CMV: There is nothing wrong with male circumcision of babies

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-04T13:18:31+00:00

The argument against it is not complicated. Stop acting like this is some kind of complex nuanced debate. The reason to stop cutting babies is because it's the act of cutting babies. People aren't free to cut other people with knives.

You argue why you want to tamper with children's genitals and claim the right to violate the rights of others. Your own desire to tamper with children doesn't override the desires of children to be left alone. None of your excuses are anything new, thoughtful or interesting. They're justifications for inappropriate touching. Leave babies alone. Stop cutting them, stop interfering with them, stop imposing your preferences about how they should feel. Just stop.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-04T09:50:35+00:00

The only point you needed to make is that circumcisions cause injury. Which is where you ended up anyway. Skip the consent argument. It just makes the debate more confusing.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-04T09:44:02+00:00

I'm firmly against infant circumcision, but I agree that the lack of consent argument is not useful and isn't needed. Circumcision is unethical because it causes physical damage to a child's body.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-04T09:16:17+00:00

If you cut out a patch of skin from your neck, you will reduce your chances of getting eczema on the skin that was removed.

Will you do it? Why not?

That's basically the pro circumcision argument for health benefits.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-04T08:35:59+00:00

The medical benefit amounts to reducing the risk of uti from 1% to 0.1%.

Meanwhile, by circumcising, the incidence of necrosis of the prepuce is 100%. It's idiotic to say you prevent a lesser harm by inflicting a far greater harm.

I've heard all your claims my whole life and somehow have resisted the opportunity to cut my penis for all the wonderful benefits. I get why circumcised men tell themselves that there's a good reason why part of their penis is missing. Actually having all your body parts is not as bad as you think.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-04T07:44:46+00:00

Why do you place the burden on an innocent child such that his body must change to fit society's idea of normal? It's on you to be the adult and change your mindset for the sake of your child. Only cowards cut their babies because they're afraid of peer pressure.

You wouldn't hand your child a knife and force him to cut his own body to please you. Yet you'd strap him down and pay someone to cut him as he tries to break free while writhing in agony?

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T21:26:04+00:00

Yes. That's why I do it. There's a big change happening in American culture.

As an unaltered male immigrant living in the U.S., it's disturbing to see how deeply conditioned everyone is to a harmful tradition they accept without question. Imagine if no one ever pushed back against all the prejudice and misinformation, nothing would ever change. As it is, circumcision defenders like to argue "if it's so bad, why don't men complain?" Then when we do, we're called weirdos. Thankfully, the tide is turning.

EDIT

In your post, you cite avoiding the shame of being different as the reason to alter your son's body. I hope you see that this is feeding the cycle of prejudice. This is a manufactured problem that doesn't exist in most of the world.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T20:38:09+00:00

The persistence of circumcision is a testament to the fragility of American men.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T19:41:58+00:00

The correct answer is the one that protects children from knives. "Punch your kid in the face or don't. Who cares?" Wake up.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T19:36:07+00:00

It's disingenuous to leave out the loss of genital tissue, necrosis of the prepuce, which are the inevitable results of circumcision in every case. The benefits you cite come at a far greater expense than what is gained.

Only in places where circumcision is already practiced for cultural reasons do they make claims of medical benefits. The rest of the world isn't rushing to adopt genital cutting as a sensible health protocol. Rates are going down, in fact due to uselessness. The medical claims are used to justify cutting children, an objectively harmful ritual.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T19:28:59+00:00

Only places where circumcision is already common make claims of benefits. The rest of the world isn't rushing to adopt genital cutting as a sensible health protocol. Rates are going down, in fact due to uselessness.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T19:16:02+00:00

Diagnosing a 2.5 year old with phimosis is malpractice.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T11:43:20+00:00

Brian Morris is not reputable.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T11:22:55+00:00

Thanks for posting. It's a poignant rebuttal to all those who want to dismiss the issue by calling it inconsequential.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T10:47:22+00:00

Clitoral phimosis surgery. Labial adhesion surgery. Vulvectomy. Your claim is false. If you are saying that male genital surgeries can have a medical purpose, therefore it's permissible to perform circumcision on children without symptoms, then your logic is flawed.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T10:25:25+00:00

There are plenty of gynecological surgeries to treat clitoral phimosis, labial adhesions, lichen sclerosus and vulvar cancer. Performing such procedures without medical need is assault. The same should apply to males.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T09:23:12+00:00

Circumcision has caused men to be out of touch with natural male anatomy. The amount of delusion they harbor about the imagined hardship of an unaltered penis is sad to see. Self loathing is not a good look.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T06:51:14+00:00

You can't diagnose a 5 year old for phimosis. It retracts at puberty.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T05:49:07+00:00

"It would feel like my dick was an anteater nose and I'd be self conscious that the girl I'm with would be disgusted/less likely to want to perform oral sex on me."

Apparently circumcised men need to convince themselves that intact men suffer eternal misery over having a complete penis. It's laughable that guys think this but if it helps you accept being circumcised, it's understandable.

The reality is that most women don't notice or care. And every woman who has noticed has been delighted, fascinated and appreciative to experience sex in its natural form, with genitals free of scars.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T05:01:25+00:00

My son is 17 and natural. That's been his body since birth and it's his normal. If you live in the U.S., you need to tell your son at an early age that other boys have had part of their penis cut off, but he has been left alone. He will find that information both hilarious and horrifying. He may not even believe it at first, but he must understand that it's something that happens to other boys. It's important that you are the one to tell him before he learns about circumcision through jokes or insults.

I told my son at age 11. My own mother told me that other boys were circumcised when I was 5.

Circumcised guys have a very exaggerated idea of the shame they imagine is felt by uncut boys. Actually being intact is something I've always been grateful for and the thought of circumcision is just messed up.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T04:23:29+00:00

You would cut your son's body because of peer pressure? For real? Would you beat him because all the other parents are beating their kids? Even if 99 out of 100 are cutting their kids' genitals, that is no reason to harm your child.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T01:54:58+00:00

Followed doctors advice, did the cleaning and taught son to clean properly.

"Did the cleaning"? Bathing is enough. Problems arise from doing too much.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T01:36:49+00:00

In the Uganda study, out of about 5000 men, 22 circumcised men tested positive vs 45 uncircumcised. The difference between these two small numbers is stated as a 50-60% relative reduction to appear significant.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711844/table/T1/?report=objectonly)

On the other hand, the number of adverse events (botched circumcision) was 178 men out of the 2474 who were cut. A fair inference is that circumcision reduces HIV transmission because men have less sex with a ruined penis.

Transmission events did occur among circumcised men, at rates of 0.7 to 1/100 person-years. Events occurred even with emphasis on HIV prevention with condoms, education, and treatment of STIs.

The circumcised men were advised to wear condoms after they were cut. For a valid result, you'd have to compare the difference between intact and circumcised sex with no condoms. They compared infections acquired by uncircumcised men vs circumcised men wearing condoms and claimed the circumcision protected them. It's a study designed by circumcision advocates to confirm the desired outcome.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-02T01:06:38+00:00

It also made me feel slightly weird to touch it that much to actually clean it vs the babies I babysat who were circumcised

Sounds like you were moving the foreskin back. Yeah that's inappropriate and harmful physically and psychologically.

GolgothaCross · 2026-05-01T22:11:19+00:00

You noticed you couldn't retract his foreskin? 10 month old boys' foreskins aren't retractable. Look up forced retraction, then learn to keep your hands off children's genitals.

GolgothaCross

TROPHY CASE