Infant's death at Maimonides Hospital linked to circumcision

AIDS, STDs and penile cancer occur more often in the USA than it does in Europe or Asia, who typically do not circumcise. Those "studies" were performed by doctors who wanted to prove that circumcision is beneficial, not by neutral parties who wanted to know the truth. Funny thing that Africa is riddled with AIDS, and they circumcise men AND women there.

I don't see why this info is disturbing to anyone. Men should be as proactive about their health as women are about their medical issues. I make it a point to understand my body and my health, and my penis is part of that knowledge. Why be embarrassed about your sexual health and well-being? This cultural attitude toward men's sexuality is just another way to oppress people. They're basically stealing human tissue (and important human tissue, in my opinion) for their profit, and keeping you from questioning it out of some weird mental shame thing.

Without going into too much detail, restoring does not hurt. You do not stretch the skin that hard. And, yes, there is a discernible difference in sensation. If you have the kind of patience it takes to do it, restoring is a very positive experience, and well worth the effort and annoyance.

reply to post by rodredux


I'm glad you are approaching the 'taboo' associated with male sexuality. There is no real reason to feel ashamed about these things, and like you said it's a stretch to say women feel the same anxiety about this subject- every female magazine on the shelf has some new trick to making sex better.

I have not done the proper research about whether this circumcision is a good or a bad thing, or whether it prevents HIV/STDs. I know that the scientists who performed these tests put the males under specific conditions.

Eg. Making them not have sex for a period of time, them providing them with condoms under the guise of preventing infection- obviously not having sex and using a condom is going to be the primary preventative measure for HIV and STDS. Based on my own experience being not circumcised, I have never had an issue, and I dont see the logic that being circumsized should be an excuse to have unprotected sex (which many African's are under the impression that it does).

About the pain of stretching the foreskin back, I'm a little ikky because... you know its my buddy we're talking about lol, but I have a lot of experience piercing myself numerous times and stretching my cartilage and earlobe considerably, the pain was not horrendous. And if it's going to make sex better, sounds worth it to me.

reply to post by ofNight


I agree entirely.

One thing that is sort of nice is these Mohels are medically trained, they are not just some religious figure they are required to complete some sort of medical training, I couldn't find what that entails though.

Whether it is sexual abuse or not is up to debate, my girlfriend said to me 'no it's not because its their tradition...." but if we ignore the child's freedom to choose or understand whats happening I dont think we can rule out this not being sexual at all. I would be devistated to grow up only to find I was put through this procedure, I would certainly feel violated. I think this helps perpetuate the practice generation to generation, who is willing to accept their loving parents put them through something that might be horribly wrong, so rather than question it, we accept our position in the 'community' (I would call it a 'cult') and keep the tradition going.

It is a tradition in Africa to kidnap young girls from their home, slice off their labia and clitoris, insert a straw into their vagina, sew it all closed and bind their legs together. I guess tradition makes that okay, too? Sorry, but your girl is discriminatin'.

You are dead on about those studies, though. The control group was told to screw whoever they wanted. The circumcised group were told to abstain for eight or so weeks while they healed, then given counselling and condoms. Of course there was going to be a lower incidence of HIV! They also ended those trials early-- coincidentally, the circumcised group was catching up with the control group when they shut it down.

I think it's pretty obvious that circumcision doesn't prevent anything when the countries that circumcise have the highest prevalence of the diseases it is supposed to prevent. Circumcision has long been called a cure looking for an ailment. Whatever is scariest at the time, that is what it cured. During the TB pandemic, it cured TB. During WWII, it prevented STDs. Then cancer. Now, AIDS.

BTW, would you have your child's eyes removed to prevent glaucoma? Would you have your feet removed to prevent athlete's foot?

Originally posted by el1jah
reply to post by CaptainNemo

 

obama?

How about we stop religious beliefs from infringing on the childs freedom to choose. Like I said before, start a religion, chop of people tongues I couldn't care less, just let them choose as adults.

And the proof not being circumcised is riskier can be refuted.

I'm sorry but it's not going to happen, fortunately in this country a person can still have their religious convictions upheld without the government telling them they can't (I don't know for how long). It's a centuries old practice and it isn't hurting anybody. Even excluding the minute chance of medical complications, the entire ya digg is just aesthetics.

Hell, I'm uncircumcised and I'm not complaining neither has anybody I've been with. I don't know what it's like to be circumcised so I don't care.

Why are you so worried about another man's penis?

reply to post by rodredux


What do they do with the foreskin once they cut it off?
Can you opt to keep it? (Saw it in a movie)

reply to post by CaptainNemo

I'm sorry but it's not going to happen, fortunately in this country a person can still have their religious convictions upheld without the government telling them they can't

I dont care about what people believe, its a basic human right to be free to believe what you want, and to congregate and express those beliefs, thats not what I am bringing into question. I care about when those beliefs take over my freedom, or the freedom of my fellow man.

If a group of terrorists wants to blow up the empire state building, we all try to prevent it, because their freedon of belief is crossing the boundry of another person's freedom to live. Although that is an extreme example, the principle is the same, a child should not have their inate freedom taken away because of the tradition of their parents, it has nothing to do with government.

It's a centuries old practice and it isn't hurting anybody. Even excluding the minute chance of medical complications, the entire ya digg is just aesthetics.

If you look at the statistics it is hardly minute. There is plenty of info already in this thread to back my statement up. In fact the main story of this thread is how a rabbi was infected with herpes, and has already killed 3 (or 4) children as a result, he should be charged with manslaughter, he unwillingly passed on a disease that killed them- nothing more to it.

I'm also uncircumcized, it doesn't mean I should be ignorant to the practice which is part of my society, and its risks. And sharing that knowledge like all knowledge is our responsibility if we care about the people that share our world/society.

Why are you so worried about another man's penis?

I'm worried about a babies penis, a baby who has no choice, whos life is potentially comprimised in the name of tradition. I'm not here blabbing about the risks adults feely take with cosmetic surgery, self mutilation etc.....

-And for the record I'm not someone who is for government control and banning peoples freedoms, we as citizens should render the government obsolete if we did our part in helping our fellow man maintain their freedom, and isolating those in society who wish to impede on it. I think my bringing up this subject is part of that process, if I didn't care, who is going to fill that void- the government.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


From another poster
The only reason they say to do it is because it is a billion dollar a year industry for the hospitals, and they use the tissue for cosmetic and medical products. The tissue is used to make tegaderm and other bandage-type products. It goes into skin care lotions. They sell it for product testing and for experimentation. That's why circumcision is "good" for you!

Originally posted by el1jah
reply to post by ofNight

 

I agree entirely.

One thing that is sort of nice is these Mohels are medically trained, they are not just some religious figure they are required to complete some sort of medical training, I couldn't find what that entails though.

Whether it is sexual abuse or not is up to debate, my girlfriend said to me 'no it's not because its their tradition...." but if we ignore the child's freedom to choose or understand whats happening I dont think we can rule out this not being sexual at all. I would be devistated to grow up only to find I was put through this procedure, I would certainly feel violated. I think this helps perpetuate the practice generation to generation, who is willing to accept their loving parents put them through something that might be horribly wrong, so rather than question it, we accept our position in the 'community' (I would call it a 'cult') and keep the tradition going.

I appreciate your response. I have no idea what criteria the mohels have to pass medically, but it still obviously is pretty disgusting -- I agree. In regards to the comment that it isn't sexual assault because it's tradition, I would say that in some cultures sacrificing children was once prevalent -- is that not murder because it's tradition?

You're incredibly articulate -- I always enjoy seeing what you have to say!

Religeon is for ignorant nutjobs. Back in the day there might have been a small advantage to circumcision. Those that were "cut" tended to grow up in families that favored good morals and education, thus those societies advanced themselves more than say, the mud but living scum in third world countries.

But in today's world I would like to think we are far beyond such historical things.... But then again some countries have been to the moon while other still live in mud huts. Go figure.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by MainLineThis

I dont want to go out and say religion is for ignorant nutjobs, there is always some truth that seeds a body of lies. The problem comes with the people who fail to see beyond their beliefs, who fail to adapt. In this case, "oral suction with wine" is a tradition that probably made sense 2000+ years ago, but is no longer the best thing- so we should adapt to something better. If we allow tradition to halt human evolution- we have failed as a species.

I think religion has a lot to offer, but we have to be able to see the meaning behind the act, and adapt that meaning to modern life, which involves changing the details of the action.

Good morals and education...? I don't see how that follows. Historians believe circumcision started in nomadic desert peoples either for religious reasons, or to prevent balanitus because they did not have access to water for cleaning themselves. Sometimes it was used as a way to oppress a conquered race and mark them as slaves. There are also references to victorious soldiers bringing back the foreskins of their fallen foes as a way of showing their king how many men they killed in battle. In our culture, it is portrayed as a cleanliness thing, but who doesn't have access to washcloths and water in our society? Women are far more likely to get UTIs and yeast infections, but nobody in this country would advise they get circumcised. In fact, women's bodies are protected by US Law against circumcision. Why do we not get the same protection?

Originally posted by el1jah

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
reply to post by el1jah

 

Wow... I'd heard about this ritual. Very disturbing.
So, GOD says, "Cut the foreskin and suck the blood off with your mouth?". Really?! I seriously doubt it.

Where did I say they use their mouth? I think by orally they mean with a tool of some.....oh god I really hope they dont.... AHHH

The babies didn't get Herpes from a tool. Has to be mucus membrane.

reply to post by wrkn4livn


You are correct. Though some use a glass tube to do their barbaric religious ritual, this particular mohel was a traditionalist and did the blood-sucking the old fashioned way.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


They use the skin after. For various things. One being some cosmetics. Oprah's company for skincare stuff that she promotes uses it, SkinMedica. Bio research and pharmaceutical industry buys it too. They use it in skin graphing, collagen injections, etc.

Barbara Blair says this new gel she's been using makes her face look a lot younger than the Retin-A and vitamin C creams she's been using. "It's really tightened my skin. Firmed it. The little lines are much better. The texture is very appreciably different." What Blair probably doesn't know is that a key ingredient in the cream is the foreskin of a circumcised baby.

Since the 1980s, private hospitals have been involved in the business of supplying discarded foreskins to private bio-research laboratories and pharmaceutical companies who require human flesh as raw research material. They also supply foreskins to transnational corporations such as Advanced Tissue Sciences of San Diego, California, [1] Organogenesis, [2] and BioSurface Technology, [3] who have recently emerged to reap new corporate profits from the sale of marketable products made from harvested human foreskins. In 1996 alone, Advanced Tissue Sciences could boast of a healthy $663.9 million market capitalization performance

article and sources

Can't get the NBC article to link right but it's on the above link^^^

collection of articles

Seems like it would be counterintuitive for the US government to pass any sort of law restricting this social tradition/religious practice based on a small fraction of deaths directly related to unsanitary conditions rather than the actual procedure when the same government routinely attempts to mandate vaccinations of infants and children which are proven to carry a much higher rate of death and a litany of negative side effects with them.

You can bet money on it, if circumcision actually posed a serious danger to infants and if it really did make sex less enjoyable, the United States would have laws in place requiring all male infants recieve a circumcision immediately after birth.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Seriously? The government protecting us? Circumcision is good for you like fluoride is good for you. Like GMOs are good for you. Don't go into denial out of some kind of male ego thing. It doesn't ruin your penis, just degrades it's performance. The excision of the foreskin is, by definition, penis reduction surgery. How can it not damage it in some way? You don't have to go hang yourself, just stop spouting the company propaganda about it.