Circumcision - Yes or No?

Question

In England and most european countries circumcision is not practiced routinely, in the USA its practiced as a matter of course. What are you personal opinions - is it advantageous or just bodily mutilation?

This question is most in part to Europeans and Americans. I am fully aware that it is practiced in other cultures and countries worldwide but as the majority on this site are from either the EU or America I wanted to get a general European-American opinion. Female circumcision is just plain bad, but is not on the whole practised in the US or the EU.

Answer 1

These days there are NO hygenic reasons for circumcision if you bathe at least once a day. There will therefore be no smell. Accusations otherwise are just born out of ignorance. If you consider most of European men, for instance, are uncircumcised, don't you think they would have moved to circumcision en masse long ago if circumcision was the most hygenic and correct thing to do? Europe is not medically backward. Circumcision is widely practiced in the USA but the numbers are diminishing every year as more and more parents realise that this is just a moneymaking scam by the medical profession and an unneccessary mutilation of their male child. All major US medical councils state that circumcision is an outdated procedure. And for those women that support circumcision because its 'cleaner', well, your vagina is going to be pretrty rank if you dont wash it every day either.

Almost all other reasons for circumcision are now medically treatable and therefore, circumcision is unneccessary.

For women, an intact penis is DESIGNED to work better that a circumcised one because the foreskin allows for greater movement during sexual intercourse and less lubrication is required.

A foreskin better for the man because his glans is soft and sensitive - the glans on circumcised penises gets thick and hard over the years and decreases sensitivity and can even lead to erection problems.

The natural penis may be more comfortable for the vagina than the circumcised penis. The coronal ridge of the natural penis is more flexible; liken it to the resiliency of Jell-O. The circumcised penile head is considerably harder--overly firm and compacted like an unripe tomato. This is because circumcision cuts away 33-50 percent of penile skin. As a result, the skin of the penile shaft can get stretched so tightly during an erection that it pulls down on the skin covering the glans, compressing the tissue of the penis head. The abnormally hardened coronal ridge can then be very uncomfortable to vaginal tissue during intercourse.

Women sometimes experience a scraping feeling with each outward stroke and even report discomfort after intercourse or even the next day. The brain makes pain-relieving endorphins that may partially block any discomfort during intercourse itself. Painful intercourse is a very common symptom in women, many of whom blame themselves or who feel that something is wrong with their sexual response.

The give of the natural penis, by contrast, allows for more bend and flex of the organ in the vagina, adding to a woman's pleasure and comfort. The abundant skin of the natural penile shaft further cushions the force of the coronal ridge in the vagina. In addition, the mobile skin of the penis is "grasped" by the ridges of the vaginal mucosa and held in place. The bunching and unbunching of penile skin during intercourse enhances a man's pleasure, but it also excites the woman.

Circumcised sex may cause the vagina to abnormally tense up and decrease its lubrication. Women report more problems with lubrication when having sex with circumcised men, possibly because of irritation from the harder tip and involuntary tensing against it, and also because the longer stroke length tends to remove lubrication from the vagina. Often an artificial lubricant is necessary.

Intercourse may also be painful for the circumcised man because his penis scrapes against the ribbed structure of tensed-up vaginal walls and becomes over stimulated from constant pressure. The degree of discomfort, if any, will depend upon the tightness of the man's shaft skin, the vigor of his thrusting, the duration of intercourse, and the amount of lubrication.

Circumcision may cause a man to work harder to achieve orgasm, resulting in emotional and physical distancing from his partner. When a circumcised man has sex, he may have to concentrate intensely on the erotic sensations he is receiving while simultaneously blocking out any uncomfortable sensations. Survey respondents often reported that their circumcised partners seemed to have to work too hard to achieve orgasm. And because of the erotic tissue that has been removed, he can't enjoy the sensations leading up to orgasm or his partner's responses.

Keep boys and men as nature intended them. Stop routine circumcision of baby boys.

Answer 2

Circumcision is a weird practice. Is it cleaner? Probably so. Is it necessary? No. The official position of the American medical community is that circumcision has potential health benefits, but also risks. Basically the kid will live an okay life either way.

If I lived in Europe, I'd probably feel weird being circumcised since nobody else is. I'd want to be like everyone else. On the other hand, I live in the USA and fit right in.

America has always been very hygiene concious. Daily showers, deodorant, good dental hygiene, and changing clothes on a daily basis are all common in America but not so much in other countries. We've all heard the jokes about British teeth. Or the fact that the French are more likely to wear out a pair of underpants before they wash them. Ever ridden on a stinky German train in the summertime? Americans simply place more value on cleanliness. It is natural that circumcision would appeal to such a culture.

Was I "mutilated"? I suppose you could look at it that way, but I'm okay with the fact that it was done. My parents had to make a decision either way, and decided what they thought would be in my best interest at the time. "Modified" seems like a more appropriate word. My parts work just fine and I've never had a single problem. Can't complain.

Having been a little boy at one point, I can assure you that hygiene was not one of my priorities then.

Answer 3

Circumcision is only advantageous if the foreskin is malfunctioning in some way, which is a lot rarer than people in the US make it out to be. Otherwise, circumcision usually doesn't make things significantly worse (unless it goes wrong, and as with any surgical operations, things can go wrong).

I've read that several countries in Europe had considered widespread circumcision, but then decided against it as it didn't really make a difference medically and people simply didn't want it done. In the US circumcision caught on MUCH faster than places in Europe and practically happened overnight. This produced a generation of people that never knew what a foreskin was, what to do with one, and was unused to seeing one. Thus, the foreskin became maligned in the US and all sorts of myths arose that kept circumcision going.

Just look at all the posts saying how dirty, or hard to clean, the foreskin is. The foreskin is NOT dirty or significantly more prone to infection or STDs. It's also VERY easy to keep clean, minimal effort compared to washing one's back or brushing one's teeth.

So, no, circumcision is not inherently advantageous - especially when done on an infant where you don't know if the foreskin will pose a problem or not. Most of the time it won't (like 95% of the time), and circumcision is wasted. Plus, with a complication rate of like 1-10%, things can go wrong. If things go wrong whereas they'd be perfectly fine otherwise, circumcision will have done true harm. Europe, I think, has the truest idea - circumcise only when there's a problem that needs immediate correction; otherwise, leave it the hell alone.

Answer 4

As a male I think this is a human rights issue. I feel that every male has the right to his whole penis at birth. The only time this decision should be made on his behalf if when there is a severe medical need. If not there is really no reason to deprive your son of a perfectly natural, healthy and functioning body part. I was circumcised at birth and I will forever resent my parents for it. It was my body so they had no right. I have restored my foreskin and have felt the difference sexually. Circumcision takes away A LOT of sensitivity and makes orgasms shorter and much less enjoyable. Not to mention you take away a HUGE part of the way an uncircumcised penis functions. I say don't do it. Let your son decide what he wants for his own body. Many men resent their parents for it now because they know how bad if effected them sexually. Most men I have ever met want to see the procedure banned untill a child is 18. I'm with them. The circumcision rate is now 50% so I'm okay with saying most men in the US argee that it's not a good idea. The pro's and con's to circumcision are actually opinions, they aren't facts. As long as your son knows how to bathe and wear a condom there are NO benifits of circumcision what so ever. The only person that can decide what the pro's and con's are for this is your son. Those are what he needs to find out for himself. -Connor

Answer 5

There has NEVER been a hygiene advantage to circumcision. In "olden days" when lack of sanitation facilities supposedly caused "sand in the foreskin" or some other nonsense, in fact the proper way to urinate was to let the sterile urine flush out the space between the glans and the foreskin. You can observe this at any zoo, watching a horse or elephant urinate. You can observe it at home if you have a pet male dog or hamster. EVERY mammal on earth (except bats for some reason) has evolved a foreskin(1) that works this way.

80% of US presidents were intact(2). The soldiers in the US civil war and all prior wars were intact. Circumcision is a fairly recent aberration popularized by a mis-guided anti-masturbation fanatic(3) and perpetuated by medical profiteers and religious communities who feel they are under attack.

Many supposed experts who might be quoted as saying "cut or uncut, either way is fine" are considering only direct medical complications(4) and completely ignoring the loss of the wonderful foreskin itself in their analysis(5). It contains over half the sensual nerve endings. The frenulum, which is crushed or cut away in circumcision, is considered by most intact men to be the closest thing a man might know to compare to the clitoris(6).

Mutilation, yes.

Answer 6

Scientists have concluded that circumcision is not necessary anymore for newborns, because it has been proven that a circumcised penis isn't cleaner, in fact both cut and uncut penises are the same in cleansiness, as long as the uncut one is kept clean...easy. So a circumcised penis is not more hygenic.

Circumcision is an unnecessary operation that just causes needless psychological pain to newborns.

Instead of reading about all the bad things about foreskin, why not you start reading about the bad things about circumcision and good things about the foreskin ( o yes, there are MANY good things about foreskin!)

Also, a circumcised penis doesn't look more attractive according to many women...most women do not mind, and some even prefer uncircumcised better than circumcised...because the glans of an uncircumcised penis are softer, smoother, and more sensitive.

So I truly feel bad for those people that were circumcised.

Answer 7

it's a money making project for the medical community. a co-worker was about 7 months pregnant did the scan knew it was a boy and received the bill for the circumsion before the baby was born.

I feel that choice should be left up to the person. Although it may be more painful during adult stages; a choice can be made. When the procedure has been done there's no turning back.

Answer 8

Many people in the US believe that it looks better because the majority of guys here tend to be cut themselves.
They also tend to have exagerrated ideas about how unclean a foreskin gets.
I think it's not really necessary and that most of the population is uneducated about circumcision and only do it out of tradition and other myths about how unsafe it is to be uncut.

Answer 9

It totally doesn't look better, it looks butchered. Ppl in the US still do it because they think of it as a hygiene issue, but as long as you've been taught how to take care of it, there's no problem. In the European countries, ppl have been doing it over and over and more then likely, the child's parent was never cut either(un like the US).
But as for sex, it's much better for the male, plus, there isn't as much trauma in the child's childhood after it.

Answer 10

Bodily mutilation... Not necessary in my opinion... But I am from Europe. Especially when done to girls it is one of the worst things you can do to a woman... Such women cannot enjoy sex as much as if they had not been mutilated like that if any at all... It should be stopped anywhere in the world!!!