Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

[Kathyd]

Another thought: If it were possible to perform an operation to remove the taste buds from the tongue which respond to sweet tastes, do you think we should do it? Sugar is very unhealthy and most of us eat way too much of it. I recall from my high school biology that these particular taste buds are on the tip of the tongue. Perhaps all young children should have an operation to remove the tip of the tongue? Good idea?

No, of course not. That would be crazy. But of course that is because your example is hardly apropos. The tongue is functional tissue that serves a necessary purpose - tasting food. So removing the tip as a means of reducing sugar intake would be insane - an important function, tasting sweets, would be eliminated forever. No one would suggest doing something so radical to solve a problem that can just be remedied by controlling your diet.

The foreskin, however, really has no useful purpose, and its only function appears to be enhancing sexual pleasure. Removing it will not lead to any loss of important functionality - guys can still have sex and reproduce quite nicely without it. In fact, I'd think we'd all agree that guys don't need any extra excuses to have sex, do they? Circumcised guys obviously have sex just as much as uncut guys do, so removing it does not really affect anything but the pleasure, which imho is not nearly as important as just having a healthy sex life which is compatible with God's teachings.

Of course, you could argue, as many of my friends do, that it's not fair for me to reduce his sexual pleasure just to curtail how much he masturbates, but I feel comfortable with my decision for the following reasons:

1) His masturbating was becoming a bit perverted. If it wasn't, and he was only doing it occasionally, like maybe a few times a month, I might think differently. But he's doing it almost daily and like I said I've found porn on his computer. In light of this I think it would be prudent to do something to curtail it, before it gets even more out of hand and I start finding even more outlandish stuff on his hard drive.

2) In this day and age I think it's likely, even probable, that our sons and/or daughters are going to engage in premarital sex, and imho 'natural' sex is simply too intense for them to handle responsibly. Their young bodies are too full of hormones, they are too passionate, and they lack the experience and self-control to think about the long-term implications of their actions. I mean, I couldn't imagine having the kind of sex I do with my husband when I was a teenager, I'd probably have had sex every day if I could! And as a mother I feel it's imperative that I do anything I can to prevent that, or at least to discourage it as much as possible. Because nothing would screw up his life more than getting some teen girl pregnant. And I know it's going to be difficult enough to prevent it from happening, or even to minimize it if it ever does, and just imagining my son having the ability to give some teen girl the kind of toe-curling orgasms his father gives me chills me to the bone.

3) He might get an infection and have to have his foreskin removed later anyways, so wouldn't it be best to just do it now, before he he's had sex, so that neither he or his partner will ever know anything different anyways? If I don't do it and he develops a bad infection after getting married, then he and his partner would know the difference, and it would probably adversely affect their sex life. But if I just do it now, it won't affect them in the least. I mean, I'm honestly am of the opinion, at least concerning this issue, that 'what they don't know won't hurt them'. They will never know what they're missing, and I'm sure they can alleviate any issues the same way I did with my ex, by using mega amounts of lube! So I feel it's just better to do it now, rather than later, that way any reduction in pleasure will not be an issue because they won't even be aware of it.

3- No one cares if your kid gets circed, BUT if you are going to do it, do it as a newborn

I do agree with that, Lucky. That is absolutely true. My sister told me that it's much better to do it when they're infants, so they will not remember the pain. And after watching that video (with the sound) I definitely agree. The baby was screaming madly, it sounded like he was choking on his own saliva, and then he went into shock and passed out for about a minute! Then he kept screaming again throughout the rest of the procedure. It would obviously be much better to do this when they are too young to remember it, for sure.

However, my sister told me that older boys can handle the pain better psychologically, because they understand what is going on, and she assured me that she's never heard of any cases of lasting trauma. She told me that after several minutes of recovery time, they are as good as new, and like any other traumatic experience, the whole affair quickly becomes a faint, almost unconscious, memory. And she said he would be back to his normal activities in just a few weeks. So I'm not worried.

[Steve3007]

The tongue is functional tissue that serves a necessary purpose - tasting food. So removing the tip as a means of reducing sugar intake would be insane - an important function, tasting sweets, would be eliminated forever.

Why is tasting sweets a more important function than feeling sexual pleasure? If you reduced the ability to taste sweet things would that result in malnutrition? No. It would probably result in less interest in eating sugar. In a society where we are surrounded by vast quantities of cheap, harmful, nutritionally unnecessary sugar that would be a good thing wouldn't it?

No one would suggest doing something so radical to solve a problem that can just be remedied by controlling your diet.

So why suggest doing something equally radical to solve a problem that can be remedied with regular washing, proper sex education and contraception?

The foreskin, however, really has no useful purpose, and its only function appears to be enhancing sexual pleasure.

Why do you regard the tasting of pleasant but nutritionally empty foods as a "useful function" but don't regard sexual pleasure as such? What's the difference? (Other than the fact that "scripture" doesn't proscribe the intake of sugar because it was written before the invention of Hershey bars.)

Removing it will not lead to any loss of important functionality - guys can still have sex and reproduce quite nicely without it.

Do you think reproduction is the only useful function of sex? If so, why do you have sex with your husband? Why do humans spend so much more time on sex than many other animals? In humans, sexual activity is about a whole lot more than simply combining our DNA.

1) His masturbating was becoming a bit perverted. If it wasn't, and he was only doing it occasionally, like maybe a few times a month, I might think differently. But he's doing it almost daily and like I said I've found porn on his computer.

You're conflating two different things here: the frequency and the pornography. The frequency is irrelevant unless he's doing it so much that it stops him from doing other important things, like eating or going to school. I'll repeat: Doing it daily is not abnormal for an adolescent boy. Unlike sugar it causes zero harm, provides valuable exercise and control of the relevant muscles and (I can tell you from experience) he will grow out of it.

I can sympathise more about the nature of the pornography that you've mentioned before. But if you're concerned, the thing to do there is talk to him about it. Explain why it makes you uncomfortable. For god's sake, don't try to solve the problem by chopping bits off his body! Circumcision for that reason really is as mad as amputating the end of the tongue because your child eats too much candy. We all know that the sane thing to do in that situation is to control the candy intake with education and the instilling of discipline, not surgery!

2) In this day and age I think it's likely, even probable, that our sons and/or daughters are going to engage in premarital sex, and imho 'natural' sex is simply too intense for them to handle responsibly.

If this really is a problem then the answer is education not mutilation.


In all honesty, when I read you explanations of the reasons why you're considering circumcision I can hardly believe what I'm reading. That's why I asked you if this attitude is common in your culture. If it is, then you've persuaded me to no longer be indifferent to male circumcision and instead to strongly oppose it. I think it's more appropriate to call it male genital mutilation (MGM) and treat it as seriously as FGM.

[Eduk]

I think it's more appropriate to call it male genital mutilation (MGM) and treat it as seriously as FGM.

Difference is that FGM is proven to cause long term problems with physical and mental well being but circumcision has not been proven to. So they are two very different things.
I think you are giving far too much weight to the stated reasons. For example was it not obvious from the first post that Kathyd will circumcise her child? As another example you could ask a person why they believed in religion A. They may give you many reasons. It is unlikely that they would say because they were brought up in a religion A community/family, but for the vast majority of people that is obviously the case. There aren't a huge number of Muslims in Christian families and vice versa.

[Steve3007]

Eduk:

I think the reasons that Kathyd states as to why she is considering circumcision are important, partly because they appear to be indicative of a general attitude. As I said to her, I can understand her concerns about the kinds of pornography her son is viewing. But if the general attitude is that the best way to solve a problem like that is not by talking about it and trying to understand, but by surgery, I find that really genuinely worrying.

Returning to the analogy with amputating the end of the tongue to curtail sugar intake: obviously we can all see that that is mad, if done for that reason.

[Eduk]

Yes but what if my religion/culture had tongue dismemberment as a right of passage ceremony. And I said it was to reduce the pleasure of sugar? You would think that mad (partly rightly). But that would be to ignore the bigger picture. For example it is not mad to wish to be an accepted and respected member of the community. If you need to chop your own tongue off to do that then so be it.

[Steve3007]

Well, that's an interesting wider point about cultural traditions and norms generally. There's very much a "we are where we are" attitude. Take alcohol, for example. It arguably does immense harm in our society, but it's too normal and ingrained in the culture to ban. It's often argued that if it wasn't already so ingrained and wasn't already legal then it would not stand a chance of becoming legal.

[Steve3007]

If tongue amputation had been a well known ritual with thousands of years of history in our societies then no doubt I would have had the same laisse faire attitude towards it that I had towards circumcision before Kathyd opened my eyes to the apparent attitudes of some people.

[Kathyd]

I think it's more appropriate to call it male genital mutilation (MGM) and treat it as seriously as FGM.

Difference is that FGM is proven to cause long term problems with physical and mental well being but circumcision has not been proven to. So they are two very different things.

Exactly, Eduk.

Unfortunately, this is something I've noticed in every circumcision debate. At some point someone will actually have the wherewithal to equate male circumcision with FGM. Sometimes they will even call male circumcision "MGM", as Steve did here, in order to falsely try to equate the two, when in fact they are completely different.

The difference is that there is absolutely no good reason to have a female circumcised. The only reason it is done is to try and subjugate females to their husbands or other patriarchal males by reducing their pleasure and ability to have sex. It's all about power and domination. There are no health or cleanliness benefits whatsoever. That is why it is properly called 'mutilation', female genital mutilation or 'FGM', and is why it is illegal in every civilized country.

With male circumcision, however, there are many well established reasons for doing it, whether you agree with them or not. First, there are allegedly many health benefits, such as a reduction in UTIs and AIDS, and then there are appearances issues, as most people think the circumcised penis just looks better. Then there are issues with cleanliness and infections, as it is often difficult to keep the foreskin clean. The point is that, whether you agree or not, there are many reasons to have a male circumcised besides a reduction in sexual pleasure, which is why it is perfectly legal in every country and is why it is called "circumcision", not "MGM".

Now, yes, I did say that one of the reasons I'm having my son circumcised is because of the reduction in pleasure, but that was only one of many reasons. There is no way I'd have him circumcised for that reason alone. That would be barbaric. It's just that as I tallied up all the reasons for and against, the reduction in sexual pleasure just happened to be one of many pluses, that's all. It was merely one variable in my decision, and I based it on my particular situation. The purpose was not to control him or his sex life, or to subjugate him, as it is with FGM.

So while "technically" the same kind of tissue is removed - removing the clitoral 'hood' is akin to removing the foreskin (they are both 'prepuce') - and while the end result is the same - a roughly equivalent reduction in pleasure - the difference is the reason why it's being removed. With girls, there is absolutely no good reason to chop up their genitals. Their genitalia do not pose any health or cleanliness issues, and there is no good reason to alter them. When girls are born, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with their genitalia, they do not need surgery to make them "better". The only reason it is done is for control, and it's leads to far more long-term health problems than male circumcision does.

With males, however, that is not the case. One can easily make the argument that there are all sorts of inherent functional issues with the foreskin that make removing it an attractive option. Perhaps this is related to the male genitalia being on the outside of the body, rather than inside, I'm not sure, but at any rate the fact is that there are many good medical and hygienic reasons to circumcise males. First, there are cleanliness issues, as the foreskin is hard to keep clean and often smells. Then, there are medical concerns, as the foreskin is prone to getting infected. All in all, it seems as if the circumcised penis definitely looks more attractive, smells better, and is infinitely cleaner. So since the only function of the foreskin appears to be sexual pleasure and nothing more, you can easily make the argument that it's just better to cut if off. So with males, the exact opposite is true. The only reason not to circumcise males is because of the reduction in sexual pleasure, while the only reason to circumcise females is a reduction in sexual pleasure. And that is why female circumcision is barbaric and is called "mutilation" and is illegal, while male circumcision is not "mutilation", is legal, and even has been considered part of "being civilized" historically.

But at any rate, I think it's incredibly disingenuous, and even barbaric, to try and equate FGM with male circumcision, and I think the discussion is best served if nobody goes there. I mean, FGM is still going on in parts of the world, and we are currently battling against this barbaric practice even as I speak. I think it's a great disservice and dishonor to all the victims of FGM, and all of those fighting against it, to suggest that it's the equivalent of male circumcision.

[Sy Borg]

Hmm, surgically altering children so as to limit and control their behaviour.

[Steve3007]

At some point someone will actually have the wherewithal to equate male circumcision with FGM. Sometimes they will even call male circumcision "MGM", as Steve did here, in order to falsely try to equate the two, when in fact they are completely different.

If you explain your reasons on other forums in the same way that you explain them here then I can see how you manage to persuade people to use this kind of language. I would not have used it myself if you had not done a very good job of persuading me to do so.

It's just that as I tallied up all the reasons for and against, the reduction in sexual pleasure just happened to be one of many pluses, that's all.

Re-read that sentence back to yourself and think about what you're saying. Think again about the comparison with chopping off the tip of the tongue to reduce the pleasure of eating harmful candy. You haven't yet succeeded in explaining why the two are different. The only difference is that candy really is unambiguously unhealthy and nutritionally empty.

The purpose was not to control him or his sex life, or to subjugate him, as it is with FGM.

You've spend several posts explaining in detail the way in which control of your son's imagined future sex life is precisely why you're doing it. You've taken a lot of trouble to explain that control of your son's sex life is precisely why you're doing it.

First, there are cleanliness issues, as the foreskin is hard to keep clean and often smells. Then, there are medical concerns, as the foreskin is prone to getting infected.

As I've said many times now, in the modern world of easily accessible hot running water and heated houses in which people no longer sew themselves into their clothes for the winter it is very easy to keep clean. If it's a choice between educating your son about how to wash a particular part of his body or chopping it off, go for education. If it's a choice between educating your son about sex, contraception and treating girls with respect, or chopping it off, go for the education. If, in your opinion, a part of your son's body looks ugly, don't chop it off!

[Eduk]

But Steve if you tackle a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that has no effect then what have you actually achieved at the end of the day?
Circumcision actually seems like rather a good solution to me. Imagine if it was changed to something which did have an effect!

[Steve3007]

So, Eduk. What you seem to be saying is that the alleged problems to which circumcision is proposed as a solution (infection, masturbation, pornography, the possibility of future promiscuity and the opinion that the foreskin is ugly) are not actually problems, but since circumcision has no effect anyway, then it doesn't matter?

Maybe. Do you think we should take that approach to all ineffective solutions to non-existent problems? Doesn't the general attitude that this seems to indicate concern you? If I think a part of my child is ugly, cut it off. If I don't want to talk to my child about the disturbing pornography that he's viewing, I chop off a bit of his body in the belief that this will cure the problem and save me from having to talk to him about it. Is this healthy, do you think? Don't you think it will engender an attitude that things that are actually genuine problems have to be faced?

[Steve3007]

( I mean "don't have to be faced".)

[Eduk]

Well. Yes in an ideal world no one would have unreasonable beliefs. And everyone would proportion belief to evidence.
But perhaps people do, just not nice and logically laid out.
Much in the same way many people can answer a moral question but couldn't show you their working out.
Perhaps the ineffective solution to the non problem is the same.
I'm not saying it is by the way. Perhaps all non problems should be fixed with effective solutions. Obviously short term that would be a lot worse. But perhaps long term it would be better.

[Steve3007]

Eduk, if they really were all non-problems then you may be right. But they usually aren't. In this case, it sounds like some of the problems that Kathyd is hoping to cure with surgery genuinely need to be addressed, like the use of disturbing pornography. The ineffective solution can sometimes makes people think that they don't need to find proper solutions to genuine problems. That's why when ineffective solutions to real health problems like homeopathy or Reiki therapy are used to the exclusion of genuine solutions, health services have to warn against them. That latter one was actually recommended to a relative of mine who has cancer as an alternative treatment.