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

double post. Sorry

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You have nothing to compare it to though, so you will undoubtedly say such a thing. But hacking off a part of the skin which aids in sexual stimulation and is packed with so many sensitive nerve endings can only be a bad thing...it's like saying feeling a textured surface with gloves on is the same as doing so with bare skin

And whats with the spammers?

reply to post by Solomons


i dunno about the spammers but yes there is alot of them. i respect your choice in your will but ive come across so many that have condemned me for my families choice. i have never hurt my children so to hear its child abuse...he doesn't remember it and his junk looks just like dads.

I highly recommend the Clitoral Hood Removal be performed on infant girls. This can be done in a nice sterile environment with minimal pain and risk of infection.

I'm positive in 50 years there will be medical information that supports the idea that it's a good thing to do. Mom's, you ready to do that? After all, I'm sure many men would prefer the slick and styled look of a bare clitoris. I know I would.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by MissCoyote


This is a crux of the entire debate. Ascetics.

This is what it always seems to come down to since the medical information is spotty at best. Not an attack, just an illustration of the reality of the vain nation we live in.

As an afterthought, if you had your clitoral hood removed as an infant, you probably wouldn't miss it.

reply to post by technologicalsingularity


not jewish we are just more hygenic. Not to be a prick but i gotta ask are braces considered body mutilation over there too?
Im circumcised and have no regrets and that whole loss of sensitivity was proven a myth ill try to find the article.
the reason it done at such a young age is because 1. youll have no memory what so ever of it happening and 2. whos gonna take better care of a wound an adolescent or a mother and father who changes the diaper multiple times a day.

reply to post by Maxmars


I swear 9/10 member here on ATS see everything in black and white.
STDs in teens who are sexually active are pretty high

When it comes to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), the United States offers woefully inadequate education. The proof is in the fact that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 19 million new STD infections occur every year. And, even more alarming, is that nearly 50 percent of these new cases happen to young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Not only that, but the American Social Health Association (ASHA) reports that half of all new HIV infections occur in teenagers.

www.familyfirstaid.org...

What ever happened to mum and dad know best?
If any of the people who who are arguing the its a personal choice angle are actually parents. I think you should be a shamed. And i think must be deluded into thinking that kids practice safe sex.


(75 out of a 1000 women aged 15-19 get pregnant)
I just can't believe it when you see the facts of how much safer its is for your child, your flesh and blood. I can only think that the majority of the advocates against it are christian and are thus religiously motivated.




I thought i would also give a little information on "Female circumcision" that the people against M.C are saying. Well first of its called female genital mutilation. And it was only done as another way to control women to make sure they wouldn't cheat or have sex before they were married, because it was so painful that wouldn't want to have sex. Another reason would be that it lower there libdo so they can focus more on being good mothers.And another was so they could get rid of the male looking parts.
No health reasons at all its practice in the most backward of places and should not be compared to male circumcision. Don't let the ignorant fill your head guys.

reply to post by evs490


Soap and water, problem solved. If you don't wash yourself then it really doesn't matter whether you are circumcised or not, you will be dirty. Again, Americans need to realize that in the eyes of the majority of civilized countries this is a barbaric and unnecessary thing to do to a child, that is why you always get such strong objections to the practice on these threads. As i have said the absolute vast majority of Europeans are not circumcised, are they all dirty and smelly with rampant STD rates compared to America? Are European woman incapable of telling if their partner is dirty or not down stairs? Nope, because good hygiene takes care of that quite easily.

I was all for circumcision, thinking it to be a quick, rather painless snip.
That is, until I was pregnant with my son and decided to do a little bit of research.

I made the decision based on three main reasons:

1. My son is not me. He is his own person. I have no rights to remove any part of his anatomy for cosmetic, religious, or aesthetic purposes.

2. I learned about how important a part the foreskin is for the penis, no mere extra piece of skin just sitting there, useless.

3. I would not condone anyone for any reason performing any sort of mutilation on my girl child, just because it is the going trend. Fair is fair, here.

I don't judge parents that do. All I wish is for them to be completely informed about their decision before making it. No one should decide the fate of their child's body member simply because that is the popular thing to do.
There is an entire world of boys and men out there who don't have their manparts dropping off because they are uncut. Instead of trying to lob off this very sensitive part, perhaps we should focus more on disease prevention, as that benefits both sexes!

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You have nothing to compare it to though, so you will undoubtedly say such a thing. But hacking off a part of the skin which aids in sexual stimulation and is packed with so many sensitive nerve endings can only be a bad thing...it's like saying feeling a textured surface with gloves on is the same as doing so with bare skin

And do you have the experience of both states to compare??

Some conclusive evidence to support your statement??

Apparently some people have actually done studies on the matter - they say you do not - the evidence is, at best, inconclusive.

And as I said, they whole system works jsut fine

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Many studies say differently, wiki is not a reliable source all the time..even disregarding studies it should not be that surprising to understand that removing very sensitive nerve endings from the penis will obviously reduce sensitivity and hence pleasure when having sex... here is a couple.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.cirp.org...

From the above.

In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive.

reply to post by Maxmars


I didn't circ. my sons and they have NEVER had an infection or so much as a rash.It is all BS. Baby mutilation plain and simple. Using religion and health as an excuse to mutilate a child is egregious! THe saddest excuse I hear is the I want him to look like Daddy! Sick and wrong

reply to post by Maxmars


Wow and as usual the crazys are out in force, WOW comapring to child abuse, im guessing no one you poster ever got abused as a kid, wow, seriously why cant normal people just leave otheres decisions be lol.

I am circumsized and the girls love it lol, but seriously i have no issues with having doing my thing eheh.

But thanks to all the nazys out there that have to make f in sure we know how they feel about every little subject on the friggen planet..

Im really amazed at how much energy is wated so i can know how ya friggen feel about stuff that dosent even afect you...

WOW seriously boo f nin boo

Yes, it is male genital mutilation.

You have to ask yourself why having a stainless steel, incising razor-clamp attached to ones penis so one of the most nerve rich areas of the body can be lopped off arbitrarily should be a man's first introduction to the world.

I feel that we are bordering on turning our responsibility for cleaning our penises over to the Government or something.

Why is that when the practice of circumcision is subjected to the light of scrutiny it shrivels up and nearly disappears?

OOOOOO THE ABUSE, THE AGONY!!!! I still have nightmares about getting that skin chopped off every night... I've recently gone into therapy and have been taking a lot of meds to suppress all these childhood memories ooo the horror!!! You people are acting as if some major appendage was amputated..... Gimme a break.....

When I had my first child, my son, born in the US, the second day I was given a pile of papers and just told to sign them. Curious as I am I decided to read them first. I realized they were permision to do a circumcision on my son.
They hadn't even asked me about it! It was assumed and would be done whether I knew or not!
I chose not to, at the time I just couldn't fathom cutting anything off of this baby that was perfectly normal.

Two kids later, one another son, born in France...... I'm glad I didn't do it because in Europe, it is NOT the norm to be circumsized. It is only done for religious reasons. But when i had my second son, the nurses came to teach me how to care for and clean the penis properly, in the same way they come and offer advice about breastfeeding.

I was taught that the skin needed to be progressively pulled back, a bit more each day, for cleaning and to make it stretch and be able to stay back behind the head of the penis the rest of the time. Apparently that is common knowledge among mothers here, but nobody told me that and nobody knew, in the US.

My husband was not circumsized, and honestly? It was a long time after we began sleeping together that I knew it- and then only because he told me! An uncircumsized penis that has been properly "decolotté" doesn't look any different than a circumsized one! -And the skin does not stay covering the end and trapping in bacteria either.

The problem with the statistics on infections and such is that when the studies are done in countries that do not commonly leave a penis uncircumsized, they often don't know how to do this, or that it need to be done, and so......the statistics are flawed by the fact that you're dealing with a population that doesn't know how to do it properly!

It's the equivalent of a society that has for common practice the pulling out of all teeth as they appear, to avoid infection and cavities.... so has no idea how to brush and floss teeth. So the few that end up not having all their teeth pulled early on don't brush- and confirm the belief that teeth do nothing but rot and cause problems to the organism!

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Well there is medical reasons for it. If you don't get circumcised it can lead to complications later on and end up having to doing it anyways.

menshealth.about.com...

Phimosis, or preputial stenosis, is a term that usually means any condition where the foreskin of the penis cannot be retracted.

Most infants are born with a foreskin that cannot be retracted and the prepuce may be tight until after puberty.

A fully retractable foreskin occurs in 50% of ten year olds, 90% of 16 year olds and 98 to 99% of 18 year olds.

Causes of Phimosis
Phimosis can be caused by failure of foreskin to loosen during growth, infections such as balinitis, deformities caused by trauma and diseases of the genitals.

Again circumcision does not reduce pleasure. The foreskin is there to protect the penis and rolls back when harden and has nothing to do with intercourse. Hygiene is also easier to maintain compared to uncircumcised penis, which means you don't have to worry about a little boys tackle getting infected because a dirty foreskin. You will say its not hard to keep up on washing but try telling that to little kid.

Originally posted by Bluesma
When I had my first child, my son, born in the US, the second day I was given a pile of papers and just told to sign them. Curious as I am I decided to read them first. I realized they were permision to do a circumcision on my son.
They hadn't even asked me about it! It was assumed and would be done whether I knew or not!
I chose not to, at the time I just couldn't fathom cutting anything off of this baby that was perfectly normal.

Two kids later, one another son, born in France...... I'm glad I didn't do it because in Europe, it is NOT the norm to be circumsized. It is only done for religious reasons. But when i had my second son, the nurses came to teach me how to care for and clean the penis properly, in the same way they come and offer advice about breastfeeding.

I was taught that the skin needed to be progressively pulled back, a bit more each day, for cleaning and to make it stretch and be able to stay back behind the head of the penis the rest of the time. Apparently that is common knowledge among mothers here, but nobody told me that and nobody knew, in the US.

My husband was not circumsized, and honestly? It was a long time after we began sleeping together that I knew it- and then only because he told me! An uncircumsized penis that has been properly "decolotté" doesn't look any different than a circumsized one! -And the skin does not stay covering the end and trapping in bacteria either.

The problem with the statistics on infections and such is that when the studies are done in countries that do not commonly leave a penis uncircumsized, they often don't know how to do this, or that it need to be done, and so......the statistics are flawed by the fact that you're dealing with a population that doesn't know how to do it properly!

It's the equivalent of a society that has for common practice the pulling out of all teeth as they appear, to avoid infection and cavities.... so has no idea how to brush and floss teeth. So the few that end up not having all their teeth pulled early on don't brush- and confirm the belief that teeth do nothing but rot and cause problems to the organism!

edit on 6-10-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Excellent post, but i disagree on the teeth part (look up weston a price for more info).

Back on topic. The original article states that funding was being threatened. So instead of spending all this money on percentages that may be cut back, why not spend it on educating parents (like the person I quoted, american's are not trained how to do this). Spend that money on educating kids as well, think about all the uneducated kids having kids and knowing nothing about this subject. A condom and a course in in hygene, sex ed, etc would have been cheaper in the long run.

For the actual act, I stand by not doing it. In fact if you really want to lower your chances of getting an STD by 100% there are 2 ways. 1) abstain 2) cut off your junk. Both are a choice...

While we are at it, If you remove your brain you are 100% less likely to get brain cancer. There have been no studies to support this, but you get the picture.

Breast cancer rates are astoundingly high now..... I think we should consider having breasts removed as early as possible. In a couple hundred years, it would be so common that having breasts would be considered very unattractive, and problems like sweating under the breasts which causes irritation, fungial problems, (and stinkiness), as well as the discomfort of "bobbing boobs" when running, painful shoulders, difficulty with some sports (like archery), will be added to the many reasons for having them removed early.

These days, it can be done with little discomfort, due to anesthesia, in sterile conditions, and relatively quickly.
If parents really care about their daughter, they would take this preventative action.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by av8r007

 

My dad is not circumcised, I am. My mom and dad made the decision for me and I am glad they did. If I have a son he will be circumcised, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop that.

How glad I am to have been born to parents who honored my ability and right as a human being to make my own choices and didn't go having bits sliced off me due to their own fears or personal visual or sexual preferences.

How sad that (mostly American) parents are so misinformed to think they are doing their kids a favor by removing a useful and functional part of their son's body!

If you're worried about STD's learn to teach your son how to clean himself and you won't have to amputate a perfectly good and healthy part of his body.

Sheesh, next thing they'll be calling for the right for neonatal removing of the appendix, tonsils and anything else the dumb-ass white-coats consider mistakes of nature.