fyi, it's not that uncommon for parents to keep their baby's foreskin apparently.. A friend of mine recently told me she was rummaging through her attic and found a box of old things... and included in that box was a jar containing the foreskin of her now 20-something year old son, who had been circumcised as a baby. I was shocked and disgusted that she had kept it, but she told me that people do that and it's not all that uncommon.

Other things saved include baby teeth and locks of hair (which I guess aren't quite as bad).

I don't have time to read this entire thread but there's an interesting episode of Penn & Teller's: Bull**** that deals w/ circumcision. I would highly recommend it to everyone interested in the subject. I read quite a bit about circumcision when I found out that my wife was pregnant. I was circumcised as a child but we decided not to do it to our son if the baby turned out to be a boy (it wasn't). My parents were very religious but my circumcision had more to do w/ them being pressured in to it (like so many other parents) for capitalistic reasons (many of the "medical" reasons given at the time were wives tales). There are complications that can arise if you're not circumcised but these can be taken care of later in life (my father had to be circumcised as an adult for said reasons). I personally think that it should be illegal for parents to circumcise their children. That child can make the choice themselves once they become an adult.

Yeah, I have a lock of my hair from the time I was going through radiation treatment (it just came out of my head just'a like'a that!) as well as my crooked tooth they pulled out like 4 years ago (because it was cheaper than the alternative...).

Labeled and stored in jars, of course. The foreskin would have completed the Trifecta. Or I could have made a sculpture with the hair on the bottom, the foreskin on top of it and the teeth to crown it all. Maybe with a laser show on the background.

I have not heard of this before. Does not seem ...safe?

http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2565

I first heard about it from the Penn and Teller episode that thread is referencing.

You could start your own cathedral with holy relics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charroux_Abbey#Holy_Prepuce

Just make sure nobody steals them and uses them for witchcraft.

Ooh, good thinking. But first I'd have to go through the QUEST FOR THE HOLY FORESKIN.

And encounter some French people.

I don't envy you that quest.. I bet you'd run into a lot of dicks!

I'm circumcised but its actually due to male trend in my family. A lot of guys in the fam had to have the emergency procedure done later in life. So, I was circumcised and my boys are. From what they told me, I'd rather not have them deal with the possibility of complications later.

I was circumcised during a college prank that went too far.

Mentat, I want to say I'd make it illegal, but I just don't know. We get to control everything about our kids already, and obviously being circumcised can have minor benefits without ruining anyone's life, so I just don't see how anyone has a right to tell me what I can do with my kids crotch junk, barring actually harming them. I know harm is awful subjective here, but considering how regularly the procedure is done without there being massive correlations between circumcision and sexual deviance or something like that, the only harm is the initial pain which a lot of anti-circumcision advocates overblow.

Part of my wang was chopped off due to the ignorance and/or cowardice of my parents — a mistake I will not perpetuate, should I have kids.

It's hard to put it much clear than it being mutilation. People can do whatever they like to their own bodies, but inflicting it on others should be banned - unless there is a clear medical necessity at the time.

There are lots of non-essential body parts that can cause problems later in life, should we be removing them all at birth?

No, you leave my nipples alone.

You don't need your breast tissue, you wouldn't want to get breast cancer would you?

Foreskin restoration is a weird thing. neat that the body is capable of of recreating a simulacrum of it.

I was circumcised due to phimosis. If my parents had that done to me "just because" I think I'd be pretty annoyed too.

I totally agree with JediKirby's recent post..

I'd also like to point out.. I think all of you saying the parents should wait and let the kid decide for or against circumcision later in life may just be crazy. I sure as hell would NOT want to go through that as an adult, and I'm appreciative that my parents made the decision for me, eliminating the possibility that I might have to get circumcised at an age when I'm aware of what's happening, will remember it, and am using my gear for more than just peeing.

Two men are sitting in a hospital waiting room. One leans over to the other and says, "What are you in here for?"

The other says, "Circumcision."

The first man says "Oh, man! I had that done right after I was born. I couldn't walk for a year!"



I asked my dad about it a moment ago, and according to him my 3 oldest brothers were circumcised by recommendation from the doctor. By the time I was born it was considered that we lived in a clean enough environment that it didn't matter whether I was or wasn't circumcised. But since my brothers had all gone through it my parents decided it would be in my best interest not to be singled out as the one with the weird looking dick.

I'm with Krokodile on this, actually.

But tell me, does it really happen that often that adults need to get a circumcision? Where I live, circumcision is really an uncommon thing. The only circumcised guys I knew were back in high school. None of my friends are (as far as I know).

I just can't imagine it's such a widespread problem that it's generally better to do it pre-emptively. I mean we're not getting rid of earlobes to prevent ear cysts either, are we? What you're saying seems a bit like backwards logic to me.

I for one am totally happy with my foreskin. It's comfortable, it keeps my knob well hydrated, and it's awesome in sex and masturbation. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the feeling of my bare knob chafing against my underpants, all dried out. Then again, if you're circumcised you're used to this and/or you don't know any better.

I'm just saying it's a very comfortable thing to have, so give that some thought before you take away something from your kids without them having any say in it.

Aside from all that, you'd think chances of an infection of the urethral opening would be greater without the protection of the foreskin... does anyone actually know the facts?

We grow 'em big here....

On this very odd occasion that this occurs it is quite possibly the least pleasant feeling in the world.

What about the vast majority of uncircumcised people that never develop complications? Circumcising someone as a child because they have a small chance of developing problems later is probably a sign of paranoia. An adult circumcision is outpatient surgery (it's not very serious). I've read & even heard several accounts of adults having circumcisions & the consensus appears to be that the worst part is the anesthesia injections & then the aching afterwards (which can be controlled w/ pain medication). Having your wisdom teeth removed is probably more dangerous (especially if you go under) & nearly everyone goes through that. However, just because the procedure is relatively harmless (not life-threatening) doesn't mean that we should condone it. The issues at hand are that the "benefits" don't justify the pain that it causes the child, that the child was never given a choice in the matter & that said child may eventually regret their parents' decision (this is often becoming the case now that many of the "benefits" have been outed as wives tales).

Fun story about outpatient surgery: Once I needed an operation to make my balls smaller. For a week or so, the surgical wound on my scrotum wouldn't close properly so I could see inside. Luckily we live in a world with antibiotics and it got better pretty quickly.

Mentat and Orj, I can appreciate the sentiment of what you're saying, which is why I recognize the right of parents to choose for their children, and why I am not arguing that it should be required for all babies, or that it should be outlawed. IMO, it's none of the governments damn business. Allow me to draw a brief comparison. You believe it's unfair to not give the child a chance to choose circumcision, right? On the other hand, most of you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, yes? So why then is it ok to not give the child a choice then? Shouldn't we let the kid grow to an appropriate age and THEN let HIM decide if he wants to be killed? (I'm not trying to troll here or turn this into an abortion debate, but I'm just pointing out the double standard that says that in an issue as insignificant as circumcision you believe it's terrible to not let the child have a choice, but at the same time you see nothing wrong with ending a child's life because you don't feel like dealing with raising him/her.)

The fact is, parents make choices for their kids that affect the rest of their lives all the time. That's what it means to be a parent, and it's the right of the parent to make those choices without intervention from an outside source (within reason).

So if you think it's cruel to circumcise then don't do it. In this day and age, I don't think anyone would judge you for not. But don't try and say it should be illegal, because that opens up a huge can of worms as to what exactly should be legal or illegal when it comes to raising children. (ie. should it be illegal to spank your kids? should it be illegal to feed them formula instead of breastmilk?)

I will never be able to un-read this post.

Straw man

But I'll humour you with a reply nonetheless...

because there are a hell of a lot more serious and compelling reasons for an abortion than for chopping off your kid's foreskin.

I mean, it's fun to make meaningless comparisons and all, but you've yet to give me a good reason why people should be pre-emptively lobbing off foreskins. As far as I know, the vast majority of men never get said complications.

On the other hand, since some men get testicular cancer, we should probably perform bilteral orchiectomies at birth just in case.

Funny, your reply has nothing to do with my argument then...

I'll reiterate. Parents have a right to make decisions for their children. Circumcision is not necessarily detrimental or beneficial, so why take away the parents' rights?

I agree. It's even more important, so it should be taken even MORE seriously. Yet you say that should be legal, but circumcision should not because it's unfair to the child.. wow.
My argument is not based on a "good reason" for circumcision. It's based on it being the parents' choice, and a choice that they're well within their rights as parents to make.

But here, if you insist: link (and since you're too lazy to look it up for yourself or would rather argue from a state of ignorance)

I'll not be tempted to argue that abortion straw man any further.

Hilariously, the Web of Trust plug-in tells me that website has a poor reputation, so it isn't safe to browse.

But I'm sure it's a totally unbiased site seeing as how it's circinfo.net

Ok, I figured you'd just attack the website and ignore what I (and it) was saying. Pretty immature defense... But it's ok, because I prepared for it.

How about WebMD?


Now how about you actually respond to WHAT I AM ARGUING instead of trying to discredit my sources... You haven't even posted a source and as much as admitted to have no knowledge on the subject.

Chill the f out dude. I'm looking things up as we speak. I ran into that article too, it's only about HIV though.

I don't need to chill out. Don't mistake my pointing out your arguments' weaknesses for anger. (note, also, I use caps for emphasis, not to simulate yelling or emotion or anything)

And maybe you should do the research before making a claim next time.

I don't have time to go through it, but some of the statistical analyses on that site (edit: circinfo.net) are spooky. One that immediately comes to mind is the argument that population statistics from infant males born in one Hawaiian army hospital are sufficient to make inferences about the population of all infant males.

The page also cites the same two or three authors, which isn't automatically bad (there are usually few prolific experts in any given field,) but if those authors are given to making spurious arguments based on bad analyses it invalidates most of what they say. It also goes without saying that M.D.s are all really bad at statistics....

I was actually referring to some personal attacks you were making that were uncalled for. I like to stick to content instead of calling people lazy or ignorant. But this is massassi, so what did I expect.



I hardly claimed anything. You quoted me, and made me reply to a straw man. All I did was point that out and ask you to provide some solid arguments instead. I'll gladly admit that I'm not wholly informed on the subject. That doesn't mean I don't intend to inform myself.

uh huh...


it's also safe to say I now know more about most of you than I ever need to

Ok, Mr. Sensitive. I didn't make any personal attacks. I called your defensive tactics immature (which they are, which you're further demonstrating by trying to change the focus to me to hide that you have nothing more of value to add to the conversation.) I called you lazy, cause it would have taken you 2 seconds to google "benefits/risks of circumcision" and you instead kept using statements like "it would seem to me..." or "I would think that..." without bothering to see if you were even right. I never called you ignorant. I said you were arguing from a state of ignorance, meaning a lack of knowledge, which you have already admitted to. So tell me again where're the personal attacks? (before you answer, note that personal means I'm attacking you, not your half-baked arguments)


But anyway, can we just agree that there is evidence to suggest benefits to circumcision, and that the parents of a child have a right to decide if they think those benefits are valid and are enough to warrant circumcision?

Your logic here is hurting my brain.

"Get your kid circumcised as an infant because it's too horrifying to imagine doing as an adult when pain and trauma can be understood. Besides, it protects against AIDs and infections and cancer which are all things that need to be dealt with immediately since babies have sex and get penis cancer all the time."

The only thing we agree on is that people have the right to do whatever they believe is good for their kid. That said, I still think it's immoral, offensive, and sexually repressive for anyone to inflict on their child, and I would much rather let my kid decide if he wants to wear a condom instead of cutting the end of his wiener off. I don't think any of your arguments validate doing it as an infant over letting a kid decide.

Does this still apply in the very real situations where parents are deluded? Or rather, should it?