GunnerJ

I'd like to just apologize for the caustic tone I took in my earlier replies. I have already done so on antoher thread, and I realize that my bombast was way out of line.

I think that many people here make some good arguments against circumcision, namely the pain one. I mean, you may be able to say that if you don't remember a sensation, and there are no side effects, then it may have well not happened. But that doesn't morally justify it.

On the other hand, the arguments made about how it decreases the pleasure of sex I think are very weak. They're based mostly on data about how many nerves there are in the foreskin. But it's rather obvious that if you remove part of a person's body, the sensations you recive from there will be, well, diminished, to say the least. But I have my doubts that this really makes sex less fun. The testimonies from sexually active men who had the operation in adulthood and therefore had a basis of comparison are indecisive.

There's also the "choice" argument, which while it has great emotional strength, somehow seems to fail for me. Parents make TONS of desicsions for their children, even when they're not infants. If the parents felt there was an overriding reason for making a decision one way rathert than another, I don't feel that they should be second guessed, much less implicated as butcherers or barbarians, especially when the long term results of the procedure are so questionable, pro and con.

In short, I'm not really a "defender" of the practice, I just fail to see why all the rhetoric needs to be spewed at it. If I had a choice, I would probably not have gone through with it... it would have been one less thing to have to pay the hospital for.

Corwin

Actually the arguments also come partially from the testimony of men who have, for one reason or another, been circumcised as adults and lost sensation. In fact lost quite a bit of sensation....

Clarice

Baloo's argument that women won't give head to uncut men is analogous to the argument that men in FGM-embracing societies won't marry women who are not mutilated. It is an unconvincing argument. In addition, while some women might feel that way, others most certainly do not.

I don't know how I can say this more simply: Lopping off any body part of a non-consenting human being for aesthetic reasons is wrong!

If men wish to get the imagined benefits of circumcision, they are welcome to go to a plastic surgeon as adults. If you'd say the pain and trauma would outweigh the benefit for them, why on earth would it be acceptable to inflict it on a newborn who can't make his wishes known?

tronvillain

Baloo:

I've seen a comparable argument for why performing cunnilingus is "a decidely unenjoyable experience." For some reason, I've never considered it a good argument. Of course, you also seem to have reached your conclusion from a sample of one. I'm uncut, yet don't have anything I'd describe as "mucousy" secretions and have yet to experience a lack of enthusiasm for oral sex.

tronvillain

Rimstalker:
1) That is not what the arguments are primarily based on - they are primarily based on the effects of removal of the foreskin on the glans itself.

2) Can you find any testimonies that don't describe a decrease in sensation?

Anyway, I look forward to the day when it becomes illegal to inflict this procedure on infants.

Anunnaki

Amen!

2tadpoles

You're right... I did have it backwards. I'm a "she", btw.

2tadpoles

Or your wife was just very sensitive to the issue. There are lots of men who won't perform oral sex on women who aren't freshly showered, too.

Someone (I don't recall who) made a comment about "skin and snot" being on an intact penis. Intact penises are NOT snotty. They produce the same substance (smegma) that is produced in the labial folds of women. The majority of the men in my husband's family and my own family are intact, and we discussed this at length when we were expecting our first child. Intact penises are not mucousy. They aren't all dried out like a circed penis, is all.

Not at all. Men who are circumcised in infancy have nothing to compare to. If you ask an intact man if sex is great, he will likely say "yes." A circed man will likely answer the same way. It's as good as he's ever known it to be.

The level of sexual activity means nothing.... that all depends on libido. Lately, my hubby and I have been in a sexual slump of sorts. It hasn't been happening nearly as often as it used to.... but when it does, it's still very enjoyable.

What sort of anesthesia are you planning on using for your children? Most circumcisions are done WITHOUT anesthesia, because anesthesia poses serious risks to the baby. In cases where anesthesia IS used, it's localized. Most doctors do not like to inject lidocaine into the penis, because it will make the tissue swell and make the circumcision far more difficult. The only other option (that I'm aware of) is EMLA cream, which can cause stroke in infants. Some doctors use it anyway. General anesthesia is out, because it's too risky.

I think you need to examine the reasons why you might want this done to your child. The medical benefits just aren't there. Someone mentioned that there is a lower risk of infection, but studies show that that's the case only within the first six months of life or so. Little girls certainly get far more urogenital infections than boys, yet we treat them with antibiotics, not surgery. Then there is the "your son should look like you" stance. I don't look anything like my mom. Should I have gotten a boob job so I could look like her? My sons' appearances differ from their dad in many other ways, and they certainly don't walk around with their penises out all day, comparing. There is the "locker room" argument.... that your boys will be teased if they aren't cut. Well, the rate of RIC is dropping, and it's not such a big deal anymore. At any rate, I would think that the meat-gazers in the locker room are the ones with the problems.... not the boy with all his body parts.

So, unless God commands you to amputate your future son's foreskin (not likely on this forum), it doesn't sound like there are any real reasons to do it. Except maybe you are concerned that some unknown woman 20 years down the road might not want to perform fellatio on him. That doesn't sound like a very good reason to me.

alek0

As a female, I would never ever perform felatio on a man if there have been several hours after he had a shower regardless of his circumcision status. Sorry guys, unwashed dick stinks, circumcised or intact. Same goes for vaginas, too.

As someone who grew up in Europe and now living in Asia, I was entirely shocked to find out that this barbaric practice is being routinely done in US. I always thought that all sorts of circumcisions are either done in African bush or by religious fundamentalists (Islamic or Jewish, back home most Jews don't circumcise).

Concerning comparison between RIC and FGM, well known FGM researcher Hanny Lightfoot Klein thinks they are comparable:
<a href="http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html" target="_blank">http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html</a>
She also published an article on FGM in The Journal of Sex Research Vol.26. No.3, pp.375-392 August, 1989, showing that women who have undergone FGM still can and do have orgasms.
<a href="http://www.fgmnetwork.org/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fgmnetwork.org/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm</a>

Boro Nut

You may think I am stupid, but being English, what exactly is circumcision? Reading this thread it would appear to involve chopping part of your knob off. Is that true? Is it a tribute to Van-Gogh or something?

I always thought it was something obscure to do with global exploration. Wasn't Sir Francis Drake the first person to circumcise the world with a 70ft Cutter for instance?

Boro Nut