It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 16
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by gamesmaster63

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.

Décallotté is a French term pertaining to the proper care of the penis while the boy is still an infant to toddler, it involves the progressive rolling back of the foreskin to ensure proper separation of the foreskin from the glans penis as well as stretching of the opening of the foreskin so the glans can more easily and comfortably protrude outside the foreskin. It also makes it easier to properly maintain penile health and general cleanliness. It us usually performed during bathing of the child and is used as an opportunity to teach the boy how to properly clean himself.

One common side effect is that the foreskin remains behind the glans the majority of the time.

Bluesma, please correct me if I missed anything.

No that is exactly what it is. I was taught in the hospital how to do to this- in France. With my uncircumsized son born in the US, it was not mentioned, though they offered advice on other things, like breast feeding. The first son DID get an infection once- second son didn't. I suspect that is because I didn't know to do this with the first (and apparently nobody else did either, or else they were uncomfortable with telling me to manipulate my childs penis in any way).

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by sunqueen30
That guy was comparing my dislike of uncircumcised penises due to the smell to false propaganda regarding female circumcision in Africa. Circumcised males do not develop the specific fishy smell I have been referring to. Female circumcision in Africa (which include removal of the lips and clitoris) does not affect smell in any way. Which makes that argument incorrect. Not because it is someone else's view, but because the context of comparison was incorrect.

But this is also propaganda as you put it*. Now the other poster was simply showing the same view as related to females, which I know neither of us agree with. However your view of removing the foreskin to remove the smell from a male penis can be applied to female circumcision. (Though yes it is far more horrific than male circumcision, but that isn't the focus here.) I'll admit right off I never clicked on the other posters link so I did not see which type of female circumcision was being talked about but a type three female circumcision could be considered to have a similar (only in regards to the smell remember) effect as male circumcision.

Although that wouldn't cure the problem entirely, * just as it doesn't for circumcised men. They can still accumulate smegma which is what causes the smell. It is just likely to be in a smaller amount and may well rub off onto clothing meaning once clothes are removed so is most of the smell. (Now as for your experience I in now way doubt that you are telling the truth, I can fully beleive you have never met a circ'd man who smells because practically no attention would need to be payed to remove the smell entirely in the shower.)

Again let me state I am not in any way condoning female circumcision, though I'm not saying male circumcision (Until they can make the decision for themselves, or there is a medical need.) is right either. But I do fully understand that female circumcision is a whole different matter, merely pointing out it doesn't necesarrily make his point entirely invalid.

Nor was I using it as an argument for male circumcision. Everyone should be allowed to choose what they want for themselves. That includes boys with their penises and myself with the kind I prefer.

If you are saying that you belive it should be held off until people can make the choice for themselves, then I completely apologise on this area because yes I did assume the wrong thing through no fault of yours.

Again, you misread what I wrote. Actually, did you even bother to read what I wrote, or just skimmed over it and pulled what you wanted out of it? Because you have been wrong about every argument you have brought against what I wrote. Rather than responding to what I wrote, you responded to your idea of what someone who doesn't like uncircumcised penises would write. And that IS a MAJOR FAIL.

I don't really know what to say to this part other than, I hope what I wrote above has clarified it a bit more.

I'm not saying circumcision is some terrible thing that should never ever happen, nor am I saying aesthetics is a bad reason to have it done. I am merely saying the parents idea of aesthetics as a reason to have a young child circumcised IS wrong. As are misguided views on hygeine issues and STDs. If a guy who is about 13-14 wants his penis circumcised because he thinks it will look better, then I back his decision 100% because he is old enough to decide for himself.

new topics
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in