#85
by Vraelan
I was circumcised when I was an infant. I don't experience any negative effects and I am definetely happy it was done at a time when I did not theoretically understand pain. I do not remember the pain and I do not have to worry about any complications of a foreskin (certain infections, tearing, etc.) It was done for both religious and hygienic reasons.
The foreskin really is not that big of a deal as many seem to make it. Looking at it from all sides, it truly is neither good nor bad. It may provide additional protection or be a hindrance if kept. It may be unnecessary pain or freedom if removed.
Religiously speaking, perhaps it was designed to be removed as a rite. Perhaps it was designed to be a choice, such as hair. Hair on your lashes and in your nostrils serves a purpose, but the rest of it is routeinely cut off. We do however get a choice for hair styles and how it is cut. More hair usually does not hinder us, unless we are talking about a serious overgrowth, which would be equal to a lot of foreskin perhaps. Less hair also does not hinder us. Maybe God (or a god) wanted us to decide if we want it or not.
Scientifically, or from the perspective of evolution, it still exists because evolution is driven by selective advantage. As I explained above, the foreskin is neither good nor bad. There is no drive to selectively choose males without forekin. There is also the problem of our ability to cause permanent changes to our body. Even if the foreskin was a significant hindrance or females tended to prefer males that are circumcised, we have the mass capability of cutting it off. The is no way to selectively remove it through evolution in our modern society. We can see a similar concept at work with our eyes. Almost everyone has access to contacts and glasses, removing the selective advantage of being born with 20/20 vision.
When we get the choice is a more difficult matter. I did say that I have no regrets about circumcision as an infant, but it was an invasive surgery that perhaps could wait until a person is old enough to make their own informed decision. On the flip side, my own experience of not remembering the pain would make me, should I become a parent, question if I do not already know what is best.
Piercing would seem more concrete. It is a permanent change, just like circumcision, but I do not see how any parent could justify it as such an early age. Piercing is comparable to how I described the choice of circumcision. However, there is a key difference in their future connotations. A person who is circumcised rarely receives any hate or praise, contrary to a person who has piercings and may receive the stares that say "look at this no good..." etc. People rarely worry about whether they are circumcised or not, at least in my experience. However, holes in your body in visible places may cause stress and/or anxiety.
Neither can be called "cruel," but I would certainly think that parents do have the right to make certain considered decisions based on their experiences and if they have a sufficient understanding about the standards (by that I mean the literal averages of everything) of society.
