because that's ridiculous. you know it's ridiculous. you cannot legally keep a child out of school. if you want to make a judgement that homeschooling is better than that's your right as a parent.
also, by the time a child has sexual intercourse presumably you can ask him 'would you like a surgery that does x y and z?'
also the protection from STI's is laughable when compared to a condom. I can't produce a study on this, but I highly doubt that STI rates are different between cut and uncut when a condom is involved
That's not the point though, Eddy.
Polio.
The point changes slightly depending on whether or not you are circumcised.
Nope. Not something I really approve of either. Do you have a point yet or is there some other non permanent procedure you want to compare circumcision to?
do you all feel this passionately about infant girls with pierced ears?
I personally feel "infant girls with earrings" is a tacky fashion statement, but no, I don't feel the same way about it as I do about circumcision, no.
Not until skullfucking gains more mainstream traction anyway. Once the ear becomes a mainstream sex organ I might.
Is there any procedure to add extra foreskin?
You know, just to be safe.
there are procedures to create a new foreskin on those who have been circumsized (by stretching existing skin)
considering the semantic insistance on "mutilation" at the open of this thread, I feel the need to point out that poking holes in a thing DOES count as mutilation.
I'm not defending circumsicion here, just pointing out that there are other things not TOO far removed that our society also does, so it is curious to me why THIS is the one that gets latched on to.
Is there any procedure to add extra foreskin?
You know, just to be safe.
there are procedures to create a new foreskin on those who have been circumsized (by stretching existing skin)
considering the semantic insistance on "mutilation" at the open of this thread, I feel the need to point out that poking holes in a thing DOES count as mutilation.
I'm not defending circumsicion here, just pointing out that there are other things not TOO far removed that our society also does, so it is curious to me why THIS is the one that gets latched on to.
The main differences here is that the ear isn't genitalia and piercing one's ears is usually not permanent.
While the penis is 100% of the time a genitalia and circumcision is 100% of the time a permanent, irreversible process.
So the whole "what do you think about pierced ears" thing? It's a red herring. What anyone thinks about pierced ears is irrelevant. The ear piercing thing is so far removed you might as well be comparing circumcision to playing Mass Effect 2. That's how similar the topics of ear piercing and circumcision are.
we're talking about poking holes through a baby, here.
I know that I am personally very much opposed to piercing an infant's ears.
Yeah, I mean, me too. I wouldn't want to make my daughter wear earrings unless she wants to, and it's not like she's not gonna figure out how to do it herself when she gets to middle school anyway.
They have surgery to reconstruct a hymen from scratch. If guys want their swathe of skin back on their dick they can get surgery for it.
Example A: I'm going to not cut off my child's foreskin when he is an infant. If he wants to do that he can have a surgery for it later. If he doesn't then he doesn't have to have the surgery!
Example B: I'm going to cut off my child's foreskin when he is in an infant. If he wants it back, well he can have another surgery if he wants that will sort of give him the same thing, but his actual foreskin? Gone forever.
Why create a situation requiring multiple dick surgery when it's very possible your child could exist happily through the rest of his life with no dick surgery at all?
So It Goes on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Why should I extend the choice over someone else's penis to their parents? It's an needless surgery that is needlessly done to infants who are incapable of giving their consent..... Notice how I wouldn't fight against this if it was a life-saving or a preventative procedure. It's not
Why are we discussing this thread still when this was posted a while back?
if you disagree with DarkCrawler's statement you are wrong.
Why should I extend the choice over someone else's penis to their parents? It's an needless surgery that is needlessly done to infants who are incapable of giving their consent..... Notice how I wouldn't fight against this if it was a life-saving or a preventative procedure. It's not.
Why are we discussing this thread still when this was posted a while back?
if you disagree with DarkCrawler's statement you are wrong.
Because some people don't think it's needless there can be some positive benefits to it like helping prevent STD's.
However, all of those benefits can be reaped in exactly the same way by the child when he is old enough to decide if he wants to be circumcised or not. None of the proposed benefits are directly tied to circumcising as an infant, as far as I can tell.
So It Goes on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Why should I extend the choice over someone else's penis to their parents? It's an needless surgery that is needlessly done to infants who are incapable of giving their consent..... Notice how I wouldn't fight against this if it was a life-saving or a preventative procedure. It's not.
Why are we discussing this thread still when this was posted a while back?
if you disagree with DarkCrawler's statement you are wrong.
Because some people don't think it's needless there can be some positive benefits to it like helping prevent STD's.
However, all of those benefits can be reaped in exactly the same way by the child when he is old enough to decide if he wants to be circumcised or not. None of the proposed benefits are directly tied to circumcising as an infant, as far as I can tell.
Not being retarded helps prevent STDs a lot better than being circumcised.
Obviously not being retarded is a problem for people in some countries (I'm not addressing anyone in this thread, just to be clear).
None of the proposed benefits are directly tied to circumcising as an infant, as far as I can tell.
Precisely.
I still think circumcision is stupid, but at least allow an adult to make that stupid decision himself, instead of making it for him.
we're talking about poking holes through a baby, here.
I know that I am personally very much opposed to piercing an infant's ears.
Yeah, I mean, me too. I wouldn't want to make my daughter wear earrings unless she wants to, and it's not like she's not gonna figure out how to do it herself when she gets to middle school anyway.
Since the subject of piercings/tattoos was raised, another anecdote: my mom had my ears pierced when I was 5mo. old. The hole is about 14-guage (I can't imagine how large it was in comparison to my 5-month old ears!) and never closes up. I don't mind this, as I like being able to wear earrings whenever I like, without worrying about the holes closing up. But my mom didn't have to do that, I could have had my ears pierced later in life with no issues, and my not minding that decision having been made for me doesn't change that.
Bottom line is, even though I don't mind having permanent holes in my ears, that's a decision I should have been able to make later in life. It just is. My mom isn't a bad person, though.
do you all feel this passionately about infant girls with pierced ears?
Personally, yes. I don't have kids yet, but when I do I won't piece their ears, and I won't cut off my son's foreskin. They're both incredibly unnecessary, and done largely for inane reasons, and easily performed later in life when the child is old enough to choose for themselves.
Although to make an obvious corrollary: pierced ears will heal back up. That said yes - piercing your child's ears without them being able to make that decision themselves I am opposed to.
Although to make an obvious corrollary: pierced ears will heal back up. That said yes - piercing your child's ears without them being able to make that decision themselves I am opposed to.
Although to make an obvious corrollary: pierced ears will heal back up. That said yes - piercing your child's ears without them being able to make that decision themselves I am opposed to.
they don't always heal.
Most of the time, though, they do.
And even if they don't, a botched ear piercing results in...what, at worst? Missing earlobe? A botched circumcision results in at worst the total destruction of the penis. Just a bit of difference there, yes?
They have surgery to reconstruct a hymen from scratch. If guys want their swathe of skin back on their dick they can get surgery for it.
Example A: I'm going to not cut off my child's foreskin when he is an infant. If he wants to do that he can have a surgery for it later. If he doesn't then he doesn't have to have the surgery!
Example B: I'm going to cut off my child's foreskin when he is in an infant. If he wants it back, well he can have another surgery if he wants that will sort of give him the same thing, but his actual foreskin? Gone forever.
Why create a situation requiring multiple dick surgery when it's very possible your child could exist happily through the rest of his life with no dick surgery at all?
Important to note too that all of the extensive nerves and mucous membranes are just gone. It will look similar and provide some protection to the glans but it will never be the same.
Sometimes I just play with my foreskin... cause it feels good. (TMI I'm sure, still true)
Although to make an obvious corrollary: pierced ears will heal back up. That said yes - piercing your child's ears without them being able to make that decision themselves I am opposed to.
they don't always heal.
Most of the time, though, they do.
And even if they don't, a botched ear piercing results in...what, at worst? Missing earlobe? A botched circumcision results in at worst the total destruction of the penis. Just a bit of difference there, yes?
I'm still not really comfortable with the delineation. I prefer for a society which errs on the side of maximum personal freedom - and that would preclude any unnecessary procedure which may produce lasting harm, on a person we can consider unable to give consent.
I guess my point is that this doesn't have to do with mutilation, this has to do with dicks
and that's fine, but let's be honest about that fact. let's not get outraged about mutilation, let's get outraged about dicks.
Actually it has to do with freedom of choice, mostly. Which was demonstrated when many people said they are also uncomfortable with the idea of infant ear piercings.
But also yes, dicks.
So It Goes on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
They have surgery to reconstruct a hymen from scratch. If guys want their swathe of skin back on their dick they can get surgery for it.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Lets give a child that can't consent a cosmetic and unnecessary operation, so that if he does decide he doesn't want it later, he can have ANOTHER operation to fix it, except it won't really fix it because its not possible to replicate the original organ precisely.
Did you take lessons on being a silly goose or were you born like it?
I guess my point is that this doesn't have to do with mutilation, this has to do with dicks
and that's fine, but let's be honest about that fact. let's not get outraged about mutilation, let's get outraged about dicks.
Actually it has to do with freedom of choice, mostly. Which was demonstrated when many people said they are also uncomfortable with the idea of infant ear piercings.
But also yes, dicks.
except that more people had issue with circumcision than with ear piercing. to a very surprising degree, actually (I only expected a couple folks to try to differentiate)
There is something about genitals that sets people off. I'm not sure what it is. I mean, if they were hacking off the glans, maybe, but as a circumcised man myself, I can't say that I've ever felt left-out on having a foreskin. Shit feels good as is, and as I am a gentleman I will not give details, but suffice it to say that I have not had any complaints from ladies.
I'm not saying this to invalidate folks who feel otherwise, mind you, my point is simply that, in the scheme of things, "victims" of this particular procedure aren't so much harmed physically as harmed in their freedom of choice, making the "mutilation" argument a bit of a red herring.
There is something about genitals that sets people off. I'm not sure what it is. I mean, if they were hacking off the glans, maybe, but as a circumcised man myself, I can't say that I've ever felt left-out on having a foreskin. Shit feels good as is, and as I am a gentleman I will not give details, but suffice it to say that I have not had any complaints from ladies.
I'm not saying this to invalidate folks who feel otherwise, mind you, my point is simply that, in the scheme of things, "victims" of this particular procedure aren't so much harmed physically as harmed in their freedom of choice, making the "mutilation" argument a bit of a red herring.
Conversely, for some reason circumcised men feel the need to emphasize that — "I certainly don't have any problems with sex!" Nobody's ever accused you of being a eunuch, but objectively speaking, you are missing something. It's a very small piece, yes, but a piece of your penis is missing.
You know what? I'll say it. We're all dudes, our penises are pretty important to us. I imagine most of us would rather lose an arm or a leg than lose our dicks. I don't care how small a piece it is, I'm glad I've still got it attached.
Adrien on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
if there's no real downside to either being circumcised or not being circumcised, the default approach should always be to NOT be putting your infant under a surgeon's knife.
Of course I'm less bugged by ear piercing than circumcision. I don't think either should happen but that doesn't keep me from discerning one is worse than the other.
Of course I'm less bugged by ear piercing than circumcision. I don't think either should happen but that doesn't keep me from discerning one is worse than the other.
Exactly, which is why bringing up ear piercing doesn't invalidate anything previously said.
I guess my point is that this doesn't have to do with mutilation, this has to do with dicks
and that's fine, but let's be honest about that fact. let's not get outraged about mutilation, let's get outraged about dicks.
Actually it has to do with freedom of choice, mostly. Which was demonstrated when many people said they are also uncomfortable with the idea of infant ear piercings.
But also yes, dicks.
except that more people had issue with circumcision than with ear piercing. to a very surprising degree, actually (I only expected a couple folks to try to differentiate)
Er... isn't one permanent and the other pretty much entirely reversible? Or does it work differently if the piercing occurs at birth? Because permanence was really my big point against infant circumcision and if that doesn't apply to infant piercing it should be obvious why it's not as big of a concern...
I guess my point is that this doesn't have to do with mutilation, this has to do with dicks
and that's fine, but let's be honest about that fact. let's not get outraged about mutilation, let's get outraged about dicks.
Actually it has to do with freedom of choice, mostly. Which was demonstrated when many people said they are also uncomfortable with the idea of infant ear piercings.
But also yes, dicks.
except that more people had issue with circumcision than with ear piercing. to a very surprising degree, actually (I only expected a couple folks to try to differentiate)
Er... isn't one permanent and the other pretty much entirely reversible? Or does it work differently if the piercing occurs at birth? Because permanence was really my big point against infant circumcision and if that doesn't apply to infant piercing it should be obvious why it's not as big of a concern...
The ear piercing I received at 5mo is permanent, the holes never close up. I think that's from the size of post used in the piercing, though; those things were pretty huge. So it may vary.
I read quite a few pages in this thread but not all of them. The actual debate content would fill maybe 2.5 pages.
I'm a father. I had to make this decision recently.
Background: I live in the U.S. and in my region about 90% of people are circumcised, I heard that with recent births that has dropped to about 67-74%. Growing up here the 90% number was obvious in school gym class. My best friend (we have been friends for decades) felt a bit odd man out being uncut. I am circumcised. He felt like he was a little different and sometimes people would give him a verbal jab or two, but nothing major. It was not a huge issue for him and I don't think that that even lasted past 8th grade.
I am glad that I'm circumcised and I'm glad that it was done for me when I was a baby and didn't have such a long grown up recovery time. Unsurprisingly most women I've talked to from this area either don't care and out of the ones that do they prefer circumcised to some degree.
People say "let your child decide". You would have to wait until the procedure becomes significantly more difficult to recover from. Newsflash but parents are going to make a fuckton of decisions that dramatically affect their kids lives, and circumcision is not one of them.
The mother and I thought about the procedure for a long time, talked to doctors (one against one for), talked to family (all for except one) and discussed it at length. In the end I found the reasons for having it done outweighed the reasons for not doing it by a slight degree. Being a parent for a while now I already think the amount of time we spent deciding was a waste compared to other even minor decisions.
Whenever I see this debate it always has uncircumcised men telling other people how horrible circumcision is...and that they should never do such a horrible and cruel mutilation to their babies. Being circumcised myself I find that this is such an amazing disconnect with the reality of the situation that its hard not to dismiss their arguments right out.
So we had our baby circumcised. Just for the record, he slept through the procedure.
Posts
The point changes slightly depending on whether or not you are circumcised.
There are people who after having it taken at birth are angry that they were never given a choice.
If there are people who didn't get it taken at birth who don't want it, they can have it done now.
Why irreversibly remove something without consent if you could just wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?
You know, just to be safe.
Nope. Not something I really approve of either. Do you have a point yet or is there some other non permanent procedure you want to compare circumcision to?
I personally feel "infant girls with earrings" is a tacky fashion statement, but no, I don't feel the same way about it as I do about circumcision, no.
Not until skullfucking gains more mainstream traction anyway. Once the ear becomes a mainstream sex organ I might.
there are procedures to create a new foreskin on those who have been circumsized (by stretching existing skin)
considering the semantic insistance on "mutilation" at the open of this thread, I feel the need to point out that poking holes in a thing DOES count as mutilation.
I'm not defending circumsicion here, just pointing out that there are other things not TOO far removed that our society also does, so it is curious to me why THIS is the one that gets latched on to.
This is what it keeps coming back to and I cannot comprehend how the argument has gone on for this long.
The "benefits" of the procedure would not manifest until such a time as they are able to give consent, so what's the rush?
The main differences here is that the ear isn't genitalia and piercing one's ears is usually not permanent.
While the penis is 100% of the time a genitalia and circumcision is 100% of the time a permanent, irreversible process.
So the whole "what do you think about pierced ears" thing? It's a red herring. What anyone thinks about pierced ears is irrelevant. The ear piercing thing is so far removed you might as well be comparing circumcision to playing Mass Effect 2. That's how similar the topics of ear piercing and circumcision are.
we're talking about poking holes through a baby, here.
I know that I am personally very much opposed to piercing an infant's ears.
Both are wrong but one is worse than the other. How does that have any relevance to anything?
Yeah, I mean, me too. I wouldn't want to make my daughter wear earrings unless she wants to, and it's not like she's not gonna figure out how to do it herself when she gets to middle school anyway.
Example A: I'm going to not cut off my child's foreskin when he is an infant. If he wants to do that he can have a surgery for it later. If he doesn't then he doesn't have to have the surgery!
Example B: I'm going to cut off my child's foreskin when he is in an infant. If he wants it back, well he can have another surgery if he wants that will sort of give him the same thing, but his actual foreskin? Gone forever.
Why create a situation requiring multiple dick surgery when it's very possible your child could exist happily through the rest of his life with no dick surgery at all?
Why are we discussing this thread still when this was posted a while back?
if you disagree with DarkCrawler's statement you are wrong.
Because some people don't think it's needless there can be some positive benefits to it like helping prevent STD's.
However, all of those benefits can be reaped in exactly the same way by the child when he is old enough to decide if he wants to be circumcised or not. None of the proposed benefits are directly tied to circumcising as an infant, as far as I can tell.
Not being retarded helps prevent STDs a lot better than being circumcised.
Obviously not being retarded is a problem for people in some countries (I'm not addressing anyone in this thread, just to be clear).
Precisely.
I still think circumcision is stupid, but at least allow an adult to make that stupid decision himself, instead of making it for him.
Also opposed to infant ear-piercing.
Personally, yes. I don't have kids yet, but when I do I won't piece their ears, and I won't cut off my son's foreskin. They're both incredibly unnecessary, and done largely for inane reasons, and easily performed later in life when the child is old enough to choose for themselves.
they don't always heal.
Most of the time, though, they do.
And even if they don't, a botched ear piercing results in...what, at worst? Missing earlobe? A botched circumcision results in at worst the total destruction of the penis. Just a bit of difference there, yes?
Important to note too that all of the extensive nerves and mucous membranes are just gone. It will look similar and provide some protection to the glans but it will never be the same.
Sometimes I just play with my foreskin... cause it feels good. (TMI I'm sure, still true)
I'm still not really comfortable with the delineation. I prefer for a society which errs on the side of maximum personal freedom - and that would preclude any unnecessary procedure which may produce lasting harm, on a person we can consider unable to give consent.
and that's fine, but let's be honest about that fact. let's not get outraged about mutilation, let's get outraged about dicks.
Actually it has to do with freedom of choice, mostly. Which was demonstrated when many people said they are also uncomfortable with the idea of infant ear piercings.
But also yes, dicks.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Lets give a child that can't consent a cosmetic and unnecessary operation, so that if he does decide he doesn't want it later, he can have ANOTHER operation to fix it, except it won't really fix it because its not possible to replicate the original organ precisely.
Did you take lessons on being a silly goose or were you born like it?
except that more people had issue with circumcision than with ear piercing. to a very surprising degree, actually (I only expected a couple folks to try to differentiate)
There is something about genitals that sets people off. I'm not sure what it is. I mean, if they were hacking off the glans, maybe, but as a circumcised man myself, I can't say that I've ever felt left-out on having a foreskin. Shit feels good as is, and as I am a gentleman I will not give details, but suffice it to say that I have not had any complaints from ladies.
I'm not saying this to invalidate folks who feel otherwise, mind you, my point is simply that, in the scheme of things, "victims" of this particular procedure aren't so much harmed physically as harmed in their freedom of choice, making the "mutilation" argument a bit of a red herring.
Conversely, for some reason circumcised men feel the need to emphasize that — "I certainly don't have any problems with sex!" Nobody's ever accused you of being a eunuch, but objectively speaking, you are missing something. It's a very small piece, yes, but a piece of your penis is missing.
You know what? I'll say it. We're all dudes, our penises are pretty important to us. I imagine most of us would rather lose an arm or a leg than lose our dicks. I don't care how small a piece it is, I'm glad I've still got it attached.
Exactly, which is why bringing up ear piercing doesn't invalidate anything previously said.
Er... isn't one permanent and the other pretty much entirely reversible? Or does it work differently if the piercing occurs at birth? Because permanence was really my big point against infant circumcision and if that doesn't apply to infant piercing it should be obvious why it's not as big of a concern...
The ear piercing I received at 5mo is permanent, the holes never close up. I think that's from the size of post used in the piercing, though; those things were pretty huge. So it may vary.
I'm a father. I had to make this decision recently.
Background: I live in the U.S. and in my region about 90% of people are circumcised, I heard that with recent births that has dropped to about 67-74%. Growing up here the 90% number was obvious in school gym class. My best friend (we have been friends for decades) felt a bit odd man out being uncut. I am circumcised. He felt like he was a little different and sometimes people would give him a verbal jab or two, but nothing major. It was not a huge issue for him and I don't think that that even lasted past 8th grade.
I am glad that I'm circumcised and I'm glad that it was done for me when I was a baby and didn't have such a long grown up recovery time. Unsurprisingly most women I've talked to from this area either don't care and out of the ones that do they prefer circumcised to some degree.
People say "let your child decide". You would have to wait until the procedure becomes significantly more difficult to recover from. Newsflash but parents are going to make a fuckton of decisions that dramatically affect their kids lives, and circumcision is not one of them.
The mother and I thought about the procedure for a long time, talked to doctors (one against one for), talked to family (all for except one) and discussed it at length. In the end I found the reasons for having it done outweighed the reasons for not doing it by a slight degree. Being a parent for a while now I already think the amount of time we spent deciding was a waste compared to other even minor decisions.
Whenever I see this debate it always has uncircumcised men telling other people how horrible circumcision is...and that they should never do such a horrible and cruel mutilation to their babies. Being circumcised myself I find that this is such an amazing disconnect with the reality of the situation that its hard not to dismiss their arguments right out.
So we had our baby circumcised. Just for the record, he slept through the procedure.