discussion Should male circumcision be banned/outlawed?

[Riverbank]

6 hours ago, Arrows said:

People who swear they can only be attracted to a circumcised ***** are so weird tbh, imagine a guy saying they’d only be into a mutilated ******

Just like some of y'all are into cheese, some of us are into mutilated ***** 

[bad guy]

6 hours ago, feelslikeadream said:

My ex literally cried when talking about being cut, so maybe don't speak in absolutes  I also have a friend who got foreskin restoration surgery, so I'm sure there are plenty of guys who regret being cut without their input.

That's very odd and I hope he got some therapy. Anyway anecdotes are irrelevant. 99% of circumcised men do not sit and wallow about being circumcised. Their penises are cleaner, sex acts have less chance of pain (no foreskin retraction/ripping to worry about), and it has no negative effects to the genital unlike the real damaging effects of FGM.

Edited May 15, 2023 by bad guy

[feelslikeadream]

4 minutes ago, bad guy said:

Their penises are cleaner, sex acts have less chance of pain

Fine, but you're lying just a bit to advance your pro-circumcision agenda.

 

- There is no inherent difference in cleanliness between cut and uncut penises. If the man knows how to wash his *****, it'll be clean regardless of foreskin.

- There are PLENTY of botched circumcisions that cause pain. And if you get a close cut and have basically no extra skin, it can be difficult and/or painful to jerk off.

[Leptine]

People should choose by themselves at 18 what to do with their penises, unless there is a health condition.

[Miss Show Business]

Saw this posted earlier today and wanted to comment.

 

The amount of people who say circumcision is "mutilation" is quite alarming, and IMO, this artificial "debate" (there is none) shows how prevalent psuedoscience has become and how it's managed to take over people's entire viewpoints.

 

Anybody with even a little bit of scientific literacy, knows that there is a great wealth of high quality studies, (including several RCTs and systematic reviews / meta analyses) that conclude that circumcision is safe and doesn't effect function when it is performed correctly. There are even benefits to circumcision, including reducing the chances you'll catch an STD, reducing frequency of UTIs, and the most obvious benefit would be eliminating problems with phimosis.

 

There are other problems with people who insist on calling this "mutilation". For one, it's outright offensive, imo, to compare circumcision to FGM. FGM is not an accepted medical practice, but a barbaric and torturous practice that basically makes sex painful for women. It's apples to oranges - the two are not comparable on any scale, ever.

 

Secondly, is the issue it's creating with men's self esteem. You can easily find dozens of "intactivists" on the internet who have weirdly made this topic their livelihoods. This includes telling circumsized men, who may not have any issue with themselves or function, that they are "mutilated". I have a HUGE problem with anybody who wants to project their apparent sexual insecurities onto others. As others here have mentioned — there are millions of men who do not have issues with being circumsized, period. This sort of behavior only leads to making others feel shamed or self conscious about their bodies — and that is NOT okay, EVER!

 

If you want to argue that parents should let their kids decide, then I'm all for that. Sure, there are risks, but if any problems occur, circumsision is always an option. However, going any further beyond this is crossing the line. You should only care about circumsision when it involves you or your own sons, and whether the risks associated with the procedure are worth the end result. If you care so much about this that you're shaming other people for their bodies — you have a psychological problem and need to seek professional health instead of projecting your insecurities onto other people.

[SuperCiC1]

My heart aches when I see mutilated ***** and think of what could have been. 

[Alyssa Edwards]

I voted yes.

 

However y'all said it might create a business of botched, back of the alley circumcisions so maybe outlawing it might be pushing it too hard but something major should happen about this. It should happen only for medical purposes or by choice at a reasonable (grown).

[Moonturn]

You can really tell this is a very american forum. In Europe, being uncut is the standard, for instance.

 

I don't understand how there can even be any debate here. Circumcision on little kids is forcing a decision regarding their body on them without consent. If they later on decide themselves, that's great. But you can't force that on them, in this case it absolutely is mutilation.