Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Circumcision - Should it be the parent's choice?

Yes. They might also get punched in the dick a lot in which case mebbe go full snip? What % of population needs to be circumcised for medicinal reasons? There are countries where nearly nobody gives their foreskin the snip and there is no epidemic of Nurglite-crotch.

Yes, having a procedure performed on your junk when you are 12 or older will suck. Unless they do this thing called anesthesia? Again, newborns often get very little of that. In fact as you age you become better equipped to handle pain and trauma. Remember your first vaccine? You likely threw a massive fit, I know I did. Nowadays it's just a thing that happens.
 
Yes. They might also get punched in the dick a lot in which case mebbe go full snip? What % of population needs to be circumcised for medicinal reasons? There are countries where nearly nobody gives their foreskin the snip and there is no epidemic of Nurglite-crotch.

Yes, having a procedure performed on your junk when you are 12 or older will suck. Unless they do this thing called anesthesia? Again, newborns often get very little of that. In fact as you age you become better equipped to handle pain and trauma. Remember your first vaccine? You likely threw a massive fit, I know I did. Nowadays it's just a thing that happens.
Anesthesia doesn't do too much for the anxiety about the procedure or psychological difficulty of surgically altering your penis as an adult or older child. And from what I've read, post-surgical complications are less common in infants, too. If it'll need to be done, it's clear to me that it's greatly preferable to do it as a newborn. I don't buy the "it's just like being brave about a vaccine" argument.

But maybe the risk of needing a circumcision later in life is small enough that it's not worth doing. That's the better way to think about it, in my opinion: a simple cost benefit analysis. What are the actual risks/costs involved, and what are the expected benefits on balance of probability? I don't know the answers.
 
But maybe the risk of needing a circumcision later in life is small enough that it's not worth doing. That's the better way to think about it, in my opinion: a simple cost benefit analysis. What are the actual risks/costs involved, and what are the expected benefits on balance of probability? I don't know the answers.

Cost/benefit hangs on probabilities we don't have. We can probably assume the likelyhood of requiring a circumcision is rather low as we don't have outbreaks in coutnries where it's uncommon.

So if you ask me (and that's me shooting in the dark) it's a very low probability of saving yourself some stress down the line versus putting someone through a procedure that is not needed for them. Again, I sort of agree with the medical point of view. Or at least I accept it as partly valid.

If reasons are religious/cultural then no way in hell, that's downright barbaric.
 
Fair enough, but I'm not going to assume that's a real risk without evidence; it seems like a pretty outlandish claim to me. When infants are circumcised (typically hours to a week after their birth) they're years away from having brains capable of making real memory, and a single surgery is a far cry from the patterns of child abuse in the cases you're referring to.

A 12 year old having to get circumcised will cause a lot more anguish than a thirty-minute old whose skull hasn't even formed yet, so I really think that's a factor in the discussion that can't simply be hand-waved away.
I really have no set idea one way or the other. However I have heard of some men experiencing or expressing concerns regarding being circumcised as babies. I did a quick Google search "Men traumatized from circumcision" out of sheer curiosity and it seems to be a thing. There were plenty of sites but I have listed three below.



 
I really have no set idea one way or the other. However I have heard of some men experiencing or expressing concerns regarding being circumcised as babies. I did a quick Google search "Men traumatized from circumcision" out of sheer curiosity and it seems to be a thing. There were plenty of sites but I have listed three below.
Interesting stuff! I only skimmed, but it does seem from this that the PTSD and trauma are more severe in older children and adolescents who get circumcised than newborns, which makes sense and still begs the question of whether it's better to avoid that possibility by doing it early. Though perhaps it's not as harmless to newborns as is often described.
 
Interesting stuff! I only skimmed, but it does seem from this that the PTSD and trauma are more severe in older children and adolescents who get circumcised than newborns, which makes sense and still begs the question of whether it's better to avoid that possibility by doing it early. Though perhaps it's not as harmless to newborns as is often described.
No worries. I have heard of men feeling like they were violated by the procedure in cases when it was purely for cultural or aesthetics reasons. It makes sense, I know parents at times have to make decisions on their child's body which is obvious but for me circumcision is in most cases not for health related reasons.

In regards to religious religions, it does amuse me that a religious person would remove a part of someone's body to make their God happy. Was it not their God who designed the body to have those parts in the first place?
 
i will jump in here ... splash....

ok i see it the same as getting kids ear pierced (mostly girls..)

both are are for cultural and mostly aestetic purposes (although i understand the possible argument for hygiene in circumcision) many kids get ears pierced and if not taken care of properly the same things can happen (infection etc...)

when you have a baby its different at the moment in society (just look at the gender reveal phenomenon ) we buy mostly blue things for boys, and mostly pink things for girls. (by the way did you know that before the 1970's and doppler was used all babies wore white?) for the most part its a societal influence thing. The real question is are you as parents ready to take the heat for choosing something unconventional for your child?

I'll give you an example from my own parenting experience. My daughter wated to ride the public transit instead of the yellow school bus since grade 1. She hated the bigger kids, the fights, and bullying that went along with the yellow bus ride, and she was familiar with our public transit as we do not drive and take the bus everywhere. The local public transit route luckily took her right to her school after stopping at a local transit hub, so she didnt even have to change buses. So we consented and off she went to school. Well about the third day the principal called us and threatened to bring child services down on our head for neglect because we let go on her own at such a young age. 1. no laws were broken as she was above the age of riding byherself, 2. we made sure she didnt have to chanfge busses or be confused as to where she needed to get of for her school. I called child services and asked them about it and even they said that as long as were no other complaints, we were fine in parenting our way.

the moral of the story... do what you think is best, but be prepared to have others judge you for your parenting style. Only you can be the judge of what is best for your child.
 
the moral of the story... do what you think is best, but be prepared to have others judge you for your parenting style. Only you can be the judge of what is best for your child.

Incorrect. That's why we have child services. Because some people aren't a good judge of what is best for their child. Also, it's a logical fallacy to say that simply because society/a majority is doing something, then it must be alright.
 
Get over doing dumb shit to children's genitals, humans. It's fucking creepy.
Even creepier the lengths you go to justify it.
Exactly. One of the creepiest excuses I have heard is "So my son looks like his dad" Seriously? How is that right on any level?
 
I am circumcised, and when my wife (fiance at the time) and I were discussing children, I asked my dad why they chose to have me circumcised. The question seemed to surprise him. It was just what everyone did, it didn't seem to be something they ever questioned.

My wife was raised in a very religious household (christian), and she seemed shocked at the idea of not circumcising. Together, we did research. I was quickly convinced that the best choice was to leave any sons we had uncircumcised, letting him make the decision of he wanted to change that. She was not so easily convinced. She protested - bringing up most if not all of the points for circumcising addressed in this thread. It was probably our first major disagreement. But she finally relented and agreed with me - before we got married.

A somewhat similar conversation we did not have ahead of time - getting my daughter's ears pierced. She simply assumed it would be done when our daughter was very young, and I assumed it would be done when she asked for it - not before. That was another major disagreement - again, one that I finally convinced her on. It's hard to argue with someone who is insisting on consent before bodily changes are made.
 
This should be all that needs to be said really. If you are going to mess with my body in any way (piercing, tattoos, circumcision, vaccines) you better have my consent OR make sure it's actually in my best effing interest (the case with vaccination). If you take away a person's choice regarding their body for no good reason, you are a terrible human being. And yes "My faith demands I cut off bits of your skin" is not a good reason. The health and hygiene arguments are pretty solid if you country lacks running water and electricity though. Or if you live on some planet with hyper aggressive bacterium that will devor your dong within an hour of your last bath.
 
This should be all that needs to be said really. If you are going to mess with my body in any way (piercing, tattoos, circumcision, vaccines) you better have my consent OR make sure it's actually in my best effing interest (the case with vaccination). If you take away a person's choice regarding their body for no good reason, you are a terrible human being. And yes "My faith demands I cut off bits of your skin" is not a good reason. The health and hygiene arguments are pretty solid if you country lacks running water and electricity though. Or if you live on some planet with hyper aggressive bacterium that will devor your dong within an hour of your last bath.

I'm "against" circumcision as well, but I don't think there's an argument for a net-negative impact. I've yet to see outrage over one's own circumcised penis; however we can comment on the practice as being ultimately fruitless in most developed nations (healthwise).

So I'm not unhappy that I'm circumcised. I don't know anyone who is. I've compared dicks before with non-circumcised individuals and no one felt ostracized. There really isn't a bad outcome. I didn't even process the pain when it happened. You also get stabbed with needles for vaccines (a definite net-positive) as an infant, and similarly, parents have the option to not do it for religious reasons. I think we'd encroach on some fundamental freedoms if we tried to codify our thoughts on this to law. As such, this practice will probably remain optional for the foreseeable future.

The health benefits in less developed nations justifies it, sure. But IMO, in the US there's no real reason to do it. If you're uncertain about how to clean/be sanitary, either for your own uncircumcised penis or your childs', then ask a doctor to help you figure it out. That's their job after all
 
I'm against it and I am speaking as someone who had their tonsils removed as a kid and that was my parents decision however it was for health related reasons. If they decided to have them removed just because of religion or some cultural aspect/to fit in reason than that also would have been wrong.
 
I absolutely despise the idea of a parent believing it is their choice, just as I despise the "designer baby" idea.

For what reason should the parent, who is not going to be living with the consequences, decide for another human, related or not? How a baby is born is its natural state and how it should be, such as having a foreskin (which actually protects the penis and can *stop* infections due to acting as a shield). Babies are not a product, they are a person.
 
Consent is paramount to me. Children should not be having their bodies modified until they are old enough to give consent for it unless it is medically necessary for the well being of the child or the general public.

If it is important for your culture or religion, then it is something that should be your child's decision because as an adult they have the right to determine their own culture and decides what happens with their body. Also, it makes their choice a more meaningful one since they chose it willingly.

I am uncircumcised and I can honestly say that I would have felt quite traumatized and violated to find that my body was was permanently altered against my will without just cause. Aesthetic and passing on your religion or culture are not just cause.

Nor is hygiene. I have an older brother who I share the same mother and father with. He is the only such sibling that I have. He was circumcised while I was not. Neither of us have ever had any genital issues due to hygiene because we were raised to keep ourselves properly clean.
 
Unless it's health related (as in actual health threat not claiming hygiene) than no I don't think parents have the right to alter their children's bodies.

I don't think parents should be choosing a religion for their kids either.
 
When my daughter was born, I made the choice not to get her ears pierced, while being totally open to getting them done whenever she might want, if at all.

When my son was born, I couldn't find a good reason to circumcise him, so I did not. It's cosmetic. I asked my hubby if it was normal for guys to whip them out and compare, and he laughed and said "not really, no." Anyway, he isn't circumcised and when he was growing up, felt very uncomfortable about it. But now realizes it's not a big deal at all, everything is just far more sensitive.

We took a while to make this decision, but I feel like we made the right choices for our family. <3
 
Here's an idea out of left field that's going to cause a stir: if it was possible to perform circumcisions in the womb, should it be done?

Under the "It's my body" argument for abortions, the woman/parent gets to decide, right? So that should include circumcision.

If you can't use that argument for circumcision, but you can use that argument for abortion, where one results in minor mutilation and the other results in death...
 
Here's an idea out of left field that's going to cause a stir: if it was possible to perform circumcisions in the womb, should it be done?

Under the "It's my body" argument for abortions, the woman/parent gets to decide, right? So that should include circumcision.

If you can't use that argument for circumcision, but you can use that argument for abortion, where one results in minor mutilation and the other results in death...
Big, big difference there though. Specifically, with the former, circumcision doesn't have any practical effects on the parent. The latter is one of the most dramatic anything that can happen to a woman's life. There's no balancing of rights in the former.
 
Big, big difference there though. Specifically, with the former, circumcision doesn't have any practical effects on the parent. The latter is one of the most dramatic anything that can happen to a woman's life. There's no balancing of rights in the former.
Yup, it IS a big, big difference.

But I'm specifically looking at the situation where IF it could be done in the womb, and the parents want to have their child circumcised, is it really their choice?

In that instance, using the same "it's my body" argument used for abortions, then no-one else's opinions matter.

To be clear: I'm not arguing the case for or against abortion, or the ramifications thereof - that's an entirely different topic.

If it's the parent's choice when the child is still in the womb, why is it not their choice after the child is born?
 
Yup, it IS a big, big difference.

But I'm specifically looking at the situation where IF it could be done in the womb, and the parents want to have their child circumcised, is it really their choice?

In that instance, using the same "it's my body" argument used for abortions, then no-one else's opinions matter.

To be clear: I'm not arguing the case for or against abortion, or the ramifications thereof - that's an entirely different topic.

If it's the parent's choice when the child is still in the womb, why is it not their choice after the child is born?
basically, my point is this: "it's my body" is a nice catch phrase, but the actual 'justification' behind it is more complicated.
specifically, the root argument behind "it's my body" is - "this process/the next 18 years affects me & my life a great deal, therefore it is my choice." it just doesn't sound as catchy if you type it out like that.
so in circumcision's case, the same logic doesn't apply. i.e. even if the sentence "it's my body" technically fit, the core logic there (being this process affects the parent), doesn't apply.
i.e. if it's not the parent's choice out of the womb, then it's not the parent's choice in the womb either. that's where i am on it personally.
 
The "what if's" really aren't on point with what the original post was discussing.
 
This is a very interesting topic that I'd like to chime in on as an uncircumcised male who's considered undertaking the procedure several times in the past. I won't be addressing the recent "what ifs", however, since to me it feels like discussions about altering sexual organs pre-birth and in the womb seems like... Well, like it deserves its own thread, I guess.

In any case, the only reason I've ever considered undergoing this procedure in the past as an adult is due to the element of 'sensitivity'. It is indeed a fact that uncircumcised male sexual organs are more sensitive, and this is both a good thing and a bad thing depending on my partner at the time. In the early stages of a relationship or when meeting someone, and especially if I'm heavily attracted to them physically, it can be a bit of insecurity as a guy to feel your orgasms come about a bit too early. This always improves with time, and is far less of an issue if I'm eating well and exercising regularly, but at times I've considered it based solely on those inner thoughts of "what if I could last longer the first time, and really blow their minds/backs out?"

With that being said, I do have a friend who willingly underwent circumcision in his early teens who I've talked to a lot about this. He's always been super proud of it (typical Leo boasting about their dicks) but the tale of the surgery and the pain of going to the bathroom for a while after was enough to put me off of the idea entirely. At the end of the day, it's still a surgery and there's always a risk when it comes to those, so I believe they should be limited more to health necessities. Undergoing such a risk that involves a rather painful recovery process just to deal with insecurity isn't something I advise other people, so I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I did something like that myself. That and, as mentioned, having a sensitive penis isn't as much of an issue once you understand that it's just that, and that there are plenty of ways to make sure you don't 'fire off shots too early' that don't involve getting surgery.

But I believe the main question of this thread was the thought of if parents should be the ones to decide. For that, I'd say it depends on the reasons...

Cultural and religious reasons? I don't have enough experience in this field, but the guys that I know who are circumcised for this reason have never once been angry or spiteful at the decision being made for them. In fact, all of them have all told me on separate occasions that they will continue the tradition with their children, and seeing as it has a long-standing tradition and doesn't have any negative repercussions if done properly, I'd say this is alright.

Esthetic or hygiene reasons? What if the father or the mother simply decides that they should request this be done to their child simply because they think it is better for either hygiene or beauty purposes? This is where, to me, it can get a bit sketchy since it's not so much a tradition (which I can respect) but something done out of vanity. If there is no religious or cultural purpose then I find that it's a bit of an unnecessary extra step that you're taking simply to fit into a cultural norm, and the matter becomes a bit more questionable. With regards to hygiene, I can say that there is an extra life lesson for those who aren't circumcised which is to keep that bad boy very clean in certain ways. Parents who are unaware or don't want to give this kind of lesson to their child and opt to have them circumcised just to avoid that, while not necessarily harmful, expose a much truer flaw in their personality which can be symptomatic of other bigger issues that I'd be more worried about.

What if it's to 'help' them in the long run with their sex life? What if the parents consider that a circumcised penis is something that is likely more pleasing, and therefore better for the child's adult life? In this scenario, I'm somewhat burdened by my own insecurity so I can see it as being somewhat more reasonable, but it still boils down to a decision to put your child under (yes, very minimal) risk in order to better their lives in ways that may not even be necessary. I can see this, though have no way of knowing, as being the main reason that circumcision is so normal in the USA. If the norm in society is to be circumcised, then it's more natural to want your child to fit in better and not have rejection or insecurity issues in the future. This at least indicates that the parent simply wants what's best for their child which is healthier I'd say than simply not wanting to tell them how to clean themselves properly or because they simply think it looks better.

The bottom line is that there will always be a parental decision to circumcise with regard to certain cultures and religious beliefs. If we were to, say, completely abolish this being done to children at birth regardless of the reason then likely either a black market or a certain 'break off' element of society would form where parents would still get their children circumcised but in less ideal conditions, since faith and culture are two incredibly powerful driving forces in human nature. However, if we're not talking about this specifically, and the parents are considering circumcising their child, I'd say they have a right to choose simply based on the fact that other parents of certain backgrounds will and can choose to have it done. It's a normalized procedure in society at this point and hardly something that will tarnish or ruin their lives (unless something goes wrong).

In much simpler terms, should it be the parent's decision? Ideally no, because it is something that can be rectified later on in life if one so chooses. However, realistically speaking, it has been for a very long time for a myriad of reasons and thus it will likely continue to be a decision that parents can make for their children whether we agree with it or not, unless we collectively all decide that it's something for each individual to choose later on in life when they have the capacity. If we're going down that route, however, then I'd also expect there to be some odd situations where a child of a certain religious background is then going to become the odd one of the bunch which also doesn't help. So far, keeping the option open for parents has helped people realize their beliefs while also allowing those who don't have it to simply turn it down.

When my daughter was born, I made the choice not to get her ears pierced, while being totally open to getting them done whenever she might want, if at all.

When my son was born, I couldn't find a good reason to circumcise him, so I did not. It's cosmetic. I asked my hubby if it was normal for guys to whip them out and compare, and he laughed and said "not really, no." Anyway, he isn't circumcised and when he was growing up, felt very uncomfortable about it. But now realizes it's not a big deal at all, everything is just far more sensitive.

We took a while to make this decision, but I feel like we made the right choices for our family. <3

Also, to me, this is just the sanest and most wholesome approach to the topic. At worst, not being circumcised does lead to some insecurities and questions, and so long as those are tackled and spoken about then most guys will realize at some point that, actually, having some extra bits isn't that bad at all, and it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to any sort of medical procedure. More parenting like this, please!
 
Back
Top Bottom