Circumcision - yes or no?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I think the anti-circumcision people really do their side some negative things when they say "mutilation", I don't find it offensive or anything but it is kind of excessive hyperbole, and it's exactly why circumcised males usually do take them seriously. The thought process beings "Oh man I'm not mutilated, these people are nuts who don't have a clue what they're talking about." Even worse and what actually IS offensive is the comparison to the actual mutilation of girls that happens in some places in Africa and the Middle East (not that I've seen that here, but I have in other places, implying the two are even remotely comparable is quite disgusting.)

It's better to just focus on the consent issue than scream "OMG BABIES ARE BEING MUTILATED!"

It's still mutilation, but I will admit it's not as bad as what is done to those girls. Female circumcision ruins sex for them, while male circumcision just makes it less pleasurable.

Is their any evidence for this in the form of a man that was circumcised in adulthood, and can therefore compare before and after?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As stated before, my grandfather was circumcised in his 40s due to an infection, and was bed-ridden for a whole week afterwards (sounds like it was absolute agony, so I can't say I have a problem with already being circumcised), though obviously I've never asked him about that.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Jesus Christ, people... you're talking about circumcision like it was something worse than AIDS and Hitler combined. Having or lacking a damn foreskin, what real difference does it make? Seriously. You're talking about piece of skin like it was some freaking essence of humanity.

[minionofmidas]

Jesus Christ, people... you're talking about circumcision like it was something worse than AIDS and Hitler combined. Having or lacking a damn foreskin, what real difference does it make? Seriously. You're talking about piece of skin like it was some freaking essence of humanity.

masculinity.

Corrected that for you.

Everybody with any sort of clue says "if you must circumcize, do it on infants. It's awfully painful on older boys."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everyone's favourite Marxist vicar wades in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/17/german-circumcision-affront-jewish-muslim-identity

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Jesus Christ, people... you're talking about circumcision like it was something worse than AIDS and Hitler combined. Having or lacking a damn foreskin, what real difference does it make? Seriously. You're talking about piece of skin like it was some freaking essence of humanity.

masculinity.

Corrected that for you.

Everybody with any sort of clue says "if you must circumcize, do it on infants. It's awfully painful on older boys."

I can believe that. My friend undergo a circumcision for medical reasons at 10 and doesn't have particularly fond memories of this.

I really see what's the problem with being circumcision as an infant. You don't remember a thing and not having a foreskin is something pretty natural for you. It's not like it's affecting your ability to use penis as intended by nature.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus Christ, people... you're talking about circumcision like it was something worse than AIDS and Hitler combined. Having or lacking a damn foreskin, what real difference does it make? Seriously. You're talking about piece of skin like it was some freaking essence of humanity.

masculinity.

Corrected that for you.

Everybody with any sort of clue says "if you must circumcize, do it on infants. It's awfully painful on older boys."

And this I think is the crux of the thing. Having it done in infancy is, relatively speaking, a mercy.

[Alcon]

The problem with "if you must circumcise, do it in infancy," is that it involves an inaccurate premise.  The incidence of conditions that require the procedure occur later in life is quite low.  Spend a little time Googling around, and it looks like the incidence is 1% at most, eliminating circumcisions that occur unnecessarily when more conservative alternatives are available.  That means 100+ incidences of unnecessary circumcision to preempt one medically necessary one.  You're getting to the point where you're causing more unnecessary surgical complications/sequalae than preventing them.  You're also wasting an incredible amount of money and medical resources.  It's not a medically justified practice.

There's also the matter of personal preference.  When I was in high school, I was out a year with a chronic illness.  During that time, I posted on some forums for people going through long-term health problems.  Those forums tended to address broad health topics, and this one would come up fairly often.  Although most people didn't care, I'd say a solid minority (20-25%) were dissatisfied with what was forced upon them.  I've also known a few people personally who were, all of them sane and intelligent, and some who'd experienced medical complications from it.  Dismissing their rational personal preference because other people find it trivial is not reasonable.  It's no more reasonable than dismissing others' religious motivations because I don't agree with them.  In any case, I really have no doubt that these people constitute more than 1% of the population.  And they're not only inconvenienced, like those who elect to get circumcised as an adult; they're trapped with their dissatisfaction.

I'm not saying that infant circumcision is "mutilation" (whatever that means) or "worse than Hitler."  I'm just saying that, as practiced in America, it makes no damn sense.  It's an archaic social practice that doesn't pass ten minutes of scrutiny.  It's also hilarious that, on a web forum dedicated to political analysis, people are so much more interested in complaining this conversation is trivial (relatively, sure, but so?) than in addressing whether the practice is reasonable.

(Hanging around health boards, I also ended up knowing of quite a few people who had it done as an adult.  It's a simple outpatient procedure that was generally described as "uncomfortable."  Meds are given and no one's in agony for a week unless something else is going on.)

[greenforest32]

It's also hilarious that, on a web forum dedicated to political analysis, people are so much more interested in complaining this conversation is trivial (relatively, sure, but so?) than in addressing whether the practice is reasonable.

When you look past the uncompelling thin-skinned outrages/cop-outs ('I'm glad I was cut and it looks better than yours', 'lol is this all you think about 24/7?', 'OMG that's racist to Jews/Muslims!', 'that's sexist comparing it to FGM!', etc) all that's left is a demand for blind deference to the status quo and an avoidance of hurting the practitioners' feelings. Forget whether if what's happening is fair and right or not, be quiet and show some respect! It's part of who I am.

I suspect what's truly 'worse than Hitler' in this scenario is admitting that religion can be wrong and, in some areas, needs to be actively curtailed.

[Hatman 🍁]

I would rather undergo circumcision later in life due to medical reasons, even knowing how painful it must be than for me to have been circumcised as an infant.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don't see why everyone here is fine with removing part of a helpless infant's body without his consent.

[Frodo]

Pediatrics report says benefits of circumcision outweigh risks

By Carol M. Ostrom
Seattle Times health reporter
Originally published August 26, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Page modified August 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I was circumcised when I was born because, although my family is Christian rather than Jewish, they thought it was a special symbol, and also for health reasons.  I can understand why some people may have reservations about circumcision, but I don't think banning it is the answer.