What is the point of getting someone circumcised?!
Question: What is the point? I don't get it
Answers: What is the point? I don't get it
Do you mean from a religious perspective, or a medical one? It's a complicated subject because people may hold one or both perspectives as sacred and personal, so they may not like to consider another view of the procedure.
Originally it was probably, as one person already said, a superstition among an ancient people, thought to reduce sexual urges among males it didn't want having extra-marital sex (or masturbation even). One person's guess to the origin is as good as another's since it is such an ancient ritual and procedure.
In modern times, circumcision has come into question as a mutilation of the male genitals, much as clitoral hood removal is considered female genital mutilation when done in some parts of the world. The parents of those who (if performed on an infant) are circumcised may feel pressured to do it, they may feel it is required for health or religious reasons, or they may simply ask for it because the infant's father is circumcised, or isn't and was teased because of that.
Personally I view it as a form of mutilation, especially when it's done to an infant who can't say "no". It modifies their sexual experience later in life, and although the WHO claims HIV transmission rates go down among circumcised populations, there are a great many other reasons not to encourage the potentially life threatening operation on an infant. There are all kinds of potentially superfluous parts of the human body, such as ear lobes, teeth, tonsils, and the appendix, but to cut them out on the chance that they *might* develop a problem is an odd way to treat our natural body.
It was originally thought that circumcising the penis would decrease sexual sensation and reduce masturbation (a biblical sin).
There are still come cultures that observe this practice, but the trend is becoming less common.
However, medically speaking, if penile cancer was a strong concern for you (say it ran in your family), circumcision would be a good choice, as it almost always starts on the foreskin.
No foreskin would eliminate the cancer chances for that particular cancer.
the main point for men getting circumcised, is to prevent chances of infection to the penis. Some men don't need it, but they still get it, because it feels better when you have sex. But the one that determines whether you should get circumcised or not is the doctor. If you have a lot of foreskin then you most probably need to because you have a high chance of getting an infection, or disease... but if the doctor says you don't need it you can have it done anyway if you choose to...
It supposedly gets rid of the chances of penile cancer, but it really doesn't. It also have been proven to decrease your sexual pleasure, because the head is much less sensitive.
My woman liked it thats y i got it done.She says it feel better in case of oral and also I am getting late in ejaculating after circumcision and thereby satisfying my woman more.
No reason. It's just tradition.
Some people do it for religion because they think their invisible friend wants them to. originally this was done to make them look different from others, and also to try and remove some sexual pleasure so they would spend more time focussing on other things as well.
It became more popular when doctors thought it would prevent masturbation (which it doesn't, although it makes it harder) and since then people have been trying to find medical reasons for it. Despite the fact that removing the foreskin does prevent foreskin problems, it's like removing your teeth prevents cavities, and really not worth it for problems which are almost always rare, simple and easily prevented/treated. There are other medical reasons but these are flimsy. People have been coming up with studies for a hundred years saying what it prevents/cures, but all of those have been eventually proven false, except for the recent ones (like HIV) which will be proven false shortly. For a full list see: http://www.icgi.org/medicalization
Now the tradition continues in places like the USA, even though rates are dropping a lot, because circumcised fathers and doctors promote it because otherwise they would feel left out and mutilated if they had to admit it wasn't good, and a lot of women are used to a circumcised penis and think it's what is normal.
There isn't one. Circumcision is the amputation of the foreskin, not extra skin but an integral part of the penis; measuring 15 square inches in an adult and accounting for over half the penile skin, lots of specialised nerve endings and the most sensitive parts of the penis.
Not one medical organisation in the world recommends routine infant circumcision anymore but the US is the last western nation still doing this to about 50% of its newborn males. They still don't generally use anaesthetic either. It's child abuse, pure and simple.
The penis forms as one organ and at birth the foreskin is usually fused to the glans like a fingernail to its finger. So there is no cavity for germs and dirt to collect in until it separates naturally later.
To perform a neo-natal circumcision the circumciser has to rip the foreskin away from the glans with forceps. Then the foreskin is either cut away or clamped until it falls off. Both methods cause the baby extreme pain and his raw glans and wound sting every time he urinates. It's quite common for the raw edges of the cut foreskin to fuse to the raw glans during the healing process, forming skin bridges or tags. These complications and other more serious ones are often not found till puberty and do not show up in complication statistics.
The claimed benefits of circumcision are a beat up (based on flawed studies) and don't really exist but the risks outweigh all the claims made by the pro-circumcision camp. One by one the claims are disproved but the pro-cutting zealots come up with more and keep quoting the old ones despite the evidence against them. For example you have more chance of dying from a circumcision than from penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer is higher in the largely-circumcised USA than in European countries where less than 1% of the male population is circumcised.
Similarly the study that linked UTIs with foreskins has been totally disproved and the studies claiming protection from HIV infection are seriously flawed.
Using surgery to mutilate the genitals instead of washing in a modern western society makes no sense. Normal intact male genitals are, if anything, easier to wash than female ones and the same substance, smegma collects in the genital folds of both sexes.
Ignore Ponysteel. He's a circumfetish; one who gets sexual pleasure from having a tightly circumcised penis (often re-circumcised several times to get it as tight as possible) and often from the look of the exposed glans and/or fantasizing about other males having the surgery. They have a hatred of normal intact male genitals and consider the foreskin filthy. Their fetish site, Circlist, has a public face with pro-circumcision propaganda and a password-protected section where they can openly swap their sick fantasies.
The short anwer:
They are either Jewish, Muslim or American. It's a tradition in those cultures. Other than that, there is no reason unless they have some kind of unusual medical condition that requires a circumcision.
To reduce the amount of pleasure a male can get from sex as much as possible and still allow him to father babies. The belief was that with less pleasure, man would not be so interested in having sex.
This was done so that males would be willing to give more time (and money) to religion and put in longer hours working. Men also would be less likely to "bother" their wives so much and they also would have more time for "devotions".
Then about a hundred years ago some "doctors" (religious fanatics like John Harvey Kellogg) got these ideas going that genital mutilation (to prevent or stop masturbation) would "cure" about a hundred dread maladies. They also spread the idea that it is impossible for a boy to "properly" clean his complete penis. Even now today there are many stupid males that believe it it better to be mutilated than to learn the "proper" care of the complete penis.
Circumcision improves hygiene and eliminates smegma accumulation and odour; it improves health by reducing the incidence of urinary and sexually transmitted infections; it improves a mans comfort; the appearance of a circumcised penis is more attractive to most women and circumcised men have improved self-esteem. However, the most overwhelming benefit of circumcision is that sexual sensation and pleasure during intercourse is FAR FAR better, both for the man and his female partner(s). The foreskin has absolutely NO relevance to sexual pleasure, except to significantly DECREASE it by interfering with proper contact between the head of the penis and the vagina during intercourse. Most mature experienced women, who have had the opportunity to try both circumcised men and uncuts, overwhelmingly prefer a circumcised man as a sexual partner (just ask one!). There are NO disadvantages to being circumcised and those who say that it is somehow "better" to be an uncut are either young inexperienced "politically correct" girls or uncircumcised boys. Of course, none of these kids can possibly have any idea about the very real multiple benefits of circumcision and they usually get their "information" from some pretty weird and freaky anti-circumcision propaganda websites, where uncuts are encouraged to feel better about having a foreskin and are told how "bad" it is to be circumcised. These young girls and boys often post links to these strange websites in an attempt to give their answers some sort of credibility. IGNORE THEM!. If you want detailed factual information about circumcision and its benefits, go to www.circlist.com where everything is explained sensibly.
It is cleaner, healthier and improves sex! Also women prefer a clean cut penis over an anteater!