Circumcision question on /r/Askreddit asking parents why they circumcised their child, guess how many are actually parents who circumcised their child... (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
81 ups - 31 downs = 50 votes
Redditors know that these med-students know nothing due to their pro-circumcision bias.
We have not one, but two people defending the uncircumcised minority.
One redditor did it for medical reasons, but oh boy do we know he's wrong.
Circumsion is nothing less than mutilation!
EDIT: Almost forgot, redditors hope for the future of the poor child of an idiot father, who got himself and his son circumcised and enjoys being circumcised.
158 comments submitted at 01:44:40 on Sep 22, 2013 by icedino
This issue always leaves me scratching my head.
On one side, there are people who were circumcised and don't give two shits and on the other, people who weren't circumcised saying that the other side is full of idiots that don't understand how they were horribly wronged.
Seriously, I'm circumcised. I don't care. Do I think it would be cool to give kids a chance to decide for themselves? Maybe, but, really, no one who had to go through the procedure remembers nor cares.
EDIT: Alright, before any more of you reply, look over these sources. If you can prove they are incorrect, I'll edit my comments to reflect that.
American Academy of Pediatrics
Mayo Clinic
WebMD
Wikipedia
CNN Health
Wall Street Journal
Discovery Health
If there's one thing reddit seems to care about more than their own penises, it's absolute strangers' penises.
Really, it seems to me that they are projecting their worries and fears about their own penises onto other, unknown penises.
> Really, it seems to me that they are projecting their worries and fears about their own penises onto other, unknown penises.
I find this to be a extremely interesting idea. Please go on.
> Novelty accounts are not welcome in /r/SubredditDrama
Well you could make the same argument against complaining about female circumcision.
You've pretty much just said that 'activism is irrational unless it directly concerns me'.
The difference being that women who were circumcised do in fact care.
Well yeah some of them do, and some of them don't. When you're brought up in a society where female circumcision is normalised, you're probably not going to care very much. If women hated their circumcision, they wouldn't be doing it to their daughters and perpetuating it.
Right, but while there is room for debate on male circumcision, due to opinions and evidence for both sides, I believe it's pretty cut and dry when it comes to women. I think literally the only reason you can hold up for female circumcision is tradition/cultural norms. I was under the impression that it had been pretty well proven that it's generally detrimental to the female.
I'm not equating female circumcision to male circumcision, I'm just saying that the parent post was dismissing concerns about male circumcision for a very poor reason. People should be allowed to discuss issues they deem important, even if those issues don't directly affect them.
That's a good point. I suppose that since Reddit's user base is primarily male, they can relate more to the male side of the issue, which is why you don't see as much female argument. Although, in reference to a word you used earlier, I'm not sure how much of it can be called "activism", at least in the context of Reddit. That would suggest we actually do something about our beliefs rather than pointlessly argue with each other. :P
Thank you.
I think the lack of anti female circumcision sentiment comes from the fact that female circumcision is globally outlawed and mostly occurring in a rapidly decreasing number of African nations. There's millions of dollars invested in reducing FGM, largely through UN programmes. This contrasts with male circumcision, which is legal and occurs every day to thousands of boys in the USA.
Even if you don't think male circumcision is that bad, I think most people do agree that it's at least somewhat bad and definitely unnecessary. Someone needs to get the ball rolling in terms of tackling this problem, but unfortunately every time it's brought up, even on the sort of MRA-ey and progressive Reddit, it gets shut down by people saying that FGM is the bigger issue that deserves what little attention is trying to be given to male circumcision.
I honestly am not terribly concerned about the issue. I personally am circumcised and have never really worried about what I am possibly missing out on. As for if/when I have children, it's a little ways off, so it's kind of a hurdle that I'll take when the time comes.
>but unfortunately every time it's brought up, even on the sort of MRA-ey and progressive Reddit, it gets shut down by people saying that FGM is the bigger issue that deserves what little attention is trying to be given to male circumcision.
I think it's because when someone is trying to talk about FGM someone butts in with, "why don't you talk about male circumsicision?" when they're two completely different subjects of differing severities and different challenges they face. To get rid of FGM you have to go after poor, superstitious, misogynistic societies doing procedures with razor blades that are trying to curb the sex drive of women. To get rid of male circumcision you have to change the mindset of first world parents that are cutting up their baby boys solely for aesthetics (like how their kid's cock looks matters to them?) or to please an invisible old man in the clouds. They're too different to be in the same conversation.
You really can't compare male and female circumcision since they end in radically different ways, in that for females it makes sex very painful and unenjoyable, wheras for men unless something goes horribly wrong sex remains enjoyable.
I didn't compare FGM and male circumcision. My point was that tuckels' logic could be applied to just about anything/
Not really. Using your example, for males there is room for debate and people can be for circumcision and not be seen as immoral, whereas for female circumcision there is no room for debate, sans cultural, where people for it don't come off as monsters. It's not a heavily debated topic because everyone already agrees female circumcision is terrible.
To many anti-circumcision activists, the value of circumcision isn't particularly debatable. It's just a wrong thing to do to a non-consenting baby.
FGM refers to a variety of procedures.
Tuckels' logic was that it's wrong to complain about something that doesn't directly affect you. My point was that it would therefore be wrong to complain about FGM, or just about anything else for that matter.
The difference is male circumcision rarely harms a child and does have upsides, whereas female has 0 upside and many debilitating downsides. Nearly all circumcised men can and do have sex just fine. Can't say the same for FGM females.
Nobody is arguing about something that ends badly for most everyone involved. They're arguing about something that rarely does and seems to have little effect on the lives of the males involved, which adds a bit of absurdity to those so insistent on the subject. That's the logic I gleaned from the above user.
Male circumcision was popularised as a means to prevent male masturbation. It has been effective in this role, as the majority of circumcised men need lube to masturbate. Uncircumcised men are baffled by the use of lube in masturbation.
The reason people care about male circumcision is because it's happening today, right now, in western countries, whereas FGM is globally outlawed and has huge organisations fighting against it. People like you seem to think we shouldn't complain about male circumcision until FGM is totally wiped out.
of course you don't care, you didn't have a choice and there's nothing you can do ?
What can you do ? be miserable about it for the rest of your life ? No, just decide you didn't want it anyway and carry on.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
In no way does it affect my life, so what reason is there to get up in arms about it? On the same note, what reason do other people have to yell at me about how horribly wronged I was, especially when I say otherwise?
I'm just saying that those who scream and yell about circumcision being literally Hitler usually have no idea what it even means to be circumcised.
I prefer being circumcised. Uncircumcised penises are far more unattractive to me.
maybe you just find the kind you have more attractive ?
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Correlation does not imply causation, though.
To me it seems insane to voluntarily reduce your sexual pleasure just because you like the look of your penis better that way. Especially since the only reason you think that is because of cultural attitudes.
>voluntarily reduce your sexual pleasure
Uh, okay...
"These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."
"Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction."
"The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction."
I'm not going to get into a link-off with you, but here's something. Don't pretend like studies are unanimous on that position of yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
Nah, that's fine. I just got tired of seeing people throwing opinions and anecdotal evidence around without actually citing anything.
Can you source that? Why is it so hard to believe that people just have a preference? Do you have an uncircumcised penis? Are you insulted that I dont find it attractive, so you say the only reason I find it attractive is because culture made me like it more? If that was the case that means you also prefer it, or it only affected us plebians and you somehow saw past the bullshit?
I can argue why go against the proven health benefits of a circumcised penis just for extra sexual pleasure.
And yes I would voluntarily do that. If you told me sex could feel 5, 10, even 100 timea better I would STILL not want an uncircumcised penis. If you told me you could alter my penis further to make it look better and less health risks but that sex would be 10 times less pleasurable - I would do it. Sex is pleasurable to me because the overall experience. The pleasure I get from my dick pales in comparison to the rest of the act.
>Can you source that?
The penis foreskin is erogenous tissue. It contains 20,000 – 40,000 touch-sensitive nerves that produce feelings of pleasure. Removing that means less pleasure.
And I'm not insulted. I just think it's bizarre to go "Well, I think my penis looks gross due to cultural attitudes. So, despite having perfectly healthy genitals, I will remove skin and decrease my sexual pleasure."
>I can argue why go through the proven health benefits of a circumcised penis just for extra sexual pleasure.
"Health benefits" are bullshit. Just wash your dick. Seriously, that's all you have to do.
>And yes I would voluntarily do that. If you told me sex could feel 5, 10, even 100 timea better I would STILL not want an uncircumcised penis. If you told me you could alter my penis further to make it look better and less health risks but that sex would be 10 times less pleasurable - I would do it. Sex is pleasurable to me because the overall experience. The pleasure I get from my dick pales in comparison to the rest of the act.
Fuckin' el oh el man. If that's how you want to justify it to yourself then go ahead.
No. I asked you to source that I find circumcision beter looking because cultural attitudes. I already acknowledged the nerve thing as a fact. I know that one. The cultural one I dont and you referenced it again like it's fact. I need a source on that.
Why are you quoting it. Just because the evidence disproves your beliefs, doesn't mean you should belittle it. It's more than "just wash your dick" .
Exactly what am I trying to justify? You seem like you seriously cannot imagine someone not wanting an uncircumcised penis, even when knowing all the facts, unless they're delusional, believe in "bullshit" facts, and are fooled by "cultural attitudes".
> I asked you to source that I find circumcision beter looking because cultural attitudes.
Because this isn't the norm in nearly every other part of the world and they certainly don't seem to have issues with it. I mean, let's hear it. Why do you think they look better? It's because they look "normal" that way, right?
>It's more than "just wash your dick"
Give me an example of an actual health benefit that can't simply be solved by washing your garbage.
>You seem like you seriously cannot imagine someone not wanting an uncircumcised penis, unless they're delusional, believe in "bullshit" facts, and are fooled by "cultural attitudes".
Well, pretty much yeah. But I'm sure exceptions exist.
So, the while cutural attitudes thing is a giant assumption you got from other people not being circumcied in some cultures?
No, not because it looks "normal". I find both to be normal. I just dislike how a flaccid penis looks with foreskin, and I dislike how it looks during sex when it's be jerked off. I would rather not have it. I'm sure we could find different nipples unattractive, but I wouldnt call the ones I dislike abnormal.
Uncircumcised penis increase the risk of cancer of the penis. increase the risk of STIs and HIV. Also increase the chance of a bladder infection, this is the only one that may be caused by not cleaning well enough. I dont see why increased sexual pleasure is worth that to you?
Do you still feel that way, even after the cultural attitude is an assumption with no base, and my listed reasons of risks that come with uncircumcised penises?
> Do you still feel that way, even after the cultural attitude is an assumption with no base, and my listed reasons of risks that come with uncircumcised penises?
Spoiler alert: you are not going to change this person's mind. They have already decided that your argument about health risks is wrong and uninformed, and moreover, they do not care.
>Uncircumcised penis increase the risk of cancer of the penis. increase the risk of STIs and HIV. Also increase the chance of a bladder infection
[citation needed]
>Do you still feel that way, even after the cultural attitude is an assumption with no base
No, I don't think it's baseless unless you can give me something else to go on. It's how male genitalia naturally look. Your preference is due to culture, that's why penises that are circumcised look quite odd or even gross to people who come from cultures where that isn't common.
>It contains 20,000 – 40,000 touch-sensitive nerves that produce feelings of pleasure.
It contains exactly the amount of nerves that other skin has (which is 20k in the average adult foreskin and same amount of non-foreskin), and actually has a lower than average amount of those nerves that cause sensitivity to touch. Google that shit.
> "Health benefits" are bullshit. Just wash your dick. Seriously, that's all you have to do.
He isn't talking about the hygiene benefits. He's talking about the proven, lower transmission rates of communicable diseases.
Because you grew up that way. Your penis is normal to you because that's what you grew up thinking a penis should look like.
There are idiots on both sides.
> no one who had to go through the procedure remembers nor cares
Not true. Just because you don't care or know people that don't care doesn't mean that everyone who was circumcised as an infant also doesn't care, hence why it's an issue.
Circumcision was popularised around the end of the 19th century as a means to prevent male masturbation. The female equivalent was to burn the clitoris with acid. It is because of circumcision that the popular view of males masturbating in the USA involves a bottle of lube. Men should not desire lube to masturbate, but they generally do because they lack the protective foreskin sheath.
Here's a dick before and after circumcision (NSFW). The glans is a mucous membrane. It adapts by becoming thicker and rougher.
> Here's a dick before and after circumcision (NSFW). The glans is a mucous membrane. It adapts by becoming thicker and rougher.
Neither of these dicks are irretrievably broken, and both of them can still give other people sexual pleasure.
ETA: The reason I mention this is that I think it's kind of weird how the circumcision debate in that thread degenerates circumcised dicks. If a man has been circumcised and he's fine with it, then it's fine. If he's NOT fine with it, that's another story entirely, and I am sorry for that man's pain, but why make circumcised men feel badly about themselves?
They're not broken, of course. They can still get off. But the glans is a mucous membrane, it shouldn't be permanently exposed outside the body.
> both of them can still give other people sexual pleasure.
I don't think it has anything to do with other people.
The keratinization just makes it less sensitive, the lack of foreskin makes it difficult to get off without lube, and the whole affair is 'unnatural'.
My point is that both dicks are fine as they are, as long as the man is happy with how he is. One of these dicks may be more "natural", but neither dick is wrong or ugly. They are both functional penises.
The men should feel fine with themselves, but one of those dicks are less functional than the other. Less sensitive, less able to get off. There's no real benefit to circumcision, so why are we doing it. Attitudes like yours, of permissiveness to circumcision, are harmful.
>one of those dicks are less functional than the other. Less sensitive, less able to get off.
So about that...
"These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."
"Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction."
"The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction."
Yes, there's been over a hundred years of this back and forth, and that view was indeed prevalent for much of the previous century.
> Attitudes like yours, of permissiveness to circumcision, are harmful.
Really? I don't have a preference for either type of dick, and think that both cut and uncut men are just fine. How's that harmful? What would be harmful is if I went around personally cutting off people's foreskins, or if I was on the Internet crowing in favor of cut dicks as the ONLY awesome type of dick.
That's good, and men shouldn't be made to feel shame for having been circumcised, but you should still be strong enough to say "I don't think circumcision is an ok thing to do to a child". There's nothing wrong with that opinion.
So, we all need to be out there loudly advocating against circumcision, or else we're perpetuating it? What if this is truly a nonissue for some of us (as in, we're not planning to have any children, and don't care about what other people's dicks look like either way)?
>we all need to be out there loudly advocating against circumcision, or else we're perpetuating it?
Where did I say that
>What if this is truly a nonissue for some of us
You don't have to care about it, but obviously it isn't a non-issue for you because you're here arguing with me and other people in this post. You could just as easily be in an FGM post saying "WELL IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS PEOPLE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO THEIR NON-CONSENTING CHILDREN".
So if you were to show a picture of a person who never walks' feet, they'd probably be smoother too, does that make walking unnatural?
No...walking is normal...
You're getting clobbered over here with the downvotes.
Reddit likes to complain about circumcision, but it even more likes to complain about people complaining about circumcision.
People try to shut down the discussion as though merely having the discussion is misogynistic due to the continuing occurrence of FGM.
> Reddit likes to complain about circumcision, but it even more likes to complain about people complaining about circumcision.
I had no idea.
> People try to shut down the discussion as though merely having the discussion is misogynistic due to the continuing occurrence of FGM.
Is this some sort of Men's Rights thing for you, or something?
I am a feminist.
Speak for yourself
You should give your child the choice. I was circumcised but after learning more about it I really wish I wasn't.
Circumcision can reduce pleasure up to 75%. Anyone who suggests that it doesn't reduce pleasure at all is lying or isn't being logical. Removing 20,000 nerve endings affect sensitivity.
Circumcision is often done with little to no anesthetic. The intense pain from circumcision causes trauma so intense it's been shown to affect the relationship between mother and child.
Over 100 baby boys die every year because of circumcision.
Men with circumcision are 5 times more likely to have ED.
Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zkKciuIpA
> Circumcision can reduce pleasure up to 75%.
OK, but how would I know? I am perfectly fine with what I have. I can get off just like everyone else.
Jesus, why is that a difficult concept to grasp?
> Circumcision is often done with little to no anesthetic. The intense pain from circumcision causes trauma so intense it's been shown to affect the relationship between mother and child.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone could tell you that they don't remember being circumcised and I doubt that it would affect the son-mother relationship to any noticeable degree.
> Over 100 baby boys die every year because of circumcision.
And? What conditions were those circumcisions performed? I'm willing to bet it wasn't in conditions under which the majoriyt of circumcisions are performed(i.e. in a hospital by trained staff).
>OK, but how would I know? I am perfectly fine with what I have. I can get off just like everyone else. Jesus, why is that a difficult concept to grasp?
I don't really get that argument. It's removing potential... people are generally against that. As a very extreme case, imagine giving a child a lobotomy. How would he know he had significantly higher mental faculty before? What if he was a genius and the lobotomy reduced him down to the same level as everyone else (yes I know lobotomies don't work like that, but this is just for the sake of discussion)
So yeah, a sensitive or insensitive penis wouldn't offer obvious benefits like higher brain function, but some people abhor having anything taken away from them without their express consent.
Less sensitive*
>OK, but how would I know? I am perfectly fine with what I have. I can get off just like everyone else.
You will be at a 5x greater risk of having erectile disfunction though. And who's right is it to rob someone of 75% of the pleasure of sex and masturbation?
>Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone could tell you that they don't remember being circumcised and I doubt that it would affect the son-mother relationship to any noticeable degree.
No, no one would remember being circumcised. Maybe that's why parents are okay with doing it to their children...because they'll never hear how much it hurt. The effects on boys that are circumcised is noticeable though. The actual effects of circumcision can be seen through the babies behavior. Yes, it does affect the relationship between children and their mother. (you should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zkKciuIpA )
>And? What conditions were those circumcisions performed? I'm willing to bet it wasn't in conditions under which the majoriyt of circumcisions are performed(i.e. in a hospital by trained staff).
Well yes, the average circumcision doesn't result in deaths. The deaths from circumcision result in hospitals which do not have clean enough conditions or from parents who don't properly keep their children's genitals clean. When giving out 100,000's of circumcisions a year infection and death is going to happen.
How is it okay to do this? Why don't we cut out the clitoral hoods of little girls? It's given all the same justifications (cleanliness, culture and aesthetics) and has bad affects as well. Why is FGM not okay but male is?
you should watch this in my opinion. It's pretty much going to cover your questions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zkKciuIpA
>The deaths from circumcision result in hospitals which do not have clean enough conditions or from parents who don't properly keep their children's genitals clean.
Well thank you Scott, I was on the fence about circumcision because of the deaths but now that I know that as long as one has it done at a good hospital everything will be fine, I now officially don't care one way or the other.
> Circumcision can reduce pleasure up to 75%.
This is the 3rd time I've posted these in this thread.
"These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."
"Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction."
"The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction."
You are missing the key issue..which is that the female equivalent is made illegal, and decried on all over the world
You really think removing the clitoris or sewing the vagina shut is nearly as bad as cutting off some dick skin? I'm cut and my penis works just fine, which is more than most victims of FGM can say.
Whenever FGM is brought up in a debate over circumcision it seems like FGM is mentioned only in it's most extreme cases. The equivalent of the male circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood. This doesn't prevent function of the clitoris, or anything else.
>In most of the world, clitoral modifications are uncommon. In some cultures, female genital mutilation (FGM) is practiced as a rite of passage into womanhood, is perceived as an improvement to the appearance of the genitalia, or is used to suppress or reduce female sexual desire and pleasure (including masturbation).[6][7][8][9] FGM was performed on many children in Western countries, including previously in the United States, to discourage masturbation and reduce diseases believed to relate to it.[10][11]
Circumcision is justified for the exact same reasons cleanliness, religion, culture, tradition, aesthetic, and for disease prevention.
Are they both not wrong? Any argument you can make for male circumcision can be proposed for clitoral removal
Surgical removal of the clitoral hood is not illegal in most parts of the world, as far as I know. I believe T-rexwitha_gun was referring to the "extreme" case of FGM, which is what most human rights organizations around the world oppose. I have not heard of a large amount of opposition to the procedure you have mentioned, or to any form of vaginoplasty.
It doesn't matter which one is worse, they're both wrong.
Lots of things are wrong. Do you think we should be going after people who double park with the same fury as the Syrian government for gassing it's own people?
Y'know, because they're both wrong.
Oh please. We're not talking about either of those things so stop trying to move the goalposts or change the conversation. We're talking about forcing life-altering and unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children for no good reason in the majority of cases. It doesn't matter whose bits they're cutting, it's wrong and needs to stop.
that's not why people are horrified at FGM. People are horrified at FGM because it's painful mutilation of a woman's genitals, often for misogynistic reasons. I'll stop moving the goalposts and/or changing the conversation when you do.