24 votes

The Truth About Circumcision

Stefan Molyneux breaks down the truth behind circumcision, including details on the procedure, it's history, rate of occurrence, claimed medical justifications, relation to masturbation, negative consequences and it's morality.


http://youtu.be/m_zkKciuIpA



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wolfe's picture

Child abuse/mutilation is a joke to you?

Stephan is right. We still have so much farther to go in ourselves before politics could even begin to matter.

I think all the assholes like you need to actually witness a child screaming in terror and pain when this happens to them.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I was one of those children

And I am so glad I don't have a bunch of skin hiding my dick-head.

This procedure is done when the child is less than one year old. They are not in fear of anything. I don't remember squat, but I am glad to have a clean, good looking penis.

See, people like YU have to resort to calling me an "asshole", because I disagree with your ethnically intolerant, collectivist mindset.
You want to ban circumcision? Just don't get it done.

Clearly, this thread is full of UNCIRCUMCISED people who are insecure!

The Socialist Liberals in San Fran advocated the same thing you are here!!!

This thread is so obviously an attack by the Jew-hating leftists who troll the DP.

LEAVE MY Families' Penises alone, and I will continue to leave yours alone!

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

deacon's picture

there it is !!

no one mentioned israeli,jews or anything of the sort
race bait much?
oh,and for one who doesn't like this post,you sure spent a lot of time
on it
you could have just left it alone,you know,if it disagreed with you
so it must agree with you?
deacon

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

you're free to mutilate your own genitals

just leave everyone else free to make their own decision.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

wolfe's picture

I am circumsized...

And once my parents learned the truth, after watching me as an infant scream in pain and terror, have never stopped apologizing...

Nor have I ever stopped being pissed at those of you who think it's OK to mutilate your children because it's "normal"!

What's wrong with female circumcision, or preventative masectomies?

"LEAVE MY Families' Penises alone, and I will continue to leave yours alone!"

You need to leave your CHILD'S penis alone, you f'ing pervert. If he wants it when he is old enough to decide, he can choose that for himself.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I wish to G-d I had my Foreskin back

There are thousands of nerve endings in there. Taking off part of someone's body when they are too young to object is tantamount to rape. It is no one's rightful decision to remove part of another person's body;
and can lead to all kinds of complications, which wold be avoided by just leaving things as G-d/nature intended, rather than performing unnecessary surgery.

Like vaccination, there is a ton of propaganda around this issue, and lots of interesting info around this for those who care to explore

Those here talking about "extra-skin" etc are in denial - the human anatomy is perfect as nature made it - chopping off parts is not an improvement.

Why do we abhor genital mutilation perpetrated against females, but not males? Makes no sense.

BTW, my family is Jewish, and I did not circumcise my two sons - if they want to have it done later thy can decide that for themselves.

wolfe's picture

Glad to hear this story and your decisions.

100% true on all points and very happy to hear that you decided to let your sons decide!

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Man, you are so full of it..

I'll bet you really spend your days poo-pooing about how you were circumcised, and your parents are just so sorry, ever since that fateful day when you cried, as a baby.

I never said anything about "female circumcision".

That is NOT practiced in America and is NOT a Jewish custom.

Muslims, on the other hand, perform "female circumcision" to remove sexual pleasure from a girl. THAT is wrong!

Male circumcision is not cutting off your dick-head, it is only removing the foreskin! It's just extra skin, it is NOT an organ itself. The clitoris is!

As for telling ME how to raise MY children, under my religious traditions... Kindly Go 'F' Your Self! Some libertarian you are.

And as for calling me a "pervert", once again our simple mind cannot help but ad hominem insult.

Good luck being you for the rest of your life, you and your poor circumcised penis... Poor baby. Your parents must be sooo sad. How could they have done such a thing?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

you ignorant fool

you have no clue about male anatomy.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

wolfe's picture

ignorant.

"never said anything about "female circumcision"."

"Muslims, on the other hand, perform "female circumcision" to remove sexual pleasure from a girl. THAT is wrong!"

It has the same effect and for the same reason, research Kellogg and why he pushed for circumcision as a national norm.

Further, whether the goal is removing sexual pleasure, or the need to properly teach your child how to clean themselves, what is the difference? It is more noble to mutilate your child so you can avoid an uncomfortable conversation than it is to try and prevent them from having sexual pleasure? Seriously, there is NO aspect of this argument that you win on, so just stop and do some research.

Mutilation is mutilation. But you set a double standard.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Your calling me ignorant?! Look what you just wrote!

You are trying to claim Male circumcision is equivalent to "female circumcision".

That is just so ridiculous and not factual it is pathetic.

I cannot continue an argument with you if you are just going to make things up as you go.

The clitoris is like the dick-head for women. The head is where the sexual pleasure for men is mostly. The foreskin is JUST skin.

I cannot care less who 'Kellogg' is. I am Jewish, it is my tradition. It helps in keeping your penis clean, and has NO sexual effects what-so-ever. Trust me.

Why have an extra thing to have to clean thoroughly? Just get circumcised, save the extra work.

Fact is, circumcision helps prevent penile cancer, gangrene, and some STDs. Children developing these problems is very rare, but who wants to go through that procedure as an adult?
Not me. It helps in the long run, and the time to do it is when you're very young. Older men developing penile diseases is higher among uncircumcised men.

If someone messed up your circumcision, I'm very sorry.
Get a Mohel next time.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

stop spewing propaganda and do some research

here...

Frenulum
The frenulum and the associated tissue delta on the underside of the penis below the corona has been described in sexuality textbooks as "very reactive" and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

================================================
Ridged band
The prepuce, including the ridged band, is a specific erogenous zone.[3]
Taylor (1996) postulates that "the ridged band with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue".[2] He hypothesizes (2007) that Meissner's corpuscles in the ridged band are adapted to detect stretch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridged_band

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

I'm Jewish and Anti-Circumsision

Re Female Genital mutilation; that takes many forms, and does not always remove the clitorus. Sometimes only the clitoral hood is removed, leaving the clitorus exposed. The clitoral hood is the anatomical analogue of the foreskin and performs the same protective function.

Does that mean you'd be OK with female genital mutilation in cases were only the clitoral hood and/or labia (also "just skin") are removed, while sparing the clitorus?

Moreover, the foreskin is no more "just skin" than is the eyelid. It is in fact a complex double-sided structure containing thousands of nerve endings, which performs several roles, including as i said, that of protecting and conditioning/moistening one of the most sensitive parts of the body. In averagely endowed adults it is the size of a 3x5 index card, not exactly an inconsequential amount of skin.
Also, just because circumcision had no adverse sexual or other consequence in your case does not make that universally true - statistically there are many problems that arise, and yes that includes when one has used the ever-touted Mohel. Unfortunately for those poor victims, there can be no "next time."

Meanwhile, all the supposed health benefits you list are in fact propaganda, but even if they were not, it would not change the fact that to remove part of the anatomy of any non-consenting individual is a clear violation of the sanctity of their person.

I'm not saying it should be outlawed, but it sure leads to a grey area in which the right of religious freedom and parents in general are set against the individual rights of the infant to have his/her body left in tact. Where does religious freedom end? Should we allow animal sacrifice? At least in that case the victim is not human. I don't know. But I do know this: when speaking of analogous structures, if it's thought OK for boys it should be OK for girls, and visa versa.

Anyway, it's OK if you don't understand where I'm coming from - neither does my mom. Denial runs deep.

[BTW - This is a stand-alone comment and does not pertain to the whole prior exchange, which I did not read.]

Shalom.

wolfe's picture

You are, my dear sir, an f'ing idiot.

"The clitoris is like the dick-head for women. The head is where the sexual pleasure for men is mostly. The foreskin is JUST skin."

No, actually the foreskin contains as many or more sexual nerve endings as the female clitoris. It is NOT just skin.

"I cannot care less who 'Kellogg' is. I am Jewish, it is my tradition. It helps in keeping your penis clean, and has NO sexual effects what-so-ever. Trust me."

You should, he is why non-Jewish males are circumcised in this country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies#Med...

"Fact is, circumcision helps prevent penile cancer, gangrene, and some STDs. Children developing these problems is very rare, but who wants to go through that procedure as an adult?"

No, it doesn't. But even if it did, you are asking why someone would want to choose, when it could be chosen for them?

Go ahead, mutilate your children to save them from having to choose later. Once again, preventative masectomies start to make sense by your logic.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Hypocrites! I'm very disappointed with the DP community

The forcible will on another human to remove a standard body part is highly relevant to the discussion of individual liberty. And I fail to see the humor to make jokes or add sarcasm about mutilating a defenseless baby's most sensitive region.

Shame! Shame on those who would commit the logical fallacy to dismiss the message based on the messenger. Us "Ron Paul kooks" should know better.

I also find it hypocritical those who argue the parent as the ultimate decider (i.e. pro-choice) in this matter while advocating individual liberty when it comes to abortion. So apparently individual liberty is applicable only in matters of life or death? I suppose also God wants every baby to live but admits they made a mistake on the design of every boy, requiring parental intervention to correct the situation?

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

There's

a bit of a distinction here. Even if you know circumcision is wrong and violates an infants liberty, you may also know that intervening in parent-child relationships is a very dangerous precedence. You can't make a mother/father love their child and look out for their well-being, yet no one is more equipped to do so. You can't say the same thing about the state. I don't see it as a moral matter concerning the pro-choicers and pro-lifers, it's about respecting the sanctity of family and not allowing the state to serve a role it can't possible be trusted to do.

wolfe's picture

This is Steph and teh libertarian crew around here we are...

talking about. So I doubt you will find anyone saying that "there outta be a law". None of us are saying that. We don't believe people refuse to murder others because "there is a law". We believe people generally are decent enough and do thing simply because they know it's right.

This is about educating those who don't know, and teaching them that circumcision, even if performed by a doctor is child mutilation and is wrong. It starts with us and what we know. Laws and politics are irrelevant.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

agreed

the most effective response is to shame the people who advocate genital mutilation. the next step is to refuse to do business with them. let the market weed out the barbarians amongst us.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

The state shouldn't be involved, period.

I don't see this as an either-or situation where the state must be involved in one or the other scenarios. My personal belief is that the state has no business in either.

I am however trying to make the case that a defenseless human being is entitled to their own individual rights that must be respected. A person's privates are exactly what that literally means - something that belongs to them and nobody else.

People like to argue such a barbaric practice is "tradition". Well f**k tradition! Tradition don't make it right.

People like to argue such a barbaric practice is for "religious purposes". Well f**k any religious belief that violates the individual rights of another person! Human sacrifices were part of the Mayan religion. Did that make it right?

People like to argue such a barbaric practice is required for health reasons. I call bullsh**! Circumcision is a practice done BEFORE any need for medical intervention and the overwhelming majority of those uncircumcised never do.

People like to argue such a barbaric practice is for cosmetic reasons. Well f**k all those who believe that's a choice they get to impose on others without their consent.

*Please understand these are general statements and are by no means meant to be a personal attack on you. I'm just hijacking your comment to clarify my position.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

I don't agree

Because a parent cares for an infant, and has the responsibility of cleaning the provates, which the infant and toddler can not and do not do by themsleves, I believe that the parent has every right to make the decision on how to best care for their child, and if circumcision is part of that choice, it's their responsibilty, not the infant's.

As individuals, we sometimes have to make hard choices and do what we believe to be the best for ourselves first.

Reminds me of the airplane ride I took back in the 70s, I actually listened to the stewardess.. and I'll never forget the part where she took the sample air bag, lifted it up and dropped the yellow cup into her hand. She showed us hoe to put on the cup over our mouth and nose, and then she had a special message for PARENTS:

PARENTS: PLACE THE CUP OVER YOUR MOUTH AND NOSE AND TAKE DEEP BREATHS BEFORE YOU APPLY THE CUT TO YOUR BABY'S MOUTH AND NOSE, Parents who place the cup over their baby's mouth and nose first, have been found to lose consciousness and die, leaving the baby without a parent.

Parents do put their children first, and they make sacrifices for that child, and clean that child for YEARS before the child is capable of properly caring for itself, so I will not damn any parent who did what was best for them to care for that child.

I never had children, and if I had a male child, I don't know what my decision would have been, but it would have been mine, unless I was married, and then it would have been a mutal decision as parents who LOVED their child foreskin or not.

By your logic, full removal of the genitals...

and/or installation of a colostomy bag should be A-OK, if the parents deem it would help make cleaning the child more convenient for them during those first few dependent years. Then, a permanent catheter with easy on-off-spigot could be installed tapping directly into the bladder for mess-free, easily planned urination.

For the record, both my sons are intact, and there is zero added hassle to keep them clean.
But if there were, I would just do it, because that's my job as a parent - I wouldn't feel justified in chopping off their body parts, violating the sanctity of their bodies and and maiming them for the rest of their lives, just so I might save 30 seconds per diaper, or get a little less shit on my hands.

No one had ever circumcised a child for cleaning purposes during infancy (and I recognize you only meant that as an illustration.) It is done for three reasons I can think of off hand:

1) bind/obligatory religious adherence
2) to look like dad/social pressure
3) because Dr.s/hospitals recommend it because it is such a phenomenal cash cow for them

Incidentally, I don't damn any parent over this either, but I sure wish people would learn to empathize with their babies on this, and do some research with the kind of energy and open-mindedness that lead us all to Dr. Paul.

No harshness intended here - I hope it didn't come off that way...

Incorrect

If the infant could not deficate and was terminally ill, then yes, I would take advantage of modern science in hopes to bring the child to complete health and if they had a scar from the colonnoscopy bag, I would hope that they understood that was the difference between their life and death, and hope they loved their life.

Islam, the largest and fasting growing religion does it for health reasons, so you can say religious, but to them, it's a health reason.

When I was a baby sitter, washing genitals was not my favorite part, and circumsized males were better because the second less you spent having to pull back the forskin and make sure their soiled diapers (and I was left with babies who had been wearing soiled diapers) arousing them was the last thing I wanted to do, It only takes a second.. and the same goes for men who are unable to wash themselves. I had a brother who was a quadplegic, and he needed bowel care. He had no problem being aroused, which can be embarrassing.. and I was hlad he was circumsised becasue it made the clean up faster for me.

So, as someone who has cared for men, from infant to adult that needed care with their genitals.. the less I have to touch, the less I have to go through the embarrassment of unwanted sexual arrousal, the better.

Thank you to all mothers, fathers and men who have gone the way of circumcision, you make the job of helping wash you easier and less embarrassing for me.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate

I agree, parents have "the responsibility of cleaning the provates [sic], which the infant and toddler can not and do not do by themselves".

I don't understand however why that should give the parent "every right" to remove a body part because the child cannot clean it for themselves. I also find it interesting you chose the word "privates". Privates after all are defined as "intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person" and "belonging to or concerning an individual person". I find it contradicting therefore to claim someone has a right to mutilate something they acknowledge does not belong to them.

On your second point, how exactly is a parent doing what's best for themselves over their baby when it comes to circumcision? More confusing is you cite an example of a life and death situation (one I happen to be fully aware of as a pilot myself) where the parents choice could be detrimental to themselves and their baby. Again, how does this relate to circumcision?

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Because

Parents have every right, because parents are 100% responsible for the health of their infant, by the state, or county.

In relation to the pilot story, for the time the onfant is 100% DEPENDENT, they have no rights because they are unable to defend themselves.

For those who were circumsised and resent their parents, I suggest they blame themselves for not being hatched like a snake and not dependent.. maybe they should see their circumcision as proof they have needed someone 100%.

Billions of men have been circumcized, and millions have chosen circumcision as adults, so to call circumcision a mutalation is a personal, not public, definition.

For example, I witness tattoos as mutalations, yet, hundreds of millions of men and women would be offended, and completely disagree with me. I can point out that tattoos have caused death, irreverable scaring, and self-labeling that impedes their progress in life, and I would have no problem finding millions of witnesses and examples. There is no debate about tattooing being an option for good health, as there is for circumcision. So I do not accept circumcision as mutalation because circumcision for health reasons are cited throughout history.

My father was circumcised but

My father was circumcised but didn't have it done to me, and I elected not to have it done to my now 3 year old son. How could any self respecting Libertarian force an elective removal of a body part on another. If a boy wants it done when he is older, let him make the choice.

Sure as a kid I felt embarrassed to shower because I knew I was the odd guy out with what was socially acceptable. Now that I am grown I am so glad I did not have the part of my penis removed with 90 something percent of all the awesome nerve endings that makes sex even better. Also I never needed to buy those ribbed type condoms which is really a replacement ring of foreskin for pleasuring a woman better. Maybe some guys have so much penis to spare, the can waste extra mass. Also, why is acceptable for males, but it is barbaric to remove a woman's clitoris?

A woman that never had sex with a clitoris never knows how much she is missing, and neither does a dude without a foreskin.

If mankind had not fallen,

If mankind had not fallen, circumcision would not have been commanded in the ancient churches. It represents a circumcision of the heart, or a removing of evil loves, as denoted in Deuteronomy 10:16, and elsewhere. This fact must be recognized in any debate over circumcision.

Post the Pen & Teller BS

Post the Penn & Teller BS episode about circumcision. That changed my view completely.

What's their view?

.

Need to get our children exposed to as much pain and suffering

as possible and inject their bodies with viruses because, you know, it's for their own good.

Maybe if 70% of Muslim men didn't get their dicks chopped off there wouldn't be so many radical extremists to bomb... that'd be really bad for the weapons business though.

Carry on, nothing to pee see here.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Ban all medical operations

Ban all medical operations pushed onto kids by mean old parents!
Children now owned by state, parents relieved of any input into their children's well being.
New Child oriented healthcare law heads to Obama's desk for approval.
Toddlers now have the option to decline any and all doctors visits because they don't want to or the procedure may hurt.

Southern Agrarian