• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should male circumcision be banned?

Should male circumcision be banned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 21.2%

  • No

    Votes: 41 78.8%

  • Yes, but allow a clause for religious beliefs.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
MistressNomad said:
Nope. Time to brush up on your anatomy.

Circumcision applies to foreskin. The clitoral hood is the female foreskin.

This is one form of practiced FGM. There are other more extreme forms that remove more tissue. And there are some that remove the entire vulva, including the clitoris. The term "FGM" encompasses a wide variety of practices. Some of which are EXACTLY THE SAME as male circumcision, in terms of what tissues they remove.

Removing only the clitoral hood would decrease sensation, in EXACTLY the same way male circumcision does, and for EXACTLY the same reasons. It would not completely end it, because the clitoris would still be there. But the effect would be the same.

And guess why we started circ'ing men in the Western world. Yes, that's right, to reduce their sexual pleasure and try to curb them away from masturbating.

It doesn't necessarily work, but that's the intent.

Circumcising women is a form of FGM. It has the exact same purpose and effect as circumcising men. It is the exact same tissue with the exact same purpose - just on a smaller glans. That's the only real difference.

And when it's women you find it horrible. And when it's men you find it acceptable. Why?
Click to expand...

It hasn't affected my sexual desire. In fact, all my wife has to do is get naked right in front of me and I'm immediately ready to go.
 
JohnWOlin said:
1. Yeah it caused me so much trauma I have a 6 month old daughter
2. Lol what?
3. As I stated before, my dick is sticking straight up and ready to go just in cast 50% of the day. If nothing else it made me dysfunction in a totally different way by making sure I'm flexing and ready all the time.
4. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure a lady is gonna want to stick this in there mouth without a bunch of extra turkey gobbler skin that makes it "suck" anymore than it already does.
5. So you are saying if I wasn't circumcised I would just nut faster? Hey I guess that helps me out doesn't help anybody else out.
6. You know what? I haven't heard one horror story from any guy saying "Omg I will never have a bunch of useless dick skin again my life is ruined RUINNNNED!!!"
Click to expand...

1. There is proven bonding trauma that occurs in many male infants after circumcision. Since you have nothing to compare it against, your unrelated anecdote is pointless.
2. Removing too much or too little skin affects as much as 10% of circ'ed males and sometimes requires reconstructive surgery due to pain and disfigurment. This can't be prevented when circ'ing infants, because the growth of the penis is unpredictable. And that's only one of the risks.
3. Anecdote =/= study. And again, you have nothing to compare it against.
4. That's your own basless opinion (having never had foreskin in your sexually active life, I assume). I have no preference. I'm educated enough to understand what a penis looks like in its natural state, and my cultural bias has been erased by the reality of seeing what it's like for myself. It's really a pretty ingenius mechanism and it makes some things work better (which is WHY IT'S THERE).
5. No, not necessarily. There is no evidence that uncirc'ed men orgasm faster than circ'ed. However, anorgasmia is more common in circ'ed men.
6. I have. Why do you think the plastic surgery industry has started offering foreskin reconstruction? It's a demand-driven industry.
 
SPC said:
It hasn't affected my sexual desire. In fact, all my wife has to do is get naked right in front of me and I'm immediately ready to go.
Click to expand...

Way to not answer my question. I'll ask again.

Some forms of FGM are identical to male circumcision. Same tissue being removed, same effects. Why is it bad when it's done non-consensually to women, but good when it's done non-consensually to men?
 
MistressNomad said:
Way to not answer my question. I'll ask again.

Some forms of FGM are identical to male circumcision. Same tissue being removed, same effects. Why is it bad when it's done non-consensually to women, but good when it's done non-consensually to men?
Click to expand...

It's not a health issue in women like it is in men.
 
MistressNomad said:
Nope. Time to brush up on your anatomy.

Circumcision applies to foreskin. The clitoral hood is the female foreskin.

This is one form of practiced FGM. There are other more extreme forms that remove more tissue. And there are some that remove the entire vulva, including the clitoris. The term "FGM" encompasses a wide variety of practices. Some of which are EXACTLY THE SAME as male circumcision, in terms of what tissues they remove.

Removing only the clitoral hood would decrease sensation, in EXACTLY the same way male circumcision does, and for EXACTLY the same reasons. It would not completely end it, because the clitoris would still be there. But the effect would be the same.

And guess why we started circ'ing men in the Western world. Yes, that's right, to reduce their sexual pleasure and try to curb them away from masturbating.

It doesn't necessarily work, but that's the intent.

Circumcising women is a form of FGM. It has the exact same purpose and effect as circumcising men. It is the exact same tissue with the exact same purpose - just on a smaller glans. That's the only real difference.

And when it's women you find it horrible. And when it's men you find it acceptable. Why?
Click to expand...

Really none of your business, right?
 
SPC said:
It's not a health issue in women like it is in men.
Click to expand...

It's not a health issue in men. And like I said, some women with larger hoods do benefit from cleaning under them. You're dodging.
 
1Perry said:
Really none of your business, right?
Click to expand...

I think it's everyone's business that it's legal to cut off the body parts of infants. That's like saying civil rights for blacks and gays aren't my business because I'm not either.
 
MistressNomad said:
I think it's everyone's business that it's legal to cut off the body parts of infants. That's like saying civil rights for blacks and gays aren't my business because I'm not either.
Click to expand...

Not your body. Isn't that how the arguement goes?
 
1Perry said:
Not your body. Isn't that how the arguement goes?
Click to expand...

Yes. Which is why I think it's wrong for someone else to decide to remove something from an infant's body. If they want to do that when they're able to consent, be my guest.
 
MistressNomad said:
Yes. Which is why I think it's wrong for someone else to decide to remove something from an infant's body. If they want to do that when they're able to consent, be my guest.
Click to expand...

The moment they are born we remove something from their body.
 
1Perry said:
The moment they are born we remove something from their body.
Click to expand...

Now you're talking about anti-natalism, which is a rather different concept all together from a human being who is already here.

That human being is already here at the point when they're circ'ed, and they already have a right to not being inflicted with non-consensual bodily harm. If the parents wanted to cut off their earlobes, they'd be locked up and the kid would be put up for adoption. But one could argue that removing the earlobes has fewer potential harms than circumcision. So why is it not ok?
 
1Perry said:
We will take your word for it. I posted the article.
Click to expand...

Here is a source to back what I've said. IMO, Howe is over-the-top in regards to some of his others criticisms for circumcision. But his critique of the Africa studies is exactly what I have heard reverberated from many other researchers.


HIV infection and circumcision: cutting through the hyperbole
LINKING CIRCUMCISION AND HIV/AIDS
Against this historical backdrop, the HIV/AIDS pandemic is merely the latest incarnation of a 130-year-old pattern of circumcision promotion by a small, but very influential, portion of the medical community in circumcising first world countries.7-12 The idea that circumcision can prevent AIDS was developed by Fink, a long-time advocate of mass circumcision. Fink introduced the hypothesis in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine,13 which he later admitted was based purely on speculation rather than hard data.14 Seeking to capitalise on public anxiety over the spread of HIV, other advocates of mass circumcision sought to develop Fink’s hypothesis by producing geographical analyses of Africa, which studied maps rather than men, which they argued could be used to legitimise mass circumcision in the US. Using decades-old anthropological data and extrapolating HIV incidence rates, an association between the foreskin and HIV was suggested.15 Next came a number of observational studies suggesting an association between the foreskin and an increased risk of HIV infection in men, mostly in Kenya, who exhibited high-risk behaviours.16, 17 These studies compared disparate populations that were distinguishable on other relevant independent variables, such as religion, social class, tribal affiliation, sexual practices and presence of genital ulcer disease. Subsequently, the degree of association of the initial studies and the infectivity attributed to the foreskin could not be replicated in the same population by the same team of investigators.18

Partner studies in which associations were suggested between the HIV status of a woman and the circumcision status of her sexual partner have overall failed to support an association.19, 20 Likewise, general population surveys have, as a whole, failed to demonstrate a strong association. 19, 20 It is only when limiting the analysis to African studies and using values obtained following multivariate analysis that an association can be extracted from these studies.21 One of the challenges in interpreting these various observational studies is determining whether circumcision status may be a risk factor or a marker for other risk factors. The fundamental flaw in multivariate analysis is that to be accurate it is assumed that the variables controlled for are independent of one another.Many of these variables, including sexual, religious and hygienic practices, as well as economic status, appear to be linked to tribal affiliation, which in turn is strongly correlated with circumcision status.22 These multiple, highly-correlated, confounding factors influencing sexual behaviours and HIV susceptibility create a co-linearity problem that can make these regression models unstable and yield unreliable results. Consequently, without more reliable data it is irresponsible to place blame for HIV’s spread on normal penile anatomy.

Many of the studies suggesting an association between circumcision status and HIV infection tested a wide assortment of factors, fishing for significant risk factors without making the proper adjustments for multiple comparisons. As a result, many of the positive associations asserted could be due merely to oversampling. Meta-analysis has demonstrated significant between-study variability independent of the vagaries of geography, study design and circumcision’s prevalence within a community,19 and has suggested the possibility of publication bias, whereby studies failing to find a correlation between circumcision status and HIV infection are either never submitted for publication or are passed over by editors.20 Observational studies, when compared to randomised controlled trials, have been shown to consistently overestimate odds ratios by 30%.23 In light of this unexplained heterogeneity and possible publication bias, any conclusion based on these observational studies should be viewed with scepticism.24

On the basis of weak scientific evidence, many circumcision proponents have called for universal circumcision in Africa.2-4

Although the next logical step in this scientific inquiry might be a randomised controlled trial, problems exist with such a project. A trial involving permanent amputation of a body part, the benefit of which is largely unproven, is fraught with ethical pitfalls and would not be likely to be approved in a developed nation. The subject would certainly need to be fully informed, and the potential for manipulation of the information provided would need to be prevented. Studies have already demonstrated that pro-circumcision propaganda can effectively influence attitudes regarding circumcision.25-30 Despite the clear ethical contraindications, two randomised controlled trials to determine if a relationship exists between HIV status and circumcision to be undertaken in Africa have received funding from the US National Institutes of Health. Both studies are markedly overpowered so as to find a statistically significant difference where a significant clinical difference may not exist.31-33 A report in the lay literature suggests that compliance following randomisation may pose a serious threat to the study’s completion.34 Therefore, the subsequent analysis must employ an intent-to-treat approach, as otherwise serious bias would be introduced into the results.
Click to expand...
 
MistressNomad said:
Yes. Which is why I think it's wrong for someone else to decide to remove something from an infant's body. If they want to do that when they're able to consent, be my guest.
Click to expand...

It's funny how some people have a problem with circumcising a baby, but don't have a problem with killing it in the womb.
 
Well being a man with a circumsized penis and after reading what all the dick experts here have to say, it is clear to me now that I am a traumatized person that needs to get plastic surgery for his junk and that my mother is a bad person. Thank you all for enlightening me! Make sure to spread the word of how my entire life has been a lie, and any other person's life has been a lie as well with this same horrible condition.
 
SPC said:
It's funny how some people have a problem with circumcising a baby, but don't have a problem with killing it in the womb.
Click to expand...

It's not a baby at that point. There in lies the problem with your argument.
 
MistressNomad said:
Now you're talking about anti-natalism, which is a rather different concept all together from a human being who is already here.
Click to expand...

They are already here when we cut away the placenta.

That human being is already here at the point when they're circ'ed, and they already have a right to not being inflicted with non-consensual bodily harm. If the parents wanted to cut off their earlobes, they'd be locked up and the kid would be put up for adoption. But one could argue that removing the earlobes has fewer potential harms than circumcision. So why is it not ok?
Click to expand...

But yet they can poke holes in them. You see a harm. The overwhelming vast majority see a benefit.
 
1Perry said:
They are already here when we cut away the placenta.

But yet they can poke holes in them. You see a harm. The overwhelming vast majority see a benefit.
Click to expand...

Uh, a planceta isn't part of a person. But anyway...

Science sees a harm. No one who had it done as an infant as anything to compare it against. Those who had it done in adulthood are lukewarm, and typically had it done out of rare cases of medical necessity, which sort of makes it pointless to complain about.

An infant may or may not (but almost always not) have such a problem, changing the context of this debate considerable.

I really don't understand why this particular kind of non-consensual surgery is ok, and all others are not. It has been shown to you over and over that the "benefits" are almost entirely myths.

For the record, I'm against infant ear piercing too. I find that somewhat less heinous, since it can heal. But I still don't think it's right.
 
This practice began rooted in Religion and in Africa it is a cultural ritual in the West it is based on false claims of it being healthier or some such nonsense.

Bottom line is if a woman has freedom of choice over her body every male should have the same right, a personal choice. But for Mom and Dad to do it to a newborn I see as a bit too much. But this is a free country.
 
SPC said:
Sure it is. It's just as alive as it is when it is circumsized.
Click to expand...

...despite every single piece of evidence being to the contrary.

Your opinion here is about as rational as your opinion on circumcision. I see a pattern.
 
Here is a well known biology professors take on it:

Something has stirred up the anti-circumcision brigade : Pharyngula
I've found out. It seems Russell Crowe had a twitter tantrum over circumcision. He's against it. So am I. But apparently, I am not sufficiently angry about circumcision, and I belittled people who make it an obsession. I'm not going to apologize for that; I consider circumcision to be needless cosmetic surgery and a barbaric practice, and I'm not going to condone it, but neither am I going to go off the deep end like that guy and consider my life ruined by it. A majority of American males have been circumcised, and we're a randy, raunchy, sexed-up lot who don't seem to be suffering from an epidemic of sexual inadequacy. Well, maybe eident9 is, but one frustrated guy does not an epidemic make.

Now Salon has followed up with an article that suggests that circumcision may actually have some health benefits. I am not impressed. They cite a couple of incomplete epidemiological studies in African populations for HIV infection, and they come up with some astounding figures: a 50-60% reduction in infection rates. Wow, with that kind of advantage…sign me up.

However, these are deeply flawed studies. None of them were completed: they all abandoned the protocol and stopped the research as soon as preliminary results gave them positive values. This is like shooting craps and announcing that all your dice throws were practice…until you get a good roll, and then, yeah, that was the real deal. That one counts.

They all overstate their results. That 50-60% reduction was in relative rate, in comparison across the two groups. The actual calculated protection in absolute terms conferred by circumcision was a 2% reduction in the likelihood of infection. That doesn't dazzle me, either, and given that the studies were terminated when they got their best results, I'm not persuaded.

And finally, give me a plausible mechanism for how circumcision would achieve these remarkable gains. Tell me how it is supposed to work. If it's something to do with hygiene, it seems to me that better sex and health education should have the same or better effect than lopping off bits of skin.

So to my crackpot complainer, I say no apologies. I also say as I always have that I oppose circumcision, think it is a pointless and petty bit of suffering to put children through and ought to be discouraged, but I also don't think it's as hideously damaging as the obsessive nuts want to claim. Also, in the context of the original post, I consider it a prime example of selfish privilege to invade discussions of female genital mutilation, which does cause serious sexual and medical problems, with demands that we pay more attention to the lesser concerns of males getting lightly scarred penises.
Click to expand...
 
MistressNomad said:
Uh, a planceta isn't part of a person. But anyway...

Science sees a harm. No one who had it done as an infant as anything to compare it against. Those who had it done in adulthood are lukewarm, and typically had it done out of rare cases of medical necessity, which sort of makes it pointless to complain about.

An infant may or may not (but almost always not) have such a problem, changing the context of this debate considerable.

I really don't understand why this particular kind of non-consensual surgery is ok, and all others are not. It has been shown to you over and over that the "benefits" are almost entirely myths.

For the record, I'm against infant ear piercing too. I find that somewhat less heinous, since it can heal. But I still don't think it's right.
Click to expand...

I had a friend who was circumcised later in life. He worked at a convenience store/gas station and one of his other friends came in after hearing he had just had the surgery. The friends girlfriend came in wearing a tube top and walked behind a shelf where only my friend who had just had the surgery could see her....and pulled her tube top down. OUCH!
 
scourge99 said:
Here is a source to back what I've said. IMO, Howe is over-the-top in regards to some of his others criticisms for circumcision. But his critique of the Africa studies is exactly what I have heard reverberated from many other researchers.
Click to expand...

Interesting read but that appears to be an advocy group.

The idea that circumcision can prevent AIDS was developed by Fink, a long-time advocate of mass circumcision.

Nobody is argueing that it can prevent AIDS. The arguement is that it lessens the chance of getting AIDS.
 
SPC said:
I had a friend who was circumcised later in life. He worked at a convenience store/gas station and one of his other friends came in after hearing he had just had the surgery. The friends girlfriend came in wearing a tube top and walked behind a shelf where only my friend who had just had the surgery could see her....and pulled her tube top down. OUCH!
Click to expand...

LOL

haha that's awesome
 
1Perry said:
Interesting read but that appears to be an advocy group.

The idea that circumcision can prevent AIDS was developed by Fink, a long-time advocate of mass circumcision.

Nobody is argueing that it can prevent AIDS. The arguement is that it lessens the chance of getting AIDS.
Click to expand...

The only parts we care about are the criticisms of the "circumcision reduces HIV" studies. Care to tackle that or will you continue to dodge and dance by citing irrelevant portions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom