Quote

ONCE routine, now often thought unkind, the cut may also be illegal. Parental consent might not be enough to protect the circumcisers of baby boys from later legal action.

In a rare legal analysis of the medical procedure, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute found that criminal and civil law lacked certainty, and that circumcision might abuse the rights of a child.

No specific laws currently regulate the removal of the penile foreskin in Australia, and there are few clear answers in general law, according to an institute researcher, Warwick Marshall.

"What is clear is that the current laws were not framed with male circumcision in mind," he said in an issues paper released yesterday.

About 12 per cent of newborn boys are believed to be circumcised in Australia, down from 90 per cent in the 1950s.

....

Concerns about the circumciser's legal position were first raised by the Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, who referred the issue to the institute, based at the University of Tasmania's Law School.

"The whole subject of non-therapeutic circumcision on boys is so fraught with emotion and unreasonable assumption that it is hard to find answers to the most basic legal questions," Mr Mason concluded.

He found that the risks of circumcision included pain, surgical mishap or complications and decreased sexual pleasure. Among the claimed benefits were reduced chance of infections, and cultural or religious conformity.

The paper said the consequences of an ill-advised procedure could be horrendous: "Even if a court considers the physical loss following circumcision negligible, the social and psychological effects of a wrong decision can be devastating."

It said there were cases of suicide and attempted suicide by men forced to live with lasting complications of a circumcision performed on them as a child.

But for other men, the operation became an important part of their identity.

The institute said in law, circumcision might be considered an assault or a wounding. "There is uncertainty as to whether the consent of a parent for the circumcision of their child is sufficient to allow a circumciser to legally perform the procedure," it said.

In light of this lovely news piece, do you think that it could be considered a violation of rights? Is it right or wrong? Parents have been sued for it multiple times, and it seems to be coming a hot topic online and off.

Please keep the topic to MALE circumcision. You can see some statistics here.


According to this page on foreskin restoration, the foreskin removed during circumcision cannot be replaced. It has specialized nerve endings, muscles and blood vessels that are there and needed for normal sexual function and pleasure. Apparently the skin is there to keep the penis moist and protected, and to stop it being overstimulated in sex (causing premature ejaculation).

There's a very graphic and traumatising description of circumcision here too, if you like traumatising yourself.

The twelve known functions of the foreskin:
   1.  to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
   2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
   3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
   4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
   5. to lubricate the glans.
   6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
   7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
   8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
   9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
  10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
  11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
  12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.


On the other side, there are supporting statistics here.

After reading all this, and seeing those pictures....I'm definitely NOT getting my son circumcised (well, when I have a son..).

I'm against it.  It's a barbaric act with religious motivations and vague evidence of being more hygienic which, like all other things laid out in the Abrahamic religions when it comes to hygiene and health, is entirely obsolete now.

Well, to be honest, I think guys without it would attempt to be more clean because of that stigma (that it's dirty)....so I don't know how you would unbiasedly test it.. I mean you couldnt do a blind test because of the automatic prejudice, and the fact that you can clearly tell cut vs uncut lol.

There's a stigma against being uncut?

I thought there was a stigma against letting old men handle your dick. Or letting old men handle your son's dick.

Andre Vienne (08:18pm Sat, Jun  6, 2009)

There's a stigma against being uncut?

Are you serious? I've seriously not met many people who don't mind it, and I've met many guys who are self conscious about it and feel like crap for being uncut .

That's weird. I've never encountered that. I like not having bits and pieces of me chopped off.

Though, I've never been too concerned about my cock. Neither do I get poetic about my pecker, or normally engage in dialogue about my dick.

Andre Vienne (01:57am Sun, Jun  7, 2009)

Though, I've never been too concerned about my cock. Neither do I get poetic about my pecker, or normally engage in dialogue about my dick.

yeah....but didnt you have sex education in school?!

Yeah, but I don't remember anyone making a big deal about it.

I always figured circumcision was a crazy thing that white people did to mark their kids. Mexicans have the whole Catholic-style baptism thing, so we don't need to cut things off of our kids.

I know that sometimes this is done for medical reasons, and that's fine, you gotta do what you gotta do. But to mutilate a child for the sake of cleanliness or cause some invisible man in the sky told you to, is pretty messed up.