Should we circumcise?
My wife and I are trying to have a baby. One of the biggest concerns we have if it is a boy is circumcision. I am circumcised and my first reaction is to say "Well I wouldn't go back so it is the right choice". But unfortunately there is more to it than that. Circumcision started, in my mind, to remove sexual pleasure from the male because sex was the road to sin and only for reproduction and should not be enjoyed. Many nerves are removed from circumcision and I have heard sex is more pleasurable for males not circumcised, but unfortunately that is hard to know for sure.
Then there is the idea that it is a part of our culture now and completely acceptable. But what is it really other than male genital mutilation? They say that is is healthier, but I have also heard that the data for that claim is inconclusive.
Female circumcision disgust me and yet many cultures practice it. To them it is normal. I am sure that uncircumcised females in those cultures have "ugly" vaginas to them just as a lot of women have told me that an uncircumcised penis is "ugly".
I have seen a circumcision and it is horrifying. I dont know if I should do this to my future son. There is the part of me that thinks it is normal and I should. Then there is the part of me that sees it as another brutal religious act setup by an ancient brutal god to remove our sexuality that we, for some reason, still practice like idiots. Then we go through all this trouble to "prove" it is healthy to mutilate sex organs to justify the insane act.
What are some of your thoughts on this?
Tags: circumcision, mutilation
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Claire Couch on -
Depends on what part gets tattooed, really, doesn't it?
Since the topic is genital modification, well, you can't exactly assume..
-
Permalink Reply by Dogly on
-
Jaret, the women who say they find normal penises "gross" choose men with surgically minimized penises. Women who like more sensitive - normal- penises would be unlikely to tell that to a circumcised man. People may get used to unnatural appearances. Many men prefer women with high, hard, globular silicon breasts. Other men like real breasts.
I'm using the words I have deliberately. They may shock. Yet, cutting important parts off infants no longer shocks anyone. Why? We too often hide reality behind our cleansing language. We are talking about sexual mutilation - not circumcision. Isn't that just Latin for "cutting around"?
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Holm on -
No, let him decide to get circumsised when he gets older. There really is no need for circumcision.
-
Permalink Reply by diggerbanks on -
^^This. It really shouldn't be your choice.
Health reasons are spurious.
Cosmetic reasons are simply wrong-headed.
Tradition reasons are a cop-out.
-
Permalink Reply by Lewal on -
I'd have to say yes just based on a quick look at the pros and cons. Potential health benefits alone win me over, because the kid's not going to remember it you know? Small price to pay for future inconvenience. Consider it a bonus mod.
Don't think of him as a baby, think of him as your best bud 20 years later. It's not that big a deal, but you might as well do the guy a solid.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
You might be doing a solid to one of his sex partners down the road as well.
-
Permalink Reply by diggerbanks on
-
Eh? A poo?
-
Permalink Reply by Dogly on
-
C. Lewal, based on " a quick look" you would vote to mutilate this man's baby? No need to guess your condition is there?
-
Permalink Reply by Lewal on
-
Sure, the cons are too slight. I'm not gonna dwell on any extra-sentimental squabble knowing that. Granted, the pros are slight too. I can't be convinced the lack of circumcision is better, that would be-- uh, what's a good word? Superfluous? Just damn silly-- but I can sure be convinced it matters very little.
-
Permalink Reply by peter edmead on -
You make good sense!
If some have the idea that it is "part of our culture now" to be circumcised - they should take note of the estimate made by the World Health Organization (WHO) - where they estimate that 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised, of whom 68 percent are Muslim. So it is not really part of the majority culture in the "world wide" sense.
The Wikipedia entry makes an interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
I personally think that it an awful practice of mutilation against an individual who is too young to give their consent. I am just so glad my parents did not do it to me - luckily, here in the UK (and Europe) it is a practice that is falling with less than 20% males circumcised - the complete opposite figure to the USA.
It is also interesting to note comments from this Wikipedia reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision - and confirms my view that the male foreskin has to be there for a good reason!
"O'Hara and O'Hara (researchers) found that women with intact partners reported higher likeliness of orgasms and a reduction in vaginal dryness. They conclude "women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis" and argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often".
Enough said!
What's new today
Forum
Friend doesn't believe in dinosaurs.
Started by Redlilly Pond in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! 5 minutes ago. 32 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 6 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
