Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Aye,as with any surgical procedure there will always be risks. But are there any benefits to it? I'm due to attend my like 20th circumcision party for my friends little cousin. In some cultures it's a right of passage
    Not really, and if someone does want it they should decide for themselves, and so what if it was culture? culture does not matter when something is blatantly wrong
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Aye,as with any surgical procedure there will always be risks. But are there any benefits to it?
    There are clear disbenefits. It makes sex less pleasurable.

    The purported justifications are apparently hygiene (which is irrelevant if the person washes themselves down there like a normal individual) and STD prevention (which is more speculative and based on supposed epidemiological links).

    But you could probably make a similar argument in favour of slicing off the ear lobes. If you cut them off then they won't accumulate ear wax and you won't ever suffer from skin cancer on the earlobe. Anyone can see that's silly, but the reason circumcision is just accepted is because of tradition, people just accept it rather than questioning it

    I'm due to attend my like 20th circumcision party for my friends little cousin. In some cultures it's a right of passage
    A superstitious and obsolete one, in my opinion. In very ancient times circumcision was an act used to mark your slaves. I wouldn't want that for my son, and I'm glad my parents didn't do it to me.

    In reality, circumcision isn't the worst thing ever. But it is unnecessary and if it results in 170 deaths a year, children who otherwise would have lived a full life are dead, then it requires a very solid justification which simply doesn't exist
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    in line with circumcision, they are also deeming genital piercings genital mutilation
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    Removing the foreskin exposes the glans and reduces sensitivity frenulum or no.
    Maybe a little, but not enough to make sex a struggle. I'm still plenty sensitive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I can't remember which (whether St Augustine or Maimonides, one of those) but one of the religious figures from late antiquity or the Middle Ages said very clearly that one of the most important justifications for circumcision is to deter masturbation.

    It doesn't prevent someone from masturbating but it makes it harder, particularly back when they didn't have lube.

    Circumcision clearly reduces pleasure and sensitivity, and in the West the STD justifications are quite marginal (in Africa where they have 50% HIV rates in some places.. maybe. But in the West, not justifiable or necessary)
    the reason why the USA in particular circumcises to the extent that it does was because the myth that masturbation caused illnesses caught on so well in the 1800s. and yes, it goes without saying that circumcisions would cause a loss of sexual sensitivity when it is known that the foreskin actually forms harder skin as a protective/adaptive mechanism to deal with the fact that it is constantly being exposed when it shouldn't be. and exactly, I think it's crazy to circumcise *children* for reasons concerning STDs when children aren't having sex. if they're going to grow up to not wear a condom then that's not something that is foreseeable at all in the west, so if a parent thinks "my son's going to grow up as a man-whore" then that's ridiculous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    It's not dangerous (although there are cases of babies dying from circumcision complications). But it is unnecessary.
    Have you ever held a baby? Seen how tiny and perfect it is. Felt how utterly defenceless and dependednt it is? Why would you want to take a blade and slice off a part of its genitals? Even if you wanted to, how could you bring yourself to do it?
    Beyond belief!

    Circumcision is perpetuated in the US partly by the medical profession because it is a billion dollar industry with new customers arriving every day. Also, its cultural tradition makes it easier for parents to just go with the flow, and peer pressure makes it more acceptable - although rates i the US have been showing a slow but steady decline since the 60s. USA is the only country where there is any significant secular circumcision. Medicaid no longer covers elective circumcision as it is not deemed a medically justified operation. Essentially, in the US, it is cosmetic surgery!

    The NHS no longer carries them out except for medical necessity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So many bigots in this thread...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Aye,as with any surgical procedure there will always be risks. But are there any benefits to it? I'm due to attend my like 20th circumcision party for my friends little cousin. In some cultures it's a right of passage
    And to add to my previous comment, for circumcision to cause 170 baby deaths in a year is a significant cause of neonatal death. It compares with 44 deaths from suffocation, 8 from automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (which is so serious and considered ubiquitous that it attracts a lot of attention, research funding and education of parents on how to avoid it)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    they only keep doing it in hospitals because it makes the private hospitals a lot of money. how can you be so daft? you're justifying this for truly appalling and ignorant reasons. child circumcisions without medical necessity are truly abusive and only justified based on the fallacy of tradition only, and the fact that you're just brushing that fact aside is just disgusting in my opinion. how can you even say this given the fact that we don't allow this for girls? my perspective is that you are a creation of your culture and not your own thinking.
    I wasn't justifying it and I'm pretty sure I've made it clear it's not just a cultural or religious thing,that doesn't mean I'm justifying it.

    Female and male circumcision are two separate things. I have two different cultures,and am pretty westernised and don't even follow any culture as such . Calm down dear
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    In most cases, it is. The conditions for which circumcision is medically necessary are exceedingly rare. America's continuing obsession with circumcision is to do with it being a billion-dollar industry and fathers not wanting their sons to be dissimilar to them. (And, if you do a little bit of research on this, you'd know that it has its origins in religious objections to masturbation.)

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Aye,as with any surgical procedure there will always be risks. But are there any benefits to it? I'm due to attend my like 20th circumcision party for my friends little cousin. In some cultures it's a right of passage
    In some cultures female genital mutilation is also a right of passage. Should that also be allowed and have parties held in its honour?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    the reason why the USA in particular circumcises to the extent that it does was because the myth that masturbation caused illnesses caught on so well in the 1800s. and yes, it goes without saying that circumcisions would cause a loss of sexual sensitivity when it is known that the foreskin actually forms harder skin as a protective/adaptive mechanism to deal with the fact that it is constantly being exposed when it shouldn't be. and exactly, I think it's crazy to circumcise *children* for reasons concerning STDs when children aren't having sex. if they're going to grow up to not wear a condom then that's not something that is foreseeable at all in the west, so if a parent thinks "my son's going to grow up as a man-whore" then that's ridiculous.
    Precisely. Well said.

    And as I pointed out above, in one year that was studied there were 177 baby deaths caused by circumcision. That makes it a leading cause of neonatal death, by comparison 44 died from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (which is considered to be such a risk that major funds have gone into research and into educating parents on how to avoid it). And yet circumcision which appears to cause more deaths is not considered to be worthy of working to prevent these deaths by... not circumcising.

    That STD justification won't help someone if they died from their circumcision
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    It's not dangerous (although there are cases of babies dying from circumcision complications).
    The research on this website would suggest it may well cause more deaths than Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and suffocation combined.

    http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html

    177 deaths in a year would make circumcision a leading cause of neonatal fatalities
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Aww, you seem to be getting really upset :console: Chill, blud. This is a friendly discussion
    The judge didn't say it according to the article.
    Try to find real arguments. Slogans, like "barbarity" and "mutilation", are not arguments, as well as wrong quotation. Except "righteous indignation" I don't see any serious arguments in this thread..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I wasn't justifying it and I'm pretty sure I've made it clear it's not just a cultural or religious thing,that doesn't mean I'm justifying it.

    Female and male circumcision are two separate things. I have two different cultures,and am pretty westernised and don't even follow any culture as such . Calm down dear
    how is female and male circumcision really so different though? isn't it the same principle at work? how can you justify male circumcision in a sense that wouldn't justify female circumcision?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    In most cases, it is. The conditions for which circumcision is medically necessary are exceedingly rare. America's continuing obsession with circumcision is to do with it being a billion-dollar industry and fathers not wanting their sons to be dissimilar to them. (And, if you do a little bit of research on this, you'd know that it has its origins in religious objections to masturbation.)



    In some cultures female genital mutilation is also a right of passage. Should that also be allowed and have parties held in its honour?
    Don't you remember we had this same conversation in last year's thread about the petition in male circumcision. FGM is genital mutulation,how are you attempting to compare it with male circumcision?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    Because they are being mutilated and they don't have a choice? It's like chopping off a child's finger and saying 'it's ok, you can function perfectly fine without that one little finger'.

    If you want to get yourself circumcised when you get older then by all means go for it but don't mutilate a child and say it's alright.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    In some cultures female genital mutilation is also a right of passage. Should that also be allowed and have parties held in its honour?
    no. fgm: procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Precisely. Well said.

    And as I pointed out above, in one year that was studied there were 177 baby deaths caused by circumcision. That makes it a leading cause of neonatal death, by comparison 44 died from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (which is considered to be such a risk that major funds have gone into research and into educating parents on how to avoid it). And yet circumcision which appears to cause more deaths is not considered to be worthy of working to prevent these deaths by... not circumcising.

    That STD justification won't help someone if they died from their circumcision
    have you read about the orthodox jewish rituals whereby rabbis suck the blood of the newly-circumcised baby penis? it sounds unbelievable but it actually happens, and I remember reading a few years ago that a rabbi with herpies actually caused the deaths of two kids in new york through it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Slogans, like "barbarity" and "mutilation", are not arguments
    So now you're shifting your argument because you realised how idiotic it sounded for you to say that my citing the fact that children can die from it is not an argument?

    You obviously have issues grasping basic logic and you are getting quite emotional, so I think it's probably best if we leave it there
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    That STD justification won't help someone if they died from their circumcision
    and children do not get STD's and those cultures who do tend to perform this do not tend to be the most sexually free societies so exposure to STD's is really a poor argument in this case
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.