Hacker News Reader

Comment by ythn | Hacker News Reader

This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

View on HN

And what are they comparing it to? They quite literally do not know what they are missing. It's not like they can have it replaced, so they have to make the best of it.

Any non-circumcised male could choose to undergo the process as adults, I don't hear of many takers.

It's not unheard of, but unless there is a medical condition, circumcision should be considered cosmetic surgery and the decision made by the person being circumcised. Involuntary cosmetic surgery/ genital mutilation, whatever you want to call it, is a waste of taxpayer money in countries that have publicly funded healthcare.

I guess you have to just accept it if you have been circumcised, because you can't undo that. By you i mean anyone who has been circumcised. So this is like cognitive dissonance, you don't want to eat that cheese if you know that it can't be reached...

Considering the studies show that the cheese they can't reach is either slightly worse, slightly better, or the same, it's pretty understandable they'd get offended when told their cheese is mutilated.

The only people whose opinions would hold any weight in this matter would be males who were circumcised by medical necessity as adults. In other words, people who have actual memories with which to form a basis for comparison, without psychological pressure to form an irrationally favorable or unfavorable opinion.

No, not really, because they would have lived most of their lives with foreskin and may have formed an irrationally favorable opinion about it in the exact same way you presume circumcised men do about their situation.

south korea has high rates of circumcision in adulthood, so relevant data (people who would know the difference between how it feels to be circumcised vs uncircumcised) exists

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/MG_Pang/publication/664...

Do you have any any evidence to back that claim up?

Here's one data point to back up ythn. I was circumcised as an infant. I'm glad my father chose to have the procedure done so that I didn't have to go through the uncomfortable recovery period as an adult. I would have done it regardless for religious reasons with the medical reason as a bonus. If I have any sons, they will be circumcised as infants. That being said, I don't care whether you are or if your sons are circumcised or not. However, I do care if you infringe on the rights of parents to do what they think is best for their children whether it's for medical, cultural, or religious reasons.

> I do care if you infringe on the rights of parents to do what they think is best for their children whether it's for medical, cultural, or religious reasons

Serious question: how far should that be allowed to go? What if someone believes cutting off their child's earlobe is best for their child (for the sake of an example)?

As I see it, religious freedom does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no comeback.

I think the line should be drawn where a practice causes real harm to children.

While I find the idea of cutting off the earlobe repulsive, I don't think it sufficiently crosses the line of harm. For all I know this could be a legitimate practice by some obscure tribe.

Finally, no one says religious freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want without any repercussions. That's a gross mischaracterization of it.

> people affected ... have ... even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

Stockholm syndrome is very likely in those cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com