Forums → WEPR → Male Circumcision
| 69 | 35173 |
Before I begin, let's keep this away from the topic of female "circumcision", due to it being of a completely different nature.
Anyhow, I'd like to know the opinions of you all on male circumcision. Beneficial? Unnecessary?
Pro-circumcision
Pro-foreskin
- 69 Replies
I has question. What if an infant has a congenital anomaly that keeps one of their testicles from descending? ...like, it's stuck up in their pelvis due to the lack of the proper functioning of the embryological mechanism that descends said testicle on whichever side? Is it ok then to perform an invasive procedure that the child would not have consented to? Remember that the condition in this case isn't an immediate health hazard/emergency... but it would lead to an increased likelihood of developing certain cancers and such.
[quote=Mino]Circumcision is an extremely painful procedure, and for a child, traumatic.[/quote]
Uh did you happen to read anything that any of the circumcised members here said?
[quote=danielo]So if we do a vote, i am a pro-circumcision.[/quote]
[quote=daleks]I don't see a problem with the choice my parents made[/quote]
[quote=roydoter2000]I'm okay w/ circumcision, it rose my testosterone level 1% higher.[/quote]
And everyone I know who's circumcised, seems fine with it.
[quote=Mino]No, Moe. Just no. Let me demonstrate.[/quote]
Cough, from the keyboard of an actual female:
[quote=MoonFairy]But for the most part, Mino is right. Chicks don't care.[/quote]
[quote=Mino]this consequence being that it is painful and a frightening thought to many males. [/quote]
I think you mean "... many uncircumcised males..."
From what I know, a very small percentage of circumcised males have any problem with it.
So, uh, yeah. I probably won't be active enough to stay in any type of debate or whatever, which is why I tried to make this post something that I personally wouldn't really need to respond to a response, if that makes sense.
And everyone I know who's circumcised, seems fine with it.
Methinks they'd have a problem if the knife slipped:
"There have been at least seven cases of healthy male infants being reassigned as female due to circumcision damaging their penises beyond repair"
-wiki:Genital Modification
Got it done when I was a child so I don't remember the pain, fortunately.
i thought about it too.
on one hand those who get it usually dont care (im one of them). one thing i can say, i AM curious as to how it feels to not be cirum... ill just say cut.
on the other hand, i dont like the fact that the babies get a choice. then again... if your a coward like me who DOES want to get circum cut it would be more cruel to not do it as a baby lol.
then i realised something... there are so many more important "issues" to be solved in this world. when being cut will be the worst problem then it will be the time to have this argument.
You guys and girls realize that babies may not even feel the pain due to local anesthesia or other means, right? I don't know if that's typically done with or without anesthesia, but there are topicals that you can use. It can't be painful if you can't feel pain.
What if an infant has a congenital anomaly that keeps one of their testicles from descending?
In this case, you'd have a medical reason to perform an operation in order to rearrange the anomaly. Of course, I will return a question and ask: in such a case, is there any benefit from operating as early as possible? I suppose so since you said it increases the likelihood for certain cancers and such, but maybe there's no need to perform it while they're still babies..
You guys and girls realize that babies may not even feel the pain due to local anesthesia or other means, right? I don't know if that's typically done with or without anesthesia, but there are topicals that you can use. It can't be painful if you can't feel pain.
I have no idea on the matter, but my guess would be that in medical circumcisions anesthetics are used, but traditional/ritual circumcisions are done without. Someone will have to confirm/infirm the latter.
Basically I agree with what Mage wrote. My opinion on the topic is that being circumcised or not has no net influence on someone's health. There might be minor advantages or disadvantages to each side, but they're minor, and cancel each other out. Medical circumcisions, if there is any case where it actually makes sense, are no problem as long as it is performed under standard procedures, what with hygiene and all that.
The problem I see is with traditional/ritual circumcision. Not that I have a problem with the tradition itself, nor with circumcised people. The problem lies in the operation; at least I guess it is often done by people that have religious authority but no medical education and in an inadequate environment.
The thing is, one should not ban circumcision, out of respect for one, and second for the simple reasons that you will create more cases of unsupervised, risky operations. You will not stop it with a ban.
the testicle requires a lower temperature to more or less survive... if left undescended the extra body heat basically kills parts or all of it and the left over stuff has an extra predisposition to turn into something that's not very nice and more on the malignant side of things later in life. It's not an emergency like testicular torsion is, but it does have it's problems. ....I think the most likely tumor flavor is seminoma in this case?
The parallel here is that the foreskin predisposes an individual to acquiring certain pathological states simply by being intact. Sometimes if damaged or for other idiopathic reasons the foreskin can contract. If the foreskin is retracted at the time of incident then paraphimosis represents... and it's basically like tying a rubber band on the penis b/c it gets so tight... and it may do so when in the normal position which would make retraction almost impossible. I guess the verdict changes with each person, but having a foreskin DOES add extra risk. I guess whether or not you want to be prophylactic about that kind of thing depends on whoever is making the decisions at the time.
on a pseudo related note, I think in some parts of Kenya you're not considered a man until you've grown to a certain and and circumsized yourself without any pain killers or help
No, Moe. Just no. Let me demonstrate
Haha! That just totally made my day. I didn't, of course, intend for my point to be made in the context of a pick-up line. But oh my god that would be hilarious - and very offensive. So don't try it at home, kids.
The parallel here is that the foreskin predisposes an individual to acquiring certain pathological states simply by being intact. Sometimes if damaged or for other idiopathic reasons the foreskin can contract. If the foreskin is retracted at the time of incident then paraphimosis represents... and it's basically like tying a rubber band on the penis b/c it gets so tight... and it may do so when in the normal position which would make retraction almost impossible. I guess the verdict changes with each person, but having a foreskin DOES add extra risk. I guess whether or not you want to be prophylactic about that kind of thing depends on whoever is making the decisions at the time.
I think your comparison would be closer to removing a testicle to reduce the chance of testicular cancer. We could say this for nearly any body part that it's removing reduces risk of problems with it. It would be a false statement that if the foreskin isn't removed it will likely become problematic later in life as your comparison would seem to be trying to imply.
that's partially it, but I think it starts to differ from the rest of the body when the overall use of said part is basically pointless. All structures and functions are kept intact without loss of anything but the foreskin itself. It's almost vestigial is the angle that some would argue
I think you mean "... many uncircumcised males..."
Obviously. If you looked at the context of my previous comment my reference to uncircumcised males would be the only logical reference.
From what I know, a very small percentage of circumcised males have any problem with it
It's not the result of circumcision that men find "appalling", for lack a better word. It's the process and/or concept.
on a pseudo related note, I think in some parts of Kenya you're not considered a man until you've grown to a certain and and circumsized yourself without any pain killers or help
There are so many things I can say about this but I'm not willing to go that route. It may just sound flat out racist. That'd be ironic.
Basically I agree with what Mage wrote. My opinion on the topic is that being circumcised or not has no net influence on someone's health. There might be minor advantages or disadvantages to each side, but they're minor, and cancel each other out. Medical circumcisions, if there is any case where it actually makes sense, are no problem as long as it is performed under standard procedures, what with hygiene and all that.
I agree as well. The way I see it, circumcision offers little to no health benefits to males, and the process of circumcision to establish the new found "benefits" (this benefit being lack of foreskin leading to less infections, etc) is a bit of a cruel joke more than an actual medical procedure. If you were to go through a medical process (and a painful one at that) to improve your body's health you want significant results - and circumcision offers little to none.
Haha! That just totally made my day.
*rereads*
No, Moe. Just no. Let me demonstrate my point through the list of scenarios I will mention below*
>.>
that's partially it, but I think it starts to differ from the rest of the body when the overall use of said part is basically pointless. All structures and functions are kept intact without loss of anything but the foreskin itself. It's almost vestigial is the angle that some would argue
But then you could argue, why not also take the appendix out, since it might as well cause an inflammation at some point; though it usually doesn't.
Then again, I wonder what exactly is the cultural thing with the foreskin. Why is it that some cultures make it a religious tradition to cut that piece of skin in particular, and why do other cultures make it a manhood ritual. The cultural and psychological aspects seem to evade my grasp.
That's true. But the appendix isn't vestigial. It functions to aid in the development of the immune system. We could probably take that and the adenoid tonsils out without ever noticing them... but they do actively work to develop and bolster the immune system.
If we could prove that there weren't any cons to the removal of the structures mentioned, then you could make an argument to remove them early so that the people in question never have to risk getting those conditions... 
Okay wait so how many circumcised males here wish they were uncircumcised? I'm just asking how many people feel betrayed by their parents because they made a decision for them.
That is precisely what parents are for. Making decisions for a being that is incapable of rational thought. And even then there are parents who aren't capable of that either, but that's a whole 'nother rodeo.
There is no "right" or "wrong" for this topic, I think. Just take your opinions and apply them to your own children if you decide to have them. You're doing what you think is best for the child, and you can't be blamed for doing that.
You must be logged in to post a reply!