Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should male circumcision be illegal?

POST REPLY

Should male circumcision be illegal?

Yes
18
47%
No
19
50%
Other
1
3%
 
Total votes : 38
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:59
Quote:
yeah I have younger siblings and younger cousins and nieces, all whom I've known since infancy. Crying is a newborn's only emotional reaction to anything and everything.


No, they can be quiet too. And it's not random whether they're quiet or not.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 23:02
And some infants don't cry at all. Instinct works differently in different humans.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 23:40
Looking back, there was probably a language issue over the last couple posts. You were talking about children that were literally just born, right? I thought we were also talking about older ones (like up to a couple months). Actually I have no idea at what age American children get circumcised. But if it happens right after birth it's really retarded to complain. Birth must be a lot worse than that.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Mar 2012, 23:46
(I believe that under Jewish tradition, circumcision occurs less than ten days after the child is born)

There are apparently strong medical grounds to justify this practise and for that reason alone it should be allowed. If later medical studies conclude differently then the case would change.

As to whether parents have a say in the matter (on religious grounds) that's clearly unacceptable.
The issue of whether or not it really diminishes sexual pleasure seems largely anecdotal - such things are very subjective.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 23:48
I'm surprised by you shig. I expected you to entirely knee-jerk against what started out as a religious practice.

@mabool: Circumcision is one of the first procedures done usually within a day or two. Also yeah I realized we might be having that problem, made worse by my own tendency to call only newborn children "infants".
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 00:15
Mabool wrote:
Voted no, vehemently.

I'm also currently considering getting circumcised. The procedure seems to have only benefits. Sex is never "fulfilling", Markius. It's just overrated and having a foreskin doesn't make it any better.


Get ready for a world of hurt and misery for a couple of weeks after that. Also, the foreskin is designed to rub against the inside of the woman, and can actually cause abrasions when circumcised. Whether or not you think it makes no difference is just an opinion, but you state that as fact in your post. But if you have foreskin, like I do, how do you know if its not different? I've heard females say that it does in fact make a difference for them, and some said it didn't matter. But how would you actually know this? However, I think its completely unnatural, and in my opinion a rather farfetched practice, and its unfortunate that its promoted so much in western culture, and sometimes even looked down upon to keep the foreskin.

I almost got it done in early 2011, then at the last minute I canceled the surgery, phew.
Last edited by Man In Grey on 15 Mar 2012, 00:23, edited 3 times in total.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Mar 2012, 00:16
As a religious practice I certainly don't want to defend it, but from what I understand there are medical arguments in favour.

Actually I suppose if it was a protective measure against the risk of skin cancer (or something similar) and was not a gender specific thing, I could see a case in favour of Burka-like attire too.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 00:17
Shigalyov wrote:
As a religious practice I certainly don't want to defend it, but from what I understand there are medical arguments in favour.

Actually I suppose if it was a protective measure against the risk of skin cancer (or something similar) and was not a gender specific thing, I could see a case in favour of Burka-like attire too.



If it isn't kept clean then sure, having foreskin can be quite a problem. That is a problem in some places, many LDC's for instance.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 00:59
Wow, okay. Thanks to Mabool (I think) and Man In Grey. I was actually fortunate to have had a doctor that knew how to perform the procedure and make it look good. It does look good. However, I never wanted it done to me unless I had a choice.

Dagoth, I'm Atheist, but I also know that Judaism and Christianity hold circumcision in high regard as chic things to do (I am uncertain about Islam or other religions, but I digress). When I refer to Religious reasons, I am referring to Judaism and Christianity. I was Christian for some time up until this year, and that is another thing I wish I could've had a choice on, but I didn't until I became an adult. Thankfully, I was not raised by radical fundamentalist parents, they both had jobs and going to church became impractical when I was younger.

Shig, There have been many studies that have tried to verify that circumcision has legitimate hygienic values. A study that has been peer reviewed and concluded as true has yet to surface. The main reason being, that proper hygiene of the foreskin prevents disease just as much as a circumcised penis. This is also where the neurological issues come in. There have been studies of men with a circumcised penis and men that still maintained their foreskin. Those that did not have their foreskin covering the glans, had lower sensitivity than those that had foreskin that covered the glans.

Now, appearance wise. The way mine was cut, is said to be the preferred way for the penis to appear if cut. If I were to grow it back (which is possible), it will be very difficult for me to grow the bottom of the foreskin. I would probably need a skin graft of some sort to restore the bottom portion of my foreskin for it to be complete.

On that bombshell of way too much information about me, I close this reply. I could not help it, it is inline with the subject matter.
Last edited by Markius Fox on 15 Mar 2012, 01:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 01:06
A. Christianity does not require circumcision and in fact only Muslims maintain circumcision like Jews. B. Only American Christians seem to not know this C. People do not circumcise their children because God said to. It's more of a 20th century American tradition.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 01:35
Dagoth Ur wrote:
A. Christianity does not require circumcision and in fact only Muslims maintain circumcision like Jews. B. Only American Christians seem to not know this C. People do not circumcise their children because God said to. It's more of a 20th century American tradition.



Informative for point A and a "it would figure to be that way." for B.

As for C. My parents have come out and told me, they did it to me for religious, hygiene, and aesthetic reasons. Hence why that was listed in my first post on this topic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 01:58
You've got the order backwards. The primary American motivation for circumcision is purely aesthetic. American's prefer the look of a circumcised penis (as a culture). Hygiene and religion do play a role but usually their importance in the decision relates more to the ideological allegiances of the parents rather than to the principals themselves.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 03:20
Dagoth Ur wrote:
You've got the order backwards. The primary American motivation for circumcision is purely aesthetic. American's prefer the look of a circumcised penis (as a culture). Hygiene and religion do play a role but usually their importance in the decision relates more to the ideological allegiances of the parents rather than to the principals themselves.


I know what they said to me. And what they said was religion and gave the other two reasons a supplemental to the first. I really do not wish to get into a personal argument, but what you say is an insult to myself and my parents. Just because they went against the average does not mean that they were wrong in the reason that they gave. The reason that they did it in the first place is a greater issue and is the issue of this poll and topic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 03:40
Your parents are atypical for modern Americans. There is nothing to be insulted about in that. My parents were atypical too and it's because of them that I was able open my mind beyond liberal horizons. The point is that circumcison in the American context is a non-religious practice regularly agreed upon by most American atheists so opposing it for something it's not (ie a religious practice) makes no sense.

You also have to consider that your parents aren't being entirely honest with themselves and their social motivations. It's not uncommon for liberals (ie democrat/republican/green) to have have principals that they cover reality with. This again is not an insult but a manifestation of liberal philosophy and culture. My parents are very intelligent and still hold contradictory liberal beliefs (they're both misanthrope humanists).
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:26
Markius Fox wrote:
When I refer to Religious reasons, I am referring to Judaism and Christianity.


Just remember that the Eastern Orthodox sect of Christianity is an exception. More than that, circumcision was not an option in Soviet hospitals (at least in non-Muslim regions -don't know about those), and any doctor found practicing it would be forced to give up medicine, and his party membership, if he was a member. Also, those practitioners of Judaism that went ahead and did it anyway were held accountable by law if problems developed after circumcision, even long after. Of course, in an effort to become part of the civilized world, doctors in Ukraine and Russia are now allowed to do circumcision, at the parents' request...

Also, sorry for your pain Fox.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:28
Eastern Orthodox Christianity does not circumcise, at least not in my experience.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:36
You are correct. They do not. That's what I meant when I said that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the exception to 'Christian religious reasons'. I guess the parents that choose to do it now do it for health reasons, reasons which in my opinion aren't entirely convincing.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 06:18
But eastern orthodox isn't an exception at all. Catholics don't practice circumcision nor do European Protestants. I don't know about eastern Christians, who I expect do practice circumcision, but otherwise only American Christians uphold circumcision as a religious tradition.

Also I'm telling you aesthetics is one of the primary motivators in America no matter how much Christians try to hide behind reasoning that does not exist. That's our Victorianism creeping through. We cannot admit that we care about the form of our children's penises so Jesus and the Bible offer a convincing cover.

I'll admit I like the idea that I was circumcised and was brought into the world like so many other Muslim children even though I wouldn't find Islam for fifteen more years. But that has nothing to do with why I'm fine with being circumcised. Avoiding phimosis is a fringe benefit.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 08:35
So the negatives of circumcision outweigh the positives in your opinion Dagoth? Just feeling for a little consensus. (I am learning a bit more about other religious aspects on this, it's intriguing)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 09:07
The only supposed negatives are entirely subjective. Circumcised men do not seem harmed for it at all, or at least most act no differently than the uncircumcised.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.