It is a cosmetic surgery specifically designed to dampen sexual gratification

Brian explains it well in the piece -- why this does dampen sexual feeling.

And luj is right -- I believe it was Maimonides who called for it on those lines.

I think non-medical circumcision of infants amounts to child abuse and its practitioners should be in prison.

Circumcision is to FGM as a nose job is to cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Now, if you are cutting off the glans, that would be equivalent FGM.

I have suffered from the side-effects of circumcision for my entire adult life and now suffer severe ED as a result of the doctors botching the job. The anger I feel towards the ignorant supporters of this barbaric practice is profound. I also know that it will continue simply because the medical establishment is all too aware that the trial lawyers will fall on them like wolves if it is ever admitted that the AMA sided with religious fanatics in the mid to late 19th century and have supported this useless cosmetic practice sense then. The fanatics believed that little boys would be less inclined to touch themselves if they were circumcised and the AMA received political support from those groups in response to their endorsement and claims of 'Medical Necessity' for this idiocy.

Let adults do whatever body mods they want. You could even make puberty the decision time if you wanted so kids could be circumsized before religious events if need be. But infants should'nt be getting body mods. Including pierced ears IMO

We only have girls, and I'm not having any more kids, so this isn't something that affects my family- But, before we knew what our babies would be, it was my husband who insisted that a boy should be circumcised. I don't really understand his logic, but luckily it didn't matter anyway.

Circumcision is to FGM as a nose job is to cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Actually there are seven types of FGM, from a full hysterectomy, to drawing a single drop of blood with a needle

Or to use your nose analogy popping a pimple

4 of the 7 types of FGM cause less scaring and damage than a clinical circumcision

3 of the 7 types of FGM cause less scaring and damage than a jewsih circumcision (assuming you dont have a rabbi with herpes sucking the babies dick afterwards) as jewish circumcisions generally dont take near as much skin

A better analogy would be to recommend cutting out the breast buds of all female infants on the off chance that one day less than 1% of women might have hypertrophy of the breasts

Kellog, of Corn Flakes fame, is responsible for ubiquitous circumcision in the U.S. He believed it would reduce males' masturbation. He literally invented Corn Flakes as a breakfast food for the same reason. He also urged that the procedure be done without any anesthetic in order to maximize the trauma to the baby and thus maximize the "benefit" of the mutilation. Sick bastard.

Every year in the U.S. and Canada, baby boys die, and suffer severely deformed penises and lost penises as a result of this "safe" and "beneficial" procedure. Many men later develop painful conditions inhibiting normal erection. Indeed, studies show that boys circumcised without anesthesia remain more sensitive to pain their entire lives.

Comparison to what happens to the glans -- in effect a mucous membrane -- when constantly exposed to air and friction? Keep your tongue out of the mouth and dry, and lick sandpaper, and see how well it perceives taste afterward. Or, keep your eyes open without blinking -- permanently.

And STFU regarding FGM every goddam time the subject of MGM comes up! Why is circumcision tolerated in a "civilized" society? Because it only happens to males, and serves to remind those males of their collective place in society, and what can be demanded of them.

Worry about this as much as you can. It's important that you really sit quietly and let your feelings about this swirl ferociously within your heart. Then, when you are so riled up that you can't just sit there anymore, speak up! Be heard!

Or, Crid, one can reflexively and thoughtlessly proffer meaningless snark ... as though one were mentally and verbally belching -- or farting. Feeling a bit gassy today?

I'm female. I would defer to the male to make this decision. But I will say that this thinking about circumcision is a 180 from what used to be the norm back even 10 years ago. It very much reminds me of the decision to breast or bottle feed. God help you if you have a different opinion from the popular one.

I R A Darth Aggie,

Circumcision is to FGM as a nose job is to cutting your nose off to spite your face.

If we concede your incorrect (see: lujlp above) statement as fact, you still need to consider the issue involved, which is consent, not genitalia. Is the cosmetic nose job ethical to impose on a male minor? Is the answer different for a female minor, as many foolishly claim it somehow is for non-therapeutic genital cutting? If the answer is different, then I wonder if you understand that all surgery imposes harm (Hi Crid!), because all surgery imposes harm in pursuit of the perceived benefit. Do you understand that? And do you know if the child wants those permanent trade-offs?

I know right, how dare people be passionate about not needlessly inflicting a cosmetic surgery that kills nearly as many infants per YEAR as your average consumer safety recall kills over a decade

Drop down cribs had a death rate of (according to a quick net search and lawsuit seeking websites) 1 in 1.5 million, yet most were recalled

THere are roughly 4 million births, half male, roughly half get cut

So one million cuts, about 100 dies every year from bleeding to death or infections, this does not even count the number of botched jobs that lead to suicide.

100 in 1 million

Circumcision causes nearly 200 times more deaths than drop down cribs which had to be recalled/banned for infant saftey.

"And do you know if the child wants those permanent trade-offs?

Tony at April 22, 2016 7:37 PM

No you don't. You can never know. No one can ever known the exact odds of a medical procedure, any medical procedure having a greater benefit than risk to a child or adult.

You are quite correct there Tony.

Few surgical procedures are actually life saving or life threatening. Circumcision is the same.

You want to defer to a ten year old's judgment on chemotherapy for a cancer that has a very low remission rate?How about a non life threatening heart murmur, that may or may not cause problems in the future?

How about dental malocclusion? Going to surgically fix that before a kid is 18? (Pulling teeth is often required)

The truth is, Amy is very comfortable substituting her judgment, government judgment, and the judgment of all the *right* people for parental judgment, for a decision on circumcision because this is an area where the stupid parents just can't be trusted to make a decision. Right?

Government policy needs to force them to do the right thing, at least until science changes their mind on the issue, and then we can start forcing them to do the opposite, for their own good, of course.

There has to be some kind of holier than thou social crusader motivation for this tirade, because last I checked Amy is a woman, with no kids. No personal stake in this, at all.

Disclaimer. I am the parent of an UNcircumcised male child who is now 30 years old. I made the decision. Could have gone the other way if my husband had any strong feelings on the subject.

A free society must allow people especially parents, to make mistakes. God knows the medical professionals, and the government make enough of them.

I need to find the link (I'm too lazy right now), but it's under 20 deaths per year in the US from circumcision related issues (has been for years and years), nearly all of which were due to improper care (infections from improper cleaning or bleeding due to it getting stuck to the diaper and then it being forcefully unstuck with diaper change). I can't find a reliable stat on how many circumcisions are performed per year because they only count the ones done in hospital at birth before discharge, none done in office or otherwise after discharge. I've seen numbers ranging from 50% to 85% of male births. In any case, it's a very small number of deaths relative to how many are performed, although I have seen some anti-circ groups using numbers saying it's more than the number of SIDS deaths per year, which is in the thousands. Their number is deaths, for any reason, of males who have been circumcised.

I happen to be pro-circumcision choice. I am circumcised. My brother is circumcised. Both Grandfathers, Father, and four Uncles are circumcised. I actually asked them how the whole sex thing has worked out and whether they think circumcision has been a problem even considering they all have kids. Consensus is that the sex thing has been pretty good. All of us have really enjoyed it. Would it have been better if we hadn't been circumcised? Who knows but, even more importantly....who the fuck cares?

Look if you came out of it with issues, I sympathize for you. I had a friend go in to have a root canal. He died. I still miss him 20 years later but shit happens. People die ( all of them last I checked) and people have problems after surgery. The fact that some people circumcise their kids ain't no reason to hate or consider the parents evil. At least, considering the topic preceding this one in this blog. That consistency thing is a bitch.

For me anyway.

> one can reflexively and
> thoughtlessly proffer meaningless
> snark

How dare you call it thoughtless!!!

Over years here, I've argued about it with the little broken teacups here. Eventually one realizes that meaning and context and thoughtfulness are not what they're about.

Circumcision is barbaric. If we required parents to attend and watch, as it was done on their newborn sons, the practice would be gone from civilisation in 5 years. Sort of like abortion: show the women the ripped off arms and legs, abortion numbers would plummet quickly. It's just too easy to choose actions, when we don't have to watch them done to others.

Caustic are you pro choice for female genital cutting that cause the same or less damage than male circumcision?

We need a sense of statistical demonstrableproportion, right?

Tony is a coward... As he ought to be.

Carry on!

Hey crid, you ever watch that video of an infant screaming in pain and terror?

Also from the link crid referenced

133 comments and not one person defending this practice can give hard numbers delineating the benefits

Nobody GAF. You guys should jump through hoops anyway. Just be as upset as you possibly, possibly can. Amy's given a lot help over the years, she won't stop now. Just sit and spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Are we recycling this issue for earth day?

Deep down Crid's brain realizes he's wrong on this issue so his poor rationalization hamster is spinning in overdrive trying to find some irrational way to convince himself it's OK to mutilate the penises of millions of baby boys.

"OK to mutilate the penises of millions of baby boys"

Boy oh boy. You said mutilate. That fer shur will convert Crid, and the rest, to your side.

I've been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a snipped dick.

Crid,

I'll ask because I'm curious. Maybe you'll surprise me by answering. How am I a coward? On what do you believe I need to be brave that I am not/have not been?

Isab:

You want to defer to a ten year old's judgment on chemotherapy for a cancer that has a very low remission rate?How about a non life threatening heart murmur, that may or may not cause problems in the future?

Do you believe I, or anyone here, would expect parents to defer to a ten year old's judgment on chemotherapy? I wouldn't. I recognize the difference between therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions.

Parental proxy is valid, but it needs a higher standard than what the parents prefer for themselves. Hence, we must require a stricter standard on non-therapeutic genital cutting for daughters and sons than "I prefer circumcised penises sexually, so that's what my son is getting", which Dave B implies is a valid justification. Or are we saying that it's okay to give a ten year old chemotherapy* if he doesn't have cancer because, you know, parental proxy exists, so who are we to challenge them?

* My analysis stays the same for the non-life threatening heart murmur. A foreskin (i.e. prepuce) is normal human anatomy, and not unique to males. A heart murmur is not. A responsible parent would investigate (but maybe not apply) all available options to resolve. And to be clear, parents should consider all available options to resolve a foreskin problem if one develops, although any proxy consent should aim for the least invasive effective intervention, especially here since circumcision is not always necessary.

Isab:

"You want to defer to a ten year old's judgment on chemotherapy for a cancer that has a very low remission rate?How about a non life threatening heart murmur, that may or may not cause problems in the future,"

I notice you deliberately avoided addressing my best example which is braces.

Are you going to defer all orthodontia until a kid is 18 or is it ok to torture them a bit for the sake of straight teeth because you like those cosmetic improvements? And you don't like circumcision?

You seem willing to let the parents decide for anything you approve of, and want the government and the medical industry to have control over anything the mainstream media says is bad.

Bad decisions and wrong choices will be made. Risk is preserved. The question is, who gets to make them?

I predict banning circumcision will work as well as banning drugs. People don't like to be told what to do.

So I guess you on on board for the government cram down of a low fat high carb diet on school children?

Isab:

It's not a good example at all. To make the connection between circumcision and orthodontics, the proper analogy would be to ask, "Would you allow a parent to put braces on a child with properly formed and aligned teeth so that they could be misaligned or malformed to match their society's archaic custom?"

"You seem willing to let the parents decide for anything you approve of, and want the government and the medical industry to have control over anything the mainstream media says is bad."

Where did you get that from his post? He only commented on examples that you provided and illustrated how those examples were not relevant to the discussion and how those analogies simply didn't fit they way you asserted.

"Bad decisions and wrong choices will be made. Risk is preserved. The question is, who gets to make them?"

Simple. To the greatest extent reasonably possible the individual. In the case of circumcision, in the vast majority of situations, there is no reasonable need to perform it on a child. That by itself should be enough to foreclose on any discussion that it occurs.

"I predict banning circumcision will work as well as banning drugs. People don't like to be told what to do."

No one is talking about banning it, not entirely anyway. Only age restricting the non-therapeutic procedures.

Tell me, are you equally irritated that "big government" age restricts the consumption of alcohol or tobacco? I mean if mom and dad think little Johnny needs a wee nip of courage and a Lucky before they send him off to school should we allow that? What about the parents that insist on circumcising their female children, are we not to intrude on that either? Is the fact that a bunch of nuts will continue the practice the primary reason not prohibit or restrict those practices?

I am completely against all non therapeutic procedures. If I had a boy I would have not had it done. Though I'm not sure if I had my husband fully agreeing so I am glad we didn't have to have that conversation.

I don't even like parents piercing babies ears.

Saying that, I don't want the government to have any more power to usurp from parents.

I'd rather see people being educated on the issue and I don't want government doing that either.

I never did any classes prior to giving birth (I read a couple books on the matter--I think I had the best experience I could under the circumstances). Are these privately paid positions? Encourage them to educate parents.

And are parents really given informed consent of what the real risks are? And the lack of real benefits?

> Maybe you'll surprise me

Yes, I will always surprise you...

The majesty of my insight its eager survey of uncharted territory: Your name appears always & promptly on this topic but no other. You are righteously (if ignominiously) ashamed to have even your pseudonymous identity affiliated with thoughts expressed in this matter. This is as it should be.

> Deep down Crid's brain
> realizes

Exactly, exactly: This is you guys at your subtlest psychological nuance, the pan-sexual, trans-conscious part where you rilly, rilly connect with the interiors of others in an earthy yet rational way. You know how people live, dammit, and you will not be denied your expression of these compelling truths!

And still... Even today, there's this sense that you aren't yet at the hermetical, emotive zenith for your consideration of the topic. Now, Amy's got your back, you know she does, but you haven't yet committed to the kind of detached, sequestered, sacrificial focus to afford the heartfelt, irresistable persuasion which is, I am certain, within your purview. You just need to try harder. So to speak.

Go-man-go!

Beyond that, people who affirm that more children die from circumcision than from accidents ought not demand (irrelevant) statistical tribute for their goofy obsessions.

Worry about this!

@Dave B "I've been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a snipped dick"

And I've been told that there are men who prefer the clitoris of females to be removed, does that make female circumcision good? Really? This is your argument? OMW.

Isab:

I “deliberately” avoided addressing braces because I assumed my stance would be apparent. Joe stated it in his first paragraph. As with a normal foreskin, parents shouldn’t consider intervention simply because they like the intervention. With crooked teeth, I would hope parents would seek their child’s input, at least, given the likely age of braces. But crooked teeth is at least something suggesting consideration. Being born male is not.

You seem willing to let the parents decide for anything you approve of, and want the government and the medical industry to have control over anything the mainstream media says is bad.

Proxy consent demands a conservative approach to what interventions parents impose. As a rough guideline of my stance, parents should decide anything that involves subjectivity in responding to objective needs. This would be done in cooperation with the relevant parties to the decision. In the case of circumcision, cancer, and orthodontia, that is with doctors, who should reject irrational parental requests. (e.g. non-therapeutic circumcision, unnecessary chemotherapy, braces for straight teeth).

I predict banning circumcision will work as well as banning drugs. People don't like to be told what to do.

I predict the same, even though removing the gendered exemption in the existing prohibition on non-therapeutic genital cutting of minors is our moral/ethical imperative. “Because people would ignore it” is not a reason to shirk the duty to protect human rights. I’m neither a moral nor a cultural relativist.

I believe in limited government. The legitimate powers of the state are defense and protecting individual rights. A prohibition on non-therapeutic genital cutting is as appropriate as any other law against battery. No one has the right to harm another person without the recipient’s (i.e. the patient) consent. Proxy consent is valid because minors can’t make most of these decisions themselves. But they are also human beings, with equal rights to their bodies as adults have to their own. So, within the confines of their proxy consent authority, parents do not have a legitimate authority to inflict harm (via surgery) where there isn’t an objective need.

If we remove the unequal exemption in the current prohibition today, I imagine the rates of medically “necessary” circumcision would rise rapidly in response. A prohibition would be valid, but I’m actually interested in preserving the right of individuals to choose what happens to their bodies, not in exercising control for my preferences. My preference is that each person have his preference. So, educating is the path to achieve protection for genital integrity, as shameful as the necessity of that education should be to society. It’s, for example, why Brian Earp’s rebuttal to the flawed sensitivity study and the media’s ignorant regurgitation of what they believe it must say matters.

"It's not a good example at all. To make the connection between circumcision and orthodontics, the proper analogy would be to ask, "Would you allow a parent to put braces on a child with properly formed and aligned teeth so that they could be misaligned or malformed to match their society's archaic custom?"

And in many cases that is *exactly* what they are doing. They sacrifice correct alignment of the molars in order to make the front teeth straight, and not protruding.

What part of "98 percent of orthodontics is cosmetic do you not understand?"

Is is mostly done these days to cure a natural overbite which has no impact what so ever on a child's ability to eat, it just makes their upper lip protrude a little, like I said, purely cosmetic.

It can often end up misaligning and damaging perfectly servicible molars, in order to make the front teeth look *good' and cause life long TMJ syndrome.
So now that you know a little more about it, tell me again how this is perfectly fine but circumcision is not.

I know a number of people whose teeth hurt all the time after having braces as a child. Gee I wonder how that can happen when you attempt to shove all the molars back through the bone a quarter of an inch so you can alighn the front teeth for a pretty smile?

" "I prefer circumcised penises sexually, so that's what my son is getting", which Dave B implies is a valid justification."

Tony, Tony, Tony, I neither said that nor implied it. You even went so far as to put something I did not say in quotes. How dastardly.

"Parental proxy is valid, but it needs a higher standard than what the parents prefer for themselves."

Yes Tony, parental proxy is valid. Maybe you are getting it! Who do you think you are Tony. Who decides the higher standards and why do you jump to what the parents prefer for themselves? Is that the only standard that the parents use for the decision? How foolish you are. You must not have children (you may have said before, but I only scan you posts, too long for me).

"And I've been told that there are men who prefer the clitoris of females to be removed, does that make female circumcision good? Really? This is your argument? OMW."

Wat you talkin about Leonard? Oh, for peanuts sake Lobster, do you see why Crid thinks you guys have goofy obsessions.

Crid:

Your name appears always & promptly on this topic but no other. You are righteously (if ignominiously) ashamed to have even your pseudonymous identity affiliated with thoughts expressed in this matter. This is as it should be.

Excellent sleuthing. No other possible explanations. Good work.

Beyond that, people who affirm that more children die from circumcision than from accidents ought not demand (irrelevant) statistical tribute for their goofy obsessions.

I don’t see anyone saying more children die from circumcision than from accidents. I do see the “117 deaths” statistic, which is bogus. I read the first half or so of that paper years ago and stopped reading. I can read the news, though, so it’s obvious the death rate isn’t zero. If it’s 117, it’s pure coincidence. But I’ll take the bold stance that any deaths from non-therapeutic genital cutting are an outrage (and not merely a call to find “safer” methods to harm children, male-only, of course).

"And in many cases that is *exactly* what they are doing. They sacrifice correct alignment of the molars in order to make the front teeth straight, and not protruding."

You see the problem here is that you're changed the scenario to try and make these two things fit, again. I am asking you if you're talking about orthodontist who treat children with properly aligned (properly formed) teeth. That is was circumcision is in the vast majority of cases. Circumcision takes a child (boy in this case) who has a properly formed pen!s and surgically alters it to mimic a birth defect of all things, aposthia. I know of no dentist or orthodontist who would refer a child with properly aligned, growing, and developing teeth for braces to *create* an abnormality, such as overbite.

What you're trying to pass off as a comparison is a situation where there is a malformation or misalignment which by definition is something that might be worth treating. That's the first step in justifiable proxy consent a threshold that is never even met in the vast majority of circumcisions.

"What part of "98 percent of orthodontics is cosmetic do you not understand?""

You know, I looked up and down this thread for that quote and this is the first time you seemed to have said it. So how could I have missed it? I will need to ask you to back up that statement with some evidence. Flipping through the wiki I did notice that regarding overbites, "Young children commonly have a deep bite (excessive overbite), it is not resolved during the normal growth of the maxilla and the mandible and can get worse with time. If it is not corrected it may lead to trauma and shortening the length of the teeth due to wear and the biting edges."

Now maybe much of those orthodontics correct overbites, and maybe there is in fact a good reason to perform the correction. That's why the rule would be, "If there is a malformation, it's worth consideration." Note this is different from circumcision which is currently, "Even if there is nothing wrong with the child feel free to sculpt his pen!s."

Dave B:

I think it was obvious I was not implying a quote from you with that “quote”. The word “which” does the work of separating what belongs to each part of the sentence. If it helps, imagine that I put a period in the middle and wrote the “which” statement as a separate sentence to indicate that you only implied this hypothetical with, "I've been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a snipped dick," in a discussion of infant circumcision.

Who do you think should decide the standard? What do you think they should make the standard, since I already explained how I believe the standard must be improved? Why?

I “jump” to what parents prefer for themselves because parents circumcising a healthy child is an irreversible action built on “We would rather he have X than his normal foreskin”. What does the child want? Would he prefer X or his foreskin? We don't know, so we only know what his parents prefer.

Also, I talk to people and read what people say is the reason they did or would circumcise. Do I need to provide examples of parents citing their own personal preferences, such as a preference for sexual aesthetics?

(I don’t have children, although not by choice. Why do you think that’s relevant?)

> an outrage

Outrage! Roaring anger! You can't sleep! What to do..?

Individual fury ☛ Secret society ☛ Social media ☛ Cultural shift.

Right?

> I don’t see anyone saying more
> children die from circumcision
> than from accidents.

Yonder... It's your nearby blogbuddy in somatic preoccupation!

But whatddya know, the link ("THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies") is rotted. Yet when we go to the Wayback machine entries for 2011, it turns out the citation is for a publisher called "The Journal of Men's Studies," James Doyle, editor. Eagle-eyed blog visitors will recognize your revived adoration of this bullshit artist.

Christopher Hitchens —or was it Winston Churchill or maybe Eddie Kendricks?— once put it like this: "You aren't entitled to your own facts."

Identity games are for children. This is not a fascination for grown men. I can't understand why Amy throws you these meager bones every few months... Her need for your pageloads cannot be that dire.

"Sloppy science reporting" on "penis sensitivity" is a thing? AYFKM?

"Sloppy science reporting."

And here we go again....

Funnily enough, the only penis-gone-wrong problems I've seen in the operating room have been on men who were not circumcised.

"Funnily enough, the only penis-gone-wrong problems I've seen in the operating room have been on men who were not circumcised."

Really?

http://circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html

"Really?"

Uh yeah really. I'm speaking only of my own experience. Hence the words "I've seen".

Well then here is a good opportunity to educate yourself on what can happen when a pen!s is damaged more than expected during a circumcision. Which make me wonder, when the operation is non-therapeutic and you're making a decision like this for someone else, what is the appropriate (acceptable) rate of complications?

"when the operation is non-therapeutic"

There is not a consensus on that among physicians. As I would guess you probably realize, so I won't return the condescension by telling you to educate yourself.

Lizzy:

I think your statement is more accurately written this way, "There is not a consensus on that among [American] physicians."

As a secular practice, this doesn't happen in most of the rest of the world. And among those similarly situated countries, it's really only in the US that there is even a discussion about it.

"I think it was obvious I was not implying a quote from you"

Wasn't obvious to me Tony. Why I spent the time responding to you. Get it?

"If it helps, imagine that I put a period in the middle and wrote the “which” statement as a separate sentence to indicate that you only implied this hypothetical with, "I've been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a snipped dick," in a discussion of infant circumcision."

Tony, Tony, Tony. You are obtuse. The complete quote of what I responded to the Lobster above was
(to save you lookup time):

"OK to mutilate the penises of millions of baby boys"

Boy oh boy. You said mutilate. That fer shur will convert Crid, and the rest, to your side.

I've been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a snipped dick.

Lobster is calling it mutilate the penis. I've never been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a mutilated dick. Have you? Get it? Probably not - goofy obsessions.

"I “jump” to what parents prefer for themselves because parents circumcising a healthy child is an irreversible action built on “We would rather he have X than his normal foreskin”."

You do not know all of the reasons parents have to make the decision to snip. You make it sound so simple. It is not an easy choice. I know you think it is. It is possible that the main reason is better now than later. You, me and Amy don't really know.

Joe.

Really?

Your reaction to Lizzie's comment appears to be an overreaction. You do realize you have Crid's noted disease of goofy obsession?

"Your reaction to Lizzie's comment appears to be an overreaction."

In what way?

"You do not know all of the reasons parents have to make the decision to snip."

The excuses (not reasons) are pretty well known and it boils down to tradition and ignorance.

"You make it sound so simple. It is not an easy choice. I know you think it is."

If the child is born healthy, and he has a normally formed penis, then there is not decision to make. How is that not simple?

"It is possible that the main reason is better now than later."

That would be ignorance. Here's one I don't understand though. Why is it that it's really on the North Americans (much more the US than the Canadians) who are obsessed with non-therapeutic circumcision? For parents in Europe, Japan, Australia, Mexico, the UK and most other parts of the world this isn't even a decision, let along a complicated decision. So why is it for those of us in the US. Please explain that David B.

Dave B:

“I’ve been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a snipped dick.”

“I’ve never been told that there is a girl, or two, that prefer a mutilated dick.”

I got that you were saying circumcision isn’t mutilation. (The prior sentence did that work.) When you shifted I got that you were saying some women prefer circumcised penises as another way of saying it isn’t mutilation. The implication of adults “prefer a snipped dick” in a discussion of infant circumcision is undeniable, even if that isn’t what you meant to imply.

You do not know all of the reasons parents have to make the decision to snip. You make it sound so simple. It is not an easy choice. I know you think it is. It is possible that the main reason is better now than later. You, me and Amy don't really know.

Some of the reasons parents offer are so stupid I’m amazed they figured out how to procreate. There is no “your justification has to be this tall to ride” rule in the law yet as there correctly is for female minors. So, idiocy has free rein on this. And, as I wrote, I've talked to and read the words of parents, so I can imagine many more exist than I've yet encountered.

But to your point, so? “Parents agonize over this” and “[the decision] is not an easy choice” are different ideas. The former is sometimes true. The latter is never true (for non-therapeutic child circumcision). It isn't their choice to make, any more than it's their choice to make for their healthy, normal daughters.

Parents agonizing over this always ends with what they prefer for non-therapeutic circumcision on their son. All tastes and preferences are unique to the individual. “Better now than later” indicates the parents would rather he be circumcised now than have to go through it later, which requires an incorrect belief that circumcision is inevitable when the actual risk is tiny. It also assumes their son would prefer infant circumcision over N years with his foreskin before getting circumcised, if he ever needs/wants to be, as well as guaranteed pain now versus possible pain later.

@"You make it sound so simple. It is not an easy choice."

Actually, once I realized it was in fact an easy choice, it was an incredibly easy choice: Just say no to circumcision.

As a circumcised Jew I initially agonized over the decision, but once I came to my senses and applied reason, I decided to be the one to end thousands of years of this barbaric "tradition" in my lineage at least. That's called being a man.

Masculinity ain't what it used to be.

Point of fact, I said CAR accidents, and provided a link to data.

Crid obfuscated and changed it to accidents in general

For those who support circumcision for whatever reason . . .

Foot binding, for or against?

Corseting, for or against?

Head binding, for or against?

Breast ironing, for or against?

The majority of FGM which causes less physical damage than male circumcision, for or against?

Applying carbolic acid to the clitoris, for or against?

Your citations are imaginary, your resentments ill-composed.

Live that way!

→ FOCUS ←

"You shouldn't read my comments." - Crid, from a link, above.

But they're so much FUN!

------

Back to the subject:

In porn, what is the ratio of cut/uncut, and why? What should we infer from the features of the professionals?

Ask a pro?

"Masculinity ain't what it used to be."

How would you know Crid? You're not even half the man Lobster is.

@Radwaste
"In porn, what is the ratio of cut/uncut, and why?"

It depends where it's produced. If it's produced in the US there will mostly be men who suffered from MGM, if it was from most of the rest of the world, then they'll be intact.

"What should we infer from the features of the professionals?"

Nothing meaningful beyond what was prevalent in their culture at the time of their birth.

@"Foot binding, for or against?"

To paraphrase Dave B, 'I've been told that there is a man, or two, that prefers lotus feet' ... can't be calling them bound feet 'mutilated', right?

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/jun/15/unbound-chinas-last-lotus-feet-in-pictures

@"Outrage! Roaring anger!"

Yes Crid, there should precisely be outrage, and that outrage should be directed at those who practice infant genital mutilation: They should be imprisoned.

Outrage is the response of a healthy, mentally sane person to barbaric stone age savages who want to chop up the genitalia of infants.

@"In porn, what is the ratio of cut/uncut, and why?"

That sounds creepy af when you reverse the genders .. here, circumcision fans, go get yourself off:

http://www.imagefap.com/pictures/3385979/circumcised-pussy

> healthy

Healthy! Healthy! You're inane fascination with this point was discussed August 29, 2012 11:47 AM.

It's like you're locked in the bathroom and not paying attention.

Crid, you are the one with the bizarre 'fascination': You go out of your way working to ensure that millions of penises keep getting butchered. Why are you so invested in preventing others from preventing penis-chopping, if this is all as irrelevant as you claim it is?

This happens to be real life, which you seem to be detached from. This isn't some abstract theoretical point - you seem to think some affectatious pretentiously faux-witty insulting banter makes you come across a 'winner' of the debate ... it's odd and I honestly feel pity for you. Let your ego go on this point, it's OK.

> You go out of your way working
> to ensure that millions of penises
> keep getting butchered.

That's a thing that you said. Just now.

"Nothing meaningful beyond what was prevalent in their culture at the time of their birth."

And so these pros are suffering today? Do they really not have anyone uncut to star in these movies? Have you ever seen anyone draw one that was uncut? Wouldn't you have to explain the drawing to most people?

The USA dominates the rest of the world in porn production. Surely there is a tale of a performer, somewhere, who is superior because they are uncut. That's one of the arguments, isn't it?

"And so these pros are suffering today?"

You'd have to ask them, the effects of circumcision on any one individual will be unique. I would expect that those who are suffering the most, those whose circumcision caused more than the expected amount of damage, would be screened out.

"Do they really not have anyone uncut to star in these movies?"

Some do some don't but as you noted most American produced porn will include circumcision used American actors. Porn produced elsewhere rarely does.

"Have you ever seen anyone draw one that was uncut?"

Sure, look at any Renaissance piece of art. Or anything modern that wasn't produced in the US.

"Wouldn't you have to explain the drawing to most people?"

Circumcision is uncommon in most of the world, they'd know what a normal penis looks like. Why would you have to explain it?

"The USA dominates the rest of the world in porn production. Surely there is a tale of a performer, somewhere, who is superior because they are uncut."

Sorry, I am not a consumer so I wouldn't know.

"That's one of the arguments, isn't it?"

It depends on what you mean.

There was that time I was reading an article sent by a friend and realized that the circumcision goofballs in here, citing imaginary "data" from vanity authors and accusing casual commenters of going "out of your way working to ensure that millions of penises keep getting butchered," are the social justice warriors so commonly seen in other discussions:

Hannah’s sense was that the school was “trying to please this other side so they felt like they were heard, because they thought it was important to bring the community along with us by letting them speak their minds, but it just ended up being unsafe for my child because they were allowing this discriminatory discourse to happen.”

Got it? If you disagree with them, and speak your mind, then you are guilty of making a school unsafe for a child because of your “discriminatory discourse.”

Yeah... That.

"... Have you ever seen anyone draw one that was uncut? Wouldn't you have to explain the drawing to most people?"

Yes. (NSFW comic) Yes to the second question, too, based on what that comic aims at.

I find the single most convincing argument against circumcision to be that the line of skin around the penis where the foreskin was removed is thin and fragile and always seems to be the first point of failure during extended masturbation. This is true, I've uh, read it on the internet.

So in the name of being anti-barbaric we are going to embark on a mission of social change to make the next generation of American boys BIGGER JACKOFFS!

Well at least it will spare our families the shame of our sons growing up to be porn stars.

Way down under in Melbourne, Australia is the story of a tightly done male adult circumcision of the ultimate kind. You’ll never believe the story … or will you?
Around 17 years ago, I became aware that circumcision was of interest to me. How to go about it ? What an embarrassment, how to sneak into a Doctor cost etc. I became more and more frustrated, as I knew I wanted it done. Australia is a hot climate too and I wanted a slick model penis, not a sock, at half mast. I had learnt from school that I was bisexual, I would use the odd opportunity to check out and occasionally talk another classmate into pulling down his pants and letting me give him oral sex. Both circumcised and uncircumcised, although I didn’t know what circumcision was then, I was only ten ! We start pretty early in Australia !
Anyway back to circumcision. I became more and more, frustrated and there didn’t seem to be a way of resolving the issue. Then I had a bereavement in the family. If I couldn’t solve this simple problem… It was a question of honor.
So what I did may surprise many. I am an everyday kind of bloke, a family now, job and the rest of it. So don’t be too shocked. Where there is a will there is a way.
I had been researching on the net at the time and I was reading and seeing pics of tribal and African circumcisions. There are great stories of the Tuli in the Philippines and also teens putting their penis on a log with a piece of twine and the elder slicing off the foreskin, high and tight, leaving a terrific red patched scar.
I decided after much viewing and research that this is what I wanted. I was a bit far from the Philippines and Africa, so this is what happened.
One long weekend when there was a Public holiday, I decided to have a go myself. This is not for the faint hearted.
On the Friday night, I did the usual, a few beers then came home. I opened a bottle of white wine and proceeded to watch an x-rated video. Of course with a long ring barked cock or two. After a while I was ready. A bit of popper amyl and I was more or less ready to have a go. At circumcision.
I knew the skin would be sensitive, so I had purchased from an adult store, delay spray. This I think had lidocaine like when you get Suntan mozzie burns cream from the supermarket only stronger. I applied it to my foreskin until the end of my cock felt number, than usual. Another drink and some poppers, a look at the tightly taut scarred cocks on the TV screen and it was time. Time to join the rest of my male brothers on the planet with a permanently forever nude glans and a stripped pointed helmety penis. Intention purple glans to always lead the way, from that night on or else.
I sized and drew a line working out where to cut and checked this out numerous times. Another drink, more amyl and an inspection of the video playing and I was ready.
I took a very sharp pair a medium size sewing scissors and sat down. Carefully lining them up, I very slowly, and I mean really really slowly, put them through the line on the foreskin I had drawn. I had already pulled the foreskin as hard as I ever could in front of my glans.
Slowly but surely I got the job done. Everything dropped back behind my glans and my foreskin lay on a tissue. A dream come true. I couldn’t believe my absolute relief and satisfaction.
All this time later nearly two decades on, I am still happy. A couple a days later, I consulted a friendly doctor and some stitches were added on the quiet to complete the job.
Result is I have a very tightly circumcised penis, with absolutely no frenulum or foreskin.
The absolute tightest male circumcision possible, for myself and any partner I should choose, whether it be female or male. Amazingly there is no two tone scar and the circumcision join is one color and height. No different levels of skin height or misalignment.

Nature really does like male circumcision.

Way down under in Melbourne, Australia is the story of a tightly done male adult circumcision of the ultimate kind. You’ll never believe the story … or will you?

Around 17 years ago, I became aware that circumcision was of interest to me. How to go about it ? What an embarrassment, how to sneak into a Doctor cost etc. I became more and more frustrated, as I knew I wanted it done. Australia is a hot climate too and I wanted a slick model penis, not a sock, at half mast. I had learnt from school that I was bisexual, I would use the odd opportunity to check out and occasionally talk another classmate into pulling down his pants and letting me give him oral sex. Both circumcised and uncircumcised, although I didn’t know what circumcision was then, I was only ten ! We start pretty early in Australia !

Anyway back to circumcision. I became more and more, frustrated and there didn’t seem to be a way of resolving the issue. Then I had a bereavement in the family. If I couldn’t solve this simple problem… It was a question of honor.

So what I did may surprise many. I am an everyday kind of bloke, a family now, job and the rest of it. So don’t be too shocked. Where there is a will there is a way.

I had been researching on the net at the time and I was reading and seeing pics of tribal and African circumcisions. There are great stories of the Tuli in the Philippines and also teens putting their penis on a log with a piece of twine and the elder slicing off the foreskin, high and tight, leaving a terrific red patched scar.

I decided after much viewing and research that this is what I wanted. I was a bit far from the Philippines and Africa, so this is what happened.

One long weekend when there was a Public holiday, I decided to have a go myself. This is not for the faint hearted.

On the Friday night, I did the usual, a few beers then came home. I opened a bottle of white wine and proceeded to watch an x-rated video. Of course with a long ring barked cock or two. After a while I was ready. A bit of popper amyl and I was more or less ready to have a go. At circumcision.

I knew the skin would be sensitive, so I had purchased from an adult store, delay spray. This I think had lidocaine like when you get Suntan mozzie burns cream from the supermarket only stronger. I applied it to my foreskin until the end of my cock felt number, than usual. Another drink and some poppers, a look at the tightly taut scarred cocks on the TV screen and it was time. Time to join the rest of my male brothers on the planet with a permanently forever nude glans and a stripped pointed helmety penis. Intention purple glans to always lead the way, from that night on or else.

I sized and drew a line working out where to cut and checked this out numerous times. Another drink, more amyl and an inspection of the video playing and I was ready.

I took a very sharp pair a medium size sewing scissors and sat down. Carefully lining them up, I very slowly, and I mean really really slowly, put them through the line on the foreskin I had drawn. I had already pulled the foreskin as hard as I ever could in front of my glans.

Slowly but surely I got the job done. Everything dropped back behind my glans and my foreskin lay on a tissue. A dream come true. I couldn’t believe my absolute relief and satisfaction.

All this time later nearly two decades on, I am still happy. A couple a days later, I consulted a friendly doctor and some stitches were added on the quiet to complete the job.

Result is I have a very tightly circumcised penis, with absolutely no frenulum or foreskin.
The absolute tightest male circumcision possible, for myself and any partner I should choose, whether it be female or male.

Amazingly there is no two tone scar and the circumcision join is one color and height. No different levels of skin height or misalignment.

Nature really does like circumcision.