My Liberal Identity:
You are a Reality-Based Intellectualist, also known as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what’s known as the reality-based community, where science, reason, and non-Jesus-based thought reign supreme.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Circumcision
About a week ago, I read a thread about male circumcision on Longrider's News and Views message board. When I found this thread, the consensus was that circumcision was barbaric practice, a form of mutilation, butchery even.
Though I respected their opinion, I was baffled. I am circumcised and I've never had any problem with it. When my son was born, I had no problem whatsoever signing the papers approving his circumcision. I'd never really thought about the issue of circumcision; it's been a non-issue for me over the years.
About the only conversations I'd ever had about the subject were with women who had said that they preferred circumcised partners for two main reasons: the appearance and the perceived cleanliness issue.
Though uncircumcised men are no less likely to practice good hygiene than circumcised men, once women hear the word "smegma", it all goes downhill from there. The word even sounds disgusting. Especially when it comes to oral sex, the women I've known have said they prefer a circumcised man. Irrational or not, this has been my general experience when talking with women.
Also, the idea of male circumcision being a barbaric practice is not something I'd come across until very recently. For several years now, I've heard of female genital mutilation done in Africa and in Islamic countries, which I agree is a brutal thing. And I just don't think that routine male circumcision can even begin to compare to the female version.
For one thing, male circumcision is done in sterile conditions in approved medical facilities. And, rightly or wrongly, some believe there are health benefits to doing so, as inconclusive studies indicate that circumcised men have lower rates of HIV and penile cancer.
Female circumcision, on the other hand, is frequently a "do it yourself" thing, done in unsanitary conditions by members of the girl's own family. There is commonly a high rate of infection and other lasting complications for these women. And the purpose is much less than altruistic: it is done expressly to destroy a woman's enjoyment of sex and to keep her chaste and faithful to her future husband.
So, while male circumcision may not be strictly medically necessary to be done on a routine basis, as it is currently done in the US, it cannot be considered a "barbaric practice", either. Unlike the countless Islamic women in Africa and the Middle East, I have not suffered in any way because I am circumcised.
Now, for the survey end of this entry.
Men:
Are you circumcised or uncircumcised? Are you pro, anti, or indifferent about male circumcision? Have any of your lovers over the years expressed their preferences to you? If so, how? If you are circumcised, has this ever created any sorts of problems for you? If you are uncircumcised, has this ever created any sorts of problems for you? For both, if so, how? Was your father circumcised or uncircumcised? Your brothers?
Women and Gay Men:
Do you prefer a circumcised or uncircumcised partner? Why? For those who have had more than one lover in their lifetimes, have you been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men? For those in monogamous, long term relationships, is your husband/lover/partner circumcised or uncircumcised? Are you happy, unhappy, or indifferent to it? Was your father circumcised or uncircumcised? Your brothers?
Parents:
If you have sons, are they circumcised or uncircumcised? Why did you make the choice you did? If you don't have children yet, but plan to, will you have circumcised any sons born to you? Why or why not?
Thoughts?
my only experience has been w/ circumcised men so i've no means of
comparsion...except for pictures. certainly looks different. also..i had a
girl child and knew she was gonna be a she from very early on in the
pregnancy so that issue never even came up. i think its a matter of
parental preferance. as for the sexual aspects...proper hygiene is always a
must regardless. i hope at least one of your readers can give a comparsion
between the two..now that'd be interesting. is there a difference to the
'receiver'? hhhmm...?
cyn
I've only been with circumcized men, so I don't know a difference in how it
feels. Without having experienced both sides, I prefer circumcized. Part of
it is the issue of sanitation, even if that's not really rational. I am on
the verge of a relationship with a guy who is uncircumcized and at the
moment, it bothers me on a small level. I don't know how I'll feel as time
passes and we actually have sex, but I'll admit I've wondered if there's a
way I can convince him to get circumcized (I know I can't.).
I'm uncircumcised and for me it has always been a complete non-issue. I'm
sure there are women in the UK who prefer circumcised guys but I think
circumcision is less common (though by no means uncommon) here, so not
being circumcised is more readily accepted. Now that you ask the question,
I realise I don't know about my father.
heavy subject...i have lots of info on this topic if anyone would like to
have it...
I've been with both and prefer those with a circumcision - the most obvious
(visually) is appearance. I don't particularly care for the way an uncut
male looks - but let's face it, a woman's body is far more appealing in
looks than a male's in either regard. ;)
The issue for us (mostly UK, it seems) is twofold. Firstly, cutting a part
of someone's body off without sound medical reasons is not only
unnecessary, but secondly, without informed choice on the part of the
individual concerned, immoral.
I think your reasoning is a bit odd, no offense. Is female circumcision
only barbaric because it's done in unsanitary conditions? Even if it were
done in a hospital, the fact remains that it's an aesthetic mutilation
forced onto a young girl regardless of her consent (and at an age when
informed consent can hardly be given), that often results in problems later
in life, and that removes possibility of sexual pleasure.
I have been with both and the differences between circ'd and uncirc'd in
every aspect is negligable. My son is and I wish I hadn't allowed it to
happen as the process wasn't done properly and the cut got infected. He was
in pain afterwards from having it done after the local wore off. The whole
process is completely unnecessary in my mind. I would recommend parents to
not have it done if asked my opinion, although all the male members of my
family have been circ'd.
well I disagree withyou - I think circumcism IS barbaric - cutting of a
natural piece of a baby's penis - looked at rationally - is just plain
WRONG.
In Canada it is not longer done as a routine procedure - in fact if
the parents desire it, they must pay for it whereas before it was part of
the whole health care system.
I'm circumsised, and if I'd had a son he'd have been as well. I take GREAT
offense at anyone who calls it barbaric, especially a woman.
I have minimal perspective on this issue as I sleep with women, but I have
heard from my straight female friends that they tend to prefer an uncut
man. My brother never seems to have had an issue with being cut and his
son is too. One of the reasons being so that he looks like his daddy.
I'm from another country as well, where un-circed is the norm, so I'm in
the "it's barbaric" camp for the same reasons mr Mark Ellott described
above. I think circumcising babies, no matter whether for cosmetic or
religious reasons, is mutilative and unnecessary. the whole perception
behind it, that there's something "wrong" with men's normal bodily
intactness, is just ridiculous... I mean, we've come so far, in my country
at least, that it's illegal to chop off the ears & tails of pedigree
puppies, so why is it even legal to practise something essentially similar
on newborn boys?
I am intact and pro-intact. The only woman with whom I have been intimate,
my spouse, is likewise pro-intact. My father and brother were cut.
