Freethought & Rationalism Archive

trillian · 03-13-2003, 06:02 PM

As a childless female I have never really thought about this subject until a recent news articles got me thinking. After reading the available literature I was astonished at how barbaric and unnecessary it is.

It became popular amongst westerners in the prude "masturbation is the root of all evil" 1800's to reduce sensation, then they made up all kinds of other reasons for it which have since been disproved. (less that 1% of males will actually develop a medical condition which requires it)

No respected medical assoc. in the entire world recommends it.
The largest offender is the US with about 60% of males undergoing the procedure. (UK AUST and CAN are <5%)

Female circumcision at any level is banned under a specific US law. Cultures which practice this cut the top part of the clitoris, which reduces a womans pleasure later in life.

Male circumcision takes the foreskin part of a normal male penis away, reducing pleasure later in life.

Both are routinely done without anesthetic.

They both look like genital mutilation to me!

The irony to me is that essentially we are blindly accepting a primitive ancient blood ritual as something "civilized".

Am I missing something here?

Is there any reason why people should be allowed to permanently cut off healthy parts of newborn babies without any medical reason?

echidna · 03-13-2003, 06:15 PM

Not meaning to cut you off, but this might be better in MFP where it's more likely to stimulate a lengthy intercourse.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 03-13-2003, 06:27 PM

I think it probably belongs in S&S because it will be a discussion over the purported medical benefits of circumcision and the purported risks of it (so called "less pleasure").
The moral issue is big too, though, because even if there are health benefits they might not outweigh the libertarian concerns. I suppose it could go in either.

I, for one, think circumcision is a terrible practice. There is not suitable justification and it's wrong to go against the rights of the infant.
I remember back when I was much younger and I didn't know ym anatomy...I heard about circumcision and thought that "foreskin' meant what is referred to as the head/glans. I didn't even consider the possibility that I could be circumcised so I assumed I was not and that my glans was a foreskin. I thought to myself "boy I'm so glad my parents didn't do such a horrible thing to me". Well, needless to say I wasn't very happy when I learned a little more and found out. I looked at crazy things like stretching the existing skin with tape in order to 'regrow' an artificial foreskin.

I'd say that circumcision may have small benefits to it but those benefits can't outweigh the potential damage.

-B

trillian · 03-13-2003, 06:27 PM

Ok...sounds right. I'll move it as soon as I figure out how (I wrote to the moderator for help) Thanks for the pun as well.

theIPU · 03-13-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
Not meaning to cut you off, but this might be better in MFP where it's more likely to stimulate a lengthy intercourse.

hahaha that's great!!! :notworthy :notworthy

excreationist · 03-13-2003, 07:42 PM

trillian1:
How does male circumcision reduce pleasure later in life? How would anyone know? I guess if you're upset that you got circumcised then you'd have less pleasure. Some people might get circumcised late in life and can remember before and after circumcision - they might "miss" what they used to have... but if someone didn't have a memory of that they wouldn't be able to miss anything. I've heard that uncircumcised people have to wash more carefully... that would be a hassle (i.e. reduced pleasure).

trillian · 03-13-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
trillian1:
How does male circumcision reduce pleasure later in life? How would anyone know? I guess if you're upset that you got circumcised then you'd have less pleasure. Some people might get circumcised late in life and can remember before and after circumcision - they might "miss" what they used to have... but if someone didn't have a memory of that they wouldn't be able to miss anything. I've heard that uncircumcised people have to wash more carefully... that would be a hassle (i.e. reduced pleasure).

1st -the arguement that they "dont know what they are missing" is flawed. You could use the same argument for the reducing the number of tastebuds, or removing a cornea. Their senses are diminished compared to others in the same way. I'd be pretty resentful if my parents did this to me even though I had never experienced the "full sensation".

To clean a penis, all you have to do is pull back and wash. Sounds easier that brushing teeth (although you could pull out all your childrens teeth and replace them with implants. voila, don't have to brush as much!)

If my analogies sound ridiculous to you, I think it's because cutting penises is so ingrained and feels and looks so normal to us.

The opposing argument should satisfy the following: If NO circumcisions were performed today, would anyone voluntarily think is was a great idea?

The Other Michael · 03-13-2003, 08:44 PM

Since this discussion is looking very much like it is taking a physiological tack, I'm moving it to S&S.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

excreationist · 03-13-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trillian1
....The opposing argument should satisfy the following: If NO circumcisions were performed today, would anyone voluntarily think is was a great idea?

Probably... I mean some people pierce their bodies, etc.
BTW, does the skin that is cut receive any sexual sensations of its own? I thought it might just reduce feeling and what's underneath had all the sexual-related nerves - or at least it is more sensitive - I think.

Puck · 03-14-2003, 04:30 AM

I personally prefer my mate not be circumcised. However, there have been studies that have shown women who's mates are circumcised have a much lower rates of some cancers.

The trick is in keeping things clean under there.

Other than the health issue for women, I think it's mutliation. As a society, it's customary to us, but if you really think on it, it becomes clear how barbaric it really is. Taking sweet little babies and wacking off a natural part of their penis, thus taking away any choice they have about their own bodies is simply cruel to me.

And where did this pratice come from originally?

03-13-2003, 06:02 PM	#1
trillian Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: OC Posts: 1,620	Circumcision against human rights? As a childless female I have never really thought about this subject until a recent news articles got me thinking. After reading the available literature I was astonished at how barbaric and unnecessary it is. It became popular amongst westerners in the prude "masturbation is the root of all evil" 1800's to reduce sensation, then they made up all kinds of other reasons for it which have since been disproved. (less that 1% of males will actually develop a medical condition which requires it) No respected medical assoc. in the entire world recommends it. The largest offender is the US with about 60% of males undergoing the procedure. (UK AUST and CAN are <5%) Female circumcision at any level is banned under a specific US law. Cultures which practice this cut the top part of the clitoris, which reduces a womans pleasure later in life. Male circumcision takes the foreskin part of a normal male penis away, reducing pleasure later in life. Both are routinely done without anesthetic. They both look like genital mutilation to me! The irony to me is that essentially we are blindly accepting a primitive ancient blood ritual as something "civilized". Am I missing something here? Is there any reason why people should be allowed to permanently cut off healthy parts of newborn babies without any medical reason?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2003, 06:15 PM	#2
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Not meaning to cut you off, but this might be better in MFP where it's more likely to stimulate a lengthy intercourse.

03-13-2003, 06:27 PM	#3
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	I think it probably belongs in S&S because it will be a discussion over the purported medical benefits of circumcision and the purported risks of it (so called "less pleasure"). The moral issue is big too, though, because even if there are health benefits they might not outweigh the libertarian concerns. I suppose it could go in either. I, for one, think circumcision is a terrible practice. There is not suitable justification and it's wrong to go against the rights of the infant. I remember back when I was much younger and I didn't know ym anatomy...I heard about circumcision and thought that "foreskin' meant what is referred to as the head/glans. I didn't even consider the possibility that I could be circumcised so I assumed I was not and that my glans was a foreskin. I thought to myself "boy I'm so glad my parents didn't do such a horrible thing to me". Well, needless to say I wasn't very happy when I learned a little more and found out. I looked at crazy things like stretching the existing skin with tape in order to 'regrow' an artificial foreskin. I'd say that circumcision may have small benefits to it but those benefits can't outweigh the potential damage. -B

03-13-2003, 07:42 PM	#6
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	trillian1: How does male circumcision reduce pleasure later in life? How would anyone know? I guess if you're upset that you got circumcised then you'd have less pleasure. Some people might get circumcised late in life and can remember before and after circumcision - they might "miss" what they used to have... but if someone didn't have a memory of that they wouldn't be able to miss anything. I've heard that uncircumcised people have to wash more carefully... that would be a hassle (i.e. reduced pleasure).

03-13-2003, 08:44 PM	#8
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Since this discussion is looking very much like it is taking a physiological tack, I'm moving it to S&S. cheers, Michael MF&P Moderator, First Class

03-14-2003, 04:30 AM	#10
Puck Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: A middle aged body. Posts: 3,459	I personally prefer my mate not be circumcised. However, there have been studies that have shown women who's mates are circumcised have a much lower rates of some cancers. The trick is in keeping things clean under there. Other than the health issue for women, I think it's mutliation. As a society, it's customary to us, but if you really think on it, it becomes clear how barbaric it really is. Taking sweet little babies and wacking off a natural part of their penis, thus taking away any choice they have about their own bodies is simply cruel to me. And where did this pratice come from originally?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.