Male circumcision: A poll.

[Songbird]

To repeat my comment from the other thread:

The wording of the poll choices is limited. I'm a female and have no issue with circumcision, but I think babies should not be routinely circumcised. By routinely, I mean doctors used to schedule circs as part of neonatal procedures with little parental input and sometimes without parental consent.

By contrast, hospitals today are decreasingly doing that presumptively, and instead parents must request it.

In the U.S. most circs are done on boys not from Jewish or Muslim families and not for religious reasons, but because of preconceptions and parents wanting sons to look like their fathers and peers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Blind?
You're pretty dismissive of Jews and Muslims,many of whom - although you might find this difficult to accept - are every bit as thoughtful, intelligent, and aware as you presume to be.

Perhaps instead he was referring to what commonly happens in American hospitals. Circumcision is often treated as routine.
As Songbird pointed out in another thread, they just expect parents to go along with it. The word "blind" fits this situation
pretty well, without disrespecting anyone.

Besides, if anyone is going to be offensive & disrespectful, it should be me. Religion encourages blind following of tradition
& goofy ancient dogma, plus heated over-reaction to any challenge. I don't want to make circumcision illegal though - it's too
important to some, & too de mimimis for me.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's like giving a baby a tattoo or stretching his earlobes.

Except that it's not. Those don't have medical benefits.

 

[Speedwolf]

Can lead to a worse sex life? What's your criteria for judging that?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I personally don't really care, but for the child's sake, it ought to be illegal to have a circumcision before age 18.

Throw all them Jews and Muslims in jail. That'll teach 'em!

 

[Father Heathen]

The wording of the poll choices is limited. I'm a female and have no issue with circumcision, but I think babies should not be routinely circumcised

That's not what the poll is about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that it's not. Those don't have medical benefits.

It is not so clear cut that circumcision has medical benefit....
Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many of the medical benefits cited in the above article would accrue to Third World
countries & men engaging in risky sexual behavior. Would this really apply in the US?

 

[Kathryn]

Living in the US in a middle class family and neighborhood, I chose not to have my boys circumcised. It has never been an issue, either socially or from a health perspective. No trouble at all teaching them correct hygiene at a very early age.

It could not have been less of an issue for them, or for me.

 

[Songbird]

That's not what the poll is about.

It's not about which part? I know it's asking men whether they're cut or not - but the wording - "not an issue" versus "wrong" was what I meant. And circumcision in general; I don't think anyone has an issue with that. It's infant circumcision you're talking about, right? Or did I misunderstand?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Except that it's not. Those don't have medical benefits.

It's ok if it's done for a medical reason (like it being too tight), but otherwise there's no difference from a tattoo or stretched earlobes. There's no real medical reason to circumcise people unless something is wrong.

Can lead to a worse sex life? What's your criteria for judging that?

Less sensitivity.

 

[Levite]

Can I just say that I have spent most of my life around circumcised guys (am one myself, also, of course), and I have never heard a guy say, "Man, if only sex felt better! I just feel like I could be getting so much more sensation from my penis!"

Not once. Never heard it. Never thought it myself.

The only people who seem to be concerned about "lack of sensitivity" are anti-circumcision activists....

 

[mycorrhiza]

Can I just say that I have spent most of my life around circumcised guys (am one myself, also, of course), and I have never heard a guy say, "Man, if only sex felt better! I just feel like I could be getting so much more sensation from my penis!"

Not once. Never heard it. Never thought it myself.

The only people who seem to be concerned about "lack of sensitivity" are anti-circumcision activists....

Because they don't know how it would feel if they had foreskins....

 

[Speedwolf]

Myco, the only way your statement regarding sensitivity could be reasonable, would be if you yourself had experienced sex both with and without a foreskin. Otherwise it's really assumption, isn't it?

 

[Levite]

Because they don't know how it would feel if they had foreskins....

The point is that it's an irrelevant assumption. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of circumcised guys are perfectly satisfied with their sexual sensitivity. The vague possibility that it might be a little more sensitive with a foreskin is utterly irrelevant, because it basically doesn't concern anyone: more or less no one feels deprived.

And, for the record, I've assisted in the conversion to Judaism of several adult men who required circumcision. They all said to me that once the healing from the actual procedure was over, sex was fine-- just as good as before. Two even said they thought it might be better.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Myco, the only way your statement regarding sensitivity could be reasonable, would be if you yourself had experienced sex both with and without a foreskin. Otherwise it's really assumption, isn't it?

It's quite logical. The glans is very sensitive. If it was allowed the same sensitivity for circumcised men, then it would be quite uncomfortable to be circumcised.

 

[mycorrhiza]

The point is that it's an irrelevant assumption. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of circumcised guys are perfectly satisfied with their sexual sensitivity. The vague possibility that it might be a little more sensitive with a foreskin is utterly irrelevant, because it basically doesn't concern anyone: more or less no one feels deprived.

And, for the record, I've assisted in the conversion to Judaism of several adult men who required circumcision. They all said to me that once the healing from the actual procedure was over, sex was fine-- just as good as before. Two even said they thought it might be better.

There's a difference between a few months and a few years. Sensitivity probably wont decrease instantly. It probably differs from guy to guy too.
It's great, however, that they were adult who themselves could decide to be circumcised, so they had the ability to consent.

My main objection is not less sensitivity, but rather the lack of consent. I'm opposed to ear-rings for babies too and any other body-modifications not required for medical reasons.

 

[Speedwolf]

My point is that it's not possible for you personally to declare that sex is better for those with foreskins. You have nothing by which to determine such a statement unless you've had sex both ways. You are making an assumption.

 

[Speedwolf]

Ah I typed too slowly - if your main issue is lack of consent then I view that as a legitimate concern.

 

[Levite]

If your concern is with consent, then we will just have to disagree. Parents make all kinds of choices for their kids' benefits, both in terms of health care and in terms of upbringing. I don't see why this is any different.

If you don't approve of it, fine: don't do it to your sons. I couldn't care less whether non-Jews circumcise their sons or not. As long as no one tries to make it illegal or unduly burdensome for Jews and Muslims to circumcise their sons, I am satisfied.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's a difference between a few months and a few years. Sensitivity probably wont decrease instantly.

I just love expert opinions. :yes: