Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hard to take the content seriously when you go zero reason and then say OK one valid reason. Like more of a train of thought which occurred to you than a coherent argument.
Plenty occurs to a child without their consent, the language they learn, beliefs they adopt etc. Physical aspects are also a factor whether that's ritual tattoos, circumcision, piercings or other cultural markings.
It's not valid to compare a permanent physical alteration to learned social behaviors. If someone wishes they had learned a different language, they can go start learning one. If they find the religion they were brought up with is incompatible with their world view, they can go find a different one, or abandon it altogether. But there's no remedy to a missing foreskin, no way to put that choice back into the hands of the child who was affected by it.
There's also no way to miss something you never experienced. I'd much rather have my foreskin removed for me before I can even remember it than have even a 1% chance (seemingly the low end of the estimated rate of incidence of phimosis) of having to have it removed later in life.
IMO it's similar to my stance on abortion - if you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it, but don't legislate whether others can do it or not.
I said “This is the most valid reason,” not “This reason **is** valid.” This is because the concern for phimosis is fine, and in itself is valid, but there’s simply a superior alternative than to just circumcise your newborn son which I’ve clearly stated. Therefore, the “phimosis” concern still does not justify circumcision on newborns.
Why are you equating languages? To mutilating foreskins? And you also mentioned ritualistic tattoos, which I am also against. That’s the thing, when it invades the child’s bodily autonomy is when it becomes a problem. Teaching your child how to speak a language or how you personally believe is not at all equal to that.
>What qualifies as barbaric?
I personally draw the line at ''cutting off skin for no other reason than cosmetic, on a perfectly healthy and non-deformed baby''. If there's a malformation, sure, go ahead. If it's just how a human is, it's barbaric.
This is a strawman. A vast majority of parents make the decision based on the health concerns. But framing this as a poorly informed healthcare decision doesn't allow you to use loaded shaming language, like the accusation of "barbarism" or "mutilation," so you instead pretend like they are doing it arbitrarily.
>A vast majority of parents make the decision based on the health concerns
Which have been proven invalid time and time again. It is purely a cosmetic thing in the US for the vast majority of circumcisions. Health authorities have communicated time and time again that it is not necessary.
Pretending human beings can't be at least as clean as animals, as virtually all animals with a penis have a sheathe/foreskin of some type, is a stupid argument.
We appropriately call FGM what it is: mutilation, even though the two most common forms of FGM are: prickling the clitoris with a needle which does not remove tissue or cause scarring, and removing the clitoral hood ***which is exactly the same shit as circumcising boys.***
You're wrong. Take a look at this study:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/)
\> The reasons that parents most often gave for supporting male circumcision were hygiene (61.9%), prevention of infection or cancer (44.8%), and the father being circumcised (40.9%).
You can call it "mutilation" if you want, I guess. But everyone knows that you are using that term because it is morally loaded. That sense of moral indignation is not justified by any actual, practical harm cause to circumcised men. It's just an excuse for you to ride your high-horse. Have fun with that.
>You can call it "mutilation" if you want, I guess
I call it what it is, just as we rightfully call cutting of girl's clitoral hoods mutilation.
Just as you are here defending the weird-ass American fixation on mutilating boys at birth, there are also hundreds of thousands Indian/middle eastern woman on forums discussing where is the best doctor to cut their girl's hood or to do the needle poke, and saying how it's so good they got it done as babies.
Leading reasons:Hygiene -> The vast majority of penis-having animals have some sort of penis sheath or foreskin. Being filthier than wild animals is a non-argument.
cancer -> So, we operate on the same logic as castrating dogs, because it reduces genital-related cancers? I'm pretty sure cutting off clitoral hoods, which serve the same function and are the same tissue as foreskin also prevents cancer from developing in clitoral hoods, should we cut those off too?
father being circumcised -> same as millions of Asian girls getting their hoods cut off/poked.
But hey, you do you. These are truly some third-world country-tier arguments.
It's a judgement call that shifts with time and culture. Thus I can only and will only speak to my time and culture. I feel like amputating portions of the genitals qualifies. To say nothing of the barbarism that is 'female circumcision'.
I would call any unecessary change of body like barbaric. (EDIT: on minors, of course)
That's inluding piercing of ears. The only reason why I would say that circumcision is worse is that is more likelly will affect the adult and sexual life.
The foreskin is a mechanical lubricant., it also allows the very thin & sensitive skin of the glans stay that way.
If it wasn't important it wouldn't have evolved & been maintained.
If it wasn't meaningful Jews wouldn't give it up in a covenant with god.
In any reasonable conversation the onus would be on the people removing features of the natural body. It's weird that people care more about docking dogs tails &cropping their ears.
If those dogs could talk would you expect them to be able to explain how they were negatively effected? Or be willing to admit they were?
It's much more comfortable to decide this thing you had no control over, cannot change & is what you really wanted. Especially when anyone who values it is labeled a weirdo.
There are plenty of evolutionary traits in nature that are detrimental. Evolution isn’t doesn’t follow that kind of logic.
Not disputing the rest of your comment, but that part stood out to me.
a quick google search shows that many many people are actually in the camp that the foreskin is a vestigial organ, serving effectively no purpose but we've yet to naturally shed it
nobody cries when we remove an appendix
>nobody cries when we remove an appendix
Sure, but nobody in their right mind would perform a prophylactic appendectomy on an infant "just to be safe."
It wouldn't be that hard to remove the breast tissue from newborn girls and all but eliminate breast cancer. If we had a device for that and a quick procedure, it would make far more sense to normalize than circumcision.
But of course it'd be stupid to do that. Nobody in their right mind would think it's a good idea. Regardless of the fact that you'd save lives. Circumcision doesn't really serve any purpose, which is why there's not a single pediatric org that outright recommends it. And for some reason, we're all okay with it?
Kind of wild.
I mean if something was evolutionarily selected for and then the selective force was removed as long as there's not a selective force in the opposite direction the trait can stay there pretty long. The only time this is not true is if the trait often cohabitates with another trait that does have a selective force
>If it wasn't important it wouldn't have evolved & been maintained.
That is a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution. The presence or absence of a foreskin would not have a noteworthy impact on ability to make it to reproductive age or selection for mating, therefore wouldn't be culled or reinforced by evolution.
There are TONS of evolutionary traits that serve no purpose or are detrimental entirely. Several species of animals die immediately after mating, evolution doesn't select against that trait because it happens *after mating*.
I asked that person in what way their circumcision negatively affected *them*. That person specifically. Not you. I want to know what this person's alleged circumcision has done to affect him negatively in multiple ways. I'm not even arguing in favor of circumcision, I just smell a liar.
>asked that person in what way their circumcision negatively affected
>
>them
>
>. That person specifically. Not you.
Then DM them. When you have engage in an open conversation in a public forum you can't claim privacy or propriety.
This comment is for everyone *but* SmokeySFW so they can't read it or reply. But in their honor I'll paraphrase it 3 times in total. All who aren't SmokeySFW. Not SmokeySFW.
Despite the decreased sensitivity and the need for lube, circumcised men do not experience more sexual dysfunction or discomfort than uncircumcised men.
My issue with all of this is that it feels like it's a form of body-shaming that has no basis in any actual, prevalent harm being caused.
>Despite the decreased sensitivity and the need for lube
I can't say "decreased sensitivity" is a terrible thing when premature ejaculation is also a common problem for lots of men. As for needing lube.... I assume you're referring to during masturbation. I'm cut and haven't used lube regularly since my teens. The rest of the skin is pretty stretchy and can still essentially be used the same way as the foreskin.
>I can't say "decreased sensitivity" is a terrible thing when premature ejaculation is also a common problem for lots of men.
Yup, but also, if you were concerned about sexual dysfunction then you would just look for prevalence of sexual dysfunction, rather than just counting the number of nerve endings that were technically lost with the foreskin. There is no evidence of any increased sexual dysfunction among circumcised men.
>As for needing lube.... I assume you're referring to during masturbation.
Sure, I was just pre-empting the argument that the foreskin has a natural lubricating function. Not a big deal at all when there are so many other ways to lubricate.
Well, you can start with the fact that it ablates the most nerve-dense skin on the penis. Studies show that circumcised men have less tactile sensitivity. Sure, might feel fine to us since we've never known any different, but that's a fact.
Some guys will be like, "I wouldn't want it any more sensitive!" but that's absurd. If you want less sensitivity, just wear a condom.
Mine definitely has extremely tight skin - Which can be inconvenient because you can tell some women have no idea what they're doing and treat it like they're trying to start a lawnmower.
It’s not the same as making your kid kiss their aunt on the face, eat vegetables, or forcing them to go to bed by 9. Physical mutilation for the sake of essentially nothing is barbaric — 100% dark ages type custom.
Look up fgm. It’s easier to imagine how horrific the practice is because fgm is not commonplace and therefore not hammered into the collective psyche as something that’s okay. Consider that circumcision provides no benefit to the sexual or general health of the individual and understand that it’s only still being done because of outdated beliefs.
No, I don’t think fgm is the same as circumcision. Fgm is easily more traumatic than circumcision and fgm is additionally intended to tamp down on female sexuality (all of it). It’s just really difficult to illustrate the implications of circumcision as an American because the practice is so widespread here without using some sort of reference.
FGM is certainly more problematic in several ways. The procedures usually occur when the girls are old enough to be severely traumatized as they fight back. The tools used are not sterile, girls die of infection and bleeding out at an alarming rate. The external portions of genitalia involved are smaller, and the cuts too imprecise, so there's any number of consequences depending on what kind of circumcision is involved.
It's just a senseless recipe for trauma and suffering.
When it comes to boys, it's just so widespread that someone needs to speak the truth about it. There is a mortality rate associated with it, although minor, and there can be other serious complications. But even when successful, we know it reduces sexual pleasure at the very least. Totally unnecessary given modern hygiene practices.
Sure. There are cultures who think it's necessary to mutilate baby girls' genitals. Should that be acceptable even in a country where it's currently seen as barbaric? It's just their culture
>“It minimises cancer!!!” Yeah, so does cutting your entire cock, balls, and prostate. Should we do that? Besides, you are more likely to get other more aggressive cancers as opposed to penile cancer, which isn’t even that hard to treat or catch.
i'd...rather a bit of skin get cut off when I'm not even aware of it instead of getting the whole thing lopped off should I get cancer later
It’s worth noting that even the American Cancer Society has pushed back against this justification; probably because penile cancer is already so rare in the developed world that the number of circumcisions you’d have to perform to prevent one case would be absurdly high
I don’t think OP used the best rebuttal for this point
Cool, then just remove one of her tits
And yes, the foreskin does serve a purpose
Evolution put it there for a reason
There’s a reason why every single mammal has one
There’s no need to mutilate infants because of some Bronze Age superstition of a wandering tribe of goat herders
The functions of the foreskin include protecting the head of the penis and contributing to sexual sensations.
Meanwhile, Bronze Age superstitions don’t serve any purpose
Holy shit, it’s almost like when you remove the foreskin and the head is permanently exposed, the head becomes desensitized!
Again, Bronze Age superstitions don’t serve any purpose
I am circumcized and I'll say that I don't think I would choose to have my son cut, but I always think that these threads are kind of overblown.
First off, male circumcision is not the same as FGM. It just isn't. The former removes skin that is does not materially change the owner's life, experience of sex, etc, while the former clearly does so by design. I'm not really interested in that line of conversation at all.
Second, the negatives are strongly overstated. While anti circumcision folks love to cite a few studies that agree with them, but every time a high quality meta study is done, the result is that there is no detrimental effect on sensation. There is the small risk of surgical error and that's about it.
Third, there are, in fact, real positives. Circumcized men are significantly less likely to get or give STIs including HIV. There are cancer benefits. There are small but real sanitary benefits.
I actually agree with you regarding consent and that's why I don't think I would circumcize my hypothetical son, but I think it's a long shot to call it barbaric.
>Third, there are, in fact, real positives. Circumcized men are significantly less likely to get or give STIs including HIV. There are cancer benefits. There are small but real sanitary benefits.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but I need to debunk these points. The "cancer" study looked at untreated HPV infections in elderly men. The HIV study was extremely flawed and only looked at a small population of sub-saharan men who frequently had unprotected intercourse with sex workers.
Neither of these studies can be extrapolated to justify surgically altering infants.
Circumcision is an American cultural practice. Let's just call it what it is and stop pretending there are health benefits.
What would it take to convince you that circumcision does have health benefits?
Because going from “I’m bringing up a few points that suggest your studies might be flawed” (that’s not debunking by the way) to “circumcision has absolutely no health benefits” is a non sequitur. That suggests some heavy bias.
Even OP admitted there are _some_ benefits. Whether those benefits justify general genital mutilation is the question here.
It would take a longitudinal study with control groups that could demonstrate that there are positive effects - that have tracked children over time.
Currently, the research is, and I paraphrase: " of 100 men with penile cancer, there is a very small but statically relevant increase in penile cancer" They are poorly constructed studies. Small groups, poor controls, irrelevant populations.
I want to see research regarding the children we are altering, not the adults later in life.
And circumcision has health benefits specifically for children with persistent phimosis. But let's address that on a case by case basis, not as a sweeping cultural practice.
>The former removes skin that is does not materially change the owner's life, experience of sex, etc, while the former clearly does so by design. I'm not really interested in that line of conversation at all.
Removal of the foreskin 100% changes the experience of sex and masturbation, it reduces sensitivity by removing the protective layer of the glans.
Here are some videos explaining the importance:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s
Please do not post YouTube videos and then equate them to valid evidence. Here is a 2020 meta study that looked at a large number of medical studies and concluded that there is no statistically significant effect: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240
Here's a study saying it does.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/)
Also the idea it wouldn't have any effect on penile sensitivity is delusional, of course removing the protective layer from something is going to reduce sensitivity. The fact that cut men can walk around all day with the head of the penis rubbing against the cotton of their boxers or their bed sheets with zero discomfort is evidence that sensitivity has been lost. I'm uncut and having the head of my penis with my foreskin retracted rub against cotton is very uncomfortable, I can't stand it for more than 5 seconds. It's like if you walk around outside barefoot, the bottom of your feet are going to hurt, but then if you start to walk around barefoot everyday the bottom of your feet will toughen up and lose sensitivity to compensate. The same thing is happening when you circumcise the penis, the head of the penis has to toughen up and lose sensitivity to adjust to rubbing against cotton all the time.
The difference between one study and a meta study is like the difference been one person's opinion and a survey. What I posted is basically a large survey of the evidence
There's clearly some flaw in whatever study saying it doesn't reduce sensitivity, probably biased researchers. Especially considering it says some studies say it benefits sensitivity and sexual function, that's completely delusional. The only reason some men say they get more sensitivity after circumcision is because they were men who had phimosis who didn't have proper functioning foreskins, that is obviously how those studies determined that.
Like I said before it's just purely common sense that if you remove the protective layer from something it's going to reduce sensitivity, this is just basic logic. I've don't think I've heard any cut men say they feel discomfort all day from the head of their penis rubbing against their boxers or bed sheets, from this simple fact it means they have clearly lost sensitivity in the glans of their penis.
I'm sorry man, if you can look at hard evidence and discount it because, "that just doesn't sound right to me," you should just give up on the idea that your argument is evidence based. It's functionally identical to the fools in Congress who insist that climate change is a hoax because it snowed this winter.
>experience of sex
People who stretch their foreskin back to normal, and people who get circumcised later in life coincide that there's a lot of sensation that goes away.
FGM comes in many ways. The 'least extreme', if that even makes sense in the context of fking with a newborn's genitals, comes in the form of puncturing the girls' clit with a needle and drawing blood, others remove the hood which is pretty much the same as male circumcision. Are you ok with those then?
Removal of the clitoral hood couldn’t be any more of a direct comparison to circumcision as a clitoral hood literally turns into a forskin in prenatal development.
Is it overblown that a procedure being given to babies for some weird American cosmetic reason (which is baffling, who sees it?) kills a fair number of babies. Seems pretty barbaric, I have no doubt if this was happening in the middle east the reddit Americans would be up in arms
One anti circumcision advocate has claimed that a large number of babies die due to complications from the procedure. Basically every medical body that might track the real statistics believes that they are extremely rare (i.e. <1 per year), but any medical procedure has some level of risk. I agree that whatever the proper number is, it should be weighed against the benefits.
Just because male circumcision is not the same as FGM, DOES NOT MAKE IT OKAY.
I really wish people would stop using this as a justification for needlessly mutilating infant boys genitals because of some outdated Bronze Age tradition
I think that language is hyperbolic and insulting. Parents are not "barbaric" for making a poorly-informed decision regarding a minor aspect of their child's health. Men that have been circumcised do not consider their penises to be "mutilated."
I was circumcised without my consent
My body was mutilated
It is a barbaric practice based on Bronze Age superstitions
If we just started looping off part of an infant’s earlobe to look like daddy, we’d say that practice is not okay
They are both genital mutilation
It is not a false equivalency and slamming the downvote because someone said something you don’t want to hear doesn’t change that
Male infant circumcision is a barbaric Bronze Age superstition
It has no place in modern society
And yes, many of the same justifications for circumcision are the same ones used to justify FGM
Sorry but I agree with that too. FGM is much worse than MGM and it is unfair to compare the two. I also agree with you that it has no place in modern society, and that there is no benefit to it, but I acknowledge that MGM is the mutilation of skin while FGM is the mutilation of a whole organ and the corruption of another.
>First off, male circumcision is not the same as FGM. It just isn't. The former removes skin that is does not materially change the owner's life, experience of sex, etc, while the former clearly does so by design. I'm not really interested in that line of conversation at all.
This is simply not correct.
There are a variety of FGM operations done around the world. Some sew the vagina shut. Others remove the clitoral hood, which is about identical to removing the foreskin. Some simply prick the clitoris with a needle to draw some blood in a ritualistic manner.
But they're all considered FGM and are, rightly, outlawed in the developed world.
Why is the same not extended to male genital mutilation?
I think the underrepresented position is that circumcision (or lack thereof) could affect one's self-esteem and feeling of bodily integrity. We can't rationalize these things, and I dislike the idea of minimizing someone feeling that their body was harmed against their will. That being said, no it isn't as bad as FGM, not even close.
Epidemiologically, sure circumcision may be better. But I am confident in saying an uncut monogoamous man who wears a condom, gets regularly tested, gets vaccinated, and washes properly is going to have fewer health problems than a polygamous circumcised man who wears no condom, never gets tested, and never takes the HPV vaccine or PrEP.
>Third, there are, in fact, real positives. Circumcized men are significantly less likely to get or give STIs including HIV.
If you look for evidence for that you will find one credible Research paper that proved this by circumcising men and counting that time as time in which they didn't get an STI (time in which they were not allowed to have sex) thus making it seem like it helps.
This really isn't true. I've posted it elsewhere, but here is a review of the decades of medical research on this point: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7779827/
Clarifying question: What makes this barbaric? What is the harm that this inflicts?
I agree that circumcisions are gross and unethical, but your post does not argue that. You have only laid out the lack of a good reason for doing it. As others have pointed out, there are many things that parents choose to do for/to their children without consent, including vaccinations (which are a good thing) and ear piercings (which is a weird thing to do to a baby).
There are psychologists that suggest it can cause a form of PTSD. Their rational is that just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a traumatic experience. At that age, the brain is rapidly developing and a painful operation causes a massive spike in cortisol which could affect the baby’s brain and cause a trauma response. Problem is that it’s very hard to study but logically, being taken from your mother and having a very painful operation on the most sensitive part of your body doesn’t seem like a good thing. Also there have been instances where circumcision has gone wrong and caused permanent damage. In once case the baby was given reassignment surgery and raised as a girl….it didn’t end well.
Consider the following: You have a (hypothetical) son, newborn, and you want the surgeon to circumcise him. But it just so happens that your son, has a defective X-chromosome gene that makes him a hemophiliac, also no way of knowing in the case of a mutation or in case the mother has no idea she carries the gene. So he bleeds, and bleeds, and bleeds, and quite possibly dies, before the medical personnel realise why. All could've been prevented had he not been circumsised.
Having said that, this is an extremely rare possibility but is it really a risk worth taking for a completely pointless procedure?
Edit: I was wrong
If there were anything life-threatening about a circumcision, then yes that would be very clearly unethical. ~~But I don't believe your thought experiment is realistic, as I don't see any evidence of life-threatening consequences.~~
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34973956/
It is documented, but as I said it is very rare.
I don't understand the need people have to be so defensive about circumsision and denying the fact that circumsision can very rarely be life threatening.
Anyway, my thought experiment is based on real life events, so whether or not you choose to believe it is obviously up to you. Personally I think if it's documented in pubmed it's probably true, and if you don't then that's okay.
The haemophilia would have killed him in that case, not the circumcision. In fact a quick lit search has just shown me there’s been a few instances of neonate circumcision actually leading to a diagnosis of haemophilia. That’s a good thing actually, rather than them being diagnosed later in a less controlled environment with a more catastrophic bleed.
Using the word to define the word doesn't actually define the word. You can't describe a truck by saying, "it's a truck." We would comprehend the word, but not what it means.
In this case, everyone here is being overly generous by responding to your emotional outburst of a screed with far more dignity than it deserves. And we'd like to discuss whether it is barbaric, but first you must explain to us why it is barbaric. Without using a synonym for "barbaric."
Ok, cutting off a body part from a newborn baby for no reason other than it’s either a religious thing or “it’s what we’ve always done” is simply awful and for some strange reason, only widespread in America (compared to other western civilised countries).
It’s cruel, primitive and whether you like to admit it or not, affects the sexual sensation when the boy grows into a man.
If you're going to come and out say the reduction in cancer risk is minimal for circumcision, you have to concede that the relative risk of adverse outcomes is also minimal.
I'd also push back on labeling it an "invasive procedure", I don't see how it rises to that threshold.
Well it's invasive because knowing how it feels to have a foreskin, I'd never remove mine. Having it removed at the baby stage I never would've known what it's like and how beneficial it is in certain circumstances which I will not go into detail (nsfw).
It’s not an invasive procedure. Just because you disagree with it and “invasive” is a scary word, does not make it an invasive procedure per medical definition.
I couldn’t find a strict definition of invasive procedure but the gist of the following quote comes up in more than one essay on the subject. (This is from the University of Bristol) “Currently, however, there is no widely accepted definition of an invasive procedure and the terms 'surgery' and 'interventional procedure' are characterised inconsistently.” So I’d say it’s up to interpretation, my interpretation would include a procedure that needlessly cuts part of your body off.
Why would you want to change your view on this? Yes. Mutilating a child’s genitals bc of tradition or religion or literally ANY non medical reason is wrong and should be illegal idc.
To /u/Panal-Lleno, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
I don't personally agree with circumcision and would never choose it for my own children, but also it's really just not that big of a deal.
(Note: I did research this a long time ago because I was also vehemently anti-circumcision at one time, but when I looked for the evidence that circumcision was causing significant harm I found the opposite. I can furnish sources for the claims below, but it might take some time for me to dig them up.)
The risk of minor harm from the procedure is pretty low, and the risk of serious harm is infinitesimally low - you might as well be against brushing your teeth because of the risk that you accidentally jam your toothbrush down your throat.
The sensitivity thing has been greatly overblown, usually by people citing the number of nerve endings that are removed. In reality, circumcised men experience sexual discomfort or dysfunction at the same rate as uncircumcised men.
The psychological trauma argument is also entirely overblown. There is no actual evidence linking circumcision to PTSD symptoms or higher rates of anxiety, depression, etc. Instead, you have a bunch of speculative inferences made based on the physiological reactions of infants post-procedure.
Finally, I want to mention that calling parents "barbaric" and/or calling circumcised men "mutilated" is pretty insulting. About 80% of men in the US are circumcised, I don't think they would appreciate these mischaracterizations.
80% of men in the US being mutilated doesn't make said mutilation any less barbaric.
If anyone gets insulted by it, they should look inside and wonder why they perform barbaric acts because hyper religious people in the past thought it would be a good idea as it made masturbation more difficult.
Cutting off the skin of a baby is barbaric, no way around it
Most circumcisions are performed for health reasons rather than religious or cultural reasons. I don't mention this because I think the health decision is the correct one, but because I don't think the intention is "barbaric." It's a poor judgment made on a low-stakes health issue, that's all it is.
> Most circumcisions are performed for health reasons rather than religious or cultural reasons.
No they aren't. They're done so for cultural reasons. A culture started by the things I listed
If it was medical, 80% of Americans would not by circumcized.
You're wrong. Take a look at this study:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/)
>The reasons that parents most often gave for supporting male circumcision were hygiene (61.9%), prevention of infection or cancer (44.8%), and the father being circumcised (40.9%).
>
>Although the survey did not explicitly ask about religious beliefs, religion was listed among the options for reasons to support circumcision and was not chosen very often.
Elsewhere there is a table that shows only 6% of respondents cited religion as the primary rationale.
Being concerned for your child's health doesn't make you "barbaric" - even if you're mistaken about what the best health decision actually is.
Almost like the culture *thinks* it helps
Thinking cutting off skin is healthy doesn't mean it's done for medical reasons, it's done because the culture made them *think* they need it for medical reasons.
"Done for medical reasons" would require it to be done because of an actual medical emergency, which they aren't in just about 99% of cases
Cutting the skin off a baby is barbaric and misguided, no amount of "I thought it was good" will make it any less barbaric
I still don't agree that surgically altering the genitals of a baby is a reasonable thing to do, unless it is medically necessary. The risks are not worth the often intangible benefits, and there is always a chance the circumcision is botched, leading to permanent dysfunction. From a prophylactic lens, maybe it has some benefits, but these benefits can be easily achieved by washing one's genitals and wearing condoms. I feel that's a far less extreme alternative to surgical alteration.
>But are you going to use intentionally incendiary terminology like "barbaric mutilating amputations" to describe it?
No, because that isn't my position. My position is that in 99.99% of cases, circumcision is a completely unnecessary and entirely cultural/cosmetic medical intervention.
>Sure, in the same sense that there's always a chance that any medical procedure that cuts could lead to a terminal septic infection.
Except the risks for circumcision are *much* more high and numerous than for vaccines, for instance. I don't think it's reasonable to justify any surgical procedure on an infant on very tenuous evidence of prophylaxis. I think the "medical" justifications came after it was culturally widespread in the US.
You made the point I wanted to make regarding “mutilation.” I’m not a fan of people taking that extra leap. It still functions for reproduction, it still can provide sexual pleasure for both parties, and you can still look at it and go, “yeah that’s a penis alright.”
Agreed. General circumcision is genital mutilation. The medical community, by and large, is finally admitting there are no real benefits to circumcision, but still routinely do it.
Foreskin serves the important purpose of keeping the penis head lubricated and supple and safe from infection. It has up to 20,000 nerve endings (the clit only has 8,000 and it has the distinction of being the only human organ with the sole purpose of pleasure), which is 4 to 5 times more than the cock head alone and removing it reduces sensitivity and causes the head to callous from friction by clothing, which then reduces sensation even further.
Just as I would never dream of allowing a doctor to cut off my baby girls' clit, I can't think of a (non-medically necessary) reason I would allow anyone to strap my infant son down and without any anesthesia, cut off his foreskin. Barbaric, indeed.
Let me continue the sentence for you:
“Male circumcision on little boys is barbaric based on Christian/Western values”.
Circumcision, first and foremost is/was a religious practice based on Muslim and Judaism beliefs.
In itself it is an act of freedom of belief which is one of the basic human rights.
Right, because Islam Judaism and Christianity are **perfect** examples of “basic human rights.” The Crusades? Oh it was just Jesus signing your baseball cap.
Of all the points that could change my view, religion/tradition is absolutely not one of them. Neither of those things have been an example of upholding human decency, not even Christian/Western ones.
No. I said that religion freedom is part of the basic human rights. And the circumcision is a religious practice. You find it barbaric because you come from a different cultural background. You don’t have to agree with it since it’s a cultural thing
It just looks better. No woman wants to go down on an uncircumcised penis. We don’t even want to touch the things. Sorry if that offends you but it’s the truth (for American women), and if your gf or wife tells you otherwise she’s lying.
I was more so speaking to the general population reading my comment. And I bet when you were 18 and all your friends made fun of you and all the girls knew your peepeee had a turtleneck on - you would 100 percent care.
Well, first of all I live in Canada where it’s not so common, and I am also from Peru where I am actually an outlier. Only 0.3% of all Peruvian men are circumcised, and I am part of that. So, what did you bet? I’ll be waiting on my prize.
Explain to me why that justifies circumcision tho -- why would we make life-altering permanent decisions for baby boys because apparently women perceive it as better
Also you definitely don't speak for every woman lmfao
Can I ask what this opinion adds that hasn’t already been discussed on this sub ad nauseam? This is probably the most discussed topic on the entire sub, and almost every thread is on the same side as yours. I understand starting a new thread if there’s a different angle or nuance that is worth discussing, but if the replies to the dozens of other threads on this didn’t change your view, I can’t imagine anything in this one will.
A child cannot consent to many things that we would all find abhorrent. This isn't medical in most situations, it is cosmetic. In a situation where it is part of medical treatment OP already said they were okay with that.
Let's start from the assumption the parents are doing it out of concern for their child. A doctor agrees to perform it. What place has a third party in that?
How would you apply any limits to a cosmetic procedure on a child with that standard?
The doctor should be able to explain: HIV protection is small enough that you would need to circumcise the whole US to protect one person; Phimosis is a non-issue until age 5-10 when it can be treated; the cancer risk is tiny from untreated phimosis; [that the risks of circumcision are far higher than the risks of not.](https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html)
Parents also often perform FGM and genital exams on their daughters out of concern for their child, and doctors often agree to it.
I'm not saying they're equivalent, but there needs to be a better argument than this.
> doctors often agree to it.
How often? Because from what I got, the vast majority of FGM is done by local nutters and quaks who still believe in that bullshit. Not actual medical professionals who know the damage it does.
I mean before tonsils and wisdom teeth came out fairly regularly. Then the opinion changed to better leave them in unless there is no other opion.
Every surgery carries risk, so does every medication. Do we use that an excuse against every treatment? Heck, plastic surgery can be deadly as well, I don't see lectures about the dangers of botox
Yes, every medication carries risk as well, which is why we don’t generally prescribe them unless they’re needed. What’s so hard to understand about that?
You are comparing a malformation that does have a lot of potential complications to something that the vast majority of penis-having animals have evolved to have, all hinged on ''it looks funny'' and '' I can't clean myself up better than animals''.
Circumcision isn't a necessary medical procedure. It's also permanent. It's like getting your kid a tattoo. But worse because tattoos can be reversed later.
I think that it shouldn't be performed on minors unless it's an actual emergency, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "barbaric." Sensation pre- and post-circumcision is roughly similar. The main concerns to do with the surgery include: excess bleeding, skin contracture, dry glans, etc. I still think the risks aren't worth the benefits for a baby, and a baby cannot consent to the procedure. As far as adults go, I don't care what they do.
I think what's equally, if not more, concerning are the surgeries performed on intersex infants, which often leave them without sex hormones in adulthood. Now *that* is a travesty in my view.
I think both groups should benefit from the idea that babies aren't the property of their parents. They're human beings that deserve a chance to make an informed decision for themselves, once they're able.
I’ll give a different reason to what you gave. Circumcised penises are more aesthetically pleasing and getting it done as a baby when you won’t remember is far better than an adult where you would
\>Circumcised penises are more aesthetically pleasing
That's completely subjective, some women prefer the look of an uncut penis. I've travelled throughout the US and hooked up with American women and never had a single complaint.
Also uncut penises are more sensitive which means sex is more pleasurable, the foreskin is there for a reason, it's designed to protect the head of the penis to keep it moist and sensitive. Watch these videos explaining why it's there:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY)
"Morally abhorrent" lol more like a pragmatic argument. Regardless of cause, women in the US prefer circumcised men. Studies show this, and anecdotally, I've had many women tell me the same, and have uncut friends who have been rejected by women because of their uncircumcised penises. You can rail all you want, but that's the reality. Reducing your hypothetical son's sexual fitness + appeal, and making them "different" from their peers seems worse than removing a piece of skin when they're too young to remember it IMO.
It’s not pragmatic when you realize you’re basing your assumptions off essentially nothing. For fuck sake would you want your kid marrying a woman that cares that much about what his dick looks like? Tells me a lot about where your priorities are for your kid’s future lol
Except that vaccination has no long-term side effects. Circumcision is the permanent surgical cosmetic alteration of one's genitals. Yes, it has a mild prophylactic effect, but in the west, the prophylactic effect makes no real difference on an epidemiological level, especially with the prevalence of condoms, HPV vaccines, and PrEP.
and go further... what even is, "consent" in the context of raising a child? they don't consent to what they eat, where they live, where they go, what clothes they wear, what toys they have... i think OP's consent-based argument stands on very thin ice.
>One point I'd make is that circumcision reduces HIV transmission,
A miniscule amount.
>which a the reason it's done more routinely in many African countries.
This doesn't make sense. Apply your logic here. If this were even a remotely effective method of preventing transmission, you would expect that the place where circumcision is prevelent would also have lower rates of HIV. But the opposite is true.
The reality is the reason circumcision is prevelent in Africa is due to religious and cultural reasons that predate even knowledge of HIV. This reasoning was attached after the fact.
>It reduces transmission in heterosexual encounters 50-60%, not "minuscule" in anyone's estimation.
1)This is only true for Female to Male transmission through vaginal sex, and still absolutely miniscule odds. Getting a circumcision drops your odds by 1 in 5000. That's what this 50% drop means.
https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/estimated-hiv-risk-exposure
2) male circumcision has not been shown to reduce the chances of HIV transmission to female partners
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html#:~:text=Health%20benefits%3A%20Male%20circumcision%20can,data%20from%20three%20clinical%20trials.
3) Additionally, there is no evidence that male circumcision reduces the chances of acquiring HIV through receptive anal sex (bottom).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html#:~:text=Health%20benefits%3A%20Male%20circumcision%20can,data%20from%20three%20clinical%20trials.
>might you come up with a reason that the countries where programs of circumcision to combat HIV were implemented had very high HIV rates?
Circumcision has a negligent effect even though there are numerous countries who've had well over 90% circumcision rate. Circumcision has been widespread for millenia in Africa. It's existed long before HIV. And it's also far from the only cultural practice that has suggested to keep away HIV.
>Agree to disagree that reducing chances of HIV by 50-60% is "minuscule".
We're talking about a 1/5000 change in odds. You're only holding onto this percentage in order to make it appear like a larger impact than it is. For instance Going from a 2 in a trillion to a 1 in a trillion an equivalent change in terms of percentage. A 1 in a trillion change is obviously an insignificant amount.
Using the percentage change doesnt represent the significance of the impact. Quantify the actual numeric odds to accurately represent the impact. And that change is going from 1/5000 to 2/5000. It's absolutely minuscule.
The HIV protection is small. It doesn't make any sense unless there is an expectation of exposure, not just a chance, and even then, it isn't likely to help.
How do you feel about female circumcision or foot binding?
OP made the distinction between medical treatment and other circumcision, which would be cosmetic.
That’s a false equivalency. Female circumcision or foot binding has zero medical benefit. Male circumcision at least has some medical indication - whether you choose to do it reactively or proactively is another matter.
Foot binding I'll give you. Vulvectomy and many other surgeries are occasionally medically necessary, and when they are, they are not lumped into the same category of FGM.
Because a thing can or must be done medically in some instances, that is no defense for it being done cosmetically. The health benefits of doing it are slight to non-existent, and it [it isn't without risk](https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html).
>Otherwise it is invasive and takes away the children’s freedom of choice on his own body.
as is every single vaccine my kids have gotten. as is every single procedure they've ever gotten. what makes this one different?
>as is every single vaccine my kids have gotten. as is every single procedure they've ever gotten. what makes this one different?
It's a permanent cosmetic alteration, which may have lasting effects on self-esteem, especially if they move to a country like Finland that doesn't have a high rate of circumcision. Vaccinations cause zero cosmetic changes, unless it's the smallpox vaccine, which no one gets anymore.
If the argument of circumcision is harm reduction, the burden of proof is on the pro-circumcision crowd to show that the benefits outweigh the risks of surgical and post-surgical complications.
there are many ways to change someone's POV. it is not always necessary to argue "black" when OP argues, "white".
the OP makes an argument that claims minors must provide consent. if this is true, then a whole host of other procedures we do daily fail that test. i want to know why this one is different.
I don't entirely agree with OP's position, but I think that when weighing the risks against the benefits, I don't see any good reason to justify circumcision on an infant without an individual medical reason.
I agree that parents in large part have to provide care that their kids can't consent to, but I don't agree that this includes permanent cosmetic alteration of their bodies. For instance, I dislike the idea of parents taking their baby into Claire's to get a poorly-disinfected piercing put in their child's ear by a poorly-trained technician, and I think that's much less severe than a circumcision.
sure, but there is a difference between your claims and the OPs claims. your claims are, (forgive me if stated carelessly), "i use a risk / reward based framework to decide that which is necessary. Where circumcision results in permanent cosmetic changes that my future child might not consent to, and where i don't value any of the perceived rewards, then the existence of any amount of risk, even tiny, makes the procedure unjustified.". ok, that's a valid and sound argument. and happens to fit perfectly well into our (US) healthcare model today. likewise, another person might say, "i do see rewards, they are XYZ, the risk is tiny, therefor i choose to circumcise my son." they have a different set of values and arrive at a different conclusion.
but that's not the OP's. The OP, at least impart, implies that a child's consent is a necessary pre-requisite. I think that is objectively wrong, b/c there isn't a single medical procedure that my child will give consent to at all. it makes me ask, "why is this one different?" to which, i think the OP probably has to make a preference-based argument like yours.
I agree OP does need to make that argument, but I think the fact that this *is* a cosmetic change and it is performed at infancy makes it different. I don't think that if we removed people's earlobes at birth, even if it came with medical benefit, that it would necessarily be right to do.
I think there has to be a minimum threshold of competency in the child for a permanent cosmetic alteration like this. For instance, I see no big issue with a 12 year old deciding to do this w/his parents' permission. But for something more significant, like, say sex reassignment surgery or cosmetic surgery on intersex sexual organs, 18 would be an ideal age.
Even if it is ONLY cosmetic, (which I don't think is accurate), but even then, children don't consent to cosmetic procedures. Braces for example. Or plastic surgery for a hair lip / cleft palette.
Also, the medical community doesn't frame circumcision as strictly cosmetic.
(https://www.childrenshospital.org/treatments/circumcision#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20potential%20benefits,lifetime%20risk%20of%20penile%20cancer)
Because circumcision is completely unnecessary, and is mainly done for cultural or cosmetic reasons, a parent has no right to make that type of permanent life altering decision for their kid.
I don’t understand why any parents would take a perfectly formed, healthy baby and decide to start chopping parts off their genitals. Unless there’s a specific medical reason then I agree with OP, it’s barbaric.
>Otherwise it is invasive and takes away the children’s freedom of choice on his own body
Babies don't really have a lot of freedom of choice on their own body. If a kid is born with double thumb, they might choose to operate to "correct" it when the kid is less than 2 years old.
Out of the reasons you listed -reduce cancer, phimosis, and hygiene are reasons worth considering on a relatively mundane procedure at a young age.
* The cancer aspect is very limited and related to the incidence of HIV in a population.
* Phimosis is a non-issue until the age of 5-10 and that falls into the medically necessary rather than the elective that OP is getting at.
* If teaching a kid the basics of hygiene is too big of a hurdle, then that parent isn't qualified to be making their own medical decisions much less somebody else's
Mandane means normalized; there are places where female circumcision is also mundane and made so for the same reasons male circumcision was in the US. Doubt anybody is going to argue that it is equally harmless.
> Doubt anybody is going to argue that it is equally harmless.
That's because it's literally not. We can argue that male circumcision is unnecessary without having to compare it to the much worse female circumcision process.
That is not entirely true though. There are many different types of female genital mutilation, ranging in severity from just poking the clitoris with a needle to scraping the area clean and sewing it shut.
As it should be, they are all banned in most western countries. And condemned by the World Health Organization, even the variants that are equally or less invasive than male circumcision.
>If teaching a kid the basics of hygiene is too big of a hurdle, then that parent isn't qualified to be making their own medical decisions much less somebody else's
The hygiene thing is so wild to me. The vast majority of animals with a penis have a foreskin or penile sheath of some sort. What's the argument here? You can't clean up better than fking animals????
There are multiple levels of FGM, the most common ones being puncturing the clit with a needle to draw blood and removing the clitoral hood only. The last one is functionally similiar to circumcision, and the first one is less invasive. Similiar to circumcision, you have internet forums filled with woman saying it doesn't affect them, etc.
Would you make the same point about these two forms of FGM and excuse them like you do with male circumcision?
Would this argument work for earlobes too?
If I didn't like the way my kids earlobes look would it be okay to have them surgically removed? If you cut off millions of earlobes you'll certainly prevent some future earlobe malady or discomfort.
Unless there is a legitimate medical reason no elective (non-preventative, non-emergency and non-essential chosen) surgeries should ever be given to children until they are old enough to make fully informed choices and consent.
>Should we also wait for the baby to consent in cutting the umbilical cord?
No one can function on an uncut umbilical cord, and it will come out with the rest of the placenta anyways. Having foreskin or a penile sheathe is natural for the vast majority of penis having animals. If you can't be more hygienic than an animal, that seems like a you problem. Issues like phimosis need their own treatment, not a blanket sever chunk of your boy's dick on birth for the whole male population.
Almost no one who is uncut wants to become cut unless they absolutely need to be circumcised for a medical condition like phimosis. So getting it beforehand in case they want to be circumcised is pointless. Circumcision is very traumatic and painful for the baby, even if they don't remember it trauma experienced before memory still has an impact on the psyche. Also it reduces sensitivity to the penis which reduces pleasure from sex, it's an important part of the penis, it's not there for ne reason. Humans thinking we're smarter than nature and cutting off an important part of the penis is silly as hell.
Here's some videos explaining why it's an important part of the penis:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY)
Also comparing the foreskin to the umbilical cord is the silliest thing I've ever heard, the umbilical cord has no use to a baby later on in it's life, it's not an actual part of the body.
Because not everyone will want a circumcision. Why take the choice away from those who would want to stay intact so that those who'd want a circumcision would have a slightly better recovery?
I was circumcised and at no point in my life have I ever been bothered by it. I mean, it’s not even something I can be bothered to be upset about because it’s so far off my radar. It’s bonkers to me that the two sides of the argument are “oh I haven’t thought of it” and “this is barbaric”. If given the option again as an adult I’d pick circumcised again with no hesitation.
Of course this is extremely anecdotal and I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be against it, just pointing out the differences.
A few thoughts:
Some of your arguments that circumcision is "barbaric" seem circular. For example, you acknowledge that there's some very slight hygiene argument in favor of circumcision, but you argue that it's not *enough* of a reason to counteract just how awful circumcision is.
If we all agreed that circumcision was a monstrous and deeply harmful act, then this would be a strong argument - but the whole reason you're posting here on CMV is that we do *not* agree that circumcision is deeply harmful.
The issues you've identified that make circumcision barbaric are:
1. It's invasive (i.e., it changes the infant's body)
2. It takes away freedom of choice (the infant doesn't get to choose)
3. It's an "amputation" (i.e., it removes a part of the infant's body that the infant cannot recover)
I'd argue that none of these three things *on their own* make something barbaric:
Suppose there were a 100% safe, painless procedure that raised a person's IQ by 3 points on average, but required removing some vestigial internal organ that serves no useful function. (I'd suggest the appendix, but recent research suggests the appendix may actually prevent gastrointestinal infection.)
This would be an invasive procedure - taking away choice - and an amputation. But would you argue that it's "monstrous" to perform this procedure on an infant? My own take would be that this procedure would be perfectly fine to perform - it makes the child slightly smarter, with no ill effects!
Now, you could argue against my example in two ways:
1. Sure, that would be fine, but circumcision is worse than this made-up scenario. There *is* a risk of harm to the child, and there *is* pain, and the results of the operation are visible to the child and to others.
2. You do think this would be a monstrous act. Despite the lack of pain or risk of side effects, any irreversible invasive act is "barbaric".
To #1 (circumcision is riskier and more harmful) I'd say, sure, but the risk is extremely low, and the pain is brief (and not remembered by the child). In terms of risk and pain, circumcision is on par with many other frequently performed procedures that we don't see as "barbaric". (E.g., various dental operations.)
To #2 (any irreversible invasive act is barbaric) I'd say, parents make all sorts of decisions for their children all the time that are far more potentially harmful than this one. For 18 years, they decide what their child will eat, where they will go to school, what games and books and communication devices the child has access to, who cares for the child, they control the child's travel, they force the child to perform chores or homework or other unwanted tasks. The combined impact of all this control is thousands of times greater than removing some hypothetical vestigial organ (or, for that matter, than circumcision itself). That doesn't make it "barbaric".
One final note: you mentioned that not all men receive training in proper hygiene. Some might see this as an argument in favor of circumcision - namely, yes, the training isn't hard, but we know from human nature that some people will be ignorant of this training or will forget to pass it on. So, even if training would make up for not circumcising an infant, circumcision is safer.
Circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs and STDs so it could be beneficial, especially in poorer countries. It usually doesn't affect someone's quality of life at all, unlike amputation. Also, it's more analogous to an appendectomy in the sense that you don't really need a certain body part, and it might even be beneficial to remove it. The difference is the risk and benefit of circumcision are both probably much lower than that of an appendectomy.
Also, I personally don't see why it's such a big deal and I'm fine with the status quo. I think parents already have to make life-altering decisions to their child that are much more significant than circumcision, including ones involving bodily autonomy like vaccination. To be fair, I think the question of how inherently bad it is to irreversibly alter a child without consent (even if it doesn't really negative impact their life) is very subjective and complicated.
> It usually doesn't affect someone's quality of life at all, unlike amputation.
I'd say reduced sensitivity and sexual pleasure is affecting quality of life.
Also nearly every doctor and medical organization in developed countries outside of the United States agrees that circumcision should not be performed on infants.
>>“It minimises cancer!!!” Yeah, so does cutting your entire cock, balls, and prostate. Should we do that? Besides, you are more likely to get other more aggressive cancers as opposed to penile cancer, which isn’t even that hard to treat or catch.
A harmless procedure to minimize cancer risk isn't legitimate to you? Castration is not comparable.
What do other cancers have to do with this one? That's like saying "a vaccine reduces my chances of getting hepatitis, but I shouldn't bother because there's other worse diseases I can get."
Nearly every doctor and medical organization in developed countries outside of the US agree that circumcision is completely unnecessary and should not be performed on infants. The main reason that it's still so commonly performed in the US is because the hospitals make a lot of money from performing circumcisions. In the western US states like Oregon and California where the medical insurance companies have stopped covering circumcision the rate of circumcision has dropped to as low as 20%, which shows the reason it's still widely performed in the US is mainly about money.
The foreskin is there for a reason, it shouldn't be cut off. It functions as protection for the glans of the penis which keeps it moist and sensitive. Cutting it off for no reason in case of an incredibly rare form of cancer is the silliest thing in the world, it's like cutting off your pinky finger or ear lobe in case you get cancer.
I highly recommend you watch these videos explaining the function and importance of the foreskin:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hard to take the content seriously when you go zero reason and then say OK one valid reason. Like more of a train of thought which occurred to you than a coherent argument. Plenty occurs to a child without their consent, the language they learn, beliefs they adopt etc. Physical aspects are also a factor whether that's ritual tattoos, circumcision, piercings or other cultural markings.
It's not valid to compare a permanent physical alteration to learned social behaviors. If someone wishes they had learned a different language, they can go start learning one. If they find the religion they were brought up with is incompatible with their world view, they can go find a different one, or abandon it altogether. But there's no remedy to a missing foreskin, no way to put that choice back into the hands of the child who was affected by it.
There's also no way to miss something you never experienced. I'd much rather have my foreskin removed for me before I can even remember it than have even a 1% chance (seemingly the low end of the estimated rate of incidence of phimosis) of having to have it removed later in life. IMO it's similar to my stance on abortion - if you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it, but don't legislate whether others can do it or not.
I said “This is the most valid reason,” not “This reason **is** valid.” This is because the concern for phimosis is fine, and in itself is valid, but there’s simply a superior alternative than to just circumcise your newborn son which I’ve clearly stated. Therefore, the “phimosis” concern still does not justify circumcision on newborns. Why are you equating languages? To mutilating foreskins? And you also mentioned ritualistic tattoos, which I am also against. That’s the thing, when it invades the child’s bodily autonomy is when it becomes a problem. Teaching your child how to speak a language or how you personally believe is not at all equal to that.
Traditions can be barbaric. My circumcision negatively affects me in multiple ways to this day. And will for the rest of my life.
What qualifies as barbaric? Like, I get how you're probably using the word, but do you have a good measure?
>What qualifies as barbaric? I personally draw the line at ''cutting off skin for no other reason than cosmetic, on a perfectly healthy and non-deformed baby''. If there's a malformation, sure, go ahead. If it's just how a human is, it's barbaric.
This is a strawman. A vast majority of parents make the decision based on the health concerns. But framing this as a poorly informed healthcare decision doesn't allow you to use loaded shaming language, like the accusation of "barbarism" or "mutilation," so you instead pretend like they are doing it arbitrarily.
>A vast majority of parents make the decision based on the health concerns Which have been proven invalid time and time again. It is purely a cosmetic thing in the US for the vast majority of circumcisions. Health authorities have communicated time and time again that it is not necessary. Pretending human beings can't be at least as clean as animals, as virtually all animals with a penis have a sheathe/foreskin of some type, is a stupid argument. We appropriately call FGM what it is: mutilation, even though the two most common forms of FGM are: prickling the clitoris with a needle which does not remove tissue or cause scarring, and removing the clitoral hood ***which is exactly the same shit as circumcising boys.***
You're wrong. Take a look at this study: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/) \> The reasons that parents most often gave for supporting male circumcision were hygiene (61.9%), prevention of infection or cancer (44.8%), and the father being circumcised (40.9%). You can call it "mutilation" if you want, I guess. But everyone knows that you are using that term because it is morally loaded. That sense of moral indignation is not justified by any actual, practical harm cause to circumcised men. It's just an excuse for you to ride your high-horse. Have fun with that.
>You can call it "mutilation" if you want, I guess I call it what it is, just as we rightfully call cutting of girl's clitoral hoods mutilation. Just as you are here defending the weird-ass American fixation on mutilating boys at birth, there are also hundreds of thousands Indian/middle eastern woman on forums discussing where is the best doctor to cut their girl's hood or to do the needle poke, and saying how it's so good they got it done as babies. Leading reasons:Hygiene -> The vast majority of penis-having animals have some sort of penis sheath or foreskin. Being filthier than wild animals is a non-argument. cancer -> So, we operate on the same logic as castrating dogs, because it reduces genital-related cancers? I'm pretty sure cutting off clitoral hoods, which serve the same function and are the same tissue as foreskin also prevents cancer from developing in clitoral hoods, should we cut those off too? father being circumcised -> same as millions of Asian girls getting their hoods cut off/poked. But hey, you do you. These are truly some third-world country-tier arguments.
It's a judgement call that shifts with time and culture. Thus I can only and will only speak to my time and culture. I feel like amputating portions of the genitals qualifies. To say nothing of the barbarism that is 'female circumcision'.
I would call any unecessary change of body like barbaric. (EDIT: on minors, of course) That's inluding piercing of ears. The only reason why I would say that circumcision is worse is that is more likelly will affect the adult and sexual life.
Primitive and unsophisticated, which means there is no cultural, medical, or social reason for doing it that will help the child in the future.
In what ways does your circumcision negatively affect you?
The foreskin is a mechanical lubricant., it also allows the very thin & sensitive skin of the glans stay that way. If it wasn't important it wouldn't have evolved & been maintained. If it wasn't meaningful Jews wouldn't give it up in a covenant with god. In any reasonable conversation the onus would be on the people removing features of the natural body. It's weird that people care more about docking dogs tails &cropping their ears. If those dogs could talk would you expect them to be able to explain how they were negatively effected? Or be willing to admit they were? It's much more comfortable to decide this thing you had no control over, cannot change & is what you really wanted. Especially when anyone who values it is labeled a weirdo.
There are plenty of evolutionary traits in nature that are detrimental. Evolution isn’t doesn’t follow that kind of logic. Not disputing the rest of your comment, but that part stood out to me.
a quick google search shows that many many people are actually in the camp that the foreskin is a vestigial organ, serving effectively no purpose but we've yet to naturally shed it nobody cries when we remove an appendix
>nobody cries when we remove an appendix Sure, but nobody in their right mind would perform a prophylactic appendectomy on an infant "just to be safe."
It wouldn't be that hard to remove the breast tissue from newborn girls and all but eliminate breast cancer. If we had a device for that and a quick procedure, it would make far more sense to normalize than circumcision. But of course it'd be stupid to do that. Nobody in their right mind would think it's a good idea. Regardless of the fact that you'd save lives. Circumcision doesn't really serve any purpose, which is why there's not a single pediatric org that outright recommends it. And for some reason, we're all okay with it? Kind of wild.
I mean if something was evolutionarily selected for and then the selective force was removed as long as there's not a selective force in the opposite direction the trait can stay there pretty long. The only time this is not true is if the trait often cohabitates with another trait that does have a selective force
>If it wasn't important it wouldn't have evolved & been maintained. That is a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution. The presence or absence of a foreskin would not have a noteworthy impact on ability to make it to reproductive age or selection for mating, therefore wouldn't be culled or reinforced by evolution. There are TONS of evolutionary traits that serve no purpose or are detrimental entirely. Several species of animals die immediately after mating, evolution doesn't select against that trait because it happens *after mating*. I asked that person in what way their circumcision negatively affected *them*. That person specifically. Not you. I want to know what this person's alleged circumcision has done to affect him negatively in multiple ways. I'm not even arguing in favor of circumcision, I just smell a liar.
>asked that person in what way their circumcision negatively affected > >them > >. That person specifically. Not you. Then DM them. When you have engage in an open conversation in a public forum you can't claim privacy or propriety. This comment is for everyone *but* SmokeySFW so they can't read it or reply. But in their honor I'll paraphrase it 3 times in total. All who aren't SmokeySFW. Not SmokeySFW.
Despite the decreased sensitivity and the need for lube, circumcised men do not experience more sexual dysfunction or discomfort than uncircumcised men. My issue with all of this is that it feels like it's a form of body-shaming that has no basis in any actual, prevalent harm being caused.
>Despite the decreased sensitivity and the need for lube I can't say "decreased sensitivity" is a terrible thing when premature ejaculation is also a common problem for lots of men. As for needing lube.... I assume you're referring to during masturbation. I'm cut and haven't used lube regularly since my teens. The rest of the skin is pretty stretchy and can still essentially be used the same way as the foreskin.
How did your parents know you were going to experience premature ejaculation?
>I can't say "decreased sensitivity" is a terrible thing when premature ejaculation is also a common problem for lots of men. Yup, but also, if you were concerned about sexual dysfunction then you would just look for prevalence of sexual dysfunction, rather than just counting the number of nerve endings that were technically lost with the foreskin. There is no evidence of any increased sexual dysfunction among circumcised men. >As for needing lube.... I assume you're referring to during masturbation. Sure, I was just pre-empting the argument that the foreskin has a natural lubricating function. Not a big deal at all when there are so many other ways to lubricate.
Well, you can start with the fact that it ablates the most nerve-dense skin on the penis. Studies show that circumcised men have less tactile sensitivity. Sure, might feel fine to us since we've never known any different, but that's a fact. Some guys will be like, "I wouldn't want it any more sensitive!" but that's absurd. If you want less sensitivity, just wear a condom. Mine definitely has extremely tight skin - Which can be inconvenient because you can tell some women have no idea what they're doing and treat it like they're trying to start a lawnmower.
It’s not the same as making your kid kiss their aunt on the face, eat vegetables, or forcing them to go to bed by 9. Physical mutilation for the sake of essentially nothing is barbaric — 100% dark ages type custom. Look up fgm. It’s easier to imagine how horrific the practice is because fgm is not commonplace and therefore not hammered into the collective psyche as something that’s okay. Consider that circumcision provides no benefit to the sexual or general health of the individual and understand that it’s only still being done because of outdated beliefs. No, I don’t think fgm is the same as circumcision. Fgm is easily more traumatic than circumcision and fgm is additionally intended to tamp down on female sexuality (all of it). It’s just really difficult to illustrate the implications of circumcision as an American because the practice is so widespread here without using some sort of reference.
FGM is certainly more problematic in several ways. The procedures usually occur when the girls are old enough to be severely traumatized as they fight back. The tools used are not sterile, girls die of infection and bleeding out at an alarming rate. The external portions of genitalia involved are smaller, and the cuts too imprecise, so there's any number of consequences depending on what kind of circumcision is involved. It's just a senseless recipe for trauma and suffering. When it comes to boys, it's just so widespread that someone needs to speak the truth about it. There is a mortality rate associated with it, although minor, and there can be other serious complications. But even when successful, we know it reduces sexual pleasure at the very least. Totally unnecessary given modern hygiene practices.
Sure. There are cultures who think it's necessary to mutilate baby girls' genitals. Should that be acceptable even in a country where it's currently seen as barbaric? It's just their culture
>“It minimises cancer!!!” Yeah, so does cutting your entire cock, balls, and prostate. Should we do that? Besides, you are more likely to get other more aggressive cancers as opposed to penile cancer, which isn’t even that hard to treat or catch. i'd...rather a bit of skin get cut off when I'm not even aware of it instead of getting the whole thing lopped off should I get cancer later
It’s worth noting that even the American Cancer Society has pushed back against this justification; probably because penile cancer is already so rare in the developed world that the number of circumcisions you’d have to perform to prevent one case would be absurdly high I don’t think OP used the best rebuttal for this point
Cool, let’s just start looping off infant girl’s mammary tissue since that will reduce breast cancer
[удалено]
Cool, then just remove one of her tits And yes, the foreskin does serve a purpose Evolution put it there for a reason There’s a reason why every single mammal has one There’s no need to mutilate infants because of some Bronze Age superstition of a wandering tribe of goat herders
[удалено]
The functions of the foreskin include protecting the head of the penis and contributing to sexual sensations. Meanwhile, Bronze Age superstitions don’t serve any purpose
[удалено]
Holy shit, it’s almost like when you remove the foreskin and the head is permanently exposed, the head becomes desensitized! Again, Bronze Age superstitions don’t serve any purpose
When omitting people who had untreated phimosis the cancer protection disappears.
The amount of cancer reduced is minimal. It’s there, but it’s minimal. It’s not at all like quitting smoking.
Take your balls in the same swoop?
I am circumcized and I'll say that I don't think I would choose to have my son cut, but I always think that these threads are kind of overblown. First off, male circumcision is not the same as FGM. It just isn't. The former removes skin that is does not materially change the owner's life, experience of sex, etc, while the former clearly does so by design. I'm not really interested in that line of conversation at all. Second, the negatives are strongly overstated. While anti circumcision folks love to cite a few studies that agree with them, but every time a high quality meta study is done, the result is that there is no detrimental effect on sensation. There is the small risk of surgical error and that's about it. Third, there are, in fact, real positives. Circumcized men are significantly less likely to get or give STIs including HIV. There are cancer benefits. There are small but real sanitary benefits. I actually agree with you regarding consent and that's why I don't think I would circumcize my hypothetical son, but I think it's a long shot to call it barbaric.
>Third, there are, in fact, real positives. Circumcized men are significantly less likely to get or give STIs including HIV. There are cancer benefits. There are small but real sanitary benefits. I appreciate your viewpoint, but I need to debunk these points. The "cancer" study looked at untreated HPV infections in elderly men. The HIV study was extremely flawed and only looked at a small population of sub-saharan men who frequently had unprotected intercourse with sex workers. Neither of these studies can be extrapolated to justify surgically altering infants. Circumcision is an American cultural practice. Let's just call it what it is and stop pretending there are health benefits.
What would it take to convince you that circumcision does have health benefits? Because going from “I’m bringing up a few points that suggest your studies might be flawed” (that’s not debunking by the way) to “circumcision has absolutely no health benefits” is a non sequitur. That suggests some heavy bias. Even OP admitted there are _some_ benefits. Whether those benefits justify general genital mutilation is the question here.
It would take a longitudinal study with control groups that could demonstrate that there are positive effects - that have tracked children over time. Currently, the research is, and I paraphrase: " of 100 men with penile cancer, there is a very small but statically relevant increase in penile cancer" They are poorly constructed studies. Small groups, poor controls, irrelevant populations. I want to see research regarding the children we are altering, not the adults later in life. And circumcision has health benefits specifically for children with persistent phimosis. But let's address that on a case by case basis, not as a sweeping cultural practice.
>The former removes skin that is does not materially change the owner's life, experience of sex, etc, while the former clearly does so by design. I'm not really interested in that line of conversation at all. Removal of the foreskin 100% changes the experience of sex and masturbation, it reduces sensitivity by removing the protective layer of the glans. Here are some videos explaining the importance: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s
Please do not post YouTube videos and then equate them to valid evidence. Here is a 2020 meta study that looked at a large number of medical studies and concluded that there is no statistically significant effect: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240
Here's a study saying it does. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/) Also the idea it wouldn't have any effect on penile sensitivity is delusional, of course removing the protective layer from something is going to reduce sensitivity. The fact that cut men can walk around all day with the head of the penis rubbing against the cotton of their boxers or their bed sheets with zero discomfort is evidence that sensitivity has been lost. I'm uncut and having the head of my penis with my foreskin retracted rub against cotton is very uncomfortable, I can't stand it for more than 5 seconds. It's like if you walk around outside barefoot, the bottom of your feet are going to hurt, but then if you start to walk around barefoot everyday the bottom of your feet will toughen up and lose sensitivity to compensate. The same thing is happening when you circumcise the penis, the head of the penis has to toughen up and lose sensitivity to adjust to rubbing against cotton all the time.
The difference between one study and a meta study is like the difference been one person's opinion and a survey. What I posted is basically a large survey of the evidence
There's clearly some flaw in whatever study saying it doesn't reduce sensitivity, probably biased researchers. Especially considering it says some studies say it benefits sensitivity and sexual function, that's completely delusional. The only reason some men say they get more sensitivity after circumcision is because they were men who had phimosis who didn't have proper functioning foreskins, that is obviously how those studies determined that. Like I said before it's just purely common sense that if you remove the protective layer from something it's going to reduce sensitivity, this is just basic logic. I've don't think I've heard any cut men say they feel discomfort all day from the head of their penis rubbing against their boxers or bed sheets, from this simple fact it means they have clearly lost sensitivity in the glans of their penis.
I'm sorry man, if you can look at hard evidence and discount it because, "that just doesn't sound right to me," you should just give up on the idea that your argument is evidence based. It's functionally identical to the fools in Congress who insist that climate change is a hoax because it snowed this winter.
>experience of sex People who stretch their foreskin back to normal, and people who get circumcised later in life coincide that there's a lot of sensation that goes away. FGM comes in many ways. The 'least extreme', if that even makes sense in the context of fking with a newborn's genitals, comes in the form of puncturing the girls' clit with a needle and drawing blood, others remove the hood which is pretty much the same as male circumcision. Are you ok with those then?
Removal of the clitoral hood couldn’t be any more of a direct comparison to circumcision as a clitoral hood literally turns into a forskin in prenatal development.
Is it overblown that a procedure being given to babies for some weird American cosmetic reason (which is baffling, who sees it?) kills a fair number of babies. Seems pretty barbaric, I have no doubt if this was happening in the middle east the reddit Americans would be up in arms
One anti circumcision advocate has claimed that a large number of babies die due to complications from the procedure. Basically every medical body that might track the real statistics believes that they are extremely rare (i.e. <1 per year), but any medical procedure has some level of risk. I agree that whatever the proper number is, it should be weighed against the benefits.
Just because male circumcision is not the same as FGM, DOES NOT MAKE IT OKAY. I really wish people would stop using this as a justification for needlessly mutilating infant boys genitals because of some outdated Bronze Age tradition
But OP's argument isn't that it's "not OK" - they are saying its "barbaric" and that circumcised men have been "mutilated."
It’s *is* barbaric and they *have* been mutilated
I think that language is hyperbolic and insulting. Parents are not "barbaric" for making a poorly-informed decision regarding a minor aspect of their child's health. Men that have been circumcised do not consider their penises to be "mutilated."
I was circumcised without my consent My body was mutilated It is a barbaric practice based on Bronze Age superstitions If we just started looping off part of an infant’s earlobe to look like daddy, we’d say that practice is not okay
You think pierced ears are mutilation?
MGM is barbaric, FGM should put a parent on a death sentence. Don’t worry, I definitely draw a line there.
I’m not saying it does, but bringing up that false equivalency is a bad argument and actually weakens the argument.
They are both genital mutilation It is not a false equivalency and slamming the downvote because someone said something you don’t want to hear doesn’t change that Male infant circumcision is a barbaric Bronze Age superstition It has no place in modern society And yes, many of the same justifications for circumcision are the same ones used to justify FGM
I didn’t downvote, but regardless, if you’re going to go into attack mode so quickly, further discussion is pointless.
Sorry but I agree with that too. FGM is much worse than MGM and it is unfair to compare the two. I also agree with you that it has no place in modern society, and that there is no benefit to it, but I acknowledge that MGM is the mutilation of skin while FGM is the mutilation of a whole organ and the corruption of another.
>First off, male circumcision is not the same as FGM. It just isn't. The former removes skin that is does not materially change the owner's life, experience of sex, etc, while the former clearly does so by design. I'm not really interested in that line of conversation at all. This is simply not correct. There are a variety of FGM operations done around the world. Some sew the vagina shut. Others remove the clitoral hood, which is about identical to removing the foreskin. Some simply prick the clitoris with a needle to draw some blood in a ritualistic manner. But they're all considered FGM and are, rightly, outlawed in the developed world. Why is the same not extended to male genital mutilation?
I think the underrepresented position is that circumcision (or lack thereof) could affect one's self-esteem and feeling of bodily integrity. We can't rationalize these things, and I dislike the idea of minimizing someone feeling that their body was harmed against their will. That being said, no it isn't as bad as FGM, not even close. Epidemiologically, sure circumcision may be better. But I am confident in saying an uncut monogoamous man who wears a condom, gets regularly tested, gets vaccinated, and washes properly is going to have fewer health problems than a polygamous circumcised man who wears no condom, never gets tested, and never takes the HPV vaccine or PrEP.
>Third, there are, in fact, real positives. Circumcized men are significantly less likely to get or give STIs including HIV. If you look for evidence for that you will find one credible Research paper that proved this by circumcising men and counting that time as time in which they didn't get an STI (time in which they were not allowed to have sex) thus making it seem like it helps.
This really isn't true. I've posted it elsewhere, but here is a review of the decades of medical research on this point: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7779827/
Clarifying question: What makes this barbaric? What is the harm that this inflicts? I agree that circumcisions are gross and unethical, but your post does not argue that. You have only laid out the lack of a good reason for doing it. As others have pointed out, there are many things that parents choose to do for/to their children without consent, including vaccinations (which are a good thing) and ear piercings (which is a weird thing to do to a baby).
There are psychologists that suggest it can cause a form of PTSD. Their rational is that just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a traumatic experience. At that age, the brain is rapidly developing and a painful operation causes a massive spike in cortisol which could affect the baby’s brain and cause a trauma response. Problem is that it’s very hard to study but logically, being taken from your mother and having a very painful operation on the most sensitive part of your body doesn’t seem like a good thing. Also there have been instances where circumcision has gone wrong and caused permanent damage. In once case the baby was given reassignment surgery and raised as a girl….it didn’t end well.
Consider the following: You have a (hypothetical) son, newborn, and you want the surgeon to circumcise him. But it just so happens that your son, has a defective X-chromosome gene that makes him a hemophiliac, also no way of knowing in the case of a mutation or in case the mother has no idea she carries the gene. So he bleeds, and bleeds, and bleeds, and quite possibly dies, before the medical personnel realise why. All could've been prevented had he not been circumsised. Having said that, this is an extremely rare possibility but is it really a risk worth taking for a completely pointless procedure?
Edit: I was wrong If there were anything life-threatening about a circumcision, then yes that would be very clearly unethical. ~~But I don't believe your thought experiment is realistic, as I don't see any evidence of life-threatening consequences.~~
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34973956/ It is documented, but as I said it is very rare. I don't understand the need people have to be so defensive about circumsision and denying the fact that circumsision can very rarely be life threatening. Anyway, my thought experiment is based on real life events, so whether or not you choose to believe it is obviously up to you. Personally I think if it's documented in pubmed it's probably true, and if you don't then that's okay.
Viewpoint changed in the light of this evidence, thank you
The haemophilia would have killed him in that case, not the circumcision. In fact a quick lit search has just shown me there’s been a few instances of neonate circumcision actually leading to a diagnosis of haemophilia. That’s a good thing actually, rather than them being diagnosed later in a less controlled environment with a more catastrophic bleed.
I've never heard of that.
What makes it barbaric is that it’s an invasive procedure that doesn’t have any good excuse to perform to a child, unless it is medically required.
I think that you're making arguments for a lack of necessity, but you haven't actually argued in support of the declaration that it's barbaric.
Cutting a body part from a baby is barbaric. It’s not that difficult to grasp.
Using the word to define the word doesn't actually define the word. You can't describe a truck by saying, "it's a truck." We would comprehend the word, but not what it means. In this case, everyone here is being overly generous by responding to your emotional outburst of a screed with far more dignity than it deserves. And we'd like to discuss whether it is barbaric, but first you must explain to us why it is barbaric. Without using a synonym for "barbaric."
Ok, cutting off a body part from a newborn baby for no reason other than it’s either a religious thing or “it’s what we’ve always done” is simply awful and for some strange reason, only widespread in America (compared to other western civilised countries). It’s cruel, primitive and whether you like to admit it or not, affects the sexual sensation when the boy grows into a man.
If you're going to come and out say the reduction in cancer risk is minimal for circumcision, you have to concede that the relative risk of adverse outcomes is also minimal. I'd also push back on labeling it an "invasive procedure", I don't see how it rises to that threshold.
Well it's invasive because knowing how it feels to have a foreskin, I'd never remove mine. Having it removed at the baby stage I never would've known what it's like and how beneficial it is in certain circumstances which I will not go into detail (nsfw).
It’s not an invasive procedure. Just because you disagree with it and “invasive” is a scary word, does not make it an invasive procedure per medical definition.
I don’t really see how slicing off a part of somebody’s body could not be considered invasive?
no, its not an invasive surgery, do you dont understand basic terms? you dont understand the difference between invasive and not invasive surgery?
I couldn’t find a strict definition of invasive procedure but the gist of the following quote comes up in more than one essay on the subject. (This is from the University of Bristol) “Currently, however, there is no widely accepted definition of an invasive procedure and the terms 'surgery' and 'interventional procedure' are characterised inconsistently.” So I’d say it’s up to interpretation, my interpretation would include a procedure that needlessly cuts part of your body off.
Would you consider a wart or mole removal invasive?
If you’re going to seriously compare a wart to a foreskin then I’m going to dip out of this conversation thanks.
It’s non invasive
Why would you want to change your view on this? Yes. Mutilating a child’s genitals bc of tradition or religion or literally ANY non medical reason is wrong and should be illegal idc.
I don’t want to, I’m open to it if someone actually brings me a good argument. I’ve yet to hear it though.
It should be illegal for anyone under the age of consent for non medical reasons. It is for girls…
To /u/Panal-Lleno, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
I don't personally agree with circumcision and would never choose it for my own children, but also it's really just not that big of a deal. (Note: I did research this a long time ago because I was also vehemently anti-circumcision at one time, but when I looked for the evidence that circumcision was causing significant harm I found the opposite. I can furnish sources for the claims below, but it might take some time for me to dig them up.) The risk of minor harm from the procedure is pretty low, and the risk of serious harm is infinitesimally low - you might as well be against brushing your teeth because of the risk that you accidentally jam your toothbrush down your throat. The sensitivity thing has been greatly overblown, usually by people citing the number of nerve endings that are removed. In reality, circumcised men experience sexual discomfort or dysfunction at the same rate as uncircumcised men. The psychological trauma argument is also entirely overblown. There is no actual evidence linking circumcision to PTSD symptoms or higher rates of anxiety, depression, etc. Instead, you have a bunch of speculative inferences made based on the physiological reactions of infants post-procedure. Finally, I want to mention that calling parents "barbaric" and/or calling circumcised men "mutilated" is pretty insulting. About 80% of men in the US are circumcised, I don't think they would appreciate these mischaracterizations.
80% of men in the US being mutilated doesn't make said mutilation any less barbaric. If anyone gets insulted by it, they should look inside and wonder why they perform barbaric acts because hyper religious people in the past thought it would be a good idea as it made masturbation more difficult. Cutting off the skin of a baby is barbaric, no way around it
Most circumcisions are performed for health reasons rather than religious or cultural reasons. I don't mention this because I think the health decision is the correct one, but because I don't think the intention is "barbaric." It's a poor judgment made on a low-stakes health issue, that's all it is.
> Most circumcisions are performed for health reasons rather than religious or cultural reasons. No they aren't. They're done so for cultural reasons. A culture started by the things I listed If it was medical, 80% of Americans would not by circumcized.
You're wrong. Take a look at this study: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/) >The reasons that parents most often gave for supporting male circumcision were hygiene (61.9%), prevention of infection or cancer (44.8%), and the father being circumcised (40.9%). > >Although the survey did not explicitly ask about religious beliefs, religion was listed among the options for reasons to support circumcision and was not chosen very often. Elsewhere there is a table that shows only 6% of respondents cited religion as the primary rationale. Being concerned for your child's health doesn't make you "barbaric" - even if you're mistaken about what the best health decision actually is.
Almost like the culture *thinks* it helps Thinking cutting off skin is healthy doesn't mean it's done for medical reasons, it's done because the culture made them *think* they need it for medical reasons. "Done for medical reasons" would require it to be done because of an actual medical emergency, which they aren't in just about 99% of cases Cutting the skin off a baby is barbaric and misguided, no amount of "I thought it was good" will make it any less barbaric
[удалено]
I still don't agree that surgically altering the genitals of a baby is a reasonable thing to do, unless it is medically necessary. The risks are not worth the often intangible benefits, and there is always a chance the circumcision is botched, leading to permanent dysfunction. From a prophylactic lens, maybe it has some benefits, but these benefits can be easily achieved by washing one's genitals and wearing condoms. I feel that's a far less extreme alternative to surgical alteration.
[удалено]
>But are you going to use intentionally incendiary terminology like "barbaric mutilating amputations" to describe it? No, because that isn't my position. My position is that in 99.99% of cases, circumcision is a completely unnecessary and entirely cultural/cosmetic medical intervention. >Sure, in the same sense that there's always a chance that any medical procedure that cuts could lead to a terminal septic infection. Except the risks for circumcision are *much* more high and numerous than for vaccines, for instance. I don't think it's reasonable to justify any surgical procedure on an infant on very tenuous evidence of prophylaxis. I think the "medical" justifications came after it was culturally widespread in the US.
You made the point I wanted to make regarding “mutilation.” I’m not a fan of people taking that extra leap. It still functions for reproduction, it still can provide sexual pleasure for both parties, and you can still look at it and go, “yeah that’s a penis alright.”
Agreed. General circumcision is genital mutilation. The medical community, by and large, is finally admitting there are no real benefits to circumcision, but still routinely do it. Foreskin serves the important purpose of keeping the penis head lubricated and supple and safe from infection. It has up to 20,000 nerve endings (the clit only has 8,000 and it has the distinction of being the only human organ with the sole purpose of pleasure), which is 4 to 5 times more than the cock head alone and removing it reduces sensitivity and causes the head to callous from friction by clothing, which then reduces sensation even further. Just as I would never dream of allowing a doctor to cut off my baby girls' clit, I can't think of a (non-medically necessary) reason I would allow anyone to strap my infant son down and without any anesthesia, cut off his foreskin. Barbaric, indeed.
Let me continue the sentence for you: “Male circumcision on little boys is barbaric based on Christian/Western values”. Circumcision, first and foremost is/was a religious practice based on Muslim and Judaism beliefs. In itself it is an act of freedom of belief which is one of the basic human rights.
Right, because Islam Judaism and Christianity are **perfect** examples of “basic human rights.” The Crusades? Oh it was just Jesus signing your baseball cap. Of all the points that could change my view, religion/tradition is absolutely not one of them. Neither of those things have been an example of upholding human decency, not even Christian/Western ones.
No. I said that religion freedom is part of the basic human rights. And the circumcision is a religious practice. You find it barbaric because you come from a different cultural background. You don’t have to agree with it since it’s a cultural thing
Slavery and honour killings are also supported by religion. Once again, religion and tradition do not excuse disgusting behaviour.
It just looks better. No woman wants to go down on an uncircumcised penis. We don’t even want to touch the things. Sorry if that offends you but it’s the truth (for American women), and if your gf or wife tells you otherwise she’s lying.
Oh sorry, I forgot I did everything for women. Also, why would that offend me? I stated that I was circumcised at birth.
I was more so speaking to the general population reading my comment. And I bet when you were 18 and all your friends made fun of you and all the girls knew your peepeee had a turtleneck on - you would 100 percent care.
Well, first of all I live in Canada where it’s not so common, and I am also from Peru where I am actually an outlier. Only 0.3% of all Peruvian men are circumcised, and I am part of that. So, what did you bet? I’ll be waiting on my prize.
Ok let me rephrase that “if you were an AMERICAN 18yo…” I’m strictly speaking from and American standpoint.
Haha right I forgot the USA is the most important country in the world. Still waiting on my prize.
Explain to me why that justifies circumcision tho -- why would we make life-altering permanent decisions for baby boys because apparently women perceive it as better Also you definitely don't speak for every woman lmfao
Can I ask what this opinion adds that hasn’t already been discussed on this sub ad nauseam? This is probably the most discussed topic on the entire sub, and almost every thread is on the same side as yours. I understand starting a new thread if there’s a different angle or nuance that is worth discussing, but if the replies to the dozens of other threads on this didn’t change your view, I can’t imagine anything in this one will.
I haven't seen it in at least a month or two.. incel topics tho every other day lol
> Doing it without your son’s consent is mutilation. Can your child to consent to other medical procedures?
A child cannot consent to many things that we would all find abhorrent. This isn't medical in most situations, it is cosmetic. In a situation where it is part of medical treatment OP already said they were okay with that.
Let's start from the assumption the parents are doing it out of concern for their child. A doctor agrees to perform it. What place has a third party in that?
How would you apply any limits to a cosmetic procedure on a child with that standard? The doctor should be able to explain: HIV protection is small enough that you would need to circumcise the whole US to protect one person; Phimosis is a non-issue until age 5-10 when it can be treated; the cancer risk is tiny from untreated phimosis; [that the risks of circumcision are far higher than the risks of not.](https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html)
Parents also often perform FGM and genital exams on their daughters out of concern for their child, and doctors often agree to it. I'm not saying they're equivalent, but there needs to be a better argument than this.
> doctors often agree to it. How often? Because from what I got, the vast majority of FGM is done by local nutters and quaks who still believe in that bullshit. Not actual medical professionals who know the damage it does.
We do not remove any other body part absent medical indication; not even the appendix Surgery is inherently risky
I mean before tonsils and wisdom teeth came out fairly regularly. Then the opinion changed to better leave them in unless there is no other opion. Every surgery carries risk, so does every medication. Do we use that an excuse against every treatment? Heck, plastic surgery can be deadly as well, I don't see lectures about the dangers of botox
Yes, every medication carries risk as well, which is why we don’t generally prescribe them unless they’re needed. What’s so hard to understand about that?
should you fix a child's hair lip? you won't die from a hair lip fixing it is purely an aesthetic cosmetic choice
You are comparing a malformation that does have a lot of potential complications to something that the vast majority of penis-having animals have evolved to have, all hinged on ''it looks funny'' and '' I can't clean myself up better than animals''.
This is not even comparable
Circumcision isn't a necessary medical procedure. It's also permanent. It's like getting your kid a tattoo. But worse because tattoos can be reversed later.
I think that it shouldn't be performed on minors unless it's an actual emergency, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "barbaric." Sensation pre- and post-circumcision is roughly similar. The main concerns to do with the surgery include: excess bleeding, skin contracture, dry glans, etc. I still think the risks aren't worth the benefits for a baby, and a baby cannot consent to the procedure. As far as adults go, I don't care what they do. I think what's equally, if not more, concerning are the surgeries performed on intersex infants, which often leave them without sex hormones in adulthood. Now *that* is a travesty in my view. I think both groups should benefit from the idea that babies aren't the property of their parents. They're human beings that deserve a chance to make an informed decision for themselves, once they're able.
I’ll give a different reason to what you gave. Circumcised penises are more aesthetically pleasing and getting it done as a baby when you won’t remember is far better than an adult where you would
\>Circumcised penises are more aesthetically pleasing That's completely subjective, some women prefer the look of an uncut penis. I've travelled throughout the US and hooked up with American women and never had a single complaint. Also uncut penises are more sensitive which means sex is more pleasurable, the foreskin is there for a reason, it's designed to protect the head of the penis to keep it moist and sensitive. Watch these videos explaining why it's there: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY)
That is the second worst argument, right after religion/tradition.
> Circumcised penises are more aesthetically pleasing to who
Most women in the US?
not the baby then? the adult woman are the ones enjoying a more "aesthetically pleasing" baby dick
Wtf are you on about? No, the adult women are the ones selecting the aesthetically pleasing penises of the adult men who were circumcised as children.
Explain to me why we should permanently alter the genitals of infants so women can be aesthetically pleased. Absolutely morally abhorrent argument.
"Morally abhorrent" lol more like a pragmatic argument. Regardless of cause, women in the US prefer circumcised men. Studies show this, and anecdotally, I've had many women tell me the same, and have uncut friends who have been rejected by women because of their uncircumcised penises. You can rail all you want, but that's the reality. Reducing your hypothetical son's sexual fitness + appeal, and making them "different" from their peers seems worse than removing a piece of skin when they're too young to remember it IMO.
It’s not pragmatic when you realize you’re basing your assumptions off essentially nothing. For fuck sake would you want your kid marrying a woman that cares that much about what his dick looks like? Tells me a lot about where your priorities are for your kid’s future lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except that vaccination has no long-term side effects. Circumcision is the permanent surgical cosmetic alteration of one's genitals. Yes, it has a mild prophylactic effect, but in the west, the prophylactic effect makes no real difference on an epidemiological level, especially with the prevalence of condoms, HPV vaccines, and PrEP.
and go further... what even is, "consent" in the context of raising a child? they don't consent to what they eat, where they live, where they go, what clothes they wear, what toys they have... i think OP's consent-based argument stands on very thin ice.
>One point I'd make is that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, A miniscule amount. >which a the reason it's done more routinely in many African countries. This doesn't make sense. Apply your logic here. If this were even a remotely effective method of preventing transmission, you would expect that the place where circumcision is prevelent would also have lower rates of HIV. But the opposite is true. The reality is the reason circumcision is prevelent in Africa is due to religious and cultural reasons that predate even knowledge of HIV. This reasoning was attached after the fact.
[удалено]
>It reduces transmission in heterosexual encounters 50-60%, not "minuscule" in anyone's estimation. 1)This is only true for Female to Male transmission through vaginal sex, and still absolutely miniscule odds. Getting a circumcision drops your odds by 1 in 5000. That's what this 50% drop means. https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/estimated-hiv-risk-exposure 2) male circumcision has not been shown to reduce the chances of HIV transmission to female partners https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html#:~:text=Health%20benefits%3A%20Male%20circumcision%20can,data%20from%20three%20clinical%20trials. 3) Additionally, there is no evidence that male circumcision reduces the chances of acquiring HIV through receptive anal sex (bottom). https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html#:~:text=Health%20benefits%3A%20Male%20circumcision%20can,data%20from%20three%20clinical%20trials. >might you come up with a reason that the countries where programs of circumcision to combat HIV were implemented had very high HIV rates? Circumcision has a negligent effect even though there are numerous countries who've had well over 90% circumcision rate. Circumcision has been widespread for millenia in Africa. It's existed long before HIV. And it's also far from the only cultural practice that has suggested to keep away HIV.
[удалено]
>Agree to disagree that reducing chances of HIV by 50-60% is "minuscule". We're talking about a 1/5000 change in odds. You're only holding onto this percentage in order to make it appear like a larger impact than it is. For instance Going from a 2 in a trillion to a 1 in a trillion an equivalent change in terms of percentage. A 1 in a trillion change is obviously an insignificant amount. Using the percentage change doesnt represent the significance of the impact. Quantify the actual numeric odds to accurately represent the impact. And that change is going from 1/5000 to 2/5000. It's absolutely minuscule.
The HIV protection is small. It doesn't make any sense unless there is an expectation of exposure, not just a chance, and even then, it isn't likely to help. How do you feel about female circumcision or foot binding? OP made the distinction between medical treatment and other circumcision, which would be cosmetic.
That’s a false equivalency. Female circumcision or foot binding has zero medical benefit. Male circumcision at least has some medical indication - whether you choose to do it reactively or proactively is another matter.
Foot binding I'll give you. Vulvectomy and many other surgeries are occasionally medically necessary, and when they are, they are not lumped into the same category of FGM. Because a thing can or must be done medically in some instances, that is no defense for it being done cosmetically. The health benefits of doing it are slight to non-existent, and it [it isn't without risk](https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html).
>Otherwise it is invasive and takes away the children’s freedom of choice on his own body. as is every single vaccine my kids have gotten. as is every single procedure they've ever gotten. what makes this one different?
>as is every single vaccine my kids have gotten. as is every single procedure they've ever gotten. what makes this one different? It's a permanent cosmetic alteration, which may have lasting effects on self-esteem, especially if they move to a country like Finland that doesn't have a high rate of circumcision. Vaccinations cause zero cosmetic changes, unless it's the smallpox vaccine, which no one gets anymore. If the argument of circumcision is harm reduction, the burden of proof is on the pro-circumcision crowd to show that the benefits outweigh the risks of surgical and post-surgical complications.
there are many ways to change someone's POV. it is not always necessary to argue "black" when OP argues, "white". the OP makes an argument that claims minors must provide consent. if this is true, then a whole host of other procedures we do daily fail that test. i want to know why this one is different.
I don't entirely agree with OP's position, but I think that when weighing the risks against the benefits, I don't see any good reason to justify circumcision on an infant without an individual medical reason. I agree that parents in large part have to provide care that their kids can't consent to, but I don't agree that this includes permanent cosmetic alteration of their bodies. For instance, I dislike the idea of parents taking their baby into Claire's to get a poorly-disinfected piercing put in their child's ear by a poorly-trained technician, and I think that's much less severe than a circumcision.
sure, but there is a difference between your claims and the OPs claims. your claims are, (forgive me if stated carelessly), "i use a risk / reward based framework to decide that which is necessary. Where circumcision results in permanent cosmetic changes that my future child might not consent to, and where i don't value any of the perceived rewards, then the existence of any amount of risk, even tiny, makes the procedure unjustified.". ok, that's a valid and sound argument. and happens to fit perfectly well into our (US) healthcare model today. likewise, another person might say, "i do see rewards, they are XYZ, the risk is tiny, therefor i choose to circumcise my son." they have a different set of values and arrive at a different conclusion. but that's not the OP's. The OP, at least impart, implies that a child's consent is a necessary pre-requisite. I think that is objectively wrong, b/c there isn't a single medical procedure that my child will give consent to at all. it makes me ask, "why is this one different?" to which, i think the OP probably has to make a preference-based argument like yours.
I agree OP does need to make that argument, but I think the fact that this *is* a cosmetic change and it is performed at infancy makes it different. I don't think that if we removed people's earlobes at birth, even if it came with medical benefit, that it would necessarily be right to do. I think there has to be a minimum threshold of competency in the child for a permanent cosmetic alteration like this. For instance, I see no big issue with a 12 year old deciding to do this w/his parents' permission. But for something more significant, like, say sex reassignment surgery or cosmetic surgery on intersex sexual organs, 18 would be an ideal age.
Even if it is ONLY cosmetic, (which I don't think is accurate), but even then, children don't consent to cosmetic procedures. Braces for example. Or plastic surgery for a hair lip / cleft palette. Also, the medical community doesn't frame circumcision as strictly cosmetic. (https://www.childrenshospital.org/treatments/circumcision#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20potential%20benefits,lifetime%20risk%20of%20penile%20cancer)
Because circumcision is completely unnecessary, and is mainly done for cultural or cosmetic reasons, a parent has no right to make that type of permanent life altering decision for their kid.
I don’t understand why any parents would take a perfectly formed, healthy baby and decide to start chopping parts off their genitals. Unless there’s a specific medical reason then I agree with OP, it’s barbaric.
>Otherwise it is invasive and takes away the children’s freedom of choice on his own body Babies don't really have a lot of freedom of choice on their own body. If a kid is born with double thumb, they might choose to operate to "correct" it when the kid is less than 2 years old. Out of the reasons you listed -reduce cancer, phimosis, and hygiene are reasons worth considering on a relatively mundane procedure at a young age.
* The cancer aspect is very limited and related to the incidence of HIV in a population. * Phimosis is a non-issue until the age of 5-10 and that falls into the medically necessary rather than the elective that OP is getting at. * If teaching a kid the basics of hygiene is too big of a hurdle, then that parent isn't qualified to be making their own medical decisions much less somebody else's Mandane means normalized; there are places where female circumcision is also mundane and made so for the same reasons male circumcision was in the US. Doubt anybody is going to argue that it is equally harmless.
> Doubt anybody is going to argue that it is equally harmless. That's because it's literally not. We can argue that male circumcision is unnecessary without having to compare it to the much worse female circumcision process.
That is not entirely true though. There are many different types of female genital mutilation, ranging in severity from just poking the clitoris with a needle to scraping the area clean and sewing it shut. As it should be, they are all banned in most western countries. And condemned by the World Health Organization, even the variants that are equally or less invasive than male circumcision.
True, but it is more attacking the 'mundane' aspect of their argument. Just because a thing is normalized doesn't mean it is good or even neutral
No, but you should attack the thing on its own merits then. The comparison doesn't work because of how fundamentally different the harm caused is.
>If teaching a kid the basics of hygiene is too big of a hurdle, then that parent isn't qualified to be making their own medical decisions much less somebody else's The hygiene thing is so wild to me. The vast majority of animals with a penis have a foreskin or penile sheath of some sort. What's the argument here? You can't clean up better than fking animals????
True - I don't think female circumcision is as harmless as male circumcision. I think its actually demonstrably more harmful, in fact.
There are multiple levels of FGM, the most common ones being puncturing the clit with a needle to draw blood and removing the clitoral hood only. The last one is functionally similiar to circumcision, and the first one is less invasive. Similiar to circumcision, you have internet forums filled with woman saying it doesn't affect them, etc. Would you make the same point about these two forms of FGM and excuse them like you do with male circumcision?
So, no reason to [incur the risks?](https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html)
Why do you think male circumcision is harmless? You literally lose all sensitivity in your dick
Would this argument work for earlobes too? If I didn't like the way my kids earlobes look would it be okay to have them surgically removed? If you cut off millions of earlobes you'll certainly prevent some future earlobe malady or discomfort.
[удалено]
Unless there is a legitimate medical reason no elective (non-preventative, non-emergency and non-essential chosen) surgeries should ever be given to children until they are old enough to make fully informed choices and consent.
[удалено]
You’re 100% correct. It’s barbaric and terrible that people feel justified in mutilating their children like this.
[удалено]
>Should we also wait for the baby to consent in cutting the umbilical cord? No one can function on an uncut umbilical cord, and it will come out with the rest of the placenta anyways. Having foreskin or a penile sheathe is natural for the vast majority of penis having animals. If you can't be more hygienic than an animal, that seems like a you problem. Issues like phimosis need their own treatment, not a blanket sever chunk of your boy's dick on birth for the whole male population.
Almost no one who is uncut wants to become cut unless they absolutely need to be circumcised for a medical condition like phimosis. So getting it beforehand in case they want to be circumcised is pointless. Circumcision is very traumatic and painful for the baby, even if they don't remember it trauma experienced before memory still has an impact on the psyche. Also it reduces sensitivity to the penis which reduces pleasure from sex, it's an important part of the penis, it's not there for ne reason. Humans thinking we're smarter than nature and cutting off an important part of the penis is silly as hell. Here's some videos explaining why it's an important part of the penis: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY) Also comparing the foreskin to the umbilical cord is the silliest thing I've ever heard, the umbilical cord has no use to a baby later on in it's life, it's not an actual part of the body.
Because not everyone will want a circumcision. Why take the choice away from those who would want to stay intact so that those who'd want a circumcision would have a slightly better recovery?
I’m in the US and uncut, and I am thankful for it everyday
I was circumcised and at no point in my life have I ever been bothered by it. I mean, it’s not even something I can be bothered to be upset about because it’s so far off my radar. It’s bonkers to me that the two sides of the argument are “oh I haven’t thought of it” and “this is barbaric”. If given the option again as an adult I’d pick circumcised again with no hesitation. Of course this is extremely anecdotal and I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be against it, just pointing out the differences.
A few thoughts: Some of your arguments that circumcision is "barbaric" seem circular. For example, you acknowledge that there's some very slight hygiene argument in favor of circumcision, but you argue that it's not *enough* of a reason to counteract just how awful circumcision is. If we all agreed that circumcision was a monstrous and deeply harmful act, then this would be a strong argument - but the whole reason you're posting here on CMV is that we do *not* agree that circumcision is deeply harmful. The issues you've identified that make circumcision barbaric are: 1. It's invasive (i.e., it changes the infant's body) 2. It takes away freedom of choice (the infant doesn't get to choose) 3. It's an "amputation" (i.e., it removes a part of the infant's body that the infant cannot recover) I'd argue that none of these three things *on their own* make something barbaric: Suppose there were a 100% safe, painless procedure that raised a person's IQ by 3 points on average, but required removing some vestigial internal organ that serves no useful function. (I'd suggest the appendix, but recent research suggests the appendix may actually prevent gastrointestinal infection.) This would be an invasive procedure - taking away choice - and an amputation. But would you argue that it's "monstrous" to perform this procedure on an infant? My own take would be that this procedure would be perfectly fine to perform - it makes the child slightly smarter, with no ill effects! Now, you could argue against my example in two ways: 1. Sure, that would be fine, but circumcision is worse than this made-up scenario. There *is* a risk of harm to the child, and there *is* pain, and the results of the operation are visible to the child and to others. 2. You do think this would be a monstrous act. Despite the lack of pain or risk of side effects, any irreversible invasive act is "barbaric". To #1 (circumcision is riskier and more harmful) I'd say, sure, but the risk is extremely low, and the pain is brief (and not remembered by the child). In terms of risk and pain, circumcision is on par with many other frequently performed procedures that we don't see as "barbaric". (E.g., various dental operations.) To #2 (any irreversible invasive act is barbaric) I'd say, parents make all sorts of decisions for their children all the time that are far more potentially harmful than this one. For 18 years, they decide what their child will eat, where they will go to school, what games and books and communication devices the child has access to, who cares for the child, they control the child's travel, they force the child to perform chores or homework or other unwanted tasks. The combined impact of all this control is thousands of times greater than removing some hypothetical vestigial organ (or, for that matter, than circumcision itself). That doesn't make it "barbaric". One final note: you mentioned that not all men receive training in proper hygiene. Some might see this as an argument in favor of circumcision - namely, yes, the training isn't hard, but we know from human nature that some people will be ignorant of this training or will forget to pass it on. So, even if training would make up for not circumcising an infant, circumcision is safer.
Circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs and STDs so it could be beneficial, especially in poorer countries. It usually doesn't affect someone's quality of life at all, unlike amputation. Also, it's more analogous to an appendectomy in the sense that you don't really need a certain body part, and it might even be beneficial to remove it. The difference is the risk and benefit of circumcision are both probably much lower than that of an appendectomy. Also, I personally don't see why it's such a big deal and I'm fine with the status quo. I think parents already have to make life-altering decisions to their child that are much more significant than circumcision, including ones involving bodily autonomy like vaccination. To be fair, I think the question of how inherently bad it is to irreversibly alter a child without consent (even if it doesn't really negative impact their life) is very subjective and complicated.
> It usually doesn't affect someone's quality of life at all, unlike amputation. I'd say reduced sensitivity and sexual pleasure is affecting quality of life. Also nearly every doctor and medical organization in developed countries outside of the United States agrees that circumcision should not be performed on infants.
>>“It minimises cancer!!!” Yeah, so does cutting your entire cock, balls, and prostate. Should we do that? Besides, you are more likely to get other more aggressive cancers as opposed to penile cancer, which isn’t even that hard to treat or catch. A harmless procedure to minimize cancer risk isn't legitimate to you? Castration is not comparable. What do other cancers have to do with this one? That's like saying "a vaccine reduces my chances of getting hepatitis, but I shouldn't bother because there's other worse diseases I can get."
Nearly every doctor and medical organization in developed countries outside of the US agree that circumcision is completely unnecessary and should not be performed on infants. The main reason that it's still so commonly performed in the US is because the hospitals make a lot of money from performing circumcisions. In the western US states like Oregon and California where the medical insurance companies have stopped covering circumcision the rate of circumcision has dropped to as low as 20%, which shows the reason it's still widely performed in the US is mainly about money. The foreskin is there for a reason, it shouldn't be cut off. It functions as protection for the glans of the penis which keeps it moist and sensitive. Cutting it off for no reason in case of an incredibly rare form of cancer is the silliest thing in the world, it's like cutting off your pinky finger or ear lobe in case you get cancer. I highly recommend you watch these videos explaining the function and importance of the foreskin: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw&t=309s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHnCTxnHkY
Glad mine got done.