Should male cirumcision be outlawed?

[Pig]

I've always been thankful I wasn't circumcised.  There's never been any problems with it, and in fact it makes masturbation much easier since I don't need lube.  Also I read that the penile head becomes dried out and loses sensitivity if it is exposed to the air too long (as with circumcision).

The basic problem with circumcision is that it is mutilating a baby for no other reason than tradition/aesthetics.  I hate religion, so fuck them anyway.  :lol:

Edit: As to whether it should be illegal: I couldn't care less.  Go ahead and decapitate your babies, see if I care.

['Butterflies']

I think it's a sick and barbaric practice, and I don't think parents should have the right to mutilate their child in the name of religion.

Of course, if the child grows up and decides he wants to chop off part of his dick, then he as an adult should have that right.

I don't think that a parent is always the best judge of what is best for their child.

[Calavera]

Nothing sick and barbaric about male circumcision. It's just a foreskin after all.

But, still, it's pretty stupid and quite unnecessary a lot of the times.

[Adam]

It's fiddling about with a kid's dick for no reason tho ^

sick imo

and female circumcision definitely is

[Calavera]

It's fiddling about with a kid's dick for no reason tho ^

sick imo

and female circumcision definitely is

It's just a foreskin. You're not getting castrated, man.

I would agree female circumcision is sick.

[Adam]

lol true. but I still see cutting any kid for religious/aesthetic reasons to be sick , personally. Especially genital mutilation

There are plenty of guys who were circumcised as a kid, and wish they weren;t.

That was forced upon them as a baby. isn't that wrong?

[Calavera]

lol true. but I still see cutting any kid for religious/aesthetic reasons to be sick , personally. Especially genital mutilation

There are plenty of guys who were circumcised as a kid, and wish they weren;t.

That was forced upon them as a baby. isn't that wrong?

I agree it's wrong. And should be outlawed regardless ... especially if the foreskin actually provides increased sexual stimulation.

But to say "sick and disgusting" is a bit overboard.

My main reason is that we should stop letting stupid religious thinking control the laws of our countries.

[Adam]

ah ok i get what ur saying then. and agree about religion

[Peter]

For one thing, IMO, it's just another step on the way to becoming a nanny state where all decisions are made by the government for its citizens.  For another, male circumcision is a prominent part of at least two major religions and I think it would be wrong to stop them from following their religion by snipping off the foreskin of their male infants.

Are you against the current ban on female circumcision?  It is the custom in many Arab and African nations, including Egypt, to put a girl in a pretty white dress on her 8th birthday then hold her down and cut off her clitoris.  This is currently illegal in the US, do you believe this is wrong as it is violating their religious and/or social customs?

No, I personally think Female Genital Mutilation is barbaric and I support banning it in the US.

In male circumcision, they don't cut off the whole glans, they just snip off the foreskin.

There are different types of female genital mutilation.  In some types, they only remove the inner labia and/or the clitoral hood, ceremonially nick the clitoris, remove the hymen or lacerate the vaginal walls, which seems perfectly comparable to male circumcision to me.  Would you support these forms of FGM?

That doesn't sound the same at all to me.

If it were truly analogous in that only the clitoral hood was removed, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, especially if it were performed in hospitals under sterile conditions.  That's what I thought was meant by female circumcision at first until I found out more.

Removal of the clitoral hood would a be significantly less destructive operation than male circumcision, and it's even done by some women as an elective surgery to enhance their sexual pleasure.  Removal of the clitoral hood, the labia minora and the tip of the clitoris would be more analogous to male circumcision, given the combined mechanical, protective and sensory functions of the foreskin, it's large size (36% of the surface area of an intact penis) and the destruction of the frenulum:

The frenulum and the associated tissue delta on the underside of the penis below the corona has been described in sexuality textbooks as "very reactive" and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.”[4] Crooks and Baur observe that two extremely sensitive specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation are the corona, and the frenulum.[5] Repeated stimulation of this structure will cause orgasm and ejaculation in some men.[citation needed]

In men with spinal cord injury preventing sensations from reaching the brain, the frenulum just below the glans can be stimulated to produce orgasm and peri-ejaculatory response.[6][7]

...

The frenulum is often crushed and cut away, or broken during infant circumcisions.

Here's a detailed description of the various forms of female genital mutilation:

Type I

The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood); see Diagram 1B. When it is important to distinguish between the variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.[11] In the context of women who seek out labiaplasty, there is disagreement among doctors as to whether to remove the clitoral hood in some cases to enhance sexuality or whether this is too likely to lead to scarring and other problems.[13]
Type II

The WHO's definition of Type II FGM is "partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora. When it is important to distinguish between the major variations that have been documented, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only; Type IIb, partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora; Type IIc, partial or total removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora.[11] This type of FGC is also called khafd, meaning reduction in Arabic.[ Citation needed ]
Type III: Infibulation with excision

The WHO defines Type III FGC as "excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening" (infibulation).[1] It is the most extreme form of FGC, and accounts for about 10% of all FGC procedures.[14] Infibulation is also known as "pharaonic circumcision."[ Citation needed ]

In a study of infibulation in the Horn of Africa, Pieters observed that the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl's legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and Menstruation/menstrual blood to pass through, (see Diagram 1D). Generally, a practitioner deemed to have the necessary skill carries out this procedure, and a local Anesthesia|anestheticis used. However, when carried out "in the bush," infibulation is often performed by an elderly matron or midwife of the village, with no anesthesia used.

A reverse infibulation can be performed to allow for sexual intercourse or when undergoing labor, or by female relatives, whose responsibility it is to inspect the wound every few weeks and open it some more if necessary. During childbirth, the enlargement is too small to allow vaginal delivery, and so the infibulation must be opened completely and restored after delivery. Again, the legs are sometimes tied together to allow the wound to heal. When childbirth takes place in a hospital, the surgeons may preserve the infibulation by enlarging the vagina with deep episiotomies. Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vulva be closed again.[15]

This practice increases the occurrence of medical complications due to a lack of modern medicine and surgical practices.

A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences." [16]

Most advocates of the practice continue to perform the procedure in adherence to standards of beauty that are very different from those in the west. Many infibulated women will contend that the pleasure their partners receive due to this procedure is a definitive part of a successful marriage and enjoyable sex life. [ Citation needed ]
Type IV: Other types

There are other forms that are collectively referred to as Type IV and may not involve any tissue removal at all. This includes a diverse range of practices, including pricking the clitoris with needles, burning or scarring the genitals as well as ripping or tearing of the vagina or introducing herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding and a narrowed vaginal opening.[11]

[Al Swearegen]

I have been circumcised and so has my brother. I never had my bot circumcised. MJy ex-wife bought it up and I just shrugged my shoulders and said"It is not necessary and i think it would only hurt him. She sighed in relief. Her ex-huisband before me was Jewish and it was a necessity taht any male children would be.

[bodie]

Little boys and there little winkey's should be left alone.

If it ain't broke,  don't fix it!

[Adam]

Exactly. I don't think it's right to be fucking about with a kid's dick when there's no medical reason

['Butterflies']

Nothing sick and barbaric about male circumcision. It's just a foreskin after all.

But, still, it's pretty stupid and quite unnecessary a lot of the times.

I think it is a bit sick for a parent to make the decision to chop off part of a boys dick, obviously that doesn't apply for medical reasons.

I don't like the idea of letting parents make big decisions about their kids bodies. I believe that a child should have rights, and one of those rights should be that parents can't make hose types of decisions for the child.

I would think it was wrong for a parent to get their kid tattood as well. I'm not keen on seeing parents getting their young kids ears pierced either, but at least a pierced ear will close up leaving barely a mark. I still don't agree with it though.


Another case that disgusted me, was a deaf couple who made sure that their kid was born deaf. I thought that was unforgivable.
That would be like one of us taking steps to ensure we create an aspie kid. Just wrong

[bodie]

I agree.

It's a total abuse of human rights,  which should be extended to kids also.

[Adam]

Another case that disgusted me, was a deaf couple who made sure that their kid was born deaf.

wtf