Does anyone think that circumcision is wrong?

Question

Perhaps it should be considered mutilation. Is is, after all, a natural piece of skin. It's kind of like cutting off the inner labia.

Answer 1

I think circumcision is very wrong and I am glad my parents decided not to circumcise me. Circumcision takes away pleasure and skin that you were born with that you should keep. It is also an ugly and bloody process. Trust me, I have seen a video of one. Not a nice sight. You deserve your skin and it makes masturbation and s*x better/easier in my opinion.

Answer 2

For females, its relative, not all females need circumcision, only if the labia is huge and stagnate remnants, only specialist decide if its needed or not and also decides how much to be trimmed, to avoid over trimming which will lead to bad results in sexual relations after wards, for MALES, some reports claimed its essential and hygienic, its as trimming ur finger nails to avoid dirt accumulation

Answer 3

I don't see it as wrong vs. right in a moral sense. I do see it as a Unnecessary event.  Since God made us wait, wait, to quote that girl from The Goonies "God put that rock there for a reason".  God put that f******n there for a reason.

Answer 4

Circumcision is NOT wrong! Mutilation is hardly a description for circumcision.

Most mothers want their boys done because:

It makes cleanliness ever so much easier.

It prevents infections and several other problems posed by foreskins.

In fact many of us women prefer the appearance and sensation of the circumcised p***s.

Using the word 'mutilation' is nothing more than an insult to males and to medical caregivers who recognize its value.

Answer 5

I don't care what adults choose to do to themselves, but circumcising little boys and girls is mutilation, child abuse, and senseless.  There are millions of intact men in the world who have never had any issues with having a f******n.  Cleaning an intact baby boy is easier than cleaning a circumcised boy.  http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.o...

Circumcising a girl/woman is no more disgusting and useless than circumcising a boy.  Both forms of circumcision are mutilation and are done for the same reasons:  cleanliness, looks, culture.  It's sickening that people are capable of torturing their little babies so they'll look better or to spend a couple fewer seconds cleaning them.  

Answer 6

I think infant/child circumcision is nothing less than child abuse.  As for adults let them do what they want with their junk.

As for some of the "reasons" given above...

Hygiene, people claim that by removing the male prepuce it some how makes a p***s cleaner and easier to clean.  I would say if women had their prepuce (clitoral Hood) it would be easier to clean.  Here is the AAP's statement on Hygiene and circumcision:

There is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.

As for HIV, there is also evidence that female circumcision would lower the transmission rate..

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstract...

Outside of the African studies, there was an observational study done by the US military that found uncircumcised men were less likely to have HIV than circumcised men in the navy.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?...

To completely avoid Phimosis is a reason often given for male circumcision.  But in several studies, a good percentage of women suffering for sexual dysfunction were diagnosed with Clitoral Phimosis:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=anat...

I am sure most uncircumcised women would disagree, but studies done in Africa show that women that have undergone infibulation or FGM Type 3 (Hood, Clitoris and Labia removed, and sewn shut), still experience pleasure for s*x and have orgasms.

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/authors/Lightf...

Not advocating female circumcision, I think it is just time to look at things logically and leave children's genitals alone.  

Answer 7

Donna M is clearly a male circumcision fetishist in disguise.

Yes it is mutilation and anyone who says it's cleaner is just a lazy pig who doesn't want to wash their p***s.

Answer 8

Can you imagine people arguing for cutting off baby girls labia minora the way many argue for male circumcision?

Parent's sacred choice! To slice off their daughters' labias? I don't think so. We put them in jail if they do, their culture and religion takes a back seat to their daughters' human rights.

Other arguments, looks better! To whom? To what culturally perverted tastes? And why are you so obsessed with the way your baby sons' p***s looks like?

Smells better! Keep your nose to yourself if you don't like how it smells.

He should look and smell like his dad! Give me a break!

Another argument is that it potentially reduces infections and diseases. The same thing can be said about cutting off any other part of the body, because a missing body part cannot be infected or diseased.

Since when does a mere chance of a disease or infection justify cutting off a healthy, functional part of the child's body? And why is only healthy f******n considered for amputation?

Preventive mastectomy in girls would virtually eliminate breast cancer, saving millions of lives. Cutting off baby girls labia minora would drastically reduce her chance of vulvar cancer and any other disease involving labias.

Do parents have the right to amputate their daughter's b*****s or labias after being informed of the "risks and benefits"? Most people would consider that to be assault, and amputation of a baby boy's f******n is no different.

For a surgery performed on children to be medically justified there has to be a presence of clinically verifiable disease, deformity, or injury. That's the criteria set for every other invasive surgery performed on children except circumcision.

Amputation of a normal, healthy part of the genitals of a boy outside of acute medical necessity will someday be viewed as a monstrous assault on human rights no matter the flimsy justifications and will be illegal in the most developed nations.

Answer 9

Yes I think it is wrong, but the logistics of it cannot be compared to female circumcision. The ethics of the procedure for both genders are identical though.

Thankfully the USA is the last developed country that still routinely circumcises 50% of its boys, but the downward trend will probably continue.

I agree the f******n is a natural (and actually very important) part of the p***s, and to remove it is totally unnecessary.

Answer 10

Yes, I think it is wrong when done to an infant because they should have a say in it. The f******n does have a purpose and even though guys without one still have s*x, m********e, it feels good etc they are not getting the full experience and it wasn't their choice. Also, the chances of complications and risks are pretty high, and the fact there are no benefits make it pretty crazy. An adult should get the choice but it shouldn't be done on infants.

Harriet

Answer 11

no it's not wrong. The reason why the people who circumcise their children choose to do so is because it's easier for the kid to clean it.

Answer 12

I agree with you. Circumcision is wrong and I do think it's a form of mutilation.

I don't care if adults want to get circumcised though. I don't agree with genital piercings either, but everyone is free to do as they please.

Circumcision on infants is wrong though. Shouldn't be done.

Answer 13

Donna M is an idiot!

I'm circumcised and so are all the men in my family, but guess what. Circumcision IS mutilation! Permenantly cutting off part of the body for no medical reason is mutlation (whatever reason you use to justify it). The only INSULT is trying to convince people that a baby boy would want you to cut off part of his d**k (at any age)!

What a woman thinks looks better is irrelevent when it comes to cutting a baby's private parts. Men think that big b***s look good but you don't force girls to get breast enlargements!

Answer 14

You are wrong to compare it to FGM! That's a different thing. Mainly for hygenic reasons its better to be circumcised so u can easily clean out your p***s properly (consider a 14yr old boy with an uncircumcised p***s who doesn't bother to take a bath unless yelled at). Also research has it that for uncircumcised males, it is easier to catch the HIV virus after unprotected s*x! So go get yourselves circumcised U HEAR?

Answer 15

Yes, I think it's very wrong. The male f******n moves to and fro during intercourse and masturbation, contributing greatly to the pleasure.

There is a general tendency amongst surgeons nowadays to leave the body alone if possible. At one time children's tonsils were often removed in the hope of reducing throat infections - mine were - but that is rarely done now.

Answer 16

first of all, you should go back to school and take a biology course, if you dont know the difference between a p***s and a v****a.

Circumcision refers to the cutting of the f******n of the p***s. It has nothing to do with a v****a, labia or clitoris.

Circumcision is right, not wrong.  It provides a liftetime of health benefits, including no cancer of the p***s, jews have the lowest rate in the world. jewish women have the lowest rate of cervical cancer in the world.  Less std's, less hiv, and less hpv for men and their partners.

No balanitis, phimosis, paraphimosis, or p***s cheese.

Women prefer circumcised men.

Parents have rights too.  They have a right to decide what is best for their children, and circumcision is one of those rights.  It is not mutilation.

Had our son circumcised at birth.

As for God putting the f******n there for a reason, just remember, Jesus Christ was circumcised.  If its good enough for him, its good enough for me.

By the way, interesting question for someone that just joined yahoo ANSWERS. You wouldnt by any chance be a shill for the anticirc and intactivist storm troopers would you?

Donna M rocks. she knows what is good.

Get some information before you decide that circumcision is mutilation.

http://www.circlist.com/

http://www.gilgalsoc.org/

http://www.aboutcirc.com/

http://www.medicirc.org/

http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/index_ho...

http://www.circinfo.net/

http://www.circinfo.com/

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754...

http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-...

here is a site for moms to discuss infant circumcision

http://www.cafemom.com/group/circmoms

Answer 17

i see where u are coming from...I think that it is wrong for a mom or dad to choice the way their child's p***s looks like...I know with my boys I did not want them to be circumcised but after reading about it my wife and I choice to have it done...WHY? not because of the look but because it is easier to clean and keep clean and I am circumcised have no clues how to teach my sons how to keep it clean and stuff...

IT CECAUSE UR LAZY AND CIRCUMCISED p***s IT EASY TO CARE FOR...

Answer 18

circumcision is WHERE IT'S AT!!!  u get your wee-wee worked over, a big d**n party, and a sweet scar you can trick girls into looking at.  what's not to love???

Answer 19

It's wrong to mutilate girls but mutilating boys is completely okay. It's better for boys to me mutilated. It gives them character!

Answer 20

I don't really  care about it cause I'm a guy and I don't really wanna see other dudes penises anyway.

Answer 21

I think female circumcision is wrong. Male? Not really. I got it done recently and nothing has changed since. Its not wrong at all and its not mutilation.

Answer 22

Of course some people think it is wrong, just as other people think it is right.  However, male circumcision is NOTHING like female circumcision which is done to eliminate pleasure from sexual congress.

Answer 23

i don,t know if it,s wrong or right, but i,ll keep the skin that god gave me.

Answer 24

Donna M, I remember your circ-'em-young proselytizing from other yahoo questions, and looking at your history advocating male circumcision is a true obsession of yours.

What is it like to dismiss the right of a child to have the body it is born with? Do rationalize it somehow or is it more of a just not considering the moral implications kind of thing?

I'm guessing that asking you to imagine being a boy is to much of a leap for someone as 'pragmatic' as yourself, so have you ever considered how you would feel if your parents had cut of your labias at birth so that you have less dark, moist folds they need to keep clean?

Or for 'medical reasons', like say this one: Female circumcision decreases the risks of HIV infection: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstract...

Would that be just dandy with you because you know, you would be cleaner, less prone to infections and so on? Just curious, because things are so obvious to you.

Answer 25

Yup. I agree 100%.  

Answer 26

Both circumcisions, male and female are indeed genital mutilation, cutting off healthy tissues.

I think that any genital mutilation is wrong, whether perpetrated on males or females.         Infant circumcision is infant sexual abuse and a violation of the basic human right to a whole and intact body.

Circumcision of female minors is illegal in the USA.     Male circumcision isn't illegal.    This means that males don't have the same protection under the law, and this is sexist and unconstitutional.

Male circumcision damages the p***s and sexual sensitivity.    There are many complications that are usually suppressed by the media and medical professions (many of whom are members of the religions that try to impose this practice on others--they are biased) and 10% of genital mutilations result in complications requiring additional surgeries to attempt to repair damage from the first one.

Frequently, no anaesthesia is used, the baby is strapped down and mutilated while restrained and screaming.    They justify this by saying,"Oh, he won't remember it."       Animals are treated better in this country than that.

I am a victim of male genital mutilation, which is why I am so opposed to this practice.      As a result of the nerve damage and resultant lack of sensitivity, I was unable to achieve o****m in normal s*x.   While my sensitivity was reduced more than the average, it is a direct result of mutilation, and if I were younger, I would sue the doctor and hospital that assaulted me as a helpless infant.     My parents were misled about the implications of this crime against nature, but my own father was intact (uncircumcised) and is deceased, otherwise I would have held him responsible, also.    Being normal and intact; he should have known better.

Women who advocate male genital mutilation should themselves be cicrumcised, scarred and mutilated for life and sexualy crippled to see how they would like it.

I discovered what the problem was rather late in life, but found out about f******n restoration, which is a long and difficult process, and has restored some sensitivity and orgasmic intensity---more than I ever dreamt existed!      It has changed my life for the better, but I'll never forgive those who assaulted me as an infant.     Yes, there are psychological implications resulting from mutilation, and the doctors never disclose that information to parents of newborns, either.

Those under 21 who are unhappy with having been mutilated may be able to bring suit against their mutilators.    Perhaps they can spare others by hitting the mutilators in the pocketbook, which is just about the only thing that will help to stop them.

A f******n is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

If God had intended for me to have a f******n, I would have been born with one.

Feel the love; End circumcision.