In the religious section I got into a discussion about an Indian set of religious and social rules called The Laws of Manu. These rules are all about what caste members can and can’t do. Much of this in my opinion is about racism and an odd form of capitalism. Anyway, one rule is that lower caste members are to be circumcised, because due to poor Karma, they do not deserve the sexual pleasure. Meanwhile the high caste members go uncircumcised, and are allowed full sexual pleasure.
This has always greatly annoyed me. As a circumcised male I wonder if that was done to me by the Jewish/Christian medical establishment in my country in order to limit “sinful†behavior or whatever. They promote it as a hygiene issue, but is it really rooted in bizarre middle and eastern beliefs? Frankly, no excuse cuts it for me. I have a 130 IQ (yes I was a baby, but give me the benefit of the doubt) and could have been trusted to clean my foreskin; if they did it to cut down on sexual stimulation I truly believe that they deserve to die! I have no idea who “they†are, so I guess they are safe (perhaps my rage is impotent). Not!
Don’t let my anger cloud your opinion though. What do you think? Are you circumcised? Have you ever thought about it? If you have a son will you have it done to him?
Also, I have seen some Euro porn and noticed that many people aren’t circumcised. Is it common in Europe, and if not how did you guys avoid it?
I agree, Adler. I feel cheated, somehow, but I think we should just try to convince ourselves that we’re getting the better deal, because there isn’t much anyone can do about that.
To complain now is crying over spilt milk. Not having a foreskin, how could one possibly know if he’s missing it? Having been circumcised myself, I think an uncircumcised dick looks like a snake in a baggy sweater, but I imagine I’d feel differently had I not been. I think my cock is pretty handsome as is, so no complaints.
Well, my point is not to cry, but mostly question if it needs to continue being done.
If I have children, and one is a boy, then I can’t see doing that to him. The most heinous thing about it is that it might be something done to limit sexual pleasure that we all unknowingly bought. That makes me shiver!
Someone:
I know it’s a personal question, but has it ever caused you trouble?
In Australia, every male child was automatically circumcised unless the parents requested it not be done. This practice stopped a couple of decades ago and reverted to the opposite policy where one must now request it. If nothing else, I think this is a legally wise move. To my understanding its the same in the U.S. is it not?
So my generation were all cut and this was very important in an all-male school. Europeans – particularly ‘wogs†– who weren’t, were ridiculed and some suffered psychologically because of it. One of my friends had the operation for the second time when he was 16 because it wasn’t cut far enough.
Nowadays, because most guys are not cut, the trauma of being different from their peers has changed so much that in the gay community – the arbiters of fashion and cool – there seems to be a preference for ‘uncut’ dick.
I personally prefer the look and feel of being cut but can’t deny some facts:
It is child abuse. If smacking a child is considered abusive, then cutting off part of a child’s penis is abusive. The child cries in pain for god’s sake. (Some people believe that associating intense pain with the sexual organs at this early age could create psychological problems???)
If female circumcision – even the less drastic ‘trim’ – is considered barbaric, then so too is male circumcision.
For every person who says it healthier should do a search on the net to see the healthy children that have become disfigured through bad circumcisions or infections. If hygiene is your real concern then either train your child to wash properly or cut off his ears too, because if he doesn’t wash his dick, he not going to wash behind his ears either.
For every medical problem averted through circumcision, at least as many have been created (see below)
An uncircumcised male gland has to be more sensitive than a circumcised male’s. The fact that the top layer of a circumcised male gland actually hardens and becomes slightly thinker in an effort to protect the gland must reduce sensitivity.
And finally, a profoundly wise adage: If it ain’t broken; don’t ‘fix’ it.
So, my personal preference or common sense? My final decision would rest on what my child’s peers were wearing.
A recent documentary:
I recently saw a TV program about two young men who eventually had their penises totally removed because their circumcisions went wrong. In both cases, their doctors and psychiatrists decided it would be better to go further and make them into girls. After years of being brought up as women (including hormone treatment) both eventually succumbed to the realisation that they were men in women’s bodies and reverted to being guys. It was an extremely sad story of two lives destroyed because of what can only be described as a fashion trend.
I have heard stories like the one you told at the end and they are heinous. Things like that are born from the idea that gender can be so easily removed.
I’m just amazed how behind, or just different, we are as compared to the rest of the world on this issue. I’m also curious about why a movement never caught on here to end the practice.
Finally, what the term “wog” refers to. Is it a person from south Africa?
Yes the story of those two young men was very moving. They were incredibly brave to be on a documentary saying, in effect, they had no sexual organs. At least one had some corrective surgery (with what?) and now had a girlfriend – which was nice.
It’s beyond belief to think that only about 25 years ago, doctors and psychologists could have advised parents to change their sons into girls because their sex organs were damaged. I still don’t get that.
Sorry, the term ‘wog’ is a local pejorative term for an Italian or Greek which were the dominant immigrants in my young school days. The term is used less today than it was, not because of pc, but because there’s more diversity in the immigration mix e.g. Asians, particularly south east.
“It’s beyond belief to think that only about 25 years ago, doctors and psychologists could have advised parents to change their sons into girls because their sex organs were damaged. I still don’t get that.”
It has to do with some bullshit Fruedian/Jungian ideas about sex.
People have always committed horrifying acts in the name of religious practice and so called “aesthetics”; circumcision is no different.
I would never permit someone to amputate a part of my son’s penis. Strapping an infant down and cutting off a vital part of his genitals is beyond lunacy.
They are having a discussion on this very issue on BBC radio at the moment (why am I listening to a radio debate on circumcision at 1 a.m. on a sunday? I should be tucked up in bed, watching my nightly movie)
The only real conclusions are that consent should be given, and if a child is too young to give consent then the procedure should be postponed. This seems fair enough, I certainly don’t feel that religious belief of the parent(s) should be the critical factor, what if the child wishes to take up another faith later in life?
Isn’t it a social thing? Do men look at each other differently or is it no biggie in the group shower thingy. From what I have seen it is very Snuffulufagus-looking. Don’t they get a lot of teasing? Is that worth it to a young boy? I am asking, cause I really don’t know.
