Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[metis]

Obviously you are not aware of the loss of sensitivity you have suffered because you have never experienced the full-fat version, so in that respect it is relative.

I never had any trouble along that line until I hit around 70, and that problem was in part because I'm a diabetic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was circumcised when a newborn, and it didn't affect me in the long run with the exception of being shorter.

It affected your height? Wow! That's a first.

 

[KWED]

Circumcision doesn't change sexual pleasure.

It certainly reduces sensitivity, so it must change it to some degree.
Also, surveys have shown that women get more pleasure from intercourse with an uncircumcised penis, because of how the foreskin facilitates movement within the vagina.

And is beneficial in societies with lower hygiene standards then the West, and also prevents irretetractable (tight) foreskin.

Neither of which are reasons to remove the foreskins of children in countries/communities/families with good hygiene, or who don't suffer from phimosis (about 99.5% of the population).

 

[metis]

It affected your height? Wow! That's a first.

I wasn't referring to height.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It did. It meant that you were permanently missing your foreskin. Obviously you are not aware of the loss of sensitivity you have suffered because you have never experienced the full-fat version, so in that respect it is relative.
It also makes masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable (which was likely the intended purpose).

On the flip side it also probably makes one last longer . So ladies, yay or nay on the question?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. It has no basis in protecting the woman. Only deadening pleasure.

FWIW, I oppose any medically unnecessary surgery
on people who are unable to give informed consent.
Gender is irrelevant in this. Do you agree or disagree?

Circumcision doesn't change sexual pleasure.

I've read accounts saying otherwise.
But even if you were correct, it's still wrong to make
such a decision for someone unable to consent.

And is beneficial in societies with lower hygiene standards then the West, and also prevents irretetractable (tight) foreskin.

Let those societies decide for themselves.
But that doesn't make it a moral choice here.

 

[KWED]

I think putting off circumcision until old enough for the child to decide would be rather uncomfortable the older one gets. Our son was circumcised at 4days.

IOW, you did it while he couldn't consent because you knew he wouldn't consent. I think we all need to think about what that implies.

As one gets older there are health benefits.

Not really. It's why the NHS won't do it without clinical necessity.

BTW, do you support the routine removal of any and all parts of the body from children, that might possibly cause health issues in later life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It certainly reduces sensitivity, so it must change it to some degree.
Also, surveys have shown that women get more pleasure from intercourse with an uncircumcised penis, because of how the foreskin facilitates movement within the vagina.

I have doubts about that claim. Have you seen female sex toys?

It may have more to do with the country of origin and the prevalence of circumcised versus non.


Edit: At least this one source says that you are terribly wrong. The magic words are "Sorry son, but I heard that it makes it taste better."

Sex and Male Circumcision: Women’s Preferences Across Different Cultures and Countries: A Systematic Review.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never had any trouble along that line until I hit around 70, and that problem was in part because I'm a diabetic.

If you've missed something, how could you be
so certain that you've not missed anything?

 

[KWED]

On the flip side it also probably makes one last longer . So ladies, yay or nay on the question?

Apparently, women are more concerned with efficient and sensitive foreplay than hours of banging away. Quality, not quantity seems to be the preference. And studies have shown that women find the act of intercourse more pleasurable with an uncircumcised penis because of the sliding motion facilitated by the foreskin.

Whatever the angle, there really seems to be no good reason for routine, ritual, non-medical circumcision.

 

[an anarchist]

as it doesn't prohibit sexual pleasure of the man

Circumcision doesn't change sexual pleasure

I disagree with you here. Rumor has it that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the male. I wouldn’t know personally, but rumor has it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, women are more concerned with efficient and sensitive foreplay than hours of banging away. Quality, not quantity seems to be the preference. And studies have shown that women find the act of intercourse more pleasurable with an uncircumcised penis because of the sliding morion facilitated by the foreskin.

Whatever the angle, there really seems to be no good reason for routine, ritual, non-medical circumcision.

Sorry, but I did find a very reliable source that disagrees with you.

I edited a post to include it.

 

[KWED]

Circumcision done correctly doesn't ruin sex, I don't know where people are coming up with that.

I am not aware that anyone makes that claim. However, it does reduce sensitivity and women get more pleasure from intercourse with an uncircumcised penis, according to studies.

And it has a lot of advantages.

No it doesn't.

 

[The Hammer]

FWIW, I oppose any medically unnecessary surgery
on people who are unable to give informed consent.
Gender is irrelevant in this. Do you agree or disagree?

I've read accounts saying otherwise.
But even if you were correct, it's still wrong to make
such a decision for someone unable to consent.

Let those societies decide for themselves.
But that doesn't make it a moral choice here.

Some things should be between parents and doctors, some should be left up to the individual later on in life. Niether way will work well.

"The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration"

Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review - PubMed.

 

[The Hammer]

However, it does reduce sensitivity

No it doesn't. See my above research link.

 

[The Hammer]

I disagree with you here. Rumor has it that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the male. I wouldn’t know personally, but rumor has it.

Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review - PubMed.

Still a nope. It does not.

As someone who has masturbated with and without foreskin. I notice not a single difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not aware that anyone makes that claim. However, it does reduce sensitivity and women get more pleasure from intercourse with an uncircumcised penis, according to studies.

No it doesn't.

You keep claiming that. What is your source?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some things should be between parents and doctors, some should be left up to the individual later on in life. Niether way will work well.

In Ameristan, we don't allow religious or cosmetic surgery on
the genitals of infant females. The same standard should
apply to infant males.....unless we accept sexism as cromulent.
I don't.

"The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration"

Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review - PubMed.

That's a lotta material.
But I've read differing accounts before. (This is an issue
beaten to death on RF in multiple threads over many years.)
I won't be providing any evidence because I oppose infant
genital modification for religious or cosmetic reasons on moral
grounds, ie, the person cannot give consent.

 

[The Hammer]

In Ameristan, we don't allow religious or cosmetic surgery on
the genitals of infant females. The same standard should
apply to infant males.....unless we accept sexism as cromulent.
I don't.

I understand your point. Which is why I concluded there isn't a right answer IMO.

I understand Ameristans position. But it doesn't seem to gel with other avenues of medical autonomy or not. Autonomy changes based on the individual, government, and family units wishes. (Edited post)

 

[KWED]

I never had any trouble along that line until I hit around 70, and that problem was in part because I'm a diabetic.

My point was about the difference in sensitivity. You have always felt what you have always felt and have nothing to compare it to. If your sense of smell was half as sensitive as mine, you would not be aware that you weren't smelling what I can smell. You would just think that you were smelling everything the same.