Circumcision, why is this a thing...

[Russic]

My favourite thing about the debate is the idea that there's a way to make a dick look super cool. I think it's generally accepted that they're weird-ass things and you can't add or subtract anything to change that fact.

I also find the idea that the dad and the kid need to match a bit odd (it's probably the #1 reason my friends who've done it provide). We're one of those un-matched families and it's only been noted once. When my son was 4 he saw me in a bathroom, stared right into my soul and whispered "your penis looks weird". Then he walked away and it was never discussed again.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Russic

My favourite thing about the debate is the idea that there's a way to make a dick look super cool. I think it's generally accepted that they're weird-ass things and you can't add or subtract anything to change that fact.

I tattooed sunglasses on mine. Can't tell me that doesn't look super cool.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I tattooed sunglasses on mine. Can't tell me that doesn't look super cool.

That isn't a pickle in your avatar?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I believe one day the practise will be looked back at as nothing short of a barbaric carryover of silly religious belief. Evolution doesn’t really allow something as important as reproduction to be impeeded with poor equipment. The thought that well intentioned, loving parents still permit the mutilation of their boys penis astounds me.

Apart from the merits of this entire discussion, this statement itself is laughably uninformed. "Evolution" as an all-seeing, all-knowing force of biological descent and diversity is prone to a litany of oddities and errors. Massive numbers of species have indeed been impeded by faulty evolutionary design.

This is just a silly argument.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That isn't a pickle in your avatar?

Artist's interpretation. I'm pretty sure I'd get an insta-ban for the real thing.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Apart from the merits of this entire discussion, this statement itself is laughably uninformed. "Evolution" as an all-seeing, all-knowing force of biological descent and diversity is prone to a litany of oddities and errors. Massive numbers of species have indeed been impeded by faulty evolutionary design.

This is just a silly argument.

Care to name some species that endure issues with their reproductive organs? Oddities no doubt, but I have literally never heard of another living thing that requires an unnatural change in its anatomy to perform its function.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The hygiene argument is silly. We live a first world nation. We have potable water available for cleaning! Soap too.

If you can open your mouth to brush your teeth, you can retract your foreskin to wash your ####. It’s not difficult, pretty routine.

Hygiene isn't silly, it is a major cause of infection in numerous areas of the body and has nothing to do with having soap and clean water available. Even the most cleanliest of people can develop problems. When considering the penis, it is also incredibly easy for a youngster to disdain this task and cause problems that can be recurring and incredibly unpleasant.

With that said, it is a personal choice and is really not that big of a deal at all. For anyone to get riled up about it one way or the other is quite perplexing. Especially considering a pretty significant percentage of people still opt for this to be done on their children or require it later in life.

[CliffFletcher]

I get why people don't want to do the procedure on their own children. I don't get why they're so furious about other people doing it to their kids. How and why did this become a social issue rather than a private matter?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Care to name some species that endure issues with their reproductive organs? Oddities no doubt, but I have literally never heard of another living thing that requires an unnatural change in its anatomy to perform its function.

Ectoptic pregnancies, breech births and a host of other complications resulting from the development of the birth canal that passes through the pelvis continue to require surgery to ensure live birth.

The point here is not that circumcision is integral to human development or survival. Rather, the point is that arguing on the basis of penile development as evolutionary genius is misguided. It is essentially an argument from intelligent design. In other words, there are valid arguments for countering infant circumcision that are far better than "that's how god intended it."

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ I see people throw around words like riled up and furious, and suspect that is largely hyperbolic.

Some people think that this is an aesthetic or cosmetic decision based in religion, tradition or culture, as opposed to primarily based on science.

Is it not possible for them to quite matter of factly be of the opinion that something they deem as unnecessary can be stupid?

[GreenLantern2814]

Because no woman has ever lamented the lack of a foreskin.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ I see people throw around words like riled up and furious, and suspect that is largely hyperbolic.

Some people think that this is an aesthetic or cosmetic decision based in religion, tradition or culture, as opposed to primarily based on science.

Is it not possible for them to quite matter of factly be of the opinion that something they deem as unnecessary can be stupid?

There are posters in this thread who have called parents who circumcise their children evil and inhumane. The procedure itself has been called barbaric. I would be surprised if there was anyone in this discussion who takes issue with the view that it is unnecessary and can be stupid—I personally think it weird that any man would care about whether or not his son's penis resembles his own. But I don't think it is too much of an ask to expect everyone to fall well short of drawing false equivalencies between opinions on this with real human atrocities and tragedies.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Ectoptic pregnancies, breech births and a host of other complications resulting from the development of the birth canal that passes through the pelvis continue to require surgery to ensure live birth.

The point here is not that circumcision is integral to human development or survival. Rather, the point is that arguing on the basis of penile development as evolutionary genius is misguided. It is essentially an argument from intelligent design. In other words, there are valid arguments for countering infant circumcision that are far better than "that's how god intended it."

How god intended it? My opinion is more how nature intended it, nothing more. I’m woefully aware of gestational and birthing complications, which are quite removed from the topic at hand. In any regard, I think we’d agree that surgically modifying females painfully en masse because 1/100 may require future intervention would be irrational.

Also, my apologies if barbaric was a strong word. In social discourse, sometimes the most succinct way to convey a thought is too blunt. I don’t think you are a barbarian if you chose to cut your boys penis; rather, the act itself.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Rather, the point is that arguing on the basis of penile development as evolutionary genius is misguided. It is essentially an argument from intelligent design. In other words, there are valid arguments for countering infant circumcision that are far better than "that's how god intended it."

I may misunderstand you here - evolution has no intelligence or intent.


https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...article/evo_32

Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.


First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.


Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

I think people are saying that foreskins are a successful adaptation, and not necessarily a perfect adaptation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

I may misunderstand you here - evolution has no intelligence or intent...

Exactly my point. It happens. But the happenstance of evolution is not an infallible source of good. The fact that penises evolved with a foreskin intact does not itself mean that the foreskin is essential equipment.

I think people are saying that foreskins are a successful adaptation, and not necessarily a perfect adaptation.

I think it is very easy to confuse one for the other, and by implication "successful adaptation" in this instance is being marshalled as a pretext for what is best.

I reiterate: "evolution" is a bad argument against circumcision.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I reiterate: "evolution" is a bad argument against circumcision.

Thank you, I see what you are saying now. Some of our adaptations are far from perfect, and the fact that they exist are not conclusive proof about objective benefits. Ex. why do we have appendixes?

Foreskins are an ancient and prevalent adaptation in the mammal kingdom, and I think it is fair to give some weight to the idea that they are "beneficial", but this is not a certainty on evolutionary grounds alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_sheath

Almost all mammal penises have foreskins or prepuce

[Aleks]

ITT: a bunch of people who think girls like their penises more circumcised. Laughable.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

How anybody, especially men can be okay with cutting off part of their penis (nerve endings that give pleasure during sex) and even defend the practice is crazy to me.

Spoiler!

That individual appears to be a healthy, rational individual.

Is that your selfie?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

That individual appears to be a healthy, rational individual.

Is that your selfie?

https://www.bloodstainedmen.com

His site also has merch, and a guide of how to make your own blood-stained pants.

[pepper24]

I keep thinking of The Seinfeld episode with the Mohel when I see this thread.