What do you think about circumcision?

Question

Are you for it or are you against it?

Personally, I think that it's mutilation and if we weren't meant to have foreskin, we'd be born without it. Ya just gotta remember to clean under it.

Answer 1

I am against since I still have my foreskin..I love my foreskin..its great and I cant see why on earth you would want to cut it off..they even do it to girls..and when women are asked if they would get cut they lose their minds but when it comes to their guys..they are all for cutting them..its there for a reason..and if you bring up the whole cleanliness thing remember ladies your hole is just as nasty or even worst..there is no reason some has a dirty any thing in this day and age of daily showers and bathing..

Answer 2

i'm against circumcision. I understand that some males NEED one because of their foreskin being too tight and inhibiting erections, but that's not something to worry about when they are a baby.

you're quite right, clean it properly, and it's no problem.

I am quite happy with the way my hubby's uncut penis looks, and rather enjoy the fact that he has foreskin, as it gives me a couples more ways to pleasure him. If it wasn't there, i wouldn't have that option.

To the post above... a little offensive, while our 'hole' does have bacteria etc, a healthy vagina has GOOD bacteria specifically there to keep the Ph levels right. As for the difference in the gender's circumcisions, well, here goes.

Generally, female circumcisions are carried out in less developed countries, where women are still seen as a lesser race. When the event happens, it's usually when the girl has started menstruating, or between the ages of 10 - 13. This is going to be quite different to the experience of a baby boy getting circumsiced, for the simple fact that he will not remember the procedure.

The girl is usually pounced upon in the middle of the night by all of her male relatives, then a blade, which is not necesarily of surgical grade, is used to gouge out the clitoris - no anaesthesia, no professional training. Can you imagine the kind of cut an untrained person with a crappy blade would make on a struggling ten year old girl? Then the lips of the vagina are sewed shut.

Infections are common with this procedure, as would be any thing done in a such a manner, but add to it the fact that this area has pee and feaces near it, well.

The cuts and stiches will continue to cause pain for quite some time, as they struggle to heal. Menstrual flow can sometimes be prevented from coming out all together (which can cause problems). The stiches are left in there until the vagina has grown shut.

The vagina is then re-opened by the young girls husband on the wedding night. For a girl who has gone through this procedure, sex is more often than not a very painful thing. The clitoris is the main source of sexual stimulation for a large proportion of women.

Now tell me, how does this experience compare to a baby boy having some skin removed by a trained professional in a loving environment, with a sharp scalpel, antiseptic and proper medical treatment?

No I don't agree with male circumcision, but don't try to compare it with female circumcision.

Answer 3

I agree entirely with the asker.
Circumcision removes between half to two thirds of the penile skin. It seems a small thing on a baby but covers 15 square inches on an adult. As adults all males use what skin they have or a lubricant to masturbate with. You have been cut since birth so you don't know what you are missing but an intact male can stroke the entire length of his penis using the action of the skin gliding against itself. He can also use a lubricant if he wants to. The gliding action of the foreskin also acts as a lubricant during intercourse and the skin acts as a dam keeping the natural lubrication inside the vagina from drying out. There are specialised structures within the foreskin such as the nerve-rich ridged band and frenulum.
There are claims of protection against HIV from circumcision but this research is contested and even if true offers very marginal lessening of risk of infection. Certainly not enough to say you don't have to wear a condom. The vast majority of males wiped out by the first wave of the epidemic in the USA were circumcised and it certainly did not protect them. Condoms are a far safer option in developed countries.
Similar claims about UTIs and penile cancer are also very marginal. You would have to do about 140 circumcisions to prevent one UTI, which can be treated by antibiotics anyway. Penile cancer is so rare as to be a ridiculous reason to circumcise (about 1:100,000 men in developed countries regardless of circumcision rate. The major complication rate from circumcisions is around 2% (20 per 1000), mostly haemorrhage and serious infection. This negates the beneficial effect on these marginal claims. A small number of babies actually die from circumcision complications. There are many more complications from circumcision, such as skin bridges and too much skin removed, that don't show up till later in life and so are not counted in statistics. They can make men's live a misery though.
A recent study has proved that the most sensitive parts of the penis are removed by circumcision. It concludes:- "In conclusion, circumcision removes the most
sensitive parts of the penis and decreases
the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans
penis. The most sensitive regions in the
uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated
by circumcision. When compared to the most
sensitive area of the circumcised penis,
several locations on the uncircumcised penis
(the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and
ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band,
and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous
junction) that are missing from the
circumcised penis were significantly more
sensitive."
In case readers think I am getting this information solely from an anti-circumcision website (not that that is a problem) it come mainly from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy statement on circumcision.
In addition it should be noted that the penis forms as one structure, including the foreskin. In almost all cases the foreskin is firmly adhered to the glans at birth, rather like a fingernail is adhered to the finger. To perform an infant circumcision the surgeon firstly has to rip apart the two layers with forceps, which since infant circumcisions are generally done in the USA without anaesthetic, must be agonising even before the actual cutting. After the circumcision the baby stings the wound and the whole raw surface of the glans every time he pees.
If the penis is left intact then there is no gap between the glans and the foreskin, so there is nowhere germs can collect. Misguided attempts to retract the foreskin at this stage can damage the foreskin. These attempts are the main reason for problems with the foreskin at this stage and subsequent unnecessary circumcisions. As the bay grows he should be encouraged to stretch his foreskin and as soon as he can retract easily to wash with plain water regularly.
A few intact males have problems with tight foreskin but this is only a tiny proportion. The condition can now be almost always treated with simple stretching exercises, sometimes in combination with a steroid cream that speeds up the process. However doctors who do not value the preservation of the foreskin often still trot out circumcision as a first-option treatment in the US and even some other countries.

Answer 4

I was circumcised as a baby. I have been against it for a long time. I was really angry when my brother had my nephew's "done." The American Pediatric Society finally came out with a statement AGAINST circumcision. However, stupid parents will still do it to their babies. I think the medical establishment should ban the practice unless it is medically necessary.

I don't have a problem with it done for religious reasons, but it should be done when the boy is a baby, with proper pain control, and by an expert.

There are cases where circumcisions have been done so badly the boy's penis was destroyed.

Answer 5

I'm neither for nor against circumcision.
To me it's a personal choice, and in some cases a medical necessity.
I was circumcised at age 30, and the procedure was a horrendous experience for me, but I had to do it for medical reasons.
Anybody doing it "just for fun" at a later age needs to have a thorough psychological evaluation done.

Answer 6

I used to be for it because my first two boyfriends were circumcized, so I thought I wouldn't like an uncircumcized guy, but my third boyfriend (that Im still with) is uncircumcized and I love it. So experience changed that for me. I'm now against it

Answer 7

Against it being done on babies. An adult can do whatever he likes with his penis, just as long as he's fully aware of what he's doing, and that it is considered only a cosmetic procedure.

Answer 8

Against it for newborns. If you're of age and want it done, it's your choice. I think many people think it's all benefits when it's not, when it also carries risks and negative side effects. That, and now it's less popular. The USA remains the last developed nation to do it to newborns without medical or religious cause, but even our rates have gone from around 90% in the 70s to as low as 14% in some states nowadays. Some people just haven't researched, I suppose. However, I would not call it mutilation unless it goes wrong, which sometimes it does, sadly. As for cleaning a foreskin, it only takes 5 to 10 seconds to pull back and rub under when you shower...

Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim surgery, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world (North America and Europe, but especially the USA) as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys just find it more convenient to use a lube like KY or lotion as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin (like the eyelids) is not there to rub the head of the penis with (4).

Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation (they were quite religious back then!), and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)

However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, their sons have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible (you can't go back if you don't like it or if it goes wrong).

Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)

To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. If you're cut or uncut and happy, you'll say that side is better. If you got cut later in life, you'll say cut because you had problems with your foreskin before. If you're cut and had something go wrong or wish to have had a choice, then you'll say uncut. One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.

In response to a post below, a circumcision at a hospital surgery center every other month makes it sound really rare considering how many people there are...

Answer 9

I think it's Barbaric and un-necessary... and people need to be informed about being "intact" alot of people talk trash like "it smells" and ****... but so would a woman's vagina if she doesn't clean it right?

Circumcision needs to stop!

Answer 10

It's too late for me. Doctors in the USA have often done it over the years without asking. Be sure you tell them that you don't want your kid skinned if you don't believe in it.