Atheist Nexus Logo
I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 2008

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's not impossible at all. I was cathertised very quickly and easily in an American hospital once. You simply roll the foreskin back; takes all of two seconds. Older men come in with infections because of poor hygeine? So what about older women? Should we circumcise girls at birth in order to make your job more convenient?

Maybe more effort should be spent on preventative health-care and education, rather than the ignorant and commercial way the US treats its patients. You live in one of the most unhealthy cultures on the planet and then you blame nature for your problems.

An older man should not have phimosis. This is a relatively easily treated condition and should be addressed in youth. Unfortunately many (if not most) doctors in the USA have no idea how to treat phimosis without circumcision, because there is a large deficiency of knowledge about penile anatomy and treatment in circumcising countries such as the USA.

Let us not forget that older men (and women) have been around for thousands of years, just like the operation we call circumcision. Why hasn't this procedure ever been advocated for health reasons prior to 20th century USA?

Ron, were you cut or have you always been uncircumcised?  Because from what little I've bothered to read on the subject even if I repeatedly tugged on the skin of my penis I'd never regain all the nerve endings that the original tissue possessed.  Regardless much of what you say is based on subjective experience for yourself.  Being cut I've no problem getting an erection and getting off afterward.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming in any way that it's more pleasurable being cut.  I just have zero problem with my dick at present.  Thus I'm only mildly interested in this subject as a generic concept when I've no choice in having it performed on someone else or not.

I just have zero problem with my dick at present

 

That you know of... of course, since you don't know what it's like to be the way nature made you, really, you simply don't know.

"That's a ridiculous analogy." It's an excellent analogy. "We're talking foreskin, not the ability to see." To see, but not to see as well. To enjoy sex, but not to enjoy it so much. Excellent analogy. "I imagine there are one or two men on this planet that wish they had never been circumcised..."See these first-hand accounts, growing daily."... but I haven't actually taken a poll." Informal polls (there haven't been any scientific ones) polls show about half of circumcised men are happy about it, compared to the great majority of intact men. "Vaccinations are done without consent." Bad analogy. Vaccinations confer near total immunity, prevent epidemics, leave the body whole. Circumcision does none of those. "There are some things we do to our children without their consent. Where do you draw the line? I think right there." No, at cutting parts off their bodies. That's where we draw it with girls - why the double standard? "And unless there is a massive decision by all Americans, for which I can only speak for, I don't know what they do in Europe or anywhere else, you are going to have your kid being the only uncircumcised kid in gym class which alone carries a stigma." The rate is down around 55% now so the stigma could go either way. And which would you rather have to tell your son? - "Theirs are different because their parents had parts cut off theirs"? Or "Yours is different because we had part cut off yours"? Already parents of circumcised kids are having to answer that awkward question from their sons.
here here to easy motion :)

Foreskin is part of the penis which is, like the eyes, an acute sensory organ; the penis for feeling and the eyes for seeing. Like the eyes the penis has a natural protective covering to help preserve moisture and sensitivity, amongst other functions. To remove the foreskin is akin to removing the eyelids. One man circumcised as an adult compared the difference between intact sex and circumcised sex to the difference between colour television and black-and-white television.

There are a lot more than "one or two" men on this planet who wish they had never been circumcised. The internet is full of the lamentations of such individuals which number in the thousands. There are even organisations such as NORM for men trying to restore their foreskins. Not only have you not taken a poll but you don't seem to have done any research on the matter whatsoever.

The issue of vaccinations is also a controversial one. I would be very hessitant to give children vaccinations. There is a large body of evidence contesting the validity of the theory on which vaccination is based. It is well known that many of the ingredients in common vaccinations are toxic, such as mercury as a preservative. Virus strains can be harvested in diseased animals or even cancerous tumors.

I am suspect about much of conventional allopathic modern western medicine for good reasons. But let us assume that there are situations where properly prepared vaccines have value, I would still never give them to a new-born child because their immune system is too young. And even if I was forced to do this to a baby or child, the point is that you are not amputating healthy functional tissue. You are introducing a serum into the body. Just as you might administer medicine orally or rectally, you are injecting it into the muscle. There is no loss of tissue. Circumcision is an amptuation, a permanent amputation of valuable healthy functional erogenous tissue.

The foreskin of an infant helps to Guard Against Infection. It is a specialised opening that allows urine to exit the penis but does not allow anything to enter. Cutting it off not only removes this natural protection but also actually *exposes* the penis to infection by cutting it open and leaving a wound (which must then heal in a dirty diaper). This is madness.

Where do you draw the line on doing things to infants without their consent? Simple: at amputating natural healthy body-parts. You wouldn't do this to your daughter for precisely this reason, and yet things seem to change when your son's genitals are concerned. Why the double-standard? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Parents should be taught by doctors and nurses that the original penis is a natural penis and a normal penis, and if it is a healthy penis then nothing needs to be done to it, absolutely nothing.

I don't really understand what you mean by "common sense" in this regard. I would have assumed common sense to dictate that if its illegal for girls then it should be illegal for boys. I think common sense would say that foreskin on either gender is not a birth-defect, that babies are born complete and perfect. I think common sense would be that removing healthy functional erogenous genital tissue will have a negative impact on sexuality. I think common sense would suggest if it ain't broke don't fix it!

Common sense tells me that this is a surgery he can choose to have at any age so why foist it upon him before he can decide for himself? Common sense would conclude that since most of the world's male population is intact and doing just fine that this is an unnecessary procedure. Common sense would say it's his body, is penis, his rights. But there's a problem with common sense which you have just demonstrated: it ain't that common!

And here we are back at the old 'gym class locker room' argument. My gosh. First of all, the rate of circumcision in the USA is dropping and intact penises are becoming more and more common. By the time today's toddlers are in highschool it will probably be about 50/50. But even if this were not the case that is no reason to go depriving boys of their natural God-given right to intact genitalia for the sake of 'fitting in'.

This is a decision made out of fear to conform in a country that was based on the noble ideas of individual freedom and personal liberty! Teach your son to be happy and comfortable with himself and you will go alot further to addressing any potential bullying (which can occur for ANY reason, not just circumcision status) than by changing what he is.

There are many intact american boys who, whether they experienced any teasing or not, are happy with their foreskins. One shining example is Jamie Stroud who's circumcision video can be seen on youtube, and whose story shows that being confident and comfortable in your own skin (so to speak) is what matters. He was teased for being intact but he responded with information and education, even demonstrating how it all works. Eventually the teasing stopped and boys even confided in him their regret at having been circumcised.

And by the way if you want to know what they do in Europe and other countries just google it! You will quickly discover that an intact penis, just like an intact vulva, is very common in other countries. Most men in the world are intact and the majority of circumcised men are Muslim.

 

 

 

Foreskin is not nearly as necessary for survival as eyelids are. A society that harvest eyelids can be assured to not survive prior to modern medicine. So your comparison is not valid. Being a man who was circumcised as a baby I can function as a human being without having to put eye drops in incessantly, unlike someone who doesn't have eyelids.

As for mercury, try to do some reading on ethyl and methyl mercury (*gasp* organic chemistry strikes back!) before trying to talk like you know anything about the substance. In fact you've got more to worry about coal being used as an energy source leading to mercury entering the water supply then you ever had for Thimerosal. Which I should also add was removed from vaccines in the United States back in 2001 (I believe that's the right year.) Also the premier anti-vaccine study was thoroughly debunked and called out for being bullshit recently.


Try learn a little about science before spouting pseudoscience, and at least keep up with news about the bullshit you're spouting. By the way your anti-vaccine bullshit that you're advocating has lead to diseases that were rare blossoming into communities again. What you also don't understand is that not everyone can get a vaccine. This is why herd immunity is important because it lowers the chance of people dying.


As for the rest, tl;dr.

Btw even though I'm cut I'm against circumcision. I'm not going to go pulling at the skin of my dick to give the the impression of faux-foreskin though. I just think that there's no point to it other then aesthetic reasons, and that is up to the child to decide when he becomes a legal adult. I hold the same view of vaginoplasty for the most part. It should only be performed on consenting adults or if there is a specific medical reason to perform it on a small child in order to protect them (from something I'm currently unaware of.) Currently both forms of aesthetic surgery are dubious as to whether they provide a negligible benefit, which is why I relegate them to existing for only aesthetic reasons in a modern secular society.

There is no doubt that foreskin is not necessary for survival, although circumcision can result in death. But the majority of the body is not necessary for survival. People can 'survive' without arms and legs. They can even 'survive' without eyes. Technically a man with no penis at all can survive.

Most people are interested in more than just mere survival, though. We want to be happy. We don't just want to survive, but to thrive. I personally do not take survival as the purpose of my life or of life in general.

I think the comparison of foreskin and eyelids has validity because, as I said, they both relate to acute sensory organs, and are somewhat biologically analogous (although not totally so; the foreskin is indeed a unique organ).

Thank you for pulling me up on the vaccination point. One paragraph there was not as tight as it should have been. I am not an expert on the issue and I don't say that vaccination is bullshit. However, I feel skeptical of it and know a number of doctors who are too. Just because the establishment and mainstream media support something does not make it valid for me. I shall have to do more research on the subject.

In the meantime if I had kids I would not vaccinate them. I think there are many factors that go into causing disease, but ultimately it comes down to our own thoughts, words, and actions. I think that a healthy mind and a healthy diet and lifestyle will produce a healthy body. This is almost impossible in today's world (particularly in the USA) because of nutritionally bereft and poisonous food, a toxic environment, and chronic stress.

I think that the germ theory of disease is incomplete. Recall that Louis Pasteur recanted his germ theory of disease on his deathbed, admitting "it is not the microbe, but the terrain". I believe the germ theory and vaccination have become so popular and gospel because it fits in with our immature egoic mindset of blaming external factors for our problems instead of taking responsibility for our own decisions.

It's never us that is to blame, is it? Let's blame religion or atheism. Men or women. The old or the young. The blacks or the whites. The Jews or the Arabs. The republicans or the democrats. The germs or the genes. Then we don't have to look at ourselves in the mirror and change our ways.

I'm not sure what tl;dr means.

Hi,

^^ I'm not going to go pulling at the skin of my dick to give the the impression of faux-foreskin though. I just think that there's no point to it other then aesthetic reasons. ^^

The benefits of foreskin restoration are most definitely functional, not just aesthetic. 

The glans and mocusal tissue adjacent to the glans revert to being supple and pleasure receptive (moist like the inside of the lips, instead of dry like the outside of the lips). 

The shaft skin gives an indescribably awesome feeling as it slinks over the corona. There are simply no words with which one could over-state this effect.  It's the way the skin was seemingly designed to work.  Until I had the slack to experience this slinking of skin I just never knew sex could feel this good.  The tight 180 degree bend the skin makes as it rolls triggers a nerve response that I could only descibe as seeing in a new color.  I could roll my skin around before while flaccid, but during arousal the response is totally different. 

The other huge benefit is the way my wife enjoys the frictionless gliding feeling during intercourse.  Before she would get rubbed raw by sex and need a few days off if I gave her multiple orgasms over the course of say an hour.  Now she's raring to go day after day. 

Lastly, there are things I can experience now which are simply impossible without slack.  An example would be my wife pulling my skin forward over the glans and swirling her tongue around between the skin and glans, tickling both surfaces simultaneously. 

"My husband has no regrets being circumcised, as I suspect is the case with most men."

Your suspicion is probably wrong. Informal studies (there are no formal ones) indicate that men are much more likely to be happy to be intact (~95%) than happy to be circumcised (~50%), so leaving him alone is more likely to leave him happy.

"I don't see why its touted as a bad thing if done properly."

It's a bad thing even if it is done "properly" when it's done to someone who didn't ask for it and didn't need it. That's a human rights issue.

Then, who defines "properly"? The only person who can is the one its done to. And yes that is a very important point, and circumcision is often given to tired interns/residents/house surgeons for "practice". As an attorney who specialises in botched circumcision cases put it,

"Almost every male in the US that's circumcised has what I call "beta genitalia". Basically, you're the first surgical experiment of some 27-year-old. Millions of American men look every day at ugly scars left by somebody who was basically faking it, or trying to do their first surgery. It's amazing."

- John Geisheker at http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D#p/u/18/SyiBdP4GfO8 (3'40")
July 25, 2009

I personally don't see why female circumcision is touted as a bad thing if done properly. After all, think of all those older invalid women who can't properly maintain themselves.

Why did your father choose to be circumcised? He obviously wanted to be circumcised or felt he needed it so why curse the procedure? How was it "bothersome"? Are you saying that it was inconvenient? It seems you Americans have an obsession with convenience, at the cost of your health and sanity.

Of course most men have no regrets being circumcised because they don't know anything else! My gosh, it's not rocket science (so to speak). The few intelligent and courageous circumcised men who have chosen to research the subject most often admit it was unnecessary and do not repeat it on their children. Many of them become very angry about it. Another reason why you won't hear many men lamenting over their loss of foreskin is because it is not easy for men to admit to themselves, let-alone cry from the rooftops, that they have penis issues, that they may have been robbed of an important sexual body-part.

Many men, because of their immaturity and insecurity, end up visiting the sins of the father upon the son. And if a mother has chosen to circumcise her son/s then it can be very difficult for her to admit that she made a mistake. A terrible mistake.

Good point Lisa! In our class discussions (most of us have worked in nursing homes and/or as CNA's before taking on nursing school) the point was brought up in exactly that context. It was also pointed out that caring for a disabled, uncircumcised male is going to be more difficult because A) it's hard enough to find CNA's and B) it's humiliating/uncomfortable for many patients when they need help with that sort of hygiene.

I'm surprised they don't use anesthetic where you're from. Here in AK they do circumcisions with a ring block local and distract the baby with sucrose on a pacifier. No crying, no fuss, and hardly any blood.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Pat commented on Bertold Brautigan's photo
34 minutes ago
Nicole T liked American Humanist Association's group American Humanist Association (AHA)
41 minutes ago
Joan Denoo liked Loren Miller's discussion What religion has contributed to the world this month - Episode 17 (May 2015)
53 minutes ago
Joan Denoo posted a video

Greenhouse & Permaculture Project May 2015

Out with the old greenhouse and preparing for the new one, plus using forest slash to create a permaculture landscape.
1 hour ago
Bertold Brautigan posted a photo
1 hour ago
Brandon Benkosky posted photos
1 hour ago
Profile IconBradley, Robert Hutton, Nicole T and 1 more joined Atheist Nexus
1 hour ago
George Chase posted discussions
1 hour ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service