Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Jacobania]

Hardly dangerous. I think you are overstating the point a bit. It is pointless, mostly, but it isn't dangerous, and it is no more forced than which school your parents send you off to.

It's more dangerous than the alternative of not doing anything at all. All surgery carries some risks.

Mutilating someone's genitals on religious grounds is hardly pointless. If anything, the matter should be taken seriously, especially sense the child born has absolutely no say over what happens with their body.

On another note, to treat this religious practice as if it were a moral equivalent to a standard medical procedure is outright dishonest.

I firmly believe that if circumcision wasn't in the bible, it would be unheard of in the medical world. The doctor who would have proposed the very idea absent of it's religious context and implications would most likely have been considered either a fraud or a lunatic.

Basically, I have strong opinions concerning this matter.

[USS Monitor]

If circumcision becomes an adult consent thing lots of people will still do it as it's become such a cultural norm (in America atleast) but it will be much much more painful.

That's their problem.

[Gim]

Except not really.

The only effect circumcision has on disease is that it's a treatment for phimosis (sp?) and if you don't wear condoms and you are using your penis to penetrate someone else, it can reduce your odds of contracting HIV from that person (but wearing a condom is still more effective when it comes to preventing the transmission of HIV in this manner).

Condoms are useful for preventing the dissemination of sperm into the urethra, too.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Except not really.

The only effect circumcision has on disease is that it's a treatment for phimosis (sp?) and if you don't wear condoms and you are using your penis to penetrate someone else, it can reduce your odds of contracting HIV from that person (but wearing a condom is still more effective when it comes to preventing the transmission of HIV in this manner).

Condoms are useful for preventing the dissemination of sperm into the urethra, too.

Only when used right.

[Saiwania]

If circumcision becomes an adult consent thing lots of people will still do it as it's become such a cultural norm (in America atleast) but it will be much much more painful. Plus your penis looks like a retarded aardvark when uncircumcised.

Not really, the results of adult circumcision aren't as good. If you're uncircumcised past a certain age, it is too late to not have some nerve ending loss. If male circumcision is to be done, the ideal time is in infancy even if the child has the decision made for them. Almost no men will get circumcised if it needed to be done at later ages.

[Gim]

Condoms are useful for preventing the dissemination of sperm into the urethra, too.

Only when used right.

Well, yes, you obviously don't poke a hole in the end of a condom before you put it on yourself.

[USS Monitor]

Only when used right.

Well, yes, you obviously don't poke a hole in the end of a condom before you put it on yourself.

Speak for yourself!

[Gim]

Well, yes, you obviously don't poke a hole in the end of a condom before you put it on yourself.

Speak for yourself!

Also, it would help, if the woman can take contraceptives.

[Aelex]

I'd make an exception about circumcision for Jews, a sort of grandfather clause due to their religion, but otherwise it ought to be absolutely illegal to have your kids circumcised.

And what about people who have a Phimosis? They can just go fuck themselves?

[Gim]

I'd make an exception about circumcision for Jews, a sort of grandfather clause due to their religion, but otherwise it ought to be absolutely illegal to have your kids circumcised.

And what about people who have a Phimosis? They can just go fuck themselves?

They don't need circumcision, either.

Abstract: Circumcision has been the traditional treatment for phimosis, but now is not the only management option, the best of which appears to be topical steroid application. Importantly, the literature suggests that phimosis is over-diagnosed, indicating that a prospective, randomized controlled study is needed to compare the non-circumcision options. Such a study would require consensus on the diagnostic criteria for phimosis; therefore, a more exacting definition would be needed and is suggested. Despite the non-controlled data on medical treatment of true phimosis, there seems little doubt that surgical intervention is not needed for all male infants with adherence of the foreskin to the glans, a non-retractable foreskin or, indeed true phimosis.

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/dewan/

[Dakini]

It's more dangerous than the alternative of not doing anything at all. All surgery carries some risks.

Mutilating someone's genitals on religious grounds is hardly pointless.

I never said it was pointless. I said it wasn't without risk.

In the USA, most routine infant circumcisions are not for religious reasons either. It's the only country in the world without a Jewish or Muslim majority where most men are circumcised. So they are done for entirely pointless reasons, which is only marginally worse than unnecessarily altering someone's body without their consent just for a religious ritual.

If anything, the matter should be taken seriously, especially sense since the child born has absolutely no say over what happens with their body.

I'm not sure how my pointing out that there are some dangers to any surgery indicates that I do not think this should be taken seriously.

On another note, to treat this religious practice as if it were a moral equivalent to a standard medical procedure is outright dishonest.

Once again, most of the time in the USA it's not done for religious reasons. Even if it were, here I was talking about how there are risks to any surgery, no matter how minor. If a surgery has medical or other health benefits, then parents having these procedures done on their child is definitely good, but otherwise, it's pointless and puts the child at an unnecessary risk.

I firmly believe that if circumcision wasn't in the bible, it would be unheard of in the medical world. The doctor who would have proposed the very idea absent of it's religious context and implications would most likely have been considered either a fraud or a lunatic.

Once more, most circumcisions in the USA are performed on people who do not have a religious reason to be circumcised.

Also, circumcision is sometimes used to treat phimosis, a condition wherein the foreskin does not contract sufficiently.

Basically, I have strong opinions concerning this matter.

Strong opinions which are not backed up by research of any kind and in which you decide to argue with someone who is basically on your side (maybe, it's actually hard to tell because your post is poorly written).

[Aelex]

They don't need circumcision, either.

Abstract: Circumcision has been the traditional treatment for phimosis, but now is not the only management option, the best of which appears to be topical steroid application. Importantly, the literature suggests that phimosis is over-diagnosed, indicating that a prospective, randomized controlled study is needed to compare the non-circumcision options. Such a study would require consensus on the diagnostic criteria for phimosis; therefore, a more exacting definition would be needed and is suggested. Despite the non-controlled data on medical treatment of true phimosis, there seems little doubt that surgical intervention is not needed for all male infants with adherence of the foreskin to the glans, a non-retractable foreskin or, indeed true phimosis.

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/dewan/

For infants indeed. But for teenages to adults?

[Dakini]

Except not really.

The only effect circumcision has on disease is that it's a treatment for phimosis (sp?) and if you don't wear condoms and you are using your penis to penetrate someone else, it can reduce your odds of contracting HIV from that person (but wearing a condom is still more effective when it comes to preventing the transmission of HIV in this manner).

Condoms are useful for preventing the dissemination of sperm into the urethra, too.

What?

Sperm come out a man's urethra, generally. A condom collects them instead of allowing them to go into his partner (or wherever else he's pointed his penis, really).

[Test208]

I'm practically fascist and even I think you people have a hard time with the concept of rights, state rights though they may be, and the security of the individual.

[Gim]

Condoms are useful for preventing the dissemination of sperm into the urethra, too.

What?

Sperm come out a man's urethra, generally. A condom collects them instead of allowing them to go into his partner (or wherever else he's pointed his penis, really).

Female urethra.

[Dakini]

If circumcision becomes an adult consent thing lots of people will still do it as it's become such a cultural norm (in America atleast) but it will be much much more painful. Plus your penis looks like a retarded aardvark when uncircumcised.

Not really, the results of adult circumcision aren't as good. If you're uncircumcised past a certain age, it is too late to not have some nerve ending loss. If male circumcision is to be done, the ideal time is in infancy even if the child has the decision made for them. Almost no men will get circumcised if it needed to be done at later ages.

Do you have any sources for these unsubstantiated claims?

[Dakini]

What?

Sperm come out a man's urethra, generally. A condom collects them instead of allowing them to go into his partner (or wherever else he's pointed his penis, really).

Female urethra.

...but those will just come out when she goes pee so it doesn't matter.

edit to add: You know that women do not become pregnant if sperm only get into their urethras, right?

[Gim]

Not really, the results of adult circumcision aren't as good. If you're uncircumcised past a certain age, it is too late to not have some nerve ending loss. If male circumcision is to be done, the ideal time is in infancy even if the child has the decision made for them. Almost no men will get circumcised if it needed to be done at later ages.

Do you have any sources for these unsubstantiated claims?

It's common sense. "Get the pain over with" is his thinking, I think.

[Jochistan]

What?

Sperm come out a man's urethra, generally. A condom collects them instead of allowing them to go into his partner (or wherever else he's pointed his penis, really).

Female urethra.

Ow

[Test208]

It's common sense. "Get the pain over with" is his thinking, I think.

Infants experience more pain, harm the brain.

[Gim]

It's common sense. "Get the pain over with" is his thinking, I think.

Infants experience more pain, harm the brain.

Well, they don't remember it when they grow up. Also, anaesthetics are used nowadays, so I don't think there will be too much pain for them.

[Dakini]

Do you have any sources for these unsubstantiated claims?

It's common sense. "Get the pain over with" is his thinking, I think.

It's not common sense and that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that men who are circumcised as adults suffer from nerve ending loss, but those who have it done as infants do not.

[Test208]

Well, they don't remember it when they grow up. Also, anaesthetics are used nowadays, so I don't think there will be too much pain for them.

Cut + wet diaper. Even ignoring rights issues, not remembering is not salient. You abuse a child it harms their development, even if they can't remember. The same is true for an infant.

[Gim]

Well, they don't remember it when they grow up. Also, anaesthetics are used nowadays, so I don't think there will be too much pain for them.

Cut + wet diaper. Even ignoring rights issues, not remembering is not salient. You abuse a child it harms their development, even if they can't remember. The same is true for an infant.

People who perform circumcision do it for the benefit of the infant, not for harm.
As long as you have anaesthetics, infants will not feel any pain, causing no damage to the brain.

When infants cry for food and wake up from their sleep, do they have brain damage? If they do, is it not common for all babies?

[Ashkera]

If circumcision becomes an adult consent thing lots of people will still do it as it's become such a cultural norm (in America atleast) but it will be much much more painful. Plus your penis looks like a retarded aardvark when uncircumcised.

Not really, the results of adult circumcision aren't as good. If you're uncircumcised past a certain age, it is too late to not have some nerve ending loss. If male circumcision is to be done, the ideal time is in infancy even if the child has the decision made for them. Almost no men will get circumcised if it needed to be done at later ages.

Then maybe those religious people can just deal with it as the price of their religion instead of forcing it onto infants who cannot consent at all?

We don't generally think it's a good idea to do cosmetic surgery on children, but for some reason when it's boy children, and it's victorian anti-masturbation crud, it's good then. Sure.

Quite simply, Europe does not have a massive STD crisis, or any other weird, special penis crises really, and it is generally uncut. The supposed "benefits" are massively overstated, and the potential downsides include completely losing your dick in a botched one.

The reason it's compared to FGM is because no one gives a damn about boys (yaaay, hyperagency), but they do care about not being perceived as a hypocrite, so sometimes if you point out that we non-barbarians don't pull this crap on girls (and rightfully so!), they'll reluctantly agree not to cut up baby boys in order to not appear sexist.

The more comparable procedure would probably be removal of the clitoral hood, which is just as stupid and pointless and should definitely be illegal barring medical necessity.

If circumcision becomes an adult consent thing lots of people will still do it as it's become such a cultural norm (in America atleast) but it will be much much more painful. Plus your penis looks like a retarded aardvark when uncircumcised.

Yes, this is why we lop off bits of infants' ears, because they don't "need" it (like, say, a lung), and it makes them look better. Nothing could possibly go wrong.