CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
circumcision
circumcision - the ripping off part of the penile skin - has been practised as a sacrifice to show "god how much we love him"
it is sexual mutilation and has no foundation in health concerns.
the removal of nerve endings in the sexual pleasure zone, combined with the numbing of other nerve endings in the sexual pleasure zone due to constant friction have resulted in a reduced sexual pleasure for males.
I don't know what "I want my son to look like his" is supposed to mean, but at any rate:
I'm glad my parents had this taken care of for me when I was an infant. I don't know that I would have had the courage to have it done in my teenage years, which would have meant shame and fear of intimacy. At the time I became sexually mature, it was almost unheard of to be uncircumcised in North America. The trend is shifting now, especially with the amount of immigration to Canada and the US these days, but for reasons of aesthetics (watch porn lately?), hygiene and reduced risk of disease, I'm glad I don't have to worry about it as an adult.
We had a debate about this not too long ago and the side with their wieners still in a bun (mostly Euros) really got their shorts in a knot as I recall.
I'm glad my parents had this taken care of for me when I was an infant. I don't know that I would have had the courage to have it done in my teenage years, which would have meant shame and fear of intimacy.
You wouldn't have been the worse for it. Most uncircumcised men I talked with in the United States are actually happy with it. It is the circumcised men I have talked with who feel at the least, a little violated.
At the time I became sexually mature, it was almost unheard of to be uncircumcised in North America. The trend is shifting now, especially with the amount of immigration to Canada and the US these days,
Quite true. I have noticed this shift as well. It also means that the chief argument used to support circumcision - conformity, is vanishing.
but for reasons of aesthetics (watch porn lately?), hygiene and reduced risk of disease, I'm glad I don't have to worry about it as an adult.
It's actually all about conformity. The other reasons exist to distract from this, as rationalisations.
Hygiene? European, South American, Asian, etc. men have had no issue washing themselves. It is seriously like arguing that we should remove the sweat glands under the arms for the sake of hygiene. Did you know that women produce a lot of fluids down there which are (allegedly) reduced by female genital mutilation? That's one of the selling points of female circumcision, that it is more hygienic.
Disease? I brought this up before, but wear a condom. You never replied to this. A condom virtually eliminates disease. Circumcision does NOT eliminate disease. It statistically correlates with reduced HIV infection rates, which means that you are STILL susceptible to HIV and the other diseases spread by sexual contact. It is an after-the-fact rationalisation to support circumcision.
Seriously do you never wear a condom during sex? Do you think you are immune to disease now?
We had a debate about this not too long ago and the side with their wieners still in a bun (mostly Euros) really got their shorts in a knot as I recall.
I cannot comment on the emotional zeitgeist but it seems to me that an organ which men identify as an intimate part of themselves when damaged or changed in any way without their consent would leave them at the very least emotionally biased towards it as a sort of coping mechanism.
This behaviour is mirrored in Africa and the Middle East where mutilated women are required to be this way to conform to expectations, that the men will not choose them as mates if they (the women) are not circumcised, and indeed the grandmothers will even abduct their granddaughters to mutilate them, in those rare cases where the mothers object to the practice. You said revealingly in the last debate that you would like it if one day it was standard practice worldwide for infant circumcision of males, this seems to bear a striking resemblance to the aforementioned elders and their granddaughters.
I have to wonder if it is a subconscious coping mechanism to deride or insist upon removal of the clitoral hood (and foreskin) in the respective genders with the notion being that if everyone has theirs removed, then one need not feel as though one is missing anything.
I'm simply glad that I have a reduced risk of infection, an easier time keeping clean, and for now, what is considered a more attractive penis. These are things I'm thankful for, not things I cope with as you put it.
And you seem confused about reduced risk. It's reduced risk, not no risk. I'm not aware of anybody (especially me) claiming their circumcision has eliminated the need for condoms. All things being equal (using protection) a man with a circumcised penis has less risk of infection than a man with an uncircumcised penis.
I thought I had responded similarly in the last debate as well.
I'm simply glad that I have a reduced risk of infection,
Do you have unprotected sex with many partners? This is the only scenario where it would be advantageous.
Not that it's my business, it just seems like an attribute that is irrelevant for those of us who are safe in our sexual practices.
an easier time keeping clean,
Is your argument one in support of laziness? I honestly think you just lack personal experience so you think this bit of hygiene is more of an issue than it is. I'll put it to you as a bisexual man: circumcision does NOT mean better hygiene, you still have to wash down there, but I guess saving half a second of time is a big deal?
what is considered a more attractive penis.
Not generally. Most circumcisions leave an unattractive scar. Most of my partners had this in a way where it looked like a deformity. Japan and (I believe also) Israel at least treat the procedure as a plastic surgery so it isn't such a likely cause of deformity.
These are things I'm thankful for, not things I cope with as you put it.
I can determine if it is a subconscious coping mechanism by how you answer the following question:
If you had a son, would you circumcise him at birth?
If yes, then you are dissatisfied with your circumcision subconsciously and inflicting it on your son is an (admittedly strange) way of dealing with it.
If not, then you have come to terms with your circumcision and whether or not you appreciate it, you are secure enough with your manhood that you won't make your son's choice for him.
And you seem confused about reduced risk. It's reduced risk, not no risk. I'm not aware of anybody (especially me) claiming their circumcision has eliminated the need for condoms.
If circumcision doesn't eliminate the need for condoms, and we both use condoms and they eliminate the risk of disease, then there is no need for circumcision, just condoms.
All things being equal (using protection) a man with a circumcised penis has less risk of infection than a man with an uncircumcised penis.
This does not compute with physics or germ theory. The barrier of a condom's latex cannot be breached by the known diseases. Diseases are caused by pathogens, making physical contact alone isn't enough to spread disease. Unless the barrier is compromised, disease cannot spread.
What you described is a statistical anomaly.
I thought I had responded similarly in the last debate as well.
Do you have unprotected sex with many partners? This is the only scenario where it would be advantageous.
Wrong, it's advantageous for anyone not practicing abstinence. But I'll leave it at that and just post a link. You know what they say about opinions and facts.
Recent studies have proven conclusively that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than men who are circumcised. In some studies, infection rate was 50 percent less in circumcised men.
Wrong, it's advantageous for anyone not practicing abstinence. But I'll leave it at that and just post a link. You know what they say about opinions and facts.
You never addressed my other comments. I'll copy and past my rebuttal which addressed this:
This does not compute with physics or germ theory. The barrier of a condom's latex cannot be breached by the known diseases. Diseases are caused by pathogens, making physical contact alone isn't enough to spread disease. Unless the barrier is compromised, disease cannot spread.
Now, if you read further on that website, you'll note something important:
The majority of men who are HIV positive become infected through the penis during sexual contact. Recent studies have proven conclusively that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than men who are circumcised. In some studies, infection rate was 50 percent less in circumcised men. Experts offered several possible reasons why circumcision offers protection against HIV infection:
-the inner surface of the foreskin has a very high concentration of cells containing HIV receptors that act has a portal into the body when exposed to HIV-infected bodily fluids such as semen.
-the foreskin traps HIV in a moist environment near the surface of the penis, allowing the HIV to live longer
-small foreskin tears that may occur during intercourse provide an entryway for the virus.
This means that we are dealing with unprotected sex. The conclusion is therefore the one I posted from the beginning:
If you are not having unprotected sex, then it doesn't matter whether you are circumcised or not. Therefore, since we live in the west where condoms are in ample supply, why would you want to be circumcised when a condom does the job and it takes the whole of half a second to pull your foreskin back in the shower or bathtub?
You never addressed my other comments. I'll copy and past my rebuttal which addressed this:
This does not compute with physics or germ theory. The barrier of a condom's latex cannot be breached by the known diseases. Diseases are caused by pathogens, making physical contact alone isn't enough to spread disease. Unless the barrier is compromised, disease cannot spread.
I gather from this you're of the belief that condoms are 100% effective at preventing infection.
I gather from this you're of the belief that condoms are 100% effective at preventing infection.
No, I'm not. Does it matter? Put another way, why would you advocate slicing off the covering of your penis for approximately a 1% decrease in the consequences of failure from having protected sex?
(Based on a quick glance at the failure rates of condoms in Wikipedia)
You also didn't answer my other questions, which were whether you would circumcise your own son and why you have an issue with at most one second of extra shower time. I thought the first question was important as a means to gauge whether you were self-satisfied or insecure, and the second question is important because if you are advocating removing a child's skin around his penis to avoid an extra second in the show, I think you have some issues with priority.
No, I'm not. Does it matter? Put another way, why would you advocate slicing off the covering of your penis for approximately a 1% decrease in the consequences of failure from having protected sex?
The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex
You should contact them and tell them your findings since they're needlessly concerned.
You also didn't answer my other questions, which were whether you would circumcise your own son and why you have an issue with at most one second of extra shower time. I thought the first question was important as a means to gauge whether you were self-satisfied or insecure, and the second question is important because if you are advocating removing a child's skin around his penis to avoid an extra second in the show, I think you have some issues with priority.
To answer your first question, yes I would have my son circumcised. Not only will that help protect him from infection, but also from cancer and cervical cancer in his female partners. There's no reason not to, unless, and this is the only reason I wouldn't have my son circumcised, it would put him in the category that uncircumcised men are in today for the most part in North America. In other words, if it were circumcised penises that most people consider ugly and dirty rather than those which are uncircumcised, I'd have to think twice.
As for your second question, if a disgusting cheesy buildup between showers can be avoided, why shouldn't it? There are countless posts on the internet from young kids and adults alike discussing the problems they've had with it. If only they could reach you and ask about your miracle one-second cleaning technique...actually, you should sell a DVD about it.
You should contact them and tell them your findings since they're needlessly concerned.
For unprotected sex there is a significant reduction. For protected sex the reduction is about 1% because the failure rate of condoms is so low (when used correctly).
Not a strong argument.
To answer your first question, yes I would have my son circumcised. Not only will that help protect him from infection, but also from cancer and cervical cancer in his female partners. There's no reason not to, unless, and this is the only reason I wouldn't have my son circumcised, it would put him in the category that uncircumcised men are in today for the most part in North America. In other words, if it were circumcised penises that most people consider ugly and dirty rather than those which are uncircumcised, I'd have to think twice.
Then if you read back to my earlier post, you are insecure with yourself and probably do not realise it. Do you also remember the older women I mentioned in the context of FGM? They force their grandchildren to have their clitoral hood removed and they have reasons like "it is more hygienic, it is more attractive, men will choose a circumcised woman and avoid an uncircumcised one, etc."
A secure individual wouldn't make such a personal decision for his son at an age when the son cannot consent or think twice about it. What you are actually doing is coping with the fact that you weren't given a choice, by removing the choice from your son and advocating that lack of choice for others.
Just like your HIV argument, the cancer argument is one of hindsight as well, a post-fact rationalisation because the costs outweigh the benefits, and most importantly are not relevant to a child. You are making a decision that an adult makes for themselves and imposing that upon a child, actually an infant. How insecure is that? How dare a child be allowed to grow up to contradict you and make you feel inadequate, hmm?
As for your second question, if a disgusting cheesy buildup between showers can be avoided, why shouldn't it? There are countless posts on the internet from young kids and adults alike discussing the problems they've had with it. If only they could reach you and ask about your miracle one-second cleaning technique...actually, you should sell a DVD about it.
If by between showers you mean that the person showers once a week, or cleans that area as infrequently.
Listen, you frankly haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about here because you are circumcised. It takes at least a day without showering to have smegma, and it takes days for it to reach the levels that you describe. How do you keep clean? Every day you take a shower, you pull back your foreskin, put lather on your glans, rub the area and rinse, then you are clean. Big deal. Over half the world's men do it every day.
Why is it worth the extra bit of hygiene? Well, if you weren't circumcised at birth, and had sex before your circumcision you'd know that the foreskin is part of the penis and is used in sexual foreplay and intercourse as much as the glans is. You'll never experience this however, because the choice was taken away from you. Just as the clitoral hood is cut away to make women more chaste, the foreskin is cut off to prevent masturbation. This is the thinking behind these rituals. Every generation a new rationalisation is invented.
I've given you facts and you've given me your opinion about those facts while suggesting ad nauseum that circumcised men are secretly full of angst and misery for some reason.
I've given you facts and you've given me your opinion about those facts while suggesting ad nauseum that circumcised men are secretly full of angst and misery for some reason.
I'll summarise for you, then, since you are getting bored:
A 1% reduced infection rate, the saving of one second in the shower, and your own aesthetic preferences, are not compelling reasons to deprive a child of a decision over his body.
circumcision is not about the reduction of infections, including hiv.
nor has it got anything to do with being "clean"
circumcision was introduced in north america to combat masturbation and to reduce sexual activity in general, since it was thought that reduced pleasure would translate into reduced "horniness"
all the "health benefits" arguments are bogus and are actually dangerous as they might give a person a false sense of security (" i am circumcised, therefore i do not need any other protection")
so many people have been duped by tjose who profess to "serve the lord"
now, once all this has been settled, let's talk about sexual hygene:
wash before you have sex (lint, etc)
you want a bj from your partner?
shake and wipe is my motto.
and you want some interesting foreplay?
just lie there and pull that skin back and expose that delicious gleaming cockhead, taut, brightred to purple-blue
and love your son that hasn't been born yet: do not mutilate him, even if you have been
Absolutely. While perhaps less brutal and more sterile, the practice of circumcision is akin to female genital mutilation in other cultures. Neither practice is humane, neither is medically necessary, and neither should be performed on anyone without their consent.
the infection argument is so bogus; it's just there to make the guys who have been mutilated feel not so bad about it.
the jesus freaks had a "good" one for that as well: the discarded skin would be used to help burn victims grow new skin!!!??
oh, then there are the africans who have been mutilated as adults and suddenly the hiv/aids incidence went down...well, duh....they are having less sex !
Some Africans carve out little girls' clitorises. I hear the same of some Asian cultures. Is there any merit whatsoever in saying that some things just FEEL wrong? Should we pay attention to that feeling? Or do I just have my head up my ass?
How much childhood trauma is involved? Children who have part of their newborn body taken from them must have some effect on them, sooner or later. Let the child have the choice to circumcise when he (or she) is able to make a choice for himself.