Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Subduction Zone]

And some men

True, my thoughts in this matter tend to reflect my own sexuality. No offense intended.

 

[Secret Chief]

True, my thoughts in this matter tend to reflect my own sexuality. No offense intended.

It was just the pedant in me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm a lifelong underperformer
My objection is solely based on the consent issue.

I know. I would be torn since consent is huge. But in my case , in hindsight, it has been good for me. And there is no way that I would have allowed that done to me as an adult. So taking a page out of my own book:

Thanks Dad!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was just the pedant in me.

Well all I can say is that it is a good thing that I never act the pedant

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Circumcision doesn't change sexual pleasure. And is beneficial in societies with lower hygiene standards then the West, and also prevents irretetractable (tight) foreskin.

In any society where keeping chidren's genitals clean is a problem, unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals is an especially bad idea. Hygiene after surgery is important, you know?

 

[The Hammer]

In any society where keeping chidren's genitals clean is a problem, unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals is an especially bad idea. Hygiene after surgery is important, you know?

But that's a shorter cleanliness period, than the entirety of life. I'm thinking it was potentially useful in desert societies, but have no proof.

 

[Father Heathen]

Like most American men I was circumcized as an infant. However, when my son was born we opted to forgo the procedure. My religious and conservative inlaws weren't happy with our decision. One of his aunts stated "now other boys will make fun of him." Ridiculous. Besides, I don't think anyone with that mindset would admit to cockscoping anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's a shorter cleanliness period, than the entirety of life.

Shorter but more critical, yes, but I think it stands to reason that anyone who can't manage cleaning a foreskin well enough to prevent serious health problems also can't do wound care for weeks after a circumcision well enough to prevent an infection.

I'm thinking it was potentially useful in desert societies, but have no proof.

These "desert societies": do they have antibiotics?

 

[KWED]

Nor do they facilitate easy movement. They were designed for what you called pounding.

I am guessing that you haven't engaged in sex toy play with a woman, because "pounding" is not what they are generally used for. Vibration held on particular places is more the preference.

Okay, the survey I posted was about a whole range of factors. It appears women prefer a haircut.

It was dealing with different issues, as I pointed out. It was the levels or sexual satisfaction from penetrative sex. Nothing to do with their "precopulatory mate choices" or whatever.

The main problem with the preference issue is that it will be hugely influenced by culture. In the US, most women prefer cut because most men are cut. In the UK the opposite is true.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Anyone think it is wrong to baptize a baby without its consent? Yes, there is a difference between cutting a baby and pouring water on it. But should the baby have a right to decide?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am guessing that you haven't engaged in sex toy play with a woman, because "pounding" is not what they are generally used for. Vibration held on particular places is more the preference.

It was dealing with different issues, as I pointed out. It was the levels or sexual satisfaction from penetrative sex. Nothing to do with their "precopulatory mate choices" or whatever.

The main problem with the preference issue is that it will be hugely influenced by culture. In the US, most women prefer cut because most men are cut. In the UK the opposite is true.

It depends upon the woman. Not all women are the same.

As to the study I posted it was multicultural and multi country. It was a metastudy of quite a few different studies and the results were rather clear. The majority of women prefer a circumcised penis.

Okay, if I was uncircumcised I would be looking for all sorts of excuses not to get it done. In fact I would not get it done. I was circumcised at a very young age as most boys my age were. I would have to think long and hard about doing it to a son of mine. I would not do it for religious reasons. But as shown the act does not appear to have a negative impact on one's sex life. And women prefer it. There are valid arguments for both sides.

EDIT: Again, from the study that I linked:

Results
Database searches identified 29 publications with original data for inclusion, including 22 for aim (i) and 4 of these and 7 others pertaining to aim (ii). In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis. The main reasons given for this preference were better appearance, better hygiene, reduced risk of infection, and enhanced sexual activity, including vaginal intercourse, manual stimulation, and fellatio.

Please note that it says "enhanced sexual activity".

 

[Wildswanderer]

Aka: nobody is allowed to use another person's body against their continuous consent.

Circumcision is not an example of this.

So you can terminate someone who depends on you for survival but can not remove a tiny bit of skin from someone else who also depends on you for survival? Nope, that's not making sense to me.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Anyone think it is wrong to baptize a baby without its consent? Yes, there is a difference between cutting a baby and pouring water on it. But should the baby have a right to decide?

Lol, well there goes bathing your baby.

 

[Heyo]

I think putting off circumcision until old enough for the child to decide would be rather uncomfortable the older one gets.

I think putting off sex re-assignment until old enough for the child to decide would be rather uncomfortable the older one gets.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted that circumcision is wrong, but I want to explain a couple things.

First, male circumcision is not the same as female genital mutation. spoiler for the graphic description.

Spoiler

To understand imagine they didn’t just cut off the foreskin but hacked off the entire head of the penis, and maybe did it with a rusty piece of metal or a dirty piece of glass. Now imagine they stitched the remaining shaft to the scrotum. Sorry to be so disturbing, but that is what FGM is.

I don’t think male circumcision is the horrific crime that fgm is. Still I think it is unnecessary and should be discouraged.

I don’t think it should be banned, banning circumcision could cause more problems. It could just drive it underground, it could lead to religious oppression and other things.

But I still think it is wrong and shouldn’t be done.

The extreme forms of FGM you cite aren't the only ones.
There are some that are even less severe than conventional
male circumcision.
"Ritual Genital Cutting Of Female Minors"

So is the issue really that it can be OK to perform medically
unnecessary genital modification on infant males, but it's
always wrong on females?
One argument made (even here on RF) is that it's anti-semitic
to ban it for males. But other religions that do it to females
lack similar political & cultural influence in the west.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anyone think it is wrong to baptize a baby without its consent?

I do.

Yes, there is a difference between cutting a baby and pouring water on it. But should the baby have a right to decide?

Yes.


Edit: though it's worth pointing out that this thread has touched on circumcision for both religious and non-religious reasons.

 

[pearl]

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?

Of course not. But, anyone familiar with the older population it becomes a problem as to cleanliness and the ability to take proper care of themselves often winding up with infections.

 

[The Hammer]

These "desert societies": do they have antibiotics?

I meant of old. Not necessarily currently. Discussing how/why it was and maybe still thought to be important. (Cleanliness is often referenced by both parents and doctors as a valid reason)

 

[Father Heathen]

So you can terminate someone who depends on you for survival but can not remove a tiny bit of skin from someone else who also depends on you for survival? Nope, that's not making sense to me.

Your false equivalency makes no sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And this is just a medical procedure with little consequence.

It's a permanent body modification that does reduce sexual sensitivity as it does remove a dense concentration of nerve endings as well as desensitize the foreskin do it being unnaturally constantly exposed.
Because it is permanent and rarely necessary it is wrong to do without consent.