, Idc as much. I do like to look at them. But either way, Im glad my SO is circumcised...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A nurse would do daily cleaning, ya dingus.

Depends on whatre in for and how many days. When I had an operation and stayed in the hospital for three days, I didnt get a single cleaning. Unless they cleaned me before surgery.

But maybe they would have to ask for it. But thats pretty embarrassing for some people...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mine's pretty neat (and unscarred), but they're not really meant to be eye candy.

Speak for yourself...
---

Why do you all care so much about penises?

Serious flags being raised ITT, non sarcastically.
---

These threads always go on forever
---

how dare people care about the human rights of a baby and tons of misconceptions about the human body to justify an unnecessary medical procedure.

Anisoptera posted...

how dare people care about the human rights of a baby and tons of misconceptions about the human body to justify an unnecessary medical procedure.

i mean, if you don't care about hygene, or not repulsing your sexual partner...
---

GanglyKhan posted...

Why do you all care so much about penises?

Well we don't care about you so.
---

Anisoptera posted...

how dare people care about the human rights of a baby and tons of misconceptions about the human body to justify an unnecessary medical procedure.

Yeah, just wait, one day all the babies will be marching on Washington demanding that this injustice stop.

People spending more than a few minutes posting their opinion on this ridiculous matter have extremely twisted priorities.
---

Trying to change people's minds about circumcision is a pretty good priority to have.

Anisoptera posted...

Trying to change people's minds about circumcision is a pretty good priority to have.

It seems more like a waste of time. People usually have their minds set. And most with kids have either had it done, or are set on doing it or not.
---

Anisoptera posted...

Circumcision is barbaric and it's frightening how its still legal.

This. If its bad and nonsensical to do it to little girls, they shouldn't do it to little boys. There is no medical reason to do it to either and each excuse is paper thin.

Better cleanliness? Yeah just wash it correctly.

Smegma? Girls have smegma too and in western countries they do not have their inner labias removed. Again, proper hygiene is all that's needed.

Prevention of cancer? Bullshit. Cancer is caused by a number of factors, including genetics. Breasts and testicles aren't preemptively cut off to avoid breast or testicular cancer.

Less chance of stds? Thats what condoms are for.

Risk of infection? Any place on your body can risk getting an infection if not properly taken care of.

But...but...muh religion!
If your religion says that you have to mutilate children, something is seriously wrong with that aspect of your religion. Religion should never take precedence over human rights. Otherwise people would still burn others at the stake, or make human and animal sacrifices with no legal repercussion.

Male and female genital mutilation is a barbaric socio-religious practice that should have never been implemented in the first place and should have been put a stop to forever ago. The fact that its been deeply installed as a medical practice is equally horrid.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Trying to change people's minds about circumcision is a pretty good priority to have.

It seems more like a waste of time. People usually have their minds set. And most with kids have either had it done, or are set on doing it or not.

Well people used to have their minds set on all kindsa barbaric, dumb and horrifying shit. Yet lobotomies are outlawed as a viable mental health practice, mercury is no longer a cure-all, foot binding and castrato are outlawed, and they don't jam hot pokers up your ass to get rid of fistulas.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Driving in India differs from Driving in England as a procedure, let alone from the other forms that Indian traffic dodging attempts takes. The difference is not just im the level of danger involved, but rather the wider range of reckless driving that necessitates referencing india as particularly bad driving.

Driving is still driving, even if you have to be more careful in some places than others. If you want to take that high-level an approach to the comparison here, you'd be calling both of them "surgery," and that'd just be silly. Your analogy really doesn't work.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A nurse would do daily cleaning, ya dingus.

Depends on the patient. You'll notice earlier that I dismissed that point myself by saying that it's stupid to be more repulsed by smegma than by any of the other, more-unsanitary bodily secretions nurses have to deal with on a daily basis, so I don't know why you're trying to argue that point with me.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

f***ing up a dick is f***ing up a dick, no matter how much you want to downplay the damage to suit your mindset.

That's not a response to what I said. Please try again.

Aculo posted...

which sounds goddamned nightmarish. holy f***, the more i read about these conditions of being uncircumcised, the more i want to up the budget for my dad's christmas gift to thank him again for getting me cut when i was an infant, ok?

Conditions which, as we've established, tend not to be an issue with proper hygiene. If you wash your junk regularly (which you should do regardless of circumcision), you aren't going to have a problem. In the cases where phimosis occurs naturally, that can be a medical reason to circumcise somebody, which nobody is objecting to.

LinkPizza posted...

The other side acts the same. Calling circumcised people names. And being mad at them for the sole reason of being circumcised.

I see far, far more instances of circumcised people insulting uncircumcised people than vice versa, even if we ignore the frequent "it looks better cut" comment. Anger against people for being circumcised is also pretty rare. Any anger tends to be directed at their parents, who chose to have them circumcised.

Really, though, the insults are not unexpected. Even among victims of female genital mutilation, which is often far more unambiguously damaging and abusive, you see defensiveness and reluctance to accept that they've been mutilated. That's pretty understandable, because accepting that means coming to terms with the fact that their parents - whom they generally love quite a lot - made a deliberate choice to mutilate them. People don't want to admit that, and face a lot of cognitive dissonance there. It's even more pronounced with male circumcision, because the harmful effects tend to be fairly minor, and not something that anyone without a before-and-after perspective will be able to concretely understand. People who don't feel wronged don't want to accuse their parents of wronging them, so they get defensive.

LinkPizza posted...

People can do what they want.

So long as it doesn't affect others, sure. When you start affecting others, though, you have to start attaching conditions to that statement. If an uncut adult decides he wants a circumcision, that's 100% his right. He can do whatever he wants to his body. But we're not talking about adults choosing to be circumcised, we're talking about people choosing to circumcise their baby who is too young to consent to an elective surgery.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Trying to change people's minds about circumcision is a pretty good priority to have.

It seems more like a waste of time. People usually have their minds set. And most with kids have either had it done, or are set on doing it or not.

Well people used to have theie mind set on all kindsa barbaric, dumb and horrifying shit. Yet lobotomies are outlawed as a viable mental health practice, mercury is no longer a cure-all, foot binding and castrato are outlawed and they don't jam hot pokers up your ass to get rid of fistulas.

People still hunt, which is considered barbaric, as well. And people are mostly likely going to keep getting circumcision whether others think its barbaric or not...

_AdjI_ posted...

I see far, far more instances of circumcised people insulting uncircumcised people than vice versa, even if we ignore the frequent "it looks better cut" comment. Anger against people for being circumcised is also pretty rare. Any anger tends to be directed at their parents, who chose to have them circumcised.

Really, though, the insults are not unexpected. Even among victims of female genital mutilation, which is often far more unambiguously damaging and abusive, you see defensiveness and reluctance to accept that they've been mutilated. That's pretty understandable, because accepting that means coming to terms with the fact that their parents - whom they generally love quite a lot - made a deliberate choice to mutilate them. People don't want to admit that, and face a lot of cognitive dissonance there. It's even more pronounced with male circumcision, because the harmful effects tend to be fairly minor, and not something that anyone without a before-and-after perspective will be able to concretely understand. People who don't feel wronged don't want to accuse their parents of wronging them, so they get defensive.

Or some people generally dont feel wronged. That happens, too. And Ive seen far more uncircumcised picked on circumcised, as an adult. As kids, it depends on which side has more people on it, normally...

_AdjI_ posted...

So long as it doesn't affect others, sure. When you start affecting others, though, you have to start attaching conditions to that statement. If an uncut adult decides he wants a circumcision, that's 100% his right. He can do whatever he wants to his body. But we're not talking about adults choosing to be circumcised, we're talking about people choosing to circumcise their baby who is too young to consent to an elective surgery.

Most things youre going to do is going to affect your child. So, I cant agree. Plus, most arent going to want to change what they grew up with. This honestly just feels like what the uncircumcised people want. They know that people wouldnt choose it because of a plethora of reason as an adult. like the pain, remembering the pain, or not being able to use it like some normally would fo a time. But not only for the reason some are listing here. I think people should stop trying to change the mind of everyone. Just let everyone know the risk and let them do what theyre going to do...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Or some people generally dont feel wronged. That happens, too.

If a guy steals $20 from you, you have been wronged. Depending on the circumstances, you may not mind being wronged or feel that you've been wronged, but the fact remains that stealing $20 from somebody is wrong and should therefore be (and is) illegal. Similarly, conducting elective surgical procedures on babies (or anyone else who can't consent) is wrong. Those who have received such surgery may not feel wronged, and may even feel that the outcome is what they would have chosen for themselves, but the fact remains that conducting elective surgery on somebody who can't consent is wrong, and should be illegal.

LinkPizza posted...

Most things youre going to do is going to affect your child.

Not as irreversibly as surgery will. Furthermore, that statement is not carte blanche to do whatever you want to do to your child. Many parenting decisions are considered more harmful than beneficial, and are therefore considered not okay (as an aside, a good many people who were unambiguously abused as children defend such parenting strategies with "I turned out fine so beating kids should be legal," which has obvious parallels to this discussion). Before proceeding with any parenting decision, you need to weigh the benefits and harms. Circumcision has no tangible medical benefit in the vast majority of situations (unless you fail to teach your kid how to wash themselves), and has the potential for some serious side effects, even without considering that it takes the choice away from them later in life. That alone should be enough to convince everyone that it's not a good idea, yet somehow the majority continues with "his might as well look like mine."

_AdjI_ posted...

If a guy steals $20 from you, you have been wronged. Depending on the circumstances, you may not mind being wronged or feel that you've been wronged, but the fact remains that stealing $20 from somebody is wrong and should therefore be (and is) illegal. Similarly, conducting elective surgical procedures on babies (or anyone else who can't consent) is wrong. Those who have received such surgery may not feel wronged, and may even feel that the outcome is what they would have chosen for themselves, but the fact remains that conducting elective surgery on somebody who can't consent is wrong, and should be illegal.

No. I dont feel wronged becuase I havent been wronged. Also, people can have stuff done on them without their consent because they have someone who has to consent for them. Such as adults who need surgery now and ask the next of kin to consent. Or parents who have to take children in for surgery and have to consent. So, this isnt different. A baby cant consent. So the parents do it for them. Also, just because you think being circumcised is me being wronged, it doesnt make it so. And even if it was, which its not, then Id be glad it happened.

_AdjI_ posted...

Not as irreversibly as surgery will. Furthermore, that statement is not carte blanche to do whatever you want to do to your child. Many parenting decisions are considered more harmful than beneficial, and are therefore considered not okay (as an aside, a good many people who were unambiguously abused as children defend such parenting strategies with "I turned out fine so beating kids should be legal," which has obvious parallels to this discussion). Before proceeding with any parenting decision, you need to weigh the benefits and harms. Circumcision has no tangible medical benefit in the vast majority of situations (unless you fail to teach your kid how to wash themselves), and has the potential for some serious side effects, even without considering that it takes the choice away from them later in life. That alone should be enough to convince everyone that it's not a good idea, yet somehow the majority continues with "his might as well look like mine."

Except there are medical benefits. We talked about them earlier. Just because it doesnt affect everyone doesnt mean their arent any at all. But while lots of parenting doesnt permanently change a childs physical appearance doesnt mean everything. Theres also mental and emotional. In the end, things probably wont change. And honestly, thats probably fine and for the best...
---

Circumcision is wrong because it is medically unnecessary. There's a different between giving a baby a vaccination and getting a baby circumcised. You're only glad it happened to you because you were raised in a culture that shames foreskin.

Anisoptera posted...

Circumcision is wrong because it is medically unnecessary. There's a different between giving a baby a vaccination and getting a baby circumcised. You're only glad it happened to you because you were raised in a culture that shames foreskin.

So work on changing the culture before trying to change peoples mind about circumcision...
---

Change people's minds to change culture. Can't make a big change to the mass right away, but it's nice to at least some people perspective.

Anisoptera posted...

Change people's minds to change culture. Can't make a big change to the mass right away, but it's nice to at least some people perspective.

Either way, its gonna be hard. Near impossible as things are right now...
---

Doesn't mean people should give up. Human rights are at stake. Less people are getting their sons circumcised every decade. Would be nice to see a circumcision ban within the next 10 years, but realistically it maybe more within 50-80 years.

Anisoptera posted...

Doesn't mean people should give up. Human rights are at stake. Less people are getting their sons circumcised every decade. Would be nice to see a circumcision ban within the next 10 years, but realistically it maybe more within 50-80 years.

You can ban it, but its not going to ever fully end. Like with abortions, there will always be a way for it to continue. Personally, Im all for circumcision and would like it to continue, but more power to you if you want to try to stop it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Also, people can have stuff done on them without their consent because they have someone who has to consent for them. Such as adults who need surgery now and ask the next of kin to consent. Or parents who have to take children in for surgery and have to consent. So, this isnt different. A baby cant consent. So the parents do it for them.

Key word: need. I specified elective surgery for a reason. When there's clear medical benefit (or more accurately, negative consequences if it isn't done), yes, parents consent on the behalf of their children, or next-of-kin on the behalf of somebody non-communicative. Elective surgery, by definition, isn't needed. This includes all cosmetic surgery, including non-medical circumcision.

LinkPizza posted...

Except there are medical benefits. We talked about them earlier.

Outside of treating phimosis or other conditions for which circumcision is the best treatment option (which would qualify as "medical circumcision"), there really aren't any that can't be provided by just having better hygiene. The only one that can't is the reduction in cancer rates, but that difference is on the order of 1% or so - which is about how much tissue is removed. You have lower penile cancer rates because you have less penis to turn cancerous. That logic could be used to justify lopping off the whole thing.

LinkPizza posted...

You can ban it, but its not going to ever fully end. Like with abortions, there will always be a way for it to continue.

The thing is, it continues purely for tradition's sake. You'll get people continuing it for that sake, just as you get people continuing female genital mutilation (even in the west), but it's not comparable to something like abortion, which has a clear, tangible benefit (namely, you get to keep eating because you don't have to pay for an extra mouth).

Doesnt matter if its needed or not. Theyll still give parents the right to consent for their babies. That most likely wont ever change.

But it still has medical reasoning. Even if its only a small amount of people. Which leads in the next point. It will continue because there are still medical reasons. You try to ban it, a lot more people will start having those medical reasons to get a circumcision. Or, lots of other bad things will happen. Like black market circumcision hospitals (like they have in some countries for abortions), or the people who know how to do it still doing it, people who dont know how to do it trying to do it (which is stupid, but happens when you try to ban something like this), and a lot of outrage.

I dont see it ever fully ending... ever...
---