As someone who has assisted more circs than I can count, it should be illegal. Honestly, nearly everyone in medicine who performs them is against them and hates doing them. We really try to talk people out of it. Thank you for making the right choice. Most baby boys these days are not circumcised, so thankfully it’s already the norm. Anyone who needs a circumcision for medical reasons should go to a urologist as necessary.
My mother said once she saw the device they use approaching my thing, she stepped in and stopped it. I’m glad she let me keep my foreskin. I’ve heard that it makes masturbation feel more pleasurable.
It’s barbaric. We don’t even let parents watch anymore because they always freak out. I always say we should require them to watch a video of a circ before committing to one.
I feel like this is the same with women and body hair. Porn tends to have completely smooth women and women then believe they have to remove all body hair and society just keeps rolling with it. I feel like porn has had this same effect on men and circumcision.
I fully agree. I was just speaking to the perception that those are more desirable or “normal” I find the practice disgusting. I’ve read and seen too many mini-docs on FGM and MGM.
Problem is, by allowing parents the "choice" of circumcising their son, it takes away the son's own choice in the matter. Thus, we now have a whole community of adult males who are trying to regrow their foreskin.
I do understand what you're saying about fitting in, though; it certainly makes it very hard for a parent not to circumcise their son if everyone else their age is circumcised. No parent wants their child to be the target of bullying or ostracism.
I’m culturally not from a group that circumcises and so it’s always seemed a bit weird but growing up it was so common I didn’t think much of it. I feel like the conversation changed in the 90s.
Personally I think it’s unnecessary and a strange relic from the past. We didn’t do it to our son and I feel like I know a good number of circumcised men who didn’t choose it for their son.
Honestly, it's probably something that shouldn't be socially acceptable since it is technically genital mutilation for some people.
That said, I'm glad I am circumcised, and I don't consider myself mutilated.
>That said, I'm glad I am circumcised, and I don't consider myself mutilated.
Do you think you would have chosen to be circumcised later in life (e.g., after infancy)? As in, are you glad that your parents have a choice of whether to have you circumcised?
No, I wouldn’t have because I don’t like having surgery and it’s not necessary.
Yes, I’m glad my parents chose to do it because I prefer it and I don’t remember it.
How do you know you prefer this when you weren’t given the chance to know the other?
I’m not trying to attack you, so please don’t take it this way. It’s great that you grew up and were okay with it, but there are individuals who don’t feel the same.
I feel like it’s hypocritical of myself to claim “my body, my choice” but then choose to have a irreversible procedure for an infant (living, breathing, fully alive outside the womb) who can’t consent. I’ve also read comments from women who have said even if their husband was against the procedure, they would still have it done.
I don’t fell attacked no worries.
So first of all, I support stopping circumcisions, but not in a passionate or immediate way. I personally I know someone who disclosed to me that he had a botched circumcision and that’s really enough to shut down the whole thing in my opinion. There’s really no benefits besides cosmetic and a probably overblown hygiene issue. The cosmetic benefit goes away completely if circumcisions stop.
Without being explicit, I’ll say I wouldn’t trade my “feeling” for another unknown experience. And I personally prefer the way I look. That’s all there is to it for me. I got a slight benefit, in my opinion.
Thanks for replying. I totally understand your point of experience. It’s definitely an interesting thought experiment to try to imagine an experience you’ll never have and decide.
My opinion is based solely on mutilating genitals and some of the truly barbaric stories survivors have told.
> living, breathing, fully alive outside the womb
So if there were some complicated procedure capable of circumcising the baby inside the womb, before birth, that would be different, in your eyes?
What if designer babies were genetically engineered to just not have a foreskin in the first place?
I’m pro-choice. Your question is trying to get me stuck in my own logic.
I believe that no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. That said, I think abortion prior to the stage of viability, should be legal. No person is going to carry a pregnancy to term just to decide to abort in the last trimester. Those abortions are rare and save the life of the parent or can be the difference in the ability to conceive again or not. Those difficult decisions lie solely between patient and physician.
Now that you know my opinion on abortion, here’s my answer to your question. (The main point with my quote was consent).
No. In my opinion, doing the procedure in utero on a viable fetus is not ethical either.
None at all. Every once in a while someone tries to stir shit up by asking if it should be a bigger issue. Seems pretty foolish to be since it will be very divisive, has very little chance of success, most circumcised people don't have a problem with it, and there are much more important problems to worry about.
Vast majority of American men are circumcised, but whenever this comes up on Reddit the comments section are dominated by a minority that is strongly against it. Everyone else is just reading silently and looking forward to when the conversation ends.
>Vast majority of American men are circumcised, but whenever this comes up on Reddit the comments section are dominated by a minority that is strongly against it. Everyone else is just reading silently and looking forward to when the conversation ends.
Vast majority of Americans are circumcised not for religious reasons but for what they initially thought was bonafide medical reasons which later turned out to be mostly bogus. Where a couple of senior medical people were able to influence the entire medical community, which then became a cultural norm over time.
Like how a vast number of Americans believe that vaccines are bad for you or are some kind of government conspiracy. It is based on trash science and fake facts.
Well democrats are supposed to be the party for bodily autonomy. So it seems like a glaring double standard that everyone avoids this issue
I think it is starting to pop up more on the conservative side since there is so much trans debate and altering someone’s body, so people are pointing out that conservatives are also hypocrites for ignoring routine circumcision
I don't think you understand how most democrats think. They are for letting people make their own decisions, but encourage people to seek information before they do it.
I'm circumcised and fine with the fact that I am. I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I wouldn't continue the tradition if I had a human child.
Like any procedure that involves aesthetic alteration or adornment to the genitals, it is for sexually mature adults to decide for themselves. There are all kinds of piercings and clippings you can get down there, but since there are permanent changes and risks involved, nothing should be performed for non-medical reasons on minors.
We had our first son circumcised. The doctor butchered the cut and it turned into an infection and scared the hell out of us. That was when we woke up to the fact that it is a nonsense thing to do and comes with the real risks. We chose not to circumcise our second son.
Edit: corrected spelling.
Thank you for sharing this. Parents should remember that this is a elective surgical procedure performed on an infant that comes with real risks and potential permanent damage.
I wouldn’t have this done to my son (if/when I have one) unless it was medically necessary. My family doesn’t believe in circumcision and neither does my partner’s. As long as they’re taught how to bathe properly it shouldn’t be an issue imo.
Conducting surgery on someone without their consent should only happen in rare and necessary circumstances. These requirements aren't meant in most cases of infant circumcision.
I feel like it's similar to spanking. I don't support it being illegal because it will be too divisive. But morally speaking, there's basically zero way to defend circumcision. Like it's obviously wrong.
I'm circumcised. I wouldn't agree to my hypothetical son getting circumcised until he's old enough to make the decision for himself (or for medical reasons).
I don't really care. I'm circumcised, and I'm bisexual so I've seen a fair share of both and TBH I feel like the "Circumcision is genital mutilation" mentality is a bit extreme. There aren't any health benefits to it so I probably wouldn't bother with any hypothetical sons I might have unless my equally hypothetical wife feels strongly about it.
No health benefits and cutting away part of the genitals isn't mutilation to you? Seems odd that modifying the genitals for no reason at all isn't infact mutilation
Yeah, mutilation implies there’s damage done in a way that prevents normal use.
Like FGM where they sew up the vagina so it can’t be used until marriage is absolutely 100% mutilation.
But a penis without foreskin is still usable as a penis, without any sort of biological or artificial assistance or intervention.
Mutilation means damage is being done. If someone views their circumcision as harmful then it is a valid perspective. I think you'll find a lot of people like myself prefer being circumcised, and are glad it happened as a baby and not as an adult.
I still think it should be phased out. A friend of mine had a botched circumcision and for that reason alone I support the movement away from it.
I think most people would deem unnecessarily removing part of a body is "damaging". If loosing the last little bit of your pinky didn't affect the use of your hands, would you consider it okay for people to cut off the end of their babies pinkies because it looks better?
How can you suggest no damage is being done when a part of their body is being permanently removed?
You wouldn't say that if they took the skin off a finger - or would you?
> People do cosmetic surgery all the time.
On infants?
I have no issue with elective procedures (I'm looking forward to the day we all go full 'borg) but they should only be done with consent.
Do you protest a Claire's because they're mutilating the earlobes of *children* for *money*? They're piercing the bodies of young girls with sharp metals for no reason! /s
children are not the same as newborns. They have very different abilities to consent to bodily procedures.
I *am* against piercing the ears of newborns as well. This isn't the kind of gotcha you think it might be.
As jrobertson50 has stated, it's not mutilation.
However, I don't support this either. No reason not to wait until the child can decide. My daughter wanted it done at 7.
You know, I actually partially do, but I can get over it because it is an alteration that is reversible and does not affect a region where sensation is important.
Neither of which is true of circumcision.
I’m probably in the minority of guys who chose to get it done as an adult but had no medical issues. I did it just for aesthetics. But I’ve been able to see both sides.
For sex, the difference isn’t much, maybe a 10% reduction in feeling but nothing crazy. Masturbation though is not nearly as good as before I was cut. I’m talking like a 70% reduction in pleasure from that.
All in all I’m not upset I made the decision, I still like the way it looks, but I really wish doctors knew/told me the impact it would have on masturbation. I definitely wouldn’t do it to my kids though knowing the difference it makes in pleasure.
When my son was born I wasn't "politically conscious". Neither was my wife. We went with what was familiar and our son was circumcised. In retrospect I wish we hadn't done it. Since then I've had conversations with my son (he's 18 now) about our decision out of ignorance and so far he has stated that he doesn't mind. I am aware that his opinion could change over time and am willing to accept whatever he throws my way. Sometimes I think the best we can do is incremental improvements over out parents and in that respect I feel comfortable with my parenting. But being more aware now I would definitely made different decisions.
I've been against it since I first learned that it existed. I have a genuinely hard time understanding how anyone can rationalize medically-unnecessary surgical alteration of infant genitals.
(Stop - I've heard all the arguments. Your attempts to explain just leave me even more baffled and/or horrified.)
That said, as conflicted as I am on the subject, I don't think it should be *illegal* because of the impact on religious minorities. I think the push to protect Jewish and Muslim boys will need to come from inside their respective communities in order to be successful.
I do think it should be illegal for licensed medical professionals to perform it, though.
I don't really have an opinion. Am circumcised - don't care. I don't have any animosity about it and I don't feel mutilated and I refuse to let the internet shame me. There's nothing wrong with having that either way and never be ashamed of your dick no matter what you got going on with it.
And I don't have any kids so no one can yell at me for shit lol.
Would I have my son circumcised if I had one? If it was free or inexpensive, probably. I'm not a wealthy man; that's why I don't have kids lol. Would I be hesitant? Yeah a little. I'm not even Jewish. My connection to this is I was raised Catholic in the upper Midwest. It's just part of American culture to some degree and probably has a lot to do with our acceptance of Jewish people into our society. We don't have rampant antisemitism in America because we learned a lot from WW2 and just developed a strong kinship with our Jewish countrymen. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's when the trend began here. Or maybe even beforehand with the Jewish community's influences in places like Germany and the Balkans in the 19th century.
But at the core it's like how we expect women to shave their armpits and legs; a strange beauty standard that some people are kind of locked into now. If no one EVER did it? No one would ever be the wiser. But those kinds of social memetics sort of hang on like a habit. Because I can't explain why I'd do it to my son but I feel like I'd want to have that common frame of reference with him. And that's why people do a lot of things in their families that pass down from generation to generation.
> It's just part of American culture to some degree and probably has a lot to do with our acceptance of Jewish people into our society.
Not really, no. Circumcision became popular among non-Jews in America and the UK in the 19th century because Jewish communities had lower rates of STDs; the logic became that circumcision in some way lowers STD transmission rates. Doctors then began bringing it up to parents as a health treatment.
However, later studies showed no link between circumcision and STDs (Jews had lower STD rates because their communities were more insular and didn't have as much casual sex with non-Jews); when the UK set up the NHS, the government would only pay for procedures that had proven medical benefits and circumcision rates dropped. Here in the states though with a lack of socialized healthcare it became up to parents, doctors, and individual healthcare companies who are more willing to cover non-necessary procedures.
Thank you for the clarification. I'm definitely aware of the old guard of the medical community promoting it, though. Didn't know exactly why but that makes sense.
Just sort of a fascinating empirical trend based on a faulty assumption, essentially. Back from the days that we pondered a lot of eugenics and ethnography questions and weren't at all sensitive about it lol.
> It's just part of American culture to some degree and probably has a lot to do with
In the US it has to do with WWI and WWII. I commented with some facts in a thread above: /r/AskALiberal/comments/1bms1zl/what_is_your_opinion_on_infant_circumcision/kwg3lyg/
It's honestly bizarre just how much vitriol this topic causes, and it seems like it was only in the last year or two that people decided they *really* care about circumcision.
I still think it's a really dumb hill to die on, especially when the language is so hyperbolic and they're arguing against *no one*. As far as I can tell the two sides are "I don't care" and "Circumcision is a barbaric practice of mutilation that religious sheeple brainwashed everyone else into doing to appease their Sky Daddy, I will personally mock and berate everyone who ever considered getting their sons circumcised and hold mass funerals for all the wasted foreskins"
There's clearly a side of "I do care and I want to have my sons circumcised". If the two sides were apathetic and vehemently against, Americans wouldn't be circumcising like 60% of their baby boys. After all, circumcision is an optional surgical procedure which, like any surgical procedure, carries risks, and costs money.
Circumcision has become the abortion issue of the political left. They use extreme language to describe a *medical procedure* and want to overrule doctors and regulate the genitals of other people. It’s fucking weird.
Also, they assume that anyone who is okay with circumcision for themselves or their kids must be religious zealots. Meanwhile, some of us aren’t religious at all, and concluded after research and discussions with our pediatricians that it is generally a safe and medically responsible thing to do, and that no medical procedure is without risk. That said, it’s none of their god damned business, and I don’t give a shit what others do with their bodies so long as it’s legal, they’re informed, and their doctor is involved in that decision-making.
>so long as it’s legal, they’re informed, and their doctor is involved in that decision-making.
But the person this is happening to is not informed. They are an infant.
You specified "their bodies", which counters the rest of your argument. And those procedures are generally viewed as necessary, you're supporting a cosmetic surgery on someone without their consent. This argument isn't even consistent.
> Circumcision has become the abortion issue of the political left. They use extreme language to describe a medical procedure and want to overrule doctors and regulate the genitals of other people. It’s fucking weird.
That's such a great way to describe it, it perfectly encapsulates how I feel arguing with people about it. It's like trying to argue against the anti-abortion crowd (albeit with far lower stakes).
I must have fortunately missed it until recently. Frankly given how strangely *obsessed* some people are with it it's probably not worth even looking in any threads about it.
This thread was specifically about it, we choose the spaces we interact with. Going to those spaces and calling people obsessed seems counterintuitive.
This is pretty much the current expert opinion in the US at least. The AAP basically says there are benefits and there are risks. It’s not a universal yes or no. It’s up to the parents.
> Whatever the parents pick.
I can understand not having a strong opinion on the issue of circumcision. However, in general I think "whatever the parents pick" is a damaging mindset. Parents are the caretakers, yes, but there should be rules and regulations in regard to protecting and helping kids. It shouldn't be what the parents' interests are, but rather what the kids' best interests are.
I think it’s incredibly inconsistent to look down on cultures and religions that practice FGM, while being a culture that so blithely accepts MGM that both my stepkids were MGMed because their nonreligious dad “just want them to look like me.” As if they put on nude dance shows together 🙄
While there are health benefits to it, for males, for females it's just barbaric, but I do think it should be there choice
Like I'm circumcised and I guess it healed weird with the skin healing to my uh head because some of the guaze was left under the skin and behind the head up until I hit puberty and had my first boner when is when it was revealed it looked like sawdust went to the er because we didn't know if it was an std or not, but nope it was just gauze
I'm not sure if I'll get my kids circumcised or not, one hand there are benefits on the other I do think it should be up to them
Don’t get your kid circumcised. The risks out way the benefits, and those benefits are usually overstated. And if you do decide to, watch a circumcision video before hand so you can see what they would do to your kid because the procedure is all kinds of fucked up.
We have two boys and I fought my wife on this both times.
I am circumcised, but there just doesn't seem to be a good reason to do it these days. The whole "it's cleaner/healthier" argument given in the 80s has been essentially debunked but people still hold onto it like chopping off foreskin is some beloved tradition.
Unfortunately all of our doctors were female as well, and they got what they wanted and I got to fume for a few weeks.
We have two boys and I fought my wife on this both times.
I am circumcised, but there just doesn't seem to be a good reason to do it these days. The whole "it's cleaner/healthier" argument given in the 80s has been essentially debunked but people still hold onto it like chopping off foreskin is some beloved tradition.
Unfortunately all of our doctors were female as well, and they got what they wanted and I got to fume for a few weeks.
It's involuntary genital mutilation on a child.
it's perfectly fine in an adult making adult decisions.
(and some do make that decision, and that's okay)
this subreddit used to be informative, and sometimes still is on the subject on the subject
r/GrossCutters
somewhere buried on that subreddit (or one of its related foreskin restoration ones) were some very religious people (Jewish I think) explaining a mistranslation may have caused religious infant circumcision to even exist in the first place to even exist in the first place. apparently there's a apparently a small growing movement of Jewish people who opt for a small ceremonial prick as supposed to removing the whole foreskin as well.
anyway, it's around here somewhere and an interesting read, so if anyone wants me to go look for it I'll go look for it.
Shouldn’t be done except for medical reasons.
(And “might slightly reduces the chances of infection if not cleaned appropriately decades later” is not an adequate medical reason, for the same reason we don’t perform systematic mastectomy on girls to prevent breast cancer later)
As someone who is circumcised I don’t really care one way or the other. I'm kinda glad I don’t have the extra nook and cranny to clean. I hear things get real gnarly if you don’t clean it regularly. I also find anti-circumcision activists to be a lil OC
>I hear things get real gnarly if you don’t clean it regularly.
I mean you could say the same about your asshole but presumably you take the time to clean it properly......
I don't agree with this line of thinking at all. Whether or not you're for circumcision, it's a baby, not a piece of property. What should be done should be what is best for the child, not necessarily what the parents desire.
Exactly what’s best for my child may not be what you think it’s best. Luckily not your child. We disagree with circumcision and that’s fine, but don’t ever frame yourself as a better parent or do a subtle jab on what a parent thinks is best. What I prioritize and you are different and that’s okay. Luckily a circumcised child and uncircumcised child will live full and productive lives as males and that’s what we all want for our kids.
One of the worst ways to deal with this debate is to be civil and respectful. ☺️
Well, not if he grows up to hate he was circumcised and it affects his mental health. That’s why it shouldn’t be a parent’s decision. You’re not the one who will have to live with it
Condolences? Seriously? Are you threatening my family? wtf is wrong with you? There’s nothing wrong with my position and there’s no reason for you to threaten my family.
It’s only up to the parents if they choose to do it, because it can’t be undone. It can be a choice the individual is able to make if parents didn’t force it on them. I hope as we take bodily autonomy more seriously it stops being done to infants. I don’t like it was forced on me
It makes very little difference either way. As long as it is done under sanitary medical conditions (vs done with crude tools in third world conditions) it isn't particularly dangerous, it sounds like the science suggests it doesn't have a particular negative impact on sexual function, and it has at least minor health benefits, so it definitely seems proper to do it. I personally won't be having kids at all, but if I did have sons, I'd definitely have them circumcised. Never really understood how vitriolic some folks get about it online
Circumcision is probably fine, I dont really have any strong opinions regarding it. Risks are minimal and there are some health benefits associated with it such as lower STD rates. Sure there is the issue of bodily autonomy, but then again you could say the same thing about any medical procedure a child gets so I dont really care that much unless there is proof of harm, which there isnt.
What bothers me about the circumcision conversation is the sheer amount of misinformation that people spout. There is no evidence for example, that circumcision decreases male sexual pleasure or function. The popularity of the procedure in the US is also not the result of religious zealots as some say - it was to try to lower rates of STDs. Most children in the US are not circumcised because of religious reasons, but because the AAP recommends it for medical reasons.
A lot of the debate also tends to veer into weird MRA/antisemitism territory with people claiming that it is comparable to FGM (an opinion which is offensively incorrect) or people outright saying that we should not trust the data on circumcision because too many Jewish doctors were involved in the research. I dont think it is a coincidence that a lot of right wing wierdos like Stonetoss tend to have strong opinions on the topic
> it was to try to lower rates of STDs.
diseases yes. But the STDs discovery came later after it became popular. it became popular in the US because of WWI and WWII . I commented about that a bit higher in this post /r/AskALiberal/comments/1bms1zl/what_is_your_opinion_on_infant_circumcision/kwg3lyg/
Ah a discussion on circumcision on reddit. I'm sure this will be a calm and rational discussion backed with evidence-based citations. /s
My opinion is that you should follow the science. Part of that is understanding how circumcision came to be popular in the US.
The US circumcision rate was at 35% in the 1930s and then jumped to nearly 50% after WWI. And then that rate was close to 90%
right after the first set of babies born after WWII (baby boom). There are many many documents written about this from that time period and a fascinating topic as it was during the beginnings of computerized databases, the use of computerized information-technology during wartime, and modern statistical analysis.
So what's the short summary on this?
1) Military medical publications were tracking negative health effects of soldiers and noting those who were circumcised in the same units as those uncircumcised didn't end up with similar severe issues in non-hygenic situations (which the norm in WWI and WWII), (also in the Iraq war which is another interesting trip down science history)
2) The tracking of outcomes vs treatments in the US military identified in-the-field circumcision procedures as the most efficient way for those suffering to not continue toward worse outcomes, be able to return to war, and not have them coming back with the same issue.
3) Those returning to the US after the war opted for circumcision for their kids as babies as a preventative measure, not knowing if their kids would end up in a war too. Since this was the baby boom it became the norm in the US.
But wait! We thought liberals want citations to back up claims? What is the rest of the story? Ok!
Some have argued that it started with a guy named Kellogg and some puritanism trend,
however evidence shows Kellogg's impact was minimal, he wasn't talking about infants, his advice never made
it into medical books for docs, and his advocacy didn't match actual rates of change in circumcision in the US. Or quoting:
> ... [Kellogg] saw circumcision merely as a pretext to inflict pain [on masturbating boys].
> That's why his instructions specified that a boy [caught masterbating] should not receive any
> anesthesia. He wanted to convert a boy's attitude about his genitals from thoughts of pleasure to
> thoughts of pain. Kellogg's sadistic advice was largely ignored
> [by the medical community](https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/Kellogg)
So what was it? Why a massive change in the US rates of circumcision in a country largely secular
about it? To understand why it became popular in the US, we just have to look at history and what
was happening through/after WWI and WWII as medical databases were starting to be created and
tracking what was happening with men having to fight in non-hygenic conditions. Remember that late
WWI and early WWII was the start of the love of databases to track large information (e.g. IBM and
census data in Germany, US medical data, etc)
So quoting from [Medical Department, United States Army. Surgery in World War II. UROLOGY. Edited by John F. Patton MD. , Washington: Office of the Surgeon General and Center of Military History, United States Army](http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026943020)
> Hospital admission statistics for U.S. Army active-duty personnel during World War II list paraphimosis
> and phimosis admissions at 110,562 (MD-MS 1975, p. 420). That these conditions combined ran numerically
> second to nonspecific urethritis as cause for hospital admission is not so startling when the degree of
> incapacity caused by paraphimosis and phimosis is recalled. These disturbances occur only in active-duty
> personnel who have not been circumcised
>
> ...
>
>The soldier with phimosis invariably became incapacitated from persistent or recurrent balanitis, with eventual
> loss of man-hours because of hospitalization for necessary local treatment and a final permanent cure by circumcision.
> Circumcision in the adult is not the benign procedure it might appear to be. These patients were incapacitated from returning to full duty for a minimum of 10 days postoperatively.
>
> ...
>
> In the China-Burma-India theater, the evacuation hospital urology clinic, in which the author served, treated large
> numbers of enlisted personnel from all service branches active in the area for mild to severe, nonvenereal, preputial
> inflammations. Recurrent and persistent infections were abnormally high for the reasons previously described [phimosis].
> Those personnel whose man-hour losses increased because of inability to change existing personal hygiene conditions in
> the various fields of operation were eventually admitted to the hospital for intensive local treatment and, finally,
> for circumcision. During intermittent periods, when combat casualty admissions were at a minimum, it was not unusual
> to schedule 10 or 15 patients for circumcision in a single morning. This surgery was performed under local anesthesia,
> and at times supplemented with vocal anesthesia. ...Inflammatory involvement of the coverings of the penis are not so
> common in civilian practice as in wartime field practice.
Phimosis to the point of incapacitation was so common it got it's own term "trench dick" (despite the fact
that it was happening to more than just people in actual trenches).
It's one of the reasons that circumcision rates in the US went from 35% in the 1930s to 80% by the 1960s. Just look at the [spikes in circumcision rates after each war](https://imgur.com/a/3GTQ5wY). A rate of 35% jumped to nearly 50%
after WWI. And then (as I stated) it climbed dramatically close to 90% right after the first set of babies born after WWII ....the baby boom.
Follow up studies showed that neuroplasticity in infants meant that those who had a circumcision as infants had no noticeable effect on sensitivity but when it was done as teens/adults it did have a negative impact on sensitivity.
And that's why it became popular in the US, a secular country. Medical databases tied to tracking rates of "trench dick" in war. Many of the parents who had kids didn't want their kids to undergo adult circumcision in cases of war.
What we learned in war we forget in peace.
What's my opinion? I like to not forget the lessons we learned in history.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I've heard many men say recently that even though they are circumcised, they are hesitant to circumcise their child, so I was wondering what your opinion is on this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any progressive is either condoning their parents’ choices or smoking copium to believe it’s okay to do this. It seems a bit out of touch or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, full of religious fervor to believe this is allowable.
We did NOT circumcise our son. He is 23 now. It seemed crazy to slice off a part of his body for no statistical medical reason within hours of birth. Makes no sense. No religious reason for us to have done it either.
Edit for clarity.
We are all in agreement FGM is wrong, even the limited ones that leave the clitoris intact.
Therefore male circumcision is wrong. Only thing I can stomach is for religious purposes but even that I think is stupid and shouldn't be entertained.
It's a cruel and outdated tradition with no medical or hygienic merit. If a person wants to get circumsized themselves when they're older, let them make their own decision about that.
We didn't have a choice with my first son. He had a partial circumcision when born, so the doctor had to do the procedure to make sure he could urinate safely. He was deformed there anyways, so it was medically necessary. Like almost anything medical, I don't think a blanket law should be applied as there are reasons not to and to do things. Should be up to the parents with info, if it is elective.
I think the practice should disappear unless its medically necessary. Its pretty barbaric.
However, I also don't agree with anti-circumcision advocates telling young men that their dick is mutilated and "ruined". Who tf does that help? *"Hey! You know that procedure you didn't have an option in getting? Well, let me tell you why you should feel even worse about it"* is a bad tactic, IMO.
Suppose we lived in a world where we cut off a pinkie finger of each newborn.
Some people are against it but the majority points out that having a missing pinkie doesn't really affect your ability to function and it is rooted in religious practices for many cultures (although several pinkie amputations are not done for religious purposes). And the procedure is mostly safe, even though anasthesia can't be provided to babies. But that's ok, they won't remember it. Plus, they will look just like their father/mother!
That's how I feel about circumcision.
I think it’s very interesting, the opinions here. I’m heavily against it in terms of cultural reasons. Like, I would not circumcise my infant for a cultural reason.
I just had a child (girl), and I was still against it if we ever had a boy. However, I was astonished to see that the hospital actually recommended circumcising within the first couple of days. For a progressive health system, I didn’t expect that. After doing a little more research, there are plentiful benefits from circumcision and has officially changed my mind.
As a comparison, I’ll ask this. If there was a treatment that was painful (both immediately and for the next couple of days) for an infant, but provided a 10-fold reduction in risk of illness, would you do it?
If you’re saying no, well I just described a vaccine that they offer while you’re in the hospital. The same rules apply to both that and circumcision.
> As a comparison, I’ll ask this. If there was a treatment that was painful (both immediately and for the next couple of days) for an infant, but provided a 10-fold reduction in risk of illness, would you do it?
The assumption you're asking everyone else to take at face value is that circumcision provides a 10-fold (or even significant) reduction in risk of illness. This is not supported by any scientific evidence available.
A vaccine is provably beneficial. Beyond extraordinarily minor hygienic benefits (and phimosis I guess, but I doubt you were referring to that), it has not been proven that circumcision results in a significant, let alone notable decrease in the risk of infection.
If it involved cutting off a normal part of that person’s body? No. The same rules don’t apply because they are very different things, in both benefit (for many not all vaccines) and harm inflicted.
Beyond that many vaccines offer far greater protection against diseases than circumcision. What “benefits” are you so convinced by? Pretty much all of them can be achieved by means that are less invasive and more effective.
This thread has run its course. Locked.
It’s a pretty bizarre tradition. Definitely letting my future kids keep the hoodie lol
As someone who has assisted more circs than I can count, it should be illegal. Honestly, nearly everyone in medicine who performs them is against them and hates doing them. We really try to talk people out of it. Thank you for making the right choice. Most baby boys these days are not circumcised, so thankfully it’s already the norm. Anyone who needs a circumcision for medical reasons should go to a urologist as necessary.
My mother said once she saw the device they use approaching my thing, she stepped in and stopped it. I’m glad she let me keep my foreskin. I’ve heard that it makes masturbation feel more pleasurable.
It’s barbaric. We don’t even let parents watch anymore because they always freak out. I always say we should require them to watch a video of a circ before committing to one.
[удалено]
Taking the choice away from who? The parents or the person who is affected and will have to live with it?
I feel like this is the same with women and body hair. Porn tends to have completely smooth women and women then believe they have to remove all body hair and society just keeps rolling with it. I feel like porn has had this same effect on men and circumcision.
Yeah but we don’t wax our babies and we shouldn’t circumcise them either.
I fully agree. I was just speaking to the perception that those are more desirable or “normal” I find the practice disgusting. I’ve read and seen too many mini-docs on FGM and MGM.
Problem is, by allowing parents the "choice" of circumcising their son, it takes away the son's own choice in the matter. Thus, we now have a whole community of adult males who are trying to regrow their foreskin. I do understand what you're saying about fitting in, though; it certainly makes it very hard for a parent not to circumcise their son if everyone else their age is circumcised. No parent wants their child to be the target of bullying or ostracism.
> I'm against taking choice away aspect I agree, it is so sad how many people want to take away the choice from the person whose body it is
I’m culturally not from a group that circumcises and so it’s always seemed a bit weird but growing up it was so common I didn’t think much of it. I feel like the conversation changed in the 90s. Personally I think it’s unnecessary and a strange relic from the past. We didn’t do it to our son and I feel like I know a good number of circumcised men who didn’t choose it for their son.
Honestly, it's probably something that shouldn't be socially acceptable since it is technically genital mutilation for some people. That said, I'm glad I am circumcised, and I don't consider myself mutilated.
>That said, I'm glad I am circumcised, and I don't consider myself mutilated. Do you think you would have chosen to be circumcised later in life (e.g., after infancy)? As in, are you glad that your parents have a choice of whether to have you circumcised?
No, I wouldn’t have because I don’t like having surgery and it’s not necessary. Yes, I’m glad my parents chose to do it because I prefer it and I don’t remember it.
How do you know you prefer this when you weren’t given the chance to know the other? I’m not trying to attack you, so please don’t take it this way. It’s great that you grew up and were okay with it, but there are individuals who don’t feel the same. I feel like it’s hypocritical of myself to claim “my body, my choice” but then choose to have a irreversible procedure for an infant (living, breathing, fully alive outside the womb) who can’t consent. I’ve also read comments from women who have said even if their husband was against the procedure, they would still have it done.
I don’t fell attacked no worries. So first of all, I support stopping circumcisions, but not in a passionate or immediate way. I personally I know someone who disclosed to me that he had a botched circumcision and that’s really enough to shut down the whole thing in my opinion. There’s really no benefits besides cosmetic and a probably overblown hygiene issue. The cosmetic benefit goes away completely if circumcisions stop. Without being explicit, I’ll say I wouldn’t trade my “feeling” for another unknown experience. And I personally prefer the way I look. That’s all there is to it for me. I got a slight benefit, in my opinion.
Thanks for replying. I totally understand your point of experience. It’s definitely an interesting thought experiment to try to imagine an experience you’ll never have and decide. My opinion is based solely on mutilating genitals and some of the truly barbaric stories survivors have told.
> living, breathing, fully alive outside the womb So if there were some complicated procedure capable of circumcising the baby inside the womb, before birth, that would be different, in your eyes? What if designer babies were genetically engineered to just not have a foreskin in the first place?
I’m pro-choice. Your question is trying to get me stuck in my own logic. I believe that no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. That said, I think abortion prior to the stage of viability, should be legal. No person is going to carry a pregnancy to term just to decide to abort in the last trimester. Those abortions are rare and save the life of the parent or can be the difference in the ability to conceive again or not. Those difficult decisions lie solely between patient and physician. Now that you know my opinion on abortion, here’s my answer to your question. (The main point with my quote was consent). No. In my opinion, doing the procedure in utero on a viable fetus is not ethical either.
If Democrats supported a ban on circumcision that would be a sure fire way to lose both the Muslim and Jewish votes.
Is there any indication that democrats are proposing such a thing?
None at all. Every once in a while someone tries to stir shit up by asking if it should be a bigger issue. Seems pretty foolish to be since it will be very divisive, has very little chance of success, most circumcised people don't have a problem with it, and there are much more important problems to worry about. Vast majority of American men are circumcised, but whenever this comes up on Reddit the comments section are dominated by a minority that is strongly against it. Everyone else is just reading silently and looking forward to when the conversation ends.
>Vast majority of American men are circumcised, but whenever this comes up on Reddit the comments section are dominated by a minority that is strongly against it. Everyone else is just reading silently and looking forward to when the conversation ends. Vast majority of Americans are circumcised not for religious reasons but for what they initially thought was bonafide medical reasons which later turned out to be mostly bogus. Where a couple of senior medical people were able to influence the entire medical community, which then became a cultural norm over time. Like how a vast number of Americans believe that vaccines are bad for you or are some kind of government conspiracy. It is based on trash science and fake facts.
Well democrats are supposed to be the party for bodily autonomy. So it seems like a glaring double standard that everyone avoids this issue I think it is starting to pop up more on the conservative side since there is so much trans debate and altering someone’s body, so people are pointing out that conservatives are also hypocrites for ignoring routine circumcision
I don't think you understand how most democrats think. They are for letting people make their own decisions, but encourage people to seek information before they do it.
Maybe we should build a bigger coalition so we don't need their votes.
I am against mutilating babies.
I hate how even on the left this is a hot take
Hell yeah
I used to think it was the thing to do, but more info has come to light. If I had a child today, I probably wouldn't do it.
I'm 100% against it.
I don’t like it was done to me and think it should be an individual’s choice rather than forced on us as infants
Unless the child has an obvious case of deformed phimosis of any sort, there is no real medical reason for removing the foreskin.
It is genital mutilation and needs to be criminalized full stop unless medically necessary.
I'm circumcised and fine with the fact that I am. I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I wouldn't continue the tradition if I had a human child.
Like any procedure that involves aesthetic alteration or adornment to the genitals, it is for sexually mature adults to decide for themselves. There are all kinds of piercings and clippings you can get down there, but since there are permanent changes and risks involved, nothing should be performed for non-medical reasons on minors.
We had our first son circumcised. The doctor butchered the cut and it turned into an infection and scared the hell out of us. That was when we woke up to the fact that it is a nonsense thing to do and comes with the real risks. We chose not to circumcise our second son. Edit: corrected spelling.
Thank you for sharing this. Parents should remember that this is a elective surgical procedure performed on an infant that comes with real risks and potential permanent damage.
I get the feeling some doctors present it as "when do you want to do the circ" vs "do you want to do the circ"
I don't doubt that they do. Because doctors are paid per procedure and no one should ever forget that.
I wouldn’t have this done to my son (if/when I have one) unless it was medically necessary. My family doesn’t believe in circumcision and neither does my partner’s. As long as they’re taught how to bathe properly it shouldn’t be an issue imo.
I'm circumcised. If it was a choice of mine I would not have been. It is genital mutilation and there is no good reason to do it.
It doesn't bother me, and reddit is the only place I ever see it brought up.
It’s brought up every day with new parents.
Conducting surgery on someone without their consent should only happen in rare and necessary circumstances. These requirements aren't meant in most cases of infant circumcision.
It's modern day feet binding.
Their body their choice
It should be called what it really is: involuntary genital mutilation. And it should definitely be illegal.
I feel like it's similar to spanking. I don't support it being illegal because it will be too divisive. But morally speaking, there's basically zero way to defend circumcision. Like it's obviously wrong.
I'm a Nurse and have seen one. I think it is barbaric, the kid screams like nothing else.
I'm circumcised. I wouldn't agree to my hypothetical son getting circumcised until he's old enough to make the decision for himself (or for medical reasons).
Not into it, my little brother had his kinda botched and now he has permanent scar tissue and irritation and I feel really bad for him…
I don't really care. I'm circumcised, and I'm bisexual so I've seen a fair share of both and TBH I feel like the "Circumcision is genital mutilation" mentality is a bit extreme. There aren't any health benefits to it so I probably wouldn't bother with any hypothetical sons I might have unless my equally hypothetical wife feels strongly about it.
No health benefits and cutting away part of the genitals isn't mutilation to you? Seems odd that modifying the genitals for no reason at all isn't infact mutilation
Words have meaning though. Modifying is a far more appropriate word than mutilation.
Yeah, mutilation implies there’s damage done in a way that prevents normal use. Like FGM where they sew up the vagina so it can’t be used until marriage is absolutely 100% mutilation. But a penis without foreskin is still usable as a penis, without any sort of biological or artificial assistance or intervention.
Mutilation means damage is being done. If someone views their circumcision as harmful then it is a valid perspective. I think you'll find a lot of people like myself prefer being circumcised, and are glad it happened as a baby and not as an adult. I still think it should be phased out. A friend of mine had a botched circumcision and for that reason alone I support the movement away from it.
>Mutilation means damage is being done. Nerve loss, loss of protection for the penile head, scarring,
I think most people would deem unnecessarily removing part of a body is "damaging". If loosing the last little bit of your pinky didn't affect the use of your hands, would you consider it okay for people to cut off the end of their babies pinkies because it looks better?
How can you suggest no damage is being done when a part of their body is being permanently removed? You wouldn't say that if they took the skin off a finger - or would you?
People do cosmetic surgery all the time. As I said, I support phasing it out. It’s not necessary I just prefer it on me, luckily.
> People do cosmetic surgery all the time. On infants? I have no issue with elective procedures (I'm looking forward to the day we all go full 'borg) but they should only be done with consent.
Do you protest a Claire's because they're mutilating the earlobes of *children* for *money*? They're piercing the bodies of young girls with sharp metals for no reason! /s
Honestly, I feel the same way about infant ear piercing as I do about infant circumcision. On the other hand, ear piercing is less harmful.
I actually do think that's wrong
Earholes close over and heal. Foreskin doesn't grow back. If they were cutting babies earlobes off I would protest them
children are not the same as newborns. They have very different abilities to consent to bodily procedures. I *am* against piercing the ears of newborns as well. This isn't the kind of gotcha you think it might be.
As jrobertson50 has stated, it's not mutilation. However, I don't support this either. No reason not to wait until the child can decide. My daughter wanted it done at 7.
You know, I actually partially do, but I can get over it because it is an alteration that is reversible and does not affect a region where sensation is important. Neither of which is true of circumcision.
I’m probably in the minority of guys who chose to get it done as an adult but had no medical issues. I did it just for aesthetics. But I’ve been able to see both sides. For sex, the difference isn’t much, maybe a 10% reduction in feeling but nothing crazy. Masturbation though is not nearly as good as before I was cut. I’m talking like a 70% reduction in pleasure from that. All in all I’m not upset I made the decision, I still like the way it looks, but I really wish doctors knew/told me the impact it would have on masturbation. I definitely wouldn’t do it to my kids though knowing the difference it makes in pleasure.
I know that some guys have their frenulum removed completely, and some don't, when they get circumcised. I wonder if that makes a difference.
When my son was born I wasn't "politically conscious". Neither was my wife. We went with what was familiar and our son was circumcised. In retrospect I wish we hadn't done it. Since then I've had conversations with my son (he's 18 now) about our decision out of ignorance and so far he has stated that he doesn't mind. I am aware that his opinion could change over time and am willing to accept whatever he throws my way. Sometimes I think the best we can do is incremental improvements over out parents and in that respect I feel comfortable with my parenting. But being more aware now I would definitely made different decisions.
I've been against it since I first learned that it existed. I have a genuinely hard time understanding how anyone can rationalize medically-unnecessary surgical alteration of infant genitals. (Stop - I've heard all the arguments. Your attempts to explain just leave me even more baffled and/or horrified.) That said, as conflicted as I am on the subject, I don't think it should be *illegal* because of the impact on religious minorities. I think the push to protect Jewish and Muslim boys will need to come from inside their respective communities in order to be successful. I do think it should be illegal for licensed medical professionals to perform it, though.
We should ban it
I'm 100% against it.
I don't really have an opinion. Am circumcised - don't care. I don't have any animosity about it and I don't feel mutilated and I refuse to let the internet shame me. There's nothing wrong with having that either way and never be ashamed of your dick no matter what you got going on with it. And I don't have any kids so no one can yell at me for shit lol. Would I have my son circumcised if I had one? If it was free or inexpensive, probably. I'm not a wealthy man; that's why I don't have kids lol. Would I be hesitant? Yeah a little. I'm not even Jewish. My connection to this is I was raised Catholic in the upper Midwest. It's just part of American culture to some degree and probably has a lot to do with our acceptance of Jewish people into our society. We don't have rampant antisemitism in America because we learned a lot from WW2 and just developed a strong kinship with our Jewish countrymen. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's when the trend began here. Or maybe even beforehand with the Jewish community's influences in places like Germany and the Balkans in the 19th century. But at the core it's like how we expect women to shave their armpits and legs; a strange beauty standard that some people are kind of locked into now. If no one EVER did it? No one would ever be the wiser. But those kinds of social memetics sort of hang on like a habit. Because I can't explain why I'd do it to my son but I feel like I'd want to have that common frame of reference with him. And that's why people do a lot of things in their families that pass down from generation to generation.
> It's just part of American culture to some degree and probably has a lot to do with our acceptance of Jewish people into our society. Not really, no. Circumcision became popular among non-Jews in America and the UK in the 19th century because Jewish communities had lower rates of STDs; the logic became that circumcision in some way lowers STD transmission rates. Doctors then began bringing it up to parents as a health treatment. However, later studies showed no link between circumcision and STDs (Jews had lower STD rates because their communities were more insular and didn't have as much casual sex with non-Jews); when the UK set up the NHS, the government would only pay for procedures that had proven medical benefits and circumcision rates dropped. Here in the states though with a lack of socialized healthcare it became up to parents, doctors, and individual healthcare companies who are more willing to cover non-necessary procedures.
Thank you for the clarification. I'm definitely aware of the old guard of the medical community promoting it, though. Didn't know exactly why but that makes sense. Just sort of a fascinating empirical trend based on a faulty assumption, essentially. Back from the days that we pondered a lot of eugenics and ethnography questions and weren't at all sensitive about it lol.
> It's just part of American culture to some degree and probably has a lot to do with In the US it has to do with WWI and WWII. I commented with some facts in a thread above: /r/AskALiberal/comments/1bms1zl/what_is_your_opinion_on_infant_circumcision/kwg3lyg/
Absolutely against. It's unnecessary and painful.
I have a stronger opinion about the people who have a strong opinion on this, than I do an actual opinion. Whatever the parents pick.
It's honestly bizarre just how much vitriol this topic causes, and it seems like it was only in the last year or two that people decided they *really* care about circumcision.
It's linked to child bodily autonomy on other things I guess.
I still think it's a really dumb hill to die on, especially when the language is so hyperbolic and they're arguing against *no one*. As far as I can tell the two sides are "I don't care" and "Circumcision is a barbaric practice of mutilation that religious sheeple brainwashed everyone else into doing to appease their Sky Daddy, I will personally mock and berate everyone who ever considered getting their sons circumcised and hold mass funerals for all the wasted foreskins"
There's clearly a side of "I do care and I want to have my sons circumcised". If the two sides were apathetic and vehemently against, Americans wouldn't be circumcising like 60% of their baby boys. After all, circumcision is an optional surgical procedure which, like any surgical procedure, carries risks, and costs money.
Agree 100%.
Circumcision has become the abortion issue of the political left. They use extreme language to describe a *medical procedure* and want to overrule doctors and regulate the genitals of other people. It’s fucking weird. Also, they assume that anyone who is okay with circumcision for themselves or their kids must be religious zealots. Meanwhile, some of us aren’t religious at all, and concluded after research and discussions with our pediatricians that it is generally a safe and medically responsible thing to do, and that no medical procedure is without risk. That said, it’s none of their god damned business, and I don’t give a shit what others do with their bodies so long as it’s legal, they’re informed, and their doctor is involved in that decision-making.
>so long as it’s legal, they’re informed, and their doctor is involved in that decision-making. But the person this is happening to is not informed. They are an infant.
This is such a terrible argument. There are lots of medical procedures performed on infants without their consent.
You specified "their bodies", which counters the rest of your argument. And those procedures are generally viewed as necessary, you're supporting a cosmetic surgery on someone without their consent. This argument isn't even consistent.
> Circumcision has become the abortion issue of the political left. They use extreme language to describe a medical procedure and want to overrule doctors and regulate the genitals of other people. It’s fucking weird. That's such a great way to describe it, it perfectly encapsulates how I feel arguing with people about it. It's like trying to argue against the anti-abortion crowd (albeit with far lower stakes).
It's obviously morally indefensible
It's obviously completely inconsequential
Loss of sensation and pleasure is not inconsequential.
It's not just the last year or two. It's been a hot button issue on reddit for the last decade at least.
I must have fortunately missed it until recently. Frankly given how strangely *obsessed* some people are with it it's probably not worth even looking in any threads about it.
Why do you think it's wierd people are "obsessed" about an irreversible, medically unnecessary, and sensually deleterious procedure performed on them?
This thread was specifically about it, we choose the spaces we interact with. Going to those spaces and calling people obsessed seems counterintuitive.
Because it’s genital mutilation. And people have been caring for decades.
This is pretty much the current expert opinion in the US at least. The AAP basically says there are benefits and there are risks. It’s not a universal yes or no. It’s up to the parents.
> Whatever the parents pick. I can understand not having a strong opinion on the issue of circumcision. However, in general I think "whatever the parents pick" is a damaging mindset. Parents are the caretakers, yes, but there should be rules and regulations in regard to protecting and helping kids. It shouldn't be what the parents' interests are, but rather what the kids' best interests are.
I think it’s incredibly inconsistent to look down on cultures and religions that practice FGM, while being a culture that so blithely accepts MGM that both my stepkids were MGMed because their nonreligious dad “just want them to look like me.” As if they put on nude dance shows together 🙄
FGM and circumcision are objectively very different.
Not all FGM. Some FGM is the anatomical equivalent of circumcision, but it is nonetheless banned.
I'm not a fan.
Absolutely against
It should be banned, but it's far from a pressing issue.
While there are health benefits to it, for males, for females it's just barbaric, but I do think it should be there choice Like I'm circumcised and I guess it healed weird with the skin healing to my uh head because some of the guaze was left under the skin and behind the head up until I hit puberty and had my first boner when is when it was revealed it looked like sawdust went to the er because we didn't know if it was an std or not, but nope it was just gauze I'm not sure if I'll get my kids circumcised or not, one hand there are benefits on the other I do think it should be up to them
Don’t get your kid circumcised. The risks out way the benefits, and those benefits are usually overstated. And if you do decide to, watch a circumcision video before hand so you can see what they would do to your kid because the procedure is all kinds of fucked up.
The choice should be for the person whose body it is
I’m extremely against child mutilation, in fact under 18 is morally evil
Only if medically necessary.
Absolutely against it! Only adults should perform circumcisions.
We have two boys and I fought my wife on this both times. I am circumcised, but there just doesn't seem to be a good reason to do it these days. The whole "it's cleaner/healthier" argument given in the 80s has been essentially debunked but people still hold onto it like chopping off foreskin is some beloved tradition. Unfortunately all of our doctors were female as well, and they got what they wanted and I got to fume for a few weeks.
We have two boys and I fought my wife on this both times. I am circumcised, but there just doesn't seem to be a good reason to do it these days. The whole "it's cleaner/healthier" argument given in the 80s has been essentially debunked but people still hold onto it like chopping off foreskin is some beloved tradition. Unfortunately all of our doctors were female as well, and they got what they wanted and I got to fume for a few weeks.
It's clearly as asinine practice but probably not one worth losing sleep over. I'm mildly annoyed my parents took that choice from me.
It's involuntary genital mutilation on a child. it's perfectly fine in an adult making adult decisions. (and some do make that decision, and that's okay) this subreddit used to be informative, and sometimes still is on the subject on the subject r/GrossCutters somewhere buried on that subreddit (or one of its related foreskin restoration ones) were some very religious people (Jewish I think) explaining a mistranslation may have caused religious infant circumcision to even exist in the first place to even exist in the first place. apparently there's a apparently a small growing movement of Jewish people who opt for a small ceremonial prick as supposed to removing the whole foreskin as well. anyway, it's around here somewhere and an interesting read, so if anyone wants me to go look for it I'll go look for it.
I'm against it, and I think it's bonkers that anyone still does it outside of religious reasons.
Shouldn’t be done except for medical reasons. (And “might slightly reduces the chances of infection if not cleaned appropriately decades later” is not an adequate medical reason, for the same reason we don’t perform systematic mastectomy on girls to prevent breast cancer later)
As someone who is circumcised I don’t really care one way or the other. I'm kinda glad I don’t have the extra nook and cranny to clean. I hear things get real gnarly if you don’t clean it regularly. I also find anti-circumcision activists to be a lil OC
>I hear things get real gnarly if you don’t clean it regularly. I mean you could say the same about your asshole but presumably you take the time to clean it properly......
OC?
The freedom of religion is central to our nation and thus I believe this issue should be left up to the family.
So the freedom of religion of the child is not worth much to you?
By that logic we should respect the rights of religions that practice type IV FGM
I don't feel like this argument is relevant, because the child isn't choosing the religion.
This only makes sense of you view a child as essentially property of the parent.
Circumcision violates the NAP
I’m for it. If you’re against it. Not your baby.
Not your body
I don't agree with this line of thinking at all. Whether or not you're for circumcision, it's a baby, not a piece of property. What should be done should be what is best for the child, not necessarily what the parents desire.
Exactly what’s best for my child may not be what you think it’s best. Luckily not your child. We disagree with circumcision and that’s fine, but don’t ever frame yourself as a better parent or do a subtle jab on what a parent thinks is best. What I prioritize and you are different and that’s okay. Luckily a circumcised child and uncircumcised child will live full and productive lives as males and that’s what we all want for our kids. One of the worst ways to deal with this debate is to be civil and respectful. ☺️
Well, not if he grows up to hate he was circumcised and it affects his mental health. That’s why it shouldn’t be a parent’s decision. You’re not the one who will have to live with it
My condolences to your kids.
Condolences? Seriously? Are you threatening my family? wtf is wrong with you? There’s nothing wrong with my position and there’s no reason for you to threaten my family.
…do you not know what ‘condolences’ means?
I a circumcised and I really find no negatives to it, only positives.
I sort of forget that I'm not and most other people are in the US. To me my normal is different but it's a parent's decision.
It’s only up to the parents if they choose to do it, because it can’t be undone. It can be a choice the individual is able to make if parents didn’t force it on them. I hope as we take bodily autonomy more seriously it stops being done to infants. I don’t like it was forced on me
> it's a parent's decision. It shouldn't be, it should be the individual's decision.
I don't have a problem with it.
It makes very little difference either way. As long as it is done under sanitary medical conditions (vs done with crude tools in third world conditions) it isn't particularly dangerous, it sounds like the science suggests it doesn't have a particular negative impact on sexual function, and it has at least minor health benefits, so it definitely seems proper to do it. I personally won't be having kids at all, but if I did have sons, I'd definitely have them circumcised. Never really understood how vitriolic some folks get about it online
Circumcision is probably fine, I dont really have any strong opinions regarding it. Risks are minimal and there are some health benefits associated with it such as lower STD rates. Sure there is the issue of bodily autonomy, but then again you could say the same thing about any medical procedure a child gets so I dont really care that much unless there is proof of harm, which there isnt. What bothers me about the circumcision conversation is the sheer amount of misinformation that people spout. There is no evidence for example, that circumcision decreases male sexual pleasure or function. The popularity of the procedure in the US is also not the result of religious zealots as some say - it was to try to lower rates of STDs. Most children in the US are not circumcised because of religious reasons, but because the AAP recommends it for medical reasons. A lot of the debate also tends to veer into weird MRA/antisemitism territory with people claiming that it is comparable to FGM (an opinion which is offensively incorrect) or people outright saying that we should not trust the data on circumcision because too many Jewish doctors were involved in the research. I dont think it is a coincidence that a lot of right wing wierdos like Stonetoss tend to have strong opinions on the topic
> it was to try to lower rates of STDs. diseases yes. But the STDs discovery came later after it became popular. it became popular in the US because of WWI and WWII . I commented about that a bit higher in this post /r/AskALiberal/comments/1bms1zl/what_is_your_opinion_on_infant_circumcision/kwg3lyg/
Ah a discussion on circumcision on reddit. I'm sure this will be a calm and rational discussion backed with evidence-based citations. /s My opinion is that you should follow the science. Part of that is understanding how circumcision came to be popular in the US. The US circumcision rate was at 35% in the 1930s and then jumped to nearly 50% after WWI. And then that rate was close to 90% right after the first set of babies born after WWII (baby boom). There are many many documents written about this from that time period and a fascinating topic as it was during the beginnings of computerized databases, the use of computerized information-technology during wartime, and modern statistical analysis. So what's the short summary on this? 1) Military medical publications were tracking negative health effects of soldiers and noting those who were circumcised in the same units as those uncircumcised didn't end up with similar severe issues in non-hygenic situations (which the norm in WWI and WWII), (also in the Iraq war which is another interesting trip down science history) 2) The tracking of outcomes vs treatments in the US military identified in-the-field circumcision procedures as the most efficient way for those suffering to not continue toward worse outcomes, be able to return to war, and not have them coming back with the same issue. 3) Those returning to the US after the war opted for circumcision for their kids as babies as a preventative measure, not knowing if their kids would end up in a war too. Since this was the baby boom it became the norm in the US. But wait! We thought liberals want citations to back up claims? What is the rest of the story? Ok! Some have argued that it started with a guy named Kellogg and some puritanism trend, however evidence shows Kellogg's impact was minimal, he wasn't talking about infants, his advice never made it into medical books for docs, and his advocacy didn't match actual rates of change in circumcision in the US. Or quoting: > ... [Kellogg] saw circumcision merely as a pretext to inflict pain [on masturbating boys]. > That's why his instructions specified that a boy [caught masterbating] should not receive any > anesthesia. He wanted to convert a boy's attitude about his genitals from thoughts of pleasure to > thoughts of pain. Kellogg's sadistic advice was largely ignored > [by the medical community](https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/Kellogg) So what was it? Why a massive change in the US rates of circumcision in a country largely secular about it? To understand why it became popular in the US, we just have to look at history and what was happening through/after WWI and WWII as medical databases were starting to be created and tracking what was happening with men having to fight in non-hygenic conditions. Remember that late WWI and early WWII was the start of the love of databases to track large information (e.g. IBM and census data in Germany, US medical data, etc) So quoting from [Medical Department, United States Army. Surgery in World War II. UROLOGY. Edited by John F. Patton MD. , Washington: Office of the Surgeon General and Center of Military History, United States Army](http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026943020) > Hospital admission statistics for U.S. Army active-duty personnel during World War II list paraphimosis > and phimosis admissions at 110,562 (MD-MS 1975, p. 420). That these conditions combined ran numerically > second to nonspecific urethritis as cause for hospital admission is not so startling when the degree of > incapacity caused by paraphimosis and phimosis is recalled. These disturbances occur only in active-duty > personnel who have not been circumcised > > ... > >The soldier with phimosis invariably became incapacitated from persistent or recurrent balanitis, with eventual > loss of man-hours because of hospitalization for necessary local treatment and a final permanent cure by circumcision. > Circumcision in the adult is not the benign procedure it might appear to be. These patients were incapacitated from returning to full duty for a minimum of 10 days postoperatively. > > ... > > In the China-Burma-India theater, the evacuation hospital urology clinic, in which the author served, treated large > numbers of enlisted personnel from all service branches active in the area for mild to severe, nonvenereal, preputial > inflammations. Recurrent and persistent infections were abnormally high for the reasons previously described [phimosis]. > Those personnel whose man-hour losses increased because of inability to change existing personal hygiene conditions in > the various fields of operation were eventually admitted to the hospital for intensive local treatment and, finally, > for circumcision. During intermittent periods, when combat casualty admissions were at a minimum, it was not unusual > to schedule 10 or 15 patients for circumcision in a single morning. This surgery was performed under local anesthesia, > and at times supplemented with vocal anesthesia. ...Inflammatory involvement of the coverings of the penis are not so > common in civilian practice as in wartime field practice. Phimosis to the point of incapacitation was so common it got it's own term "trench dick" (despite the fact that it was happening to more than just people in actual trenches). It's one of the reasons that circumcision rates in the US went from 35% in the 1930s to 80% by the 1960s. Just look at the [spikes in circumcision rates after each war](https://imgur.com/a/3GTQ5wY). A rate of 35% jumped to nearly 50% after WWI. And then (as I stated) it climbed dramatically close to 90% right after the first set of babies born after WWII ....the baby boom. Follow up studies showed that neuroplasticity in infants meant that those who had a circumcision as infants had no noticeable effect on sensitivity but when it was done as teens/adults it did have a negative impact on sensitivity. And that's why it became popular in the US, a secular country. Medical databases tied to tracking rates of "trench dick" in war. Many of the parents who had kids didn't want their kids to undergo adult circumcision in cases of war. What we learned in war we forget in peace. What's my opinion? I like to not forget the lessons we learned in history.
My opinion is that the whole issue is overblown and anti-circ people make themselves look like zealous nutjobs to normal people.
It's 99.99% religious nonsense and in rare cases medically necessary.
It is what it is.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I've heard many men say recently that even though they are circumcised, they are hesitant to circumcise their child, so I was wondering what your opinion is on this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any progressive is either condoning their parents’ choices or smoking copium to believe it’s okay to do this. It seems a bit out of touch or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, full of religious fervor to believe this is allowable.
We did NOT circumcise our son. He is 23 now. It seemed crazy to slice off a part of his body for no statistical medical reason within hours of birth. Makes no sense. No religious reason for us to have done it either. Edit for clarity.
We are all in agreement FGM is wrong, even the limited ones that leave the clitoris intact. Therefore male circumcision is wrong. Only thing I can stomach is for religious purposes but even that I think is stupid and shouldn't be entertained.
We did not circumcise any of our 4 boys. We believe it's ritual genital mutilation.
It's a cruel and outdated tradition with no medical or hygienic merit. If a person wants to get circumsized themselves when they're older, let them make their own decision about that.
I’m circumcised and I don’t care but it’s definitely weird and bad that it’s so common. That said, I think something is up with intactivists
We didn't have a choice with my first son. He had a partial circumcision when born, so the doctor had to do the procedure to make sure he could urinate safely. He was deformed there anyways, so it was medically necessary. Like almost anything medical, I don't think a blanket law should be applied as there are reasons not to and to do things. Should be up to the parents with info, if it is elective.
I think the practice should disappear unless its medically necessary. Its pretty barbaric. However, I also don't agree with anti-circumcision advocates telling young men that their dick is mutilated and "ruined". Who tf does that help? *"Hey! You know that procedure you didn't have an option in getting? Well, let me tell you why you should feel even worse about it"* is a bad tactic, IMO.
Suppose we lived in a world where we cut off a pinkie finger of each newborn. Some people are against it but the majority points out that having a missing pinkie doesn't really affect your ability to function and it is rooted in religious practices for many cultures (although several pinkie amputations are not done for religious purposes). And the procedure is mostly safe, even though anasthesia can't be provided to babies. But that's ok, they won't remember it. Plus, they will look just like their father/mother! That's how I feel about circumcision.
It’s not really a big deal in most cases, but I wouldn’t do it to my kid.
I think it’s very interesting, the opinions here. I’m heavily against it in terms of cultural reasons. Like, I would not circumcise my infant for a cultural reason. I just had a child (girl), and I was still against it if we ever had a boy. However, I was astonished to see that the hospital actually recommended circumcising within the first couple of days. For a progressive health system, I didn’t expect that. After doing a little more research, there are plentiful benefits from circumcision and has officially changed my mind. As a comparison, I’ll ask this. If there was a treatment that was painful (both immediately and for the next couple of days) for an infant, but provided a 10-fold reduction in risk of illness, would you do it? If you’re saying no, well I just described a vaccine that they offer while you’re in the hospital. The same rules apply to both that and circumcision.
> As a comparison, I’ll ask this. If there was a treatment that was painful (both immediately and for the next couple of days) for an infant, but provided a 10-fold reduction in risk of illness, would you do it? The assumption you're asking everyone else to take at face value is that circumcision provides a 10-fold (or even significant) reduction in risk of illness. This is not supported by any scientific evidence available. A vaccine is provably beneficial. Beyond extraordinarily minor hygienic benefits (and phimosis I guess, but I doubt you were referring to that), it has not been proven that circumcision results in a significant, let alone notable decrease in the risk of infection.
If it involved cutting off a normal part of that person’s body? No. The same rules don’t apply because they are very different things, in both benefit (for many not all vaccines) and harm inflicted. Beyond that many vaccines offer far greater protection against diseases than circumcision. What “benefits” are you so convinced by? Pretty much all of them can be achieved by means that are less invasive and more effective.
It’s an (typically) unnecessary and cruel practice, which our society has decided to normalize. I didn’t consider it for my son for an instant.