I figure this is the appropriate board to have a discussion about this topic. I would post on /b/, but it would inevitably devolve into a name-calling shitfest of "uncut-fags vs cut-fags". I've done some searching around for research papers and studies on the internet, and I've found mixed results about the benefits and harms of infant circumcision.
Primary claims, that I have seen, for benefits have been as follows
1: Circumcision reduces the chances of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus, because the glans and the inner foreskin are exposed and therefore keratinize, and a keratinized layer of skin is harder for the HIV/AIDS virus to cross than a thin, wet membrane, as would be present in an intact penis.
2: Circumcision reduces the chances of developing penile cancer later in life, as the development of penile cancer is thought to be heavily influenced by the presence of oils, dead skin cells, dirt, etc. trapped under the un-retracted foreskin of an intact penis.
3: Circumcision increases the cleanliness of the penis, helping to prevent conditions such as Urinary Tract Infections in infants and Phimosis in men of all ages.
I want to see what others think of these medical justifications, as well as whether or not infant circumcision should be permitted for religious or cultural reasons, or any reason other than theraputic (i.e. the removal of the foreskin is required to treat serious, present health issues of the infant). I am of the belief that these primary claims I have listed are not significant enough to ethically allow infant circumcision, nor should it be allowed for any reason other than theraputic. For context, I was circumcised as an infant, and, given the opportunity, I would go back in time and prevent it.
>reduces the chances of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus Choose partners wisely, don't be the whore of bablyon, don't fuck impoverised minorites, prostitutes or engage in gay sex and HIV/AIDS is a lol-tier meme you don't have to worry about. If you are gay, use protection religiously.
>reduces the chances of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus lol tier meme
>Circumcision increases the cleanliness of the penis
lmaforofl-tier meme, very dank pepe. Fucking soap and a once a week shower totally negate this "pro" to circumcision.
The only reason to get circumsized would be for medical reasons (phimosis). Religious reasons are just fucking retarded.
I agree with you for the most part, although from what I've read it seems possible and not very difficult to treat most cases of phimosis with non-surgical methods, such as stretching the foreskin gently or using a medical ointment. So I think even for phimosis, circumcision would not be necessary a vast majority of the time.
Uncut here, every woman I've been with says it is better for hand jobs and looks fine when hard. Only problem they've had is the anteater look when I'm limp. For hygiene, I don't fuck people with AIDS since I don't live in Africa, I wash down there every day so smell/smegma/infection is not a problem, and I've never had cancer due to dick skin, surprisingly enough. Basically, uncut is prime for sex unless you have erectile dysfunction.
See, this is why I avoid this discussion online.
Guy gets directly in defense mode and posts no positives of being uncut , or even a research or findings for why uncut is better. Just a bunch of "hue hue meme meme wash your pee pee" bravado.
Unfortunately user I don't think we will ever be able to discuss this intelligently on an anonymous image board. I however do like how you worded your question and was really hoping to have a decent discussion about this. Oh well, maybe another time and place my friend.
There are no positives, Europe is uncut and doesn't have higher STD rates. It's a dumb tradition that needs to die. Niggers in the jungle do this why the fuck is the West still doing this?
Now I see 's point. Only this time the nigger word was added to his argument, thus once again adding nothing new to the conversation, and proving yet again how unintelligent racists are.
>no counter argument You aren't doing the thread any favor either.
I personally think all females should be circumcised, OP.
Here here brother. I believe studies show cicumsised women get less bitchy and do more work when they are cicumcised.
The risk of acquiring HIV from an infected partner even without condom use is very low at about 0.2%. So assuming that circumcision actually reduces the risk by 50% then it would only change to 0.1%.
The same could be said for penile cancer and other conditions that is claimed to be helped by circumcision.
So while there are probably benefits, there are also risks.
A 2010 review of literature found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications.
I hope you can help me Veeky Forums
I have phimosis, also my dick is small. I was thinking about getting circumsized maybe in some years, but I doubt I will save enough money to do so (I live in a shithole country)
What to do? Is there any non-surgical method to remove that skin or at least stretch it enough so I can see my dick's head?
I know I have smegma down there since I literally can't pull down the skin down, sadly.
Please help me Veeky Forums
If you stretch it slowly every day you will be able to fix it. When skin is stretched it induces mitosis, and the cells duplicate and grow more skin(this is why you don't pop if you get fat.) You can search for guides online, but you just have to be persistent.
Everyone in this thread should watch Penn and Teller's episode of "Bullshit!" on circumcision if you have the time. It is entertaining and informative.
Like said, just stretch it every day until it starts hurting, at which point you should stop and hold it in that position for a minute or so. Do this a few times every day, and within a few months, you'll be able to fully retract your foreskin.
You can talk to your doctor about this method, and a lot of them will prescribe you a cream (inexpensive) that accelerates the process. You can desensitize the head of your penis by running water over the newly-exposed segments, before progressing to soft objects, then your hands, and so on.
Do not try to stretch the foreskin further than is comfortable, cause you could really fuck your shit up. As long as you're not feeling pain, you're in the clear.
Let's just drop the euphemisms and call circumcision what it is: Male Genital Mutilation.
I mean, similar reasoning (cleanliness and disease reduction) is used to advocate for Female Genital Mutilation, so why not?
I agree. Some countries have less extreme versions of FGM that only remove the clitoral hood, and are exactly analogous to MGM. I think that all of it is wrong.
OP here. While I can understand your frustration at people trying to devolve the conversation to a lower level, you do have to understand that this is a very emotional topic for people, as it rightfully should be. I don't believe that one person making these types of comments should completely ruin the thread, and if you truly want to have a conversation about this topic, you should be able to overlook that.
I've provided some common reasons for infant circumcision, but as I said in the OP, I don't believe any of them can ethically be used to justify infant circumcision. The incidence rate for significantly acute complications from infant circumcision is 12 times higher than the incidence rate of penile cancers, so it seems absurd to me that people could use prevention of penile cancer as a justification. Additionally, though there are disturbingly few studies about the potential negative effects of infant circumcision, those that do exist seem to suggest that infant circumcision is a very traumatic experience for the child, and can lead to problems with behavioral development and psychological issues later in life. I want to hear why people think that infant circumcision is acceptable, and see if they can convince me of their standpoint or vice versa.
Also, for the record, I believe that male and female genital mutilation are equally abhorrent, regardless of their justifications. People will say that Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) are incomparable for any number of reasons. I think anyone would agree that FGM is abhorrent regardless of the intentions of the perpetrator, whether they choose to do it for religious, social, or nebulously medical reasons, simply because it will always result in altering the girl's body without her consent. The same is true of MGM, but our culture is desensitized to this fact, because MGM is the norm. If similar medical benefits could be attained by removing the prepuce (in men the prepuce is called the foreskin, in women it is called the clitoral hood) from young girls, I doubt there are any people in the United States that would agree to "circumcise" their newborn girl. This suggests that the foreskin is somehow "lesser" than any other part of the body (in particular, that the male prepuce is "lesser" than the female prepuce, sexism in the full), as there is no other part of the human body which can be removed without the informed consent of the patient, excepting therapeutic reasons.
Assuming that is true, that is absolutely disgusting. Social and cultural norms stand in the way of ethical treatment of newborn boys.
Gen 34:15 Only on this condition will we agree to that: that you become like us by having every male among you circumcised. 16 Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters in marriage; we will settle among you and become one people. 17 But if you do not listen to us and be circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
18 Their proposal pleased Hamor and his son Shechem. 19 The young man lost no time in acting on the proposal, since he wanted Jacob’s daughter. Now he was more highly regarded than anyone else in his father’s house. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city and said to the men of their city: 21 “These men are friendly toward us. Let them settle in the land and move about in it freely; there is ample room in the land for them. We can take their daughters in marriage and give our daughters to them. 22 But only on this condition will the men agree to live with us and form one people with us: that every male among us be circumcised as they themselves are. 23 Would not their livestock, their property, and all their animals then be ours? Let us just agree with them, so that they will settle among us.”
24 All who went out of the gate of the city listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and all the males, all those who went out of the gate of the city, were circumcised. 25 On the third day, while they were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, brothers of Dinah, each took his sword, advanced against the unsuspecting city and massacred all the males. 26 After they had killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, they took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. 27 Then the other sons of Jacob followed up the slaughter and sacked the city because their sister had been defiled. 28 They took their sheep, cattle and donkeys, whatever was in the city and in the surrounding country. 29 They carried off all their wealth, their children, and their women, and looted whatever was in the houses.
Out of curiosity have you heard of Paul Tinari, the guy who did this experiment?
Crazy shit. He was circumcised age 8 without anesthesia as punishment for allegedly having masturbated. Dr. Tinari denies he had been masturbating and said some bratty kid he went to school with lied to a priest there and said he'd seen him jerking it, so the priest arranged for a mohel to come and cut off his foreskin.
The circumcision left him with a scarred pocket of tissue that caught dirt and caused his penis to be chronically infected.
While you're at it just remove tonsils and appendix right?
That will prevent a lot of common health problems too right OP?
you're a faggot.
New, less invasive surgeries could potentially make tonsillectomy obsolete.
Actually most tonsillectomies are bullshit, but in the few cases where the tonsils are causing issues, now there's a surgery where they can resurface them with a laser rather than hack out the entire tonsils with a clamp and scalpel.
Seems like most doctors just want to stick with the cruder surgeries they were taught in school rather than learn these more nuanced modern operations though.
Every one of these claims has been debunked, in length, with leading authorities... on an episode of Penn and Teller's BULLSHIT!
They only debunk woo and irrational bullcrap. So, that's the level on nonsense you're dealing with.
>triggered by the word nigger How fucking new is this guy. Fucking faggot.
Actually /b/tards don't usually come here and people are banned here all the time, especially /b/tards. So, how new are you to Veeky Forums? Have you been here for years? I doubt it.
I've been here longer than you I am sure. If you get triggered that quickly by a single word you should remove yourself from the internet altogether just to make sure you're feelings won't get hurt again. Its pathetic to see someone dismiss another's argument because they see the word 'nigger' and start pulling the racist card. It makes you a faggot. The fact that you immediately throw /b/ into the mix makes me think you only recently migrated from there, which makes you a newfag to this board. Lurk more, faggot.
I have no goddamn idea how this practice is still legal. It's legitimately, unquestionably child abuse. Cutting off ANY other part of a baby would get you in prison, yet this surgery done without anaesthetic is allowed because people who lived in the desert over 2000 years ago thought it was important for religious reasons?
Do you stop black people on their way and get mad at them for saying nigger ? Bitching about how unintelligent they are for using derogatory racist words ?
Ofcourse not you coward faggot. You're just a self righteous white knight trying to claim high grounds on an image board where nobody gives a fuck who you are. Next time you see a black guy blurting "nigger", please stop him and express your deep dissapointment. I'd like to see you get your ass kicked back to your parents basement :^)
Yes, that was a very good episode.
I have a strong opinion on this, because I was circumcised at birth, and when I found out about it when I was ~11, I saw it as morally wrong. I think that everyone has the right to a whole and fully functional body. The only reason that surgery should be done to someone who can't consent is if it will save their life, or significantly improve their quality of life.
The prevalence of myths about the foreskin being dirty baffles me. The only studies that show circumcision as having any sort of benefit are from people that have a strong cultural bias.
I started restoring my foreskin when I was 11 years old, and I had a functional foreskin by the time I was ~12. It made an amazing difference, I would highly recommend trying it if you are cut. It does not give you any more nerves, but it allows your glans and inner foreskin remnant to stay protected from air and cloth. Once I had full coverage, the skin on my glans and inner foreskin became noticeably thinner and more sensitive. This is because they went back to being properly functioning mucous membranes, just like the inside of your mouth, or eyelid. I have started working on it again recently, just because I would like to have a bit more foreskin.
If any of you ever have a son, please do not circumcise them. The benefits are supported by flawed studies, and even if the procedure goes "well" it permanently modifies their anatomy in a negative way.
>Fucking soap Don't wash your dick with soap idiot.
All of these considerations should be made by an adult. It's just wrong to give someone a needless operation without them having a say in it. Here in the Netherlands we have the "inviolability of the body" in our constitution and I don't see why jew circumcision clinics are even allowed to exist.
>an adult By which I mean the guy whose dick it is himself, at the age of 18, obviously.
>Cutting off ANY other part of a baby kek
If you disagree you are a fedora tipping nerd loser.
OP here, if you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you would notice that I am staunchly against any kind of genital cutting, unless it is the least invasive method available, and needed to treat a clear and present threat to the child's health.
>I am of the belief that these primary claims I have listed are not significant enough to ethically allow infant circumcision, nor should it be allowed for any reason other than therapeutic.
Nonetheless, I am glad that you agree with me in that circumcision is a practice that we should stop.
what do you suggest then? bleach?
Just water. Soap can be used if needed, but it messes with the skin, just like using soap on a vagina.
Most guys do fine using soap on the cutaneous parts of their penis. It's the mucosal and mucocutaneous parts that are less likely to respond well to soap.
>using soap on a vagina
Dirty vagina is best vagina
Which cultures favor neonatal mutilation and what else do they have in common?
America, the Middle East, The Philippines, South Korea (due to American influence), Kenya, Nigeria, Bangla Desh
There are no positive benefits to elective circumcision. There are however a laundry list of negatives the biggest being changes in the brain of the infant that negatively affect the person into adulthood.
>t. fedora that didn't even read the whole thing
Well, the reason that they circumcised those people and then killed them was because one of them raped their sister.
But he took responsibility and married her, senpai.
He had his father ask her father to make her marry him. And her brothers did not want any of that.
OP your whole argument revolves around having a calloused dick that could somehow decrease stds, that doesn't make sense to me. Most people in america are circumecised, at least i think so, and they still sell condoms here. And as far as the cleanliness goes, just wash your dick. My balls get dirty too, should I just cut them off? Seriously, a vag gets more moist in all its folds then a dick and they arent doing female circumcisions.
The benefits to being circumcised that I found is: No lube when jerking it no gross scars I've never been circumcised so I don't know, but I assume I feel more through my dick. After all you said the dick becomes callous and not intact
I think it shouldn't be preformed as a child. I think the reason people get so defensive is because they're alraedy circumcised and can't do anything about it. If you could see how the other side lives then maybe you would be all for it. It literally serves no purpose, if you can't be bothered to wash your dick then cut it off
Reread the last paragraph, OP is against circumcision.
>they arent doing female circumcisions.
Welcome to Islam
OP again, this user is correct. I'm primarily looking to see if people actually want to argue that the reasons I listed are justification enough to violate an individuals right to an intact body.
That is not my argument, but rather several arguments used commonly to support the practice of circumcision. I understand that I only list purported benefits in the OP, but seriously reading comprehension should not be this hard. I explicitly state in the last sentence that I am against any kind of infant genital mutilation unless it is therapeutic in nature. Regardless of that, I don't mean to belittle your intelligence, and I am glad that you feel circumcision is wrong. The largely negative response to circumcision that I'm seeing in this thread gives me hope for the future.
Part of what makes me angry about this is that people rightfully see, in this case, that religious freedom should end when we start chopping off parts of our children (as FGM is at least illegal, if not a felony, in any non-shithole country, even symbolic pricks to draw blood). Yet when making male circumcision illegal is brought up, everyone suddenly feels like we're oppressing Jews and Muslims by forbidding them from cutting up their babies genitals. I can somewhat sympathize with the argument that if we do immediately make infant circumcision illegal, some people will still go and get it done in back-alley places, but making it a felony crime will at least insure that parents who do this to their children are appropriately dealt with, and greatly reduce the number of children who have their rights violated in this manner.
jewish circumcision predates the torah by 1000 years
it's appearance in the torah is generally considered a way to justify the practice as a commandment from God, so that jew's wouldn't feel bad about mutilating their son's genitals.
the actual source of religious circumcision is highly speculative; nobody knows
circumcision is one of the few actual jewish conspiracies.
In the US circumcision was started by Seventh Day Adventists as a "cure" to masturbation.
Thanks Veeky Forums bros. I will try it at a later date. You really helped!
Animals don't need circunssision, humans evolving and in a thousand cultures didn't and still don't need circunssision. Yet, some supertitious desert dwellers knew better, and here we are grasping at straws on why a person needs to remove of their dickhead skin when born. Because clearly every other creature walks with their glans exposed and the almighty Creator demands us so...Because reasons. Also don't eat pig.
Sincerely, I like discussion about this topic. It remember me how people are dumb and that you can argue about anything with enough social backup.
My favorite pet theory is made around the study that says the trauma of circumssision causes brain damage in the newborns, which with enough luck may develop into psychopathy in a later age.
I'm having a hard time believing that a circumcised guy actually cares about this. This has to be an uncircumcised guy jealous or something.
Well you can believe what you like, but that doesn't change the fact that there are definitely circumcised guys out there who feel that their body was mutilated and their rights violated. I know, I'm one of them.
>I'm sad over a fucking piece of skin that hangs over my crotch. >muh dick muh dick muh dick dick dick dick muh choice dick my dick penis me me me cock my cock
>It remember me how people are dumb
Do you have to buy two plane tickets whenever you fly so that your ego can fit as well? Do they even let you on public transit? Can you walk through normal sized doors?
Having an ego that large must be quite the chore.
>I'm having a hard time believing that a circumcised guy actually cares about this. This has to be an uncircumcised guy jealous or something. you're clearly a circumcised guy with some repressed trauma the link posted earlier: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/abstract might help you better understand your feelings, and move you past the denial stage
>jewish circumcision predates the torah by 1000 years
Abraham predates Moses by 1000 years
>Studies show that women actually get more pleasure from piercing through a woman's clit a 15 inch dildo thicker than your arm than a normal dick. >Studies show that redigesting diarrhea can improve your health
No worries on my end. You're complaining probably more about behavioural developmental issues than the physical. Oh, look, we both ended up on Veeky Forums.
I think the thing many forget is that cultural reasons are actually genuine reasons, in that penile appearance does have an affect on life quality and in many places circumcision is just the way "normal" penises look. I agree that everyone would be better off if nobody circumcised any babies anymore, but if everyone else is doing it, it's hard to go against the flow. I only know one guy who is uncircumcised and people make fun of him. He's pretty defensive about it and I wouldn't want my kid to have that experience.
The trends are changing, especially on the west coast of the US. Infant circumcision rates are ~15% in Washington for example. Cutting just because everyone else does is just perpetuating mindless mutilation. I would rather be made fun of for having a whole body than feel good about myself for having a piece of my dick amputated.
You should probably seek a psychiatrist then concerning not only your circumcision.
It just doesn't seem like it would be worth it to lead that kind of charge. I agree that circumcision is mindless, but it's not actually that bad. I am cut and never give it a second thought at all. On the other hand, that uncut guy I know says things like "at least I'm not mutilated" while getting visibly upset every time the conversation comes up.
>some study exists and is not legitimate >somehow a relevant argument about the legitimacy of a paper that somebody else in another field wrote about another topic
Yet, still, we both ended up on Veeky Forums.
Your "studies" are invalid when you have more uncut men lined up here ready to post a thread about circumcision who are more butthurt and with more psychological problems than those who underwent "mutilation". I am perfectly fine as I rest here, eating a bowl of nuts and a smoothie, listening to some music that makes me feel pretty darn good.
OP clearly stated he was a circumcised male would have chosen not to be circumcised, had he been given the option of an informed choice (obviously this is not possible for an infant)
Talk about how happy you are, but if you ever want to get help, then reading that article might help you. Of course maybe for you it's better to keep the trauma repressed. Or it's of course possible that you don't have any trauma, but your ego necessitates that you bash others on the internet and tell them how happy you are.
It would be taboo to attempt to discredit that "statement", so I won't.
taken care of my man
Have you seen all the threads made by uncircumcised manics?
The fact is, despite however much you want to shove the "trauma" card down my own throat (causing probably more trauma than an event that happened before I was even conscious 24 years ago), I am just as fine as most others. I find it bizarre that those who mostly take a leaping stance on this subject are the uncircumcised entering full-throttle into the thread with their propaganda.
Trust me, relax. We are fine, besides the few, like SJWs, who feel that their rights are always being violated.
Do you believe humans should have the right to an intact body? Would you find it bizarre if the people most fervently against foot-binding were those who did not have their feet bound as a child, while those who did have their feet bound simply saw it as normal because it's how they've lived their entire lives? Would you expect girls who grew up in a society where foot-binding was the norm to realize they had been mutilated or had their rights violated, or just accept their situation as perfectly OK?
You have to realize that the societies in which we live desensitize us to certain things. It is completely OK to be happy about your circumcision as a child, and I'm not going to try to tell you that you have repressed feelings of violation--that's not my place, I'm not a psychologist. However, in every first world country, to the best of my knowledge, the right to an intact body is completely upheld, excepting those places that allow circumcision. Then the only part of a human body that you can remove without the consent of the patient them self is the foreskin. If you cut off a clitoral hood of a woman without her informed, legal consent (i.e. she must be an adult), you are a criminal. In order for male circumcision to not be a human rights violation, you have to either ignore the fact that the foreskin is a completely natural part of the male human body or somehow justify to yourself that it is "lesser" than every other part of the human body, to such a degree that it does not deserve the same kind of protection afforded to every other part of your body.
Well, it's not the government circumcising babies. Parents make the decision to alter the body of their child for health and aesthetic purposes. Parents cut the hair and nails of their child, even though to cut an adult's hair without their consent would be assault. In cases of hermaphrodites babies, the parents make the call on what to cut off. If a kid is born with 3 feet the parents can decide to cut the extra foot off. Parents can even pierce their kid's ears if they want.
Besides, having it done as a baby is better than having it done as an adult. Babies may feel pain but they forget so it doesn't matter. I don't know how those brain scan studies can disprove the fact that nobody remembers their infant circumcision and circumcised and uncircumcised people act exactly the same.
this is completely inaccurate. The risk of catching HIV from a shedding partner averages around 20%. The risk decreases enormously if the infected individual is undergoing medication, and further decrease if the uninfected individual is under an HIV-PREP.
Laser surgery is crazy expensive tough, and tonsillectomy is a rather easy operation anyway
>Parents make the decision to alter the body of their child for health and aesthetic purposes >altering your child's genitalia for your own aesthetic preferences
For the child's aesthetic purposes you uncut mongolian
No, you are not doing it because the child thinks it looks better, you are doing it because you think it looks better. The only reason that you think it looks better to have a scar on your dick and a dried out head is because you are used to it.
If you're so gung-ho about defending this procedure than me leaving your little club won't make a difference.
So give it back.
I was circumsized as a kid and have no issues, but how can you compare unless you have experienced both? All i know is i still have enough foreskin to cover my head and then some when i pull on it.
Most of the threads that I have seen are started by people who are not happy that they were circumcised. Some of them do not mention weather OP is cut, so maybe you assume that he isn't.
I'm another person, but I have experienced being cut, and restoring my foreskin. It does not grow back any nerves, but it restores the glans and inner foreskin remnant to being mucous membranes. It has made a big difference in what I can feel with my penis. Rubbing on cloth all day desensitizes the glans quite a bit, I know this from experience.
Hair and nails grow back, and they do not expose mucous membranes to dry out and become desensitized. Removing the clitoral hood is exactly analogous to circumcision, and it is still very illegal. It works the same way on females as it does on males. Some doctors used to recommend it for health reasons, before it was banned.