I got into a rather interesting discussion / debate today with a fellow manager about circumcision.

As a typical American male, I'm circumcises... but I lived in Spain for several years, which was my first exposure to uncircumcises men. It's easy to say that my curiosity was due to my sexuality, but after you get past the usual male surface of "uh... that's another man's junk dude," it's interesting to note that most men have a pretty strong oppinion on the subject.

I've developed a strong distaste for the procedure, more to do with the "no anesthesia" deelio than the actual result (though, sexually speaking, like all men the exotic obviously has its appeal). The old arguements about "clenliness" are not considered anacronistic and have been refuted by most of the industrialized world (including the AMA).

So, it's obvious where I stant.

[clears throat]

Discuss!

~String

[note: I notice this is already a thread... sorry... I should have read ahead]

~String

If your kids were at least given a choice in the matter....

The reason most of your kids are circumcised is a very perverted and strange man called Harvey Kellogg.

Circumcision is unnecessary and affects sexual behaviour, deadens and desensitises the head of the penis, does nothing for cleanliness or hygiene (although there are arguments for and against this) and most importantly of all, with regards to why this tradition started, does nothing to stop masturbation.

People are always whining about female circumcision but at least there is some logic to that (i.e removing "male" legacy parts) but yet no one in the USA bats an eyelid about forced male circumcision.

People are always whining about female circumcision but at least there is some logic to that (i.e removing "male" legacy parts) but yet no one in the USA bats an eyelid about forced male circumcision.

I agree with your post about males, but 'whining about female circumsicion' is a ludicrous criticism. Generally without anaesthetic girls have their clitorises and some surrounding tissue excised. Whatever bizzarre ideas about 'maleness' justify this it is a far more painful and damaging and dangerous procedure than male circumcision.

But here's the thing: we can be against both. I am.

People are always whining about female circumcision but at least there is some logic to that (i.e removing "male" legacy parts) but yet no one in the USA bats an eyelid about forced male circumcision."Female circumcision" is a euphemism for "clitoridectomy," which is genital mutilation. For a sizeable majority of the female population (based upon what they've been telling me since I first had intercourse 45 years ago), the nerve endings in the clitoris are the only effective source of physical sexual stimulation. Without it they are incapable of reaching a climax or even getting very turned on. In other words, it turns them into passive sex partners for men who can get almost no physical pleasure out of it themselves. This is a way for men to physically dominate women and treat them as possessions, and it is a form of sexual abuse.

True male circumcision may turn out to be a misguided ritual from one of the Stone Age religions that keep metastasizing out of the Middle East like a cancer epidemic. But it does not seriously impair our ability to be aroused or to reach a climax. There is no valid comparison between circumcision and clitoridectomy and to assert that there is simply perpetuates its demeaning of women. "Oh hell honey it's just a little snip, it won't damage you in any important way." To call the international campaign against clitoridectomies "whining" is more oafish than calling menstrual cramps "bitchy."

I don't know how slow the wagon trains are that bring the news to Scotland, but it's been several months since it was discovered that circumcision decreases a man's susceptibility to HIV infection by something like a factor of twenty. It's enough to stop the epidemic dead cold, even in the backwoods of Africa. As a technique for advancing public health in the 21st century, the benefits of circumcision are incalculable and the costs are rather small.

Sure, we could wait until our boys were on the verge of sexual activity and let them choose whether to be circumcised, but these days that happens as young as ten and not much older than fifteen, and at that age they're hardly in a position to make a mature, responsible choice.

To argue against it is to be as stuck in the past as it was to argue in its favor thirty years ago.

The wagon trains aren't that slow around these parts, Fraggle. I've heard of a decrease in the likelihood of contracting HIV, but not by a factor of twenty as you say. Do you have any links with the figures? And to say it's enough to stop the epidemic? Seems unlikely.