The Big C: Circumcision

Your wearing glasses analogy bears no resemblance whatsoever to circumcision. Nothing has been amputated when someone puts on glasses; glasses correct a clear-cut handicap; and the use of glasses is 100% reversible.I didn't say specifically that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, I said it alters sexual experience. Regardless of how it alters it, it is not the parents' right to decide how their child should experience sex. However, sex evolved to be a highly enjoyable experience for obvious reasons, and the foreskin was a part of that.Your comment about the foreskin covering the glans shows a lack of understanding about normal penises. In the erect penis the foreskin retracts anyway, certainly during sex itself. Also, if the foreskin was cut off at birth the glans has been left unprotected, to rub against clothes, for years - its surface layer becomes hardened and dry (it's supposed to be a mucous membrane like the lining of the mouth) and its sensitivity is much reduced.------------------
o--greyline--o[This message has been edited by greyline, 08-05-2003]

I find I don't much care for the characterization of a circumcised penis (for instance, mine) as "abnormal". I can't see that there's likely to be much headway (if you'll pardon the pun) in this discussion if such a vast gulf of viewpoint separates us.

I use "normal" because it's easier to type than uncircumcised, and because it's an accurate description. I never said the circumcised penis was abnormal - that's your extrapolation.Regardless, the vast gulf has little to do with semantics or even quibbles about sexual pleasure, and more to do with what a parent has the right to do to their child. Parents are not allowed to amputate any other body part unless it's diseased, in most cases a direct threat to the child's life. The foreskin is different only because of historical reasons, and therefore medical and sexual arguments are actually irrelevant.------------------
o--greyline--o

But the historical and cultural reasons are very relevant. In a context where a lack of circumcision carries with it deep social stigma, circumcision is as corrective a surgery as getting rid of webbed feet.If you don't like circumsision, that's fine. Change culture, then, so that it's no longer neccesary. But as long as it's necessary to have a fulfilled sexual life in this culture, then I'll plan on having it done to any sons of mine.

And that's why female circumcision continues in other cultures.Not to mention a hundred other damaging archaic practices across the globe.By the way, in the States circumcision is dying out. The rates have dropped from almost 100% to around half that in the West, with a less dramatic drop in the East. So the idea that your sons would require genital modification doesn't hold water. I suspect you just want them to look like you.------------------
o--greyline--o

Male circumcision is not comparable to clitorectomy. While the justification may be largely similar the effects are anything but. If indeed it does die out by the time I have sons then they won't be circumcised. It's not a matter of having them look like me, but rather having them look normal to their sexual partners. If uncircumcised penises become normal in this culture then that's what they'll have. As it stands that is not the normal condition in my community.I don't care if they look like me. I care that they look like all the other guys in the locker room. Perhaps if you were not a boy in high school you might have difficulty understanding.

quote:

---

It's not a matter of having them look like me, but rather having them look normal to their sexual partners.

---

Do you really want your sons to be with a woman who would reject them because they have a foreskin? You must expect them to be with some pretty shallow women. Even worse than that, you seem to want them to strive to please such shallow women.

quote:

---

I don't care if they look like me. I care that they look like all the other guys in the locker room. Perhaps if you were not a boy in high school you might have difficulty understanding.

---

I don't find this a terribly compelling argument, Crashfrog.By this logic, we should perform surgery on or "treat" all children who look "different". Liposuction on the fat ones, breast augmentation for the flat-chested/overdeveloped ones, hormones for the short boys/tall girls, nose jobs for the Jewish and Italian kids, eyelid jobs for the Asian kids, etc. etc...[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-05-2003]

Yeah, I'd say that largely describes girls age 16-25. Human beings in general, perhaps. Plenty of teenagers do those things with their parents blessing anyway. You don't seem critical of braces to straighten only barely-crooked teeth, or parent-sanctioned tanning, or even girls stuffing their bras. Despite that these are as socially-driven "corrections" as anything listed above.Quite frankly, if you're odd or different in high school, you get dumped with shit that lasts you most of your life. I went through that. I imagine that most of us here did, too. Why would I wish that on my kid? Why would I burden a son with one more reason to get picked on in an already stressful evironment?

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What value does it have? Certainly none sexually.

---

​

(*blink!*)

​

Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?

---

​

Considering all the studies that confirm that circumsized men experience less in the way of sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised men, and that they experience no less in the way of sexual pleasure,

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?

quote:

---

and that their mates (in this country at least) tend to prefer their circumcision,

---

And the fact that so few males are intact in this country has nothing to do with it, of course.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to greyline:

quote:

---

Not to mention that the glans itself contains as many nerve endings that might very well not be stimulated in the presence of the foreskin.

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?Yes, I know I'vve repeated that line a lot. It's because I cannot believe I'm hearing you say this. Do you seriously believe what you're saying? Have you ever actually been around an uncircumcised penis in the act of sex?

quote:

---

From all reports, the foreskin reduces friction during sex.

---

You're using an overly broad definition of "friction." What the foreskin does is remove abrasive friction that happens when two dry skin surfaces rub against each other. It allows the sebaceous secretions to accumulate on the glans, providing lubricant that allows for easier penetration. It keeps the skin of the glans from thickening, thus making it more sensitive.

quote:

---

I happen to enjoy the friction of sex.

---

(*chuckle*)Yeah...let's have you go in dry...both sides...we'll see how well you like it.

quote:

---

If the foreskin reduces that then you can keep mine.

---

But it doesn't. It actually increases sensation. The studies of men who have been circumcised after adulthood and thus can tell the difference generally report reduced sensation after circumcision.And given the complication rate mentioned previously in the other thread, it is not something that should be done routinely.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to greyline:

quote:

---

I find I don't much care for the characterization of a circumcised penis (for instance, mine) as "abnormal".

---

What else would you call a mutilated organ? Or perhaps you don't like the term "mutilated." Ok...um...how's this: What else would you call a "surgically altered" organ?"Typical"?Only in the statistical sense. Is a hand that has had one of the fingers surgically removed "normal"? "Typical"?

quote:

---

I can't see that there's likely to be much headway (if you'll pardon the pun) in this discussion if such a vast gulf of viewpoint separates us.

---

Indeed, which is why we're back to one of my original statements:If you want to cut of your foreskin, you go right ahead. If you don't like the way your penis looks, then you do what you want to make it amenable to your standards.What makes you think your son shares your opinion?I find it interesting that you seem to think that forced removal of a body part on an unconsenting individual and done without the benefit of anesthesia is not something of outrage...just because you don't seem to have minded when it happened to you.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

And what I find interesting is that you keep insisting it's an outrage even though the vast majority of persons to whom it's happened don't mind, either.If it's such an outrage, why aren't more circumcised men outraged about it? And what prompts you to be so outraged on their behalf?

quote:

---

If it's such an outrage, why aren't more circumcised men outraged about it? And what prompts you to be so outraged on their behalf?

---

This is an interesting psychological question, notwithstanding the many men who *are* outraged about what was done to them and can do nothing about it. Once it's gone, it's gone.To come to terms with the fact he had an important body part amputated when he was a helpless baby because his parents felt like it, a man has to come to terms with some difficult concepts. His parents didn't value his natural genitals, didn't consider he might object later, didn't care about his suffering (show me one mother who has stayed in the same room as her child while the surgery is being performed). (This lack of concern is from ignorance not malice.) He doesn't experience sex the way nature intended. He'll never know what it could have been like. It's far easier to convince himself that everything's fine - and if only it stopped there. But unfortunately he tends to perpetuate the act on his son because to do otherwise would be to start to admit that something is not right with what was done to him. Something is not right with his very MANHOOD. God forbid.Society, too, has a difficult job understanding what it's doing. Imagine the mental turnaround a doctor has to make if he realises he's been performing unnecessary plastic surgery on babies (totally unethical). Most doctors aren't brave enough to realise they've been mutilating hundreds of children throughout their career. Easier to just keep doing it. Imagine the guilt a parent would feel if they accepted they did something damaging and irreversible to their child. Easier to remain ignorant.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

Male circumcision is not comparable to clitorectomy. While the justification may be largely similar the effects are anything but.

---

There are many kinds of female circumcision - not all involve radical mutilation performed with rusty knives. If a baby girl's genitals were simply "snipped" under surgical conditions to alter their appearance and engineering, would you be okay with that?In your society and mine, the idea of doing anything whatsoever to the genitals of a girl is generally met with disgust and outrage. The double standard is obvious, and as long as parents continue to believe that they have the right to do as they please with their sons' bodies, the situation will continue.------------------
o--greyline--o

Greetings: Rrhain, Crashfrog, Greyline, et. al.Take it from an old "uncut" manimal slut with a degree in biology/pre-med and a specialty in human anatomy and physiology:Circumcision may be "normal" but it ain't Natural.As Greyline attests, the foreskin acts to protect the glans penis. Not a mucous membrane though, greyline, but a very tender and sensitive tissue indeed, in its natural state. It is the glans which contains those rare and special nerve endings you were talking about, not the foreskin. Sorry about that. Those same "corpuscles" are found in the clitoris as well. I suspect you already know the evolutionary implications of that bit of trivia.My parents decided not to circumcize their boys. And the girls have their genitals intact as god intended. But they did have the girls tongues removed. Well, not the whole tongue, just the tip of it. Just enough to assure they they could not offend their future husbands with unhealthy or unattractive conversation. I think most men prefer their women that way. (The tongue only gets us into trouble anyway, according to the Bible). {hope you know this is written tongue-in-cheek} Seriously now. I have never been turned down by any female on the basis of the make, model, or serial number of my tool. By the same token, I have never turned down a female based on the curves, colors, or protuberances of her flesh. By the time we are ready to take that trip, we are way past kicking tires. In fact, even bald and weatherchecked tires can make a number of turns around the block. Anyhow, most of the time, this sort of thing starts out in the dark! Personality, character and intelligence are the universal beauty marks. But yes, let's stop chopping up the children. It would be arrogant and stupid of us to require other cultures to desist from altering their females while we reserve the right to alter our males. A sexist double standard. An hypocrisy that would not be lost on anyone looking at it from the other side of our fence.I've only read about half this thread. The last half. Has anyone discussed the hemorrhaging and infections which used to kill a number of freshly circumcized infants? Could we call that Natural Selection of the Surgically Unfit?This sort of conversation drives me ape!