What do men think about circumcision?

I'm honestly not totally sure why women should have an opinion on this particular topic. For myself, I would never choose circumcision for a kid. It is an intrusion on someone else's bodily autonomy without a good enough reason for it. You can (and should) choose all kinds of medical care for your kid, but cutting a piece of him off should not be within your authority as a parent or guardian.

I'm honestly not totally sure why women should have an opinion on this particular topic. For myself, I would never choose circumcision for a kid. It is an intrusion on someone else's bodily autonomy without a good enough reason for it.

I think women are allowed an opinion. Circumcision changes the penis, for better or worse, mechanically and aesthetically. Most women will deal with penises at some point in their lives, whether that's having sex, as a caretaker of somebody with one, etc. For sex, the penis will be inside them, and while there are plenty of women who say there's no difference between cut and uncut, others can tell, and hold strong feelings one way or the other. I think it's whether those opinions should hold sway over a minor's penis is what should be up for debate. Obviously, same for fathers deciding on whether to circumcise their sons or not - it's a matter of bodily autonomy. So I agree with your point on not choosing to circumcise a child: you can revisit the decision not to cut, but it's not possible to put the foreskin back on!

I see it akin to men who have opinions on breast size or shape. They're not our boobs, but we as men (individually, of course) can prefer larger boobs, fake ones, lighter colored areola, etc. Rightfully so, though, those opinions and preferences should not compel women to get boob jobs.

Personally, I don't see male circumcision as necessary. However, others choosing it for their boys doesn't really affect me. I wish circumcision of minors (boys and girls, worldwide) wasn't a thing, and that body modifications are opt-in by people making decisions for themselves. But this is the world we live in, and it will take much time and effort to eliminate these practices.

I think women can have an opinion about circumcision. What irks me is when they basically say the foreskin is just a piece of useless skin and that removing it has no consequences on sexuality. What do they know?

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and whether or not a surgery can have certain consequences is a question of fact. For instance, a number of circumcised males (not all of them, and I guess this depends on circumcision technique, tightness, position of scar…) report that they need artificial lubrication to masturbate comfortably. How can one be so bold as to deny first-hand experience, especially when one is not concerned? This is as bizarrely arrogant as males insisting that periods are not painful and that teenage girls (and adult women) make it up.

opinions are not always based on facts.

That is certainly true in the case of circumcision. Most sadly so ...

That is certainly true in the case of circumcision. Most sadly so ...

Not just on that topic.

My opinion on the matter...

I don't like circumcision myself. That's why I am not circumcised. Simple, isn't it? 😃

But if you like it, go ahead. It's your body, and no one should tell you what you can, and can not do with it.

I can understand that people like the esthetics of a circumcised penis. Taste differs.

A few words about consent here...

With the exception of a pressing medical need that can arise, it should -always- be the choice of the person. If it's done without the consent of the person, I consider it to be genital mutilation, and it should be punishable by law.

I have no kind words for the practices that'll circumcise very young kids as a ritual, sometimes without an anesthetic.

Or using the excuse that it would be better for hygienic purposes. I was taught from a young age to also wash under the skin. So that has never been an issue.

A few words about consent here...

With the exception of a pressing medical need that can arise, it should -always- be the choice of the person. If it's done without the consent of the person, I consider it to be genital mutilation, and it should be punishable by law.

This is where I stand on it. Outside of a medical need for it, circumcision should be left up to the boy when he is old enough to understand and consent. If he dislikes having a foreskin later in life he can have it removed. The reverse is not possible.

There is certainly much to be said about consent. A female friend of mine once told me that her son had phimosis and that if his stretching treatment did not work he'd have to be cut (I don't know why she told me that, since I don't discuss circumcision "in real life" for fear of sounding like a weirdo; but my observation is that mothers talk a lot about health issues of their children, including intimate issues). As I raised my eyebrows at the thought, she basically said she had no opinion for or against the procedure and that if it had to be done, so be it. I discreetly asked what the risks were not to do it and she said she did not know but the doctor said it had to be done.

I found that indifference to consequences and consent shocking since, a few months before, the same friend had ranted in front of me that until her daughter was eighteen (and thus fully capable legally), she would have no ears pierced, no tattoos, no piercings, nothing ("nobody touches my precious daughter").

I could not help thinking there was some kind of double standard about consent here.

Just to be totally different. School matron noticed, aged about eleven, that I had a problem. Really not sure how or why. I was circumcised at the beginning of the summer holidays. My penis was pretty sore for a while and I remember sitting out my parent's large garden with no pants or shorts on and just a dressing for several days.

Now?? So pleased. It looks so clean and every lady I have loved has said how good I am. If I hadn't been circumcised aged eleven I definitely would be now!!

Thank you again Miss Norman.

Well about mine not quite convinced it was necessary! I experience minor trouble with the scar depending how it's rubbed. Not a major issue though, not like being disabled or deaf or such.

@BulgeInPants and others, I take issue with equating male circumcision with Male Genital Mutilation and also equating it with Female Genital Mutilation. I strongly suggest you go check your facts as what defines these practices before lumping it all together. Removing the clitoral hood on a female is much more equal to male circumcision and does not significantly detract from normal functioning for either sexes. Now FGM, which involves severe mutilation and/or removal of the clitoris is just like cutting the penis off on a male and/or severe mutilation and affecting normal functioning. And yes, this affects sexual pleasure which FGM was meant to do, and for cultural or whatever the reason would you do this to a male to the same extent this has been done to females? You are entitled to your opinion(s), at least have a factual basis that you can support. As my father used to say as he was a SOB engineer to other engineers who blew smoke, don't tell me what you think when solving a problem, tell me what you know!

It’s a point of view. Bodily modification without - or prior to. - consent can be argued either way. I’m happy I was circumcised as a baby, if I hadn’t been been, I’d be happy with my foreskin. However there’s a link between mutilation and unrequested circumcising, which few have had a choice.

Personally, I think it’s neater and cleaner, but that’s an uninformed opinion. Those that aren’t circumcised would argue the opposite, rightfully so.

I take issue with equating male circumcision with Male Genital Mutilation and also equating it with Female Genital Mutilation.

Removing or altering parts of an underaged person's body without any medical necessity, is assuredly the very definition of alteration (to use a more neutral word for both genders) or mutilation, if one wishes to express disgust and disapproval.

A difference being the age at which it is usually performed. Male baby's are usually the target of circumcision and females are usually subjected to a wide range of different kinds of altering/mutilating of their genitals at an older age.

Age and the inventiveness of the forms that FGM involves aside, both involve the unnecessary removal and/or alteration of parts of an underaged person's body.

Can't be any more clear cut and straightforward than that.

Except of course social customs and traditions always get in the way of rational thought. People whose social/religious groups consider FGM a part of their social traditions will be just as upset as those who think it is fitting and just to cut away a foreskin.

@BulgeInPants and others, I take issue with equating male circumcision with Male Genital Mutilation and also equating it with Female Genital Mutilation. I strongly suggest you go check your facts as what defines these practices before lumping it all together. Removing the clitoral hood on a female is much more equal to male circumcision and does not significantly detract from normal functioning for either sexes. Now FGM, which involves severe mutilation and/or removal of the clitoris is just like cutting the penis off on a male and/or severe mutilation and affecting normal functioning. And yes, this affects sexual pleasure which FGM was meant to do, and for cultural or whatever the reason would you do this to a male to the same extent this has been done to females? You are entitled to your opinion(s), at least have a factual basis that you can support. As my father used to say as he was a SOB engineer to other engineers who blew smoke, don't tell me what you think when solving a problem, tell me what you know!

@Chris_Parker – Well your reply to me seems rather more heat than light, to use engineering terms your father might approve of. The fact that FGM is more severe than Male Genital Mutilation (aka Circumcision without good cause) does not make the latter OK. Agreed?

It’s interesting that when we consider the wonder that is the human body (do I need to prove that statement?), the only parts we have decided evolution/God got wrong, and need immediate widespread surgery, are the genitals. Funny, that. Could it be connected with historic attitudes towards sex, masturbation? Religion looms large whenever we talk of circumcision, or post-religious communities where the practice/preference for cutting boys outlives the God fearing attitudes; there it has become fashion, like pubic shaving has. I don’t know of FGM being practiced anywhere outside certain religious groups. Sexual control of women can be the only reason.

Zealots like John Harvey Kellogg advocated circumcision as one of his weapons in his crusade against masturbation, but without anaesthetic, just to drive the pain/genital association home.

https://overland.org.au/2020/04/cereal-circumcision-and-tax-evasion-a-history-of-john-harvey-kellogg/

The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic [to] have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.

For girls he advocated applying the corrosive blistering agent Phenol (carbolic acid) to their clitorises to likewise associate masturbation with pain.

So when you use phrases like ‘blowing smoke’, i.e. implying some kind of unbelievable nonsense, perhaps you can, with the clarity of an engineer, be much clearer on what you disagree with:

1. That children can’t consent

2. That the foreskin is part of the male genitals and not some spare part God overlooked

3. That surgery without good reason on an unconsenting child is a mutilation, an assault

4. That the operation like any surgery carries risks and consequences

@Chris_Parker – Well your reply to me seems rather more heat than light, to use engineering terms your father might approve of. The fact that FGM is more severe than Male Genital Mutilation (aka Circumcision without good cause) does not make the latter OK. Agreed?

No I do not agree, take a look here and see the pictures they show, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266893/

I ask you in one of the pictures, where is the penis? I don't see one, this is MGM! Stop equating FGM to circumcision unless you can provide acceptable proof versus what you think it should be.

I ask you in one of the pictures, where is the penis? I don't see one, this is MGM! Stop equating FGM to circumcision unless you can provide acceptable proof versus what you think it should be.

Are you saying that if I only cut part of your penis off, that is not a mutilation? I think you are confusing amputation with mutilation. The picture is of an amputation. Both are are assaults if not consented/required, the difference is by degree only. Hence surgeons, as I originally linked, increasingly won't circumcise without medical necessity.

A guy in Florida got frustrated with the toddler he was babysitting, and tried to circumcise him. Apparently he had strong thoughts about circumcision that differed from the parents. Obviously that would be mutilation The doctors were able to close the wound with glue.

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-man-tried-circumcise-2-151228575.html

A guy in Florida got frustrated with the toddler he was babysitting, and tried to circumcise him.

What a dim-wit to think that circumcision would quieten a baby. I wonder if there is anything more likely to cause a kid to scream his head off.

A guy in Florida got frustrated with the toddler

Makes no sense, sounds like he was crazy! But back to topic - what do I think about being circumed; really glad I was as I have a thick shaft with a bulbous head that I like to look at while stroking👺 😁😄

So you are equating foreskin being removed to having a females clitoris being removed which is denying her sexual pleasure whereas removing foreskin does not. I would like to be a fly on the wall with you telling a woman who has had her clitoris removed who statistically speaking will have life long health issues because of it to just having your foreskin removed and you are able to masturbate yourself and have pleasurable sex. If woman were able to comment on this men only discussion, I doubt you would survive...

Mine is low and loose, i.e. "funcut," so I'm fine with it. It looks nice and neat, but I have enough skin left to masturbate without lube. Best of both worlds.

That said, it's from an era when all sorts of unnecessary surgeries were done in the name of prevention like tonsilectomy and even appendectomy. Now the science tells us that there are more complications than preventions, so it's best not to do those surgeries anymore.

Perhaps with robotic surgery or something, the outcome rates would improve drastically, and I'd change my mind, but for now I don't recommend infant circumcision. But having been with an uncut guy who could't stand retracting his foreskin when erect -- it was too painful -- I'd advise more aggressive intervention for teenage boys in that situation.