Circumcision - Agree or Disagree

awkwardamanda

awkwardamanda

Well-known member
I think it's wrong. I've never heard of doing it for medical reasons until now so I don't know what those reasons may be or if there are other alternatives. But that's not normally the case. It just seems so pointless. I don't know what the biological function of the foreskin is, but it's there, so leave it be. I don't like the idea of unnecessary surgery anyway. Why remove part of a baby's body when it's only a matter of tradition or preference, and not necessity? There's a chance something could go wrong or he could be upset about when he's old enough to understand. Why bother?
 
Last edited:
drganon

drganon

Well-known member
I was circumcised myself as an infant and haven't really been bothered about it or cared about the so called debate one way or another. As for whether I'd want my son circumcised, considering I'm going on 24 and have yet to even kiss a girl, circumcision is at the bottom of my worries.
 
F

Foxface

Well-known member
I think not. I'm not circumsised. It looks weird when people are. It also disgusts me, becuase I thinking about the tearing of skin.
 
Incognito10

Incognito10

Member
Disagree. It seems absolutely outdated and it is a waste of medical insurance money. Just think of all the money that could be saved in one year in the US, where it seems to occur the most. The common arguement of hygiene seems ridiculous...you have to wash every other part of the body, why should the foreskin be any different?
 
BlackPuma

BlackPuma

1
In the case of male circumcision, I'm neutral. It's not a black or white situation. We can preach 'yes' or 'no' all we want but we hardly have insight on every given situation. It's up to the parents to decide, not the public. And while that's technically unfair for the child, there's a lot of things that unfair. The consequence of this unfairness however isn't that substantial in many cases.

I've had friends whom had circumcisions as adults, and the recovery processes wasn't a nice one. And the people whom did have circumcisions as infants don't seem to bothered by it from what I can tell.

So if it has to be done - I'd rather it's during the time the child can't remember it.


I feel more strongly about female circumcision, though. As it usually entails literal mutilation of the genitals. Where male circumcision leaves them capable of experiencing sexual pleasures, with female circumcision practices it's not uncommon for actual parts of the genitals to be removed, making experiencing sexual pleasures impossible. That's a severe form of child abuse as far as I'm concerned.
 
A

A Many Splendored Thing

Well-known member
We evolved with the foreskin for whatever reason. There must be more advantages than disadvantages to foreskin being there.

I'd say leave it alone unless it's necessary to remove it.
 
cosmosis

cosmosis

Well-known member
Just had a son about a month ago and we decided not to circumsize. Probably the easiest decision we made through the whole process. I do have a lot of trouble understanding those who do. In the same way I don't understand why people crop their dogs ears just cause they want their dog to look a certain way.
 
dottie

dottie

Well-known member
totally unnecessary.

for mothers: aren't you cleaning their bits when you change a diaper anyway? i would hope so.

for males: aren't you cleaning your bits regularly anyway? i would hope so.

who was the first person to think circumcision up and convince others it was cool? what a sicko.
 
Opaline

Opaline

1
dottie said:
who was the first person to think circumcision up and convince others it was cool? what a sicko.
Click to expand...

In America, it was John Harvey Kellogg (yes, the cornflakes Kellogg). He proposed it as a solution to "immoral" masturbation and for hygenic reasons (which are all BS by the way).

It all comes down to this: the foreskin is there for a reason. There are many very sensitive nerve endings in it, which increase sexual pleasure. Without it, you are missing out. End of story. It's quite sad, most American men have been robbed of this without their consent.
 
coyote

coyote

Well-known member
Opaline said:
In America, it was John Harvey Kellogg (yes, the cornflakes Kellogg). He proposed it as a solution to "immoral" masturbation and for hygenic reasons (which are all BS by the way).

It all comes down to this: the foreskin is there for a reason. There are many very sensitive nerve endings in it, which increase sexual pleasure. Without it, you are missing out. End of story. It's quite sad, most American men have been robbed of this without their consent.
Click to expand...

i can only hope some thoughtful woman will come along and make it up to me
 
Opaline

Opaline

1
coyote said:
i can only hope some thoughtful woman will come along and make it up to me
Click to expand...

Lol. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to shame circumcised men or say they're doomed forever (plus I'm not a man, so... haha). I just feel very strongly about this particular topic because I think it's wrong to remove part of a baby's anatomy - especially sexual in nature - without his consent.

Jews and Arabs have been doing it for centuries, and they seem alright, so perhaps it isn't quite as bad as I've been led to believe. I still think the man should have a choice, though.
 
coyote

coyote

Well-known member
Opaline said:
Lol. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to shame circumcised men or say they're doomed forever (plus I'm not a man, so... haha). I just feel very strongly about this particular topic because I think it's wrong to remove part of a baby's anatomy - especially sexual in nature - without his consent.
Click to expand...

no worries - i'm not ashamed, nor have i gone without pleasure

but if someone wants to work extra hard to show me what i've been missing, i'm all for that :ironicsmile:
 
awkwardamanda

awkwardamanda

Well-known member
holistic.png


Omglol, I do not want to know.:eek:mg:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top