To circumcise or not to circumcise?

[Heatheness]

Greetings, heathenistical turds. 

Here's a hypothetical question for yall:

If you were were having a baby boy tomorrow, would you opt for him to be circumcised? 

Why or why not? 

Thanks!

Nearly 27yrs ago my baby boy was born and I left his perfectly good penis in tact. I taught him to keep it clean. I did not whack off bits of it because of some ignorant religious fad about keeping boys from masturbating. I also told him that it wasn't wrong to please himself, just that he needed to do that in private. Thirty years ago 88% of male babies were mutilated, now only a little more than 50% are and it's dropping every year. That foreskin is a vital and viable part of their sexuality and pleasure sensors. It's cruel to remove it just because; fad.

I do not believe in unnecessary surgeries or body modifications for children. Leave that for them to decide for themselves when they are adults. I also would not tattoo a child, nor brand them, not pierce them, nor remove the labia of a girl. Hopefully, it will be illegal soon to mutilate little boys, just as it is for little girls. 

You may call it circumcision but I call it what it is, genital mutilation. It's wrong, we need to stop it.

---

I voted yes.

Why?

Because it looks better that way.

Your turn.

It's not your penis and hopefully you won't be looking or using it when he's grown. It's morally and ethically wrong to remove a body part of a child for fashion. How vulgar and egotistical.

If your mother didn't like nipples would you consider it appropriate if she had them removed from you when you were a baby? There are people who think it's pointless for males to have nipples, will you have them cut off your male baby too?

[RozKek]

Greetings, heathenistical turds. 

Here's a hypothetical question for yall:

If you were were having a baby boy tomorrow, would you opt for him to be circumcised? 

Why or why not? 

Thanks!

A big big big NO. The most obvious one which should be enough to leave him intact. It's his penis, you're not gonna live the rest of his life with his penis, it doesn't matter how it looks to you, it's his body, his decision. The so called health benefits are all a myth IIRC it was based on a shitty study made somewhere in Africa where they couldn't clean their foreskins. In all cases it reduces the sensitivity of the penis, in some cases some still have a decent amount, but still they lost sensitivity for no damn reason. In many cases the penis can go numb, or lose a lot of sensitivity, tmi maybe but unfortunately I am one of those cases and it's not fun at all. There is a reason why companies trying to surgically restore the whole foreskin using stemcells are so successful. There is a reason why manually restoring ones foreskin (without the frenulum etc) by inducing mitosis by tugging the skin regularly is becoming more and more popular. There are whole communities dedicated to it and every single person I've encountered who has done it have reported major increases in sensitivity. Although note that right now surgical restoration is a red flag. One important aspect is the gliding function that is important too. If a circumcision is handled incorrectly it can lead to awful skin bridges, skin tunnels and such. Keep in mind the majority of the europeans are uncut and they're completely fine. I live in Sweden where the majority are uncut, I don't see them walking around with stds, I don't see headlines about how their foreskin causes pain, I don't see a single negative aspect of it. Last but not least, it's very very easy to clean it. Fyi circumcised penises also produce smegma, it just rubs off against the underwear.

All that against "I think it looks good" which is also entirely subjective, and yet again, you won't be walking around with that penis, would you still get him circumcised despite knowing its harms? If he gets circumcised it should be purely his decision without anyone elses influence except if that person is unbiased and mentions all the cruel consequences that follow it. If one circumcises her child despite knowing all this, I'd doubt that persons intelligence, commonsense and would consider that person stubborn.

[pgrimes15]

Circumcise or not - I think people should do what they want.
It's no skin off my nose.

[RozKek]

You realize that the foreskin moves right? If you want to give a blowjob to an uncircumcised guy, you can pull the foreskin back, and you'll get a penis that looks circumcised.

The advantage is giving handjobs becomes easier and feels better for the guy.

As for guys who say they feel glad or happy that their parents got them circumcised, I personally find it hard to believe they can form an educated opinion on the matter, given that they have never experienced being uncircumcised. Its easy for an uncircumcised guy to see what being circumcised is like (pull back the foreskin and keep it like that), but you can't replace what has already been cut off.

Its a bit like a blind from birth person saying they aren't missing anything by being blind. Sure, they don't think they are, but they don't know any better.

No actually an uncircumcised man can't experience what it feels like for a circumcised man by pulling the foreskin back, which is fortunate, and that is because when a circumcised penis is rubbed against underwear and exposed to air all the time it dries out and callouses, the glans doesn't look smooth and shiny anymore and it loses a lot of sensitivity. Also in many circumcisions the inner foreskin is also cut away and that is a sensitive part, also we don't have the sensitive frenulum left, we don't have a ridigd band, we lose around 20000 nerve cells... 

Fortunately manual non surgical foreskin restoration is real and free, it just takes a damn lot of dedication that could otherwise be spent on other things. And according to restorers whom got a circumcision when adults it feels very identical and sensitive to a non restored intact foreskin.

[Rhondazvous]

Not.  In my generation most american boys were circumcised (I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis in the flesh).  Although circumcision was sold to americans as a hygienic measure,  it really has no health benefits. It reduces sensation. It's a painful thing to do to a baby.  I wouldn't do it to any child of mine. In a better world it would be illegal.

I have seen an uncircumcised penis and I tell you there is nothing more disgusting than a man who expects me to lick a lollipop with the wrapper still on it. They look dirty. But a circumcised penis is lovely. It's a work of art.

Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is like comparing cutting your cuticles to cutting off your finger. It's an operation, no more barbaric than any other operation.

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol, Rhonda.

[Losty]

No. Just...I don't have enough polite words..

[Athene]

No. 
Sure, there are some health benefits....But not enough to warrant hacking off a piece of a kid's junk, in my view.

There's literally no health benefits. You could argue that it is more hygienic but even then I wouldn't say so. It's not hard for a guy to pull his foreskin back and wash it.

Circumcised guys lose a lot of sensation down there. I don't see any benefit to it whatsoever, unless the kid was born with an extremely tight foreskin and it became a medical nessecity or something along those lines.

To hack off part of your kids junk without their permission is just child abuse and should be treated as such.

It's clear that my answer to the OP is no, isn't it?

There are minor health benefits...uncircumcised men do have higher incidences of of chronic yeast infections. Repetitive tearing/fissures to the tip of the foreskin is a common complaint as well, that can result in bacterial infection and/or cause mild pain/discomfort during penetration. However, I'll repeat that permanently mutilating a child's genitalia is not acceptable solution to the possibility of developing a condition "somewhere down the line" that couldn't really be considered more than a nuisance.

I won't lie and say there is absolutely NO health benefit in order to prove my point, though.

[GrandizerII]

Not.  In my generation most american boys were circumcised (I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis in the flesh).  Although circumcision was sold to americans as a hygienic measure,  it really has no health benefits. It reduces sensation. It's a painful thing to do to a baby.  I wouldn't do it to any child of mine. In a better world it would be illegal.

I have seen an uncircumcised penis and I tell you there is nothing more disgusting than a man who expects me to lick a lollipop with the wrapper still on it.   They look dirty.  But a circumcised penis is lovely. It's a work of art.

So you've seen one only? The "wrapper" usually goes down or "off" so to speak, when the uncircumcised penis is erect. Perhaps he had phimosis?

[RozKek]

Not.  In my generation most american boys were circumcised (I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis in the flesh).  Although circumcision was sold to americans as a hygienic measure,  it really has no health benefits. It reduces sensation. It's a painful thing to do to a baby.  I wouldn't do it to any child of mine. In a better world it would be illegal.

I have seen an uncircumcised penis and I tell you there is nothing more disgusting than a man who expects me to lick a lollipop with the wrapper still on it.   They look dirty.  But a circumcised penis is lovely. It's a work of art.

Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is like comparing cutting your cuticles to cutting off your finger.  It's an operation, no more barbaric than any other operation.Y

In that case, you're the problem. You don't see europeans complaining and the majority of them are uncut. And would you really sacrifice a man's sensitivity by far just so you can enjoy giving a blowjob? You can get used to a foreskin but he can't get used to his penis being numb. Would you circumcise your son and potentially ruin his penis and if not ruin, make it worse for no good reason, just so that his future lover doesn't throw up on the sight of his cock?