The Student Room Group

Circumcision..wrong or right?

It it said to be wrong to circumcise a woman, yet ok to circumcise a men. Yet different people and different religions believe different things. I'm just interested in what all you guys think and whether you think its wrong it right how both are treated different or the same!

Discuss....

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Well, there is a powerful medical argument in favour of male circumcision, but I don't think there's any medical benefit of female circumcision whatsoever. Obviously, the vast majority of people who are circumcised go ahead with the preciser because of the religious beliefs of their parents/guardians or their own beliefs, so the medical argument would be less significant in those cases.

I think the important thing to bear in mind is the issue of consent. In parts of the world where female circumcision is relatively common practise, circumcision is forced upon women.
Reply 2
A major difference is that male circumcision leaves no lasting effects other than aesthetics. As far as I know female circumcision actually damages the body. Therefore, female circumcision could be argued against while still agreeing with male circumcision.

As to whether male circumcision is right or wrong, that is a personal decision. One would suppose that if a woman decided she wanted to be circumcised she'd be allowed to, no different than if she wanted her breasts removed.
Reply 3
UniOfLife
A major difference is that male circumcision leaves no lasting effects other than aesthetics. As far as I know female circumcision actually damages the body. Therefore, female circumcision could be argued against while still agreeing with male circumcision.


I remember this particular case where an American man was suing his parents for circumcising him. He argued that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure and that he did not consent to the procedure as he was a minor at the time.

I'm not sure as to what extent male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, but I think it has been verified by research.
Reply 4
1.9.8.4.
I remember this particular case where an American man was suing his parents for circumcising him. He argued that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure and that he did not consent to the procedure as he was a minor at the time.

I'm not sure as to what extent male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, but I think it has been verified by research.


Had never heard that. How did they measure sexual pleasure? Isn't that subjective?
Reply 5
1.9.8.4.
I remember this particular case where an American man was suing his parents for circumcising him. He argued that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure and that he did not consent to the procedure as he was a minor at the time.

I'm not sure as to what extent male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, but I think it has been verified by research.



you loose a lot of sensitivity. Many religions have the males circumcised because there belief is sex is for making babies and not pleasure. Therefore removing the foreskin stops that pleasure, others do it for health reasons, like the Americans. All American boys have circumcision at the age of 12 because it is seen as a better health option

xxx
Reply 6
UniOfLife
Had never heard that. How did they measure sexual pleasure? Isn't that subjective?


I'm not exactly sure how that particular study was conducted or how that law suit concluded, but there are a numbr of experts who believe that circumcision reduces sensitivity of the tip of the penis and, as a result, decreases sexual pleasure.
Reply 7
soar
you loose a lot of sensitivity. Many religions have the males circumcised because there belief is sex is for making babies and not pleasure. Therefore removing the foreskin stops that pleasure, others do it for health reasons, like the Americans. All American boys have circumcision at the age of 12 because it is seen as a better health option

xxx


Not all American males of course. I think the figure is at about 65% at the moment.

I don't want to snatch the thread but I find the religious argument for circumcision very odd. In the end of the day, if god knows all and is perfect, why would he create humans imperfectly with that extra bit of skin, and then expect it to be cut off?
1.9.8.4.
In the end of the day, if god knows all and is perfect, why would he create humans imperfectly with that extra bit of skin, and then expect it to be cut off?

To show commitment to the covenant between man and god. Not read your bible recently?
soar
Therefore removing the foreskin stops that pleasure

No it doesn't, trust me.
soar
It it said to be wrong to circumcise a woman, yet ok to circumcise a men.

Whilst the word used for the two procedures might be the same, in reality they are very different. Male circumcision is removing a bit of skin, female "circumcision" is actually fairly major surgery and often removes the removal of a lot of tissue.
I think it is completely wrong, unless there is a medical problem in which only circumcision is the answer for correction.

It is an oppressive, religiously based form of genital mutilation, which, happily for its proponents, happens to have some medical benefits- medical benefits which were not known about when the practice began, or indeed for centuries. Only very recently has it emerged that it may reduce the risk of contracting HIV, though i find the studies dubious. They bang on about it toughening the skin, but the statistics showing this detail might be misleading. As more often than not, circumcision is done for religious reasons by religious families, and said families and their children are less likely, by virtue of religiosity to be promiscuous, or indeed even have sex before marriage, its bloody obvious that these people are less likely to have any STD.

As long as you are hygeinic and shower every day, etc, and use a condom when you shag around, you are gonna be as safe with a foresin as you would be without one. They are unecessary.

And one of my friends who had to have his removed said sex just isn't as goo. I think the only way you would know is if you'd had a removal after already experiencing sex. I just don't see how you could get the same amount of pleasure from sex, which leads me to believe that the process stems from more extremists elements of religion- in the same vein as Catholics who believe sex is only for reproduction and not for pleasure, and more scarily, as female genital mutilation.
Reply 12
JonathanH
No it doesn't, trust me.


You've done it both ways with the same girl? :s-smilie:
Reply 13
JonathanH
No it doesn't, trust me.



Well its only what I've heard :redface:
cottonmouth
I think it is completely wrong, unless there is a medical problem in which only circumcision is the answer for correction.

It is an oppressive, religiously based form of genital mutilation, which, happily for its proponents, happens to have some medical benefits- medical benefits which were not known about when the practice began, or indeed for centuries. Only very recently has it emerged that it may reduce the risk of contracting HIV, though i find the studies dubious. They bang on about it toughening the skin, but the statistics showing this detail might be misleading. As more often than not, circumcision is done for religious reasons by religious families, and said families and their children are less likely, by virtue of religiosity to be promiscuous, or indeed even have sex before marriage, its bloody obvious that these people are less likely to have any STD.

As long as you are hygeinic and shower every day, etc, and use a condom when you shag around, you are gonna be as safe with a foresin as you would be without one. They are unecessary.

And one of my friends who had to have his removed said sex just isn't as goo. I think the only way you would know is if you'd had a removal after already experiencing sex. I just don't see how you could get the same amount of pleasure from sex, which leads me to believe that the process stems from more extremists elements of religion- in the same vein as Catholics who believe sex is only for reproduction and not for pleasure, and more scarily, as female genital mutilation.


I find this post quite odd. First you start by casting doubt on the studies that state that circumcision has health benefits but then go on to agree wholeheartedly to the studies that claim circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. To me the latter study seems less reliable given that pleasure is subjective and also almost impossible to measure and compare.

Furthermore, you start by recognising that for centuries people could not have been aware of the health benefits from the procedure but then go on to state that they were aware that it would decrease pleasure.

There appears to be a fair amount of inconsitency in your position.

Personally, I find any claim about the amount of pleasure available dubious given that there is no real way of measuring it.

As for the discussion in general, perhaps the question should have been regarding the rights and wrongs of circumcising minors who cannot give consent.
Reply 15
my boyfriend was circumcised at the age of 8 for health reasons...we grew up in the middle east where this procedure is very common, due to the heat...foreskin tightening etc ect (ouch)....and i have to say...without going into too much detail.....that the pleasure argument is a weak one!!personally..... i actually prefer it! (aesthetically)
Reply 16
Why is it that uncircumcised people are more passionate when it comes to this subject then the circumcised people? If you don't like it don't push your feelings down our throat.

soar
you loose a lot of sensitivity. Many religions have the males circumcised because there belief is sex is for making babies and not pleasure. Therefore removing the foreskin stops that pleasure, others do it for health reasons, like the Americans. All American boys have circumcision at the age of 12 because it is seen as a better health option

xxx


That's a lie. Anybody who believes this is an idiot.

In the end of the day, if god knows all and is perfect, why would he create humans imperfectly with that extra bit of skin, and then expect it to be cut off?


Is that the direction this argument is going to turn? You might has well ask why men have nipples? I see no use for them?



Only very recently has it emerged that it may reduce the risk of contracting HIV, though i find the studies dubious. They bang on about it toughening the skin, but the statistics showing this detail might be misleading. As more often than not, circumcision is done for religious reasons by religious families, and said families and their children are less likely, by virtue of religiosity to be promiscuous, or indeed even have sex before marriage, its bloody obvious that these people are less likely to have any STD.


Actually your wrong. The studies which proved the effectivenesses of cutting wasn't done on religious men. It was done on people who were sexually active with many partners. How can you find these studies dubious when you clearly show no knowledge about them? The reason why circumcision is an effective at reducing the already low chances of getting HIV. Is because it removes cells in the foreskin that are the perfect target for the virus to enter the body.



As long as you are hygeinic and shower every day, etc, and use a condom when you shag around, you are gonna be as safe with a foresin as you would be without one. They are unecessary.


I call bull****. A circumcised guy who is careful and uses a condom will always be safer then an uncut guy who does the exact same thing. You forgot the 60% reduction rate of circumcision.


And one of my friends who had to have his removed said sex just isn't as goo.


Subjective and an anecdotal evidence?
samba
You've done it both ways with the same girl? :s-smilie:

Well no, but his contention was that it "stops that pleasure". And I'm saying there's still pleasure - as I'm sure you'll agree.
Reply 18
UniOfLife
I find this post quite odd. First you start by casting doubt on the studies that state that circumcision has health benefits but then go on to agree wholeheartedly to the studies that claim circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. To me the latter study seems less reliable given that pleasure is subjective and also almost impossible to measure and compare.

Furthermore, you start by recognising that for centuries people could not have been aware of the health benefits from the procedure but then go on to state that they were aware that it would decrease pleasure.

There appears to be a fair amount of inconsitency in your position.

Personally, I find any claim about the amount of pleasure available dubious given that there is no real way of measuring it.

As for the discussion in general, perhaps the question should have been regarding the rights and wrongs of circumcising minors who cannot give consent.


Firstly, doubting one thing and believing a completely different thing is hardly inconsistent. Secondly, no mention was made of studies into sexual pleasure; his stance on that was based on the experience of a friend. Thirdly, it is entirely possible for a group of people to know one thing without knowing another; especially as the thing that they are claimed not to have known was impossible to know at the time. When circumcision arose, AIDS didn't exist and even if it had done, the concept of sexual transmission of viruses most certainly did not. Finally, while sexual pleasure as a whole is subjective and difficult to measure, sensitivity of the genitals is exceptionally easy to measure. It is reasonable to expect a reduction in sensitivity to cause a reduction in sensation.
UniOfLife
As for the discussion in general, perhaps the question should have been regarding the rights and wrongs of circumcising minors who cannot give consent.

Except that parental consent is very much applicable.