I am 100% against circumcision it's a form of religious child abuse no different to FGM. This needs further study, correlation is not causation but it needs to be properly examined and acted on!
Agreed... The most amazing part about the mutilation, to me at least... Is that since most of the people who defend these actions defend them based on religious reasons... So... the same people who claim that humans were created in god's image, feel the need to "fix" things that apparently the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity screwed up on... :/
This has come up before and some guys gave me heat. Imo, another example of humans trying to improve on the nature of nature. Why is the foreskin there? Obviously , a good reason. My son is now 38, not circumcised and has never had a problem.
My boys are not circumcised. I felt it would be wrong for me to make that choice for them. If they decide they want to be circumcised, I will support their decision.
It is mutilation and is therefore assault on a minor and a criminal offence. Child abuse is another name for it !
I was circumcised, but I was too young to remember it. All I know is I didn't walk for a year.
Keep your hands off other people's dicks.
If you want to cut up someones dick, cut your own.
Let your son decide if he wants to cut off the end of his dick. It's not yours, its his.
Don't take whats not yours.
Don't change what you can't replace of fix.
I love how women don't give a shit about cutting there son's dick off, but talk of cutting there daughter and they will loose there mind.
Its baffling.
I don't believe male circumcision is something moms support more than dads. In my personal experience (which is just that, but I've worked with moms & babies for 15 years) it's usually the dad insisting & the mom trying to protect her baby boy, or it appears to have been a mutual decision.
Over 100 dead baby boys in the US alone from circumcision complications. Not to mention the botched jobs. [circinfo.org]
But 100% of those moms never had to teach there son to wipe the tip. So, I guess it was worth it. Right mom?
Even your source you cite states "accurate data on these deaths are not available" so you are basically doing the same as Trump when he states 'unknown Muslims" are trying to invade from our border with Mexico and then admits he has no proof.....inciting rage.
I was circumcised and had my sons circumcised when they were born, 1983 and 1984. If I'd known anything about this barbaric ritual I wouldn't have had the procedure on my 2 boys.
I'm so utterly apologetic to my two sons but it was what the physicians recommended.
I consider it abuse....cutting male genitals...I want mine back!!
We had planned to not circumcise our son, but do to urological issues, it was a necessity.
It seems like the prevailing thought on circumcision from many I have talked to are aesthetics, they don't want them looking different than dad and that they don't want them made fun of by other kids. It's small minded. The majority of the world doesn't circumcise.
The amount of ignorance on this post is the worst I've experienced on this website. Lots of vitriol, unsunstabtiated opinion, racist and sexist rants. Not every post, just most. This brought out the worst in the community. I'm particularly disappointed in my fellow males and the shallowness in their responses.
As a female I prefer circumcised but it's not my body. Just make sure you keep your flappy penis hat clean
And don't be surprised if I refuse to suck it
Yes, because it has never been properly examined Your argument sounds a lot like global warming needs to be properly examined and acted on just because you don't agree with it. Here's a sample of not examining it...[newhealthadvisor.com]
2. Health
People usually circumcise the penis because compared with the circumcised penis, men who are not circumcised are at increased risk of many health conditions. It has been reported that:
There is over 12 times the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in uncircumcised infants compared with circumcised infants. What's more, this trend continues into adulthood, with the lifetime cumulated UTI prevalence 1 in 20 for circumcised men, but 1 in 3 for uncircumcised men.
Leaving the penis uncircumcised increases the risk of penile skin inflammation and infection three-fold. Different types of penile inflammation include those of the glans (balanitis), foreskin (posthitis), and both the glans and foreskin (balanoposthitis). Men can also suffer from inability to retract the foreskin (phimosis) and penile constriction due to a tight foreskin that doesn't return following retraction (paraphimosis). It's estimated that up to 18% uncircumcised boys will get one of the conditions by the age of eight. However, as circumcision removes the foreskin, the incidence of these conditions is much lower in circumcised males.
Penile cancer is more than 20 times less common in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men. This is a serious disease in which a quarter of patients have died from it and the others need some form of penile amputation. However, it is important to know that penile cancer is rare, with low rates even in uncircumcised men.
When men become sexually active, an intact foreskin can increase 2-4 times the risk of many sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital herpes, human papillomavirus (HPV), thrush, chancroid, syphilis, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Lack of circumcision even puts a man's female partner at increased risk of STIs, with the incidence of genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis, sexually transmitted HPV (which causes cervical cancer), and possibly chlamydia up to five times more for women with uncircumcised partners.
Having a foreskin is the No. 1 risk factor for HIV infection in heterosexual men. Uncircumcised men have 2-8 times the risk of HIV, compared with circumcised men.
The chances of developing prostate cancer are 50-100% greater in uncircumcised men than those who are circumcised.
You realize the site you cited is called "the lighter side of science " right?
Having a foreskin is the number one risk factor for Hiv? I thought that was unprotected sex! Random claim?
Even with the foreskin boys are less likely to have a yeast infection than girls. But all of this is a red herring.
The bottom line is that you are permanently altering the function of your child's body without there consent. The foreskin performs a important job. It protects the head of the penis and acts like an eyelid for the penis.
None of that matters though because its not alright to cut any other part of anyone eases body off, even hair without consent and a baby can not give consent.
Its not yours leave it alone.
One child death for a harmful cosmetic quasi religious surgery are too many in my view.
Even if there were no deaths and no possibility of sexual complications later on, it would still be immoral, because you would be permanently modifying someone Ilse's body without there consent.
When I was born, a doctor asked my parents if they would like them to permanently, surgically remove a portion of there son's dick and they said; "Yes, please do."
Its bullshit, that I don't have all of my body. Why was it taken and used to make skin grafts?
Its bullshit, that I'll never know what sex is "supposed" to feel like.
Its bullshit that my dick has scar tissue on it that causes complications and discomfort during sex. Not for my partner, but for me.
Fuck everyone who can not see the clear and blatant hypocrisy of allowing parents to permanently mutilate there child's genitalia.
My ex and I did a lot if researching before our son was born. We opted to not circumcise our son. One of the pieces of information we found was that circumcised men have less sensitivity in the head of the pens due to the head's constant exposure to clothing and all. Therefore it is believed that these men are "rougher" or more rigorous during sex. Uncircumcised men are more sensitive as a result of the foreskin protecting the area.
There was an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! That covered this subject. With a man that created a device to stretch skin back over the head.
I'm opposed to both, but FGM is orders of magnitude more invasive and barbaric than MGM. To say they are no different is similar to saying losing your fingertip of a pinky is no different than having your entire hand chopped off.
@Josephine Your claim is unconvincing.
"Male circumcision cuts the foreskin, FGM cuts the clitoris—the two things cut are not even remotely the same. For male circumcision to be equivalent to FGM, the entire tip of the male’s penis would need to be cut off."
I don’t really have an opinion on circumcision, however, I believe it is the leading cause of erectile dysfunction later in life. Also, one of my friends that got circumcised later in life, said he wished he never did it because the climax was better with the extra skin.
Personally I am glad I was circumcised. The sensitivity around the bottom of the head of my penis is where most of the excitement comes from. Not trying to be crude, just honest. Having never been uncircumcised. I do not know if they feel the same stimulation.