Maybe because mine wasn't done for religious reasons, but I don't feel like this at all. Heck I had never given this much thought to it in my 29 years of life, lol. My parents were told it was for the best at the hospital, and it's had zero negative consequences for me. If I ever have a son, I'm not doing it because it seems unnecessary, though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Circumcision.. What do Evolutionary Biologists/Naturalists/Darwinists think?
- Thread starter Polioliolio
- Start date
- Status
TickleMeElbow
Member
Captain Picard wasn't circumcised.
Take that circumcised squad.
Take that circumcised squad.
Cutting hair is completely different and you know it.
Parents piercing their kids ears is fucked up though.
That fact that people honestly think that cutting a bit of your child's dick off isn't fucked up in the 21st century is bizarre.
The mental hoops the pro-circ crowd has been jumping through to justify cutting their kids' dicks for dumb cultural reasons have been astounding. Utterly shocking. I honestly can't believe people are this casual about it all, but here we are.
Why not cut other things while we're at it? Kids don't need ears to hear right?
I posted clear reasons why I had it done. There is no reason why my son would hide or be shamed about injuring any other part of this body. People don't actually care to discuss they just want to rant.
Uh, yes, kids need ears to hear without their hearing being impaired?
Well of course, you have nothing to compare to, what possible negative effect can exist without some base of comparison.
Most people who have it done later in life is because medical reasons, and they are decisively in the minority of uncircumcised men, the comparison again is not relevant, they had actually a medical problem of some sort, of course they will feel better afterwards. The rest of uncircumcised people just shudder at the thought of the operation being performed whether it's done when they are babies or adults.
Anecdotal evidence relevant to the benefits could only be if someone who had an accident of some sort later in life was forced to have a circumcision for whatever reason, now that would be interesting to hear.
I get the impression the pro cutting crowd thinks its allot more common than it actually is.
The main reasoning that they want their sons to be "normal"... and then defend body modification to fit this norm that is quickly disappearing from the world.
I would be willing to bet by the time a child born today reaches puberty circumcision will be the abnormal one. What then?
Would you be okay with chopping off a little toe then? That's not needed.
Little toe assists with balance, walking, running, etc. So no, I wouldn't be okay with that.
I think it is more what is normal to them, not necessarily normal to the general population. I wouldn't have any idea how common circumcision was between my group of friends growing up as it simply never came up. Ditto for my female relationships, they never commented on it and I never thought to ask about it, it was a complete non-factor.
gutter_trash
Banned
I'm against it unless there is medical reason for it (too tight, too loose).
just like I am against piercing the ears of minors.
just like I am against piercing the ears of minors.
Cognitive dissonance is okay as long as it helps me feel better about mutilating my kids' genitals heyooo
kame-sennin
Member
It's not, but rampant male insecurity is.
Okay, Okay...that was too far; just the ear lobes then.
kame-sennin
Member
Quoting for sanity.
Gravy Boat
Member
Not the lobes. Just cut them off. One less thing to clean, right?
When you have to resort to ridiculous straw men arguments to relativise the real issue, your argument is failing.
"Jesus, who cares about genocide... the sun is going to swallow the Earth one day anyway"...
I'm circumcised and I'm totally cool with it. I never knew anyone who kinda held it against their parents for getting it done.
My son didn't get circumcised. The mother wanted it done and I was indifferent to it, but due to insurance issues we couldn't get it done in the window the doctor wanted it to be done.
My son didn't get circumcised. The mother wanted it done and I was indifferent to it, but due to insurance issues we couldn't get it done in the window the doctor wanted it to be done.
kame-sennin
Member
Nope. My body, my choice. I'm not a fan of having an exposed glans either.
Overall, the total U.S. hospital circumcision rate fell from 64.5 percent in 1979 to 58.3 percent in 2010, a decline of about 10 percent.
Survey data indicate that we may see these declines continue. A YouGov survey conducted earlier this year found that young people were more skeptical about the practice than their elders: only 33 percent of 18-to-29 year-olds said that male children should be routinely circumcised, compared to 43 percent of 30-to-44 year-olds, 52 percent of 45-to-64 year-olds, and nearly two thirds of seniors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...comes-to-circumcision/?utm_term=.2e9869e193bd
So, if you decide to circumcise your kid today out of social fear, your kid will ironically be different from the norm*.
*
This is still not a good way to make this decision.
Turbo Killer
Member
Where I'm from (Iraq) only muslims got circumcised, I'm Christian so I didn't have to do it. When I came to live in the US I was really shocked it was the norm here, never understood it.
They also used to show mass circumsions on TV.
They also used to show mass circumsions on TV.
This entire thread has been strawman arguments.
-People have provided actual health benefits; people retort that the data was skewed by insurance companies or they are so "minimal" that they don't matter anyway.
-Guys have stated that they got circumcised later in life and they like it better, and they've been chastised for it.
-A dude's parents have been attavked because he said they did it for religious reasons.
-People have compared male circumcision to female genital mutilation and said they pose the same exact risks - which is blatantly false.
-People have said that, if people should choose to circumcise their son, they should also be fine with cutting off their ears and toes.
Please spare me.
Your ear drums still hear even if you cut your ears off.
Your penis still ejaculates even if you circumcise.
Anybody who survives having bits of their body chopped off seem fine after recovering from the procedure. Not like that alone is a good reason to do it in the first place.
Perhaps you should look up the function of the outer ear, and how hearing is seriously diminished should one not have it.
I know, it directs sound waves into the ear.
And having a foreskin, I would say my sex would be seriously diminished if I didn't have it included.
Sexual pleasure/sensation is diminished should one not have the foreskin. You're literally removing tons of nerves that enhance sexual pleasure.
I've had no issues in the sex department ¯_(ツ
_/¯I've had no issues in the sex department ¯_(ツ
Well no shit, it's still enjoyable and you can still ejaculate. I can have sex without using my foreskin and having a condom on and still enjoy it.
But if you're missing a foreskin and de-keratinized head, you're kinda missing out imo
At least three of those aren't straw man arguments.
I've had no issues in the sex department ¯_(ツ
How could you know though? You haven't experienced both.
I'm colourblind. If I wasn't told about it I wouldn't even know, but that ignorance wouldn't mean that I would be able to see the full spectrum.
HAVE YOU experienced both? Uncircumcised folk are acting as if they have the most pleasurable sexual experiences known to man, and yet they also have no clue what it feels like to be circumcised.
kame-sennin
Member
I've had no issues in the sex department ¯_(ツ
How would you know? As cut guys, we don't even know what we're missing. You probably didn't even know that in addition to removing the foreskin, they also usually remove a thing called the frenulum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis (nsfw)
There's literally oral sex techniques that circumcised men can never experience.
This is dumb. There are studies of people who were cut late in life and the majority of them noticed a huge decrease in sensation. And on the more extreme end, there are guys who actually grew their shit back.
Stallion Dan
Member
As has been pointed out in links from professionals, the baby goes into shock and that is mistaken as the baby 'not being bothered by it'.
Sorry you need hear that.
Audioboxer
Member
It's genital mutilation.
I've had it done for medical reasons, but outside of that it shouldn't be happening. While not as extreme as FGM which is a whole other ball game of abuse, male circumcision is still abuse.
There are no health benefits, wish people would stop buying that nonsense.
I've had it done for medical reasons, but outside of that it shouldn't be happening. While not as extreme as FGM which is a whole other ball game of abuse, male circumcision is still abuse.
There are no health benefits, wish people would stop buying that nonsense.
TickleMeElbow
Member
Well to be fair, I'd imagine all an uncircumcised person would have to do is keep the foreskin pulled back 24/7 for like two weeks, and it would basically be the same as being circumcised.
TBH I think (I could be wrong) the latest research says that overall, people circumcised later in life don't detect a difference in sexual quality (this is paraphrasing). But the mere design of such an experiment is flawed because you're asking people to recall and accurately compare function of tissue that doesn't exist anymore, and sex feels so rewarding for most, regardless of circumcision or not, that I don't think that this kind of research can really demonstrate much for these debates.
Uncircumcised men have lots of options with stimulating their penis. They can choose to use the foreskin or not. The foreskin itself is full of nerves that we can literally feel, and they feel great. These nerves alone can cause many to reach orgasm. And on top of that, the foreskin glides across the head of the penis, full of surface nerves that have not been desensitized from clothing and dryness, and both tissues involved feel really good.
So I can imagine that if circumcised, that foreskin tissue and feeling simply isn't there to feel with.
Does it mean sex is unenjoyable or dysfunctional for circumcised men? Not necessarily. Although I guess some circumcised men report difficulty reaching orgasm, especially sometimes in a condom, we all love sex and we all sexually stimulate ourselves, so even if you don't have a foreskin, sex is great.
My point being, I can't miss something I've never had experience with.
Same. I needed it done, wish it had been done and had to go through it all as a 38 year old.
No cauterising though. But I did have the sheet blocking my view fall down and see my half removed foreskin being pulled up by a doctor, bleeding, with a pair of tongs.
No man should ever see that. No man.
Well to start with, I am circumcised, so chill.
Secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would suggest that the person suggesting that removing 20,000-70,000 nerve endings doesn't diminish sensation is the one making the extraordinary claim.
Audioboxer
Member
I've "experienced" both. I was circumcised at 13, or it might have been 14. Foreskin issues, where I had a few options, but circumcision was quickest and problems sorted.
The penis head without a doubt loses sensitivity. Like, it's not even questionable. It took me like 2 weeks to be able to even walk properly being fully exposed 24/7. Not to mention healing is a bit of a bitch when you are a young man, not a baby. Majority of that was possibly sensitivity from the stitches healing, but the head does "toughen" up, considering it's rubbing against cotton fabric 24/7 instead of being covered by skin.
So I guess there is some anecdotal evidence from someone who can remember having it both ways. Probably rarer as I expect most had it done as babies, which sadly I do say if your parents done it for aesthetic/religious reasons, is indeed abuse. Not saying you need to "blame" them, but please don't do it to your own children.
I said earlier in the thread that while I am anti-circumcision I don't personally resent my parents decision... now I'm starting to change my mind. Damn.
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
I'd say using a condom vs not using it is a close enough equivalent, and the difference IS there. (It's probably bigger, the frenulum and foreskin are still stimulated even if it's in a diminished manner)
Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that issue up, as obvious as the effects of removing nerve endings responsible for sensation from erogenous zones already was.
Yeah if you get circumcised, please emphasize and beg to your doctor to try to preserve as much of the frenulum as possible.
I cannot overstate the function of the frenulum. Must be like a male clitoris or something. And the fact that it cooperates with the other parts of the male genitals in motion is amazing.
Audioboxer
Member
Without a doubt. I think the waters get murky as the debate often devolves into "well I still feel pleasure during sex!".
Well duh, we all do. The "technicalities" around sensitivity are important, because factually speaking, yes, there is a change. Part of that change isn't just the removal of skin, it's what happens to the glans when it has to deal with being constantly rubbed by cotton (or silk if you got some $$$ to spend on underwear!).
- Status