My mother used to hate it when people would get baby girls' ears pierced. Called it child abuse and mutilation.
I'm circumcised.
Not sure how badly you want it back, but it is possible to restore. Non-sugically. Basically skin under tension causes Mitosis (skin cells dividing to make more skin) - think putting on weight, gaining muscle, getting pregnant, or ear gauges. You tug the skin long enough and eventually have your hoodie back. The results are surprisingly impressive. r/restoring_foreskin has a bunch of info
•
bruh. I don't necessarily want it back and was just angry about the fact that it was taken from without my consent in the first place. But thanks for the info anyway, tho not sure what I'm gonna do with it.
New nerves do grow. Muscly/fat/pregnant people have the same skin senstitivity. But there are special function bits that are lost. The Rigid Band has special nerve endings, gone forever. Frenellum too
Just make sure to double, triple, quadruple check any foreskin restoration advice you get. Some of the ways people suggest can be really dangerous.
Oh, I’ve seen that. It’s fascinating. There’s a ball with outer clamps and varying degrees of weights you can add on a dangly bit. You attach the contraption for some number of increasing minutes per day, and it stretches the skin surrounding the glans until it’s long enough to encompass the glans. After a while, the little ball will be encompassed by the new foreskin.
He says it’s not painful and I believe him, but not being the owner of a penis, it looks at least uncomfortable to me. Then again, I’ve never used gauges, either, and as you said, it’s pretty similar to that.
I don't want much just want my foreskin back again
No it's not TMI I shared it 'cause we're friends
My parents chose this road but I'll choose where it ends
Don't I deserve it all? Gonna grow it back again
Grow It Back Again - foreskin restoration anthem from How To with John Wilson (HBO 2020)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Grow It Back Again - foreskin restoration anthem from How To with John Wilson (HBO 2020)
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Oh yeah I remember this guy. He has a good cause (anti circumcision) but had to ruin it with Bill Gates conspiracy theory nonsense. Also I love How to with John Wilson
edit: hmm actually there is some stuff about bill gates and circumcision so I should probably fact check myself here
Genital mutilation under the guise of “easier to clean” is stupid. Cutting off your legs also makes them easier to clean.
What's even funnier to me is how people will full on rage when someone brings up female genital mutilation while in the same breath saying circumcision is fine
People will defend the most batshit insane things just because they're used to it.
But I also think there's an element of (understandable) insecurity to it.
If they concluded that mutilating the penises of babies is wrong, then that makes their penis "wrong", and society is really weird and judgemental about penises. There's a huge amount of pressure applied to men about their genitals.
We constantly talk about big dicks and "big dick" energy. Casually saying someone has a small, soft, or ugly dick is seen as a scathing insult, we constantly mock people for it, both in life and in media. Comments about their penises is something used to build up or knock down men. It's used to make them feel powerful and manly, or weak and emasculated.
It's no wonder people rally so hard against those who want to see an end to male genital mutilation. The very victims of it typically don't want to feel like their dick is "wrong", because society at large has told them that if their dick is bad, they aren't real men.
Dude, yeah. It’s so weird.
I refused circumcision for my son (25 years ago, US hospital), and had to remind the staff several times because it was just assumed it would be done. I stopped them 3 times during different shifts when they were about to take him from our room for the procedure.
Then when it came up in conversation when he was an infant, people would say to me ‘you should have done it’, because he would get infections (he never did), or he’d be bullied in gym showers (he never did to my knowledge), or whatever. My take was it should be his decision, not mine.
The pressure was really intense, though. It’s weird how interested people can be in someone else’s infant’s penis. We’ve never talked about it, but reading stories from other men, I assume he’s happy being uncut, and I’m glad I didn’t do it.
e: for anyone reading this days later, I did ask my son for his opinion prompted by this conversation, mostly because of responses I got elsewhere in this thread that made me question my decision:
Me: Hey man, so feel free not to answer this if it’s too personal, but I was having a debate about circumcision and another parent challenged me saying I’d made the wrong decision. So yes/no/I don’t want to talk about it cuz that’s weird, do you regret my decision?
Son: I don’t, and none of my partners have, either. I only get thumbs up and compliments. I hope that wasn’t too personal.
Me: Not at all. Thank you for giving me your and your partners’ review!
So yeah, it’s not just my assumptions. And no regrets.
he’d be bullied in gym showers
what? why would people be seeing your kids genitals in a gym shower? That makes no sense
Have you never been in a highschool where using the gym showers was normal?
Edit: shorts to showers because autocorrect has become dogshit
I'm assuming you mean gym showers and not gym shorts. I still don't get why someone would see someone elses penis in a gym shower. Unless they peeked into the stall or somathing, but that would be sexual harrassment.
Where the hell did this infections BS come from? I've got mine and have never had any infections or am I just really lucky?
My take was it should be his decision, not mine.
It's not though. They'll never be able to go back and have it done as an infant. Time machines don't exist.
The procedure is much, much easier as an infant than it is as a boy or teenager or adult.
I respect whatever decision you made. There are reasons for both. But no, he didn't have the option to go back and have it done easily.
And sorry about the pressure. You shouldn't have to go through that, and I hope/expect that aspect is better after 25 years.
every slice and dice would be easier as an infant as you wouldn't remember it anyway. you're an idiot
Might as well just go ahead and remove their appendix and tonsils too right? They'll heal right up and won't remember a thing right?
I actually think about the ignored psychological effects of dealing with that level of physical pain so soon after being born a lot.
Birth is already a traumatic experience for both mother and infant. But to then immediately, with no anesthesia, cut an extremely sensitive part of the infants body off? That has to leave some kind of mental scarring.
I can actually speak to this.
I was born with a genetic condition affecting my collagen (Ehlers Danlos), which meant my bones were overly soft and, since I was breach til moments before birth, my legs were bowed pretty severely. This was in 1971, and the treatment at that time was the doctors literally bent my legs into position manually and then braced them for my first few years. That’s not how they deal with it nowadays, because they learnt it was horribly painful.
I don’t remember that initial experience, obviously, but my mother tells me several years later when I was a young child and having problems walking, she took me to the doctor and they finally worked out that I was in excruciating pain all the time. They asked why I hadn’t said anything and I told them it was because everyone was always in excruciating pain, but nobody else was complaining about it, so I shouldn’t either. I’d been in pain since birth, and just figured it was normal.
That experience prevented me from getting proper care and made my early childhood hell. I still have emotional trauma from it. So yeah, early pain is not benign.
It is. You can always cut something off later, but you can’t just put it back once it’s gone.
Based on this conversation, I actually asked him:
Me: Hey man, so feel free not to answer this if it’s too personal, but I was having a debate about circumcision and another parent challenged me saying I’d made the wrong decision. So yes/no/I don’t want to talk about it cuz that’s weird, do you regret my decision?
Son: I don’t, and none of my partners have, either. I only get thumbs up and compliments. I hope that wasn’t too personal.
Me: Not at all. Thank you for giving me your and your partners’ review!
So yeah, no regrets.
The main problem is that people tend to intuitively think of the least invasive form of male circumcision and the most horrific form of female genital mutilation.
For both genders, all kinds of forms exist
the least invasive form of male circumcision
Is what's in these discussions.
the most horrific form of female genital mutilation.
Is there any other kind in regular discussion? When people refer to FGM, they're not talking about labiaplasty (which would be a more appropriate comparison).
labiaplasty (which would be a more appropriate comparison).
How are you coming to this conclusion?
The foreskin has more nerve endings than the glans, and double that of the clitoris. The labia in contrast has much fewer nerve endings, which is why sexual stimulation is not easily accomplished with simply stimulating the labia. Possible? Yes. But not nearly to the same degree as clitoral stimulation.
Edit: Given the lack of elaboration, I’ll have to assume the conclusions reached by a gut reaction of “skin is skin” which is not at all how this works.
A labiaplasty is not equivalent to removal of the foreskin. It would be like removing the clitoral hood. Educate yourself before sharing your thoughts please.
That wasn't the original reason. It was to stop masturbation. The whole cleaning thing was a later rationalization when they realized how fucked up it was.
Everyone has been side lined by the tobacco industry nobody stopped to look at the moisturiser industry.
Yeah instead of doing it at birth they should have done it as a punishment for people who masturbate. That would have worked much better
That's fine, as long as that isn't used as a justification to normalize this procedure's continued use without medical necessity.
I mean, people just like what they're used to.
If you never got circumcised, you'd likely be saying "I prefer uncut. Looks a bit weird with a piece missing."
I'm willing to bet if you surveyed, say, Israel or Saudi Arabia, on what looks better between chopped and natural, they'll say circumcised. And if you surveyed, say, Australia or Spain, they'll say uncircumcised looks better.
First I agree with you. Need to say that first.
If you go back to the beginning of this procedure, how(/if) people cleaned themselves looks very different from. Our modern world.
Because of that it seems it being a health issue is a lot more likely for the origin of circumscision as a regular societal practice. Even if that was not the main reason but one of the supporting reasons people allowed it to become normalized. The history of hygiene(or the lack there of) is horrifying.
I mean Lysol was developed as a feminine hygiene product... We have done some very questionable things because of snakeoil practices even in relatively modern times (which i think religion is one of the OG snakeoils)
What are we doing today that will look as crazy to the people of the future as circumcision does to many of us right now I wonder?
I've seen people lose their shit over babies with pierced ears and young children getting tattoos. There's all sorts of dental work you go through as a kid that you have functionally no control over.
Even had someone chew me out because a foster kid I was taking care of got a haircut (three years old and she'd literally never had one before).
At some point, it is the parent's duty to take care of the child, and that extends to medical decisions with profound long-term consequences. I get wanting to change the culture, but the degree to which people exaggerate the harm of circumcision struggles to eclipse the degree to which it is defended.
Cutting off your legs also makes them easier to clean.
There is some substantive utility to legs that doesn't extend to the bit of flesh around the tip of your dick.
Yeah but as a dad, i don’t like legs. I want my kid to look like me. I was amputated voluntarily. Legs get dirty anyway.
Actually, why not just cut off the penis and replace it with a tube? That’s a lot cleaner and still functional!
If this is /s its verry funny and asys somthing interesting, im frustrated that the thread has fallen into a false dichotomy,
Its not 'not okay' in the same way its 'not okay' to cut off someones leg because thats unamniguiosly being crippled. (Good spoof though!) its amniguiosly immoral.
Yeah a better analogy would probably be female genital mutilation but americans generally aren’t familiar with that.
The real issue is consent. I get that parents consent for their children, but that doesn’t mean the parents are correctly predicting the kid’s preferences.
It’s just a strange practice that we do in america, not due to religion, but due to .. reasons? Cleanliness? “I want my son’s cock to look like mine?” it’s weird as hell, but accepted for some stupid reason.
female genital mutilation
okay.... wow.
circumcision is a harder to understand, wrapped in the cloak of medical hospitality to be blunt, its a different form of female genital mutilation.
I believe its a remnant from old Christianity (Judaism?), where it would mark and/or purify the child in some way. If I'm not mistaken, the god of Abraham communicated that things like sacrificing lambs and other rituals isn't useful as a sign of good will.
but yet this literally unholy practice remains to this day.
to be absolutely fair, mom said yes, telling me the doctors said there was some kind of health benefit, somthing about infections.
Yeah but as a dad, i don’t like legs.
Correlating ear-piercing with decapitation, and holding a picket in front of "Forever 21" with a big sign that reads "STOP MURDERING CHILDREN" and a picture of a tunnel drill going through a baby's forehead.
Are you confident you understand what gentials are?
What about your understanding of consent?
I think they’re trying to make a pun based on how the word “gentile” (which literally means not jewish) sounds very similar to “genital”.
I mentioned in another comment how circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise. Significantly less of an issue now, because you can just get a condom. But in areas where access to a consumer profilactic isn't readily available or one in which STD infection is high, it would make a great deal of sense to perform the surgery as a preventative measure.
Same as giving your kid vaccine shots or putting them in the NICU for the first few weeks of their life or demanding that they wash their hands regularly.
circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs
Source? Most of the world doesn’t circumcise, and they don’t have a higher prevalence of STDs than places that do. As long as you practice good hygiene, there should be no issues.
That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise
No it wasn’t. It originated thousands of years ago as a Jewish religious ritual, that had no biological or scientific basis. It was popularised in the US about 100 years ago as a way to reduce sensation in the penis in order to stop teenage boys from masturbating – by Dr Kellogg, for the same reason he invented cornflakes. He was hyper-religious and fixated on stopping boys corrupting themselves by masturbating. The hygiene myths came later and have been debunked.
It’s an outdated practice based on bad science and beliefs that should stop. That’s not to say anyone should feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better, but there’s no reason to continue doing it now.
e: missed a word
I agree with all that except for one thing. Kellogg did not invent corn flakes to stop people from masturbating. He did mention once that a bland diet could be used to deter masturbation, but there is no coorelation to corn flakes.
He did, though. I currently live less than an hour from his museum in Battle Creek, Michigan, and there are lots of things about him that aren’t widely shared on the internet.
Did you know that one of his biggest accomplishments was a foster home for orphans that was destroyed by fire? Running that foster home was what inspired his obsession with a bland diet and with circumcision. He was very strict with their diet, believing certain grains would purify the soul (first oatmeal) – the original, unadulterated grains that were mentioned in the bible. The boys in his home weren’t accepting of his extreme version of Christianity, and he thought that was mostly because they were corrupting themselves bodily. He thought all boys weren’t receptive to Christianity because they were too into their own desires, and he could fix that. First by diet, and when that didn’t work, by cutting off the part of their penis that distracted them by making them feel good, thus tempting them from god’s word. He was a doctor, so people listened.
This is all Wikipedia dedicates to that part of the story:
Kellogg was outspoken about his views on race and his belief in racial segregation, regardless of the fact that he himself raised several black foster children.
So it’s understandable people are downplaying that part of his life. If you live near here, you know the details the internet has mostly forgotten.
We really need to stop chopping up infant boys based on the ideas of a bigoted religious fundamentalist.
e: clarity
I'm sorry, cutting off a newborn's foreskin is the same as washing their hands?
Did you eat a lot of paint chips growing up?
•
As far as I am aware there is only one study done in Africa that showed that there is a correlation between circumcision and a reduced chance to get HIV.
But that is the only study and only HIV, not all STIs.
Also this is moot in most of the world where you have access to condoms.
Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent)
By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread.
•
Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood
Not so dramatically you can not wear a condom. So given you're going to strap up anyway, what's the benefit to having surgery on your genitals?
Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent)
By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread.
The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific.
The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories
They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward.
I don't think this is the original reason, but it has been found to happen. Also, your risk of penile cancer goes to almost zero, as well as fewer and less serious complications related to the foreskin (or its absence). Going fully nude while circumcised is a dangerous game, though.
Here's what the CDC had to say about their original statements and a rebuttal to criticisms about circumcision. It only obliquely mentions genital cancer, but this article specifically discusses that.
Being able to turn the end of my dick into a water balloon is all the substantive utility I require, sir.
Foster kid is a different situation but in general seriously don’t bring someone else’s kid to their first haircut. Thats an important moment for parents. It’s a major milestone, especially with girls. That original in-utero hair behaves different.
Three years isn’t that weird. I know a girl who was 4 for her first. She had the most gorgeous, long curls. It was really hard for her mom to get rid of those.
Know a couple boys who were each three too. They look like totally different kids once they lost all their baby curls.
•
This is something I do not wish to google. Is it noticeable? I would assume a small surgical cut that occurs at infancy leaves no significant scar
Not to be crude but this pretty much is what I'm talking about. It's almost like having a two toned penis...
NSFW btw... Although it is just a drawing
Wow the frenulum gets removed as well sometimes? What an outdated and ridiculous thing to be doing to children for absolutely no good reason. Yeah sure, some studies show it improves hygiene I've been told. To me that's about as proportionate as removing all your healthy teeth so you don't get cavities in the future...
•
The studies where it 'improves' hygiene are poorly designed as they don't control for education and understanding.
In other words - what's better: teaching our baby boys the simple act of cleaning under their foreskin in the bath, along with the rest of their body or cutting off a sensitive and important part of their body to make masturbation and sex more difficult?
A meatus is a hole/tunnel, with some specific properties. You also, just as a by the by thing, have an external acoustic meatus on each side of your head.
Let's just say there is a definitive line where what once was my foreskin now just is a smooth piece of skin connected by another. I wouldn't call it a scar because like I said I had no idea it was not normal. There's definitely a noticeable difference between the top part and the rest of it. I'm not sure how else to put this delicately. Honestly, I would just google it.
I mean if you really want it I'll do it. It's just anatomy. Plus I have a wide angle lens...
It's not like I want to see it, but I'm this down the thread it's too late to stop. Bring it on.
I can understand why people might not notice, most of my research sources are heavily pixelated.
•
I mean I’ve seen lots of porn and never noticed anything that looked like a scar, but then again I don’t typically focus on the dick.
As a rampant homosexual who's done lots of dick-focused study - there's a scar and it has different levels of noticability. Some are faint, some jagged, some with mismatched colours, some bright red, etc.
Like any scar it can be very variable.
I don't really care. My dick works great, I wouldn't do this to my kids but my parents trusted the doctor. I still love my parents anyway.
E: also, this illustrated girl looks really weird, and this is a really weird conversation. Real women do not look like this, and I wouldn't get naked in front of a girl who looked like this. Eeesh.
I don't hate the doctor either. It was a long time ago, and intent matters. I don't think the doctor wanted to hurt me, they likely bought into the studies and groupthink that were prevalent at the time.
The result is unfortunate, but it happened, and we all strive to do better with our own kids, especially now that we have things like the internet.
Supposedly is super safe and has health benefits, I once compared it to female genital mutilation and ooh boy was I corrected.
Edit: the above is far from an endorsement. Some of yall could use some practice critical reading.
The health benefits are overblown and the evidence is largely from flawed studies. While not as debilitating as clitoris circumcision, it's still genital mutilation and it's regularly done in the US for no good reason beyond cultural pressure.
Thanks. I researched circumcision extensively when my son was born. These comments are from people who have literally “no skin” in the game.
Same. Don’t let anyone make you feel bad for not doing it. I don’t know how old your son is,, but mine’s 25 and I’ve never heard any complaints. He never got an infection, and never got bullied over it.
It’s a simple procedure they can get done as an adult if they’re unhappy with their penis, and at that point it’s their choice, which imo it should be.
eta for anyone on the fence: they can always remove the foreskin if they want, but growing it back is another matter.
There's health benefits to removing the appendix and tonsils too - so why isn't it done wholesale on every kid born?
Because it's fucking barbaric chopping bits of you up without necessity.
On top of that as science has progressed - guess what? They think both the tonsils and appendix have a purpose. They're important for immunity.
But there was never a fucking doubt that the foreskin has a purpose in human beings. So the removal of it for "health benefits" really is scraping the fucking barrel.
No. It's not done because it's invasive surgery. Like, are you for real?
Ask anyone who had their appendix rupture if they wish it could have been removed while they were barely aware of the world and had nothing else going on in their life.
It's a major surgery. But I've worked with a guy who had his removed preemptively after watching his brother's rupture. It's rare, though, because again, it's major surgery to remove that ticking time bomb.
There is strong evidence that it causes long term trauma. Just because you can’t remember something doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect on you. They literally strap you down, rip open the skin, and chop it off without any kind of pain management.
It is absolutely insane. Go watch the procedure on YouTube or something to understand what actually happens. Then take into consideration you’re likely seeing a “best case” outcome.
No. Everything you said is wrong or unproven. Just stop making shit up or floating around these bizarre internet cults.
Here is an article summarizing a number of sources, and providing the sources summarized: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
If you were uncircumcised now, would you choose to have it done at your current age? No. Then, why do it to a baby without their consent? It’s a bodily autonomy issue.
I chose to when I was 13 because ejaculating felt like my urethra was going to rip in half. If I somehow made it like that another thirty years I would absolutely have it done again.
My father had to have his removed for the same reason (I know this because we had a conversation when I was pregnant with my son and said I wasn’t going to have him circumcised). That can happen, and I’m sorry it happened to you.
I still didn’t have my son circumcised, and would make the same decision today because those issues are comparatively rare. It sucks a lot if you have to go through that, but preemptively removing the foreskin seems harsh considering how rare complications are.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I have two sons, first one is circumcised due to medical advice from our doctor and our second one isn’t. I try to inform myself as much as possible but ultimately depend on medical professionals that I trust to help me make the best decisions I can. I’m certain I’ll never get them all correct but I do my best to be informed. I’m fairly certain the online narrative of vitriol towards circumcising isn’t aimed at medically advised procedures but the loudest voices seem to be the most ignorant towards the realities of life’s nuances. While it is mostly black and white their is still some gray area that gets lost in what I assume is well meaning commentary.
Sorry that happened to you. It may have been God’s way of telling you to stop masturbating. /s All jokes aside, it should always be the individual’s choice.
I agree it should be the individuals choice and when medically necessary. Sometimes I feel the narrative swings too far the other way as there are medically necessary reasons.
For context I don’t recognize uncircumcised penises when compared to my own even as a young teen. The head of my dick extended beyond the foreskin before I was circumcised. I had three strands of skin that connected between the head and skin around top of the shaft. One of the thinner strands tore once when I got an erection. The other two were significantly larger strands and would stretch and pull the head of my dick to the side when I got an erection. That bent angle hurt like hell inside when I ejaculated and just getting a boner would hurt from the strands of connective skin.
All that to say the doctor told me I was getting a circumcision but other than those strands of skin I already appeared circumcised to my knowledge. I was left with scars on the head and shaft tissue from where they were cut off though.
Not a real comparison. A baby is given some sugar water and already lives in diapers. They don't even bleed after it's done, and you just put some jelly on the front of the diaper for the first few weeks. They experience no discernable discomfort.
An adult male has gone through puberty and has a life that doesn't involve sleeping through 18 hours of it and getting changed every couple of hours. The risk of infection is greater because you are an adult who doesn't get the luxury of having every single need met 24/7 and getting to rest through your entire recovery.
Exactly. Babies can’t consent to have their bodies altered. Unless it is medically necessary, it should not be performed.
That's not the criteria for making medical decisions for your child, though. You have a kid, you know this. We make decisions that might have lasting physical ramifications for them for years.
I believe in vaccines and vaccinated my kid, but if someone felt the risks of them were too high, we don't call it child abuse. And if someone delayed vaccinations, that's not child abuse either.
We can phrase things in extremes like abuse all day, but it doesn't make it true. Injecting babies with modified hepatitis c in the first 12 hours of their life sounds like assaulting a child unless you know those words just mean they got a vaccine.
I think the reason people don't give a shit about online circumcision protesting is because most of them are cringe sycophants, using the worst language possible to alter someone's opinion on the issue.
Watch a video of a circumcision and get back to me. If it’s not necessary, it shouldn’t be done. When my son was born, circumcision shouldn’t have even been an option. The “cringe sycophants” are the religious and miseducated nurses that asked me if I wanted it done.
You are profoundly uninformed and clearly huffing copium to deal with the fact that you chose to mutilate your own newborn sons penis. Great work bro.
Who's more obsessed, those who leave well enough alone or those who perform drastic, unnecessary, life-altering surgery as soon as a baby enters the world?
It’s a totally valid comparison.
Removing the foreskin has real ramifications for not only looks but sexual pleasure (which, by the way, was why it was popularised by puritan Christians in the US – the original point was to stop teenage boys from masturbating by making it less pleasurable).
Cutting off the foreskin at birth takes something from a man that he can’t really restore later, whereas doing nothing gives him the bodily autonomy to make that decision later. You can always remove it if you want, but once it’s gone, you can’t just grow it back.
A baby is at your mercy and has no choice in the matter.
No, you only have a short window to make it a nothing surgery vs. a week+ recovery time.
A baby will always be at their parents' mercy. And if a parent feels the medical benefits outweigh the risks, they get to make that choice.
Also, I don't get why people keep bringing up Kellog and his ilk. It's irrelevant. WHO and the CDC both cite benefits. That's relevant enough for a person today without pretending the reasoning has to be based on old information.
Again, cite sources?
Yes, I’m aware it’s a week of recovery time later. I made the decision not to circumcise my son after talking to my father who had the procedure in his teens after he developed a condition. He told me exactly what it was like. (My father is 88 and was born before circumcision was common.)
You can do almost anything to an infant and they won’t remember the trauma. Infants have been subjected to near-fatal child abuse, including having their femurs broken, and they don’t remember it. That doesn’t make it right.
Having your wisdom teeth removed takes at least a week of recovery and we do that in late teens or early twenties. There are lots of things that take a week to recover from, and having to have your foreskin removed because it’s causing issues is far, far more rare. That’s not a reason to take that choice away.
Like I said, they can always have that procedure later if they want to, but once it’s done, that choice is basically gone.
Also like I said, I’m not trying to make people feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better. I’m not shaming anyone. It’s just what we did until recently. Going forward, though, it’s not justified and we shouldn’t be advocating for it now that we know better.
eta: and Kellogg isn’t irrelevant. That’s exactly why the practice has been embedded in American culture, so when we’re talking about why we do it, he’s extremely relevant.
It is as safe as any similar procedure, and comes with inherent risk. There’s a reason people talk about “botched circumcisions” which do indeed happen.
The health benefits aren’t even a full percentage point difference. We are talking minuscule differences, and most of it is based on bad science. How can I know this? The studies were often done on grown adults, in third world countries. Disease is already rampant there, and considering rape is so prevalent in many of the areas that anti-rape condoms were created and distributed, there are no social barriers in place to prevent the spread of disease. And finally, they tested to see if there was disease spread almost immediately after the procedure had fully healed. Meaning the men who didn’t get circumcised had been fucking around for a much, much longer time than the circumcised men.
And FGM is a pretty good allegory. We are talking about Male Genital Mutilation, why wouldn’t Female Genital Mutilation be similar? Because it’s normalized in some first world countries? You’re removing double the nerve endings when you remove foreskin vs destroy the clit, I’d say they line up close enough.
Look at it this way, we all agree declawing cats is super safe and has health benefits. But it’s being outlawed all over the place because it’s barbaric. But we still cut baby dicks. It’s pretty fucked up.
They made a bad comparison, I agree. But a lot of things are "one-time events" that have lifelong implications. That's a garbage argument.
Wrong. I’m not comparing. I’m saying there is a lack of critical thinking and education in both instances.
You are correct. Society should judge parents who abuse their children. I will never regret that judgement, because I live in this society too.
Yeah, my parents didn’t do it, and I ended up getting phimosis in my early twenties and having to get it done then.
On the one hand I do appreciate that they left it up to me, but on the other hand it was intense pain for a couple of weeks and at the time I was really wishing that they had just gotten it out of the way.
For me, it’s a wash. That may or may not be typical but it’s probably slightly better that they left me the choice? Can’t put the foreskin back on the penis I guess.
My son was born with hypospadias, so I didn’t really have a choice with him. Had to get it done or he would be peeing out of the bottom of his dick forever, which saved me and my wife a difficult decision.
All of this said though, I personally prefer being circumcised. Cleaning is way way easier, and in my own personal experience I have a lot more sensitivity when doing anything fun with my hog. My partners have also preferred it, and some of them shared with me that they had previously gotten UTIs from uncircumcised partners.
Like I said, I appreciate that my parents left it up to me, but at the same time I think the genital mutilation trope is way overblown in the majority of cases. Not all of course.
For me, it’s a wash.
It's certainly close enough that we shouldn't be trying to butt into other people's lives over it.
You should need a strong reason to have the state invade people's lives. This ain't it. I wouldn't pierce my baby's ears either, but I'm not looking to put anyone in prison over it.
Oh, so you’re good with female circumcision then? Since we shouldn’t be trying to butt into other people’s lives?…
It should be an individual’s choice as to whether you chop off part of their dick, not society’s.
•
No you’re getting it wrong: you LOSE sensitivity because the head of your penis is getting direct stimulation all the time. Because of the resultant loss of sensitivity the expectation would be that you would take longer to finish.
But sex is a complex thing that involves a lot more than just the physical stimulation, so it’s not 1:1 with regards to speed. It IS howeve impactful for the pleasure of the person with the penis. It’s more intense and pleasurable for people that aren’t circumcised. Sex is obviously still great even if you are circumcised but it’s a little like being colorblind if you were circumcised at birth: you don’t really know what you’re missing so it’s kind of ok and not really bothersome for the majority.
Though rare, some people have had to have the procedure done as an adult, so they know the difference.
It’s always “you lose sentivity”, “you don’t feel as good as me” and… well… how the fuck do they know? How the fuck do you know?
You know, some have had it done as adults
It's a non-issue
Right to one's own body and doing cosmetic or religious surgery on kids: non-issue
Lol
•
Preconception is a powerful drug. There's really no way you could have worded that in a way they wouldn't get emotionally charged over. It's just the simple fact they have a strong opposing view point so they'll read something completely different so it makes sense with their thinking.
It was just an incredibly poor phrasing or word choice if they didn't want to call it circumcision a non-issue. Happens.
What did you mean was a non-issue if you weren't talking about the circumcision done on kids?
I remember idiots on reddit swearing it lowered my sensitivity by a lot but if that were true…
Certainly possible, but also not even necessarily a bad thing.
I should note that there's another big knock on benefit.
Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent)
Which, particularly back in the 60s-90s period, was a bfd given the stigma around contraception and other genital protection measures. Significantly less so now when condoms are so readily available. But even then...
It’s a non-issue but people have to be mad for something I guess (because there’s no other big reasons to be mad/s).
It does feel like people are looking for something to fixate on as a rabble-rousing issue that's a-political-ish. But the loudest anti-circumcision advocates tend to have truly awful surrounding politics. It feels like a... trojan issue.
But the loudest anti-circumcision advocates tend to have truly awful surrounding politics.
Maybe in the US? But Europeans reading about circumcision just find you all a bit weird for the practice and will comment accordingly that they think it's barbaric and/or weird.
No politics is involved.
Reduction in STIs
There is indeed an upside, though in my opinion, it does not justify the amputation of healthy, functional tissue in infants who clearly cannot consent to it and condoms are readily available even for these with allergies to natural latex rubber.
The most recent studies that I've read did elucidate a likely mechanism too. Making the glans an external organ, rather than be protected by the foreskin, causes the development of keratinous tissue (literally called "horny" tissue) on the glans in order to protect it from the environment, rubbing against clothing, etc. Effectively, it becomes callused. The horny layers are composed of dead and denucleated cells, creating a physical barrier that bacteria and viruses must pass in order to infect the underlying cells.
Note, though, that there were three studies conducted in Africa on the impact of male circumcision that was/is cited on HIV prevention that are so blatantly terrible tha PLoS Med and the Lancet, along with whatever IRB was in charge ought to see reparitive and punitive fines brought against them. The studies show extraordinarily poor study design, data collection, data analysis, and alarming degrees of multiple biases. The issues include, among others:
-
All HIV infections were assumed to be sexually transmitted and the result of heterosexual intercourse (bizarre assumptions). Conservative estimates from follow-up research puts the percentage at only 43.1% of the infection from all three studies being sexual transmission, with no extant data or tracking on partners involved. Due to not accounting for the vector of infection, it is impossible to draw the causative relationship that the researchers claim.
-
Improper controls: The test group were given sexual education around STI transmission and proper condom use. The control group were not.
-
Lead-time bias: Data collection began immediately, despite researchers instructing the study group not to have intercourse for 6-8 weeks and likely discomfort with intercourse and increased condom use occuring in some who undergo adult male circumcision up to 12 weeks following the procedure.
-
Attrition bias: Significantly more subjects dropped out of the studies than became infected, which was not accounted for appropriately, corrupting the dataset used for analysis.
-
Duration bias: The PLoS Med study was planned to take 21 months of data but only ran for 14 months. The Lancet studies (near identical to each other) lasted 24 months. Neither is sufficient to either remove tye statistical significance of the lead-time bias, nor to provide objective long-term efficacy rates for an irreversible treatment.
-
Expectation bias: A number of principal investigators involved in the studies had previously publicly called for mass circumcision campaigns. This alone is a major red flag that should have resulted in more critical review of the study protocols and required that they, at the very least, mak, clear disclosures of their personal biases but, to have actually trustworthy results, they should have had no role in data analysis due to clear lack of objectivity.
Referenced studies:
- PLoS Med 2: e298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
- Lancet 2007;369:657–66
- Lancet 2007; 369:643–56
“I love my parents , even though they were too ignorant to think for themselves,” is how genital mutilation perpetuates. People need to be held accountable for not questioning inane rituals and traditions. Education, not mutilation.
Shut the fuck up, low quality clown. Education is me not doing this to my kids.
Please learn how to read.
It doesn’t read that way. It reads as ambivalence to circumcision. Maybe learn how to write.
"I don't care", followed by: "I won't do that to my kids"
Clown: "ambivalent, learn how to write".
Coupla corn dogs short of a circus, there.
I don't really care.
ambivalence noun am·biv·a·lence am-ˈbi-və-lən(t)s 1 : simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action felt ambivalence toward his powerful father ambivalence toward marriage 2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow ambivalence about their goals
I don’t care; sounds like ambivalence to me.
Dude... You're acting like you're a wrench short of a full toolbox. Obviously meant he doesn't care that he personally was circumcised. But he does care enough that he won't do it to his kids.
I.E. He's accepted the fact that what happened was in the past and he can't change it, so no use crying about it especially when it has not effected the use of his member in any negative way. But he can change what happens in the future for his kids by not doing that to them and letting them have a choice when they're older.
If the guy was actually ambivalent he would just go along with continuing to allow his own kids to be circumcised and/or have no opinion of the procedure. Or he would dislike the procedure but allow it to happen anyways because of tradition or something.
Stop being obtuse and ignorant. Though having said that I now feel like you'll come at me with the mathematical definition of obtuse to try and use petty semantics to make yourself feel better
Always weird to be reminded that the World’s eminent superpower is obsessed with cutting bits off babies’ dicks. But then, maybe that’s the secret behind their economic strength?
After all, the Romans did some pretty wild stuff, like making their horses generals.
•
I mean, the Middle East and Africa have even higher circumcision rates and it doesn't seem to be working out for them
Amazing. That'll confuse people when dropping a random comment in.
"My money's on the blue team. They're doing really well this season" "I didn't realise you had horse genitals"
•
The Romans used to do the opposite, and tie their foreskin shut just to be extra sure no one would see the head of their penis.
Perhaps the next natural step is joining that with their love of firearms. Circumcision by mass shootings or something.
I am for one happy to be circumcised (i had a really awful, treatment resistant inflammation, circumcision on young people for no reason is shit)
I'm not unhappy about being circumcised, but I'll never know what it's like to be uncircumcised, and I'm not not unhappy about that.
•
I love when this topic comes up because people definitely don't have a weird fixation on foreskin and totally have balanced discussions that calmly hears both sides.
Not a fixation on foreskins but on personal freedoms and the right to choose what happens to your own body:
Are you an adult? Cut off what ever part of your body you want to. I don't care.
Are you an adult who wants to cut of body parts from others? No. Stop it. Let them decided themselves when they are old enough.
•
If you intentionally do not recognize it as a legitimate medical procedure with lots of science backed behind it, then you're purposefully spreading misinfo. That's just a fact. Just like how some people in this thread are saying it reduces sexual pleasure, scientific evidence states this is not true. It's also significantly safer and less risk when they're a baby. These are just peer-reviewed objective facts that have been extensively tested and confirmed.
ignoring bodily autonomy and the right for your OWN CHILD to choose what their penis will look like for a medical procedure that only should be used when a phimosis diagnosis has been made or when you join specific religions (and not for "so he looks like dad" or "my religions imaginary friend collects foreskins of infants")
I think part of the problem with this discussion is that a lot of us who were circumcised without consent spend most of our early years thinking it's normal and there is nothing to be upset about. So when people point out the practice is generally very harmful, it is upsetting. It can be hard to process at first, and I think, unfortunately, some people double down on traditional rationalizations as a defense mechanism.
That being said, I am not a fan of people referring to my genitalia as mutilated/mangled or to me as damaged. It is completely valid to be upset about having your foreskin removed without your consent, but I feel sometimes people veer a little too far in projecting their own hurt onto others. Many people live fulfilling lives with circumcised penises, and some even do it by choice, so, speaking strictly for myself, I generally am glass half-full about it.
Why is this a both sides thing? Circumcision is a Jewish rite that became a larger thing because of a couple mentions in the Christian New Testament. It also has some medical application for individuals with certain conditions.
Doing it to all male babies doesn’t make rational sense unless you are a specific type of religious.
no one should mutilate a baby's genitalia. I guess some people feel strongly about breaking the tradition.
Why are people so upset about cutting baby dicks wtf it's up to the parents obviously?
IMO we should just go ahead and gauge his little ears too, dad has gauged ears, we want them to look the same.
Mom has full sleeve tattoos so we're thinking maybe he'd look cool with some fresh ink too?
Just cut the dicks already! God, why is this a debate, cut the dicks and be happy about it. A baby is born, and you cut its dick. It's tradition.
How else do you keep it from having to wash it and wear a condom. It won't have to do any of that if you just cut its dick!
Perfectly normal, very chill. Slash that dick up asap or you're just a weirdo. /s
Mine was at 16 because my foreskin stopped growing. I honestly would have preferred to have it done at birth before I could remember the pain (like my brothers).
Did I say it was?
The point is that there are exceptions and it's not always "mutilation."
I never learned to roll back my foreskin when I was a wee lad and so once when I was 8 it got infected and I had to apply ointment to it and keep gradually peeling it back from its swollen and cemented position like trying to squeeze a tennis ball out of a tight gym sock. it hurt to pee for a week. Still, Im glad to have my foreskin.
•
I'm uncircumcised and after fapping when my head is still exposed i cannot wear underwear or pants omfg it's so fucking uncomfortable touching anything dry, IDK how circumcised people live, it's like constant pain.
oh my god, too real 😂 except I was there, my scar is more brutal and I'm all the more stupid for letting it happen. I'll explain, and I'm going to do so in more detail than I ever have before.
I was living in China in 2017 and I got an infection on my guy. In hindsight because I had a new girlfriend, was having a lot of sex, and wasn't cleaning very much. My girlfriend takes me to the local hospital in this "small town" (different meaning in China), and I sit down in front of this miserable looking bloke with a fat, fancy golden wristwatch who says: "你有两个选择 。。。either take this medication and the infection will probably return, or 'peel skin' and be free of it forever."
I looked at my girlfriend with a grin and asked what she thought would be best. How bad could it be anyway if they do it to babies. Probably like getting your ears pierced.
She drags her thumb across her throat and screams "off with his head!" or more likely she calmly says "peel skin." All I remember is that she said it without hesitation. The slimy looking doctor slithers upstairs to the operating room and I get on the table where there's a large light above my head which, turned off, is acting as a mirror. I can see everything as his assistant passes him the syringe to knock out my guy and then the scalpel to begin the scalping. All I could see was a bloody mess when his phone rang in his pocket. I could smell the blood as his assistant removed the phone from his pocket and answered the call. "They want to speak to you" she said. So the doctor puts the phone between his ear and his shoulder and continues cutting and chatting away. "That's my dick you prick!"
The next day my guy is bandaged from head to toe. I tell my girlfriend to stop visiting because every time I get an erection I drop to the floor in writhing pain. Limping along the pavement a group of 80-somethings breeze past me. The pedestrian light goes green and I barely make it to the island in the middle of the road before it goes red again. I lie awake every night, plagued by spontaneous erections and excruciating pain. As the wound healed a grotesque scar formed as a reminder that the body is sacred.