Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: should infant Circumssion be banned?
    Yes!
    137
    76.11%
    NO!!!
    43
    23.89%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thecatwithnohat)
    Yes, I understand risks come with it but it does with other things in life too. There are children who get violent allergic reactions to MMR vaccinations too, does this automatically mean that the parent shouldn't have taken the chance to protect their child when the opportunity was available to them? It happens to some, but not all.

    Not everyone (those circumcised) complains about their penis being exposed to a little more air than normal. You've lost a little something, okay. You lose a little hair everyday, ok. You lose your sense of smell, ok. It won't drastically change their life.
    The difference between the MMR vaccine and circumcision is that there are health benefits to the MMR. There is no known health benefits to circumcision unless performed on someone with a right or restrictive foreskin. MMR prevents deaths by the bucket load. Circumcision prevents nothing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Just because you didn't have any difficulty, doesn't mean others haven't. I could then argue that there are many circumcised men who also have never had any of the complications that people have associated with circumcision. My point is that it doesn't matter if you're circumcised or not. It's ultimately the parents decision, whether people like it or not. I honestly don't think it makes any difference and I don't prefer one over the other. To me, there's no right or wrong. I merely gave some reasons for why parents may opt for circumcision, with one of those reasons being for cleanliness
    How would you feel if someone said:

    "I will remove my daughter's inner labia because it will be cleaner for her (no urine will be caught in the folds). She won't feel anything if it's done at a young age, her pleasure will be the same and it looks better anyway."
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bardnnyc)
    Start a new thread on how people take care of their hygiene in this country and let us know the result. There is not much that wipes and tissues can do. There are lots of people who don't take proper shower/bath.
    like someone said, "foreskin is vile". I concur with that.

    I was circumcised, my boys if and when I have them would be circumcised. UK laws if any exists wont stop me. I bet most of the royal males were circumcised.
    Should we chop people's hands off then? I mean ... it IS more hygienic that way, if they don't have hands they don't need to worry about washing hands.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    FGM is carried out non professionally by an untrained invidiual. No anaesthetic is used.
    Part of the reason that happens is because FGM is illegal. One of the issues with making circumcision illegal is that it will also be pushed into illegal underground clinics where untrained individuals undertake the procedure without anaesthetic. So in that respect, there is not much difference.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    All fun and games until you get a botched circumcision and your penis becomes necrotic. And of course everyone who ever got the foreskin removed as an infant doesn't care, what other experience do they have?

    On another note, all of the dirty "it requires more cleaning so it's convenient" people are disgusting. Clean your junk man, doesn't matter if you've got foreskin or not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    Male genital mutilation removes up to 90% of nerve endings sevrely reducing pleasure, not all FGm is as server as this
    Says who? Where's your proof? Because circumcised men still climax from sexual activity so I don't know what you're talking about. Circumcised women feel absolutely NOTHING. I like how you side stepped all the complications associated with FGM. It's carried out illegally and by untrained people, so yes, it is as severe as that
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Says who? Where's your proof? Because circumcised men still climax from sexual activity so I don't know what you're talking about. Circumcised women feel absolutely NOTHING. I like how you side stepped all the complications associated with FGM. It's carried out illegally and by untrained people, so yes, it is as severe as that
    What if FGM was done by professionals?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Part of the reason that happens is because FGM is illegal. One of the issues with making circumcision illegal is that it will also be pushed into illegal underground clinics where untrained individuals undertake the procedure without anaesthetic. So in that respect, there is not much difference.
    Even if FGM was carried out legally by a professional, it still has many associated health risks such as abnormal menstrual cycle/infertility/ UTIs/ severe pain during sex and no sexual pleasure for life. It also has absolutely no potential health or hygienic benefits. Male circumcision is removing the skin covering the tip of the penis, FGM is to remove the entire clitoris and in many cases, the inner and outer vaginal lips are also removed, so there is a significant difference between the two
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    What if FGM was done by professionals?
    Read my last post
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Read my last post
    So I ask my question again:

    How would you feel if someone said:
    "I will remove my daughter's inner labia because it will be cleaner for her (no urine will be caught in the folds). She won't feel anything if it's done at a young age, her pleasure will be the same and it looks better anyway."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Should we chop people's hands off then? I mean ... it IS more hygienic that way, if they don't have hands they don't need to worry about washing hands.
    To chop off someone hands is to disable them, and to prevent them from living a relatively normal life. In addition to that, we don't have smegma build up on our hands to increase the risk of infection. It's relatively easy to wash your hands and is something that the average clean person does several times a day. Some males, particularly preteen/teenage boys may be unable to thoroughly clean that area because it may be tender, tight or painful to retract the foreskin or they just may not clean it properly.

    The genitals are unseen and private so if an infection starts, nobody can really see it until it takes it toll, whereas if your hands are really dirty, it can be seen by yourself and others around you and is a sign that you need to go and give them a wash. Bacteria on the hands can't always be seen, so we are advised to carry around antibacterial hand sanitizer and to thoroughly wash before meals, before cooking, after using the toilet and many times in between.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    So I ask my question again:

    How would you feel if someone said:
    "I will remove my daughter's inner labia because it will be cleaner for her (no urine will be caught in the folds). She won't feel anything if it's done at a young age, her pleasure will be the same and it looks better anyway."
    It's not cleaner. It doesn't matter how much of the vagina you remove, urine will always remain after you pee. That goes for both men and women. In addition, the vagina is self cleaning so women aren't suppose to use soap to clean that area. Warm water is all we need down there & it's not painful or difficult to apply water to the vagina. Odourless discharge is a good sign that your vag is clean. The pleasure isn't the same, even if done professionally.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not cleaner. It doesn't matter how much of the vagina you remove, urine will always remain after you pee. That goes for both men and women. In addition, the vagina is self cleaning so women aren't suppose to use soap to clean that area. Warm water is all we need down there & it's not painful or difficult to apply water to the vagina. Odourless discharge is a good sign that your vag is clean. The pleasure isn't the same, even if done professionally.
    Oh the pleasure isn't the same? I recall you dismissing that argument for male circumcicion....
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not cleaner. It doesn't matter how much of the vagina you remove, urine will always remain after you pee. That goes for both men and women. In addition, the vagina is self cleaning so women aren't suppose to use soap to clean that area. Warm water is all we need down there & it's not painful or difficult to apply water to the vagina. Odourless discharge is a good sign that your vag is clean. The pleasure isn't the same, even if done professionally.
    Vaginas are crawling in bacteria (which in itself isn't actually bad you body relies on bacteria), and prone to stuff like yeast infections much more than similar infections in male genitalia are... Not that there would be any argument to mutilating a woman if doing so decease chance of such infections.

    The pleasure isn't the same when the foreskin is removed either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Oh the pleasure isn't the same? I recall you dismissing that argument for male circumcicion....
    What are you talking about? The pleasure is non existent for circumcised females. Like I mentioned before, Circumcised men still climax
    from sexual activity and there's no evidence to suggest sexual pleasure is vastly diminished in circ men.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Vaginas are crawling in bacteria (which in itself isn't actually bad you body relies on bacteria), and prone to stuff like yeast infections much more than similar infections in male genitalia are... Not that there would be any argument to mutilating a woman if doing so decease chance of such infections.

    The pleasure isn't the same when the foreskin is removed either.
    Vaginas are crawling in a lot of good bacteria. We're prone to yeast infections if we douche and use soaps as doing so messed up the ph balance.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    What are you talking about? The pleasure is non existent for circumcised females. Like I mentioned before, Circumcised men still climax
    from sexual activity and there's no evidence to suggest sexual pleasure is vastly diminished in circ men.
    Okay first of all, there are different types of female circumcicion. The one you responded to was ONLY the removal of the labia. That does not make sexual activity completely unpleasurable. Yet you are still using thst argument. It is completely comparable to male cicumcicion..

    secondly there is evidence you are just refusing to listen to it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not cleaner. It doesn't matter how much of the vagina you remove, urine will always remain after you pee. That goes for both men and women. In addition, the vagina is self cleaning so women aren't suppose to use soap to clean that area. Warm water is all we need down there & it's not painful or difficult to apply water to the vagina. Odourless discharge is a good sign that your vag is clean. The pleasure isn't the same, even if done professionally.
    So it's ok to mutilate boys because they might get an infection, but we shouldn't do the same with girls because vaginas are "self-cleaning", even if girls get much more infections than boys?

    Disgusting double standard.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Yup. If I came in to someone's room (man or woman), incapacitated them so they couldn't resist, and I mutilated your genitalia I;d be rightly called a psychopathic freak and many other colourful things I'd probably deserve.

    If I started chopping off the pinkie fingers of babies because of some bs "health" reason or because "god demands it", even will full permission and assistance of the parents, I'd be sent to prison and become a social pariah.


    Ultimately it should be up to children when they grow up and are old enough to make that decision for themselves whether to have a circumcision.
    Doing it to children for no real reason other than tradition/religious reasons isn't cool. Firstly faith should be for the grown responsible individual to determine for themselves, secondly if it wasn't for religious/traditional reasons, if someone started doing this to kids it'd be rightly regarded as child abuse.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Okay first of all, there are different types of female circumcicion. The one you responded to was ONLY the removal of the labia. That does not make sexual activity completely unpleasurable. Yet you are still using thst argument. It is completely comparable to male cicumcicion..

    secondly there is evidence you are just refusing to listen to it.
    Female circumcision always involves removing the clitoris. In some cases, the removal of the inner and outer vagina lips occur. The point of FGM is so that females don't feel the pleasure of sex and so are deterred from being promiscuous. The clitoris is responsible for sexual pleasure, that's it's only function, so to remove it means you remove sexual pleasure associated with it, therefore, it does make sexual activity unpleasurable and perhaps severely painful depending on the type of circumcision. So then it's not comparable to male circumcision.

    Secondly, where is the evidence?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 22, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.