Most women just don’t believe that we deserve a world full of men who conform to our narrow standards of what beauty is and so we wouldn’t expect anyone to give a shit if we’re grouching about how something we see fails to fit it.
Well, it turns out that I’m wrong.
I was perusing Lindsay’s post on whether to circumcise her upcoming son when I became aware of my inadvertent lying. It turns out that a bunch of us do believe that we deserve a world full of men who have penises that look how we want them to look and we expect folks to give a shit.
I think circumcising your kid is wrong. Do I give a shit if you do it? No. Am I going to try to outlaw it? No.
But I believe that everyone has a right to bodily autonomy, which means that, unless it’s some kind of medical problem, no one else has a right to make irreversible decisions about what happens to your body for you, no matter how well-meaning they are. And I’ll spend all day preaching that from the rooftops.
However, other folks think different.
Fine.
I just want to talk about one small strand of the pro-circumcision argument: the “uncircumcised penises are ugly” argument.
So fucking what?!
Can I just make a broad, sweeping generalization here?
It is no wonder men are so fucked up. Really. All this shit happens to you and we (the rest of society) trains you to not think too much about it, not question it, not draw inferences from it, to just accept that “that’s the way it is.”
We live in a culture that basically encourages you to swagger around with one hand on your dick at all times, ready to whip it out should the opportunity present itself, like your penis is just so awesome that every girl should drop to her knees (after, of course, Mag, procuring a very fluffy bathmat) and open her mouth to suck it if you deem her worthy of it–like your whole day ought to be spent just casually tossing aside girls who don’t fit your exacting standards for dick-sucking-worthiness in order to make room for all the willing supermodels and Playmates who do–while at the same time, every time you look down at your circumcised penis you see evidence that your penis is not so inherently wonderful as you’ve been told, but had to be modified in order to be okay.
That’s bound to fuck with a dude’s sense of self.
So, for god’s sake, folks, get over the whole, “We had to hack at it; it was so ugly” bullshit.
That’s just evil.
Tiny Cat Pants 
Few things get me as worked up as an argument about circumcision, which is why I mostly avoid them these days.Mostly because I’ve had too many where I thought I was making great progress, shooting down defenses of circumcision left and right, only to have the argument conclude with the future father/mother wrapping up the discussion with "well, I think you might be right … but I think we’re just gonna do it"Conformity is a very powerful compulsion.
This post encapsulates your aweseomeness. Our babies will be brilliant on-account-a you.
Awesomeness, even.
Chris is right. That’s pretty much the same conversation that the Mrs. and I had.I laid out all of the reasons why circumcision seems unecessary.She countered with conformity and health issues. Or, more accurately, she brought up the perception that the uncut cock is somehow unhygenic and how that would affect his future prospects for a mate.Despite my reservations, I’m going along with it.
I’m more disturbed by all of the "My husband gets the final say" responses. Hubby isn’t necessarily well-informed on this elective procedure just because he has a penis.
I know people cut up boys for conformity’s sake, but I’d have to question whether you’d want your kid saddled with the type of mate who would otherwise have rejected him and all his presumably wonderful qualities over a small bit of skin on his pee-pee. Then again, I’m thinking about whether my daughter "needs" (that is to say, would be more conventionally attractive as a result of) orthodontics…so you will get no shit from me.
It’s not so much about a boy’s future mate Bridgett. It’s more about who he gets to have sex with.
If you wouldn’t have sex with a guy you otherwise like because his penis is uncircumcised, you are an idiot (unless there are hygiene issues). And, W., I must ask, what man deserves to be reduced to having sex with an idiot?Bridgett, I’m glad to see you back!
I’ve heard all the debunking of the hygiene argument, but then I read that it was recomended in Africa to reduce the spread of AIDS.I come from the "I can’t imagine living with it uncut" school of thought.
I liked the commenter on my post who said: I’m sorry but after reading all the responses I had to add this:I have yet to see a penis that didn’t look pretty freakin’ weird. That cracked me up.
I know you don’t want to hear it, but what about those of us who would circumcise for religious reasons? I happen to be one of those people who will hold a bris for my son (should I have a son) and believe in upholding the multi-thousand year tradition and honouring the commitment of God’s calling. Of course, I realise that seems like a silly argument, but that nevertheless remains my position.
Here’s how I try to imagine it: if you’re sitting down with your son when he’s fifteen and he says, "Why did you circumcise me?" what’s going to be an acceptable answer?"We did it as a part of a multi-thousand year tradition honoring the commitment between us and God."Yeah, I think your son could understand why, even if he wouldn’t have made that same decision, why you did and respect it."We did it because we thought the health and hygiene benefits were worth it."Again, even if further study proves that to be untrue and even if he wished you hadn’t, he could see your reasoning."We wanted you to not be teased."But kids are going to tease each other about a lot of shit. "Everyone else was doing it."If everyone else jumped off a bridge?"Your dad thought it would be nice if you had matching dicks."Um, okay…"Your penis, like all others, was really fucking ugly."Yuck.Again, my goal would be preserving bodily autonomy, but if that’s not yours, for whatever reason, having a justification for it that you can give your son that seems well-thought-out and makes sense seems important.
Kat,I’m not familiar with the religious guidelines for circumcision, but what if your hypothetical son ultimately chooses not to be religious? Then he has had a procedure forced on him for something he doesn’t believe. Is there a a religious prohibition against letting him choose to do it (or not) when he is older? Should parents honor their own traditions, or the autonomy (both religiously and bodily) of their sons? I’m really curious about this, because I’m wholly uninformed about this aspect of the decision.
what if your hypothetical son ultimately chooses not to be religious?That’s his choice to make, and it’s his choice to not circumcise his issue. Is there a a religious prohibition against letting him choose to do it (or not) when he is older? Yes. It’s to be performed on the eighth day of life. (Genesis 17:12)Should parents honor their own traditions, or the autonomy (both religiously and bodily) of their sons? As a religious parent, I believe that it is my duty to raise my child in the religion I believe to be The One True Faith. I would no sooner fail to instruct my child in the faith than I would fail to feed him. Should he choose to leave the faith when he’s Of Age that would be his business. But my duty as a person appointed to the role of parent by God would be to honour that God in the way in which he commanded. Which for boys means to circumcise them on the eighth day of life.
Psst. Small letters on the html codes, Kat, small letters.
Why did you circumcise me?" what’s going to be an acceptable answer?"We did it so you could have sex more often."
Right, because those of us that are uncircumcised never get laid.All those times with a girl, I whipped it out, and she ran out of the room screaming. "If only I had been genitally mutilated," I thought, and then cried myself to sleep.
W., you have to help me with this. If we reach the point where your penis is out, I’m willing to have sex with you. Isn’t that how it works? Are you guys really encountering a lot of women who are like, "Okay, let me see. Hmm. Nope. Too ugly."?I know you’re typing English, which is my native language, but I literally cannot understand what you’re saying.What girl would refuse to have sex with a guy just because he was uncircumcised? And, why would a guy feel bad about not having sex with her if she was so mean?I just don’t get it.
Chris, great. Now I’m going to spend all afternoon imagining your penis. Amanda’ll probably kick my ass now. Thanks.
Yeah probably not so much.
I’ve gotta say that I’ve been shocked (in an amused kind of way) at all the Gentiles even having an opinion about circumcision, let alone an issue. If it serves no religious purpose for you and you don’t believe in the health benefits, don’t do it. Why make a thing about it?And there, I guess, is where B’s point is made for her, over and over. There’s a thing about it because the human body looks funny. That’s too weird.
There are health reasons for doing it, just not the "oh, it’s unhygenic" ones that people tend to come up with.I actually wrote out a whole thing on this for the last time this kinda came up (in your labioplasty thread), but I don’t think Squarespace let me through with it.I knew someone whose foreskin was too small. It made a lot of simple things (peeing, puberty, sex) difficult and painful, and in order to do other simple things (washing inside the foreskin, because hygenic or not, it’s a fold of skin and stuff gets caught in there that oughtn’t stay there… as anyone who’s ever gone to the beach should know), he had to spend years (yes, years) stretching it. Painfully.He didn’t want it cut, mind… he wasn’t from a religious background, and it wasn’t presented to him as an option. When he thought about it, later, and saw that it would have been an option, he wasn’t particularly enthused about the idea as he’d had more than two decades to get used to it the way it was.I’m not sure how common it is, being no penile expert, but from his experience and his perception of the events, it seems like it’s not extremely unusual. So there is at least one reason one might, concievably, do this for health reasons.As for whether it’s the best idea, well, that depends on a number of things. How severe is the issue? What other alternatives are there? What is your goal? If you want your kid to have a "normal" penis (and he came from a place where uncircumcised was the norm, as they were affluent white people in a nonreligious community), then wait until he’s old enough to start having problems with it and make him stretch. If your goal is to spare your child years of pain and embarrassment ("Ow! Ouch! No, sorry honey, it’s not you, it’s that my foreskin is too small and sex is painful. Ow."), circumcision (small amount of pain now, lots less pain later) might be the way to go.While I am for bodily and religious autonomy, for me, this falls into the same category that baptism and ear-piercing do. I don’t include it in the same category as the poorly-named and heinous thing often called "female circumcision," because when well performed (which is nearly all the time, when done in a medical context) it does not cause harm or loss of sensation (to an unacceptable level; there is extensive research showing that it does, indeed, decrease sensation. The level to which it decreases sensation, however, is to roughly the level at which the penis would ordinarily be stimulated through the foreskin. So while males who are uncircumcised and willing/able to, er, extrude may have an option for a level of sensation unavailable to those who are circumcised, anecdotal evidence has shown that this can, in fact, not be such a good thing (non-anecdotal evidence shows mostly that it doesn’t seem to detract from most people’s sexual pleasue to a degree that they notice or complain about).).I included ear-piercing in that list not only because it’s often performed on young girls in my community – I had mine done when I was three months old – it is in some contexts a highly charged community rite. White girls generally have it as a rite of passage ("I turned twelve! My mom says I can have my ears pierced now") and, at least for the ones I’ve known, that has given it a somewhat sexualized context/understanding ("Oh, ear-piercing is so grown up. My daughter can’t do that. It’s vulgar on a little girl."). In my community, however, it is a right and proper thing for a young child (always for girls, often for boys) to have. It marks you as… hrm, belonging, I suppose. Constructed as this argument currently is, I’m not sure that rises past the charge of "conformity," but I tend to have differing views on the value of conformity anyway.Errr… so, in short: if you have a good reason, I think it’s okay. Good reasons for me include true religious conviction, cultural norms, and verifiable medical issues. Bad reasons include, but are not limited to: "it looks ugly," "everyone else is doing it," or "because my husband said so." Whatever the reasoning, one ought give it serious thought, and consider whether it is the appropriate choice for your child, in your context, at the time you are making the decision. Do research. Make sure you get well-trained doctors. Have an idea how you’re going to talk to your child about it when it comes up. If you have non-time-sensitive reasons (that is, nonreligious in most cases, but a medical reason can certainly be time-sentitive as well), give serious thought to waiting until the child is old enough to consider that reasoning for himself.
Well, I’m always shocked when mothers have their little baby girls’ ears pierced, too.
Aunt B.:Very well said. I believe male infant circumcision should be outlawed, just as female circumcision already is. Equal protection of the right to bodily integrity. But I agree 100% with everything else you said. Bravo.Katherine:Rachel already hit the basic points on religious justifications for circumcision, but an additional point is that we live in a society ruled by civil law. Regardless of what any religious text says, no one has the right to inflict harm on another in the name of religion. We ignore this because we’re conditioned to accept it/afraid to challenge it, but that doesn’t make it less true. The Constitution is the law, and it applies to everyone. There is no exception for male infant genitalia. If he wants to have himself circumcised when he’s of age, that’s his right.To the specific 8th day requirement in Genesis, I suggest reading Marked In Your Flesh by Leonard Glick. Dr. Glick researched the history of Jewish circumcision and found credible evidence that the commandment to circumcise on the 8th day was inserted into the Old Testament long after the rest of the text was written.
From the CDC’s website:Biologic Plausibility Compared to the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection in laboratory studies [3]. It has also been argued that the foreskin may have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens including HIV [4]. In addition, the micro-environment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [2]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [5]. Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [2]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk of genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk of syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, while the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus-2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [5].Summary Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Male circumcision could also reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV to a lesser extent. It has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. While there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, may play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to the clinical trials. Male circumcision may also have a role for the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. With the results of three clinical trials showing that male circumcision decreases the risk for HIV infection, CDC is undertaking additional research and consultation to evaluate the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the U.S. As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the U.S., individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reducing number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).I just copied a few sections, but the entire article is an easy read for those who are interested:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Oh good, we can start with the "i once knew a guy!!!" part of the debate. It’s called Paraphimosis. It’s not uncommon, but it’s not common, either. It’s easily remedied with Preputioplasty or partial or complete circumcision. It’s not an argument for circumcision as an cultural entity.And, as far as "things getting caught in there", I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you don’t have a foreskin. Unless you’re fucking a starfish, nothing gets "stuck" in there when you go to the beach. The foreskin is a fairly functional organ, having a few million years of evolution leading to its existence. Funny that all those hominids never really had any trouble with it.
Regardless of what any religious text says, no one has the right to inflict harm on another in the name of religion. Circumcision is not harmful.And you don’t have freedom FROM religion here. You have freedom OF religion. If my religion says "circumcise all males on the 8th day of life" then I’ve got every right to engage in that practice.
HIV transmission is probably the most interesting case for circumcision — though you should probably pay careful attention to the part of the CDC’s position on circumcision which recommends no action in the United States for circumcision because the demographics for HIV transmission here are completely different from troublespots like Africa where it’s likely that circumcision might actually make a difference.
That’s not entirely true. It turns the glans of the penis into a giant callous that greatly reduces sexual stimulation and lubrication during intercourse, among other things:
The way I read it in summary it says:As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the U.S., individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measureIMO that does not equate with recommending no action.
They recommend making it a personal decision for men to make in decreasing their risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV.It doesn’t recommend it as a procedure performed institutionally on all infants (not that it isn’t already).
Yes, I’ll agree with that assessment.
However, in my opinion that assessment is retarded, because the HIV transmission reduction statistics are from studies in areas were improper safe sex is a foregone conclusion.If you’re relying on your lack of a foreskin to prevent you from getting HIV, uhh.. you’ve already really fucked up. It means you’re not using a condom.So, let’s see: mutilate my genitals so I can have unprotected sex and maybe, just maaaaaybe not get HIV right away. Oooor, wear a condom. Hm. Tough call.
What was that I was saying earlier about not bothering to get involved in debates about circumcision?
If my son asks me about why he is cut, and I trot out the One True Faith response, I pray he pulls out a gun and shoots me right in the head.I’m sticking with the "chicks dig it" argument. Either that, or "Go ask your mother".
Oh, come on! You have the perfect retort. Not one I feel free to share with the world, for fear of pissing you off, but the perfect retort none the less.Perhaps Exador is thinking along the same lines.
You hens need to stop gossiping.Yes, I’ll tell the kid we did it so he wouldn’t develop back problems later in life.
I think it just goes to show that Lindsay’s commenters are wrong. No matter what you do, if a guy has something interesting about his genitals, word will get around. Circumcision is no guarantee that he won’t be the source of comment.
"It turns the glans of the penis into a giant callous that greatly reduces sexual stimulation and lubrication during intercourse"There’s your valid reason:It allows you to last longer. Your partners will thank you.
I don’t think the assessment can be made that my commenters are wrong though, when roughly half are for and half are against. I haven’t done an official count, but it seems to be going both ways. And yes, the ones who say, "Circumcise because an uncircumcised penis is icky!" are pretty silly. That’s not a good reason to do it, as far as I’m concerned.My main concern is that I have a few relatives who were left uncircumcised at birth and later chose to have it done as adults, at which point it was a painful, memorable surgery that they now wish had been performed on them as infants. One of them is a doctor and is absolutely pro-circumcision, based both on personal experience and medical study. That’s why this is an issue for me at all. Because my first instinct is to not do it, and let my son decide later.
Sex with an uncircumcised man is better. Been there done both. :) We didn’t circumcise our 26 year old son, and so far he doesn’t seem to have any problem with girlfriends. So I’m assuming how his penis looks is not a problem even though this is waaaaaaay more thought than I want to give to my son’s sex life.
Well, yes, we can get on to the "I once knew a guy" part of the discussion. I can say from long acquaintance with said penis that it was, indeed, quite the issue.That said, the point of my anecdote was not to provide an argument for circumcision as a general practical prescription (indeed, the rest of my post ought show that), but rather to give a concrete example of one time in which there was a legitimate medical argument for it that was blocked by societal pressure in the opposite direction. One data point doesn’t provide a positive argument for anything, but it does disprove sweeping absolutes.As for the rest of it, I don’t have a foreskin, no. But I do have a vagina, and for all that it is a lovely, well-evolved system, it still has a hard time getting volumes of sand out of itself without my assistance. Sure, it could, given time, flush everything out there, but our insistence on wearing clothing, particularly underclothing, while at the beach and in other places, has on occasion put me in situations where sand was in more-or-less constant contact with bits of me that would rather not have sand in them.Similarly, to return to my one concrete example, the person in question did, yes, go to the beach, and did get sand where it oughtn’t’ve been, and did have a horrible, painful time removing that same sand because he had difficulty moving the foreskin enough to allow water or a towel to get it out of there. Given enough time, I’m sure his penis would have worked it out on its own. But it would have been extremely uncomfortable, and might have gotten infected (nothing like abrasions in a warm, wet place to breed bacteria and other things).Moreover, arguments of the form: "gee, all those hominids in evolution never had a problem with it" have some inherent flaws all their own. First and most prominently, they tend to embody is/ought fallacies. A thing is so, therefore it ought be so. There are a number of compelling arguments against circumcision, but "Funny that all those hominids never really had any trouble with it" is not one.From there, a few points. Do you know any of the hominids in question? Has anyone done studies on the incidence of infection, paraphimosis, foreign material retention and discomfort on nonhuman species and human-specific progenitors? To say that an organ or organ system is evolutionarily functional does not necessarily mean that the beings in posession of the organ or organ system in question did not have a number of problems with said organs or systems. (Just ask a bird with a prolapsed cloaca. Or, for that matter, a woman with incapacitating Dysmenorrhea.)Moreover, even when, evolutionarily speaking, an organ is generally sound and not known to cause problems to its bearers, the context in which the being in question is located is important to consider. Teeth generally work quite well, and there are still groups of people who have nearly nonexistent dental problems despite a lack of westernized dental care. However, for those living on westernized diets (even well regulated and healthy westernized diets), prophylactic dental care is a must. Where we are and what we’re doing make a difference, so generalizing over an evolutionary span is risky.
Moving on from there to another, related point:
This is probably a contextual thing. Having worked in the birth center of a large hospital, I can say confidently that it is not a procedure that is performed institutionally on all infants everywhere. (Yes, I do live in the US, in a major city. I’m not reaching across anyone’s borders here, though I will do so in a moment)I have also known large groups of men who have not been circumcised, because, among other things, that was not their cultural or religious context. Non-Muslim Asian and Asian-American men in particular, but also affluent white males in certain communities (here is where I reach across a border, as the men in question were Canadian), and African-American men who do not have religious reasons to do so. And yes, I’ve asked. So it is a very contextual thing. In some places, it is probably a widely performed surgery. In others, especially where a number of strongly held religious and cultural beliefs merge, it is far less likely.Which, to my mind, is as it should be. I don’t think circumcision should be the default, by any means. But I also don’t think it’s categorically wrong, and I think that parents who have truly thought it through should be able to have it performed in peace.
The first 5 paragraphs of your reply are still irrelevant, as your friend had paraphimosis, so he is excluded from discussion about the "downsides" of retaining a foreskin.We’re talking about circumcision as an institutional, proactive procedure, not a corrective, medical procedure. Please don’t change the terms of the debate.As for the rest, if you are seriously going to argue that the foreskin is a vestigial organ, well.. good luck with that.
I don’t believe it to be changing the terms of the argument at all. As it was phrased, Aunt B had a specific concern, from a specific thread. I agreed that that specific concern was silly, but voiced my opinion on the larger matter by stating that it ought not be prohibited, in general, because there were a number of valid reasons to have it done. The specific medical example was to counteract the sweeping "I have disproved its medical worth" argument.As for the second part, I am in no way arguing that it is a vestigial organ. Teeth, cloaca, and my reproductive organs aren’t vestigial organs, and they are the examples I gave. I am arguing against a position that holds that the overall evolutionary worth of an organ or system of organs has anything to do with its incidence of pain or malfunction. We have perfectly good parts that hurt us very much, on occasion, and when given the agency to do something about it, we ought utilize that agency.And please, "his penis is funny so your opinion doesn’t matter?" Let’s not be children.
Circumcision is not harmful.The person being cut is the proper judge of that, since infant circumcision is medically no better than cosmetic surgery. There is no necessity, and certainly nothing that can’t be corrected with less invasive medical intervention. That’s the standard we apply to every other surgery on minors. Just because we exclude male genitals from that protection doesn’t make it valid.And as Chris said, there are physical changes that occur with circumcision. The moist mucous membrane of the foreskin and glans become keratinized. There is a scar. There is reduced sensitivity. There are potential complications, which are not rare. There is a change in the physical act of intercourse from gliding to friction, which also changes the process of climax from pressure to friction. Human sexuality was not designed for friction.Any surgery that cuts and removes tissue is harmful. In every other case involving children, there is a greater medical gain for doing so. With routine/ritual circumcision, healthy tissue is removed. That is harmful.And you don’t have freedom FROM religion here. You have freedom OF religion. If my religion says "circumcise all males on the 8th day of life" then I’ve got every right to engage in that practice.Unless you’re stating that everyone must subscribe to some religion, yes, we do have freedom from religion, if that’s what an individual chooses. Each person has that, male children included. That doesn’t prohibit you from instructing your children in religion, but you can’t force them to believe.But let’s assume for a moment that there is no freedom from religion. If you remove your son’s foreskin and he determines later that his religion requires him to be intact, you have created a situation in which he can’t practice his religion. His freedom of religion mandates that you not cut off any part of his body for religious reasons. You explicitly do not have the right to do this because of the Constitution, regardless of what any religion says. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States, guaranteeing each person rights. No one is the property of another.Let’s consider a different example. What if someone’s religion says that unbelievers must be killed, and that anyone who carries that out is to be commended, not condemned? Does that person have the right to kill people? Of course not. Each person has the right to bodily integrity, which can not be violated by another person. Foreskin included.I take it you’re not going to read the book I recommended, in which a clear case is made that the Old Testament only includes this commandment because men decided it should be there? Also, Dr. Glick’s book contains historical quotes from religious figures clearly stating that one justification for infant circumcision is that it inhibits and reduces sexual pleasure. That sounds like harm to me.
I didn’t say your opinion doesn’t matter — I said that phimosis is not a normal condition of the foreskin and thus isn’t relevant in a discussion of the merits of the practice of circumcision.
Magniloquence,I don’t have a problem with your examples, as long as people take from them that they’re the (relatively?) rare instance where circumcision can be medically justified. It’s this that I disagree with:…I think that parents who have truly thought it through should be able to have it performed in peace.The crux of the issue here is that, barring medical necessity, it’s the boy’s body. It doesn’t matter how thoroughly the parents have thought it out. They’re making his decision for their reasons. That’s wrong. Violating basic human rights requires more than good intentions.
I went to the same school as Exador. And Lindsay touches on the point that seems most important to me: If you do leave it up to your son to decide once he comes Of Age, then he has to go through this procedure FULLY AWARE of what’s being done (the men reading this post will understand the pain inferred in those caps).Having been present for my sons’ Bris – and having seen them be, from all external evidence, completely over it an hour later – I have to believe they’ll thank me for it later.I guess my point is: this is something you really don’t want to experience as an adult. I would rather have to explain to my sons why we had it done when they were young; then have to say to them: "So, you’ve decided to get circumsised. Geez, that’s gonna hurt! It’s gonna suck to be you for the next month."
To add some levity…and my personal perspective on the whole "appearance" aspect of this discussion…Circumcised or Uncircumcised…as long as it’s hard, who gives a flying fuck? I haven’t seen one yet that repulsed me…er, well, not that there have been that many…
I’d like to go back in this thread to some things that got posted earlier today, Magni talking about communities in which very young kids have their ears pierced, and Rachel saying she’s shocked at babies with pierced ears. It made me realize how completely culturally conditioned all our responses to this stuff about appearance are. I want to share the story of my two grandmothers. They were both born in Europe, in communities where young girls pretty routinely had their ears pierced. One of them had them pierced quite young, came to the U.S. at 15, discovered that it was considered a bit declasse to have pierced ears, but went right on wearing her earrings until she was in her 60s. (After that the holes in her ears healed up.) My other grandmother was brought here as an infant, and her parents were told that only nasty people and foreigners pierced little girls’ ears, so they didn’t pierce hers, and she absorbed the message that pierced ears were slutty and never had them pierced. (BTW, I used to wear her clip-ons once in a while. I’d rather have my ears pierced all over again every day than have my earlobes pinched like that.) And she nearly died from shock when I got mine pierced at 15. She never got over thinking it was kind of dirty of me. There simply is no un-conditioned way for us to react to these things. I mean, most of you are hearing/reading "circumcision" and thinking of hospitals and surgical gowns and what-not. Whereas I (and BurbankFox, I presume) think about being at home with all the family and close friends and the baby’s first taste of wine.
BurbankFox,I took Exador’s comment as slightly in jest. But if not, that’s not a valid reason. What if the male lasts long enough with a foreskin? Without it, he lasts too long. Anyone ever engaged in sex for too long because one person couldn’t, um… What if that becomes the circumcised man’s only experience? Oops?To your point, specifically, parents circumcising sons for any reason other than immediate medical need can’t be sure that their sons will agree. It doesn’t matter if it eases your conscience to not leave your child susceptible to an adult operation; it’s his body. And adults have the capacity to understand why something hurts. Infants don’t.The pain of adult circumcision acts as disincentive, while whatever benefit he’ll get if he needs or wants it done acts as the incentive. The fact that some men get it done as adults without needing it shows that men can make decisions for themselves based on what they value more. The fact that most intact men don’t get it done shows that they don’t need it or don’t value whatever benefits circumcision might offer more than the pain.What if parents value tattoos? It’s probable that their children will have a favorable opinion on tattoos, too. Should parents get their young children tattooed to save them the later pain? Since parents can apparently tell which foreskin status their children will desire, they can know which tattoo(s) their children will want.Ultimately, it’s dangerous to base circumcision solely on fear. Fear of disease, fear of pain. Either way, it’s still fear without medical need. If you want some preventive surgery for yourself, fine, but we can’t know what another would choose. Men might value the many years they do have their foreskin more than a few weeks of pain if they need circumcision. They also might demand less invasive treatments rather than the automatic call for circumcision at the first sign of trouble.
Is there anybody out there in tv land who you know who wishes they had not been circumsised? If so, why? (This is a serious question–I’m interested in knowing for the sake of this discussion, which despite my levity, I am finding extremely interesting).
nm – I should clarify that the reason I’m shocked when mothers pierce their babies’ ears is not because I think it’s not classy, but because it’s another bodily autonomy issue. I think kids should get pierced ears when they’re old enough to decide for themselves. Your ears, your holes (or not).
Now, see, the ears I just flat disagree with you about even apart from religious or cultural questions. Because if you wish your ears hadn’t been pierced, you stop wearing earrings and the holes heal themselves up. It’s completely reversible without you having to do a thing.
Well, I suppose they do "heal themselves up," but you still have the little hole marks (as I do) which are noticeable, aside from the initial pain. You also spend a bunch of time with someone fussing over metal in your ears that you didn’t choose to have. No permanent damage, but what’s the point? Babies aren’t cute enough unless they’re punctured? Why not leave it up to them when they’re old enough to take care of them and decide for themselves?
Ginger, I know what you mean. I can’t remember ever being involved in a conversation with this many guys talking about their penises and how they feel about them. It’s really, really interesting.I could be wrong, but I think Tony has been circumcised and wishes he hadn’t been.I haven’t ever had sex with an uncircumcised penis, but I’ve now looked at a ton of them on the internet. I’m still unclear. When you’re erect, is the foreskin just stretched out along the shaft and stays there during intercourse or do you get the sensation of the foreskin moving against the vagina and moving against the shaft?Because it does seem to me like that would feel good.Lindsay, at the end of the day, I think that, no matter what you do, you’re going to get some grief for it. Though I have noticed that such seems to be the truth for just about any decision a parent makes about anything. Good luck with your decision.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the bodily autonomy argument, and I tend to feel that most arguments ought at very least take the perspective into account. On a case-by-case basis, in the absence of highly compelling other argument, I believe it ought take precedence over a good number of other things. Arguments that wind up there, however, also tend to make me squirmy, when I read things like this:
I know you didn’t mean anything mean by it. And, in all honesty, although I value my cultural practice I can don’t think it necessarily has to be done before the child is old enough to understand. (I do, however, strongly believe that in many contexts this forebearance is not because of any belief in bodily autonomy, but rather a sexualization of the act and the child that I am simply not comfortable with.) When things are phrased in that tone, however, it raises my hackles a bit.Dismissing something that to many people can be a meaningful and important cultural act or identity marker as simply about being "cute" is… insulting. The same with circumcision. I think it’s one thing to leverage a deeply held belief about bodily autonomy against a deeply held religious or cultural belief. I think it’s good to struggle with it. But I think focusing simply on the cosmetic aspects of it is, among other things, creating something of a strawman.I don’t think it’s intentional, at least not with this particular quote. I do think that it’s something that’s important to watch for. I think it ties into nm’s elaboration of my point about cultural contexts, and Aunt B’s You are not the Default thread, and even, yes, the recent thread about retirement. Where you’re situated is important.
From personal experience–and I’m being very candid here, geez–there is a sensation of the foreskin moving, and yes, of course it feels good, well great–but so does the sensation of the head and the "calloused" area around it, so it isn’t something that makes a greatly marked difference to me. I don’t know about other womens’ experiences, but that is my humble opinion. Perhaps in a less public forum I would be willing to share other opinions & preferences about other aspects of this, but I’m beginning to blush.
Rachel, why pierce babies’ ears? I guess out of tradition, which grew out of a particular idea of what’s pretty. That’s my point, that the idea of its complete appropriateness, like the idea of its complete inappropriateness, is culturally determined.
Ginger,I’m glad you were brave enough to say that much. I feel like Hermetically-Sealed Girl today, let me tell you.
Aunt B.:Is it that obvious? ;)I hope what comes through, besides "what an
assopinionated individual he is", is that I’m not unique. Are parents who circumcise ready to deal with a son who disagrees so vehemently, especially for a surgical decision that is not medically necessary? If they are, I contend they haven’t thought through everything.Mag,I definitely didn’t mean to be insulting. My personal experience of knowing mothers who get their babies’ ears pierced has been that they thought it was "cute" and that was the only reason they did it, before the babies (literally) were old enough to form a word. I realize that this may not be the default (as it seemingly wasn’t for you), although I appreciate your reminding me of it so delicately. For me, it combines the taking away autonomy with objectification of the baby (much like the circumcision issue), and it rubs me the wrong way.
Frankly B, I was just messing with you. I’m not informed on the topic in any real sense. I wasn’t sure mine was cut until I asked a lady friend. My only antecdotal knowledge of the issue is from an episode of Sex and the City that I was forced to watch.And when I have a boy child in the future I’ll do my own research and it won’t include the opinions of you, Wage, and Tony. Because I think at least for the first few years I have a better idea of what’s best for him than he does himself.
Yes.. Basically, what a lot of people don’t realize about the foreskin is that it’s a complete organ in and of itself in some sense. It’s small on an infant, but it grows quite a bit during puberty, so it has a pretty large effect on intercourse, but yeah, probably nothing mindblowingly different. At the end of the day, humping feels pretty good no matter what.Being raised the son of a midwife means never being shy about genitalia-talk. I used to get lectures on episiotomies at the dinner table. It was very appetizing.
nm (and Mag),I think we’re actually thinking along the same lines in certain ways, just with different levels of acceptance about what can be done to an other based on tradition.
Ya know, Tony, I’m sure you’re not unique, but I don’t think that your reactions/opinions/experiences are all that common, either. These dreadful drawbacks that you perceive really aren’t perceived as drawbacks at all by the overwhelming majority of men who were circumcised as children, or by their partners. I don’t want to belittle your concerns, which I take seriously. But when you start going on about the frequent problems that circumcised men encounter I have to notice that dealing with them hasn’t become a big medical specialty in Israel. Which, if you were correct, it ought to be. And the millenia of lousy sex my ancestors must have experienced according to your ideas doesn’t square very well with the way that Maimonides wrote about sex, or with what a lot of rabbis have written along the centuries about it in issuing pronouncements about marriage and divorce (and although they used a lot of euphemisms they did deal with the subject fairly unequivocally). So I’m thinking that you may need to take some other experiences into account.
I think so too, Rachel. For my part, I mostly want to be able to declare it a "this should really be decided on a case by case issue" sort of argument, with the caveat that in that decisionmaking, religious/cultural reasons may be weighed along with medical and personal/philosophical ones. For me, personally, in the absence of clear medical necessity I would probably not circumcise a male child unless whatever partner was doing the co-parenting had strongly held religious or cultural arguments for it. I would, however, probably pierce my children’s ears, male or female, at a (relatively) young age (though not at three months, because a) that time period isn’t mandatory and b) I’d like to get them past the stage where they grab everything at hand and put it in their mouths before I put small, sharp, relatively easy to remove or tear out things on their persons.), and once the piercing was healed and they were old enough to understand what they were ( I mean literally, as soon as I was pretty sure that they understood the basic concept of ear-piercing, not "when I’m sure they’re old enough to really understand it," which seems to always mean "until they’re old enough to start asking really uncomofortable questions" or "until all their friends start doing it."), I would let them make decisions about whether to keep them, or to continue wearing earrings.I’m not sure whether that gets me kicked out of the ‘valuing bodily autonomy’ club or not.And, I think, this conversation does all boil down to what you said earlier, Aunt B. It doesn’t matter what you choose, if you’re a parent, you’re probably going to have somebody annoyed at you. If you’re lucky, and you think it through, though, then at least you’ll be able to explain it to the kid in question. I know it isn’t universally true, but in my experience, telling someone "I thought a lot about this, and I did this for X, Y, and Z reasons" generally goes a long way toward forgiveness, if not acceptance.
"These dreadful drawbacks that you perceive really aren’t perceived as drawbacks at all by the overwhelming majority of men who were circumcised as children, or by their partners."OK, I gotta draw the line at being circumcised by my partner.
<snort>I can’t argue with that one. But I think (I’m not sure because it’s late in the day and I’m still at work and my brain may have gone on strike) that my punctuation is actually OK, and that only if I left out that comma would I be advocating what you think I was saying.
Rachel, I do understand what you mean. I guess that parents make so many absolutely life-and-death decisions affecting their children that I’m inclined to give them more of a pass on less major questions, even if cuteness were in fact the only reason. But that’s me and my opinion, not the rule.
Not to get you too far off track of what’s been an interesting discussion, but somewhere in the line of "you are not the default," a brief historical note:In some traditional Plains Indian religions, the piercing of ears at a young age is critical. Infants can receive spiritual wisdom through the fontanelle (and their early babble is referred to as "talking to the old ones") but once the skull closes, it becomes imperative to pierce to prevent spiritual deafness. A failure to understand the cultural significance of piercing (and the perceived liabilities connected to being unpierced) proved to be a real issue during the Plains Wars, with the Lakota complaining that culturally tone-deaf American soldiers and diplomats "had no ears". Raymond J. DeMallie, "These Have No Ears": Narrative and the Ethnohistorical Method," Ethnohistory, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 515-538.
So Tony and any others of our circumsised friends who wish they weren’t, I would like to respectfully ask…since you don’t really know what you have missed out on, why is there an issue for you? You may have just as much sensation as the uncircumsized, and it all may be a big crock that there is a difference in sensation. Of course, I am referring to that one issue–of course there is the whole body autonomy thing–but you probably aren’t missing out on that much, ya know?
Hah! Bridgett, I love you for that comment. That’s the sort of specific historical/cultural information I always wish I had handy. One’s own experiences are useful for framing a conversation, but easily discounted and possibly distorted. While there’s a lot to be argued about vis a vis the absolute accuracy of "history" as we know it, bits like this make me happy. And can certainly move a conversation along.
nm:I don’t claim that my experiences or opinions are common. My point is more along the lines that my opinion exists. It’s amazing how many people I’ve talked to who are dumbfounded that anyone doesn’t like circumcision. That’s not a starting point for making an informed choice about a child. (I reject the notion that circumcision without immediate medical need is the parents’ choice for any reason, as I think is clear already.)As for my experiences, you’re right, what I perceive as a complication may not make it onto some other man’s list of complaints. See exador’s comment for an example. Longer to climax might mean impossible to climax. However, the issue doesn’t have to involve a medical specialist to be a complication. If a man suffers a penile tear along his circumcision line because the circumciser removed too much foreskin, there is little reason to go to a doctor; it will heal on its own. Still, it’s a complication. This is what I’m talking about, not necessarily a missing glans. (Which does happen, of course.)But none of that is necessary to reason that infant circumcision is an unacceptable violation of a child’s rights. Each person is born with the same rights to be free from harm. We are appalled when cultures circumcise girls, but they often give the exact reasons Western societies give for cutting males. Why our double-standard?It should be indisputable that circumcision reduces sensation, if only because the nerves that were there are cut away. In a typical American circumcision, at least for my generation (I’m 33), the frenulum is also removed. This is the most sensitive part of the penis. If it’s gone, is that not harm? How are the parents a better judge of whether or not the child should have that through to adulthood? And Maimonides did speak of the reduced sensitivity.(On a side note, I understand that we may not be talking about the same thing. Typical American circumcision and traditional Jewish circumcision are not necessarily the same thing. The American version, unsurprisingly, tends to be far more invasive.)Most circumcised men are fine with their circumcision, a fact I will not deny. I can’t fathom why they would be, and I have no need to make content men unhappy. But the fact that intact men generally do not seek circumcision is indicative that the foreskin has value to men who keep theirs. Parents can’t know in advance what opinion their son will have, so he should be left intact.Basically, I’m in the minority, but cutting children tends to create future adults who will perpetuate cutting children. (See Lindsay’s original post for many examples.) That does not validate the surgery. However small the opposed minority may be, hearing whatever good intention justified the surgery does not make up for the violation. It may placate parents, a point sorta made here earlier, but cutting off healthy body parts is not about the parents. His body, his decision.
Ginger,You’re right, I don’t know what I’m missing. I just don’t like the premise that I need to justify why unnecessary surgery shouldn’t have been performed on me. How much do I have to be missing for it to be worth outrage?An honest answer is still warranted. What I know is my experience. Obviously, there’s the ugly scar from circumcision. But that’s aesthetic. There’s also the tearing I mentioned earlier, which I experience. There’s also the longer lasting, which exador figured would be a benefit. It is not, because it arises from lack of sensitivity. Who cares how long I last if I can’t feel anything? Also, my frenulum is gone, because the doctor scraped it off. I could go on.I can’t definitively attribute the lack of sensitivity to circumcision. (I’d say the skin tearing on the scar line is a safe assumption.) But I can compare myself to an intact penis. There is a difference. The normal foreskin and glans are mucous membrane. When the foreskin is not there, the skin undergoes keratinization, as was mentioned earlier. Just imagine what would happen if you left your mouth open 24/7. Or imagine if the clitoral hood was removed. That’s what happens.Yet, if it comes down to nothing more than a bodily autonomy issue, is that not enough? We know it is for girls, but boys are somehow exempt from such protection? No women I’ve talked to would care for a labia trim. (I’ll ask… would you appreciate that if it’d been done to you?) Why should boys be expected to accept having their genitals cut? Let’s assume no reduced sensitivity or other complications.I’m not being rhetorical when I ask this. Assuming no harm, or in your words, that much harm: what other unnecessary cosmetic surgery would be acceptable on children without their consent?Even if it is "no big deal," that does not make it acceptable.
nm,I knew your sentence was fine. I just never let proper grammar get in the way of a good one-liner. Especially if it involves a dick joke.
Tony,Point taken, indeed. I appreciate your candor and willingness to reveal this much about yourself…without blushing…
Whoooooa. Hold on a moment. Female genital cutting and western male circumcision are not commensurable that way.Not because of the genders of the people involved, but because of the practice itself. I wrote a long post about it, but Squarespace didn’t let it (or my trackback) go through, and I was late, so I left my reply on my own journal.That was in reply to your second-to-last comment.And most of it goes for your last comment, too. But I have other things to say about this:
First, and most obviously, some women do request labioplasty. And it’s a contentious matter, as that thread shows. But there are women who do want that.Second, in the case of religious/cultural belief, the issue is about boys because the issue is about boys. If there were an equivalent (a truly equivalent, in significance, invasiveness, and sensory tradeoffs) for females, we could discuss that too. For me, if there were a true equivalent, I would have the same position on female circumcision that I have on male circumcision. But there isn’t an equivalent in that manner (aside from clitorodotomy without clitoral removal, which is not nearly as common and often does not have the requisite religiocultural force to draw a parallel), so trying to redirect the conversation in that manner strikes me as at least somewhat disingenuous.I know you mean well. And I’m sorry something was done to you that you did not want to have done. I think that you can make your point more precisely, however. I also think you might do well to take nm’s suggestion and look outside your own experience.
Penn and Teller (Las Vegas magicians/comedians) have a show on the Showtime network called "Bullshit", and one of their episodes (in season 3, IIRC) was about circumcision. They touched on medical, religious, and other issues, and had guests from an anti-circumcision group. Apparently there is a technique involving dangling weights that can "restore" the foreskin after several months of wear. Part of Penn’s schtick is to be very angry (as narrator, not face-to-face) at the practitioners of whatever he decides is "Bullshit"; he is not a fan of circumcision. Netflix has it.
Tony, I do get that your experience and your opinion exist. I take them very seriously, as examples of real problems in the here and now and of potential problems that ought to be avoided. And if you feel that people in general don’t take what you say seriously I can understand your vehemence. But I think that you go overboard in identifying and attacking the problem: in comparing male circumcision to female "circumcision," for example, or in suggesting that your own experience alone ought to be the basis for the decisions other people make. I don’t want to do the equivalent of patting you on the head and telling you to be a good girl and go away now. But the fact that ultimately I disagree with you about circumcision isn’t doing that. It’s just drawing different conclusions from the same data.
Tony, I do get that your experience and your opinion exist. I take them very seriously, as examples of real problems in the here and now and of potential problems that ought to be avoided. And if you feel that people in general don’t take what you say seriously I can understand your vehemence. But I think that you go overboard in identifying and attacking the problem: in comparing male circumcision to female "circumcision," for example, or in suggesting that your own experience alone ought to be the basis for the decisions other people make. I don’t want to do the equivalent of patting you on the head and telling you to be a good girl and go away now. But the fact that ultimately I disagree with you about circumcision isn’t doing that. It’s just drawing different conclusions from the same data.
Oops, sorry about the double post. Feel free to delete one, B. My computer and squarespace just had a disagreement. Gee, it blocks Magni and posts me twice. I wonder …
Magniloquence and nm,The problem is the data. I’ll explain later today with my response to Magniloquence. Forgive the delay, but I want to provide something thought-out.
Hhm…see, I definately have a preference on the circumcision issue (I prefer them cut), but ultimately I think that, as a woman, it’s really none of my damn business what someone wants to do with his dick. Does the entire male gender "need" to conform to my wierd, random aesthetic preferences? Hell no! I’m also aware that my preference might simply be a matter of what I grew up being, ahem, exposed to. One’s first sexual experiences do tend to set the pattern. And in spite of my preference, if I fell in love with a guy who wasn’t circumcised it wouldn’t stop me from being with him. It hasn’t in the past.The only argument that seems relevant to the final decision about whether societies as a whole do or do not circumcise is the idea that doing so might help prevent the spread of AIDS, but I’m not at all clear on the mechanics of how that works. I’m also curious about whether it’s actually true. Anyone have any good cites?
To clarify – I agree that any woman who would get to the point where she was actually looking at a man’s penis has already made the decision about whether or not she wants to sleep with him in most cases. One would have to be a little odd to change one’s mind at that point over a little piece of skin. Penises are pretty funny looking things regardless of whether or not they’re circumcised, and they’re not exactly uniform – you never quite know what you’re going to get. I’ve only ever met one woman who actually did get up and run out of the room at the sight of an uncut penis, and she was a little strange to say the least. Let’s just say that she bathed her cats every couple of days. I feel rather sorry for both the guy she ran out on and the cats.
Magniloquence:I am not confused on the comparison I made between male and female
circumcisiongenital mutilation. I made my point precisely. They are the same, unequivocally, regardless of the extent of harm done. Qualitatively, genital surgery is genital surgery, whether it’s on males or females, for cultural or religious beliefs. On minors and non-consenting adults, without specific, immediate medical need that can’t be corrected with a less invasive treatment, genital surgery is wrong. No exceptions.You state:…some women do request labioplasty.Some men do request circumcision. So what? If I’ve said anything that indicated I think voluntary, adult circumcision should be illegal, let me correct that now. They are adults and remain free to do whatever they want to their own bodies, however silly and bizarre I might find it. I’ve argued that children have bodily autonomy, so I surely believe that adults retain it from childhood.In your second point, you state that "if there were a true equivalent," you would feel the same about female circumcision as you do about male circumcision. I obviously disagree, but I find your follow-up more convenience than rebuttal to my arguments. Clitorodotomy without clitoral excision is similar enough, allegedly causing insufficient damage, that I don’t see how you can dismiss it because it doesn’t have the requisite religiocultural force. Again, so what? Only the person whose body is facing the knife gets to decide whether any religiocultural force is valid. My stance is on the principle that every human being is an individual, with inherent rights that include the right to bodily autonomy, not some notion of how much damage is done or how noble the reason.The last point you made here, that I take nm’s advice and look outside my experience, is worthwhile. It’s important for me to remember that not everyone has my experience. But my principle remains the same, regardless of how happy people are with what was done to them or what they want to do to others. We can never know whether infants would agree or disagree with the surgery. Since it is medically unnecessary, that is all that matters. There is only one viable choice, and that is to leave all children intact until they can decide for themselves.Forgive me for combining everything, but it’s easier to address both in one place. From your blog entry, you state:…but in their performance they often have as much to do with the availability of supplies…I think I’ve addressed some of that paragraph above. With the bit I’ve excerpted, I contend that human rights demand more than good intentions and a clean operating environment. It’s despicable the condition with which so many female circumcisions are carried out. But I would feel no different if they occurred in a sterile hospital. On its merits, any unnecessary circumcision is wrong.Taking a narrow view of the issue,* one may argue that if unasked-for cutting is bad as a thing by virtue of its unasked-for nature, all unasked-for cutting is bad (and therefore ought not be done). Taking an extreme verison of that view – unasked-for cutting is bad as a thing simply by virtue of its unasked-for nature, then all cutting is equally bad (and therefore ought not be done). The former view is what I think you are saying, and what I can agree to disagree with you about. The latter, however, is what arguments of the type you just made lend themselves to, and that is what I want to argue against.As I’ve stated here, I agree with the opinion you attribute to me, with the caveat about specific, immediate medical need with no less invasive alternatives. I disagree with your slippery slope theory expressed in the rest of the paragraph, but the caveat I’ve added is the brake that I think is necessary. What I come away with is confusion as to why you disagree that unasked-for, medically unnecessary surgery can ever be acceptable. I think I understand the rationale, but it makes no sense to me that your reasons trump the child’s bodily autonomy. With no other surgery do we make this exception.Next, you mention that FGM is "often performed in extremely unhygenic conditions, on an alert and old-enough-to-think-about-it-and-frequently-unenthused patient." I’ve addressed the unhygenic claim, so I’ll move to the second part. What does age have to do with it? Human beings have their inherent rights from birth (or before, but that’s another debate). I’m old enough to think about what was done to me for no valid reason. I’m unenthused. But if we take the moment of the act as the only variable, your argument leads to the slippery slope that anything parents do to their children before they’re old enough to understand is acceptable. That’s bogus, as I suspect you’d agree. So how is unnecessary genital surgery exempt, while a punch in the head isn’t?I stated the physical ramifications I experience in my comment to Ginger. I also stated that I understand they may be unique to me. That’s why I’ll reiterate that I reject the premise that I have to justify why unnecessary surgery shouldn’t have been performed on me. The quantity of damage is irrelevant, as it is in female circumcision. I was as entitled to the full range of male human sexual experience as women who undergo circumcision, forced or not, are entitled to the full range of female human sexual experience. There is indisputable damage, on an individual incapable of offering consent. That is enough to reject the practice outright.Finally:The numbers are out on what percentage that makes up, but comparing an action which is often inflicted on unwilling women who know what it is and that it might kill them to an action which is performed on boys who may or may not object (and who overwhelmingly later in life do not object) is unsettling.You’ve mixed your classifications of who is being circumcised in a way that benefits the point you’re trying to make. You can’t compare older girls and women to younger males and male infants. The distinction I make between consenting and non-consenting individuals, with the sub-distinction between adults and minors, is what matters. Going beyond that is an argument designed to reach a specific outcome that fails principle.The fact that many adolescent boys in cultures that wait to circumcise males are quite clearly unenthused about what’s being done to them. That is an equal comparison to the women in your example. Infant girls who may or may not object and who overwhelmingly later in life do not object is an equal comparison to the boys in your example. Cultural conditioning is a strong factor here. Adults circumcised as children tend to agree with and perpetuate genital cutting. This is not exclusive to males. How many stories of circumcised women who circumcise their daughters do I need to provide to make that point? Your example is not valid as a justification for male circumcision.nm:I don’t feel you’re being condescending or not taking me seriously because you disagree. I contend that our data is not the same. I’m suggesting that the realm of a person’s decisions includes only his or her own body, not that of another human being. Parents must care for their children, but they do not own them. They can’t remove body parts for their own reasons, or for reasons they assume their child would approve. I’m proof that not all children will conform to their parents’ expectation regarding circumcision. I may be in the minority of society, but my dissent is all that is necessary with regards to my body. Every individual, including children, possess this right.There must be a specific, immediate medical reason with no less invasive treatments available. I don’t think you agree with my framework, but I’ve come to my conclusion based on the principles I’ve outlined here. My experience informs my approach, but it is unnecessary for the strength of my argument.My comparison of male and female genital mutilation is accurate for that reason; both are wrong because the person authorizing the cutting is not the person being cut. That is unacceptable in every form.
BritGirlSF, an article about circumcision and AIDS transmission is here. Basically, the issue is that the foreskin has lots of extra Langerhans cells, which are what the HIV virus specifically attacks, so it is particularly vulnerable. On top of that, the foreskin frequently tears during sex, so that the virus has an easy path of entry into the area. (The latter point is why circumcised males are slightly more resistant to STDs generally.)
BritGirlSF,I agree with nm’s statement. I just think these scientific facts remain irrelevant to infant circumcision. The results were from men voluntary circumcised as adults. Safe sex is the best protection, short of abstinence. No one is suggesting, I hope, that circumcised males can not be infected. They can, even if it takes a little longer. (As an aside, I actually saw a news article discuss this study with the context that "six in 10 circumcised men are immune". Dangerously wrong.)In the overall circumcision debate, the adult male is the best person to decide his risk. Parents can’t know. We also don’t know, although we can assume, that the study’s results will hold up for infant circumcision.My personal example shows that tearing is not a condition specific to intact foreskins. If circumcision causes skin tears, which I know it does, that must be factored in to the discussion of protection from HIV. Whatever the disparity in prevalence, the danger is the same for intact and circumcised if it happens. And the female partner is HIV+, of course.Also, female genitals have Langerhans cells, so it seems reasonable to theorize that they’d be just as susceptible. No one is advocating cutting girls, or even studying the impact, on the potential protection from HIV. (Yes, I know I’m making the male-to-female circumcision comparison again. I think it’s relevant here on basic biology, specific practices aside.)To be fair, I’m not attributing to nm the ideas that unsafe sex is okay after circumcision, or that HIV protection is sufficient to justify infant circumcision. nm provided correct information based on scientific research, which is all anyone can ask. I just want to make sure the full picture is here.
Possibly the skin on penises just tears? I mean, it tears on uncircumcised penises and it tears on circumcised penises. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The only effect circumcision has is on exactly where those tears will be.Let me be clear here. I don’t care about — I have absolutely no investment in — the question of whether parents circumcise their infant sons if they have no religious impetus to do so. I’m not advocating it. I’m not opposing it. It has nothing to do with me. I just think that exaggerating the potential drawbacks (which I think Tony does) is as wrongheaded as exaggerating the potential benefits (which Tony is correct that some people do).
nm:
Sure enough, just like the reality that Langerhans cells remain after circumcision. Both are points that advocates for circumcision as HIV prevention aren’t acknowledging. Friction is the cause with circumcision, which is possible in any sexual scenario. There’s a plethora of theories that suggests relating to intact versus circumcised. Surprisingly, I’m not going to go into them. Stating that skin on penises tears should be enough to remind people that they’re not ridding the boy of a risk, so that’s the key message.I basically agree with your assessment on where we agree and disagree. The only modification I’d make to it is that how we weigh the potential drawbacks and benefits should fall into a cost-benefit analysis. Even if the drawbacks are potential, the benefits can be achieved with less invasive methods. (They can also be achieved later; delay is no enemy.) The drawbacks can’t be corrected easily, or at all. One person getting the drawbacks is too many, so I don’t think I’m exaggerating the drawbacks in making my case.Essentially, it’s unnecessary to look beyond the child’s rights, which any discussion of potential benefits (medical or cultural) does.I think enough’s been said above on the religious angle, mainly because we’re not going to convince each other here. I’m stubborn, but not stupid. Can I ask that you at least read the book recommendation I provided above? Again, I don’t think you’re going to change your mind, but knowledge is a good thing. If you have a book suggestion for your viewpoint, I’d oblige and read that.
Tony, field trials comparing the rate of HIV transmission between circumcised and uncircumcised men showed that circumcised men had 60% — 70% less risk of becoming HIV+. No one is claiming that circumcised penises don’t tear or have no Langerhans cells; they are saying that despite tears and the presence of (some) Langerhans cells, circumcision dramatically decreases the risk of being exposed to or transmitting the virus. Further, you seem to be under the impression that I am a fundamentalist or a Biblical literalist. I’m not. I already believe that the Bible as we have it was written down and edited at different times by different people, and that the initial divine revelation(s) (in which I do believe) have been added to by a bunch of accretions created by humans. I favor infant circumcision not because I am sure that it is a divine commandment which I must obey, but because I know that it is a tradition that connects Jews today with our ancestors, and because I like that connection. And because (like the traditions of kashrut or what have you) whether or not it is divinely ordained, following the tradition helps us be mindful of our relationship with the divine. I know that doesn’t meet with your approval, but I’m not trying to win your approval. And I’m not trying to convince you to agree with me, and I’m not going to provide you with other voices to ‘prove’ that my beliefs ought to be yours, as well. You have the right to your take on the world, and the right to let it be heard. Since this thread started out with B musing on how social expectations about penises affect body issues for men, maybe we should get back to that or leave it alone.
nm:
I don’t deny that. I’m fine with it as a conclusion. But it’s irrational to then impose circumcision on infants as a result. They’re not having sex and putting themselves at risk for HIV. Even more than that, the risk of HIV is from having unprotected sex with an HIV+ person. That’s the critical aspect. If other circumcised men want to have unprotected sex with HIV+ women, fine. I’ll pass, which means that circumcision is providing me with zero benefit in this realm. (Men who would should not be surprised by the consequences. No one should have to give up something of his so that another can be irresponsible. That’s collectivist nonsense.)Forgive me on the religion point. I was not under the specific impression that you were a fundamentalist. A literalist on circumcision? Yes. I’ve only heard people say because it’s a Biblical requirement, so I assumed. I shouldn’t have. I apologize for not asking, since it was pertinent to my comments.I think any debate is fluid enough that we don’t have to restrict ourselves to the starting point. We can stick to that here, and there’s a lot to be said on how social expectations about penises affect body issues for men, but it’s all the same argument eventually. Whether we say that foreskins must be removed to please the aesthetic preference of women or that foreskins must be removed to maintain a tradition that connects people across time, we’re arguing whether or not men have any say in their participation in that social process. It’s all the same.If a male is circumcised, it’s already been decided for him. Part of his penis was removed to include him in the social circle. If he grows up to despise it, it’s too late. Aesthetic, religious, parental laziness/indifference, or whatever, he’s not participating; he’s being forced to conform to someone else’s view of how his world should be. He must sacrifice his penis for others, under rules set by others, without his opinion. That can’t be acceptable.I failed to ask earlier, so let me ask now. Is the cutting necessary for you? Would the same ritual, but without the cutting, be sufficient? The boy isn’t aware at the time, so it seems to me like it would lack experiential meaning to him. Would the ceremony be enough or does he need to be cut to continue that connection? And if he needs to be cut, why as an infant and not as an adult, when he can decide?
Tony, I don’t see how you and I can talk to each other very effectively if you equate circumcision with "sacrific[ing the] penis." That would be gelding (or some technical term I don’t know that applies only to humans). That, like "female ‘circumcision’" really is the sacrifice of a body part in order to turn a person into an object for others, and I would object to it strenuously. But it isn’t what happens in circumcisions. I don’t want to be rude, and so I’m responding to this post of yours, but that’s it. I’m kind of tired of being told that circumcision is a lot of things it isn’t, except perhaps metaphorically (to those who share and accept your metaphors).I don’t quite know how to answer your question about the ritual of circumcision without the cutting, since the circumcision is the center of the ritual. I think that you mean whether the circumcision would have to involve removing the entire foreskin. I suppose not; certainly my understanding is that in adult ritual circumcisions performed for the purpose of conversion to Judaism, it does not. OTOH, the adult ritual circumcision etc. etc. must involve the making of a cut and the drawing of blood, and I believe that this is true for infants as well. There must be a sign of the cutting, after all — it’s meant to be permanent.
nm:I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but I’ve said nothing false about male circumcision.I meant to remove the word sacrifice precisely to avoid us getting hung up on it. I don’t think it’s essential to this debate because that’s at the end of the debate, while the basic facts should stop it long before we get to that argument. But if "there must be a sign of the cutting," namely blood, I’m unclear how the word sacrifice is inappropriate.My comparison to female genital mutilation is correct. When I make the comparison, I wonder whether people get offended because they think I’m trying to minimize what’s done to females, since so many are indifferent to what is done to males. I’m not minimizing anything. Males and females are equal. All forms of medically-unnecessary non-consensual genital cutting are unacceptable, regardless of gender or reason. The act itself is wrong.Male circumcision is objectively wrong when performed on non-consenting individuals for non-medical reasons. It possesses the same level of unacceptability as female genital mutilation. It is surgery, it is medically unnecessary, and the infant/minor male cannot consent. The circumciser’s subjective intentions do not matter. The disparity in the damage done between male and female genital mutilation does not matter. The effect is the same. The circumcised is molded into a different version of himself/herself. Another person decides what form and why. When a person’s body is up for selective modification but his or her opinion has no impact in the decision, that is to be made into an object.There is a high minimum standard of protection that all people deserve. No one has said anything here to disprove why that should be so. Refusal to accept it is not equal to proof that it isn’t true. My understanding is that you readily accept that for girls, but seem to believe that the bar is much lower, or different altogether, for boys. With females you reject genital mutilation, but for males you express indifference. Why should we subject males to a different standard than females?Based on your comment, I do not expect a response. But the question stands.
nm – Thanks for the link, I will check it out. If it’s true that there is ANY way of reducing the horrifically high rate of HIV transmission in Africa that would be very good news, although my immediate concern is that people might interpret it as a license to forget all about safe sex, which is certainly the more reliable way to cut down on transmission.Tony, I understand the points that you’re trying to make, and the fact that you are very upset about what was done to you, but comparing male circumcision as it is generally practised to female circumcision as it is generally practised makes no sense at all. The difference isn’t just in the end results (although they are different) but in the way the practises are carried out. There’s just no logic in comparing something done to an infant who won’t even remember it to something done to someone who is usually aged 8-12, who is often frantically struggling, and who will remember it for the rest of her life (and often have nightmares – I know women who had it done). You’re comparing apples to oranges. And yes, I know that in some rare cases male circumcision is done to older children, but typically we’re talking about infants. It just isn’t the same thing at all. Infants don’t remember what happens to them. The other difference is that although male circumcision may decrease sensitivity it doesn’t usually completely remove the ability to experience pleasure, or orgasm. Female circumcision in it’s typical form usually does both. I grew up in the Middle East and North Africa, where female circumcision is commonplace, and the reason it’s done is precisely so that the woman won’t be able to experience pleasure from sex when she grows up. That’s the point – people think it will keep women "chaste". That’s a completely different thing from male circumcision.Once again, I understand that you’re angry and trying to make a point, but when you make that particular argument you’re actually undermining your credibility, because the comparison just isn’t a valid one.
And just to be clear, since nm seems to be being essentially accused of sexism – the rare cases in which male circumcision if performed on unwilling tweeners and adolescents are quite clearly 100% unnacceptable, for the same reasons female circumcision is unnaceptable – those kids are suffering, they will be traumatised, and they will never forget what happened. I don’t think you’ll find any argument from anyone on this board that that’s unnacceptable.
On nm’s point about getting back onto the original track of the post, I think that would actually be a very interesting conversation to have. Men do seem to have their self esteem intertwined with the appearance (and size) of their genitals in a way that women don’t. How does that effect the way they relate to themselves, and the way they relate to each other? I know I hear a lot of penis size jokes between male friends. Also, how does the current easy avaliability of porn play into that?
*sighs* Squarespace was being mean to me, so I replied in my own blog again.BritgirlSF brings up something I meant to mention, but forgot until I was in the car on the drive home. Male and female circumcision are about different things. The female version is about fuckability. Women who refuse are considered unmarriagible, and as she points out, have the really important bits chopped of specifically so they won’t enjoy it. That is not, in any way, the same reason as any given for male circumcision. Even though "but it looks better" is close, and just as sloppy, it’s not "I want him never to get pleasure out of sex because I think men getting pleasure out of sex is bad," it’s "I think I’m doing something that is overall a benefit to him, in terms of aesthetics and possibly religion or medicine, too." Again, as with everything else, you can debate them on their merits, but you simply cannot conflate the two that way.
http://www.genitalintegrity.net/blouch/
My 2 cents, with caveat that I don’t think "everyone should be" anything. I’m glad I was circumcised. Why? Cleanliness I think mostly. Not looks, it never occurred to me that one look was better than the other. Never heard about the health elements growing up. But to B, though I take your point about the whole "your body is bad we have to mutilate it" logic, I’ve never heard or had that thought before. Again, speaking personally, it was more of a "hey you should shave and cut your hair and nails, wash regularly, and use antiperspirant, not because the body is a bad thing, but neatness is more pleasant than shabbiness and cleanliness is more pleasant than smelliness" … and in that line of thinking, in the very rare case that I ever gave a second thought to circumcision it was along the lines of "gee, it sure makes it a little easier to keep my body feeling clean and attractive." I feel the net effect is it added to my self-esteem, not detracted from it. I can understand how someone with the line of thinking you described could feel otherwise; I never lived with that line of thinking.My wife also has a preference for circumcision, for functional and appearance reasons. I put less weight on that, but she’s not neutral, and though it’s not a reason to have a circumcision, I’d be lying if I said it didn’t add to my gratitude for my parent’s choice.I had a decision made for me as a child that I believe has improved my quality of life, and my wife likes it, too.So if we have a boy, what to do?It’d be nice to time travel, ask the kid after he grows up if he wishes he had been circumcised as a baby and grown up that way, and if so to go back in time and do it.That’s impossible of course. There is no way the child will grow up circumcised, or will ever be circumcised without the pain of a later/memorable/scary surgery (I can barely get myself to go get checkups) unless the parents take the decision for the child.So the choices are:1. Condemn the child to circumcision.2. Condemn the child to growing up without the benefits of circumcision, and to undergoing an adult surgical procedure to gain the remaining benefits.I think it comes down to personal experience. Since mine has only been positive, ditto my wife, I assume it will also be so for a son. For those who have always been circumcised, and are glad of it, and are **really** glad they didn’t have to go through a medical procedure (that they can remember) to get that way, it is difficult to deny to a child the same thing you are glad your parents gave you.
BritGirlSF:
How they are practiced is not relevant because we do not need to get that far to know that both are unacceptable. (What hapenned to me is useful but anecdotal evidence unnecessary to come to the same conclusion.) MGM and FGM are both an objective violation of the individual’s human rights. Everyone is always concerned that female genital mutilation causes more damage and it’s done in unsanitary conditions. I have not denied this. I agree, that is the case. But so what? Human rights require more than good intentions and a clean operating theater. Removing healthy skin for non-medical reasons is damage. Penis or vagina, damage is damage.To get metaphorical, society does not allow assault just because murder is worse. They are both illegal because they are both wrong. Neither gender nor extent of damage matter.The same applies to medically unnecessary genital cutting. Or, as I stated in my response to nm, why should we subject males to a different standard than females? The burden is not on me, but on you to prove why subjective reasons for unnecessary surgery should trump objective reasons against it.
I’m comparing apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges. If you want to stay hung up on gender as a divider for human rights categories, I’m still comparing fruit-to-fruit.An infant punched in the head won’t remember it, but we don’t allow it because punching an infant in the head is wrong. What he’ll remember has no logical bearing on the scenario. The same applies to medically unnecessary genital cutting.And frantically struggling? Baby boys are strapped down to a board. They will thrash around in the circumstraint, especially in the cases where they are not given topical pain management. They fight against it. That is why they are strapped down. Their physical instinct is to reject it.But taking what you seem to consider the key variables, memory and pain, if we anesthitize 8-12 year-old-girls, they won’t remember the experience or the pain. They won’t thrash about. I’m sure you’d reject this, so your criteria are subjective and, if female genital mutilation is still unacceptable while male gential mutilation is fine, arbitrary.I keep coming back to this: why should we subject males to a different standard than females for the same action, involuntary genital cutting?
Magniloquence:
Every reason you mention is a subjective decision by another of how the person should be. "You shouldn’t enjoy sex, and no man will marry you if I don’t, so I’m going to chop up your genitals." Based on the parent’s subjective opinion. We might even be able to go far enough there as to say it’s objective, if no man really would marry her without mutilation in a culture that demands it. Are we then wrong to say it shouldn’t be done? Of course not, because mutilating her to meet someone else’s reason is objectively wrong.You’re right, "but it looks better" is close, because I could go further and find examples of women saying "I would never sleep with an intact man" or parents circumcising their son because they fear no girl would want to sleep with him otherwise." We know this claim, that women won’t sleep with him, to be even more fallacious than the belief that no man would marry a woman who isn’t mutilated. Yet we still allow parents to circumcise based on this reasoning. The conclusion is the same. Someone else’s reason sets the standard for the child."I want him never to get pleasure out of sex because I think men getting pleasure out of sex is bad." I can find you examples that come close to this. It’s not about eliminating male sexual pleasure, but it most certainly can be about reducing male sexual pleasure. The argument is that men are horny enough and seek sex enough already in their circumcised state, so imagine how much they’d seek it if they had full feeling. Let’s chop it off so that women can get some rest. I’ve heard and read this before. A minute number of women do believe this. They may circumcise their sons, going so far as to request that the doctor give him a tight circumcision to remove as much of the foreskin and frenulum as possible. Someone else’s reason sets the standard for the child."I think I’m doing something that is overall a benefit to him, in terms of aesthetics and possibly religion or medicine, too." I agree that this is the most common reason stated for male circumcision. I’m stuck on the the key phrase here, I think. Someone else’s reason sets the standard for the child.All parental reasons for genital cutting without immediate, specific medical need that can’t be addressed with less-invasive treatments are subjective reasons imposed on a non-consenting individual. I am not conflating the two.I’m going to finish my response in a new comment at your entry because my comment is long, and I’m not sure who’s interested. I will reference comments from here.
Actually you have the wrong idea about FGM, only 15% of FGM is the full infibulation, many are carried out in hospital, and many women state that they are not harmed by it, that they can orgasm and that they are fine thanks very much. They also want its "advantages" for their daughters. Depending on the country, many are carried out in hospital.Egypt Sierra LeoneSee: Female circumcision does not reduce sexual activityGenital Cutting May Alter, Rather Than Eliminate, Women’s Sexual SensationsHANNY LIGHTFOOT-KLEIN Study of infibulated females in the SudanIn The Cut, Female Muslim Hospital Circs, IndonesiaThis is an excellent paper, comparing FGM,and MGM and comparing Western and African attitudes to it.Global Jurist FrontiersVolume 4, Issue 2 2004 Article 3Hegemonic Human Rights and African Resistance: Female Circumcision in a Broader Comparative PerspectiveElisabetta GrandeBepress.comThe article is available for viewing if you log on as Guest.It is very powerful, and explains why the West has picked on female circumcision for eradication and yet has a double standard with regards to male.WHO ReviewAnd one enterprising clinic wanted to set up FGM facilities in America, they were going to remove less tissue than a male circ would take, but were shouted down by horror struck Americans, who were outraged at the thought of cutting girls. A double standard indeed.The Seattle Compromise(Seattle is where they’ve pioneered organ removal and truncated the growth of that little disabled girl isn’t it? They seem to have an eye on making money from unnecessary surgery in that neck of the woods, don’t they?)Interesting Legal Paper on FGMThe issue of FGM and MGM is directly comparable for anyone with a dispassionate eye, I’m English, and to me genital cutting is genital cutting (we do not cut anyone), the only difference is the extent of the damage.
My American father demanded that I, my mother’s first child, be circumcised. My mother had to give birth in a European hospital, in her home town far from my father, for reasons that would take us too far afield. She reluctantly asked her OB-GYN to circ me, but he refused; it was simply not an option in that day and place.My mother then immigrated to the USA with 2 month old me in her arms. My father’s mother met us at the dock and took us to a hotel room. As soon as the suitcases are put down and the door is closed, my grandmother undressed me, inspected my penis, and told my mother off for leaving me intact. And thus went my mother’s first day as an American immigrant.Some months later, the same grandmother demanded that my pediatrician circumcise me, but my mother declined to permit it; her back was now up. I should add that her choice was respected. And thus I became the only intact member of my family of origin. My mother did not tell me any of this until I was 19 years old, and when she did so, she completely broke down.My father and grandmother never mentioned circumcision again in my presence. The only adult who ever spoke to me about it was the pediatrician who examined me alone when I was 13. His curiosity about my foreskin struck me as less than wholesome. He asked me whether my schoolmates were circumcised. I lied, saying I did not know; in fact I was one of only two intact boys out of the 20 boys in my middle school class. This incident happened very shortly after I learned what "circumcision" meant.
What an ignorant fool this girl is, how old are you 12? There is nothing wrong with a foreskin you just have been acculturated to think it’s bad by a quack named kellog (he also recomended putting acid, not the good kind on girls clitorises to stop their masterbation). Don’t mention the hiv studies, they are flawed in many ways and a condom works much better. I am uncut and can tell you for a fact that if you wash your cock it doesn’t smell and isn’t gross, in the summer if I shower in the morning my balls smell by night not my cock and all (most) men have balls. Btw princess, vaginas collect alot of smegma if unwashed (something I’ve never had) and can smell pretty funky after a day or two also. So you say eew they are ugly, well all penises are somewhat ugly but thats just your opinion, there are many girls around the world and here too (though they aren’t as prejudiced and closed minded as you, princess) that don’t care or even prefer natural uncut cocks. All you shallow American girls complain why us good guys like asian, spanish and european women over you, cut or uncut I think it’s because they aren’t so caught up in their stupidity and rhetoric that they forgot how to be women. If you like what I said I won’t shower for a week and you can suck my filthy, disgusting, natural and beautiful uncut cock. If you don’t like what I said may you be reincarnated as a little girl in a muslim or african village, or a female treated by dr. kellog for flicking your bean, or maybe an uncut guy in america living amongst ingnorant bitches like you.Peace and enjoy your cornflakes
I was in new orleans with my wife and we went into a sex shop, which was occupied by a bunch of people from decadence. My wife saw they had fake foreskins in the display case, and she got in an argument with the people in the store about using a fake foreskin, and one of the guys brought up the point, i never had the choice. His parents took something away from him, that he could never have back. I had to agree, taking it regardless of the reason is selfish, downright selfish.To those that do it for religious reasons, I hope that when your day comes, your religion was the right one, cause if not, payback is a bitch.I’m uncut, proud, and i think cut dicks look funny. i think my wife would most certainly agree.I’m glad that there is no holy book that says you have to sacrifice a girl child on the 8th day, because i’m sure someone would do it.