Male circumcision is a good thing

Post Reply New Topic

The circumcision of males is a procedure that lessens the occurrence of STDs and cancer of the penis. It is a useful procedure.

See http://www.nature.com/news/doctors-back ... on-1.11296

A circumcised penis is a clean perfected penis freer of the curse of STDs and the dreadful curse of smegma. It is an improved penis. A circumcised penis is a happy penis, less likely to ejaculate prematurely.

ruveyn

I like my foreskin very much, and shall be hanging onto it.

Once you're of the age of reason, or some fair age in law, if you want one, get one. But to force a circumcision on anyone who has not given consent is a violation of their bodily integrity. Pretty simple.

It is all yours. No one is forcing you to give it up.

If you want to be an uncircumcised person with genitals that are more susceptible to cancer and STDs you are surely free to do so.

ruveyn

It lessens risk of some STD's and rare forms of cancer - but those risks are minimal if you practice safer sex anyway...
Just like circumcised penises are not any cleaner than the penis of an uncircumcised man who washes his genitals correctly (often circumcised men don't practice good penile hygiene as they're under the delusion that they don't need to), and just like uncircumcised penises are less likely to ejaculate prematurely if the man learns how to control his ejaculation.

I'm definitely on the side that says circumcision on babies/children without it being a medical necessity is wrong on ethical grounds, but also on health grounds given as the foreskin protects the penis, helps prevent friction during intercourse and other sexual activities, and there is potential for major physical and emotional harm from the procedure when performed on unwilling patients.

If I'd had a parent who wanted to rid me of it, I would have had no choice in the matter. I am very lucky that wasn't the case.

So you agree with me it is wrong to force it on children who cannot give informed consent? Not much chance of penile cancer or an STD before , say, 13, at least, when they can be presented with the option and make their choice.

I hope you are as equally opposed to having the earlobes of little girls pierced to put ear rings into.

As for me, I am rather grateful to my parents for improving my tool and my male children have not complained that I have done the same for them.

ruveyn

I for one am.

But then it's a false analogy. The foreskin is an integral part of the penis, and the penis is an integral part of being male, of the male psyche, and once gone it cannot be got back. The earlobe is not integral in the same way, and it is pierced (and can heal), not removed. Closer, but still not there, is to ask what would be the reaction if someone decided to start removing their children's earlobes?

It's more like cutting off the whole outer ear because it gets dirty.

And god forbid! Clipping their fingernails and toenails. And cutting their hair! What an outrage!

My foreskin was never part of my psyche. With my tool devoid of the cursed flap that provides a dwelling place for smegma and germs I (with my wife's help) managed to produce 4 children and 5 grandchildren. At no point did my psyche get into a snit with me.

This worship of intactness borders on heathen idolatry.

A person without his tonsils is better off (less chance of infection) and a person without his vermiform appendix is better off. Unfortunately there is no way of removing these items that is as medically safe as circumcision.

ruveyn

Ditto (of course mostly I object to piercings on children given the risks of using piercing guns).

A more appropriate analogy would of course be female circumcision (type 1 or type 2 - depending on the importance you place on the function of the foreskin of the penis) - it's removing a part of genitalia that is an integral part of a persons sex and sexuality, it's a cultural form of body hate (against the body and sexuality), and once gone it can't be got back (unless with expensive lengthy surgery).

To go with the more extremist view the above analogy is actually all the more appropriate when you consider circumcision in Western culture was more associated and popularised by Dr. Kellogg's advice on preventing masturbation, Dr. Kellogg's also recommended circumcising female (type 2) with acid for the same reason - female circumcision may also help prevent some STD's and rare forms of cancer, doesn't make that okay either.

Just because your foreskin was never part of your psyche and you're okay with the procedure being carried out on you, doesn't mean everyone has to feel the same way - people should get the choice of what to do with their own bodies. Circumcision is not medically safe, there is high risk of long-term damage being done both physically and mentally, any surgery is potentially dangerous...more so on a child...thus carrying out an UNNECESSARY surgery on a child is not considered 'medically safe'.

Last edited by Bloodheart on 03 Sep 2012, 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ruveyn, where does your obsession with penises come from? I could accept it as being religious/health based if you weren't referring to them as "perfected"! (like works of art?)

Oh, and like most British men, I am not circumcised. It seems to be a big thing in the US but its considered a little odd here (so is the fuss about guns, and there's a bit of curious Freudian symbolism for you...) I've heard a lot of conflicting opinions on whether being circumcised has any significant health benefits, so I'm remaining sceptical until there's some consensus.

Absolutely. And the same with circumcision. I very much like my uncut, complete penis.

You want it done, you wait until you can decide for yourself without someone making the decision for you on behalf some random deity.

the appendix and tonsils are both actually quite important in the immune system, people got lulled into thinking they did nothing(perhaps because they didnt have the tools and insight to look).

they are imunocompetent organs.

facts need updating and context, both of which makes it as good as irrelevent, that pushes the issue into the realm where all thats left is the actual mutilation and the fact that the person either had a choice or didnt.

Last edited by Oodain on 03 Sep 2012, 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, grow up. Are you really so stupid as to not understand the difference between something that can grow back and something that can't? Are you really so stupid as to think any boy under the age of, say, 13 (assuming he's an early starter) is at risk of an STD or penile cancer? That basic personal hygiene - which serves most uncircumcised men just fine - is some impossible task? Good grief.

I am not arguing for intactness. If a grown adult wants to mutilate their genitals, that is their choice. I am arguing for the right of bodily integrity be granted to children.

I agree with you on many things ruveyn but here you're acting like a tool. I'm sorry.

None of those things you mentioned are permanent. Cutting part of your cock skin off is fairly permanent.

I wouldn't say that. My parents of blessed memory made it less likely that I would ever suffer from cancer of the glans penis. Thanks Dad. Thanks Mom. It also made a better Jew of me.

By the way. What about parents who submit their minor children to surgery to make a hare lip go away? A hare lip is just a "natural" as a normal lip (just statistically more rare). It is a consequence of nature. Yet parents routinely take their children who have hare lip to a surgen and have the surgeon make it look like a normal lip. Hare Lip is natural. So is "normal" lip. And what about parents who have children who are "blue babies" cut open and their hearts altered. A child has a right to its naturally malformed heart.

ruveyn