Efforts to Defund or Ban Infant Male Circumcision Are Unfounded and Potentially Harmful, Experts Arg

reply to post by Bluesma


This cleaning you speak of, this is how they do circumcision where I come from. Its the removal of like 1 cm of foreskin, and leaving more skin on the back of the gland then on the tip.

Its strange cause you say he's not circumcised, sounds to me like he is.

Originally posted by nusnus
reply to post by Bluesma

 

This cleaning you speak of, this is how they do circumcision where I come from. Its the removal of like 1 cm of foreskin, and leaving more skin on the back of the gland then on the tip.

Its strange cause you say he's not circumcised, sounds to me like he is.

Nope. In France it is only done on Jews and Muslims. As they say, it is in the shower after gym that everyones religion is obvious!

Originally posted by nusnus
reply to post by StevenDye

 

You're watering the argument. I'm not the one who's whining about the foreskin containing the most nerve endings. I mean, if you're going to end up defending your foreskin like THAT I as a female will take the opportunity to say that male of the species, who have been scientifically proven to think of sex at least every 5 seconds, need to have LESS sex drive.

Garbage.
Men don't think about sex every 5 seconds.
How anyone can believe that absurd urban myth is beyond me.
I mean, think it through. 5 seconds of contemplation and you'll see how utterly ridiculous that assertion actually is!
Alternatively, you can post a source to the scientific proof - good luck with that!

From an evolutionary standpoint, the foreskin is extra piece of skin.

According to who? You?
Is this your field of expertise - evolution?
Even if it is, what's your evidence that supports this hypothesis?
I'm assuming that because it's 'an extra piece of skin' that means it's no big deal to remove it? Does your reasoning extend to the eyelid, the eardrum? How about the eye lens, that's just a blob of jelly?
Here's a list of around 20 of the functions of this 'extra piece of skin'
www.circumstitions.com...

It has no aesthetic value.

According to who? You?
OK, no problem with people stating their aesthetic preferences, but it looks a bit like you're confusing your personal preference with truth. It isn't, it's just your personal opinion.

It might be your norm, my argument is not with those who think its the norm, my argument is with the men who have been living in cultures who already perform circumcision and all of a sudden decided not to have it cause, well, they have issues with the religious background it comes from.

OK, now your argument is with a small percentage of anti-circ men who have decided to reject religious dogma. Perhaps you could review your posts and edit them to reflect your new position in the debate.

Its not about the foreskin anymore. The majority of men who think its wrong are feeding the atheist propaganda who supports it like its mutilation.

Opinion, speculation, assumption - fantasy?!
My opinion is you're completely wrong. For the majority of men it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with retaining body integrity and not arbitrarily removing a useful, functional piece of flesh because ladies like yourself have been conditioned to perceive it as better, prettier, sexier.
Any evidence to back up your opinion?

Hello...what on earth is tattoo then? make up?!

Paint?!

Why don't they go against that then?

Personally, I don't see painting a picture on my skin as the same as slicing pieces of it off.
Also, I wouldn't condone tattooing a new born.

Its not about the foreskin, its not about the mutilation, it sure as heck isn't about the sex drive. Its simple propaganda.

Errm, it is about the foreskin, it is about UNNECESSARY pain and suffering caused by surgery and complications. It is about preserving one's body intact and keeping a perfectly useful, healthy piece of skin that not only protects and nurtures the glans of the penis but also provides the owner with an awful lot of pleasure.
(Sex drive and sensitivity are not the same thing, so not really sure why you got the sex-drive thing running, but sure looks like you have an issue with male sexual desire!)

If education is propoganda, then yes, it's propoganda.

Originally posted by Bluesma

I suspect the problem lies in the Americans highly sexualized associations of the human body, in which even breast feeding is seen as something to hide, lest it stimulate observers. Americans may be reluctant to talk about or condone socially the touching of the childs genitals because any contact with certain body parts is immediately associated with sex.

edit on 8-10-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

That's a very good point.

Wasn't there a post earlier in this thread where someone asked how it would be possible for a boy to see his daddy's penis?!?!

WTF, did I time slip back to Victorian England?!?!

Originally posted by nusnus
reply to post by Bluesma

 

This cleaning you speak of, this is how they do circumcision where I come from. Its the removal of like 1 cm of foreskin, and leaving more skin on the back of the gland then on the tip.

Nope, that's an illusion.
Circumcision removes about 90cm2 of skin from the average adult male (15 in2) depending on how you classify and measure. (Actually it's double that apparently, as the inside and outside are seperate)

Originally posted by nusnus
As a female, the circumcised penis looks more attractive than the non circumcised.

And just thinking about all the germs that might have been hiding there...I wouldn't touch it with a stick if you know what I mean.

...

I laugh in the face of all you men who say: oh the foreskin has the most number of nerve endings etc etc etc....as if the rest of the penis doesn't have ANY nerve endings...as if men already don't have enough sex drive as it is...the less of it they have the better if you ask me..

It appears to be true that having a foreskin in America is an excellent airhead repellent!

reply to post by nusnus

This cleaning you speak of, this is how they do circumcision where I come from. Its the removal of like 1 cm of foreskin, and leaving more skin on the back of the gland then on the tip.

Circumcisions probably vary, too. Some remove only the front 1 cm of skin, some remove all the foreskin altogether. The US ones seem to be the second case, as far as I know.

Hello...what on earth is tattoo then? make up?! Why don't they go against that then?

Why do you think? Because people do not tatoo newborns and small children. If they did, you bet I would be against that, too.

Do you support the right of the parents to tatoo their small children?

This whole idea that parents have a right to decide the genital integrity of their children is a bit bizarre really.

Pro-circ advocates on this thread seem to treat the subject as one of ownership rights, just like they are free to choose to modify the engine in their automobile!

Parents may well be required to make decisions for their children until they have gained sufficient maturity to make those decisions for themselves, but circumcision does not fall into the category of 'required decision'.

For the vast majority, there is absolutely no need to remove a portion of the baby's penis. No decision needs to be made. Leave it alone.

Even if all the points raised in this thread that are pro-circ were valid (they aren't), it still wouldn't make arbitrary neo-natal circumcision a sensible or rational option. I am completely baffled by literate, apparently sane parents, who don't get that?!?!?

I don't believe in the notion that parents should carefully research the issue, find the best answer and act on it. I have a HUGE problem with the notion that cutting a child's genitals or not is a sane or rational decision that is within the jurisdiction of a parent in their care of the child. Although presenting the pros and cons or researching the options may be the first step needed to turn the tide of culturally brainwashed and conditioned people who think that this is their decision, I think acknowledging the decision, titles like "The Circumcision Decision" "What parents need to know" etc... is a very giant step backwards as far as promoting the concept of a person's human rights to an intact body.

Why? Because it reinforces a parent's right to choose the form of their child's genitals! Parents do not have a right to choose the shape or function of a child's genitals, any more than they have a right to change any other part of someone else's body, or choose the color of their neighbor's house, or the spouse for their grandchild, or the food to be served to the people at table 10. There are certain boundaries people understand are beyond their grasp. Another person's genitals are clearly outside those boundaries, yet every day people assume that they must make a case for or against the wholeness of their infant son.

EVEN IF there were a medical reason - which there is not
EVEN IF there were a cosmetic benefit - which there is not
EVEN IF there were a sexual benefit - which there is not
EVEN IF there were a hygienic problem - which there is not
EVEN IF every argument presented by circumfetishists were TRUE - cutting another person's genitals would still be wrong

Presenting the arguments to promote good decisions is a backwards way to do it because in doing that, we reinforce the power of another person to decide the fate of someone's else's genitals.

Obviously, you have taken this decision with great seriousness and are greatly burdened by the honor you have been bestowed of deciding the fate of this man's sexual anatomy... why don't you do the honorable thing and reject this option? There is honor in compassion and respect. You need to respect his whole body and respect his right to own it. If you need to learn anything, research the function and purpose of the human prepuce. Run a search for "foreskin anatomy", "foreskin function" or "glide effect" If you understood how dramatically taking this from a man will affect his sexual experience for his whole life, and what an integral part of his body it is, you will suddenly be unburdened from this decision, because what is right will be glaringly obvious.

Finally one more for those of you who like to think circumcision is 'no big deal'

According to this study, circumcision in the USA account for 1.3% of male neo-natal deaths. In other words, 13 of every thousand boy baby deaths in the US are due to circumcision and COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE.

That's an estimated 117 babies dying each and every year in America so girls can play with members that 'look right' and boys 'don't have to clean their tackle'

THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90

LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS

- Dan Bollinger

Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

reply to post by Maslo


Look, if you're going to be against mutilation, you can't just be against child mutilation and be for adult mutilation, it doesn't make sense.

Circumcision has been going on for centuries for a very good reason. Its a bunch of skin that covers the urinal tract. You have to retract it while you pee. If you're working in hot climates and sweaty conditions, you won't be able to clean it every other hour, its a matter of germs accumulating and causing urinary tract infections and other disgusting things.

Man has found a way to prevent this by removing a tiny bit of skin from the tip of the penis. And since doing it while the child is small helps healing, and the child won't even remember what happened, they do it at a young age in the US.

Where I come from, they do it at the age of 10 or 12. Its like a trial of manhood to withstand the pain. Its all about the culture. But what all of these cultures have seen is that HOT HUMID climates cause infections.

And as a female, I really don't like thinking about how many times my husband has washed his penis before we had sex. Its kind of disgusting really.

Cervical cancer is more common in women whose male sexual partners are not circumcised.

HELLOOO CERVICAL CANCER?!!!! If any of you females are reading this, and you still see a skin on the tip of your guys penis....ABORT!

www.uptodate.com...

reply to post by RogerT



I don't see the benefit of replying to a man who thinks tattoos are painting....painting...yes...with a needle...go get one then

reply to post by nusnus


It's pretty simple and clear cut...

One is a decision made by and adult about their own body, one is a decision forced upon a child by others.

reply to post by peck420


Yes we make all kinds of decisions on our children's bodies don't we?

Its none of anyones business what other people do their childs bodies unless it harms the kid. Circumcision does not harm children. The end.

reply to post by nusnus


No, no we don't. Well not all of us anyways.

I didn't even get my daughter's ears pierced, that was her choice to make. Intrestingly, she still hasn't got it done and she is old enough to get it done without my consent, and she knows that if she wants them I will pay for it.

Same goes for my boys and circumcision.

The only decisions I make for my childrens bodies is what food they consume and what level of hygiene is expected. Everything else is their choice.

reply to post by nusnus

Look, if you're going to be against mutilation, you can't just be against child mutilation and be for adult mutilation, it doesn't make sense.

Uhm, what? Yes, it indeed makes a lot of sense. I really dont care much about what an adult chooses to do with his/her own body, they may as well cut off their own hand for all I care, if they choose to. Circumcision involves the mutilation of another persons body without their consent.

And as a female, I really don't like thinking about how many times my husband has washed his penis before we had sex. Its kind of disgusting really.

Well, womans reproductice organs are much more suited for infections and poor hygiene than an uncircumcised penis. Arent you a bit hypocritical?

reply to post by peck420


I admire the lengths are which parents are going for this, but you're ignoring a lot of research and a taking a good deal of risk.

This was published three days ago:

www.cbsnews.com...

In the report - published in the Oct. 5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association - the doctors highlight recent research suggesting that circumcision has life-long health benefits.

And this is from the CDC: www.cdc.gov...

Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials.

Also, tell me how it goes for your boys later on when they start developing more urinal tract infections.

reply to post by nusnus

Where I come from, they do it at the age of 10 or 12. Its like a trial of manhood to withstand the pain. Its all about the culture. But what all of these cultures have seen is that HOT HUMID climates cause infections.

Trial of manhood? Sounds like child abuse for me. Calling it a "culture" is no excuse, IMHO, does not make it any less right or wrong. As for infections, I am sure that even in hot humid climates, it is simply worth it for people living in modern civilisation that have access to clean water and soap as a better alternative.

reply to post by nusnus


Some studies used by pro-circumcision advocates may claim a risk reduction of x %, but what they wont tell you is that the likelihood of catching the penile infection in question is very low either way, not to mention that most are easily treatable. Thus the prevention factor in negligible.

On the other hand, they will state small rate for complications of neonatal cirmumcision, but ommit the crucial difference that it applies to all circumcised babies, which easily could be millions, thus even low risk will lead to thousands of affected children.

Dont fix it, if its not broken.

Studies can be found to support one or the other conclusion. Research the opinion of actual pediatric associations to reveal the truth. These usually do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Originally posted by nusnus
...

Also, tell me how it goes for your boys later on when they start developing more urinal tract infections.

In the fairly rare case they did get a UTI, it would probably come down to three options.

1. They didn't use protection and so it was their fault.
2. They didn't clean and so it was their fault.
3. It was a reaction to something like new shower gel in which case it would happen whether they had been circumcised or not.

See a pattern there? Circumcision was entirely uneccesary. Circumcision doesn't mean you will never get an STI, it just means you have a little bit less of a chance than someone who isn't circumcision, something that doesn't matter if you practice safe sex.

As to HIV, its the same thing, uncircumcised men don't wake up one day and go "Oh dear mum and dad I appear to have caught aids overnight" Again it's unprotected sex, or activities usually relating to drugs and needles. Now I'm sure you arn't saying a circumcised male doesn't ever need to wear a condom, and you would say safe sex is a good thing...which has made circumcision uneccesary for protecting against an STI.

Then a few extra seconds of washing and the hygeine issue is sorted. Oh and if you do get a UTI (Which isn't always an STI) then it's usually about a week of antibiotics and maybe if you are unlucky a bit of pain while you pee.

And your comment about how you can't wash every hour, yes it's true. But after an hour does your body stink of sweat and dirt to a degree even noticeable really? No, so why would the penis be so disgustingly dirty after a mere few hours? During the time period of a day I doubt there would be any noticeable difference between a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised one.

Also nusnus, you attack my defending of the fact that the foreskin can give alot of pleasure, when it was written in response to this...

also...i laugh in the face of those who think the clitoris isn't THE most important element of a females sexual satisfaction. Anyone with some understanding knows the G spot thing in females is a %50 situation, cause most men don't even know how to find it, whereas the clitoris is a %100 satisfaction guarantee situation. And since its the ONLY part of the female outside genitalia that actually responds like that, those who want it removed are sadistic bastards.

Which is your defence of the clitorus for the same reason. If you can defend pleasure for girls (And so you should) why can't I defend it for girls?

Finally you again say maybe the sex drive of men needs to be cut down, and then paint some terribly untrue statistic about men thinking of sex every five seconds (that ones been going around since I was at least 12). I would like to point out it takes two to 'tango' for every man you think is having too much sex there is a woman having sex with him. And with teen pregnancy rates rising more and more young girls are having sex, so by your argument we should take measures to curb female sex drive too. Of course I'm sure you will find that as terrible a though as I do.

reply to post by nusnus


I imagine it will go for my boys as it has gone for me.

Uncut...and no issues. Imagine that.

Must be the hygiene thing...