Is circumcision genital mutilation?

[Breakyerself]

I've always planned that when and if I have a son he will be circumcised. Not for any religious reason. Just because I am circumcised and that is what I am used to seeing when I look at a penis. The uncircumcised penis frankly looks strange to me. Now that I have read "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens I am questioning whether it is ethical to cut the foreskin off of a baby's penis. I don't have any painful memories of my own foreskin being removed, but the history and purposes for circumcision laid out by Hitchens are very persuasive arguments for abandoning the tradition. What do you guys think would it be unethical for me to have my possible future sons foreskin removed for the sake of my own comfort?

 

[Aught3]

Sounds to me like you want to give a young baby cosmetic surgery. There are very few reasons why a circumcision would be medically necessary and if you left his penis intact he would be able to decide for himself later whether or not to get cut.

 

[Giliell]

Is a "gal" allowed to answer, too?
It's a very personal decission (apart from medical reasons) and I think that it should be left for your son to make.
I've heard from both men (who had a circumcission in adult life) and women that sex feels different and by having him circumcised at an age where he can't choose for himself your taking away that possibility for him to experience.

 

[stratos]

I'm not going to answer the poll, since I can't answer that question easily. But the question in the topic is rather easy. Yes, circumcision is genital mutilation. Now you can decide for yourself if you want to mutilate the genitals of your son to be, or not.

 

[Marcus]

It never ceases to amaze me that Americans continue to practice routine infant circumcision for absolutely no good reason.

Whilst rare, there are cases of serious harm arising directly from circumcision - even some that resulted in gender reassignment of the infant. I don't know of any serious harm that would have been prevented by the minor prophylactic benefit of circumcision - it gives a minor statistical benefit in avoiding conditions that can usually be easily treated without surgery or which, at worst, require a circumcision for medical reasons. There is therefore no sound medical reason for circumcising a healthy infant.

On the other hand, the foreskin contains a whole load of nerve endings, and its removal can lead to keratinisation of the glans. In some cases, the healing of the surgical wound can lead to uncomfortable or even painful erections. You're risking making sex less pleasurable, although by all accounts the difference in most cases is minor.

Even if the prophylactic effect was more pronounced and couldn't be replicated by hygiene, the potential side effects of circumcision would still mean that performing this irreversible procedure on a person unable to give informed consent in the absence of a pressing medical reason would still be unethical.

So yes, performing cosmetic surgery on a child just so that he'd look like you would be unethical.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm having this exact discussion on another board and most used arguement for circumcision is that it is a preventitive messure against conditions like phimosis, which to me makes as much sense as amputating a childs little toe because it may develop gangrene in later life. The mutilation of genitals, and it is mutilation, in the name of a 'what if' scenario that may never happen is an extemely weak argument for circumcision.

There's also the hygene reason to which I counter, "Make sure your kid washes then". Any part of the body left unwashed will become dirty, moreso if it is confined. Cutting of that body part because it is more likely to become dirty during life is plainly retarded.

These reasons at least are grounded in reality, unlike religiously motivated circumcision which I think everyone would agree is just fucking insane.

 

[Ciraric]

The act of circumcision is genital mutilation. By definition.

QED.

However, that doesn't make it a necessarily bad thing.

 

[Sloth]

It's genital mutilation, pure and simple.

You are changing your child's body in a permanent way. Its 100% unethical to mutilate your child's genitals.

Foreskin is not a birth defect. It has an important function. Just because you find foreskin aesthetically displeasing is not a good enough reason.

 

[TonyBtheEG]

I think the idea is outrageous. A lot of nerves which make the whole area much more sensitive. I didn't have a say in my circumcision, but I know if I have children and one is a male, he gets his whole dick-set. Dipset.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No, it isn't genital mutilation. It is "modification" to be sure. It isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, which is why it is a choice parents are allowed to make. There are some benefits, and some risks, but neither seems to be a very big deal.

As a side issue, there's IMO something seriously wrong with adult males who get extremely worked up about the whole foreskin thing. I've got one, and let me tell you... it ain't no big deal. I sense that there's something in the obsession over a foreskin that bears some resemblance to the obsession that some guys have over penis size. For the vast majority of men, it isn't a real issue at all, which means that the obsession is about inadequacies or insecurities in other areas, and the genitals are just the focus of what is really a larger issue that has little to do with the junk.

BTW... when I say "extremely worked up" I don't mean "I'm not doing that to my kid." I'm talking about guys who are furious at their parents and looking into "foreskin restoration" nonsense.

 

[Sloth]

No, it isn't genital mutilation. It is "modification" to be sure. It isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, which is why it is a choice parents are allowed to make. There are some benefits, and some risks, but neither seems to be a very big deal.

I could say the same thing about female circumcision.

As a side issue, there's IMO something seriously wrong with adult males who get extremely worked up about the whole foreskin thing. I've got one, and let me tell you... it ain't no big deal. I sense that there's something in the obsession over a foreskin that bears some resemblance to the obsession that some guys have over penis size. For the vast majority of men, it isn't a real issue at all, which means that the obsession is about inadequacies or insecurities in other areas, and the genitals are just the focus of what is really a larger issue that has little to do with the junk.

Oh yes, because having your body altered without your consent is nothing to get worked up about. You are not even circumcised, so I really doubt your ability to understand. It has nothing to do with penis size, it is about your body's integrity and personal choice.

BTW... when I say "extremely worked up" I don't mean "I'm not doing that to my kid." I'm talking about guys who are furious at their parents and looking into "foreskin restoration" nonsense.

I'm not mad at my parents or looking into restoring my foreskin. Yet I'm still quite outspoken on male genital mutilation.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I could say the same thing about female circumcision.

No, you couldn't. You would be lying or ignorant. Actually, that's a funny thing you said, because the female equivalent to male circumcision shows my point, and works to invalidate your position. Hoisted by your own "mutilated" petard?

Oh yes, because having your body altered without your consent is nothing to get worked up about. You are not even circumcised, so I really doubt your ability to understand. It has nothing to do with penis size, it is about your body's integrity and personal choice.

Yeah, buzzwords to cover up the fact that it has to do with inadequacy.

I'm not mad at my parents or looking into restoring my foreskin. Yet I'm still quite outspoken on male genital mutilation.

You DO seem pretty worked up about a lump of skin that doesn't do much of anything life-altering.

 

[Sloth]

I could say the same thing about female circumcision.

No, you couldn't. You would be lying or ignorant. Actually, that's a funny thing you said, because the female equivalent to male circumcision shows my point, and works to invalidate your position. Hoisted by your own "mutilated" petard?

How so? Female genital mutilation could be said to have its own pros and cons. Pros- some people think its more attractive. Cons-Increased risk of health problems. I suppose you approve of male genital mutilation because it is "less harmful". Your sexism is appalling. Just so we are clear, I am against any form of genital mutilation without the person's consent.

Oh yes, because having your body altered without your consent is nothing to get worked up about. You are not even circumcised, so I really doubt your ability to understand. It has nothing to do with penis size, it is about your body's integrity and personal choice.

Yeah, buzzwords to cover up the fact that it has to do with inadequacy.


Do you have anything worth saying, or are you just going to stick with personal attacks?

I'm not mad at my parents or looking into restoring my foreskin. Yet I'm still quite outspoken on male genital mutilation.

You DO seem pretty worked up about a lump of skin that doesn't do much of anything life-altering.

The foreskin is the male equivalent to a clit. They remove inches of skin from the most sensitive area of the penis.

Also, the foreskin does have a purpose. Its a mucous membrane that protects the urinary meatus. You act as if the foreskin is like the appendix or something.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The foreskin is the male equivalent to a clit.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet, and that's saying a LOT since you are so incredibly ill-informed. Since you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, there's no need for me to read any more of your posts. Sorry about any "below the belt" attacks, real or implied.

 

[Sloth]

The foreskin is the male equivalent to a clit.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet, and that's saying a LOT since you are so incredibly ill-informed. Since you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, there's no need for me to read any more of your posts. Sorry about any "below the belt" attacks, real or implied.

I think I broke a rule by posting those links. If anyone is interested in the links, just tell me and I will send them to you.

It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous.

The prepuce is a specialized, specific erogenous tissue in both males and females.

I notice that you don't try and refute what I say. You just stick with personal attacks. You say I'm ill informed but don't say how or why.

I actually don't want you to reply because you seem to be incapable of holding an adult conversation about this subject.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

"Female Circumcision" enhances a woman's pleasure.

CHECKMATE!

 

[Sloth]

"Female Circumcision" enhances a woman's pleasure.

I don't know why you posted that link. I have stated I'm against all forms of genital mutilation without the person's consent. I merely suggested that there is percieved or actual benefits from both genders getting circumcised.

If you read the whole thing, you would have seen this.

However, in the long term what happens is the clitoris, just like the glans of the circumcised penis becomes keratinized, thickened and desensitized. Leaving the clitoris with LESS sensitivity than it had in it's natural state.

Which is true. Despite this, many circumcised men, like myself, have excellent orgasms. I never had a foreskin, all I've ever experienced is my circumcised penis. The issue I have with infant circumcision is the fact that thier body is permanently altered without thier consent. A foreskin is not dangerous, and its removal is not necessary. Why do it? You are causing unneccesary pain on an infant and the "benefits" hardly make it worth while. I believe we all should have the right to make decisions about our own bodies.

CHECKMATE!

Thats only cute when Edward Current does it.

 

[Marcus]

No, it isn't genital mutilation. It is "modification" to be sure. It isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, which is why it is a choice parents are allowed to make. There are some benefits, and some risks, but neither seems to be a very big deal.

mu⋅ti⋅late  [myoot-l-eyt]
-verb (used with object), -latâ‹…ed, -latâ‹…ing.
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

Removing the foreskin makes the penis imperfect (i.e. incomplete). It's genital mutilation - and the negative connotation of the word is apt if the subject is unwilling or unable to give informed consent.

In any case, the severity of the damage not the point. A clean surgical removal of the little toe would have similar long term benefits (you're a little less likely to get athlete's foot, for instance) and similarly minor risks. Yet if someone wanted to remove their infant kids' toes there would be an uproar.

This is an irreversible surgical procedure being performed on a person too young to be able to make an informed decision on whether he wants to undergo it. Regardless of how major or minor it is, performing any procedure like this in the absence of pressing medical needs is unethical.

I don't necessarily think that the procedure should be limited to adults, but it should certainly be subject to the same age restrictions as any other unnecessary cosmetic surgery.

 

[bipolarGod]

I wish I was old enough to have the choice. I didn't tell them they could take away my foreskin!

 

[garytheagnostic]

My schlong was mutilated by my parents without consent. Frankly I, and all of my female partners have been thankful for it. I've heard the argument that because it's such a common practice, that is what we are used to. In m generation it is about 50/50. Also, how does it become caratinized??? I don't have a fingernail growing out of my dick. As for loss of sensitivity, the same could be said for excessive masturbation. Besides, stamina is a good thing and I' sure females would agree with me on this one. Nobody wants to be the 2 minute man. Not if you care about pleasing your partner.

I've also heard partner/ ex-partners complain about their previous boyfriends units being uncircumcised. They say it feels the same inside, but they do not like to look at it. Let alone perform fellatio on it. They say it looks like an anteater or a floppy turtle neck.
Doctors suggest it, most women suggest it, and I give it 2 thumbs up. The only think I can see positive bout a foreskin would be the snoodle pop. Where one would stretch it over the head of a beer bottle then yank it away making an amusing popping sound.