Circumcision as a criminal act

My boyfriend wishes he wasn't circumcised. His dad didn't want him to be, but his mom won that argument. It's not something I'd be able to choose for someone else, so if I were going to have kids, I wouldn't get the boys done.

I had my ears done at 9 with a gun and I had on-and-off infections for years until they closed when I was 13. When I had them redone at 16 with a needle and they didn't get infected at all. :dunno:

I agree completely.

To anyone that doesn't know... Forcing a blunt earring through tissue rips and tears it unevenly so it doesn't heal clean. When a needle is used, the needle is actually hollow and very sharp (not to mention sterile, guns cannot be sterilised) so it actually slices out a small hole with clean edges in the tissue making space for the jewellery which allows it to heal quicker and easier. Oh and the whole "turn your the earring" instructions? Don't do that. It breaks up the scabbing which will increase chances of infection and scarring and it slows down the healing process.

/end good-friends-with-piercers soapbox rant






On the circumcision subject? I don't care what people do tbh. My brother is done, mum says it's because she saw too many men with horribly painful infections come in as adults when she was a floor nurse.

I broke all the piercing rules I think. I used a gun, twisted, left them out for a year at a time a few times and they still never closed.

Denis prefers circumcision. I honestly don't know what I would do with my children.

Being a girl, I almost don't feel that I should be allowed an opinion... to me it makes sense to let the person decide when they're older, but then it hurts more, right? And then I also think if I had a little boy, part of me would want to have it done just because that's all I'm used to! So I don't know, I guess that'll be up to dad

Personally I've only seen circ'd so I don't know any different. I just like MY boyfriend's and I assume that has less to do with the circumcision & more to do with the piercings... which makes me wonder about uncirc'd all over! But then Eddie says his wife can't tell... and I'm rambling. But I'm enjoying reading this thread!

PM thats what I did I left it up to dad and he didnt end up caring either way so we didnt do it.

Very glad you chimed in.

I am NOT a Spring Chicken, I can count on one hand the peenies I have ever seen. BUT, I can tell you this, as a HUGE fan of oral...if he wasn't cut, we had to go to his idea of foreplay.

If people actually would learn history, they would know that circumcision was a large part of Judaism practiced since Judaism came into existence. It was part of their pact with God. I am not sure how it eventually caught on with other societies, I haven't done much research on this subject, and there very well may have been anti-masturbation ideas behind it in more recent history, but by and large circumcision was mainly a Jewish practice throughout a large portion of history.

In regards to male vs. female circumcision, I present you with this article from 1997 on female circumcision in Africa: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html

Comparing a procedure done in a clean hospital environment on an infant to a procedure done with crude implements on a girl preparing for marriage whereupon they hold her down and hack at her woman parts is highly offensive, IMO.

Either way, it's a procedure being done without justifiable reason. You can amputate a limb in a clean hospital or in the field...doesn't make the idea any more or less offensive.

And on that note, female circumcision is still done to this day, and with the evolution of the times, it HAS moved into clean hospital rooms with some girls wanting to do it because it is "tradition". So does that make it less offensive to you?

It's not the practice of the idea, it's really the idea itself.

At least female circumcision has bad reasons. I've yet to see a good reason at all for male circumcision other than, "oh, well, it's just always been done". Which boggles my mind. It's like the whole trend on removing tonsils for no reason when I was a kid. Just doing things because the society thinks it should be done.

The health reasons seem to go both ways. No real benefit, no real con. So why not let the guy choose?

After seeing Germany outlaw it and now after reading this thread, I just don't get it.

ETA: And when I say I don't get it, I mean it honestly. At the moment all I'm seeing is, "When done on a woman, it's not okay. But on guys, yeah, sure, whatever. Who cares."

Very, very, VERY uncommon here and I have never, ever, ever met a man who has had UTI's or ANY other infection from having a foreskin.

I have met the odd man who has had issues of them being tight, and they have chosen to have them fixed at a later point in their life.

I really don't understand what the point of a circumcision is.........

My view on it's legality is that I don't think I should have a say in which bits of their body my child get's to keep or lose - it's their choice.

I feel the same about ear piercing too - when they're old enough to ask for it and want it, then fair enough.

Disagree!! I love a nice penis

And I LOVE the foreskin! It's soft, and stretchy and fun

And it makes willy's look like naked mole rats.

I'm confused... You're in favor of female circumcision ? "at least it has (h?)bad reasons"?

The reasons for male have much to do with cleanliness, not pure and simple "tradition". It's fair to oppose an opinion but to negate the opposition with a shut down don't agree mentality isn't helping anyone.

If you're raised in a culture or religion in which the majority of males are cut, then it may seem like a natural decision to circumcise.

One study showed that nine out of 10 circumcised fathers elected to have their sons circumcised as well, while nearly 75 percent of uncircumcised men chose not to have their sons cut [source: WHO].

Uncircumcised men are about twice as likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) and pass it along to sexual partners, resulting in higher cervical cancer rates in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America]. It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA].

Recent studies have shown that circumcision can dramatically reduce the rate of HIV infection. According to these studies, a circumcised man is 60 percent less likely to contract HIV than an uncircumcised man [source: Timbert]. (This holds true only in the case of female-to-male transmission -- circumcision hasn't been seen to influence the rate of male-to-male HIV transmission [source: JAMA].)

A majority of people around the world believe that it's easier to maintain the cleanliness of a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised penis [source: WHO]

according to the AAP:

In a baby's first year of life, urinary tract infections (UTIs) happen less often in circumcised boys than in boys who are not circumcised. But UTIs are not common. No studies support healthy babies having circumcision to prevent UTIs.3, 4, 5

There may be reasons later in life when your son may need a circumcision. A boy or man may have problems retracting the foreskin or may have swelling of the foreskin that requires circumcision.

(infant circumcision is easier to handle, some people choose this as a preventative method)

Now, in my opinion cutting and not educating our men is scary dumb. Teach our boys how to properly clean, be comfortable with helping them in non offensive ways, be ready to assist and not freak if an issue arrives, etc.

However, a lot of people do choose the procedure on the thought process of medical benefits, not blind following of tradition, let's show some respect. When you respect someone you can bend their ear, if you disrespect them you'll usually just get a finger.

Really? Are people that lazy, that they can't teach their boys to retract and clean under a foreskin when they shower? Because it's really not all that difficult. Oh, and good news for those that don't seem to have ANY idea how a foreskin functions: Nature thought of that already. The foreskin is attached to the glans until some point before puberty.

Do you really need to ask that? I mean, you are an American, right? Lazy is our motto right before in god we trust.

Snark snark snark.

Unfortunately.

I thought condoms did an even better job of preventing HIV infection than circumcision does.

While I feel infant circs is an abominable act that there is NO way in hell I would do, I don't agree with legislating it.

I will also be sure to inform my intact husband to immediately develop his first ever UTI.

Unfortunately moms, and even doctors who don’t know any better often attempt to forcibly retract it which leads to ... you guessed it ... infections. Which is where at least some of those "intact males get more infections" stats come from.

Well, yes, exactly. People have absolutely no idea as to how a foreskin functions. The comparisons to cropping the ears of a DOG prove that, as does the justification, "well there are foreskin restoration procedures now, so he can just grow it back if he wants to..." For those who are not aware, those "restoration procedures" only restore some of the appearance and a very small percentage of the function of a real one; most people seem to be under the assumption that you're just removing some loose skin, when in fact you're removing an entire network of very specialized tissues, nerves and vessels that can never be regrown. As to the comparison between circumcision and ear cropping? Ear cropping is done under general anesthesia to remove skin and cartilage from an animal that doesn't have the mental or emotional capability to understand or care that it's missing anything. Circumcision removes the second most sensitive part of a male's anatomy without any anesthesia at all, and humans are very much capable of understanding and being upset that they've been "robbed" of something.

Oh I said they were fun! I just don't think they're 'attractive' lol. When I think of the word attractive I think of something being pretty.

I was comparing the threads, not the act itself. Although I still see a comparison in the acts, although not a complete one. You are cutting off a perfectly normal part of the body because you feel like it. Whether or not the dog understands what you've done, it sounds downright silly.

"It is preventative medicine" How often do we see a reason behind docking such as "I've seen dogs with tails like this break them all the time" "Hunting dogs need them docked so you don't shoot their tail".

"There is less pain doing it when they are young than when they are older" Same story.

"It's traditional in some religions" And in some breeds....

"It looks weird if it isn't done" Ditto

"It's easier to keep clean" Cropped ears allow better airflow and don't get infected as often!

I mean, come on. It is a little funny how similar the arguments are, and how people seem to come down on opposite sides.

I don't think either circumcision, cropping, or docking should be legislated, because I don't think the government has a right to be ruling over my dog's body, and they certainly should stay out of our children's pants. I also don't think either is cruel if done carefully and under appropriate pain meds. The decision should belong to the parents/owners, not the guy sitting behind a big desk.