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

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by sdocpublishing

 

Wanna bet?

He does have a point.

I have never seen a drawing anywhere of a un-circumcised penis but that just might be a north american thing for all I know. The thought of europeans drawing un-circumcised penises makes me laugh for some reason.

I don’t think it’s a North American thing. Circumcisions are not done at Canadian hospitals and are considered plastic surgery. It’s not even popular here.
“The CPS issued a new statement in 1996, Neonatal Circumcision Revisited, which strengthened its stand against neonatal circumcision by recommending that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." The death of an infant from post-circumcision hemorrhage has contributed to a growing national consensus for genital integrity.2 All provincial health insurance plans have now removed non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision from the schedule of covered procedures due to the lack of health benefit. At least one major hospital has permanently suspended the performance of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.3 These factors, and possibly a wider movement to holistic health, have led to a decline in the rate of neonatal circumcision in Canada.4
While the incidence of neonatal male circumcision varies sharply by region in Canada, the overall incidence of neonatal male circumcision is decreasing throughout Canada. Prince Edward Island (PEI) reported the highest incidence, but Newfoundland/Labrador reported no circumcisions in 2003. Quebec and the Atlantic provinces traditionally have had a low incidence of male neonatal circumcision (except for PEI).5”
www.cirp.org...
“The statistics show more Canadians parents are not having their infant sons circumcised ( genitally mutilated ). The rate for male infants in Canada has dropped from about 50% in 1998 to about 20% in 2000. The overall incidence of male circumcision for all of Canada declined to about 13.9 percent for the year 2003.
Rates of male infant circumcision in the province of Quebec dropped from about 30% in 1971 to a rate of less than 3% in 2003. The rate in the province of Ontario, Canada's most populous province, dropped from about 60% in 1971 to about 18% in 2003. Western provinces generally dropped the same rate to about 20-25% in 2003. Newfoundland had a 1971 rate of about 7% and has dropped to about .6% at most in 2001. Nova Scotia had a 1971 rate of approximately 53% and has dropped to a 2001 rate of 1.5%.
In 2003, the rate of male circumcision in the United States of America was about 55.9% with a rate of about 77.8% in the midwest.”
www.canadiancrc.com...

In the 1980’s most parents stopped circumcising their infant boys

Originally posted by axslinger
reply to post by loves a conspiricy

 

The government needs to mind their own business and stay out of it.

I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. Although, I do place blame on the government for not doing what they should have done about this.

This is a social problem. For me, I see no medical evidence one way or another as to the safety. Those that have been cut, they do not have to worry. Those that are uncut, the extra care needed is just part of the daily routine. No different than shaving or putting contact lenses in every morning, it has to be done, its life.

This is a result of interest groups with nothing else better to do than to put their noses into other peoples personal affairs. Pushing their own agenda and/or beliefs upon others. The government quite simply should have told these interest groups that this is not the governments job. This is a problem that the government should have told the interest groups to work it out themselves amongst their community members.

I hope after all these protests shake out and after it is all done and said that the people can once again learn to put aside the petty crap and worry about the stuff that really matters. We have to quit running to the government every time there is a disagreement and expect them to pass a law. Right here is how we have caused/allowed our current problems to exist. Had we been a little more attentive to what was going on rather than bickering amongst ourselves, perhaps, things may not have escalated to the level they have now.

~
The government should not be paying for this any more than
it would pay for tattoos, ear-piercings, or breast-enlargements.
Even ear-piercings should have minimum age of sixteen.
I hate seeing newborns forced into being mutilated.
It's barbaric and just plain wrong.

Originally posted by naghammadi
Are you so certain it really is a medical decision and not generational repetition of a tradition rooted in religion?

I didn't say a medical decision, I said a medical choice, which it is. Whether that choice is driven by generational repetition or rooted in religion is specific to the parent making the choice, I do understand what you are saying though.

Originally posted by RogerT
???

I corrected a guy who stated that the foreskin isn't involved in the sexual act because it doesn't cover an erect glans.
He's wrong - it does.
OK, so it's my opinion but it's also fact, unless you'd like to correct my lack of understanding with an explanation of how one can have sex without involving the foreskin (without being cut or mechanically covering up the foreskin in some way)?

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I apologize. It seemed to me that you were saying that he couldn't understand your point since he did not have a foreskin, and I was just saying that you couldn't understand his because you do.

I was circumsized as an infant and have never had any difficulty experiencing sexual pleasure, but I will readily admit that I have no idea what sex may have been like with one. Just as an uncut male can not know what sex may be like without one.

After reading some of the apparant 'parent hate' posts here, I just wanted to add something. My parents made this choice for me as an infant, whether it is a choice I would have made for myself or not is irrelevant. They fulfilled their obligations as parents to the best of their ability and I will always love and respect them for that.

reply to post by axslinger

First of all people mutilate their bodies all the time; gages in their ears, piercing of all parts of the body (including genitals), tattoos, etc.

But we are talking about a body of someone else. I dont think any surgery with lifetime significant effects that is not medicaly necessary should be performed on children, and this also applies for tattoos, piercings (altough these can be considered reversible) etc. And it surely should not be covered from public money.

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.

Also...its DUMB to compare male circumcision to female. The clitoris is a necessary part of a females sexual experience, whereas the foreskin is simply an extra piece of skin that you can do better without.

Since having it removed at older age means you actually REMEMBER the pain, tis done when the child is born.

Simple..I dont understand what all the friggin fuss is about! Its an evolutionary left over...stop yer whining men!

"Girl",

you have the right to think so...but it is indeed proven that girls think that which "looks better" which is more common wherever you life. In cultures where more males are cut they prefer the cut look because uncut looks "weird" to them..and here in EU and other countries its the exact opposite.

You use the same, moronic argument about hygiene which is a pseudo argument and a lie since every retard can learn basic hygiene. Do i go around and propose female circumcision because I THINK that the physionomy of the female genitalia would support that it's getting "dirty" or be "non hygienic" - thinking that IN FACT female genitals are more prone to infections etc. since it's all rather "internal"...in fact "more difficult" to clean than a male's parts.

Dont you see that this is an absurd argument? Do you think that the basic use of water and soap is a big deal? IF YES - the the guy who has a problem washing up has ANOTHER problem...but its NOT related to his penis!

Also..since you are a girl i kindly ask not to make a comment that "it is not a big deal" and not to compare to female circumcision - last time i checked girls didnt have penises..so how should you know?

It is NOT "just an extra piece of skin" or "leftover from nature" which needs to get rid of...what ABSURD thinking. Again, those parts of the male penis are extremely sensitive and have MOST nerve endings and sensibility .....furthermore there is some evidence that the foreskin and mechanism "how it works" has indeed benefits for sex.

Foreskin and frenum got removed in the past to prevent guys from masturbating since without foreskin this becomes rather difficult to do - this why it has an ABSURD religious context or ws/is recommended by people in the miltary etc... AGAIN there is not one single, *logical* reason to do this.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by naghammadi

 

If it is proven that it reduces risk etc.

As far as i know there only have been studies made on some African tribes...it eludes me how those alleged studies about "being cut means less infections" somewhere deep inside Africa relate to us. (We could for example assume that those people in Africa where they tested don't even have tap water etc..so their hygiene and daily routines are a total different story compared to us westerners)

Furthermore i find the notion absurd that a cut foreskin "prevents" aids, infections etc. because it leads to the bizarre thinking that some only needs no foreskin and then we are safe from Aids and other genital infections or have "less risk". Someone must have failed 1st grade medical education there or totally missed how Aids actually is spread.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by loves a conspiricy

 

Those that are uncut, the extra care needed is just part of the daily routine. an bickering amongst ourselves, perhaps, things may not have escalated to the level they have now.

There is as much "extra care" needed as someone needs "extra care" for having arm pits or female labia.
When was the last time we had a debate about removal of female labia since OBVIOUSLY it would be "easier" to clean if women had no labia? Or talks about surgically removing arm pits or toes because it could be "easier to clean" our feet if we hadn't the gap between our toes? Etc..etc..

Simply put: A guy without skin better should ALSO do the same, basic hygiene and washing..there is almost no difference and one thing does not cause any more effort or trouble than the other (with or without skin). The CC supporters made up something which literally is a "non issue".

Originally posted by Maxmars
By the way... to anyone who may remember, wasn't there recently some article about guys who restore their foreskin with some kind of device? Anyone remember that?

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

Actually, this has been going on for years, here is a link with some good information on it.

You can always Google either foreskin restoration or reverse circumsision to find out about both non-surgical and surgical measures.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

I have wondered why men have tits.

What do they do for us?

Do you mean pectoral muscles? Or flabby man boobs over pectoral muscules.

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

Probably referring to the fact that men have nipples, which are simply a left over piece from fetal development. Seeing how all fetuses are female until certain developmental chemicals kick in.

Interesting thread.

I feel it is best viewed through the lens of cultural and historic relativism.

Some quick viewing of the stats seems to indicate in most westernized cultures, percentages are going down.

Does this mean it right or wrong? Who knows? But it is certainly relative to both culture & period in history.

Even as a cultural study alone it is fascinating to hear the views presented.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I apologize. It seemed to me that you were saying that he couldn't understand your point since he did not have a foreskin, and I was just saying that you couldn't understand his because you do.

No worries. No harm, no foul

I was circumsized as an infant and have never had any difficulty experiencing sexual pleasure, but I will readily admit that I have no idea what sex may have been like with one. Just as an uncut male can not know what sex may be like without one.

Well, actually, an uncut male can simulate a circumcision. There are instructions on the net, I kid you not. I can't find anything now with a quick search, but it involves pulling back the FS and taping it back in a specific way with medical tape.

After a few days, the glans dries out, hardens up and becomes desensitized, I'm assuming much like a cut dick.

The tape covers the FS so the nerve endings only pick up mild stimulation in that region.

And the most embarassing part: I tried this as I was considering a circ. at one point.

My personal experience: Simulated circ and uncut sex was as different as bareback vs condom.


Whilst searching for the simulation stuff, I did come across this on tantric sex and circ:
www.circumstitions.com...

here's a little taster:

European bodyworkers are frustrated that the techniques they are taught by Body Electric are the same dreadful sort of stimulations published in sexual technique books published in the United States - namely, treating the penis as a big and relatively insensitive banana, focusing most if not all of the stimulation on the glans, treating the shaft as merely something to hold on to, and ignoring the existence of the foreskin altogether.

...

Unlike most of the rest of the human body, the penis is wired end-to-end. The nerve endings run horizontally instead of vertically, through all the penile skin and mucosal surfaces, including the foreskin. Cutting out a significant piece of this sleeve through circumcision, or even a small piece, essentially short-wires the neurologic map of the penis and changes the stimulation landscape completely. If you imagine an electric current in the skin running continuously from glans sulcus to pubis, through and including the foreskin, the dramatic effects of circumcision become immediately apparent.

The foreskin can be stimulated through gentle stretching, both forward and backward (tugging and retracting, both specifically stimulating the ridged band). The glans (but really the inner foreskin) can be stimulated by keeping the foreskin over the glans and gently massaging the corona through the double-layer of foreskin. (Material from professional bodywork courses either ignores the foreskin or emphasizes getting it out of the way as quickly as possible, holding it back so the "jewel" can be worked on). It is the glans that actually stimulates the foreskin predominantly, and not the other way around.

No offense to anyone I've quoted but I decided to explore the cultural relativism of this topic & the results are VERY interesting.

The following are pairs of statements; a pro-male-circumcision statement made by an ATS member in this thread, followed by a pro-female-circumcision statement made by members of cultures where female circumcision is routinely practiced:

ATS Pro-Male Circ. (1)

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

Pro-Female Circumcision (2)

The parts that are cut away are disgusting and hideous to look at. It is done for the beauty of the suture.

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(3)

Originally posted by evs490
youll have no memory what so ever of it happening

Pro-Female Circumcision (4)

It is done at such a young age and in no time at all they are well again.

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(5)

Originally posted by dukeofjive
the girls love it

Pro-Female Circumcision (6)

A circumcised woman is sexually more pleasing to her husband. The tighter she is sewn, the more pleasure he has.

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(7)

Originally posted by A-Dub
they smell worse

Pro-Female Circumcision (8)

If it is not done, she will stink

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(9)

Originally posted by Mcupobob
Hygiene is also easier to maintain compared to uncircumcised penis

Pro-Female Circumcision (10)

An uncircumcised vulva is unclean...No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone.

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(11)

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
if you want your children to enjoy the freedom of penile cancer, the freedom to more easily spread HPV, the freedom to have balanitis,

Pro-Female Circumcision (12)

Both Islam and medicine agree on its benefits. Uncircumcised girls…are more liable to infections and cancers.

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(13)

Originally posted by purplemer
There is nothing wrong with having your weaner cut. Mine was cut when I was a baby and I am happy still..

Pro-Female Circumcision (14)

Our mothers, aunts and sisters have been doing this for years and no one was complaining."

ATS Pro-Male Circ.(15)

Originally posted by ls1cameric
More than likely, most every "Lil' Dude" is gonna wanna look like Daddy so naturally I'd think that most would choose to do the same.

Pro-Female Circumcision (16)

With the older women there is often the element of: ‘If it was done to me, why should it not be done to the young girls?

References:
(1) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(2) "Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation in Sub-Saharan Africa and Male Neonatal Circumcision in the United States: a Brief Report Updated"
Notes: I've been unable to find a copy of this online except here (www.nocirc.org...). However this essay is referenced by many academics (lsb.scu.edu... www.law.northwestern.edu... web.ccsu.edu...).
(3) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(4) [Eclas, 43-year-old Sudanese biology professor, interview, p. 118, Prisoners of Ritual: Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa, Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, 1989] (books.google.com...)
(5) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(6) "Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation in Sub-Saharan Africa...", Lightfoot-Klein
(7) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(8) "Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation in Sub-Saharan Africa...", Lightfoot-Klein
(9) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(10) "Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation..." Lightfoot-Klein
(11) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(12) [Dr. Saed Thabet, professor gynecology at Cairo’s Kasr El Aini Teaching Hospital, quoted in "Female Circumcision is Curbed in Egypt," British Medical Journal, August 3, 1996]
(13) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(14) [Dr. Munir Fawzi, Gynecologist at Cairo’s Ain Shams University, Dallas Morning News, 12/25/96],
(15) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(16) [Osman Antar, mayor of Sabee (Egypt), quoted in news report, "Egyptian fundamentalists ignoring female circumcision ban," 6 January 1998, Agence France-Presse]

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..

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.

Yes its true that the female vagina is more prone to bacteria, that is why God gave it the ability to flush itself with its own constant liquid, and keeping it clean is a top priority for us women.

So let the men with foreskin talk here and tell me that they don't pull it back to pee or during sex or something. If they do pull it back, WHY DO YOU STILL HAVE IT?!

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
reply to post by StevenDye

 

Dentists will tell you wisdom teeth are not necessary. Neither is a foreskin necessary. Both can cause complications. Just becuase we were born with uselless body parts doesn't mean we need them.

By that reasoning I should give my child permanent hair removal over his entire body because hair isn't necessary and they might get nits. And I should have the bottom of their ear removed because they don't need it and heck they might decide to get an earing and it could rip out. And I should have his nipples removed because he might become a runner and they could chafe and bleed and hurt. And heck lets have his nails all pulled out because dammnit they might become ingrown and that hurts. And to top it off lets cut his foreskin off because he might decide he doesn't like to wash or he is stupid enough to not use protection. (Yes I will use the word stupid because I have been there and done that. No t-shirt though.)

I'm pretty sure I'd be accused of abuse for the others, but they all have medical reasons as legitimate as circumcision.

Sure wisdom teeth arn't necesarry, but if they grow in properlly they are useful, heck no teeth are necesarry because we have blenders and all teeth can possibly become infected so maybe I should remove all of my childs teeth too? And even if they don't grow in properlly, it doesn't mean that they WILL become infected, just like having an uncircumcised penis doesn't mean I WILL catch an STD, just that I have a slightly higher chance if I don't use protection, which is my own fault.


See how drastic it sounds when I bring up things which arn't in anyway socially acceptable, but have medical reasoning also.

By nusus
...
So let the men with foreskin talk here and tell me that they don't pull it back to pee or during sex or something. If they do pull it back, WHY DO YOU STILL HAVE IT?!

Because I was born with it.

Because girls here find it normal and a circumcised penis to look funny. (In general)

Because it proides ALOT of stimulation, you say the clitorus provides the most satisfaction for a female so it mustn't be removed but it's fine to remove the foreskin which provides satisfaction for a male because you think the sex drive of men should be lowered... Well damn what if I think the sex drive of women should be lowered? You want men to have an operation to conform to your ideal... And here I was thinking girls hated feeling pressured to conform to mens versions of perfect. But you feel it's fine to do the same.

Because it takes no more than 20 seconds extra to clean it properlly in the shower, anyone who doesn't have a spare 20 seconds needs to loosen up.

reply to post by nusnus


pls don't take this the wrong way, but are you trans/cross gender?

otherwise, as a female, how do you claim such absolute knowledge over an organ you've never experienced?



ps. no offense, i know it might sound aggressive, but actually this is a fascinating discussion

reply to post by naghammadi


Which organ are you speaking of? I'm a female, I'm married, I talk to guys about it, oh and I read.

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.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the foreskin is extra piece of skin. It has no aesthetic value. 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. 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. Hello...what on earth is tattoo then? make up?! Why don't they go against that then? Its not about the foreskin, its not about the mutilation, it sure as heck isn't about the sex drive. Its simple propaganda.

Well...I take that back. Its probably about the sex drive too....geeze.

Originally posted by nusnus


So let the men with foreskin talk here and tell me that they don't pull it back to pee or during sex or something. If they do pull it back, WHY DO YOU STILL HAVE IT?!

My husband is not circumsized. He does NOT have to pull it back for sex, or urination, or anything. Even when completely soft and relaxed, it does not cover the glans of his penis.

He was properly cleaned and "décallotté" (I do not know the english word for this- the foreskin is pulled back progressively as a baby). So it means that now there is more skin behind the glans then there is on a circumsized penis, but it does not cover the glans. I have been with him for 20 years, and he has NEVER had an infection of any sort in that time, nor been unclean.

But then, he takes a shower each day and washes his penis when he does.

editted to add- I checked dictionaries and there is no translation for décalotté in english. This supports my suspicion that our culture is less knowledgable about the care and hygeine of an uncircumsized penis... which leads to the problems cited of risk of infections.

The problem of infections can be faced then between two options- circumcision, or informing the parents on appropriate hygeine and care for their infant son.

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.