You don't mutilate your daughters - why do you mutilate your sons ? (Discussion concerning human se

There was a discussion previously on ATS about countries that sexually mutilate girls and that got me to thinking. I even posted on that thread about sexual mutilation to the poor girls in Africa.

Well, I got news for you, we mutilate our baby sons over here in America as well, and we just call it circumcism.

I have three grown sons that were born in the late seventies and early eighties.

Back then, we had a serious discussion with two doctors about circumcision.........to or not to?

Well both doctors said that if our sons were to go to public school, they would fit in better, particularly in the shower room as well as being able to keep themselves cleaner and reduces the chance for cancer later on. The doctors told us that most men in America are circumcised and it's healthier. (lying bastards)

Wanting my sons to not stand out, have a reduced risk of prostate cancer and being easier to keep clean, I opted for circumcism.

Because of my stupidity I allowed the medical establishment to mutilate my three sons.

For all you young women out there that will give birth to a son, please research this link: www.webmagician.com...

Every year more than a million and a half helpless baby boys are sexually mutilated in North America. These children have the most private and personal parts of their bodies amputated for the sole purpose of depriving them of their natural right to experience the exquisite range of sensual pleasure God intended them to have. All other excuses put forward in the hopes of justifying this butchery, whether medical, religious, or otherwise, are lies designed to perpetuate the mutilations.

Society will not permit circumcision of a girl's clitoris, but the foreskin is a man's clitoris ... they are sexually analogous. The foreskin is the primary erogenous zone on a man's body! It is an abomination that this atrocity continues to be perpetrated in every hospital in North America, day in and day out, with such impunity!

Calling it a circumcision doesn't change the fact that the baby is being sexually mutilated. Quoted material taken from link provided above.

In closing I will tell you that with my first and second son, they performed this "procedure" when I was not around.

With my third and last son, I was on the other side of the closed door and when I heard his traumatized scream, I knew in my heart my decision had been wrong. He screamed as if he was being tortured and he was.

This "procedure" is quiet painful, it's not right...............if you have a child, don't let the doctors fool you, it's all about the extra $100.00 they charge and it is sexual mutilation.

I have few regrets in my life, pretty much I've been a good decent, kind human being...........I do regret this.

My hope is all women that think they will eventually have a child please visit the link above and don't let them fool you like they did me.

In closing, one thing to think about………….I’ve researched mind control and it is said that any traumatizing event to a baby or small child can trigger the mind being easier to “control”.

There are no picture or sound, just words to better argue what I know in my heart to be true after hearing my baby son scream in agony.



CAUTION: IF SEEING A BABY CIRCUMCIZED WILL UPSET OR OFFEND YOU DO NOT WATCH THIS MEDICAL VIDEO BELOW.

Ok, to be honest, I've seen an un-circumsized unit and I'll admit...I don't want the extra 'skin'.
I think it looks weird...but then again, I'm American.

By the way, I am IN NO WAY trying to be rude, offensive or funny at all with anything on this post.

My opinions vary greatly from others, though.

I like my 'view' and I'm glad my parents opt'ed to have the procedure done.
Actually, I don't see the big deal and why it is being called 'mutilation'.
I don't remember having it done, or the 'pain'...

There might be a conspiracy here, I just don't see it.

It's not like it costs $1000's of dollars to have the procedure done.
I'll even go as far as saying that I bet most of the men today don't even remember having it done.

What a shame, and It is sad you try to compare the two. Female genital mutilation is a young girl being thrown to the grown by three grown men, and the local shaman cutting it off with a knife, no anesthesia, no antiseptic, nothing.

Young women run to other countries, run to other nations, to halfway houses, ANYTHING to get away from this awful ritual. Leaving friends and family behind to never see again.

Many of the girls get sexually assaulted at the same time.

It also renders a girl useless to enjoy sex.

I am not condoning circumcision, but to compare the two is not realistic.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
What a shame, and It is sad you try to compare the two. Female genital mutilation is a young girl being thrown to the grown by three grown men, and the local shaman cutting it off with a knife, no anesthesia, no antiseptic, nothing.

Nixie_nox makes a valid point here. (hey nix! )
The foreskin contains no where near as many nerve endings as a female clitoris, so where are the similarities?
Now that I think about it, maybe it's a huge religious conspiracy in the US.
Getting circumsized.
I"ll bet it is...

I am not trying to rip your thread up, I'm just posting my view.
And I still don't consider it 'mutilation'.
I always thought that men with the foreskin attached have a higher risk of infections.
No proof, nor do I care, because I never researched it...

reply to post by ofhumandescent

When my son was born, I too consented to his circumcision. I did this because it made logical sense to me that cutting that skin off would reduce urinary tract infections. His doctor never really brought up the social aspects as a reason to do it.

I've only seen one man who hadn't been circumcised, so my experience is limited. But from that experience, I can tell you that it is still logical to me that the removal of the foreskin (which was quite a lot in his case) was the right thing to do for potential infection. Additionally, I don't recall any major differences in his stimulus reactions versus other men's reactions.

I watched both videos that you provided and the second one, especially, was informative on where you’re coming from. The doctor in the second one never said that circumcision DIDN’T reduce infections, just that there was no scientific evidence that they did. I believe that this is because there have been no studies done on it.

Your regret is evident, and I respect that. However, you made the best decision you could with the information you had. You should think about that. I have no regret for making this decision, not only for that reason but also because I can say that, in my son’s case, he’s never had a urinary tract infection and is quite healthy. As far as I know, he’s quite healthy sexually as well.

reply to post by havok


No your memory has surpressed the trauma.

A trauma to a baby is still a trauma.

It's an unnessary medical procedure.

Watch the second video.

If you ever have a son, and op for this - I suggest you stand there and watch while they do it.

The moment you hold your very first baby, a part of you, in your arms you will know what true unconditional love is all about.

It is sexual mutilation, all for the money.

Also, in the second video towards the end a doctor looked at the foreskin and saw it had erogenous cells like on our fingertips and lips............highly sensitive to pain and pleasure.

reply to post by nixie_nox


So your saying that female genital mutilation would be acceptable if it was performed on babies when they are unable to run away?

The foreskin plays more or less exactly the same role as the clitoris

The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function."[2] Boyle et al., state that "The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well-documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males

It only seems acceptable to you because it is part of your culture, it's no less odd then removing someones toenails at birth because they might get infected if you don't ever clean under them

edited to add

"No controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin."[36] Inferior hygiene has been associated with balanitis,[37] though excessive washing can cause non-specific dermatitis.[38]

The human foreskin is highly innervated,5 21 29 and vascularized29 sensitive erogenous tissue.6 29 It plays an important role in normal human sexual response and is necessary for normal copulatory behavior.40 An understanding of this role is now emerging in the scientific literature. Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function.

This page brings together, in one place, scattered material relevant to the study of the role of the foreskin in human sexuality, and the dysfunction caused by its amputation.

Summary of the literature
Protection. The foreskin in the adult male either partially or completely covers the glans penis.40 The foreskin protects the glans penis from friction and from dryness.28 The foreskin maintains the sub-preputial space in a state of wetness with prostatic, vesicular and urethral secretions.17 The glans penis is covered with mucosa, not skin, so the wetness is essential for optimum health. There may be a correlation between wetness and sensitivity. Removal of the prepuce by circumcision results in a change in the appearance of the glans penis. The color tends to change from a red-purple to a light pink in caucausians and the texture changes from a glossy finish to a matte finish and becomes dull rather than shiny. Some believe that the epithelium of the glans thickens after removal of the foreskin to provide additional layers of protection and that this keratinization deadens sensation.10 Morgan (1965) said, "Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors.11 Bigelow (1994) observed that improvement in glanular sensitivity is the most frequently reported outcome of foreskin restoration.26 Pertot (1994) reports that the glans becomes softer after foreskin restoration.27 These older papers do not recognize the sensitivity of the foreskin itself.

Some doctors who are associated with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University have carried out measurements of glanular sensitivity in both circumcised and intact males.53 54 Bleustein et al. (2003) claimed to measure overall penile sensitivity, but their methodology made that impossible. Even though the high innervation,6 21 29 40 the sensitivity,12 39 51 and the erogenous nature,6 of the foreskin had been reported previously, the foreskin inexplicably was not tested. The foreskin was held back out of the way53 54 and the contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity was not determined. Their studies reported little difference in glanular sensitivity between circumcised and intact males.53 54 If that is the case, then the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere.57 The most likely location is in the foreskin.57 Denniston reported loss of sexual pleasure in a survey of males circumcised in adulthood.61 The most recent study finds that the intact penis is about four times more sensitive than the circumcised penis.

Source: www.cirp.org...

No one should have the right to sexually mutilate another human being with out that persons consent outside of a valid (Read: Life saving, extremity saving) reason. If it does, in fact, help with decreasing a UI it should be my choice not some one else's.

There are different kinds of female circumcision. Not all forms involve removing the clitoris and sowing shut the vaginal opening. Educate yourself on the matter and you will find that women who under go the labia removal, as a societal acceptance deal, wouldn't have it any other way. The women make similar claims as some circumcised men and claims about cleanliness.

"My Body, My Choice", right ladies?

I believe that circumcision plays a role in comprising men at birth by emasculating them on a deep psychological level. How can anyone argue that it is wrong for women to be sexually compromised but acceptable to abuse males?

Originally posted by davespanners
it's no less odd then removing someones toenails at birth because they might get infected if you don't ever clean under them

This is not an honest comparison. I honestly can't ever remember having to clean under my toenails but I DO clip them off. Have you ever seen and inspected an uncircumcised man? I have.

My oldest son is very very healthy and has none of my sons have ever had a urinary tract infection.

One of my girlfriends opted not to have her son circumcised and he told my middle son (who is his best friend) that his foreskin is quite sensitive, it's not dead skin with no feeling. T (who is uncircumcised) also has never had a urinary tract infection and quite healthy.

And again, while everyone doesn't consciously remember a trauma from when you are a baby, never the less it is still a trauma and imprinted upon you and remains deep within your brain on a subconscious level.

Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 21 The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 36 51 Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.6 9 10 11 12 18 28 31 38 57 59 62 63 64

Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14 More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty.47 Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function.49 A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection.48 Shen et al. (2004), in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent.59

Premature ejaculation. Lakshmanan & Prakash (1980) report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis.19 Zwang argues that removal of the foreskin allows direct stimulation of the corona glandis and this may cause premature ejaculation in some males.32 O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) report more premature ejaculation in circumcised male partners.41 The presence of the foreskin, therefore, may make it easier to avoid premature ejaculation, while its absence would make it more difficult to avoid premature ejaculation. Masood et al. report that circumcision is more likely to worsen premature ejaculation than improve it.64 The Australian Study of Health and Relationships found that "26% of circumcised men but 22% of uncircumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year."65 Kim & Pang (2006) reported decreased ejaculation latency time in circumcised men but the decrease was not considered statistically significant.66

Source: www.cirp.org...

How in the world does removing foreskin reduce the risk of prostate cancer? It doesn't take that much more time to clean under a foreskin than a regular cleaning. I have wondered before how much of a difference in sexual pleasure theres is, between cut and uncut?
Good topic OP

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I am an uncircumcised man so yes I have inspected one on a regular basis
Circumcision is not common at all in the UK apart from within the Jewish and Muslim community

Just to add, Uncircumcised men are not some kind of minority group ,

global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim

It's hardly mutilation.

Many of the benefits include:

~ Prevents Penile Cancer. Virtually eliminates the risk
~ Helps prevent Urinary tract infections
~ Lowers risk of contracting STDs.
~ More Hygienic

reply to post by davespanners


That doesn't refute his point of you making an absurd comparison.

Are you really so obtuse that you believe toe nails = sex organs?

Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I am an uncircumcised man so yes I have inspected one on a regular basis

Ok... you got me.

But, do you at least accept that removing toenails is not a good comparison?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Yes, I was in nursing many years back and have seen just about everything.

It's all what you're use to I suppose.

My husband says it's no big deal and in his 60's is still quite healthy.

But I still maintain that a trauma is imprinted upon the psyche with this procedure and again while no one remembers this consciously, the imprinted trauma is still there.

And I guess everyone here so far has helped eliminate the guilt I have had over making the decision for my sons.

We do the best we can do with the current information that is available to us.

The medical profession is however, starting to rethink this and more and more couples now days are opting to not have their sons circumcised.

The doctors also told us when I asked about "Can't we wait until they are old enough to decide and let them have this procedure done of their own free will?" and the doctor said, "When it's done on a man, it becomes more complicated, now is the best time because it is a simple snip"."

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
It's hardly mutilation.

That's a lie.

You are altering a human being's body against their will. Inability to gain consent does not mean consent is assumed. It isn't assumed in rape cases, even if it is to cure AIDS (as some erroneously believe), and it doesn't fly here.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


So we get to the name calling already... great stuff!!! Nice reasonable contribution to the thread there.

Of course toenails aren't like a penis but removing one body part at birth for some highly contested future health benefit is the same as removing any other part of the body at birth for some highly contested future health benefit

Why don't we also remove the appendix at birth too, that causes far more problems then a foreskin

The reason we don't is because removal of the appendix has never been part of some strange ritual that has been ingrained onto your culture

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Yes, that is what the doctors told us and why I opted for this.

When this procedure is done however, they cannot use anesthesia.

Again, when I was on the other side of the think solid oak door, the scream that my son uttered and his crying for an hour, yes he was traumatized............honestly he was.

When they did let me hold him, he was shaking and crying and quite upset.

My girlfriend's son was not circumcised and he is very healthy, never had a urinary tract infection and happily married with two sons whom are also not circumcised.