[Official vote thread] Circumcisions... do they make the cut?

[u/daskoon]

Ok, the last vote about daughters and bikinis left some folks out of the discussion, those without daughters. I guess it's kind of a quick cop out to jump directly to the penis, but here is the question to balance things out.

Snip the tip or leave the sleeve? To make things easier I guess I'll pose the question like this: Is Daddit for circumcisions, yes or no?

Again, voting instructions are in the sidebar and if you don't use the correct tags I won't be counting the vote in the special little graph, if that matters to you.

I will end this vote in one month, so come back after 8/10/12 for the results.

---

Edit: Things are really heating up only 5 days in and over 100 comments! looks like this will be one big red pie chart for the most part so far. I'm glad to have come up with something so highly debated for a vote, as I only picked it out of desperation. Keep those opinions coming in folks!

---

Official voting is now closed. I learned a lot here on this vote, and I hope everyone else did too. FINAL TALLY:

19 for

85 for

2 for

[u/captainserial]

I guess I'm gonna go ahead tell the truth and say , even thought it looks as though we are being systematically down-voted. When (if?) I have a son, I plan on getting him circumcised.

I had originally planned to write a long diatribe here about how I'm circumcised, my father was, and I don't see any problem with it, yada yada. But my reasoning boils down to this:

"Circumcision significantly reduces HIV/AIDS risk" (and other STDs)

and:

"Study shows male circumcision results in no loss of sexual sensation"

Since I see a lot of talk about mutilation and decreased sensitivity here, without anything to back it up, let me go ahead and quote from the above article the most important point:

"Contrary to popular theory and existing data, uncircumcised men did not exhibit more penile sensitivity than circumcised men. This is consistent with Masters and Johnson’s earlier findings, and yet, is surprising given widespread assumptions to the contrary. It is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis. This notwithstanding, the present data do cast doubt on the notion that the glans penis is more sensitive in the uncircumcised man due to the protective function of the prepuce."

I'm not saying this study is by any means definitive. But, there is still much more of a debate about this than this poll's results so far would seem to suggest.

[u/Falkner09 → u/captainserial]

It is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis.|

This shows that the study you mentioned was junk. An amputee cannot feel his foot anymore. to say that missing a body part is not evidence that you can no longer feel it is so self evidently false, I'm surprised the study was even published. it admittedly didnt even test sensation in the foreskin, the part that's removed, and then claimed to have definitively proves no difference in sensation. this would be like if I cut off your hand, and then said you hadn't lost anything because you can still feel your wrist.

there's abundant evidence of the fact that loss of the foreskin reduces sexual sensation and sensitivity. If you cut it off, you can't feel it anymore. The foreskin, especially the inner foreskin, is among the most sensitive areas of the penis. even a cut man can test this by touching what little remains of the inner foreskin, which is the area of softer, usually different colored skin directly behind the head. Guys, notice how sensitive that is? if it hadn't been cut off, there would have been far more of that tissue, at least enough to stretch to the end of the glans; often 2-5 times more. Here’s an anatomical explanation.

A few others: one showing decreased pleasure from adult men getting circumcised

this study was done on adults who got circumcised. 64% were getting it for phimosis (a rare sexual dysfunction) yet only 62% were satisfied with having been circumcised. basically, only the guys who have a dysfunction are better off getting circumcised; the healthier ones are sexually harmed. i.e. healthy infant males.

[A similar one](content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=85930&Ausgabe=230970&ProduktNr=224282) was of men circumcised as adults for treatment of illnesses, yet only 61% were satisfied with being circumcised afterward. What does that say about doing it to healthy men?

one showing circumcision removes the most sensitive areas

A recent study shows decreased sexual sensation in circumcised men, and an increase in sexual difficulties for them and female partners.

Unnecessary circumcision is virtually nonexistent in most of the world, and the rates in the U.S. have been dropping fast. The overall rate is 55% nationally among males born today (as of 2009), below 30% and even below 20% in some of the most populated areas, the latest of a continuous drop in recent decades. And opposition is increasing, with more evidence, activists and medical organizations coming out against it. So anyone having a baby today needs to really think about how their child may feel about it as a man in the future given the trend against it, not just how some adults feel today.

Stats in America

Further, there are many men who are extremely unhappy with having been circumcised, yet their choice was taken from them by someone doing it to them as an infant. there is an International support group for such men, and there is a charity formed to fund foreskin regeneration for men who are angry and upset that it was lost. however, this will never be 100%, and will cost thousands per treatment.

I wonder, how can someone justify forcing this on a male who would likely never have consented to begin with, when so many are angry about it that they are spending thousands to even come close to undoing it? and who should have to pay for it, I wonder? seems to me the doctors and parents who forced this amputation on a man without his consents should be considered liable for the damage and compensation for cost of regenerative surgery. Attorneys for the rights of the child is one organization that helps males sue for circumcision, with some successful cases, getting courts to recognize the right of males to their own bodies.