Seeing a woman who doesn't like uncircumcised, might be a deal breaker for her

[Cypress25]

Now replace "circumcision" by "slavery" or any random barbaric ritual

 

LOL, male circumcision is not a barbaric ritual.

 

It's definately mutilation

Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

Again, male circumcision is not an injury and it does not degrade the appearance or function of the body. A circumcised penis is still fully functional and causes no pain or discomfort.

 

Most people in Europe would consider it abuse, and from what I've heard a growing amount of people in the US become convinced it is abuse.

 

It's not abuse. The people who consider it abuse are the people who have not had it done. Since they have no personal experience with it, they have to make assumptions about it. It sounds awful to them, so they assume the experience of being circumcised is awful. But if they really want to know what it's like, they should talk to circumcised men. Only they know what it's like, and they do not report feeling that they have been subjected to abuse at all. They're usually quite happy with their physical condition and would laugh at the idea that some people consider it abuse.

 

female circumcision isn't considered abuse in some countries

 

The women consider it abuse. That's the difference here. Women who have had female circumcision hate it because it causes pain and suffering throughout their lives. Their culture may promote it, but that's only because in their society, no one asks women for their opinions. But men who have been circumcised have no problem with it, and they're the experts.

 

Some things are universal.

 

Obviously, this is not one of those things. You're commenting on a foreign culture from an ethnocentric perspective. (You think your culture is the best, and since circumcision is not common in your culture, it must be wrong.) Try to look at it objectively. The people who have had it done (and it's done in many countries) don't have a problem with it. The only reason you have a problem with it is because it's foreign and strange to you.

[sweetjasmine]

But if they really want to know what it's like, they should talk to circumcised men. Only they know what it's like, and they do not report feeling that they have been subjected to abuse at all. They're usually quite happy with their physical condition and would laugh at the idea that some people consider it abuse.

 

That's because a person would be hesitant to accept that what was done to them was abuse. A person would also be hesitant to accept that they're missing something they can never get back.

 

No one would enjoy being told that they've been abused and that their body has been mutilated. It should be no surprise that many circumcised men respond this way.

 

The women consider it abuse. That's the difference here. Women who have had female circumcision hate it because it causes pain and suffering throughout their lives. Their culture may promote it, but that's only because in their society, no one asks women for their opinions.

 

Actually, in most cultures which practice female genital mutilation, the women are instrumental in continuing the barbaric tradition. Grandmothers, moms, aunts, and sisters are the ones who hold down the child.

 

But men who have been circumcised have no problem with it, and they're the experts.

 

My partner is a circumcised man who DOES have a problem with the fact that his parents decided to circumcise him just because "it's what you do." How can anyone make it up to him or to other men who feel the same way? Are men like him not also experts, then? How do you weigh the two differing opinions? Do you err on the side of doing things to people's bodies that they'll wish had never been done? Or do you err on the side of NOT doing things to people's bodies that they'll wish had never been done?

 

The only reason you have a problem with it is because it's foreign and strange to you.

 

No, that's not the only reason. Male circumcision is certainly not foreign or strange to me, since most men my age are circumcised, but I certainly DO have a problem with people performing cosmetic procedures on infants and justifying it with BS about tradition. A very big problem. Children are not pieces of property, and I find the practice unethical.

 

And for those of you talking about ear piercing, I had my ears pierced when I was several days old, and though I don't feel bothered by the fact that my parents followed this tradition, I wouldn't do it to my own child. There are risks involved with ear piercing and male circumcision, and the arguments for it are entirely specious. Consider me utterly unconvinced that it's a-okay or desirable.

[Cypress25]

That's because a person would be hesitant to accept that what was done to them was abuse. A person would also be hesitant to accept that they're missing something they can never get back.

 

LOL, they're not in denial, they just really don't care. They're perfectly aware that they can't get their foreskin back, but they don't see it as a loss. That's like expecting someone to be sad that their umbilical cord is gone forever. No one cares. Circumcised men don't miss their foreskin.

 

No one would enjoy being told that they've been abused and that their body has been mutilated. It should be no surprise that many circumcised men respond this way.

 

Of course they wouldn't enjoy being told that their body has been mutilated, because they don't think their body has been mutilated. If they like their body the way it is, who are you to tell them there's something wrong with it?

 

My partner is a circumcised man who DOES have a problem with the fact that his parents decided to circumcise him just because "it's what you do."

 

Then he needs to see a therapist. Obviously there's nothing physically wrong with him, which means the problem is psychological. I'm sorry, but it's not normal to grieve the loss of the foreskin. It's a pretty nonfunctional piece of skin. Does he really think his life would be any different if he still had his foreskin?

 

Interesting article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-intelligence/201106/criminalizing-circumcision-self-hatred-public-policy

 

How can anyone make it up to him or to other men who feel the same way? Are men like him not also experts, then? How do you weigh the two differing opinions?

 

Therapy would be a good start. His penis is not the problem. Self-loathing is the problem. I weigh the two differing opinions by looking at the statistics. If 95% of circumcised men are happy with it, and 5% of them are unhappy with it, clearly the people in the minority have issues. The two groups are not even close in number. There is a very vast majority and a very tiny minority.

 

Do you err on the side of doing things to people's bodies that they'll wish had never been done? Or do you err on the side of NOT doing things to people's bodies that they'll wish had never been done?

 

Most circumcised men do not wish it had never been done. In fact, most of them are happy about it. They're not in denial; that's really how they feel. You can't predict how your baby will feel about it when he gets older. Apparently, some uncut guys wish they had been cut (just look at the OP). Parents who have it done assume their kid will be fine with it, since 95% of cut guys are fine with it. And they know their kid will be cleaner and have lower risk of infection because of it. That's why so many parents do it. They're not doing it "just because." They're doing it because it's more sanitary. I'm sure uncut guys are capable of washing their penis, but they have to be more vigilant about it. Besides, little kids and elderly people are not very good at personal hygiene. So uncut boys under the age of 7 and uncut men over the age of 70 are much more prone to infection because they can't wash as easily.

[OliveOyl]

Cypress... I have a problem with your argument.

 

You are saying in your previous post that very few men regret having been circumcised. (Actually I do agree with that, because people will do the best to make themselves happy with circumstances they cannot change. And to admit you're unhappy with your penis is not considered very manly.)

 

But then you say if they do regret having been circumcised, they need therapy.

 

So by your argument, there is no reasonable ground. There is no way for a man to be psychologically healthy AND regret having been circumcised. It's a closed argument.

Edited August 19, 2011 by OliveOyl

[Disillusioned]

Oh come on, people... this is starting to get silly.

 

I happen to be circumcised, but that doesn't mean if and when I ever get off my butt and get a gf, that I'm going to DEMAND she get a hoodectomy before I lose my virginity to her.

 

(Bet you didn't know there was a name for it)

[Flipper]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but man... GET THAT S**T CIRUMSIZED A.S.A.P! As a very heterosexual male, I think the penis can be an attractive human organ (for females obviously), however if you aint cirumsized that's really nasty IMO, short foreskin or not.

 

Go get it done man... it will look and feel 100000x better. It makes your penis a solid rod as opposed to a rod with some weird flappy skin that moves up and down on your penis like some creature in a sci-fi movie.... If there's one thing that religion has done right in the US it's making circumcision mainstream. If I were a girl I wouldn't touch an uncircumsized penis with a 10 foot pole

Edited August 19, 2011 by Flipper

[Sanman]

Lol, I love all the conjecture from people who have no idea what they are talking about. The truth is that most people are talking out of their behind on this topic and can't admit that there is no good reason for their preference. The only real authority on this is any man who was circumcised as adult and can attest to differences in feel and sexual pleasure. Even most men have no idea what it is like to circumcised/uncircumcised since they live only one way all of their lives.

[D-Lish]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but man... GET THAT S**T CIRUMSIZED A.S.A.P! As a very heterosexual male, I think the penis can be an attractive human organ (for females obviously), however if you aint cirumsized that's really nasty IMO, short foreskin or not.

 

Go get it done man... it will look and feel 100000x better. It makes your penis a solid rod as opposed to a rod with some weird flappy skin that moves up and down on your penis like some creature in a sci-fi movie.... If there's one thing that religion has done right in the US it's making circumcision mainstream. If I were a girl I wouldn't touch an uncircumsized penis with a 10 foot pole

 

It's not mainstream anymore actually, it's a "dying" art medically speaking.

 

From my female perspective, a penis is a penis, with or without the little jacket:rolleyes:. I've noticed no difference in having sex with cut vs uncut.

[Asics]

It's a pretty nonfunctional piece of skin.

 

You're kidding, right? Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

20 Functions of the Foreskin

 

Sexual1

Erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles

2

Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation

3

Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

4

Stimulates partner's genitalia, giving erotic pleasure

5

Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness

6

Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal

7

Stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

8

Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal

9

Provides a seal against the vaginal wall to contain semen

Protective10

Prevents the glans becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist

11

Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury

12

Protects the nerves of the glans, retaining their erotic function

13

In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, (and UTIs?)

14

Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans

15

Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn

16

Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

Other17

Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc.

18

"The foreskin is important embryologically in the formation of the end of the penis and the urethra. If there is no foreskin the urethral opening is not at the end of the penis where it should be, but somewhere on the underside of the penis (hypospadius [sic])." - Dr Edgar Schoen (!) (but he claims that is its only function)

19

Holds absorbant tissue in place after urethral surgery, in case of minimal incontinence, etc.

20

 

Conceals notes. "Members of the IRA were known to hide notes under their foreskins when incarcerated" - Richard English, Armed Struggle (2004) 200-201 quoted in Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision, Issues Paper No 14, 2009, Tasmania Law Reform Institute Stores contact lenses, smuggled jewels, etc. - not all recommended uses ...

[Flipper]

It's not mainstream anymore actually, it's a "dying" art medically speaking.

 

From my female perspective, a penis is a penis, with or without the little jacket:rolleyes:. I've noticed no difference in having sex with cut vs uncut.

 

Lol. Yea i overreacted, i just dont see why someone would not want to be circumsised. And of course sex wouldn't be different, the vagina isn't THAT sensitive

 

And I'm not sure I believe that it is dying as a big reason it is done is for sanitary purposes, guys with foreskin often grow fungus and get all kinds of nasty stuff under there

[Flipper]

"Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc."

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[D-Lish]

Lol. Yea i overreacted, i just dont see why someone would not want to be circumsised. And of course sex wouldn't be different, the vagina isn't THAT sensitive

 

And I'm not sure I believe that it is dying as a big reason it is done is for sanitary purposes, guys with foreskin often grow fungus and get all kinds of nasty stuff under there

 

Only if they don't pay attention to hygiene.

Women themselves have folds of skin to tend to, and the vagina isn't a "pretty" organ. You'll meet some girls that don't pay attention to keeping it clean down there and you'll meet others that do... No different with a dude sporting a hoodie:lmao:

 

Any guy that would disregard taking care of that hooddie would probably neglect his hygiene regardless.

 

I wouldn't date someone that had a hygiene issue.

[Asics]

Sorry I messed that lost post up...

 

 

It's a pretty nonfunctional piece of skin.

 

You're kidding, right? Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

20 Functions of the Foreskin

 

Sexual

 

1. Erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles

 

2. Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation

 

3. Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

 

4. Stimulates partner's genitalia, giving erotic pleasure

 

5. Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness

 

6. Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal

 

7. Stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

 

8. Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal

 

9. Provides a seal against the vaginal wall to contain semen

 

 

Protective

 

10. Prevents the glans becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist

 

11. Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury

 

12. Protects the nerves of the glans, retaining their erotic function

 

13. In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, (and UTIs?)

 

14. Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans

 

15. Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn

 

16. Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

 

 

Other

 

17. Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc.

 

18. "The foreskin is important embryologically in the formation of the end of the penis and the urethra. If there is no foreskin the urethral opening is not at the end of the penis where it should be, but somewhere on the underside of the penis (hypospadius [sic])." - Dr Edgar Schoen (!) (but he claims that is its only function)

 

19. Holds absorbant tissue in place after urethral surgery, in case of minimal incontinence, etc.

 

20. Conceals notes. "Members of the IRA were known to hide notes under their foreskins when incarcerated" - Richard English, Armed Struggle (2004) 200-201 quoted in Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision, Issues Paper No 14, 2009, Tasmania Law Reform Institute Stores contact lenses, smuggled jewels, etc. - not all recommended uses ...

[Sanman]

Only if they don't pay attention to hygiene.

Women themselves have folds of skin to tend to, and the vagina isn't a "pretty" organ. You'll meet some girls that don't pay attention to keeping it clean down there and you'll meet others that do... No different with a dude sporting a hoodie:lmao:

 

Any guy that would disregard taking care of that hooddie would probably neglect his hygiene regardless.

 

I wouldn't date someone that had a hygiene issue.

 

 

They just got hoodies because they so gangsta. Some guys just don't want to be gangsta, so they can't rock a hoodie.

[D-Lish]

They just got hoodies because they so gangsta. Some guys just don't want to be gangsta, so they can't rock a hoodie.

 

As long as they go "downtown" first, I'll take a geek over a gangsta anyday, everyday:cool:

[Flipper]

Only if they don't pay attention to hygiene.

Women themselves have folds of skin to tend to, and the vagina isn't a "pretty" organ. You'll meet some girls that don't pay attention to keeping it clean down there and you'll meet others that do... No different with a dude sporting a hoodie:lmao:

 

Any guy that would disregard taking care of that hooddie would probably neglect his hygiene regardless.

 

I wouldn't date someone that had a hygiene issue.

 

I think the vagina can be a 'pretty.' But I'm with you on hygiene, I'm recently all about hygiene myself, I couldn't date a girl that wasn't clean like me too

[giuliano-3]

As a very heterosexual male, I think the penis can be an attractive human organ (for females obviously), however if you aint cirumsized that's really nasty IMO, short foreskin or not.

 

Go get it done man... it will look and feel 100000x better. It makes your penis a solid rod as opposed to a rod with some weird flappy skin that moves up and down on your penis like some creature in a sci-fi movie.... If there's one thing that religion has done right in the US it's making circumcision mainstream. If I were a girl I wouldn't touch an uncircumsized penis with a 10 foot pole

 

It would take Beavis and Butthead about 4 hours to read this.

 

What is a very heterosexual man, exactly? This comes to mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ERdyIv8jDWY/TD3PSspZfCI/AAAAAAAAJ5I/hGeWp50muWg/s1600/marlboro_man.jpg

Edited August 19, 2011 by giuliano-3

[rafallus]

And I'm not sure I believe that it is dying as a big reason it is done is for sanitary purposes, guys with foreskin often grow fungus and get all kinds of nasty stuff under there

 

That's what shower/bath is for.

 

You're really grasping at straws here.

[sweetjasmine]

That's like expecting someone to be sad that their umbilical cord is gone forever.

 

No. An umbilical cord dries up and falls off naturally. A foreskin doesn't.

 

Circumcised men don't miss their foreskin.

 

Plenty of them wonder what their body would be like if it hadn't been removed without their consent.

 

If they like their body the way it is, who are you to tell them there's something wrong with it?

 

What's wrong with it is that their parents removed a piece of it without their consent, before they were capable of forming consent, and all for aesthetic and social reasons.

 

This also goes both ways. Who is anyone to tell an uncircumcised man that his body is gross and dirtier and that no woman in her right mind would touch it with a ten foot pole, much less have sex with him? Who is anyone to tell a grown man that he needs to cut off a piece of his own body in order to be "normal"?

 

Then he needs to see a therapist. Obviously there's nothing physically wrong with him, which means the problem is psychological.

 

Excuse me? It's not a psychological problem. It's taking issue with the unethical nature of the practice and the fact that two adults decided to permanently alter his body because everyone else was doing it to their infants.

 

And, yes, there are physical issues regarding sensitivity that are a direct result of the surgical procedure. And, yes, it's incredibly frustrating and annoying to have to deal with it just because two adults decided he should look a certain way. Again, how do you compensate someone who has had complications from the procedure? "Well, sorry, but 95% of men who've had it done have no problems! Sucks to be you! Better luck next time, buddy!"

 

I'm sorry, but it's not normal to grieve the loss of the foreskin.

 

I didn't say he grieved anything.

 

It's a pretty nonfunctional piece of skin.

 

This is completely wrong, as has already been shown. That "nonfunctional" piece of skin also happens to have thousands of nerve endings.

 

Does he really think his life would be any different if he still had his foreskin?

 

Possibly. He has no way of knowing, though, because other people decided that for him. That's the whole point.

 

His penis is not the problem. Self-loathing is the problem.

 

There is no self-loathing in this case. There's questioning of a pointless tradition which could potentially cause harm and has caused harm in many cases.

 

I weigh the two differing opinions by looking at the statistics.

 

And where'd you get those statistics?

 

You can't predict how your baby will feel about it when he gets older.

 

...which is precisely why you should err on the side of cautioninstead of performing an irreversible surgical procedure that's COMPLETELY OPTIONAL and cosmetic!

 

Apparently, some uncut guys wish they had been cut (just look at the OP).

 

The OP has questions about it and should consult a doctor. It's a good thing that he has the ability to think it through and decide for himself what to do with his own damn body. There's nothing preventing him from having the procedure done if that's what he wants, but it's impossible for a circumcised adult to snap his fingers and get that piece of his body back.

 

And they know their kid will be cleaner and have lower risk of infection because of it.

 

Or they could subsequently teach their kid how to use A BAR OF SOAP and condoms.

 

That's why so many parents do it. They're not doing it "just because."

 

My SO's parents did it "just because" and have admitted it. There was no religious motivation, and they were unaware of the arguments people make re: hygiene, infection. It was a choice made out of pure ignorance and based solely on tradition.

 

They're doing it because it's more sanitary.

 

These days, we have running water and soap. You don't need to cut off a body part to keep yourself clean. Or do you think women should have their labia sliced off because eww it's yucky and smelly and dirty and requires washing with soap?

Edited August 19, 2011 by sweetjasmine

[Disillusioned]

I'm circumcised, so I'll never be able to get balanitis or phimosis... boy do I feel gypped!

[Crabbies]

Let's cut to the chase, yanks think uncircumcised men are prone to disease-ridden filth under their foreskins and foreigners are smelly generally, and english and the rest of europe think americans are grossly overweight, grossly stupid and psychotically violent by nature...

[ChessPieceFace]

You'd be a fool to get circumcised. You'd be doubly a fool to get circumcised because of a girl you just met. Wise up. Read about how many people got circumcised as adults and regretted it, and the people taping off their members 24/7 to try to restore basically a 'fake' foreskin.

 

But hey, if you want to mutilate your body and reduce your sexual pleasure, at least you had the choice. I had mine taken from me without any choice.

[AHardDaysNight]

Any woman who had a problem with me being uncircumsized is someone I wouldn't want to date.

 

To me, having skin there is normal! And I definitely don't let it get dirty, so that's a non-issue.

[Crabbies]

Any woman who had a problem with me being uncircumsized is someone I wouldn't want to date.

 

To me, having skin there is normal! And I definitely don't let it get dirty, so that's a non-issue.

 

No apparently "guys with foreskin often grow fungus and get all kinds of nasty stuff under there"...:lmao::lmao:

 

OP hope this has been helpful....:lmao:

[Cypress25]

There is no way for a man to be psychologically healthy AND regret having been circumcised.

 

Yep. There is no logical reason for him to regret it. So if he does regret it, that means there are underlying psychological problems that need to be worked out with a therapist. No emotionally healthy man would regret a thing like that.

 

You're kidding, right? Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Then why are you considering circumcision now, as an adult? If the foreskin is so special to you, maybe you should keep it. You started a thread about problems with your foreskin and how you're seriously considering surgery to get rid of it, and now you're going on about all the amazing features of your foreskin? Make up your damn mind.

 

What's wrong with it is that their parents removed a piece of it without their consent, before they were capable of forming consent, and all for aesthetic and social reasons.

 

So you think it's wrong on principle. Just because the parents did it without his consent. That seems rather stupid; parents do a lot of things without their child's consent. My parents chose my name for me. They chose the formula that I ate as a baby. They chose the color of my bedroom. They made important medical decisions for me too. They had me vaccinated as a baby. They decided to forgo braces when the dentist suggested it. They decided to forgo growth hormone treatment when the doctor suggested it. They didn't ask for my consent about any of these things because as a minor, I could not legally give consent. As my parents, they had the right to make these decisions for me. Some of them had permanent effects. That's what parents do.

 

This also goes both ways. Who is anyone to tell an uncircumcised man that his body is gross and dirtier and that no woman in her right mind would touch it with a ten foot pole, much less have sex with him? Who is anyone to tell a grown man that he needs to cut off a piece of his own body in order to be "normal"?

 

I never suggested that. There's nothing wrong with uncircumcised men. They're no better or worse than circumcised men. They just need to wash more frequently, that's all. I don't believe that an uncut guy's body is gross and I don't believe that all women are turned off by it. (I may be turned off by it because I'm not used to it and it looks and feels weird to me, but that's just my personal preference.) And I don't think anyone should tell a grown man that he needs to cut off a piece of his own body. If you look at my first post in this thread, I told the OP that his girl was being unreasonable in making such a demand on him. What I'm saying is people need to stop acting like there's something wrong with circumcised men. There's nothing wrong with male circumcision and in fact there are some benefits.

 

It's taking issue with the unethical nature of the practice and the fact that two adults decided to permanently alter his body because everyone else was doing it to their infants.

 

Like I said, that's just arguing with the principle of it. You may think parents shouldn't be allowed to make medical decisions for their children, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for parents to do that. There's nothing unethical about it. And you may not like their reasons, but you probably don't understand their reasons. They obviously thought the procedure would be beneficial for their baby, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. You assume they did it "just because" but I doubt it. It's not for you to decide if their reasons are good enough.

 

And, yes, there are physical issues regarding sensitivity that are a direct result of the surgical procedure. And, yes, it's incredibly frustrating and annoying to have to deal with it just because two adults decided he should look a certain way. Again, how do you compensate someone who has had complications from the procedure? "Well, sorry, but 95% of men who've had it done have no problems! Sucks to be you! Better luck next time, buddy!"

 

Anyone who has had physical complications from the procedure has my sympathies. That should never happen. If the doctor somehow botched the operation, that's an unfortunate tragedy. Luckily that's extremely rare (much less than 5% certainly). Any routine medical procedure can have complications, but with this being such a simple operation, it's very unlikely that anything will go wrong. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

 

He has no way of knowing, though, because other people decided that for him. That's the whole point.

Seems like a ridiculous point to get hung up on. I mean, I have no way of knowing what my life would have been like if I'd gotten braces as a kid. I've always had crooked teeth, but maybe my life would be a million times better if I had straight teeth. I have no way of knowing, because my parents made that decision for me. Really, I should be mad at them! How dare they decide the fate of my teeth without my consent! For all I know, my crooked teeth have ruined my life!

 

No but really, that's stupid. My teeth aren't actually causing any problems, so why should I want them to be different? No one has any way of knowing what their life would be like if things were different. Maybe your friend should look around and realize that uncut guys are no more or less happy than cut guys. And uncut guys don't enjoy sex any more or less than cut guys. Cut or uncut, it makes no difference in their lives. Your friend sounds like the type who would never be satisfied with what he had. If he was uncut, he'd wish he was cut.

 

There is no self-loathing in this case. There's questioning of a pointless tradition which could potentially cause harm and has caused harm in many cases.

 

It's actually extremely rare that it causes harm. You may not like that, but it's the truth. The statistics do not agree with you here. It's a very safe procedure and it's not pointless. There are obvious benefits, that's why people do it.

 

which is precisely why you should err on the side of caution instead of performing an irreversible surgical procedure that's COMPLETELY OPTIONAL and cosmetic!

 

It's not cosmetic. The sanitary reasons have been explained many times. I understand that uncut guys are capable of keeping themselves clean, but they are more prone to infection at the same time. They have to wash multiple times a day, which is not always possible for toddlers, elderly men, or disabled men. Cut guys simply don't run the same risk of infection. Another truth.

 

I think parents do err on the side of caution, no matter what decision they make. Parents who forgo the procedure believe that their child will be better off uncircumcised. And parents who choose the procedure believe that their child will be better off circumcised. They're doing what they think is best for the kid. They see it as an act of kindness, having it done when their kid is a baby, because the operation is more painful as an adult. I think most guys are glad they were circumcised when they were too young to remember it.

 

There's nothing preventing him from having the procedure done if that's what he wants, but it's impossible for a circumcised adult to snap his fingers and get that piece of his body back.

 

Why a circumcised adult would want his foreskin back is beyond me. That's where you're getting into the realm of "This guy needs therapy." Because his life would still be the same, even if he magically got his foreskin back. There is no rational basis for such a desire. You should read the article, even if you don't agree with it. It's interesting.

 

My SO's parents did it "just because" and have admitted it. There was no religious motivation, and they were unaware of the arguments people make re: hygiene, infection. It was a choice made out of pure ignorance and based solely on tradition.

 

Well then, they should be pleased to know that there are health benefits. Now they can pretend they knew it all along.

 

These days, we have running water and soap. You don't need to cut off a body part to keep yourself clean. Or do you think women should have their labia sliced off because eww it's yucky and smelly and dirty and requires washing with soap?

 

I would hardly consider the foreskin an entire body part. And actually, the vagina is different from the penis. Having a labia does not increase a woman's risk of infection. Slicing off the labia would not lower a woman's risk of infection. In fact, it would raise her risk of infection exponentially; women have died from such procedures. Male circumcision has benefits and virtually no risk. Female circumcision has no benefits whatsoever and is extremely dangerous. The two cannot be compared. You also seem to be forgetting that the vagina is internally self-cleaning. Women need to wash the exterior of their body with soap and water, but they're not supposed to get soap inside their vagina. That upsets the pH balance and can cause infection and irritation. Since the penis is an external organ, it needs to be washed with soap and water.