Should we force kin to suffer the unkindest cut?

acotrel says:

07:19am | 18/07/11

I agree Erick.  It’s simply another example of female stupidity.  Circumcision destroys the sensitivity of the knob, and who benefits least from that?

Erick says:

07:56am | 18/07/11

I don’t agree, Acotrel. It has nothing to do with “women’s stupidity”, and everything to do with how the whole of society values men less than women.

Fiona says:

07:58am | 18/07/11

Actually, if you cared to research properly there is some benefit to circumcision. For starters, a non circumcised penis can get cancer there, secondly it is more likely to pass on STIs and help cause cervical cancer in women. Thirdly -phimosis (look it up). I’ve seen adult circumcisions performed for this and other reasons and they are quite painful. Oh, you don’t get zipper accidents either.
While I agree, education can prevent a lot of these, it doesn’t help all of them. I hate to think how clean my non circumcised son keeps himself despite what we’ve told him over the years.
Btw, don’t you dare blame circumcision on modern women/society. Look back to the bible/Torah/Qaran. It has been going on st men’s behest for years and men still want their son to be circumcised so that they “look like them”.
Personally, I don’t like them, try having to hold down a screaming baby while it’s done and the parents are blissfully unaware of whats going on.

Lexi says:

08:03am | 18/07/11

Gee, that’s right. Women are the ones wanting male circumcision. Women are the ones who have been in control of religious institutions the world over and demanding that, for religious reasons, baby boys are circumcised.
I am pregnant and my GP talked to me about circumcision, should I have a boy. I said to her and my husband that as I don’t have a penis, I cannot have an informed opinion on the pros and cons of the procedure. My opinion and action (or inaction) will be determined by my husband’s experience.
BTW There’s a big difference between removing a foreskin, which still allows a male to have normal urinary and sexual function (and pleasure) compared to the barbaric practices of “female circumcision”, which is removing all possibility of sexual pleasure and introducing urinary, mentrual and sexual dysfunction to its victims.

Michael says:

08:06am | 18/07/11

I would put money on both female and male circumcision being ideas that were thought up by men originally, for one reason or another.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary please correct me.

baal says:

08:07am | 18/07/11

The only reason to do it is medical and that is rare.
As for the HIV and virus issues that can solved by the man washing his penis post sex and the woman using a lemon vaginal douche or better still a condom.
Cutting skin off a childs genitals for purely cutural is barbaric.
Also comparing it too ear peircing is dishonest since standard piercing holes close up. Also you might notice you cannot get a chils under 5 peirced in the ACT at least.
Barbaric is the word.

progressivesunite says:

08:13am | 18/07/11

Circumcision has been happening for thousands of years for religious reasons and more recently it was (male) doctors who insisted on it - oh and fathers have been fine for their sons to have it done, so let’s not have any silly comments that it’s women’s fault…

Ban it if you want, it sounds like there’s no reason for it so get rid of circumcision by all means - but don’t make out like it’s a sexist issue…

Fiona says:

08:31am | 18/07/11

Baal, wtf, lemon vqginal douches? Do you have a vagina? No douches, it’s a self cleaning organ. I’m off to investigate this now.

Cloud Strife says:

08:38am | 18/07/11

Yes! Of course! I remember that day all the women in the world got together and decided that circumcision would be the way to go to punish all the men. It was in the papers, on the news, it was all over Twitter.

Reggie says:

09:16am | 18/07/11

Yeah!!!! 

I feel the same way about cutting fingernails and toenails AND brushing teeth. Cruelty to bacteria and bed sox. And PERISH the thought that anyone would wear shoes when they can function perfectly well without them.

AND you Jezebels out there ... painting your faces with ashes and causing Erick’s undies unnecessary wear. AND a pox on the bastard cook who doesn’t spit in the cheescake you’re going to buy at lunchtime. All these things have a God given function in controlling world population and who are we to interfere with them. Down with toe-nail clippers.

Elphaba says:

09:40am | 18/07/11

Erick,if you feel this is a discrimination against men, then you need to take it up with the MEN of the Jewish faith who insist upon it in the first place.

You’re being betrayed by your own kind here.

melle says:

09:58am | 18/07/11

It’s a barbaric practice - to slice away the skin of a newborn baby.  Unnatural.

mike j says:

10:14am | 18/07/11

21st century, and some people still try to defend ritual child mutilation. Yet another reason to outlaw orthodox religion.

ndm says:

10:21am | 18/07/11

Various comments appear to massively misread what Erick said. His point was that the lives of boys and men are held as less valuable than the lives of girls and women, and the same with their right to bodily autonomy. Certainly, I’d agree with that myself, but you’re free to disagree if you like.

What he did NOT say was that ‘circumcision is a female-masterminded conspiracy’ or that women overwhelmingly push for circumcision while men oppose it. It is possible, and indeed often the case, for men themselves to share the viewpoint that harm to men or boys is somehow less problematic than (equivalent) harm to women or girls. It is - partially - this attitude that allows us to accept ritual circumcision in a way we wouldn’t think of accepting even the least severe forms of FGM.

The other obvious factor in regards to the West accepting circumcision is cultural; it has been part of our society for quite some time, albeit vastly rarer than in the USA, for example. We’re naturally willing to defend things based on cultural values or tradition over foreign practices. FGM was unheard in the West outside of very recently, and so we can more easily view it objectively as an awful practice that we shouldn’t tolerate. Do you think circumcision would have half as many defenders as it does if someone came up with the concept tomorrow? We’d think it was a terrible idea.

Erick says:

10:41am | 18/07/11

Thank you, ndm. It’s good to see that at least one person actually read my comment.

Joseph says:

10:53am | 18/07/11

Boys are a dirty race. this helps.

Michael says:

11:20am | 18/07/11

Thanks for clearing that up for me, NDM.

Sorry Erick.

Sam says:

11:28am | 18/07/11

It is illegal to Dock a puppy’s tail yet perfectly acceptable to remove a little bit of a baby boy.  I am sorry to say but I completely agree with Erick on this one as it looks like cruelty to dogs is taken more seriously than cruelty to boys.

Tim says:

11:31am | 18/07/11

After reading the responses to EricK’s comment, I think a reasonable case could be made that females can’t read.

Erick says:

01:05pm | 18/07/11

No problem, Michael. I knew there would be a lot of confusion as soon as Acotrel posted his comment “agreeing” with something I never said.

Though it’s unknowable, I think it’s probably likely that some group of men decided that circumcision was a good idea, long ago. And who knows, perhaps in their primitive circumstances, it was.

However, I’m not talking about ancient history, but the attitudes that prevail today. And those attitudes are held by both men and women. It’s the attitude that’s important, not the sex of the person who has it.

c.conserv. says:

01:25pm | 18/07/11

??? .......  I thought Acotrel was a female -  Acotrelle

loxy says:

01:28pm | 18/07/11

Anyone who compares male circumcision to female circumcision is an absolute idiot. For females it causes the complete and permanent loss of their sexual enjoyment, for men it has no impact on sexual enjoyment and the added benefit of being easier to keep clean – hardly a fair comparison - then again your not known for fair comparisons are you Erick, it’s mostly bitter rants that we get from you.

Alicia says:

01:30pm | 18/07/11

I agree, Erick. While I think there is some difference between male and female genital mutilation (in the sense that men can usually function as normal afterwards), it’s still a barbaric thing to do to a child.

My fiance is circumised (I imagine his Mum did it for the ‘health’ reasons as they aren’t Jewish) and some people have argued that our future children (if we have boys) should be circumised as well so that they don’t look different but I’m against it. Proper care and cleaning can prevent some of the issues that apparently surround uncircumised men.

Greg says:

02:45pm | 18/07/11

Almost all female circumcision is done by women, who have already been mutilated themselves.

Does that make it OK?

Greg says:

02:50pm | 18/07/11

It was also Chinese women who bound the feet of their daughters.

Did that make it OK?

Freed American slaves went to Liberia and introduced slavery.

Did that make it OK?

Outraged says:

03:20pm | 18/07/11

@Loxy: the foreskin has thousands of sensitive nerve endings which enhance male’s sexual pleasure. Chopping it off means a man has less sensitivity/pleasure.

Please don’t talk about men’s bodies without the facts.

Aaron says:

04:29pm | 18/07/11

Not many people seemed to read Erick’s comment…. Interesting to see all the women jumping up and down in outrage (over a mis-read comment, I might add), while guy’s would probably laugh.

ANYWAYS, trolling out of the way I have to say that I understood circumcision during past era’s, especially for the cleanliness aspect, that said as long as parents tell their kids to clean their penis I don’t see why circumcision is necessary. Should it be banned? I’d probably say don’t ban it, but perhaps discourage. This is just from my understanding of the medical aspects of it. Btw, I’m christian (not Jewish), a male and I’m not circumcised, probably won’t circumcise my kids either.

loxy says:

04:38pm | 18/07/11

@Outraged, I’ve never come across a single circumcised male who has ever complained about loss of sensitivity. Either way, it has no where near the same impact on sexual satisfaction as female circumcision so I think my claim that they can’t be compared is more than fair.

Further, I don’t understand what you’re so outraged about. Most of the guys from my era (I’m 33) are circumcised and I’ve never come across a single one who was unhappy about it – in fact most loved it and wanted to do the same for their sons. The fact is the majority of women prefer circumcised penises and men know it so to be circumcised is usually a bonus sexually and not a bad thing.

loxy says:

04:40pm | 18/07/11

@ Outraged, I forgot to add the clitoris has more nerve endings than the entire penis so perhaps you should get your facts straight.

Erick says:

05:08pm | 18/07/11

@Loxy - Well, durr. How could a man who was circumcised soon after birth notice a loss of sensitivity? He has nothing to compare it with.

And so what if the clitoris has more nerve endings than the penis? How does that justify removing nerve endings the penis, which already has fewer nerve endings to begin with?

Your misandry is showing.

mike j says:

05:25pm | 18/07/11

loxy, the clitoris is fully removed in only a minority of procedures.

Sometimes, the clitoral hood is removed (which is pretty much the equivalent of male circumcision). Sometimes, it is just a ‘ceremonial nick’ (although this doesn’t make it any less disgusting).

Your self-absorbed blathering about things you don’t understand isn’t doing feminism, or women in general, any favours.

Margot says:

05:50pm | 18/07/11

Erick once again you’re talking nonsense.
Male circumcision removes the foreskin but leaves in tact a males ability to orgasm and enjoy sex in general(my husband is snipped and he’s as happy as a clam and perfectly sensitive)
Female circumcision removes the clitoris or damages the surrounding area so badly that it destroys a woman’s ability to ever enjoy sex ever again,she will NEVER orgasm .THIS is why the two are not considered to be equal to one another.

Kathy says:

07:18pm | 18/07/11

Margot, Erick’s point was that there is no way for your husband to make comparisons.  If he hadn’t been circumcised, he might be much happier than your standard clam, not to mention more sensitive.

LC says:

07:32pm | 18/07/11

@ Erick

Agreed.

A maximum of 5 years imprisonment. That’s what you’re looking at if you get the equivalent of a male circumcision performed on your daughter. If you do it yourself, you could get more. In some areas of the US, the penalty is 30 years. Because the hood and the foreskin are direct male-to-female equivalents, the fact that that from of FGM is illegal but standard circumcisions are not is potentially unconstitutional. Though I fear that should this be put to the High Court, it would result in the legalization of FGM because of pressure from minority religious groups to maintain circumcision of newborn boys.

LC says:

07:35pm | 18/07/11

@ Fiona,

You are talking about a form of cancer that, despite a good 85% of the world not being circumcised, is still rarer than…wait for it…BREAST CANCER IN MEN.

That argument does not quite add up, sorry.

We have done the research too, and guess what, we came to the exact opposite conclusion to you. Now what?

Aaron says:

07:56pm | 18/07/11

Uhm something I think a lot of all you women are forgetting is that FGM removes the ability to orgasm WITHOUT penetration. Or are you saying that the female G-Spot is a lie? I’d be surprised because I know many women who have orgasmed through penetration alone and absolutely no stimulation of the clitoris.

I find it absolutely terrifying that anybody does any of these things to anyone. But if FGM is so much worse than circumcision, what about castration which is technically only illegal in Italy since 1870? And why did they perform castration? so that male servants couldn’t have sex with the women, so that boys would maintain their high voices for singing.

I have had enough of all this splitting hairs… mutilation is mutilation, abuse is abuse, rape is rape, regardless of sex, race, colour or creed.

If you are thinking of getting your child circumcised or believe male circumcision is fine then I suggest you read this site and see all the possible risks you are putting your child in: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

Just a quick summary of the ones that affect sexual activity: Hairy shaft, buried penis, deformity (yes deformity can affect sex), loss of the glans. What about the ones that can kill? Haemorrhage, infection, Necrotising fasciitis, priapism.

Jason Todd says:

08:41pm | 18/07/11

I’ve read through some of the arguments about thet comparison between male and female circumcision, and I have to side with Erick here. All differences between the sexes aside, are we really saying that it is okay to mutilate boys genitals after birth because we are only mutilating them a little bit?
Yes. I am aware that male circumcision is practiced by religions.
I am aware that there are some arguments that say there are health benefits, however the studies that I have read seem to indicate that the advantage gained from being circumcised pales in comparison to safe sexual practices and good hygeine.
I am also aware that there are many men who are circumcised who have no problem with being circumcised (likely because they don’t know the difference), but these muddy the issue. I think that we are getting off the crux of the argument.

Is it okay under any circumstances to make a permanent surgical alteration to a newborn infant’s body without their consent or knowledge because of a perceived benefit as determined by society or the parents?

All of the arguments of “Women like them better circumcised” (Which is highly anecdotal in my experience), “Daddy’s is different” (which goes without saying) and “It’s easier to keep clean” (which is debatable, these days we have running water to virtually every home) are all well and good after the fact, but it doesn’t change the face of the real question.

If the infant grows to become an adult and wants to make the decision for themselves, that’s fine. Off with their heads. People do a lot of stupid things to their body. Doing things that will cause permanent changes to an infant against their will though is something that I have a problem with.

As a hypothetical, say there is a religion that believes the bottom joint of a male baby’s right hand pinkie finger should be removed soon after birth. They’ve been doing it for generations. Men who have had it done report no difference in sensation or function, it’s mostly a tiny and useless bit of skin. As a bonus, it’s easier to keep their hands clean! (Less to wash, one less irritating little nail to cut) and lo and behold we discover that 54% of all needle stick injuries that cause disease occur to that joint of the pinkie. Clearly those who have had it done stand a significant advantage to those who haven’t.

Would you take a pair of bolt cutters to your newborn? I doubt that I would.

Jason Todd says:

08:48pm | 18/07/11

Loxy,
I know SOME women (note emphasis please) who like sleeve tattoos on men as well. The fact is it’s a bonus sexually, so it can’t be a bad thing.

Godfrey Zohn says:

11:29pm | 18/07/11

Hilarious!  Is there some sort of Godwin’s Law variation for feministas? First they hijack a discussion about male circumcision, and find a way to make it all about them. Love the way that they can tell us all this expert information about penile sensation etc. Yep, nothing like an expert opinion about penises from a feminist.  Envy does not equal expertise.

And yet when an assumed male Puncher mentions a douche, it changes to:

Fiona says: 08:31am | 18/07/11 Baal, wtf, lemon vqginal douches? Do you have a vagina? No douches, it’s a self cleaning organ. I’m off to investigate this now.

So, all of a sudden, if you don’t possess the organ, it seems you can’t express an opinion.  Nice own goal there, and a textbook case of the double standard often referred to on here.

So, what did you find when you investigated the self cleaning organ?
All shipshape, hopefully…

Please apply the rules consistently to all humans.  Circumcision is an abomination, when done without consent for no good reason.

Fiona says:

07:50am | 19/07/11

LC, no shit Sherlock. I’ve also seen breast cancer in men. I used to work in a male surgical ward, so I’ve seen lots of uncommon male conditions. If you read my post you’d notice I said I don’t agree with circumcision of any type.. I only stated that penile cancer is more common in the uncircumcised male than not, didn’t say where in the world or anything. I’ve actually had research papers on it in my hot little hands, so the thing to conclude from that is that the research into it, like a lot of other things, is ongoing. Don’t particularly care if you think I’m wrong either, that’s your right..
Btw, what’s with the royal “we”?

Fiona says:

07:58am | 19/07/11

Godfrey, it’s being investigated by researchers in africas. Apparently, there’s conflicting information about whether it’s effective in stopping HIV or pregnancy, but there’s evidence that it can lead to an increase in cervical cancer. If it was found to be useful, I’d happily go along with that, but apparently, majority says it’s not. Happy?
If you notice, I’ve repeatedly said I don’t agree with it and didn’t get my son circumcised, preferring education instead. Once you’ve had to hold an infant down for the procedure, it affects you. Ok?
I also have not commented on how men feel about it. I don’t have the right, I’m not male, so please don’t put words in my mouth/hands.

Matthew says:

08:54am | 19/07/11

It seems that most males here are against it and most females are for it…Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Jade (the other one) says:

04:43pm | 18/07/11

While I agree with the majority of what you are saying, CJ Morgan, I have to disagree with you on the point that justification for FGM is routinely for health and cleanliness. The stated reason by practitioners of this practice is to reduce the sexual pleasure of women, thus making it more likely that they will remain a virgin until marriage, and then faithful after marriage, as they are not deriving any sexual pleasure.

LC says:

07:40pm | 18/07/11

Actually Jade, you’ll find that the justifications for FGM where it’s still practiced are the same as those used to justify male circumcision (“It’s cleaner”, “It looks better”, “It prevents disease”, “So she looks like mummy” etc etc).

jade (the other one) says:

09:43pm | 18/07/11

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

LG - not seeing any real references to cleanliness, prevention of disease or health benefits in the World Health Organisation’s assessment of the practice.

Don’t get me wrong, I think most parents and Western doctors have been fooled into a misguided belief about the benefits of male circumcision - a belief which is propped up by a religious tradition.

CJ Morgan says:

10:48pm | 18/07/11

Thanks Jade & LC,

I wasn’t suggesting that the rubric of cleanliness is the only reason proffered for FGM, but I imagine that when deployed, it’s typically a rationalisation - particularly in Western countries where it apparently occurs.

Which raises another question - the allegation is often made that FGM occurs in Australia.  Is this true, and of so how do they get away with it?

LC says:

11:27pm | 18/07/11

I’m not talking about what WHO says about it Jade, but rather how it’s justified on a local level. Yes there are a handful of people high up who’ll say that it’s to reduce sexual pleasure, but if you ask the women who live in the villages where it’s performed, the answers will be closer to what I mentioned. They come up with these in an attempt to justify the damage done to them without their permission, and give themselves a reason to allow it to be done to their child, and the cycle continues.

If you do a little research on the origins of circumcision in America, you’ll come across man called John Harvey Kellogg. He advocated some pretty bizarre therapies to “cure” masturbation, which at the time was though to lead to many health issues, from hairy palms to blindness. He advocated for circumcision for boys without anesthetic, believing that it would cause them to associate sexual stimulation with pain. He was an advocate of FGM too for much the same reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Views_on_sexuality
Yep, there have been people advocating for circumcision for the same reason that fanatics have been advocating for FGM. And you can look anywhere in this page for justifications people have been giving for circumcision, which in summary are:
- “It’s cleaner”
- “It looks better”
- “It prevents disease”
- “So he looks like daddy”

FGM is banned here for very good reason. As male circumcision should be.

Jade (the other one) says:

01:00pm | 19/07/11

Waris Dirie seems to disagree with you, LC. In her books, the reason that the women did it to her was to make her marriageable.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali states similar reasons, as a victim of FGM.

In most other literature I have read, from both perpetrator and victim, the stated reason for the act is to make the child marriageable, and to remove their ability to enjoy sex, thus making them more inclined to remain faithful.

I’ll listen to the actual people who experience this over your ideas thanks.

Jane says:

09:41am | 18/07/11

Why does he need to “look like” his brother? Seems unnecessary to me. I would say no.

Kate says:

10:24am | 18/07/11

Of course not. Would you dye his hair if he had a different hair colour, or give him cosmetic surgery if he has a different shaped nose? Children are incredibly robust and quite accepting of differences; it’s only adults who get hung up about such things.

Bomb78 says:

11:00am | 18/07/11

My brothers and I are not cut - our Dad is. From an early age the difference was explained to us in a clear and honest fashion. I can’t speak for my brothers, but I can honestly say it had no detrimental effect on me.
And for what it is worth, neither of mine sons are cut - if they choose to do so as adults, that’s fine with me, but I am leaving them with that choice.

LC says:

02:03pm | 26/07/11

If his brother lost his left hand, would you take a hacksaw to your newborn’s left hand, so they look the same?

What’s that? No?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

mike j says:

11:12am | 18/07/11

Nor can you make generalisations about Jews or Israelis without being ‘anti-Semitic’. Nor can you have an opinion on the Palestinian conflict, object to Israeli human rights abuses, or support resolutions of the United Nations without being branded ‘anti-Semitic’.

The Punch team routinely and unabashedly publish accusations of anti-Semitism which are solely intended to stifle debate. Don’t call someone a ‘imbecile’, though. That’s too offensive.

Matthew says:

11:24am | 18/07/11

You’re only anti-semitic or racist if you’re white.  If you’ve got skin of a different colour or have a different faith then it is OK to bash whoever you like.

As Erick points out, it’s even worse if you’re a white male because then it’s sexist too (thankfully only a small number of females subscribe to everything that males do as being sexist, but they still make a lot of noise).

atthepub says:

04:15pm | 18/07/11

What does the bible say? The jews say yes. Jesus says no.

LC says:

08:03pm | 18/07/11

Actually, the OT of the bible says yes to it, as is practically word-for-word the same as the Torah. But because Jesus apparently died so that everyone is forgiven for their sins, old testament laws and rules no longer apply. That, and a 8th century papal ruling banned it under the punishment of excommunication because by doing so, you’re implying that god’s design is not perfect.

How do I as an atheist know this? Private research and RE classes in school.

And Russell Crowe has a point, even if he worded it rather crudely.

If you come to Australia, you have to live in line with our ways, one of which is that we do not circumcise children for anything other than medical reasons (after the failure of all more conservative treatment options). If you accept that, than I and Australians will welcome you with open arms. But if you refuse to accept that, you may be better off moving to a country whose legal system and values are more compatible with your own.

Spart says:

08:37pm | 18/07/11

Rossco - where did it say anything about anti-semitism?

Jane says:

09:40am | 18/07/11

Neater? Your head may look neater without your ears too, but we don’t slice them off. What a silly thing to say.

Leto says:

10:38am | 18/07/11

“However, don’t force your beliefs on anyone else. I had my boy done and he has never said I ruined his life”.

I’m sorry, did you say that you forced your beliefs on your son?

Matthew says:

11:27am | 18/07/11

“To compare female genital mutilation to circumcision just makes you look totally foolish.”

That’s like saying comparing green and red apples is foolish.  They are both about mutilating a person’s genitals.  I’m not sure how there’s any difference at all really.

Super D says:

11:54am | 18/07/11

@Matthew - perhaps you aren’t familiar with female genital mutilation.  It involves removing the clitoris and all the other fun parts they can get to with the sole intent of denying women pleasurable intercourse.  There is no comparison with male circumcision.

ned says:

01:00pm | 18/07/11

Hey I want my foreskin back so don’t speak for me Brando.

The problem I have with it is that someone cut a whole lot of nerve ending off the end of my penis. Those nerve ending are there for a reason. Sort of like a male clitoris. If you don’t know what I mean go explore your penis, if you do you will never recommend circumcision again.

Ailie says:

03:12pm | 18/07/11

Sooooo you forced a cosmetic procedure onto your son because of YOUR beliefs?

Pot, meet kettle.

Kate says:

03:52pm | 18/07/11

I’ve also yet to meet an uncircumcised man who has a problem with it.

Em says:

04:05pm | 18/07/11

See, now *this* is where I have problems with male circumcision.  Doing it for medical reasons - ACTUAL medical reasons - and religious beliefs is one thing.  To make it look prettier is a whole other kettle of fish.  I know parents who got it done because they’re too lazy to clean their boys properly in the bath and nothing angered me more.  You are no more likely of getting cancer and other diseases if you wash properly and protect yourself appropriately. There’s no real reason for getting the chop at all.  I don’t see it as mutilation (at least not on the same level as the female “equivalent”) but it’s completely unnecessary.

And to be honest, I’m yet to meet another woman who actually gives a toss whether their bloke is cut or not.  I personally find it a little dull. There’s nothing to play with.  When you’re getting down to business it gets pushed back most of the time anyway, so they all look the same regardless in my experience.

Oh yeah, and I’m joining the others on the pot-kettle-black thing. Thanks for taking CHOICE away from your son.

Daniel D says:

04:12pm | 18/07/11

I have a problem with it.
Mine is “high and tight” which means no skin movement at all on the shaft when it is erect. I pretty much need to use lubricant every time I masturbate. I can say without doubt that my potential sexual pleasure has been affected. If only I could sue someone. The only problem is that no amount of money will bring it back the way it should be.

How come only when it happens to a female it’s called genital mutilation?

Fiona says:

07:12pm | 18/07/11

Ddniel d, see a urologist. You may be able to have corrective (albeit Temporarily painful) surgery.

Paul says:

02:21am | 19/07/11

You have yet to meet a circumcised man who admits to having a problem with it? I was circumcised while being held down on a desk by two men.  I fought back and had my arm and nose broken.  Yet nothing that was done to me was deemed illegal or ever resulting in the laying of charges, despite a formal complaint to the police.  Yes, I have a serious problem with being circumcised and a very serious problem with people who continue to say that what was done to me and to millions of other non-consenting children is something to laugh at.  There is no difference between pulling gold teeth out of someone’s mouth without consent, taking a kidney, or taking a foreskin without consent.  All represent theft.  Why are you forcing you unethical and immoral beliefs on others?

Erick says:

11:14am | 18/07/11

Male and female genital cutting only differ in the extent of the removal. Your objection to any comparison is based on your sexist hatred of men.

Matthew says:

11:33am | 18/07/11

Carz, believe it or not, but not all MGM is done “in a nice clean hospital”.  In Africa the boys do it as a rite of passage to manhood (so 10-12yo boys).  They travel a long distance then just get it sliced off and have to walk back to their tribal area.

Not saying it’s as bad as FGM but you’re the one trivialising MGM, not others trivialising FGM.

Tim says:

11:37am | 18/07/11

So you’d be OK with FGM if it was done in a hospital by a trained practitioner?
They are the same thing, only the level is different.

Adrian says:

11:47am | 18/07/11

Male and female genital cutting only differ in the extent of the removal.

Bullshit. FGM results in severe lifelong health problems for many women. Male circumcision usually results in nothing more than a lightly scarred penis.

Your objection to Carz’s comment is based on your unabashed and unreflective male privilege.

progressivesunite says:

12:16pm | 18/07/11

@ Erick - no, it’s not just the extent of removal. FGM would be roughly the equivalent of castration and penile amputation, not of foreskin removal….FGM is about totally ruining girls’ genitals because of deep seated hatred and terror of women. That is not what’s behind circumcision of boys (and no, I’m not saying it’s ok either). If you can’t see that, it’s because of your sexist hatred of women

@ Adrian - well said

Carz says:

12:30pm | 18/07/11

@ Erick. My objection to comparison it because there is a huge difference in what is done, not because of a sexist hatred of men. Perhaps is male genital cutting ranged from a ritual nick through to the removal of the head of the penis with a stone, with the resulting wound held together by thorns then a comparison would be fairer.

@Mathew, I did not say that all male genital mutilation was done in a hospital. Nor did I say it never resulted in complications, pain or anything else. What I did say was that FGM is generally not done in a hospital, probably because it is illegal in many areas where it is done.

@ Tim. No.

Some of the responses to this piece show the level of hatred against women in our society all too clearly. Obviously there are plenty of men around who believe that a lack of sexual pleasure for women is a good idea.

progressivesunite says:

12:57pm | 18/07/11

@ Carz - unfortunately, I think your last statement in the replies, that there are still men out there who think removing sexual pleasure from women is true - I think it scares them. In fact, a doctor in NSW recently did just that - purposely and unnecessarily removed a patient’s clitoris while he was just supposed to remove a lesion (he even leant in before she succumbed to the general anaesthetic and said “I’m gonna take your clit too”) - he’s been sentenced to 2 years’ prison (I think) - but as his victim said, I wonder what sentence he would get had he emasculated a male….

Tim says:

12:59pm | 18/07/11

“Obviously there are plenty of men around who believe that a lack of sexual pleasure for women is a good idea. “

See, no one said anything like this, not even close. It’s offensively ridiculous.
Yet you think it’s a reasonable comment.
Grow up.

Tim says:

01:49pm | 18/07/11

“but as his victim said, I wonder what sentence he would get had he emasculated a male…. “

Yes, I wonder that too.
Probably would have got off with a suspended sentence.

Erick says:

02:03pm | 18/07/11

@Adrian and progressivesunite - Exactly my point. The only difference is the extent of removal.

@Carz - Your reply only indicates the depth of your irrational hatred of men. “Obviously there are plenty of men around who believe that a lack of sexual pleasure for women is a good idea.” - WTF? Only a feminist dripping with hate would say such a hateful thing.

Carz says:

02:40pm | 18/07/11

@ Erick, every time you declare is as a “difference in the extent of removal” issue you prove my point that there are plenty of men who don’t care about a woman’s loss of sexual pleasure. It isn’t the amount removed that is the issue, its why it is removed.

Outraged says:

03:29pm | 18/07/11

Yes, Carz, I DON’T care as much about “Female Genital Mutilation” because it does not happen as frequently in the numbers Feminists love to cite.

More males in the world have been circumcised than females have. Period.

Lexi says:

04:09pm | 18/07/11

@Tim - a woman in the US recently forcably removed her husband’s penis and testicles. She is under arrest, in prison and prosecutors are anticipating that if she is found guilty she could face life in prison. And yet here, a man in a position of trust and authority who has authorised the administration of anaesthetic to render a woman unable to object or protect herself gets a lesser sentence than a white collar criminal. And you want to jump on Erick’s conspiracy bandwagon to say that men are terribly discriminated against. Well, as they say, misery loves company.

progressivesunite says:

05:18pm | 18/07/11

@ Tim - seriously delusional response from you - read what Lexi said…

Tim says:

05:28pm | 18/07/11

Lexi,
operative word there being “USA”.
Are you seriously trying to compare a crime in another country which hasn’t even gone to court yet to this one? On the basis of a statement by a prosecutor? Really?

I’m sure the prosecutors in the Australian case were expecting a lengthier sentence too but it didn’t happen.
To claim some sort of bias against women like the victim and progressivesunite did is ridiculous and without a shred of evidence other than their own personal bias. I can understand the victim being miffed at the sentence but anyone who follows sentencing in this country knows that our justice system is extremely weak on criminals.

antman says:

06:13pm | 18/07/11

Lexi: different countries, different jurisdictions, different sentencing guidelines for crimes overall. You can’t compare. However, the removal of a woman’s clitorus does not prevent a woman from reproducing, so there’s a whole extra order of magnitude right there.

atthepub says:

06:49pm | 18/07/11

Well put Carz.

Fiona says:

07:24pm | 18/07/11

Erick as you may have noticed, I don’t agree with circumcision, but you are wrong on so many levels about the difference between males and females being simply a matter of degree.
Women that have been infibulated have to urinate and menstruate through a tiny hole, leading to scarring and sometimes fistulas. They often have to get opened up on their wedding night and the scarring from all this can lead to problems when trying to push a baby out. There is a hospital set up in addis ababa for these very problems. Some people that live in western countries and that want this done to their daughters will send them back to the family to get it done as it’s usually illegal where they live. These girls have to then have a “repair job” done after they come home. Is this comparable to male circumcision/mutilation?

Aaron says:

08:06pm | 18/07/11

Carz… have you read the comments by some of the men who have been circumcised? Have you researched male circumcision? No? well check this site out: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

I seriously hate it when somebody stands up for something where we should all be in equal agreement yet it gets reduced down to “we suffer the most” “No we suffer the most”.

Oh and as an uncircumcised male I have never had any problems with infection, cancer, etc and most girls I’ve come across prefer the turtle-neck to the monk.

Carz says:

09:42pm | 18/07/11

@ Aaron, yes I have read all of the comments by the men here. I did not turn this into an issue of who suffers the most. I was responding to those who tried to compare two very different procedures and declared them equal in result and intent. I am not in favour of circumcision or genital mutilation of either sex. While my ex was done as a baby our son was not.

Jade (the other one) says:

10:07pm | 18/07/11

@Carz, in New York City, young Jewish babies were being discovered to have genital herpes. One even died. Doctors were at a loss to discover why. Upon investigation it was found that all were Orthodox Jews who had been circumcised by a mohel, who used an archaic form of the procedure that involved him removing blood from the cut penis with his mouth. He had transmitted herpes to the infants due to this practice. In Israel, there is a constant stream of young boys diagnosed with herpes post-circumcision as a result of the continuation of this abominable practice.

But I guess that isn’t important. There’s no comparison at all.

I tend to think that comparing FGM to MGM is a blatant attempt to trivialise the trauma that boys suffer, by comparing a traumatic and mostly unnecessary practice to a more obviously barbaric one done for entirely different reasons.

We get extremely angry as women when the trauma experienced by date rape victims is compared against the physical injuries wrought by more sadistic forms of sexual assault. We suggest that comparison is wrong, because the trauma is individual.

Why can we not recognise the same about male circumcision? That for the victims, it can be equally more traumatic, and that in many cases, can be life-threatening or permanently disabling.

LC says:

09:58am | 18/07/11

No long term impacts?
http://www.thewholenetwork.org/consequences-of-circumcision.html

LC says:

10:43am | 18/07/11

As for your points on disease, firstly there’s no evidence of HPV transmissions being reduced through circumcision, and as for UTIs, the chance for those is actually INCREASED by circumcision, because the opening of the penis is exposed to the elements 24/7, allowing more opportunities for bacteria to get in, whereas on an intact man, the opening is protected by the foreskin, and the only way he’d get a UTI is if A. He rubs the head without washing his hands or B. Something unsterilized is put in the opening.
The only exemption was one of the HIV studies in Africa. While the studies in Africa were cancelled due to ethical reasons because, surprise surprise, people were getting AIDS, from the results they got, it showed a 0.9% reduced chance of getting HIV. If you’re worried about a 3.4% chance of contracting HIV, I’d bet you’d be still be worried about a 2.5% chance of contracting HIV. The best way to protect diseases is with condoms and modern medicine, not cutting off a piece of someone’s body.

We don’t chop off our babies toes to prevent tinea, we teach them to wash their toes. We don’t skin our babies alive to prevent eczema, we use the appropriate creams. We shouldn’t chop off a part of their cock to gain a ZERO-POINT-NINE PERCENT reduced chance of contracting HIV. We teach them to practice safe sex.

progressivesunite says:

11:22am | 18/07/11

@ LC - calm down! I said “I don’t know” “apparently” etc - I’m not advocating the practice…..just raised some points other people have because I don’t know what the medical position is these days….

Outraged says:

03:36pm | 18/07/11

LOL whenever an articles comes on The Punch that remotely says males are discriminated against, all the Feminists come out of the woodwork saying: “...But women have it worse off!!”

“Female Genital Mutilation” honestly does not happen that often. Only a minority of a minority of certain African tribes practice it. The way Feminists harp on about FGM, they make it seem like millions of girls get this procedure done…but it rarely happens and is becoming rarer now that Africa is becoming more Westernised (civilised?)

progressivesunite says:

08:55am | 18/07/11

I doubt you’d get many straight men in long term relationships agreeing to continue with condoms…that’s why straight women have to put themselves through constant drama and potential danger with the Pill….

Fionw says:

09:03am | 18/07/11

A lot of men will also refuse to wear condoms, even if they can, so circumcision is a valid way of reducing the spread of various STIs.
I do agree that the HPV vaccine should be made available to all. I’d say that much like the rubella vaccine, which was initially available only to girls (I remember us girls getting it at school), it will end up being available to all. When,who knows?

Chris says:

10:36am | 18/07/11

progressivesunite and Fionw I respectfuly disagree with your argument. Women can always force the issue of condom use, a say that they don’t want sex without a condom or they can use a female condom instead, men and women have the right to say NO to sex or have we forgotten that.

Leto says:

10:47am | 18/07/11

Being circumcised , a man is less likely to contract HIV. However, whether a man is circumcised or not makes no difference to the likelihood of the female contracting HIV.

Turns out, HIV likes to start attacking the nerve endings contained in the foreskin. You know what I do? Wear a condom.

Matthew says:

03:46pm | 18/07/11

“I doubt you’d get many straight men in long term relationships agreeing to continue with condoms”

They’re also not going to magically develop AIDs in most cases since they are likely to be faithful.

Don’t forget, AIDs is quite rare in Australia and often passed through needles rather than unprotected sex.

progressivesunite says:

05:25pm | 18/07/11

@ Matthew - but it’s not just HIV. Men in long term relationships with women tend to feel that they don’t have to worry about condoms anymore - happily leaving women to deal with potentially damaging drugs such as the Pill, and continuing to expose them to risks of cervical cancer etc - heterosexual relationships do not carry the same physical ramifications for men as for women, and men tend to be happy to let women carry the can for a form of sex (intercourse) that benefits men far more than women in the first place…..Sadly, women are complicit in their own subjugation and could probably put more effort into asserting their rights

Aaron says:

08:55pm | 18/07/11

progressives, the interesting thing about your argument is that when it was announced there was a male pill that was more successful the majority of WOMEN (something like 85%) were against it because it took things out of their control while the majority of men (95%) were for it because it gave them more control to prevent the risk of women deliberately getting pregnant. The result? the male pill was never manufactured because there was “no market” for it

PTom says:

12:09pm | 18/07/11

Rubbish look at the facts which Daniela fails to mention.

“its a sound procedure” have you looked at the number of babies that die from this sound Medical procedure.
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Reducing the risk of getting one STI but you have more or the same as getting others.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280846?dopt=Abstract

The rate of penile cancer is higher in the largely-circumcised USA than in European countries where less than 1% of the male population is circumcised.  oops

The is unnnecessary plastic surgery on boys and should be stopped.

Kevin says:

12:43pm | 18/07/11

Yes.  If god didn’t want men to have foreskins why did he create them?

atthepub says:

07:12pm | 18/07/11

Jesus said, don’t.

LauraBoBaura says:

11:32am | 18/07/11

Peter, we have a thing these days called soap & water to take care of cleanliness, it’s 2011, surely men can be trusted to wash their penis?
There’s also a thing called a condom that is a lot better at stopping disease than taking to an infants genetalia with a knife. Circumcision is completely unnecassary in this part of the world.

Also, as a woman, I honestly have no preference regarding cut vs uncut.

Your xenophobia comment is just plain dumb. Do you accuse people who are against FGM of racism?

Puppies don’t remember having their tails docked, but that’s still banned. Just because they don’t remember it, doesn’t make it less barbaric.

Keith Hammersmith says:

01:11pm | 18/07/11

when the penis is erect, there is no visible difference between the cut and uncut penis.

Anne_N says:

02:34pm | 18/07/11

Peter,

It’s a myth that premature ejaculation is a feature of an uncircumcised penis.  Please stop perpetuating it.

Aaron says:

09:04pm | 18/07/11

HAHAHA Peter…. I’m uncircumcised and can last hours, I keep myself clean, in fact first thing I do when getting in the shower every day is clean there first, I also ensure that before any activity I also clean there (I might actually be a little obsessive about it). I have never had an infection, the only time I’ve been injured was through some aggressive activities. I have also known circumcised men who see an uncircumcised male and feel that they are less than.

The foreskin is designed to protect against injury.

Elizabeth says:

07:56am | 19/07/11

I disagree Peter. I would much prefer my lover to have his penis with full functioning sensitivity. How it looks? It looks like a penis.  I think we have done many men a disservice in removing the protective hood just so that it looks “neater”. Shocking rationale.  You should always worry about cleanliness if you are going to get up close and personal with someone.  Circumcision is a medical procedure that should only be undertaken for medical reasons. Otherwise I consider it mutilation.

Jane says:

10:18am | 18/07/11

Except their choice to choose.

LC says:

11:02am | 18/07/11

Yep they ain’t missing out on anything.

Except the right to decide what happens to their body. I’d imagine that one would be up there with not being subjected to torture when it comes to fundamental human rights.

You exercised your right to choose, which I support (provided you’re 110% sure that’s what you want). Someone who was circumcised at birth cannot.

Glad I’m not your wife though. Apart from the whole issue of sex being rougher, I’d hate to imagine what else you aren’t you aren’t doing if you’re too lazy to take the 5 seconds pull your foreskin back and rinse in the shower…

PS: Remember that people who were circumcised at birth have had their glans rubbing on their clothing their whole lives, and that’s the primary reason for sensitivity loss. I’ll assume you were 28 sometime in the recent past, so you probably have a while to go before you lose enough sensitivity to make sex a chore. I’d say enjoy it while it lasts

Snippy says:

01:00pm | 18/07/11

Hmmm ... A few points, LC.
I was scrupulous with hygiene then as now.
I had the op 20 years ago. Still don’t have any problems with sensitivity. As for rough sex, I guess it’s how you do it. Perhaps you have had some bad experiences in your life.

But this message is not for you, or other people with “issues” or who have an agenda, to the extent that they are unwilling to at least take on board someone whose opinions should be valued because, and I’ll give it some emphasis, they SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE (rare on a comments site I know).

Instead, this message goes out to any blokes who haven’t experienced the issue from both sides (AS I HAVE) and who are wondering if they were robbed of some epic sensations but will never know.

Mates, you weren’t. Sex with and without a foreskin is much the same. And mostly, it’s more about what’s going on inside your big head than what’s going on outside your small head.

ENJOY.

Fiona says:

07:32pm | 18/07/11

Well said snippy, thanks for the insight….

Jason Todd says:

09:13pm | 18/07/11

Thanks Snippy, I had always suspected that the change in sensation would be minimal, but this is the first I have heard of someone that knows for sure.

AW says:

03:15pm | 18/07/11

Pretty sure there wouldn’t be any ‘bell-end cheddar’ if you WASHED YOURSELF!

RyaN says:

10:57am | 18/07/11

@julia: same applies to open heart surgery, brain surgery, cosmetic surgery, surgery on your dog or cat etc.
Should we ban those as being “abuse” or “mutilation” also?

Just because you are squeamish or cannot handle medical procedures does not mean its abuse or mutilation.

Erick says:

11:11am | 18/07/11

@Ryan - Wrong. The procedures you mention are either medically necessary , applied to animals, or voluntarily undertaken by the patient. Routine infant circumcision meets none of these criteria.

RyaN says:

02:07pm | 18/07/11

@Erick: fair enough, my statement is about julia claiming that if we were witness to the procedure that we wouldn’t be quite so flippant.

julie says:

11:19am | 23/07/11

sorry to inform you Ryan but I have been a nurse/midwife for 25 years so I’m quite used to medical procedures and I still believe that infant circumcision is abusive. It is done without anaesthetic with the infant strapped into a spreadeagle position on a custom made plastic contraption ( for want of a better word). A bell shaped plastic device is forced between the meatus and foreskin separating the two ( those of you who have male children will know that the foreskin is adhered to the meatus in young children) and then the foreskin is cut off. Quite different to open heart surgery which is life saving, done under anaesthetic and then the patient is given pain killers to help with the pain. Babies are not given any sort of painkiller after this procedure.

stephen says:

10:58am | 18/07/11

The ‘kindest cut of all’ is that hokey lawyer show on the ABC which is a copy of a scottish law show on the same netwoek about 8 years a go, but worse.
(Lawyers are about as important and interesting as that flapping piece of skin, in the wind.)

LauraBoBaura says:

11:37am | 18/07/11

Yeah sure Ryan, after you get his foreskin sliced off, you won’t have to take the time explaining safe sex to him, or teaching him how to clean his penis properly.
You know what else prevents HIV a lot better than taking to your baby ‘s junk with a knife? A condom.

Tim says:

11:38am | 18/07/11

Pffft,
only people with no hygiene have those problems.
Teach your son to shower daily and there is no benefit.

Keith Hammersmith says:

12:25pm | 18/07/11

hate to break this to you, but you can still contract HIV even when circumcised.  In fact with the false sense of security that comments like yours give to circumcised kids they just may be less likely to use proper protection.
O and I hope you never spill a hot cup of coffee in your lap,  that exposed glans can be a little sensitive (at least my uncut one is)

RyaN says:

02:12pm | 18/07/11

@Keith Hammersmith: Being well educated in HIV I am well aware that circumcised persons can still contract HIV, also I think you’ll find my glans is not quite as sensitive as yours.

@LauraBoBaura: Please do specify where I stated the purpose of being circumcised means that you don’t have to explain safe sex nor the joys of washing properly?

A study perhaps? http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Herzog

RyaN says:

02:21pm | 18/07/11

So the study claims “When calculated by patient-years of exposure, the frequency of complications in the uncircumcised group was 40/1,000 patient-years and the frequency of medical visits was 29/1,000 patient-years. Among the circumcised patients, the frequency of complications was 16/1,000 patient-years, and of medical visits, 15/1,000 patient-years.”

So by this study, circumcision could marginally reduce the pressure on our medical system.

Keith Hammersmith says:

03:06pm | 18/07/11

@ Ryan “also I think you’ll find my glans is not quite as sensitive as yours.”
all i can say is bummer man….  thats a fantastic argument against circumcision right there.

RyaN says:

03:49pm | 18/07/11

@Keith Hammersmith: that’s not what she says

Leto says:

12:14pm | 18/07/11

Hahaha, nice.

RyaN says:

04:21pm | 18/07/11

+1 Internets! Nice work.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:58pm | 18/07/11

The benefits of circumsion are only relevant where there is limited access to condoms, and soap & water. Sure, it works in Africa.. which is the place where doctors are behind it… but we are more than capable of keeping a good standard of personal hygiene in this country and we have easy access to contraception.

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/doctors-to-leave-our-baby-boys-intact-20090607-bzj9.html

Outraged says:

03:14pm | 18/07/11

cybacaT: are you male or female?

Whatever happened to “My body, my choice”? Why does that only apply to women?

Jason Todd says:

09:10pm | 18/07/11

More than 10 years out of date cybacaT, the practice should have been outlawed once we had internal plumbing and hot running water.

As others have stated, in situations where standards of hygiene are not as high, where safe sex is not as well practiced there is statistically significant (if small) benefit to circumcising males, as I’m sure there was historically, (when the practice was instituted). However, where there exists soap, running water, condoms, standards of hygiene and safe sex education, the cost far outweighs the benefit.

Leto says:

01:27pm | 18/07/11

Kinda like how dogs don’t walk around with their lipstick poking out all day long, right?

LC says:

07:07pm | 18/07/11

Damn right. Not only having the urethral opening exposed to the elements 24/7, there’s also the little matter of, you know, having an open wound sitting in a piss and shit filled nappy for a few weeks after the operation. If that’s isn’t unsanitary, I don’t know what is.

“Circumcision is cleaner” my arse.

LauraBoBaura says:

01:18pm | 18/07/11

You’re forgetting to mention that the UN study was in Uganda, Kenya & South Africa, where hygiene in general is a lot lower than in Australia, and there is very little access to contraception, unlike in Australia.  Like I said, yes, it works in Africa.
But we have other ways to protect against STIs here without performing invasive, painful and unnecesary procedures on our children without their consent….
If you’re so sure it’s the right thing, why not wait until your kids are old enough to make up their own minds?

Hammond says:

01:42pm | 18/07/11

>citing the UN as a source

the UN is one of the most biased lefty nutjob organisations on the earth

also, why should a study from bloody Africa be relevant to us? They rape 5 women each on a regular tuesday, and have no concept of safe sex

immunisation is nowhere near comparable to cutting off a little boy’s penis. perhaps you should google ‘botched circumcision’ and see if you agree with that, you freak

Steve Bennett says:

01:56pm | 18/07/11

That study was a crock, the difference was 4.2% infected in uncircumcised and 2.1% infected in circumcised. The difference being 2.1%. However they of course divided 2.1 by 4.2 and somehow decided that was a 50% difference. And of course 8.6% of the overall participants could not be reached for follow up - more than both HIV infected groups put together. Read the original study, don’t post links to news articles - they are not scientific research they are sensationalist views made for sheep like you to use to support your irrational beliefs: http://miembros.cisidat.org.mx/articulos/attachments/172_Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya- a randomised controlled trial.pdf

LauraBoBaura says:

01:58pm | 18/07/11

Also cybacaT, how can you not see that removing a part of someone’s body without their consent is violating their rights? Just because they are your kids, doesn’t give you the right to hack off parts of their anatomy…

Anne_N says:

02:29pm | 18/07/11

If circumcision is so good at protecting against HIV, why do american gay men (a country with one of the highest rates of circumcision) have one of the highest rates of HIV?

Tim says:

02:58pm | 18/07/11

Yes,
a study of African men with poor hygiene standards has immense relevance to Australian conditions.
Good work.

Ailie says:

03:17pm | 18/07/11

They’re called condoms, perhaps you should instruct your children in their useage?

LC says:

10:22pm | 18/07/11

I’d go one step further and remove medicare cover for circumcisions for anyone under 16 unless it’s medically required. And lobby private health insurers to do the same.

Jandamara says:

08:09pm | 18/07/11

Hey Robert, you saying then that my culture is barbaric huh?
My culture goes back thousands of years, we believe in keeping our traditions alive but you white fellas always gotta come along and tell us what to do.
We circumcise our boys when they turn 13 as part of Law ceremony mate and not you or any other jump up white prick gonna stop that!

Aaron says:

09:13pm | 18/07/11

Jandamara, while I don’t want to get into a religious debate here, but if your traditions involved sacrificing your first born child would you find that acceptable?

And don’t even go with the “it doesn’t so it doesn’t matter” response, it’s a simple question requiring a simple yes/no answer.

Would you continue to perform those cultural activities in a country where it is considered illegal? yes/no?

If no then the follow-up is why do your cultural values have more importance over the common law of another country that has no connection with your culture?

Thommo says:

11:33am | 19/07/11

But the Jews also think they are chosen above all people and will inherit the world to rule and it will be known as Zion. Why don’t we call them out on that first before the minor issue of a bit of skin.

Babe in the Woods says:

04:50pm | 18/07/11

I prefer uncut, lots more fun!

LL says:

05:30pm | 18/07/11

Well I’m a woman and my husband isn’t circumcised. Doesn’t bother me at all. It still functions like it should and I love it even though I think all penis’s are bit on the ugly side He showers every night and hasn’t had any problems in his 30 years.  AS far as HIV will I know he doesn’t have it as I was tested when I fell pregnant so that’s not an issue for us.
We’re both against circumcision and it wasn’t even brought up (by us or the Doctor) when our son was born.

LC says:

06:56pm | 18/07/11

So a 0.9% of a reduction in the chance of getting HIV was worth the “chop”?

I wouldn’t think so, especially as condoms reduce that chance a lot further, but hey, it’s your body…

lou says:

12:13pm | 19/07/11

Uncut would be my preference, always found that it’s more sensitive & more fun… no penis is particularly aesthetically pleasing..
But really, it doesn’t matter that much… as long as it does what it’s supposed to, who cares?

Daniel D says:

05:00pm | 18/07/11

An unborn child still belongs to the body of the mother, and it is up to the mother what they want to do with “their body”.

When a child is born it becomes an entity in it’s own right. Infringing on this new persons rights should be a crime.

Scott says:

06:06pm | 18/07/11

Dan D, sorry mate but that’s rubbish. An unborn child is a distinct living being, and already an entity in its own right.  This distinction is grossly inappropriate and hypocritical: you fight for a little bit of skin on a newborn but sit by unconcerned as unborn children are terminated by the millions.
Ben, I agree entirely.
It’s complete hypocrisy to declare circumcision ‘assault’ while we continually take the lives of the unborn.
I won’t start worrying about circumcision until non-therapeutic abortion is re-criminalised.

Daniel D says:

02:39pm | 19/07/11

The only way to determine when a unborn child become an entity in its own right is draw a line. Since any other line would be arbitrary this is the only way. Also just because one perceives that greater crimes occur is no reason to ignore comparatively lesser crimes.

Margot says:

05:38pm | 18/07/11

My husband is circumcised and he wants the same for our son should we have one.He’s very happy with his,he’s never had any sort of problems at any point in his life(and from past boyfriends I know that most uncircumcised men have some sort of issue even if it’s just a bit of redness)Even though he doesn’t know any better he says it’s perfectly sensitive and has no longing for it to be more so.
And just so we can make things clear between female circumcision and male circumcision,Male circumcision takes off a small amount of foreskin leaving the whole member in tact,sexual sensation in tact if (possibly)a little lessened.Female circumcision removes the entire clitoris destroying a woman ability to orgasm,the two are not the same.

LC says:

06:30pm | 18/07/11

Margot, there’s varying forms of FGM and circumcision. One of the more serious forms involves cutting the glans down the middle, as practiced by our very own Australian Aborigines.

While the one you’re referring to is only practiced amongst a handful of African tribes and not very common at all, the most common from of FGM is just the removal of the clitoral hood.

Seeing as the hood and foreskin are direct male-to-female equivalents, if you support circumcision then you must also support at least this from of FGM. It’s only fair.

PS. When you say “a bit of redness” do you mean on the glans or on the foreskin? Because if it’s the former, that’s what it’s supposed to look like. The glans is an internal organ that’s meant to be kept covered so it remains moist and sensitive, just like your tongue.

Mr Helmet says:

08:05pm | 18/07/11

Isn’t awfully nice to have a circumcised penis!
Isn’t frightfully good to have a well trimmed dong!
It’s swell to have a cut stiff, divine to have a pared down prick,
from the tiniest little tadger to the worlds biggest dick!
So three cheers for circumcision!
Hooray for the altered trouser snake.
You can wrap it up in ribbons, you can slip in in your sock but don’t take it out in public because the PC crowd hate the chop!

RyaN says:

11:04pm | 18/07/11

Hahaha great work Mr Helmet, love it.

Daniel D says:

02:44pm | 19/07/11

So other than the grammar lesson your point is?

LC says:

10:45pm | 18/07/11

I don’t feel any hate or resentment towards those who are circumcised, primarily because in most of the time they did not have a say in it.

However I will not just sit by idly as these people attempt to justify the damage done to them, or the damage they’ve done to others, by putting out fraudulent claims claiming there’s benefits to circumcision (if it was really that good why hasn’t nature picked up on it by now?) or circumcising those who are too young to make their own minds up on the scenario.

G says:

02:21am | 19/07/11

wowsers. 

You should be more concerned about your mental state than your other people’s circumcised penis’s…!

And, why the fark did you get circumcised at 24 for?

LC says:

08:10pm | 19/07/11

I’d say it’d be more like the removal of the clitoral hood, but either way, I’d like to see all the women advocating circumcision get one of them done, or both. Then they’ll at least have some credentials to ask for their men to be circumcised.