I'm Undergoing Adult Circumcision For Religious Reasons In Possibly A Year Or Two, I Have A Dilemma

How is it not comparable? It depends on the local custom. Some cultures just remove the tip of the foreskin and some just make a nick in the clitoral hood. Some remove the foreskin to behind the glans and some remove the [art pf tje clitoral hood. Some cultures remove more of the foreskin so as there is none left. The same with the clitoral hood. Some cultures remove ALL the skin of the penis up to the belly! Some remove the entire clitoris and sow the vulva up and just leave a pee hole. Some split the urethra of the penis so the man has to pee sitting. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Often the culture circumcises its child and then throws the wrong part away.

That argument is dangerous and misogynistic, because to compare the two is to diminish and disregard the real harm that is currently being done to millions of little girls around the world.

Yes, male circumcision involves taking off a piece of his body–his foreskin. But that is not a vital part of his body, and he can function very well without it. FGM, on the other hand, is actual mutilation, and in many parts of the world it is done with sharp pieces of glass, a rusty razor blade, and no anaesthetic.

Millions of little girls will undergo this procedure around the world this year alone. For many, it is the beginning of a lifetime of pain, constant infections, painful menstruation, and even dangerous childbirth. You cannot say that about male circumcision. Yes there are those that think the male foreskin is some kind of sexual talisman and something magical is lost with male circumcision however there is scant evidence of that.

Female Genital Mutilation is an attempt to control girls and treat them like property. Female Genital Mutilation states that a girl’s sex drive is dangerous and shameful.The whole reason behind the procedure is to prevent girls from wanting to have sex. Their sex drives are seen as dangerous; they may choose to have sex before marriage or choose to have an affair. FGM prevents that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 622675
That argument is dangerous and misogynistic, because to compare the two is to diminish and disregard the real harm that is currently being done to millions of little girls around the world.

Yes, male circumcision involves taking off a piece of his body–his foreskin. But that is not a vital part of his body, and he can function very well without it. FGM, on the other hand, is actual mutilation, and in many parts of the world it is done with sharp pieces of glass, a rusty razor blade, and no anaesthetic.

Millions of little girls will undergo this procedure around the world this year alone. For many, it is the beginning of a lifetime of pain, constant infections, painful menstruation, and even dangerous childbirth. You cannot say that about male circumcision. Yes there are those that think the male foreskin is some kind of sexual talisman and something magical is lost with male circumcision however there is scant evidence of that.

Female Genital Mutilation is an attempt to control girls and treat them like property. Female Genital Mutilation states that a girl’s sex drive is dangerous and shameful.The whole reason behind the procedure is to prevent girls from wanting to have sex. Their sex drives are seen as dangerous; they may choose to have sex before marriage or choose to have an affair. FGM prevents that.

Brainwashed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F_Man and MisterVIP
Brainwashed.

If brainwashed is the opposite of the buffoonery you've demonstrated in this thread I'm happy to take the title.

I would urge anyone considering circumcision to talk to a board certified physician and not someone on the internet including me.
 
I was circumcised when I was a baby.

As an adult, I'd never chop someone's dick to make a magic man in the sky happy. That's just silly. But at least as a baby, it's less traumatic.

I expect this will be a matter for debate with my SO at some point. But for right now, no genital mutilation is against my beliefs. If God didn't want you to have a foreskin, then why would he have created you that way? IDK about Judiasm but in Christianity they teach that we are created in the perfect image of God. So, what's the problem with my dick?

If this is something that you want to do any you're not being pressured in to it, then do it. Who cares what anyone else thinks? It's your body....

That underlined part isn't true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F_Man
If brainwashed is the opposite of the buffoonery you've demonstrated in this thread I'm happy to take the title.

I would urge anyone considering circumcision to talk to a board certified physician and not someone on the internet including me.

A Short History of Circumcision in the U.S.

1860: 0.001% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.

1871: 1% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit." M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Therapeutic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol. 14 (1871): pp. 368-374.

1887: 10% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"Hip trouble is from falling down, an accident that children with tight foreskins are especially liable to owing to the weakening of the muscles produced by the condition of the genitals." Lewis L. Sayer, Circumcision For the Cure of Enuresis, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 7 (1887): pp. 631-633.

"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts." Angel Money, Treatment of Disease in Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887, p. 421.

1888: 15% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." John Harvey Kellogg [the breakfast cereal tycoon], Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.

1891
"In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The sensitivity of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently to interfere with the copulative function of the organ or to constitute an objection ... It is well authenticated that the foreskin ... is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in children ... I conclude that the foreskin is detrimental to health, and that circumcision is a wise measure of hygiene." Jefferson C. Crossland, The Hygiene of Circumcision, NY Medical Journal, vol. 53 (1891): pp. 484-485.

1891
"Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to many patients of both sexes." Jonathan Hutchinson, On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, Archives of Surgery, vol. 2 (1891): pp. 267-268.

1895
"In all cases in which male children are suffering nerve tension, confirmed derangement of the digestive organs, restlessness, irritability, and other disturbances of the nervous system, even to chorea, convulsions, and paralysis, or where through nerve waste the nutritive facilities of the general system are below par and structural diseases are occurring, circumcision should be considered as among the lines of treatment to be pursued." Charles E. Fisher, Circumcision, in A Hand-Book On the Diseases of Children and Their Homeopathic Treatment. Chicago: Medical Century Co., 1895. p. 875.

1895: 15% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physicians' closest friend and ally ... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained ... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch." E. J. Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24 (1895): pp. 442-443.

1896
"Local indications for circumcision: Hygienic, phimosis, paraphimosis, redundancy (where the prepuce more than covers the glans), adhesions, papillomata, eczema (acute and chronic), oedema, chancre, chancroid, cicatrices, inflammatory thickening, elephantiasis, naevus, epithelioma, gangrene, tuberculosis, preputial calculi, hip-joint disease, hernia. Systemic indications: Onanism [masturbation], seminal emissions, enuresis, dysuria, retention, general nervousness, impotence, convulsions, hystero-epilepsy." Editor, Medical Record, Circumscisus, Medical Record, vol. 49 (1896): p. 430.

1897
"The prepuce is an important factor in the production of phthisis [tuberculosis]. This can be proven by the immunity of the Jewish race from tubercular affections." S. G. A. Brown, A Plea for Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 15 (1897): pp. 124-125.

1898
"Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vise practiced among boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision ... He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures." N. Bergman, Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision, Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp. 249-251.

1899
"Not infrequently marital unhappiness would be better relieved by circumcising the husband than by suing for divorce." A. W. Taylor, Circumcision - Its Moral and Physical Necessities and Advantages, Medical Record, vol. 56 (1899): p. 174.

1900: 25% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantages which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of coition and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss, increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful." Editor, Medical News. (A Plea for Circumcision) Medical News, vol. 77 (1900): pp. 707-708.

1900
"It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein." E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventive of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp. 1869-1871.

1901
"Another advantage of circumcision ... is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing ... This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ ... It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs hygienic and medical, to urge its acceptance." Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): pp. 121-126.

1901
"Frequent micturition [urination], loss of flesh, convulsions, phosphatic calculus, hernia, nervous exhaustion, dyspepsia, diarrhea, prolapse of rectum, balanitis, acute phimosis and masturbation are all conditions induced by the constricted long prepuce, and all to be rapidly remedied by the simple operation of circumcision." H. G. H. Naylor, A Plea for Early Circumcision, Pediatrics, vol. 12 (1901): p. 231.

1902
"I have repeatedly seen such cases as convulsions, constant crying in infants, simulated hip joint diseases, backwardness in studies, enuresis, marasmus, muscular inco-ordination, paralysis, masturbation, neurasthenia, and even epilepsy, cured or greatly benefited by the proper performance of circumcision." W. G. Steele, Importance of Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 20 (1902): pp. 518-519.

1912: 35% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"The little sufferer lay in his mother's lap. The dropsy ... had taken the form of hydrocephalus ... I then circumcised the child ... The head diminished in size and in two weeks the condition of hydrocephalus had disappeared and the child was once more dismissed as cured." E. H. Pratt, Circumcision, Orificial Surgery: Its Philosophy, Application and Technique. Edited by B. E. Dawson. Newark: Physicians Drug News Co. 1912. pp. 396-398.

1912
"Circumcision promotes cleanliness, prevents disease, and by reducing oversensitiveness of the parts tends to relieve sexual irritability, thus correcting any tendency which may exist to improper manipulations of the genital organs and the consequent acquirement of evil sexual habits, such as masturbation." Lydston G. Frank, Sex Hygiene for the Male. Chicago: Riverton Press, 1912.

1914
"It is generally accepted that irritation derived from a tight prepuce may be followed by nervous phenomena, among these being convulsions and epilepsy. It is therefore not at all improbable that in many infants who die in convulsions the real cause of death is a long or tight prepuce. The foreskin is a frequent factor in the causation of masturbation ... Circumcision offers a diminished tendency to masturbation, nocturnal pollutions, convulsions and other nervous results of local irritation. It is the moral duty of every physician to encourage circumcision in the young." Abraham L. Wolbarst, Universal Circumcision, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 62 (1914): pp. 92-97.

1915
"Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child's penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extremely proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision." L. W. Wuesthoff, Benefits of Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 33 (1915): p. 434.

1915
"The prepuce is one of the great factors in causing masturbation in boys. Here is the dilemma we are in: If we do not teach the growing boy to pull the prepuce back and cleanse the glans there is the danger of smegma collecting and of adhesions and ulcerations forming, which in their turn will cause irritation likely to lead to masturbation. If we do teach the boy to pull the prepuce back and cleanse his glans, that handling alone is sufficient gradually and almost without the boy's knowledge to initiate him into the habit of masturbation ... Therefore, off with the prepuce!" William J. Robinson, Circumcision and Masturbation, Medical World, vol. 33 (1915): p. 390.

1920: 50% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"Circumcision is an excellent thing to do; it helps to prevent hernia due to straining, and later it helps in preventing masturbation. The ordinary schoolboy is not taught to keep himself clean, and if he is taught he thinks too much about the matter." I. Solomons, For and Against Circumcision, British Medical Journal, 5 June 1920, p. 768.

1928
"Phimosis may be a predisposing cause of masturbation in some cases ... Hemorrhage following circumcision at birth cannot be considered seriously as a contraindication. Meatal ulcer due to ammoniacal diapers in the circumcised is not a contraindication ... Routine circumcision at birth is warranted." Editor, Routine Circumcision at Birth?, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 91 (1928): p. 201.

1935: 55% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is 'against nature', but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R. W. Cockshut, Circumcision, British Medical Journal, vol. 2 (1935): 764.

1941
"[Routine Circumcision] does not necessitate handling of the penis by the child himself and therefore does not focus the male's attention on his own genitals. Masturbation is considered less likely." Alan F. Guttmacher, Should the Baby Be Circumcised?, Parents Magazine, vol. 16 (1941): pp. 26, 76-78.

1971: 90% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." Committee On Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, 5th edition. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. 1971. p. 110.

1994: 60% of newborn males in the U.S. circumcised
"Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue ... Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue for no medical reason has ethical implications: circumcision violates the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)." Leo Sorger, To ACOG [American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology]: Stop Circumcisions, Ob Gyn News, 1 Nov. 1994, p. 8.

1998
"Circumcision is not a medical decision. Preventing an improbable future infection is a spurious indication. The standard of care is antibiotics, not amputation." Eileen Marie Wayne, MD, Letters (Nothing to debate on circumcision), American Medical News, 27 July 1998, p. 27.

"As editor of a newspaper dedicated to infectious diseases, you know that antibiotics are the standard of care for infection and that surgery is a last resort for body parts for which there is no other cure. Perpetrating sexual surgery on healthy non-consenting minors, under the legal age of informed consent or refusal, to purportedly prevent an unlikely and curable future infection, is unacceptable. Intentionally amputating healthy erogenous genital tissue from tethered, protesting infants is a surgical act of sexual sadism.
"Kaiser Foundation's Edgar Schoen ignores the erogenous benefits of the foreskin and a man's birthright to the sexual fulfillment he was born to experience. He would do well to stop promoting and perpetrating sexual surgery. He withholds from parents, who have no ethical right to consent to unnecessary sexually disendowing surgery on their children, the fact that the foreskin has sexual and erogenous functions. He contends that circumcision protects against sexually transmitted disease!
"Dr. Schoen's failed attempt to justify surgical genital abuse is a willful act of misrepresentation. It is a disgrace and discredit to the medical profession and Infectious Diseases in Children. It is imperative that you also remove this tainted material to minimize liability to this publication from harmed patients, especially circumcised victims who developed AIDS in spite of being circumcised. Beyond patient harm, beyond medical ethics, publishing misinformation is a licensing and disciplinary issue of grave import to all involved."
Eileen Marie Wayne, MD, Letters (Circumcision -- sexual sadism?), Infectious Diseases in Children, Vol. 11, No. 2, February 1998.

Muh "only female genital cutting is/was done to reduce pleasure/sensation and to control behavior."
 
A Short History of Circumcision in the U.S.

1860: 0.001% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.

1871: 1% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit." M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Therapeutic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol. 14 (1871): pp. 368-374.

1887: 10% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"Hip trouble is from falling down, an accident that children with tight foreskins are especially liable to owing to the weakening of the muscles produced by the condition of the genitals." Lewis L. Sayer, Circumcision For the Cure of Enuresis, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 7 (1887): pp. 631-633.

"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts." Angel Money, Treatment of Disease in Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887, p. 421.

1888: 15% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." John Harvey Kellogg [the breakfast cereal tycoon], Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.

1891
"In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The sensitivity of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently to interfere with the copulative function of the organ or to constitute an objection ... It is well authenticated that the foreskin ... is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in children ... I conclude that the foreskin is detrimental to health, and that circumcision is a wise measure of hygiene." Jefferson C. Crossland, The Hygiene of Circumcision, NY Medical Journal, vol. 53 (1891): pp. 484-485.

1891
"Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to many patients of both sexes." Jonathan Hutchinson, On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, Archives of Surgery, vol. 2 (1891): pp. 267-268.

1895
"In all cases in which male children are suffering nerve tension, confirmed derangement of the digestive organs, restlessness, irritability, and other disturbances of the nervous system, even to chorea, convulsions, and paralysis, or where through nerve waste the nutritive facilities of the general system are below par and structural diseases are occurring, circumcision should be considered as among the lines of treatment to be pursued." Charles E. Fisher, Circumcision, in A Hand-Book On the Diseases of Children and Their Homeopathic Treatment. Chicago: Medical Century Co., 1895. p. 875.

1895: 15% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physicians' closest friend and ally ... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained ... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch." E. J. Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24 (1895): pp. 442-443.

1896
"Local indications for circumcision: Hygienic, phimosis, paraphimosis, redundancy (where the prepuce more than covers the glans), adhesions, papillomata, eczema (acute and chronic), oedema, chancre, chancroid, cicatrices, inflammatory thickening, elephantiasis, naevus, epithelioma, gangrene, tuberculosis, preputial calculi, hip-joint disease, hernia. Systemic indications: Onanism [masturbation], seminal emissions, enuresis, dysuria, retention, general nervousness, impotence, convulsions, hystero-epilepsy." Editor, Medical Record, Circumscisus, Medical Record, vol. 49 (1896): p. 430.

1897
"The prepuce is an important factor in the production of phthisis [tuberculosis]. This can be proven by the immunity of the Jewish race from tubercular affections." S. G. A. Brown, A Plea for Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 15 (1897): pp. 124-125.

1898
"Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vise practiced among boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision ... He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures." N. Bergman, Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision, Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp. 249-251.

1899
"Not infrequently marital unhappiness would be better relieved by circumcising the husband than by suing for divorce." A. W. Taylor, Circumcision - Its Moral and Physical Necessities and Advantages, Medical Record, vol. 56 (1899): p. 174.

1900: 25% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantages which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of coition and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss, increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful." Editor, Medical News. (A Plea for Circumcision) Medical News, vol. 77 (1900): pp. 707-708.

1900
"It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein." E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventive of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp. 1869-1871.

1901
"Another advantage of circumcision ... is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing ... This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ ... It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs hygienic and medical, to urge its acceptance." Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): pp. 121-126.

1901
"Frequent micturition [urination], loss of flesh, convulsions, phosphatic calculus, hernia, nervous exhaustion, dyspepsia, diarrhea, prolapse of rectum, balanitis, acute phimosis and masturbation are all conditions induced by the constricted long prepuce, and all to be rapidly remedied by the simple operation of circumcision." H. G. H. Naylor, A Plea for Early Circumcision, Pediatrics, vol. 12 (1901): p. 231.

1902
"I have repeatedly seen such cases as convulsions, constant crying in infants, simulated hip joint diseases, backwardness in studies, enuresis, marasmus, muscular inco-ordination, paralysis, masturbation, neurasthenia, and even epilepsy, cured or greatly benefited by the proper performance of circumcision." W. G. Steele, Importance of Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 20 (1902): pp. 518-519.

1912: 35% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"The little sufferer lay in his mother's lap. The dropsy ... had taken the form of hydrocephalus ... I then circumcised the child ... The head diminished in size and in two weeks the condition of hydrocephalus had disappeared and the child was once more dismissed as cured." E. H. Pratt, Circumcision, Orificial Surgery: Its Philosophy, Application and Technique. Edited by B. E. Dawson. Newark: Physicians Drug News Co. 1912. pp. 396-398.

1912
"Circumcision promotes cleanliness, prevents disease, and by reducing oversensitiveness of the parts tends to relieve sexual irritability, thus correcting any tendency which may exist to improper manipulations of the genital organs and the consequent acquirement of evil sexual habits, such as masturbation." Lydston G. Frank, Sex Hygiene for the Male. Chicago: Riverton Press, 1912.

1914
"It is generally accepted that irritation derived from a tight prepuce may be followed by nervous phenomena, among these being convulsions and epilepsy. It is therefore not at all improbable that in many infants who die in convulsions the real cause of death is a long or tight prepuce. The foreskin is a frequent factor in the causation of masturbation ... Circumcision offers a diminished tendency to masturbation, nocturnal pollutions, convulsions and other nervous results of local irritation. It is the moral duty of every physician to encourage circumcision in the young." Abraham L. Wolbarst, Universal Circumcision, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 62 (1914): pp. 92-97.

1915
"Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child's penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extremely proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision." L. W. Wuesthoff, Benefits of Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 33 (1915): p. 434.

1915
"The prepuce is one of the great factors in causing masturbation in boys. Here is the dilemma we are in: If we do not teach the growing boy to pull the prepuce back and cleanse the glans there is the danger of smegma collecting and of adhesions and ulcerations forming, which in their turn will cause irritation likely to lead to masturbation. If we do teach the boy to pull the prepuce back and cleanse his glans, that handling alone is sufficient gradually and almost without the boy's knowledge to initiate him into the habit of masturbation ... Therefore, off with the prepuce!" William J. Robinson, Circumcision and Masturbation, Medical World, vol. 33 (1915): p. 390.

1920: 50% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"Circumcision is an excellent thing to do; it helps to prevent hernia due to straining, and later it helps in preventing masturbation. The ordinary schoolboy is not taught to keep himself clean, and if he is taught he thinks too much about the matter." I. Solomons, For and Against Circumcision, British Medical Journal, 5 June 1920, p. 768.

1928
"Phimosis may be a predisposing cause of masturbation in some cases ... Hemorrhage following circumcision at birth cannot be considered seriously as a contraindication. Meatal ulcer due to ammoniacal diapers in the circumcised is not a contraindication ... Routine circumcision at birth is warranted." Editor, Routine Circumcision at Birth?, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 91 (1928): p. 201.

1935: 55% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is 'against nature', but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R. W. Cockshut, Circumcision, British Medical Journal, vol. 2 (1935): 764.

1941
"[Routine Circumcision] does not necessitate handling of the penis by the child himself and therefore does not focus the male's attention on his own genitals. Masturbation is considered less likely." Alan F. Guttmacher, Should the Baby Be Circumcised?, Parents Magazine, vol. 16 (1941): pp. 26, 76-78.

1971: 90% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." Committee On Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, 5th edition. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. 1971. p. 110.

1994: 60% of newborn males in the U.S. circumcised
"Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue ... Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue for no medical reason has ethical implications: circumcision violates the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)." Leo Sorger, To ACOG [American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology]: Stop Circumcisions, Ob Gyn News, 1 Nov. 1994, p. 8.

1998
"Circumcision is not a medical decision. Preventing an improbable future infection is a spurious indication. The standard of care is antibiotics, not amputation." Eileen Marie Wayne, MD, Letters (Nothing to debate on circumcision), American Medical News, 27 July 1998, p. 27.

"As editor of a newspaper dedicated to infectious diseases, you know that antibiotics are the standard of care for infection and that surgery is a last resort for body parts for which there is no other cure. Perpetrating sexual surgery on healthy non-consenting minors, under the legal age of informed consent or refusal, to purportedly prevent an unlikely and curable future infection, is unacceptable. Intentionally amputating healthy erogenous genital tissue from tethered, protesting infants is a surgical act of sexual sadism.
"Kaiser Foundation's Edgar Schoen ignores the erogenous benefits of the foreskin and a man's birthright to the sexual fulfillment he was born to experience. He would do well to stop promoting and perpetrating sexual surgery. He withholds from parents, who have no ethical right to consent to unnecessary sexually disendowing surgery on their children, the fact that the foreskin has sexual and erogenous functions. He contends that circumcision protects against sexually transmitted disease!
"Dr. Schoen's failed attempt to justify surgical genital abuse is a willful act of misrepresentation. It is a disgrace and discredit to the medical profession and Infectious Diseases in Children. It is imperative that you also remove this tainted material to minimize liability to this publication from harmed patients, especially circumcised victims who developed AIDS in spite of being circumcised. Beyond patient harm, beyond medical ethics, publishing misinformation is a licensing and disciplinary issue of grave import to all involved."
Eileen Marie Wayne, MD, Letters (Circumcision -- sexual sadism?), Infectious Diseases in Children, Vol. 11, No. 2, February 1998.

Muh "only female genital cutting is/was done to reduce pleasure/sensation and to control behavior."


Happy New Year to you too!

Going to a great 26 hr party and a flap of skin will be the least of my worries.


My advice remains the same. Talk to a board certified physician not someone on the internet. Science and medicine moves on.
 
A Short History of Circumcision in the U.S.r."

Thanks for this. Always been curious on the rise of circumcision in USA. Not sure how accurate those statistics are though. I had read elsewhere that by 1939 (start or WWII), the rate was about 40%. It ramped up from that point on to reach "universal" status by late 1950s.

Read a book from a ex NAVY guy who went to Guadalcanal, and when he went to the NYC office to sign up for war, he was told to get circumcised and come back to join. (aka: get done before you join). Since he is recalling his own experience, it has some credibility. But also points to being uncut still be fairly normal back then. Not sure whether US NAVY actually required it, or whether it was that recruitment officer who was overzealous on it. But it does appear that circ really ramped up diuring that period, enough for Dr Spock to start recommending it so sons woudn't feel diifferent by early 1950s.
 
I find it amusing that to belong to a religious group in 2020 one has to signal that through the mutilation of one's body. This is a social code, and man's perverse interpretation of god's wish. Can you not be a good and happy jew and uncut? Why not? Who forces you to be cut to be able to be a jew?

My fear is that in the western world a boy getting cut has had a lot to do with their mother's control of the boy, as if a revenge on men in general.
 
How is it not comparable? It depends on the local custom. Some cultures just remove the tip of the foreskin and some just make a nick in the clitoral hood. Some remove the foreskin to behind the glans and some remove the [art pf tje clitoral hood. Some cultures remove more of the foreskin so as there is none left. The same with the clitoral hood. Some cultures remove ALL the skin of the penis up to the belly! Some remove the entire clitoris and sow the vulva up and just leave a pee hole. Some split the urethra of the penis so the man has to pee sitting.

You have answered your own question. They are not comparable because of all the different variations you have listed. One specific male circumcision may be comparable to a specific female circumcision (i.e. removal of foreskin, removal of hood) but the two practices in general are not comparable.

Plenty of guys in liberal western countries choose to get cut as adults and are very happy with the results. Some western women even choose to have their clitoral hoods removed as they find it makes it easier for them to achieve orgasm. Some young girls (e.g. in Africa) have their clitoris' chopped off, their labia scraped off, their vaginas sewn shut, without anaesthetic, and when they lose their virginity the man has to penetrate through their scar tissue and the experience is agonising and sex in general will probably not be very pleasurable for the rest of their life. This is a far cry from the guy with the high and tight circ who has never had any issues with his penis and loves to fuck (Citation: Most pornstars in the history of porn). To equate these two incredibly varied practices as if they are the same is to simplify the discussion to the point where it becomes completely deranged.

Also technically, that last one you mentioned would be classified as "subincision", not "circumcision". So your argument is not even consistent in its use of terminology.
 
My fear is that in the western world a boy getting cut has had a lot to do with their mother's control of the boy, as if a revenge on men in general.

I saw one study that found that the strongest indicator of whether a boy will be circumcised is the mother's preference for circumcised partners. A woman thinks circumcised penises are better so she decides her son will be better off that way. That makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that most loving mothers secretly want to do whatever they can to their defenceless sons in order to tip the balance of the marxist power struggle between the sexes. Your suggestion may titillate circumfetishists or rouse intactivists, but it doesn't seem to bear much relation to reality.
 
You have answered your own question. They are not comparable because of all the different variations you have listed. One specific male circumcision may be comparable to a specific female circumcision (i.e. removal of foreskin, removal of hood) but the two practices in general are not comparable.

Plenty of guys in liberal western countries choose to get cut as adults and are very happy with the results. Some western women even choose to have their clitoral hoods removed as they find it makes it easier for them to achieve orgasm. Some young girls (e.g. in Africa) have their clitoris' chopped off, their labia scraped off, their vaginas sewn shut, without anaesthetic, and when they lose their virginity the man has to penetrate through their scar tissue and the experience is agonising and sex in general will probably not be very pleasurable for the rest of their life. This is a far cry from the guy with the high and tight circ who has never had any issues with his penis and loves to fuck (Citation: Most pornstars in the history of porn). To equate these two incredibly varied practices as if they are the same is to simplify the discussion to the point where it becomes completely deranged.

Also technically, that last one you mentioned would be classified as "subincision", not "circumcision". So your argument is not even consistent in its use of terminology.
Ok, I did add subincision on at the end. But mutilation of the genitals is mutilation.

The mutilations cultures around the world do to the male penis are just as horrific as the ones done to the females. Male circumcision is just as useless as female circumcision. It has no real benefits. If you have not noticed, it is the cultures that are sexually repressive that circumcise their children. It is done to repress their sexuality.
 
Update: I have decided I will undergo the circumcision procedure.

It took a long time to come to that conclusion. Suffice to say, I am still worried about it because, well, I don't like needles and the recovery time will be difficult but I have faith that its the right thing to do.

For those interested, I will probably be going for low and tight, no frenulum. This thread will continue if you wish to comment, but, please don't compare circumcision to FGM or anything like that (despite your own opinions). I want this thread to be genuinely helpful to those being circumcised for religious reasons and not a (valid) debate whether circumcision in itself is good or bad, there are other and more appropriate threads for that.
 
I am circumcised and almost nobody is circumcised around here. The only people who know I'm circumcised are the ones I've had sex with or the ones I've told. Those I told mocked me about it a few times, but I never cared. Most of them confessed to me their dick is small. Mine is not. I win.

By the way. You don't have to few any shame. It is your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nexolaris
I was circumcised when I was a baby.

As an adult, I'd never chop someone's dick to make a magic man in the sky happy. That's just silly. But at least as a baby, it's less traumatic.

I expect this will be a matter for debate with my SO at some point. But for right now, no genital mutilation is against my beliefs. If God didn't want you to have a foreskin, then why would he have created you that way? IDK about Judiasm but in Christianity they teach that we are created in the perfect image of God. So, what's the problem with my dick?

If this is something that you want to do any you're not being pressured in to it, then do it. Who cares what anyone else thinks? It's your body....
hit the nail on the head(s)
 
Don't forget that a certain percentage of uncut men have short enough foreskin that they leave always retracted so you may not be the only one with bare head on a nudist beach or locker room.