Should circumcision be the person's OWN choice?

[Hyland]

Yeah but like most things, people who don't like it tend to take on a prohibitionist viewpoint. "Stop liking what I don't like" etc.

I totally agree with ya. Unfortunately whats simple for most people seems like a convoluted mess and a personal attack to some.

*shrug*

[Funt Case]

Complications: Super rare
Scarring: Almost non-existent if done as a baby
Loss of Feeling: Also non-existent if done as a baby

All these things when done as a baby are non-issues. I was circumcised as a baby, and I can't see any scarred tissue. And I don't have any loss of feeling. So, when people claim these things as facts, I just know how I am, and how I would assume most people who get it done properly (not some experimental burning off and things like that) are the same.

Actually the loss of feeling is because a sensitive area which isn't prone to much action is rubbing against clothing for most of your life, See post below yours. How do you know you have no loss of feeling if you never had a foreskin to begin with?

Ever had sex so much in a short period of time that it goes numb or loses feeling? its the same idea.

Now im not saying EVERYONE has this, or it affects EVERYONE. But as i've said numerous times there isn't anywhere near enough positives to getting it done to account for having the snip.

[Fahrenheit]

. But as i've said numerous times there isn't anywhere near enough positives to getting it done to account for having the snip.

I'm of the opinion that done to a newborn the benefits outweigh the possible complications. But to wait till a child is a man, and able to come to a decision on his own, it's not worth it.

[Funt Case]

Yeah but like most things, people who don't like it tend to take on a prohibitionist viewpoint. "Stop liking what I don't like" etc.

It's not about liking it, its about cutting off parts of your child without their consent.

[Fahrenheit]

It's not about liking it, its about cutting off parts of your child without their consent.

That's being disingenuous & deep down you know it. They aren't just cutting off stuff willy nilly for no reason.

[Tradewind]

It's not about liking it, its about cutting off parts of your child without their consent.

Except those "complications" are even more likely when they reach an age where they're able to understand the concept and consent to it...so it kind of defeats the purpose of asking them to begin with.

[rojam2]

I'm from the US, 18 and circumcised which I am glad of and so are all my friends that I know of. Uncircumcised just looks unattractive imo. Being uncircumcised can cause complications in your 50-60's which has happen to several male relatives so they had to get circumcised at the age of 50-60 rather than new born. Since you're talking about having it done against your will, should it be illegal for parents to take their newborns to get medical attention if they get hurt since the baby can't give consent? Your parents are pretty much in control of everything that happens to you until you are 18 or emancipated.

[Reeve]

That's being disingenuous & deep down you know it. They aren't just cutting off stuff willy nilly for no reason.

I see nothing disingenuous about it. I think it's horrible that parents are allowed to cut off parts of their babies without their babies' permission. If I could go back and tell my parents what I wanted, I'd tell them not to snip me. To me, this is no better than snipping off a baby's earlobes because it's culturally desireable.

[Purlina]

Lol its crazy to see the differing views here. I for one consider it normal and am thankful to have had it done.

Of course, but just because something is the norm doesn't necessarily make it "good" or "right"...

[Hyland]

It's not about liking it, its about cutting off parts of your child without their consent.

My thing is if you don't like it, don't do it to your child. There are no adverse affects to it.

[Mnevis]

I totally agree with ya. Unfortunately whats simple for most people seems like a convoluted mess and a personal attack to some.

*shrug*

Same from the other 'side', arcane. Seems simple to me that we should have given up this practice by now, although I do understand why people who have had it done to themselves or their offspring would take my taking offense to the practice as a personal attack.

I know it didn't take much to change my mind about it, and if I knew that some friend of my moms had told her "you know, circumcision's not really necessary, it doesn't matter if that's what everyone else is doing. your unborn son might one day wish he hadn't been circumcised," I would thank that person today. that's why I think expressing your opinion matters, and *shrug* to each their own isn't my position.

But yeah, we've probably covered about everything by now. As pointlessly vitriolic, hyperbolic, or patronizing as both sides here have been occasionally, at least people know there are different opinions and perspectives. Circumcision's going down in the US. My brother told me that was his wife's deciding factor in not having my nephew cut; she didn't want him to be the weird one with the modified unit.

[Reeve]

I'm from the US, 18 and circumcised which I am glad of and so are all my friends that I know of. Uncircumcised just looks unattractive imo.

You only feel that way because circumcised is the norm where you happen to live.

Being uncircumcised can cause complications in your 50-60's which has happen to several male relatives so they had to get circumcised at the age of 50-60 rather than new born. Since you're talking about having it done against your will, should it be illegal for parents to take their newborns to get medical attention if they get hurt since the baby can't give consent? Your parents are pretty much in control of everything that happens to you until you are 18 or emancipated.

Being circumcized can also have complications. And no, parents should be allowed to provide medical coverage to their children, but not to remove parts of that child's body without their consent and without significant medical necessity. We wouldn't legally allow a parent to chop off their children's earlobes either.

[rojam2]

You only feel that way because circumcised is the norm where you happen to live.

have you ever seen porn with an uncircumcised penis? I for one have not. I really don't see the big deal of having it done or not. Lets say I didn't have it done when I was born, I would still probably careless though I would be more shy about being intimate with a girl because it's not normal

[Funt Case]

I'm from the US, 18 and circumcised which I am glad of and so are all my friends that I know of. Uncircumcised just looks unattractive imo. Being uncircumcised can cause complications in your 50-60's which has happen to several male relatives so they had to get circumcised at the age of 50-60 rather than new born. Since you're talking about having it done against your will, should it be illegal for parents to take their newborns to get medical attention if they get hurt since the baby can't give consent? Your parents are pretty much in control of everything that happens to you until you are 18 or emancipated.

I dont mind talking about this, but do you even read what you type? If they get medical attention its because they need it, they're hurt or in trouble. Of course you will help your child. Taking away their foreskin BEFORE there is a problem is silly.

[Reeve]

have you ever seen porn with an uncircumcised penis? I for one have not. I really don't see the big deal of having it done or not. Lets say I didn't have it done when I was born, I would still probably careless though I would be more shy about being intimate with a girl because it's not normal

Unless you've watched very little porn in your life, I'd be willing to bet you have. They look virtually the same when erect.

[Funt Case]

have you ever seen porn with an uncircumcised penis? I for one have not. I really don't see the big deal of having it done or not. Lets say I didn't have it done when I was born, I would still probably careless though I would be more shy about being intimate with a girl because it's not normal

Not normal to have something you're born with, Ok.

[rojam2]

I dont mind talking about this, but do you even read what you type? If they get medical attention its because they need it, they're hurt or in trouble. Of course you will help your child. Taking away their foreskin BEFORE there is a problem is silly.

I know, I was using an extreme example because there are some people who don't want medical attention today (who know's why) but it's still the same situation of not being able to give consent

Unless you've watched very little porn in your life, I'd be willing to bet you have. They look virtually the same when erect.

Except during a handjob when you can blatantly see the extra skin

Not normal to have someone you're born with, Ok.

have you read any of this thread at all?

[Fahrenheit]

Not normal to have someone you're born with, Ok.

Come now, humans change all sorts of stuff about themselves from what's "natural" When was the last time you went down on a chick with a bush like a 1970s afro?

Yes, save your breath. I know that example is slightly apples to oranges. But I use it so show that humans don't always go with all natural.

[Reeve]

Except during a handjob when you can blatantly see the extra skin

How would you know if you've never seen porn with an uncircumcised penis?

[Purlina]

Why would you be afraid of being intimate with a girl? It's a normal part of your body.

That's like a woman being embarrassed because she has nipples...