12 ms·

Circumcision still being a thing blows my mind. I'm lucky that my parents never had me mutilated before I could consent. What really shocks me is the amount of

Circumcision still being a thing blows my mind. I'm lucky that my parents never had me mutilated before I could consent. What really shocks me is the amount of justification that circumcised men give for the practice. Instead of accepting that a terrible thing was done to them, they convince themselves it's a good thing, and further the practice by in turn mutilating their children. This just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum. That said, I'm not that surprised that men feel that way, considering that having been with many women, an absurdly large percentage of them were shocked to be with an uncircumcised man, and some even said they thought it was less hygienic. The entire society is conditioned to think this way, perpetuating the practice. It's entirely absurd. The facts are clear cut: circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), it can be dangerous, and it is proven to lessen sexual feeling. It's an absurd practice that is damaging and serves no purpose, beyond religious practices aimed at decreasing sexual enjoyment (with the mistaken idea that it'll make sins like adultery less likely…).

xrisk 5y ago
Pretty sure that circumcision reduces chances of HPV significantly.
- tarboreus 5y ago
  If you removed the whole thing you'd have even less chance of getting HPV.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  Pretty sure that bathing has the same effect.
- snshn 5y ago
  Pretty sure there are better ways to not catch the disease than making man a cripple.
  - 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
    Speak for yourself. I'm not "crippled". Circumcision has never affected me negatively in my entire life (was circumcised as a new born). How about don't throw names around like that?
    - tokai 5y ago
      >Circumcision has never affected me negatively in my entire life Said with all respect - you don't know that.
    - kenneth 5y ago
      And how would you know what your feelings would be like without the circumcision? Not like you've ever experienced the alternative…
    - snshn 5y ago
      Don't know what you don't know. Vision also decreases with age slowly so nobody calls people wihout 20/20 vision disabled. Matter of perception. To uncut people this is a disability, to those who were circumcised it's just a gradation of not being able to feel pleasure from intercourse.
    - pygy_ 5y ago
      Crippled seems apt though. The foreskin has a very high density of fine touch and pressure receptors that are directly involved in the pleasing sensations. You've been amputated of your ability to experience sexual pleasure to its full extent.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    The 1940s called, and they'd like their casual slurs back.
    - snshn 5y ago
      Just reminded me of lobotomy. Both circumcision and that one have a lot in common.
  - 5y ago
- cmsj 5y ago
  Good news we've fixed that problem with proper science: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/public/index.html
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  How does circumcising compare with vaccination? I would think vaccinations might be much less medically risky.
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > Pretty sure Pretty sure you're mindlessly repeating what you've been brainwashed with.
  - tzs 5y ago
    At least half a dozen randomized clinical trials suggest he is correct. Several are cited here [1]. See also [2] [3]. That doesn't mean circumcision is a good way to reduce HPV transmission, but the evidence that it does reduce it is overwhelming. Of course it is possible all those researchers were paid off by Big Mohel... [1] https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/male-circumcision-protects-against-hpv-infection-and-cervical-cancer/ https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/male-circumcision-protects... [2] https://srh.bmj.com/content/familyplanning/35/1/5.full.pdf https://srh.bmj.com/content/familyplanning/35/1/5.full.pdf [3] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcision-reduces-risk-genital-herpes-hpv-infection-not-syphilis https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcis...
  - dang 5y ago
    Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Perhaps you don't feel you owe better to people who you regard as brainwashed, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- brudgers 5y ago
  There's a vaccine for boys when they hit puberty.
- ralusek 5y ago
  So would cutting off their penises. Utilitarian arguments maximizing for single variables suck.
- anewthrowaway 5y ago
  Likewise, performing a radical mastectomy on girls would significantly reduce the incidence of breast cancer. Why don't we do that?
lindseymysse 5y ago
It is about lessening sexual pleasure and removing the child's autonomy. It's entire purpose was to mark you as subservient: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/history-circumcision-0010398 https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/h...
- buran77 5y ago
  The same thing applies to the genital mutilation endured by girls in some parts of the world. But in that case it's generally agreed throughout the Western world that we're talking about "mutilation" and "abuse". Somehow circumcision managed to escape these labels despite being essentially the same.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Isn't the reason for this acceptance due to tolerance of Judeochristian fundamentalist religious observance? I would love to see an ethnography on the topic.
    - buran77 5y ago
      Anecdotally, every person I know to have a circumcision performed on them had it because "it was normal" in the society, not for any religious belief. Not wanting to stand out is a good enough reason for many. In some places an uncircumcised penis is (was?) considered "gross" or "abnormal" and many parents just want to avoid that for their child.
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Right. This is one of the few instances where how the social norm evolved can be determined.
  - veidr 5y ago
    It's not remotely the same — if you are circumcised, your dick still basically works fine. I mean, yeah, wtf, but it's a minor change. Like getting a tooth pulled, or an appendectomy, for no reason. You get (most values of) the "girls version" around the world, and it's basically equivalent to chopping off the entire top half of your dick. The _important_ part. Totally not in favor of either. But there is no equivalence here.
hawk_ 5y ago
not disagreeing with your overall point of mutilation without consent but there is some evidence that circumcision lowers risk of HIV transmission[1] - so there might have been some health benefits at some point in history due to it. of course it should be criminal to practice it on children who can't decide on their own. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17197879/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17197879/
- himinlomax 5y ago
  The study is in Africa and involves poor populations with limited access to sanitation. In developed countries with proper sanitation and a low risk of HIV contamination to begin with, the risk/benefit is extremely unlikely to be comparable.
  - hawk_ 5y ago
    Yes I am not disagreeing, was just replying to a generalization > circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), that while this may be true for wherever hn crowd resides, there are parts of the world where the risk/benefit isn't the same.
- xorfish 5y ago
  The results can also be explained by the lack of sex after surgery. These studies shouldn't exists. They were highly unethical. There are effective ways to lower the risk of HIV transmission. Circumcision is not one of them.
yodsanklai 5y ago
> That said, I'm not that surprised that men feel that way, considering that having been with many women, an absurdly large percentage of them were shocked to be with an uncircumcised man, I remember an episode of Sex and the City where one of the character was put off by an uncircumcised penis. That being said, as a European uncircumcised man living in NYC, I haven't received any bad comment about my penis (but new york is a diverse place, so that may be why). In any case, I can't imagine it can't be a deal breaker. But at the same time, I can see why some would find an uncircumcised penis prettier .
umvi 5y ago
> Instead of accepting that a terrible thing was done to them, they convince themselves it's a good thing, and further the practice by in turn mutilating their children. This just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum. Threads like these always make mountains out of molehills when it comes to male circumcision. You'll always find the words "mutilate", "brutal", "savage", "barbarian" in people's comments. And yet 99%+ of the billions of circumcised males in the world just don't really care that much. If they did, they would feel more strongly about not doing it to their own kids. I'm circumcised. Do I believe I was terribly wronged? Not at all. Do I believe circumcised men are so much luckier than me? Nope. If I could travel back in time to restore my foreskin, would I? Sure, why not? But if time travel is a thing, preventing myself from being circumcised is a pretty low priority compared to other things I could do in the past. I personally won't circumcise my future sons (if I have any) but I also won't condemn parents who choose to do so because IMO it's about as big a deal as piercing your baby's ears at birth. There are far worse things parents can do to mess up their kids without ever laying a finger on them.
- tomrod 5y ago
  So, I'm assuming like most of those circumcised males, you were probably circumcised at birth. Therefore you and others circumcised at birth really have no way to compare the experience of before and after. Agreed that condemnation is not the right approach. Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures.
  - umvi 5y ago
    > So, I'm assuming like most of those circumcised males, you were probably circumcised at birth. Therefore you and others circumcised at birth really have no way to compare the experience of before and after. As a male circumcised from birth, am I not allowed to hold an opinion on whether what I thought was done to me was a "terrible thing" or not? I dislike people telling me "you were wronged and what happened to you was terrible and you aren't allowed to disagree because you don't know what it's like to not have been wronged. Only me and my enlightened colleagues, who are either uncircumcised or were circumcised much later in life are allowed to hold an opinion on this." > Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures. Most parents, I suspect, are not strongly in favor of circumcision. What happens in American hospitals is this: - baby is born - doctor: "would you like me to circumcise this boy? Now is the time" - parents: "do most parents circumcise their boys?" - doctor: "yes" - parents: "uhh... sure then"
tomrod 5y ago
There are cases where circumcision is a valid medical need (I have a friend who needed it due to hygiene issues as a teenager). That said, we agree there is no global need for it.
bitshiftfaced 5y ago
> The facts are clear cut: circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), it can be dangerous, and it is proven to lessen sexual feeling. About 1 percent of uncircumcised boys will get a UTI during childhood. For circumcised boys, the estimate is just 0.13 percent. Uncircumcised men have a small risk of phimosis. There's also evidence that there's lower risk of HIV/STI transmission in circumcized men. There don't seem to be any very good studies that show difference in sensitivity. The AAP says that the benefits probably outweigh the costs, but they admit that both the benefits and costs are very small. Note: I personally think it's cruel to do that to a newborn and am against it. But you mentioned having clear facts.
- xorfish 5y ago
  UTIs are treatable without a sugical intervention. Same goes with phimosis. The evidence for HIV is at best questionable. Comparing men that can't have sex because part of their penis got cut off and is healing with men that have sex normaly will massively skew the results. Also the studies where highly unethical. I can't understand how encouraging HIV positive people to have unprotected sex got past an ethics board.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
> The entire society is conditioned to think this way, It depends where. In Europe or was never a thing except for Jews and now Muslims. It never went mainstream like in the US.

xrisk 5y ago

Pretty sure that circumcision reduces chances of HPV significantly.

tarboreus 5y ago
If you removed the whole thing you'd have even less chance of getting HPV.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
Pretty sure that bathing has the same effect.
snshn 5y ago
Pretty sure there are better ways to not catch the disease than making man a cripple.
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  Speak for yourself. I'm not "crippled". Circumcision has never affected me negatively in my entire life (was circumcised as a new born). How about don't throw names around like that?
  - tokai 5y ago
    >Circumcision has never affected me negatively in my entire life Said with all respect - you don't know that.
  - kenneth 5y ago
    And how would you know what your feelings would be like without the circumcision? Not like you've ever experienced the alternative…
  - snshn 5y ago
    Don't know what you don't know. Vision also decreases with age slowly so nobody calls people wihout 20/20 vision disabled. Matter of perception. To uncut people this is a disability, to those who were circumcised it's just a gradation of not being able to feel pleasure from intercourse.
  - pygy_ 5y ago
    Crippled seems apt though. The foreskin has a very high density of fine touch and pressure receptors that are directly involved in the pleasing sensations. You've been amputated of your ability to experience sexual pleasure to its full extent.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  The 1940s called, and they'd like their casual slurs back.
  - snshn 5y ago
    Just reminded me of lobotomy. Both circumcision and that one have a lot in common.
- 5y ago
cmsj 5y ago
Good news we've fixed that problem with proper science: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/public/index.html
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
How does circumcising compare with vaccination? I would think vaccinations might be much less medically risky.
ur-whale 5y ago
> Pretty sure Pretty sure you're mindlessly repeating what you've been brainwashed with.
- tzs 5y ago
  At least half a dozen randomized clinical trials suggest he is correct. Several are cited here [1]. See also [2] [3]. That doesn't mean circumcision is a good way to reduce HPV transmission, but the evidence that it does reduce it is overwhelming. Of course it is possible all those researchers were paid off by Big Mohel... [1] https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/male-circumcision-protects-against-hpv-infection-and-cervical-cancer/ https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/male-circumcision-protects... [2] https://srh.bmj.com/content/familyplanning/35/1/5.full.pdf https://srh.bmj.com/content/familyplanning/35/1/5.full.pdf [3] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcision-reduces-risk-genital-herpes-hpv-infection-not-syphilis https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcis...
- dang 5y ago
  Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Perhaps you don't feel you owe better to people who you regard as brainwashed, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
brudgers 5y ago
There's a vaccine for boys when they hit puberty.
ralusek 5y ago
So would cutting off their penises. Utilitarian arguments maximizing for single variables suck.
anewthrowaway 5y ago
Likewise, performing a radical mastectomy on girls would significantly reduce the incidence of breast cancer. Why don't we do that?

lindseymysse 5y ago

It is about lessening sexual pleasure and removing the child's autonomy. It's entire purpose was to mark you as subservient: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/history-circumcision-0010398 https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/h...

buran77 5y ago
The same thing applies to the genital mutilation endured by girls in some parts of the world. But in that case it's generally agreed throughout the Western world that we're talking about "mutilation" and "abuse". Somehow circumcision managed to escape these labels despite being essentially the same.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Isn't the reason for this acceptance due to tolerance of Judeochristian fundamentalist religious observance? I would love to see an ethnography on the topic.
  - buran77 5y ago
    Anecdotally, every person I know to have a circumcision performed on them had it because "it was normal" in the society, not for any religious belief. Not wanting to stand out is a good enough reason for many. In some places an uncircumcised penis is (was?) considered "gross" or "abnormal" and many parents just want to avoid that for their child.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Right. This is one of the few instances where how the social norm evolved can be determined.
- veidr 5y ago
  It's not remotely the same — if you are circumcised, your dick still basically works fine. I mean, yeah, wtf, but it's a minor change. Like getting a tooth pulled, or an appendectomy, for no reason. You get (most values of) the "girls version" around the world, and it's basically equivalent to chopping off the entire top half of your dick. The _important_ part. Totally not in favor of either. But there is no equivalence here.

hawk_ 5y ago

not disagreeing with your overall point of mutilation without consent but there is some evidence that circumcision lowers risk of HIV transmission[1] - so there might have been some health benefits at some point in history due to it. of course it should be criminal to practice it on children who can't decide on their own. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17197879/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17197879/

himinlomax 5y ago
The study is in Africa and involves poor populations with limited access to sanitation. In developed countries with proper sanitation and a low risk of HIV contamination to begin with, the risk/benefit is extremely unlikely to be comparable.
- hawk_ 5y ago
  Yes I am not disagreeing, was just replying to a generalization > circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), that while this may be true for wherever hn crowd resides, there are parts of the world where the risk/benefit isn't the same.
xorfish 5y ago
The results can also be explained by the lack of sex after surgery. These studies shouldn't exists. They were highly unethical. There are effective ways to lower the risk of HIV transmission. Circumcision is not one of them.

yodsanklai 5y ago

> That said, I'm not that surprised that men feel that way, considering that having been with many women, an absurdly large percentage of them were shocked to be with an uncircumcised man, I remember an episode of Sex and the City where one of the character was put off by an uncircumcised penis. That being said, as a European uncircumcised man living in NYC, I haven't received any bad comment about my penis (but new york is a diverse place, so that may be why). In any case, I can't imagine it can't be a deal breaker. But at the same time, I can see why some would find an uncircumcised penis prettier .

umvi 5y ago

> Instead of accepting that a terrible thing was done to them, they convince themselves it's a good thing, and further the practice by in turn mutilating their children. This just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum. Threads like these always make mountains out of molehills when it comes to male circumcision. You'll always find the words "mutilate", "brutal", "savage", "barbarian" in people's comments. And yet 99%+ of the billions of circumcised males in the world just don't really care that much. If they did, they would feel more strongly about not doing it to their own kids. I'm circumcised. Do I believe I was terribly wronged? Not at all. Do I believe circumcised men are so much luckier than me? Nope. If I could travel back in time to restore my foreskin, would I? Sure, why not? But if time travel is a thing, preventing myself from being circumcised is a pretty low priority compared to other things I could do in the past. I personally won't circumcise my future sons (if I have any) but I also won't condemn parents who choose to do so because IMO it's about as big a deal as piercing your baby's ears at birth. There are far worse things parents can do to mess up their kids without ever laying a finger on them.

tomrod 5y ago
So, I'm assuming like most of those circumcised males, you were probably circumcised at birth. Therefore you and others circumcised at birth really have no way to compare the experience of before and after. Agreed that condemnation is not the right approach. Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures.
- umvi 5y ago
  > So, I'm assuming like most of those circumcised males, you were probably circumcised at birth. Therefore you and others circumcised at birth really have no way to compare the experience of before and after. As a male circumcised from birth, am I not allowed to hold an opinion on whether what I thought was done to me was a "terrible thing" or not? I dislike people telling me "you were wronged and what happened to you was terrible and you aren't allowed to disagree because you don't know what it's like to not have been wronged. Only me and my enlightened colleagues, who are either uncircumcised or were circumcised much later in life are allowed to hold an opinion on this." > Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures. Most parents, I suspect, are not strongly in favor of circumcision. What happens in American hospitals is this: - baby is born - doctor: "would you like me to circumcise this boy? Now is the time" - parents: "do most parents circumcise their boys?" - doctor: "yes" - parents: "uhh... sure then"

tomrod 5y ago

There are cases where circumcision is a valid medical need (I have a friend who needed it due to hygiene issues as a teenager). That said, we agree there is no global need for it.

bitshiftfaced 5y ago

> The facts are clear cut: circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), it can be dangerous, and it is proven to lessen sexual feeling. About 1 percent of uncircumcised boys will get a UTI during childhood. For circumcised boys, the estimate is just 0.13 percent. Uncircumcised men have a small risk of phimosis. There's also evidence that there's lower risk of HIV/STI transmission in circumcized men. There don't seem to be any very good studies that show difference in sensitivity. The AAP says that the benefits probably outweigh the costs, but they admit that both the benefits and costs are very small. Note: I personally think it's cruel to do that to a newborn and am against it. But you mentioned having clear facts.

xorfish 5y ago
UTIs are treatable without a sugical intervention. Same goes with phimosis. The evidence for HIV is at best questionable. Comparing men that can't have sex because part of their penis got cut off and is healing with men that have sex normaly will massively skew the results. Also the studies where highly unethical. I can't understand how encouraging HIV positive people to have unprotected sex got past an ethics board.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

> The entire society is conditioned to think this way, It depends where. In Europe or was never a thing except for Jews and now Muslims. It never went mainstream like in the US.