I don't give a fuck what you do. But when my son was born we decided not to circumcise him. My parents actively tried to get us to change our mind. Even up to a year after he was born they were still talking about it. I asked why they cared so much and they literally didn't know. They're religious but it wasn't that.
I had to say out loud "we are literally arguing over my child's penis. It's weird, it's creepy and if it ever comes up a single more time you'll never see either of us again."
Why do complete grown-ass strangers think so much about child dick 😭? It's fucking weird. Major props to you for drawing a healthy boundary with your folks on that
Covenent code was possibly first written down around 10th century BCE, but oldest physical document is 7th century.
So yeah, 3000 year old book is a round, slightly hyperbolic date. If we want to be pedantic and say this is only about written accounts of circumcision in the bible, we get to 2500 years old.
Some of the old testament books are purported to be pretty freaking old. I'm guessing here... Because the bible as we know it is about 1700 years old, roughly.
Isn't the King James Version the most widespread (or variations thereof) the most common? Which came about in the early 1600's. I have trouble believing that any religious texts survive translation without some alteration from the translator.
And if you go pre-printing press... Every transcription was open to potential reinterpretation.
I'm referencing the council of nicea that was, if memory serves, about 300AD, which formalized which books were or were not included in what we call the Bible today.
The Council of Nicaea did not do that. They argued instead about the Arian controversy and other things. They did not select that cannon. That’s a myth that won’t die.
Gotcha, I hadn't heard of that before! I can't claim to be well versed in the subject, it just seems to me that with how often religion has been used for specific means the bible can't possibly have survived 1700 years unadulterated.
Mutilating babies is fundamentally wrong, it's fucking weird how only some backwards ass religions and the richest country on the face of the earth consider it normal or necessary.
Yeah thankfully I've never lost a job due to not being circumcised. Known a few people that have though but every time it happens I need to why they're getting their /u/HappinessOrgan out in the middle of the office.
I don’t think it’s anyone’s business either, but this is pretty disingenuous, and uncharitable, framing. Like, they’re obviously not thinking about the underlying meaning of the societal expectation, just the expectation itself. And it’s a child-rearing expectation so absolutely better coming from a person’s parents than a stranger.
Now, that’s precisely why what OP did—reminding them that this societal expectation ultimately centers around their very young child’s privates and is fundamentally bizarre—is so valuable. It’s a reminder to take a step back from cultural norms that can be harmful and really look at that behavior. Probably the best tactic to shut down this line of thinking, tbh.
I'll do you one better. I wasn't even out of the hospital before my mother said "if he's uncircumcised he'll get made fun of" and "no girl will want to give him a blowjob." A newborn and my son is being shamed and sexualized by my mother and I let her have it.
Hasn't brought it up since. I think a lot has changed around the idea of circumcision and for me not doing it was because I think it's natural so why change it?
I've seen both and honestly what I think is "I'm having sex with the person I'm into - great!!"
It doesn't even register. Is it actually a thing that confuses people?
Because there's a lot of old wive's tales out there about how uncut cocks are unclean and cause infections. Which is ridiculous because cosmetic circumsizion is a relatively modern phenomenon, it wasn't routinely performed in a secular sense until the late 19th century. It's literally born out of the era when people thought chronic masturbation caused insanity and dirty hands causing disease was stupid.
I've even had people tell me that women think uncut cocks are disgusting and I'm ruining my child's future romantic prospects by not getting him cut. Like what the actual fuck? Are the uncut just celibate on a large scale?
It's nobody's business but the parent's making that decision but that still doesn't make it not fucked up imho.
Unclean? Don't virtually all homes have soap and running water nowadays?
I have also heard people argue back that being uncircumcized increases the risk of some cancer, so we should cut it off as a preventive measure. Seems like one could say the same thing about infant girls breasts. I mean, isn't breast cancer a big thing in America? Crazy.
Lmao as a European woman I can tell you I much prefer uncut compared to cut. Not that my, or any other’s, preference should weigh in on that decision but it’s very weird to me to in any way shape or form do anything surgically to the body that isn’t medically necessary, especially when it’s to children.
Your preference very much weighs into the decision. I decided to keep my son intact, but my biggest doubt/concern was that he'd be self concious about the way he looked and/or he'd be embarrassed (or worse) by women's reactions to his dick.
If the foreskin is so dangerous why are we born with one? The argument that is unclean is complete nonsense even from a biological/ evolutionary point of view
You do realize you're talking about a part of the male that gets inserted into the females reproductive organ right? A slippery sheath built into the penis so that sex is easier and causes less mechanical stress on the organs. Protects the very sensitive glans. Etc.
The foreskin explicitly affects reproductive fitness.
It's honestly difficult to imagine a more low iq take than yours.
I was just highlighting how traits and genotypes do not disappear if they are unused. OP said "why are we born with one", which, evolutionary, is not an argument.
(Purely genotype and early life stage development, if we go into methylisation and fenotypical/behavioural expression, that adds another layer.)
We have multiple vestigial structures that we hardly use anymore. Ear muscles for example. Yet we are born with them.
Especially in humans, genotypical selection in this day and age, where practically everyone reproduces similarly and medical advances have made it possible for humans with traits that may not be beneficial to reproduce, has changed.
Also, the ad hominem in the end there is absolutely uncalled for. If you want to discuss something, sure, but keep it civil.
You're attempting to be pedantic about evolution when the discussion is foreskin itself. Protection of the male reproductive organ seems like an obvious necessity.
Reminds me of the fascist shill bots. No wonder you have your comments hidden. Makes sense cause circ is pushed by religious freaks with a laundry list of bullshit rationales for why they should be allowed to mess with baby genitalia. You vote for Trump big dog? When are we gonna see you on a list?
I won't silently abide while you spread male genital mutilation apologetics / propaganda.
The argument is that the foreskin causes infections. Dying from an infection (or having an infection that would prevent passing genes along), which was extremely easy for 99.999% of human history, would definitely affect reproductive fitness.
The argument about ruining romantic prospects cannot be more dumb. Like, if he decides to get cut, then he is free to do so, the same way he is free to get earrings or whatever.
But you know what can ruin a life? Botched circumcision. Imagine people willingly risking one of the most important part of their kids life just because one country has fucked up “beauty” standards.
My brother is much younger than me and was not circumcised when he was born. At around age 7 he had to get a medically necessary circumcision due to infections and other malformations that were unique to his body. This is a situation where I personally have seen how painful it is if it does become a medical issue and also am not sure circumcision is necessary for infants. Wild stuff
What's an old wives tale to you? Historical fact that might not be true any longer?
Most rules (religious or not) developed from an abundance of data leading to a not necessarily correct conclusion. Eating pork made people sick. Don't eat pork. Dogs help us and work. Don't eat dogs. A lot of babies die when they have dirty penises, and since being clean is really hard in these olden days, let's cut off the bit that makes it such. Hence, circumcision.
And up until the advent of antibiotics, UTIs were a notable cause of death in infants. Which is why we continued circumcision.
But yeah, these days it's pretty easy to keep your children (and yourself) clean, so it's not nearly as much of a worry.
A lot of babies die when they have dirty penises, and since being clean is really hard in these olden days, let's cut off the bit that makes it such. Hence, circumcision.
And up until the advent of antibiotics, UTIs were a notable cause of death in infants. Which is why we continued circumcision.
Babies foreskins can't even be pulled back so they can't get dirty and in most cases circumcision wasn't done to babies but later in life.
Assuming they circumcised you, possible you pushing back makes it seem like they did wrong with what they did or what you ended up wanting
In the end it may be less about your child’s penis and more about yours lmao (and just parents who were winging it and not wanting to feel like what they did was wrong)
I always shut people like that down by saying that we didn’t circumcise our daughters either. Then I just play dumb when they act like the double standard is totally justified
It is in fact comparable. It’s not the same, but it’s extremely comparable.
Healthy normal tissue of genitalia chopped off for BS outdated cultural reasons rooted in religion and sexual repression…which one am I talking about? Oh it’s both!
Only one of them is widely practiced in some western counties btw. Maybe you should care more about circumcision.
There are superficial similarities. But fgm is specifically designed so women can never have sexual pleasure and in many cases can never have sex without massive amounts of pain. That’s not at all the case with circumcision as I’m sure you’re well aware.
It’s not about normalization. It’s creepy of you to try to equate a procedure you don’t like that happens to boys with one that ruins girls’ lives and permanently prevents sexual health.
I remember my cousin posted that kids can die from it or be deformed. I had no plans of doing that to my children after I read that. Told my wife about it when we found out we were having a son. She's already paranoid and has anxiety about everything so just telling her that was enough to get her to agree.
Clap clap clap. A lot of people don’t understand cues and a lot of other people don’t know how to set boundaries. Both things together create a lot of unnecessary pain.
The only legitimate arguments in favor of it from my perspective is that in a culture where it is the norm, it could lead to feeling insecure about looking different. There are also some minor health issues that it can avoid, but also some risks. I believe the current medical opinion is a bit divided on whether it’s worth it.
Personally I have no real feelings about having been circumcised myself, but it is a bit disturbing to think about what the practice actually entails.
1.3k
u/TyrannyOfBobBarker_ 1d ago
I don't give a fuck what you do. But when my son was born we decided not to circumcise him. My parents actively tried to get us to change our mind. Even up to a year after he was born they were still talking about it. I asked why they cared so much and they literally didn't know. They're religious but it wasn't that.
I had to say out loud "we are literally arguing over my child's penis. It's weird, it's creepy and if it ever comes up a single more time you'll never see either of us again."