Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

You know, Im not sure how it worked for others, but my parents weren't told that I was circumcised, nor that my brother was circumcised. My dad and mom didn't figure it out cause all the penises they'd seen up to thst point had been circumcised as well. All the babies were circumcised as well, according to them. This wasn't some religious hospital either, just a normal public general hospital.

I grew up basically thinking I was uncircumcised and that circumcision was only really a Jewish thing. It makes me wonder why circumcision jokes are still part of jewish jokes I America when everyone is circumcised. Kinda a funny point to keep in mind with that one.

Also, babies can't make choices like this. They're babies. They lack basic cognitive functions such as spatiaal awareness, language, contextual awareness, even stuff like memory creation is questionable, and certainly they do not possess the mental capacity to form coherent one word answers let alone thoughts

I am circumcised, and my penis is pretty healthy. Over the course of 17 years I have never had any problems with it. And to be honest I am completely ok with infant circumcision.

Yes that's alright. But would it have made any difference if you weren't circumcised? As in if you were not, would you choose to later in life? Would you have even just preferred the option?

Not a damn thing, really. Which is why the procedure should just be left to either doctors discretion or parent's giving express instruction not to circumcise. That way people who want to make this a big deal can, and everyone else gets to go on with their lives not thinking about dicks all the time.

You are asking what I would do if I would not have known about circumcision. Well according to my mother (she is a gynaecologist) she would recommend circumcision because it reduces infections. Personally, it would have felt like a jump in decision-making, but i now know it is not a big deal.

Except that's not necessarily true.

It's pretty much impossible for anyone circumcised at birth to answer the first two questions if they had a completely successful and non-damaging result to their procedure, because it's just impossible to know what difference it would have made, which is the reason a debate like this ends up being so muddled and inconclusive.

That's why the important question was the last one.

Would you have liked the choice?

That's the important thing to me really, is that from the sounds of it, some people might have had it done anyway, which is fine. If they made the age for circumcision at say 13 or 14, that's probably enough time for the child to understand and know what will happen, and they still have another 60 or so years of having it cut if they choose so that means that they can have the health benefits (assuming there is any) for all that time.

Actually I was circumcised at age 11, also without my consent (they told me they were doing it but not what it was and I didn't know) Even at 13 or 14, parents can influence them too much to make a separate decision, I think it would be better to wait until adulthood tbh.

That would have been a good thing to say much earlier on in the thread, Ryumaru.

Coming from the guy who chastised us for using anecdotal evidence?

I didn't feel it was relevant seeing how it would be called it that and ignored it, but I felt it was relevant to Spider-Bytes post

You can't make circumcision be something you get when you're older. The older you get, the riskier it is to actually be circumcised, 10 times higher if you're doing it to a 14 year old then if you're doing it to an infant, and it takes a lot longer to fully heal as well, leading to a greater risk of infection.

What you're advocating is to make the process riskier in order to placate the tiny percent of the population who actually care.

Well, seeing how there seems to be little reason to circumcise at all I feel many adults wouldn't get it done anyway unless their religion dictates it. The people who don't care if they are circumcised wouldn't care if they were uncircumcised, seeing how they don't care.

What you are advocating is permanently altering an unconsenting child to placate the percent of the population whose religion requires it and might consent to it. Seeing how it's risky period and there is little to no concrete medical reason to do so in the first place, it shouldn't be done unless the person has reasons other than medical.

So what? The whole point is that it shouldn't be done to infants because they can't sign off on it.

And anyway, do you have a source for that very specific claim?

But at least the person who has their genitals mutilated can choose to.

While this does not speak for population of any country, the results of this surveys indicate a fair amount of people do care about it. You can't really say no one cares, because you don't know that.

I am telling you guys right now, the foreskin is a worthless piece of skin. If the foreskin was something essential then circumcised people would experience problems with their genitals, yet they don't. And if you remove it at an early age it would be better if you did it at a later age, as they will experience less problems.

"But it's not their choice."
So? It is a worthless piece of skin.

You're still on this consent bender? Children are too stupid and mental deficient to give consent, so it should go to the parents instead. Same for vaccinations, dental work, school attendance, and all other matters that alter a child permanently, mentally and physically.

What exactly is your problem with parents having the say in whether this occurs or not? Especially if the risk only gets higher with age and not lower?

http://www.circinfo.net/risks_in_adults_and_older_children.html

If the foreskin was something essential then circumcised people would experience problems with their genitals, yet they don’t.

Multiple studies in this thread have been posted showing that people sometimes do experience problems with their genitals.

Except it's not worthless, "the World Health Organization debates the precise functions of the foreskin, which may include 'keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors'"

There are statistics and cases where it has had a negative effect, which is mentioned in the thread earlier.

Just as you can live without it, you can live with it. Then why remove it in the first place?

Because the point is it's not necessary and can cause negative effects. Like I said before.

You vaccinate a child because it prevents the serious and deadly viruses and it needs to be done at an early age. You cut a foreskin off because it might prevent infection, which isn't even that common anyway with uncircumcised people or that your god told you to.

If it's for religious reasons, then let them do it themselves when they're older if they want to. If its health reasons, prove that the pros outweigh the cons.

Because you might think its the best for your child doesn't mean it is. If say a guy thought maybe hitting his kid was the best for the child because it would raise him properly, does that mean everyone should let him? I mean the kids are too stupid to behave good without force, right?

@Eurofighter Typhoon

You could have at least skimmed over the rest of this thread before posting here, man.

@Black Graphic T

What you seem to have done here is create a false dichotomy of "the child can give consent" and "the parents can give consent". To illustrate how wrongheaded this is, I'll give the most extreme counterexample I can think of: We all know that a minor cannot legally consent to sex with an adult. That doesn't mean that the right to determine when and who a kid fucks defaults to the parents. Neither party has that ability. And we have plenty of laws that similarly regulate the actions of mothers and fathers onto their offspring.

God stop bringing up the "vaccines are without consent too". I thought that was rebutted like multiple times in this thread already. Vaccines aren't largely irreversible changes to your body. You can die from meningitis but when's the last time you heard a story like "man died from foreskin caused illness". The places like lots of europe and south america that don't get circumcisions aren't exactly hellholes with penile stds and funguses just flying everywhere anymore than largely circumcised places.

It has already been proven that foreskins have many functions and removing them can cause damage so it's not a "worthless piece of skin". Even if we're in some hypothetical universe where it was just this benign thing it's still a piece of your body you can't get back so taking the choice away from children is just barbaric. Let people do it when they want to as an adult they will know the risks and if they care enough they'd get it done. How many times have you heard someone say "damn it I wish they took my foreskin off as a baby". Exactly it's imaginary. But have you heard "I wish I had my foreskin so I could know what it's like and at least have the option". Now that situation exists and is present in this very thread. Hell I have a functioning circumcised one but I'd certainly love to have the option of keeping a part of my body. You can get it removed as an adult not put back.

Like there is just no reason to have it taken off as a kid every reason has been rebutted thoroughly so far to the point where the same points are brought up over and over. There's just no need. If the idea of adult consent means so little to you I don't know what to say.

It's permanent, unneeded and damaging change made with false or contradicting info. Vaccines, and school attendance don't leave irreversible changes and dental work is necessary, while circumcisions is not.

There are a lot of risks in doing it at all too, but people seem to glance over that.

Not all anecdotal evidence is created equal. Remember how we established that people who were circumcised at birth don't know what it's like to have a foreskin, and how people who weren't don't know what it's like not to? The fact that you, if you are telling the truth, actually do know what it's like both on both sides of the fence would have lent much more weight to your anecdotal evidence. Up until you said that, you were just yet another person who couldn't compare.

Although on second thought, the topic of the thread is specifically infant circumcision, so maybe it's not that relevant? Infants do tend to respond differently to medical procedures than adults do.

You just said it yourself "If you are telling the truth" I am, but there is no way for me to prove it and no reason for you to believe me, meaning my "anecdotal evidence" is worthless. I was responding to Spider-bytes proposed scenario and responding saying I went through said scenario and why I don't feel it works. There are no (as far as I know) studies showing how 13 year olds feel about circumcision, their choice or how much they know, so Anecdotes is all you can really offer.

Compare that to the loss of feeling argument, the studies I and others posted far outweigh any personal story I can bring forth for the simple fact that without doctor reports (which I don't have) and having the nerve endings on my glans examined (no money and not happening) I could be lying out my ass and you would never know. That is why anecdotal evidence is worthless in the face of actual evidence, and pretty much only serves to tell people why we support the side we support.

This is a debate? Wow, being circumcised literally changed nothing in my life. The person who damages my dick the most is myself admittedly. Anyways to me its not really the parents who should be blamed for ruining a dudes penis, it should be the shitty doctor who screwed up. All in all to me circumcision is more of receiving a convenience than anything else, if you don't want your kids to get it, don't have them get it. If you do, make sure its with the right doctor, theres no debate here.

NON and me are bellend buddies.

How is it a convenience? One less body part to clean?

What if the doctor did the circumcision perfectly and the dick still gets damaged? Circumcision removes tons of nerves and numbs the glans when done right, that doesn't sound undamaged to me. Why risk the complications for no concrete benefit in the first place?

What if the kid doesn't want to be circumcised? What if a kid misses the feeling in the end of his dick? Why should it be anyone's decision other than the child when they are old enough to make an informed decision? Skin restored or not, those nerves are gone forever.

There is a debate here, just because you don't care doesn't mean the people who do are groundless.

Eurofighter Typhoon wrote:

I am telling you guys right now, the foreskin is a worthless piece of skin. If the foreskin was something essential then circumcised people would experience problems with their genitals, yet they don’t. And if you remove it at an early age it would be better if you did it at a later age, as they will experience less problems.

“But it’s not their choice.”
So? It is a worthless piece of skin.

It protects the glans, and haves 20000-70000 nerves, many of which are used in sex. It’s not worthless, and people in this thread have come up with problems with their genitals due to circumcision, if you are not going to read the thread, don’t post in it.

There isn't, all he is missing is a bit of plesure nerves which don't really benefit him. "But he'll loose a tiny bit of plesure in sex/masturbation!", big whoop.
Also the kid won't even know what circumcision is, he has no say in this, he has no opinion on the matter.
Heres what there is to say: if you don't want your kid to have it, don't do it no ones forcing you.
God its abortion all over again.

So the kid has no say? It's his body, not the parents, it should be his say, no one else's, and should be put off until he can make an informed decision. There is no concrete medical benefit to do it in the first place, no reason the consent has to be the parents. it's only done out of tradition, which is a horrible reason to do so.

And it's not a little, I personally have almost no feeling left in my glans, 70000 nerves is not a tiny bit, nor is the loss of feeling in the glans tiny either. That's not counting possible complications and infections that might happen.

I got that shit snipped when I was but a babe and I've found no fucks to give for it over the 19 years I've been here.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but to me the foreskin is a relatively useless and unimportant piece of skin that can be there or not with no difference.

I've never had an existential crisis over never having my own dick flap, and I'd posit that if the parents want to snip it or keep it it should be in their hands (as guardians and caretakers of the child) to make the decision with impunity.

That is unless having a circumsion is proven to cause some fucked up shit like early death or disease, then all I've said is bullshit and things need to be discussed.

Of course the baby wont know. But they will when they are older. And you're still risking a lot for nothing. Like its been said, it can not just remove pleasure, it can also actually not make your dick work.

Can I just burn a cigarette on a child and leave a scar for life? I mean he's an infant, he wont care and he has no opinion.

And here's how its different from a abortion. If the kids aborted, they are dead. Done. If they aren't they live and they can't grow up and choose to be aborted. But as a person you can can get your foreskin chopped off any age, why not an age where the person can decide to do it?

Read the thread, there are studies and stories of people losing a lot of feeling, and the foreskin is not useless, it's meant to protect the glans and stimulate sexual pleasure.

Here is a page outlining the foreskins uses and results of losing it. It doesn't look useless to me. You can live without it sure, you can also live without your fingers too.

Also circumcisions can cause infections and deaths from said infections Here is a list of possible complications, which include death

Can I just burn a cigarette on a child and leave a scar for life? I mean he’s an infant, he wont care and he has no opinion.

I'm struggling to see how this comparison has anything to do with circumcision whatsoever

@Crimson Locks

Uh… maybe it's that doesn't threaten someone's life, but is incredibly painful and leaves a permanent scar? It's not meant to be a perfect analogy, you know- he's trying to refute a specific point made by someone else.

There's a lot of moral proselytizing, hyperbole, and outright biased, boarderlining on lying, going on here.

There are links outlying the health risks involved with circumcision, and the risks involved with keeping the foreskin, both of which are in equal in their slim chance of happening numbers to both valid to one another. We also have links about how there's pretty much no change, and links aquating it to amputation. Not to mention the anecdotal evidence being slung around like crazy, and everyone judt being like "Your link sucks mine is 100% more legit" and then ignoring everything thst isn't agreed with.

Would it be too much to ask ror everyone to tone thst down a bit?

It's been said multiple times in this thread that the evidence for or against circumcision is in dispute.

One of the main arguments against circumcision is that since there is nothing concrete to show it's without a doubt beneficial, there is no good reason to circumcise, while there are reports of complications and feeling loss as a result of circumcision, which a reason not to circumcise.

It seems like the only people who have a problem with it (in this thread at least) are people who are uncircumcised or have had issues with their circumcision. People who are circumcised with no issue seem to be indifferent. I'm circumcised and have had no issues, no infections, full feeling in every part, and can fap just fine. And I really don't miss my foreskin or wonder what it would be like. I actually think they look better without them.

Also, I came to this thread expecting to read some form of the word "mutilation" and I was not disappointed.

I can see clearly you have barely read the "infections and deaths" link. If you read more closely they are either really uncommon or result from bad circumcisions.

Also the function of the foreskin is really just for sexual pleasure and elasticity during sex. The only essential function I see is elasticity, but that can be handled with slower sex.

Also Lord star scream summed up this thread perfectly.

It seems like the only people who have a problem with it (in this thread at least) are people who are uncircumcised or have had issues with their circumcision

Seriously people, stop the salt

Rarely means it still happens, versus no concrete benefit.

It also protects the glans, that plus the sexual pleasure thing is enough reason to keep it there. Just because it's not "essential" doesn't mean it should be chopped off.

We are talking about probability here. Dangerous and rare instances occurring in activities are everywhere in a lot of workplaces. Like for example there are rare cases where people cut their fingers while cutting vegetables. Does that mean we should stop cutting vegetables? Or how about riding a car, where there is a rare likelihood you will crash?

My point is dangerous improbabilities are everywhere and that one should not use it as an argument to persuade against such activity.

Like for example there are rare cases where people cut their fingers while cutting vegetables. Does that mean we should stop cutting vegetables? Or how about riding a car, where there is a rare likelihood you will crash?

Cutting vegetables and riding cars both provide tangible benefits for doing so. Given the dubious benefits and notable risks and damages of circumcision it doesn't seem to be worth the risk.

@jarbox
Son, I just told you how uncommon the dangers are.

The problem is that work and chopping vegetables have concrete and tangible benefits, circumcision has none or little. Also the loss of feeling thing is not rare, and the 70000 nerve loss happens in 100% of the cases. We are talking about a low risk of serious damage for zero concrete benefit, all decided by people who are unaffected if the circumcision goes wrong btw.

I'm going to post this a million times until you actually fucking read it.

http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E

Even the basic procedure may cause some kind of damage an unreasonable amount of times it is performed. The medical benefits from it are incredibly minor and not well proven. If the procedure is so poorly understood, why allow it, from a medical standpoint, to be performed on infants?

Link is 404

nuts

okay, this one

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Either way there is very little effect it would cause. The consequence on either side is very small, hence the fact it doesn't have to be consentual from the baby. Also I was aware you kept on repeating nerve loss.I am aware of it, you will just grow new ones.

We've already been over this. These nerves are on the foreskin. They don't come back.

So the slim chance of contracting Posthitis, phimosis, balanoposthitis, Or penile cancer is just bullshit. But the slim chance of losing sensation and having complications from the procedure is solid proof circumcision is bad?

What logic does that make?