Shared publicly  - 
Harvey Paul's profile photoAbdelhafid Cherair's profile photoCarter Mason's profile photoKyle Ostapuk's profile photo
Why would the initial bill even exists? I don't understand...
I don't think it's for the state to decide -- therefore I agree with striking down legislation that prescribes one way or another.
Honestly, there are arguments on both sides, and it does border on the state making rules on the establishment of religion. Totally against this being a legal issue.
I'm thinking it's not for the states to determine...
I think the government needs to stay away from penis.
I can tell you it hurt like hell and I can't see why anyone would want to subject children to it except for medical reasons. But I would agree with +Chris Guillebeau , In my case and I suspect in most cases, its a religious ritual and the state should not interfere with it.
On the fence too. Not a place for the state - on either side of the issue. I have not thought the circumcision was a good idea from a human practice perspective... but have heard valid medical information that tips me back the other way.
Is female circumcision banned in California?
+Cory Swanson Beats me!

+Adam Colon The topic of circumcision is a really heated debate. There are people dead against it because they consider it abuse... others find it a tried and true formula for the prevention of infections, prevent tearing during sexual activity, and it keeps the fluff out! :P
The State has no business banning it. Period. Just my two cents... I live in Nevada.
This is almost always a religious issue. Let the state spend its time on lowering taxes and leave penises alone.
Really, I think it is not for the state to decide, unless it is for medical or religious reason I am opposed to male circumcision in general. Female circumcision as well.
This is something that I feel like I should care about, but I kind of don't. If I'd had a choice in the matter, I probably wouldn't have wanted to be circumcised, but I don't really have any complaints about the way things turned out. In principle I'm against mutilating people's genitals against their will (especially for religious reasons), but as mutilations go, I feel like this one is pretty harmless.
I believe in "Hands off my junk" point of view... Focus on fixing the economy.. not other people's junk...
it infringes on religious freedom for sure .... what the hell is wrong with people these days ??
+Scott Hammack People get their sons circumcised for non-religious reasons as well. It keeps certain areas cleaner and, therefore, prevents potential infection. Non-circumcised dudes get crap stuck in there and they have to be more careful to keep it clean. Take it from a girl... ;)
For those opposed to state involvement in male genital mutilation -- are you also opposed to the state banning female genital mutilation? Or is that somehow different in your mind?
And i do not think it is an antiquated practice. People need to step off other peoples junk and let them snip it or not. It's only mutilation if it gets botched :p

Whoever my doctor was when i was born did a great job. Totally happy with his work.
AFAIK 20% of the world's population (Islam) believes in Circumcision. 20%!
I have to wonder if there isn't some discrimination at the base ;) of all this.
+Casey McKinnon Even so, I kind of think that the penis owner should be the one to decide whether that's something they want to have done. If for some reason the child's life depended on it, sure, go for it, but my understanding is that the medical benefits are pretty minor.
It is also good to note that circumcision isnt always about religion.., my parents were hippies and non religious and still had it done for me..., thanks mom and dad, you rock.
I'm beginning to think that this is just a pissing contest.. :P yes, i went there.. ;)

Being raised in a culture where circumcision is a norm, I don't see why this is an issue..
since my internet is wonky, is this a force on all circumcisions or just on religious based ones?

EDIT: Ok, so just having read it, I have never been a fan of forced circumcisions due to religious reasons, but that is the belief of a huge community, so I won't put my foot in that one. As to elective, sure if you want to go ahead and get it done good on you. But an attempt to ban circumcision, without a clause for medical neccessity (which the article didn't touch upon) is a bit weird.
+Brett Bjornsen "Whoever my doctor was when i was born did a great job. Totally happy with his work." LOL. The most awkward way to get a patient referral.
+Brian Sullivan Female circumcision serves no purpose other than to prevent pleasure in women. Male circumcision is not to prevent male pleasure, but to prevent infections. Even the World Health Organization suggests circumcising neonatal boys to decrease risks to infections like HIV.
In this thread, guys have an excuse to tell everyone about their junk
We have too many damn laws as it is 
I feel pretty passionately about this. I was raised Catholic and was circumcised as a baby. I piece of my body was cut off of me in some of the first moments of my life, a defenseless and innocent being. Every being that goes through that is exposed to a rather violent act and has that as one of their earliest memories in this world.

That being said, I do not have children, but if that time ever comes I would be opposed to this violent act. It should certainly not be done without the parents knowledge or consent, which has been known to occur as a matter of health concerns. As for this law, I think that is going far in the other direction.

There is no good reason for circumcision in my mind. It is the mutilation of an innocent. It's an archaic religious practice that will hopefully one day be analyzed by those religions that practice it. The health benefits provide no good argument, as people can (and should) know good hygiene. It is in no way a deterrent (at least in this country) for sexual activity.

It's a cruel act that does not need to occur. I'm glad it's in a hot debate, as it brings the issue to light and gets people thinking about a custom that is fundamentally flawed. Individuals and society can make a more well-informed decision.
I find the idea for genital cutting rather distasteful. If there's a medical need for one (like phimosis), then great, otherwise it's an unnecessary cosmetic procedure which introduces an element of risk. I'm not comfortable with the idea of ANY potential botching regarding the most sensitive area of the male body. Often you can't know until later in life if the scar tissue that forms is going to properly allow erections with out discomfort. The risks are small, but why entertain ANY risk when a majority of the arguments for it are based on hygiene.

Being that we live in a civilized society, we'd never entertain the debate if we were talking about female genitals. I'm sure the area around the vagina would be easier to clean without that pesky labia getting in the way...
Very glad I had it done. I prefer to not remember the pain of getting it cut off, but I would've chosen to as an adult if it weren't done. Never talked to a girl who preferred it uncircumcised...
After having this discussion, I realize I'm for it. I've been reading about the suggestions of the World Health Organization, and from experience it's definitely a personal preference. Thanks for the debate, boys!
It's a part of the body. We were born with it. It should be there. Would you cut off other parts of your baby's body just because everyone else is doing it?
I don't see why it is done to almost every boy except for something to do with the Bible. I feel like it's the Tonsil thing......when I was a kid the Doctors would cut your tonsils out just to get money and I feel like the Circumcision is the last thing to hang on to to charge everyone for just because.
It's a barbaric holdover from ignorant times, but it's not the most horrible thing that can happen to a person. Right now it seems to be the norm in the USA, and this tends to be self-perpetuating, since parents want their little boy to "look like Daddy".

The answer isn't to ban the practice by government edict, but to educate people so that they begin to understand that we are built this way for a reason.
I completely agree with +Ed Leafe While I consider circumcision to be barbaric and archaic, I also think that a ban might be a little excessive.
+Kyle Ostapuk As is mutilated hair, toenails, and fingernails when they grow too long. There are medical benefits, even if they are minor, and though I have no frame of reference since I had it done as a baby, it's my understanding sex feels better. If that's the case, most guys would choose to have it done as an adult. And again, I'd prefer to not remember the pain, but I'd choose to have it done.
+Timothy Pham , but I know how to clean it.. so I am good... You can force the next guy. :-)
I don't really think that anyone's personal preference for or against circumcised penises is at all relevant to the issue of whether it's ethical to force that on children (spoilers: it isn't).
Hey guys, thanks for being so civil about this discussion... it could have been a lot bloodier.


See what I did there...? ;)
Yes, we did +Casey McKinnon but making a bad pun to get some tips your way isn't classy at all lol.
+Carter Mason As for hair and nails, that is excessive dead tissue you are removing, not living blood filled tissue. To your other point, unfortunately you will never know because it was removed against your will. It's subjective - sex could have been better for you. I'd rather have everything I was born with. +Francisco Urbano García Hilarious!
For anyone that's ever seen a penis it should be easy to work out how quickly you can clean it properly and get in all the corners.

If it's trouble for some then I vote for better hygiene education before further genital mutiliation of defenseless newborns.
The most difficult aspect of this debate is that people are choosing for others what happens to their bodies.

I for one really wish I wasn't circumcised. I didn't get to make that decision. It was a shock reading an anatomy text book and seeing pieces that I didn't have. Realizing the "ring" was a scar. Just because I don't remember the procedure doesn't mean there wasn't still trauma later in life.

That fact alone makes this a horribly stark choice to make for someone else. Especially as we have the facilities to properly instruct and maintain hygiene and disease prevention. The WHO is really only advocated the building of callus on the penis in countries where AIDS/HIV is an epidemic.

I find the WHO studies troubling though, as they don't seem to indicate whether participants involved were properly educated on condom use, especially as condom technique is slightly different for non-circumcised individuals.
Really I agree with +Tim Kermode on this. Not hard to do at all.. ok this is going to not be easy without innuendo..oh sod it...
B Smith
Being a Catholic, I had no idea it was optional to have or have not. The pro's and con's are moot!
+Casey McKinnon The equivalent female procedure would be to trim the labia. What is commonly and incorrectly referred to as "female circumcision" involves removal of the clitoris, which should be more correctly referred to as "genital mutilation".
I'll never understand people who argue that it helps prevent infections. It's absolutely not that hard to pull the skin back and wash yourself. 33 years old, I've never had a problem washing myself and I've never had a female complaint or infection. To me, it's the equivalent as saying you should remove your eyelids because there's a chance of infection if you don't wash your face. Come on, close your eyes, apply soap, done. Same difference.

I do feel it's mutilation and I'm against it, but a large portion of the medical community seems to feel that there are minimal adverse side effects so I'm okay with it (as opposed to female circumcision which has no medical benefit).

I'm completely against it for religious reasons, however, because if you argue that you should do it for a boy for "god" then it's absolutely hypocritical that you should be against it for a girl if it's also done in the name of "god." You absolutely cannot tell people that you're mutilating a kid for "god" and that they should respect your beliefs but then be against another person's beliefs just because you're against the practise for medical/humane reasons. There's a disconnect there and it's bullshit.
+B Smith Funny you say that because I know a lot of Catholics that are circumcised! One of which is the son of a doctor!
I don't understand how sex could feel better post circumcision. You've removed about 20 to 30% of the nerve endings, and over time the penis is raking inside clothing forming hardened skin.

The analogous bundle of nerves to the female clitoris, the frenulum (the most sensitive part of the glans, and base of the ligament that holds the foreskin in place) is completely removed. In that regard it's disturbingly similar to a female mutilation, just a little less invasive to perform as everything hangs outside the body.
+JP Vazquez Exactly! I find the religious argument to be entirely moot.

"We want to cut up our children's genitals!"



But boy or girl in above scenario and watch reactions.
There's no justification to force it on babies, if an adult wants to mutilate themselves later then have at it. Either way, no law should ever be established to completely ban OR enforce it.
Having read this thread, I've revised my opinion. Nobody should ever be circumcised without their consent unless it's medically necessary.
I don't think spanking is on the same level as permanant penis mutilation.
You're more sensitive with it left intact.. so sex is better :)
Anyhoo, if it's removed for preventative medial reasons, then why not take the kids appendix out and hell, while it's under.. whip out it's tonsils too! If it aint broke, don't fix it people.. :)
All this talk of mutilation has gotten The Pixies stuck in my head.
+Edwin Perello A more apt comparison would be the government telling you whether your parents can forcibly remove your beard. When you're a baby.
That first Amendment thing... not establish religion or prohibit the free exercise....
Yeah, but unlike foreskin, beards will grow back.

While we're making ridiculous comparisons: It's like giving a baby a tattoo. It probably won't hurt anything, and some girls might even think it's cool. But I still don't want my parents deciding I should have a Starland Vocal Band logo on my body for the rest of my life.
Okay, hold on a minute here. Full disclosure is needed. Are you circumcised? If not, how can you judge it as "mutilation" or anything else? I'm circumcised. It was done when I was born. I'm good with that. I don't think it's "mutilation". That's BS!

As for female "genital mutilation". For starters, I'd say the genitals are different enough between men and woman that inevitably the procedure would have very different effects. As such, the matters need to remain gender exclusive. If the women who have the relative equivalent surgery done, all unanimously agree that it's no good, then ban it - for women.

If circumcised men unanimously agree that it's no good, ban it! But that's not the case. And there's no concern of oppression or fear influencing the opinions of circumcised men, so uncircumcised men really have no merit in the debate.

Bottom line, there's generally no concern amongst circumcised men, so why bring politics to it? There's enough penises in politics already. Plus, like Elaine Benes says, uncircumcised penises have no personality!
I think that politicians should stay out of personal lives.
+Michael Cavano Simply by definition.

See #2 and #3

mu·ti·late (my t l- t )
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
+Tim Kermode
1. I'm not deprived of a limb or an essential part, nor am I crippled.
2. I'm not disfigured or damaged. "Disfigured" means "to mar the appearance or beauty of" or "make ugly". I'm rather beautified and enhanced. No damage here, I assure you. By this standard you'd have to call people with earrings and tattoos "mutilated".
3. I'm no less "perfect" then you, thank you very much.
I really can't believe that you just tried to call me disfigured and imperfect.
+Michael Cavano Yeah, strange anyone would call it a disfigurement since circumcised are the ideal types for high quality pr0n!
I've been circumcised since I was 9, I never thought of it as an issue or disfigurement or that something was forcibly taken away from me.

Of course, the context under which I went through it was then all muslim boys in Malaysia get circumcised at some point. It is considered a rite of passage to adulthood.

So I find this whole debate quite humourous and if the ban happened here, the politician who backed it would find himself out of a job pdq.

For a different (read: funny) take of the subject: 'Potong Saga' by Ho Yuhang - English Subtitles - 15Malaysia -
My gosh, 101 comments already. I can't imagine this as a topic of great discussion. On the other hand, I saw a stream go crazy the other day when somebody discussed female genitalia. Weird that we have this fascination or obsession with this isn't it? I guess it tells us where our brains spend a lot of focus time. That's what happens when you spend so much time on G+.
+Robert Bell Governments should not allow this on the sole basis of religious reasons or that will open up the possibility of allowing other religious practices that violate human rights. Religion is not always reasonable, so decisions on circumcision should always be based on health.
Thanks for all the back and forth on this thread, everyone! We'll never all see eye-to-eye on the subject, but it's been interesting seeing everyone's point of view.
I did say look at #2 & #3 did I not?

Of course a piercing is mutilation, although perhaps depending on the location since some will repair.
+Robert Bell You have a good point, and I certainly respect your decision as a father, but I wish I could hear from more women here... sure, it's not our private areas at stake, but I'm curious about personal preferences.
Also, welcome to the comment feed that will never die! I'm considering disabling comments because the discussion is going in circles.
While we're at it, let's start tattooing our babies. That sounds cool!
I don't adding to the list of restrictions the government imposes is a good thing, regardless of how many restrictions already exists.

Main question here for +Robert Bell and +Tim Kermode: Are you, personally, circumcised?
+Tim Kermode, your definition of mutilation is "to make ugly" or "to make imperfect". I don't see how an earring does that.
+Casey McKinnon With all due respect, what do women's personal preferences have to do with this issue? The question isn't whether circumcision is aesthetically pleasing; it's whether it's OK to force it on children. No one is suggesting outlawing the practice entirely.
That's a sensitive subject... 
Robert: Lol. Well I definitely can appreciate your stance as a personal way of dealing with the issue. But the fact that you took the time to research and eventually formed such an opinion is evidence that it's an issues of opinion that differs amongst many people, and even a swaying opinion within an individual. As such, I think any enforcement in this respect, whether forcing cuts or restricting them, is inappropriate. If it were a matter of circumcised people being abused in the same respect as is being done to women in other countries then there would be something of concern to address. But I'm circumcised and I see nothing to fight about. Most circumcised people would agree. If a banning was being proposed where I live, I'd fight it. And just to be clear, I have absolutely NO religious connection to circumcision. I'm not even aware of what it's religious connection is.
No +Michael Cavano but it is 'irreparable damage' or an 'altered part'. What is that if not a mutilation?

For what it's worth i wouldn't agree with peircing a babies ear either.

And no i'm all natural here apart from my mutilated ears. ;-)
You know from what I can see this is now the second most commented on post on +Casey McKinnon s profile.

Beaten by?

The 'Religion is like a Penis' post.

I can see a trend..
+Robert Bell - I'll tell you something. My parents left the choice of getting braces up to me, and since my mid-teens I've always said I wished I had gotten them before, but in that moment I never wanted them. In my early twenties I wished I'd gotten them in my teens, and of course now, I wish I had gotten them in my early twenties. Obviously braces are a little different, but the point is that children are not necessarily good decision makers.

Until a child is grown, the level of liberty the child has in decision making should be up to the parent, (within reason) and government should not be allowed to enforce that liberty of choice. Imagine all the children in the world never eating their veggies, and staying up all night watching tv and never going to school! Yes, I recognize the differences, but still...

+Tim Kermode - I wouldn't call it damage, but even still, I wouldn't call irreparable damage or an altered part mutilation. What about getting teeth pulled? It fits the bill, but I'd be very hard pressed to call it mutilation!
Lol! I'm gonna have to check out the "Religion is like a Penis" post, for sure!
I just think that sometimes there's too much being voted on. This is such a private issue. If it were a matter of one wo/man doing something that affects others in society, then a referendum might be necessary. But we're talking about something far more private - a family issue without societal consequence - and as such it should not be a societal decision. If the consensus amongst grown, circumcised men leaned towards it being a matter of abuse then I'd understand. But it seems such thoughts are carried more among uncircumcised men than circumcised.
Now the votes will be tallied on wacker bill Congressman Richards Na Congressman Johnson Na. LOL
that just goes along with the abortion thing, the female and the male body is OUR CHOICE, the government has NO business getting their nose in our personal space. Don't they enough other stuff to worry about without this, for heavens sake. How about trying to get our boys out of the Middle East, that should take all of their time. Not setting a bill whether to snip baby's little pee pee's, how rude. I am almost afraid of what they will think of next. JD
Really? This got is worried about that when our economy is in the tank? 
OH +Edwin Perello , that was too funny, the scary thing is, you would have these huge families all living in the one spot, and well sex would just be plain awkward.
well, it's nice to know that one still has that choice. lol. though i believe there's more important things that are in need of our money's use.
It should be about informed consent with an age caveat. What I mean is this, a parent or guardian or anyone else should not be allowed to have his her child circumcised. The child should be allowed to make the decision at an age where he or she can make an informed choice and give willing consent. If the child then young adult then wants to chose to be circumcised it is then his or her choice. I think genital mutilation is wrong and barbaric and forced non-consensual genital mutilation even more wrong and barbaric. Your body, your choice.
Add a comment...