Double Standards - Adult Circumcision

9

939845

Guest
Hi,

Looking through some of the threads here and also based on personal experience I noticed that whenever an adult guy is in the position to consider a circumcision for whatever reason there is quite a lot of vocal opposition on the matter. Many of these comments revolve around the alleged negative impacts on one’s ability to enjoy sex after circumcision: claims that sensitivity drops dramatically, that the foreskin plays a crucial role in male sexuality, that circumcision is mutilation etc.

While some of these opinions might be based on opposition to RIC, which I understand and believe that it is justified to be angry about RIC, I do not see how this would translate to opposing circumcision in all cases, including for consenting adults. Having undergone the procedure myself as an adult I do not feel like I’ve lost anything notable in my sensitivity or ability to fully enjoy sex. My experience seems to be echoed by many men in the same position and there is hardly any scientific literature on the matter demonstrating any meaningful loss in sexual satisfaction for circumcised men.

I feel like the opposition against RIC has led to criticism being brought against circumcision in general, regardless of whether the person being circumcised is an infant or a consenting adult. Also, while I understand that the former is a very ethically challenging situation and body integrity should be respected, I cannot help but notice that anti-RIC camp appears unable to differentiate between the psychological and ethical implications of circumcision, and the actual procedure and its physiological impact. More specifically, I feel like justified criticism on moral grounds is questionably expanded to also make claims against the procedure from a purely physical perspective. I am sure many of us are familiar with statements such as “circumcision numbs the penis”, “you lose 20.000 nerve endings”, “erectile disfunction is far more likely if you are circumcised” etc. However, there is no solid evidence to support these claims and what literature there is on the matter seems to refute these claims.

To summarise my point, I have the following questions for you:

- If you leave aside the issue of RIC, is circumcision for consenting adult males really such a bad thing after all?
- Do you believe that much of the criticism against circumcision comes as a result of opposition to RIC, and not necessarily the actual procedure?
- As far as adult circumcision is concerned, it possible that many of the anti-circumcision arguments are actually anecdotal and more likely to be an anti-RIC reaction than based on scientific evidence?

And finally, to get to the subject of this topic - we do not seem to shame women who might be seeking cosmetic surgery on their breasts or genitalia. I feel that a lady seeking a clitoral hood removal, breast reduction and lifting or labiaplasty would not be faced with as much opposition as an adult man seeking a circumcision. Could there be a double standard here?
 

NIMBUS

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Posts
2,543
Media
2
Likes
2,337
Points
333
Location
Buckinghamshire, UK
Gender
Male
Whatever an adult chooses to do to their body is nobody else's business. You may not like/disagree with them but their adults and it's their choice (as you made). I don't like tattoos - but it's none of my damned business if a friend chooses to get one.
 

nunchuks

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Posts
100
Media
0
Likes
191
Points
198
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think pretty much everything you say is correct. There are some guys who choose to get cut as adults and go on to regret it but I find this is a tiny minority. 90% of the anti-circ rhetoric is RIC inspired and simply gets unscrupulously targeted at adult circumcision too.

Speaking about the lack of scientific evidence, The whole "keratinisation" myth stands out to me. Read any intactivist post and you'll probably see a mention of "keratinisation" this process that cumulatively reduces the sensation in the glans until after 20 years the glans is as calloused as a rock climber's fingertips. A thickening and desensitising of the glans skin DOES indeed occur in the first few weeks immediately after circumcision. Every guy who gets cut as an adult experiences this (and if this didn't happen then walking around with a hyper-sensitive glans permanently exposed would be a huge drag). But there's no evidence for this cumulative, year on year de-sensitisation that they talk about. It's just a theory that makes sense to them so they embrace it as irrefutable fact and disseminate it as such. I've never encountered an adult circ guy who has said that he has lost sensitivity over the years (even if it was 40 years ago). The only people who seem to propound this claim are RIC guys, and how would they even know how sensitive they were as infants?
It doesn't even seem plausible to me. Are there any other places on the human body that get less sensitive year on year? Callouses usually form in the course of a month or so and then stay that way. They don't keep getting thicker and thicker as the years and decades pass. My fingertips developed callouses when i started playing the guitar 20 years ago and they haven't developed since then. Callouses appear on my hands when I increase my weightlifting, body-lifting workouts and they go away when I decrease my workout. The Keratinisation theory as it is presented simply doesn't tally with how callouses actually work.
I think if intactivists had to restrict themselves to firmly established scientific facts then they would have a much harder time of arguing their case, which is why they don't do that. If anything they'd struggle to argue against the medically proven benefits of circumcision.

I think there are basically only 4 sound arguments that an intactivist can make.
1. Uncut penises can be kept clean too.
2. Circumcision de-sensitises the penis somewhat.
3. Bodily modification without consent is (at best) morally questionable.
4. The medical benefits of circumcision represent a reduction in health complications of no more than a few percent.

Any time they step beyond these points they over-reach and start talking crap. It's a shame that most of them seem to spend most of their time arguing outside of those points. Too often you see them making claims like:
"There's no difference in hygiene. If anything the foreskin protects the penis against harmful bacteria that comes from outside."
Or
"All the claims of medical benefits have been comprehensively debunked! There is NO medical advantage to being circumcised."

All absolute rot.

I don't wanna go on a long rant about it. It just seems like this keratinisation thing is a claim that every intactivist spreads and I have never seen evidence to support it or encountered an adult circ guy who agrees with it. I've had an exposed glans for 16 years now and haven't noticed any reduction in sensation (except for the first 2 weeks).

How do you help people by lying to them?
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
For a arge part of the 20th century, there was "strong" propaganga to promote circumcision. many exagerations about the problems with foreskins. To compat that, the anti-circers couldsn't just likit themselves to "let the boy choose later" and had to call it mutilation, removes sensitivity, reduces pleasure etc. They could have chosen to debate that adult circ doesn't have to be the complex expensive operation that the pro RIC people had been arguing for decades. They didn't.

And once you base your arguments that circumcision is "mutilation", then it is multilation whener as RIC of later. So they HAVE to argue against any/all circuymcisions beause that is the basis of their fight.

If parents leave son intact so he can choose later, then they have done what the anti-circer set out to do, end RIC. But if they want to end RIC so a man can choose later, then when a man does make teh choice, it shouldn't be brought down, it shoudl be encouraged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jack7700w
S

SirConcis

Guest
With regards to keratinisation.

If you compare a male who has had phimosis all his life and gets cut at age 25, then his glans goes from a "boy" skin to adult circumcised skin in one shot, so theye is a noticeable difference. But a male with retractible foreskin, especially one which self retracts diring erections would see far less chane as his glans has already keratinized as part of growing up with retractible foreskin.
Growing up uncut with long foreskin, I remember how painful the bath routine was when parents passed washcloth over my raw glans after rtetracting foreskin. By age 10, things were quite different when I started to masturbate. By age 13-14, I tried to keep foreskin retracted in underwear one summer. (Stopped when friends noticed I was constantly reaching in (to retract foreksin whenever it went back over head).

After getting semi cut, I never noticed loss of sensitivity and have erectiosn in underwear for many years. But after 25 years, one day I wore loose underwear and foreskin retracted in it and it felt very confortable. Part of decision to get full circ, and when done, I was instamtly comfortable in underwear which means during semi cut years, my gans has already become "circumcised" without my realising/noticing it. And 10 years after full circ, still noticed no diffrerence wheich really means that the adap]tation happened well before I got full circ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jack7700w

nunchuks

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Posts
100
Media
0
Likes
191
Points
198
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I was the same as you sirconcis. Wore mine retracted for 11 years so when I finally got cut there was no discernible difference in sensation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter20
8

88553

Guest
if a consenting adult modifies their body I can’t see the issue.

Considering that millions of men are circumcised then it’s not a mad decision.

That said RIC is wrong to me and if it didn’t exist then I doubt many adults would choose circumcision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncutsouthernboy
9

939845

Guest
Thanks for the detailed replies @nunchuks and @SirConcis - all fair points! Yes, I think people do get too emotional over it on either side of the debate and make exaggerated claims either for or against the procedure. I know RIC plays a major role here and that it is a very morally questionable thing to do to someone who has no power to consent to it. However, I am sad to see that this emotional debate a) leads to dubious quasi-scientific claims being made that just lead to general misinformation about circumcision and b) puts off consenting adults from undergoing a procedure which they might want or even need, but are afraid to go through with it because of scaremongering. I would also add that it very likely also hurts those that had to go through RIC as it gives them a sense that they are somehow physically inferior to an intact male, even though in reality that really isn’t the case.
 
9

939845

Guest
if a consenting adult modifies their body I can’t see the issue.

Considering that millions of men are circumcised then it’s not a mad decision.

That said RIC is wrong to me and if it didn’t exist then I doubt many adults would choose circumcision.
if a consenting adult modifies their body I can’t see the issue.

Considering that millions of men are circumcised then it’s not a mad decision.

That said RIC is wrong to me and if it didn’t exist then I doubt many adults would choose circumcision.

I wouldn’t say that RIC drives adult circumcision. I think they are two very different things done for different reasons. Where I come from RIC is almost unheard of, but I know of guys who got circumcised as adults and it had nothing to do with whether RIC existed or not. Sure, you might argue that RIC normalised the look of the circumcised penis and I’m sure that most of the circumcised penises I was aesthetically turned on by, and which my girlfriend got to prefer, were probably the result of RIC, but it wasn’t the concept of RIC that drove me to getting circumcised as an adult. Nevertheless, I do tend to agree that our exposure to or even awareness of circumcision would be far reduced if all circumcisions were performed on consenting adults. Does that make consensual adult circumcisions an indirect consequence of RIC? It might be a tough one to argue.
 

Mcuthigh

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Posts
547
Media
0
Likes
1,431
Points
438
Location
Illinois (United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Do NOT also presume that all RICed males agree with the aforesaid claims that we are all damaged or even feel that way about our circumcisions performed that were shortly after birth. Those who label us as mutilated ought to be subject to libel or at least a "shove it" response for you may claim that your equipment is intact....or original condition, but that does not preclude the notice of malfunctions in basic design that are of a greater percentage than the surgical procedure. I will not offend you by denigrating the appearance of many uncut penises with equal magnitude adjectives such as "mutilated".
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoingOnABoeing
S

SirConcis

Guest
The issue here is that if there are reports of adult men getting cut and loving it, it destroys the anti-circer arguments that circumcision is mulilation. When an adults gets cirumcised and loves it, it helps RIC dad (who has never had before/after ecperience) justify getting son done since those who have had both prefer cut.

So the anti-circers feel it important to portrat all circumncisions as mulilations because they iknow that the ethics issue alone isn't enough to get parents to leave the choice to their son when old enough,. Because in the end, if circumcision is still viewed as good, RIC is still simpler, cheaper and heals much faster than an adult circ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulo99

Acratopotes

Loved Member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Posts
529
Media
0
Likes
677
Points
138
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I feel like the opposition against RIC has led to criticism being brought against circumcision in general, regardless of whether the person being circumcised is an infant or a consenting adult.

So before answering specific points I should say that I am uncut myself and not proposing to get cut. I also believe people should have autonomy over their own bodies so I am anti-RIC on the basis that it is the parents, and not the child, who decide on that modification but adults are entitled to do what they want with their bodies.

...“circumcision numbs the penis”...

I rather suspect that the level of sensation/pleasure we get from parts of our bodies are more to do with the amount of brain devoted to them than the organ itself. It also seems to be the case that the brain adapts to the level of sensation. Those areas in which people are ticklish are generally those that don't often get stimulated and thus the brain has not got used to a background level of stimulation from those areas.

“you lose 20.000 nerve endings”

Surely, this is just a matter of simple physiology. Histology should be able to establish the density of nerve endings to provide a number for the foreskin as a whole. As I am aware of sensations in my foreskin and not just in the head of my penis clearly there must be some nerve endings in that skin and, if the skin is cut off, then surely so are the nerve endings but obviously I can't go just on that to produce a number. It is also hard to go from that and make claims about the overall level of pleasure.

“erectile disfunction is far more likely if you are circumcised”

I can see no mechanism for this so I'd be surprised if it were true.

- If you leave aside the issue of RIC, is circumcision for consenting adult males really such a bad thing after all?
- Do you believe that much of the criticism against circumcision comes as a result of opposition to RIC, and not necessarily the actual procedure?
- As far as adult circumcision is concerned, it possible that many of the anti-circumcision arguments are actually anecdotal and more likely to be an anti-RIC reaction than based on scientific evidence?

Taking these together, I think there is some anti-circumcision feeling that is rooted in being anti-RIC and especially because RIC seemed to entrenched. We've had the medical profession promoting benefits that could as easily be achieved by washing and we've had the social inertia of parents saying "he should be like his dad" and "I wouldn't want my son to be the odd one out at school, everyone will laugh and tease". Then, because the decision to circumcise a baby boy is taken by adults campaigners have set out to convince adults that circumcision is inherently bad rather than concentrating, as I believe they should have, on the ethical argument.

But I can also see why campaigners would do that. Here in the UK and much of Europe many people would tend to side with the child in the ethical argument whereas many Americans are defiant about how it is their "right" as a parent to do what they want with their child as he is a minor.

There is also the fact that if campaigners against RIC could reduce the rate of adult circumcision they would reduce the force of the argument that a baby boy should be circumcised just to fit in and be like his peers. Related to that I can't help thinking that some of the perceived advantage of circumcision for adult men is simply complying with a social norm, a bit like shaving.

And finally, to get to the subject of this topic - we do not seem to shame women who might be seeking cosmetic surgery on their breasts or genitalia. I feel that a lady seeking a clitoral hood removal, breast reduction and lifting or labiaplasty would not be faced with as much opposition as an adult man seeking a circumcision. Could there be a double standard here?

There may be a double standard at work here but ladies do also face criticism for having their own cosmetic surgery done. There are plenty who feel there is already far too much pressure on teenage girls to conform to a version of beauty that is pushed at us all the while by the media, from TV shows to music videos to the covers of magazines etc.

Then there is a double standard in the other direction in that modifying a girl's genitals is more frequently seen as an unacceptable violation of the girl's body than circumcising a baby boy.

My personal take on all this is that we should not perform surgery on babies and young children unless there is a clear and urgent medical need, i.e. something that cannot wait until the child is old enough to understand what is proposed. Adult, on the other hand, have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pineorange