Why are people so angry about circumcision

[JonathanQ]

One aspect of circumcision is that Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that any part of the body that produces an odor needs to be fixed either by sprays and creams or, in the case of foreskins, by a scalpel. Cut it off. No more odor. Do it when he's a baby because he won't remember it or miss what he's never had. He'll thank you for it when he's getting head from American girls who are repulsed by foreskins.
I wonder how the 70% of males in the world who have foreskins--obviously more than a billion men--are managing without the American way of thinking. Amazing.

 

[SirConcis]

There is more to ciccumcision than the cleanliness/smell issue. Women simply prefer the look of a circumcised penis. That is , I think, one of the main drivers of why wifes wanted their newborn cut even if they tolerated their husband was still uncut.

As a teenager, hearing girls at school say they prefered cut men was a HUGE blow to one's ego.

 

[Peter Wood]

I think an Ocean divides opinions about this subject. It's an American choice to cut baby boys at birth. Change has to start with parents. Allow your son to make his own decision.

 

[gymfresh]

There is more to ciccumcision than the cleanliness/smell issue. Women simply prefer the look of a circumcised penis.

That's not my experience from the females I know, or that of many others, so please don't assert it as hard fact. As you've done here before. A lot.

As a teenager, hearing girls at school say they prefered cut men was a HUGE blow to one's ego.

Insecure much? It should have been laughed off, the same way a confident girl would dismiss guys who thought her labia would have been prettier trimmed up for their pleasure.

And not all guys care what women think of penises. Some, like me, are gay and the least relevant thing about our penises is women's biases.

Anyway, I really doubt most Canadian girls give a damn one way or the other today. Intact guys are once again becoming the norm.

 

[colgan1999]

i'm a jew....don't want a foreskin

 

[gymfresh]

One doesn't necessarily follow from the other -- I have numerous Jewish friends who strongly wish they had their foreskin/complete penis -- but c'est la vie. You can do whatever you want to your own body and even claim freedom of religion to do it. YOUR body. No one else's.

 

[mako shark]

Really wish that I would have had a choice with mine...

 

[elshgaser24]

I'm angry about my circumcision because:

-it was done without my consent
-I lost a lot of erogenous tissue
-My glans now constantly rubs against underwear and gets irritated
-Masturbation is more difficult due to increased friction
-I know that my sister was protected from genital cutting, but somehow I wasn't
-My penis doesn't look as good as it would with it's foreskin. I'm left with a scar on my genitals.
-Most of the world doesn't put their baby boys through this ordeal. Though somehow I was despite the fact that I was born and raised in a country that preaches freedom and human rights.

It doesn't have to be this way. Do the right thing for your baby boys and girls alike and leave them whole.

 

[mallak]

I think the only people who deserve a voice on this issue are those who have been mutilated by circumcision. They are the victims of this "father must look like son" mindset. Why should fathers care about whether or not their son's cocks look like theirs anyway, isn't that kind of creepy and incestuous? Risking the possible mutilation of your child just so his penis "looks like yours"? Creepy and messed up! Until I hear that there is a severely mutilated male circumcision victim who also happens to be pro-circumcision, my opinion on this issue is going to remain firmly anti-circumcision, unless it's medically required for some reason.

 

[SirConcis]

mallak, you forget that in most cases, it is the mother that requests the circumcision. If american women didn't prefer cut dicks, they wouldn't have asked for their sons to be done.

You need to go back to the start of the circumcision fashion in the USA. One generation of uncut fathers, and the next generation is widely circumcised boys. Did the farhers really want their sons cut or would they have prefered them to be uncut "like farther like son". It was most likely the mothers, after having read the then current baby books decided that circumcision was best for their boys.

Now, the wind has changed, and the "evidence" to push for circumcision is not as overwhelming as before. But with USA culture entrenched in a circumcised image, (cut fathers, cut porn etc), it is not easy to take a leap of faith and leave a son uncut just because circumcision is not necessary.

 

[JonathanQ]

Even Dr. Spock changed his mind about circumcision. It is hard for new parents to buck trends, especially when the American medical community promotes the infant circumcision industry by not speaking against it. They take silly, wishy-washy positions that ultimately say repeatedly, "More money in my pocket. More money in my pocket."

 

[SirConcis]

Actually, the medical community has taken a more or less neutral stance. They won't promote circumciion and won't say it shouldn't be done. They leave it up to parents to decide.

Since circumcision has become largely cultural in the USA, perhaps it is not up to the medical community to interfere with social trends.

There are social trends such as smoking which are clearly dangerous to the health and the medical commuity does get involved in trying to stop it. But circumcision is not dangerous to the health, so they have no reason to get involved in a social trend.

I think their position has been good: there are medical advantages to circumcsion, but they are not big enough for the medical community to advocate widespread circumision of babies. But they don't condemn it and allow society to choose whether to continue or stop the practice.

 

[D_Clarence_Clitnibbler]

I was hopeful for this thread initially but it seems to have turned into what every thread turns into when its controversial.

People also need to remember that circumcision is not considered "barbaric" by the modern medical community. It's been a medical procedure that has developed over time. It is also not considered child abuse by society as a whole or by most first world governments. That said when you become a parent you HAVE to make ALL decisions for a child because they ARE NOT CAPABLE of making them themselves. And while many of you will throw out that many parents are not either (through bias, or uphold the status quo) it is still the right of those parents to raise their child the way they see fit. Consider parenting lifestyles like those of the Amish or those from Islamic nations where women don't have rights. What about those of religions that rely on the power of faith in God for healing from regular illnesses. Or even parents that raise their kids with bigotry. It's not for you to decide what is right and what is wrong in how a child is raised. That's the responsibility of the parents. Not everyone who is a parent should be one. Just keep that in mind.

I'm cut and I'm glad I am. I plan on circumcising my boys when I have them.

 

[D_Aurifice_Stupher]

I must have been circumsized at an early age, don't remember a thing about it. Fortunately the doc knew what he was doing, and did a good job of it.

I am glad I am cut, would not want the foreskin at all. But that's just me. My parent's decided, am I am okay with that. I love my beautiful cut cock.

 

[gymfresh]

People also need to remember that circumcision is not considered "barbaric" by the modern medical community.

Outside of North America, your location, the medical community is indeed moving in that direction. It's not the procedure itself that is barbaric, it is choosing it on a child that doesn't need it. Would routine tonsillectomies at birth, at the whim of parents, be barbaric? Should the medical community support it?

Cutting off part of your child's penis is not part of parenting, as much as many people would like to make it seem normal. And to the point of the title of this thread, guys have every right to be indignant or even furious that a healthy part of their sex organs was dissed in this way. I can understand why some people don't want social/religious circumcision banned, but I can't understand why those same people also don't want a forum for men to express their outrage at having been circumcised and a means of redress against those who did it to them. If you think circumcision is the right thing for your son, prove it: let him have the final say in the matter. If that means he seeks compensation, then lie back and take it like a man.

 

[SirConcis]

Would routine tonsillectomies at birth, at the whim of parents, be barbaric? Should the medical community support it?
.

Baby circrumcision is a simple cosmetic procedure. Just local anesthetic, and does not delay baby going home. Does not affect eating or even urinating. Tonsillectomies are complex requiring geeral anesthetic and have consequences for eating.


The thing is that circumciisons done on babies are far simpler and heal in a matter of days compared to when done later in life, so there is an advantage to doing a circ early compared to later in life.

 

[farmdog]

SirConsis:
Circumcision of infant boys takes away a choice that is irreversible. A parent has no right to make that choice unless it is done for serious medical issues. The choice was taken away from me at birth, and I resent it. Many doctors feel that infant circumcision is a very traumatizing event, even with local anethesia. Have you ever heard the screaming infant boys enduring this event ? I have, and it is a sound I never want to hear again.

 

[conor]

Leave it until the child is old enough to decide for himself; I am a doctor in a Surgical Speciality - luckily not a Urologist, because I would refuse to circumcise a child for any reason other than a bona fide medical need. I am sure that no-one on here would support the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) - also as female circumcision - yet some are happy to support the practice for male infants?

 

[deleted15807]

I am sure that no-one on here would support the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) - also as female circumcision - yet some are happy to support the practice for male infants?

The two procedures are not the same. Period.

 

[conor]

The two procedures are not the same. Period.

Female "circumcision" involves removal of the clitoris to reduce sexual excitement/sensation; male circumcision involves removal of a foreskin very rich in nerve-supply - forever. In addition to this, any histologist will tell you that the circumcised glans undergoes histological changes -it becomes more keratinised, ie thicker, drier and less sensitive for protection. The end result of these two procedures is not as different as you think.