By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Runa216 said:
I think the thing that pisses me off most about the circumcision 'debate' is that absolutely none of the pro-circumcision arguments come close to matching the anti-circumcision arguments. Or, for that matter, just one argument.

Choice.

None of the arguments I've EVER heard are even close to the same level of 'it's a man's penis, it should be his choice in the end, he shouldn't have that choice taken away.' this isn't something like 'do we pierce his ears' or 'we want to cut our daughter's hair and make her bald'. This is a permanent, life-altering decision and change in genital anatomy that will impact his ability to enjoy sex for his entire life.

Arguments like 'it's easier to clean' are positively inane. Clean your dick. Teach your kid to clean his dick. ITS NOT HARD. Will kids laugh? Who cares? Circumcision is, AT BEST, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Will it hurt more or be more impactful when you're an adult? yes, but again that's his choice; if he feels its worth it then he'll do it. a few weeks of discomfort to have what might be to him a better experience is worth it. A man is a child for 18 years before he becomes a man, but after that a reasonable person can be alive another 50-60 years after that. At that point if he REALLY wants to get cut, that's up to him, but if he was and wants foreskin, too bad for him. No need to get into the stupidity of religion.

But my point is simply that it's a lifetime-lasting decision based on a parent's worries about the kid's first 1/5 of their lives. Even if for some reason a penis WAS hard to wash (it's not) or it WAS more subject to diseases when uncut (it's not), then circumcision is still shorthand for "I'm a bad parent who can't be bothered to teach my kid how to not be a disgusting slob so I'm just gonna remove the issue.",

Again, ALL of the arguments pro-circumcision ONLY concern the first 18 years of the man's life, presumably half or three quarters of which he won't even be having sex. Why does ANYONE find it a reasonable decision to do this to someone at birth based solely on mistruths and shortsightedness?

If you circumcise and they resent it when they get older, then they're stuck with YOUR decision. If you don't circumcise and they wish to be upon getting older, then VOILA, they're able to. It should be their decision.

Parents make decisions for children all the time.

Additionally, I'd argue the choice is more important for the child's adult years, as that's when they'll be having the majority of sex. And in the US, circumcised penises are just more accepted.

I'd also wager that the people complaining about a lack of choice haven't actually had a circumcision. I've never heard of a guy who was circumcised as a child complain about it in their adult years. We don't remember it. Most of us are happy our parents has us circumcised as infants.

However, I have heard about complications with regard to adult males having circumcisions. And I have heard about guys being less confident due to perceptions women have of uncircumcised penises.