Not one new thing has been said in this thread. Same people on both sides. Same arguments. Same douchebags making attacks while others try to rationally state their positions.
Same ol' same ol'. *rolls eyes* The only thing circumcision threads are good for is reminding me who I don't like, and why I don't like them.
Pasa
Not all of us who have contributed were members when the original debate began on site. It is a little insulting to be called 'same' when it is quite untrue. There are a number of members who have contributed from the beginning but that is their right. There have been attacks by some but in the main people have tried to argue their position as rationally as their literal skills allow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
This is not an argument which will disappear very quickly if at all, and if there has been a repetition of old arguments, that is because to the people concerned those arguments still hold up and are as relevant now as they were when the original discussion began last year and long before. To be reminded of relevance is an important function in debate and if you don't like the debate, and those who argue it, there is no necessity whatever to have said a word.
Well, thank you for your contribution Pasa, but I think the same could be said of any debate where people do not agree.
No one is forced to take part in any of these threads, they read or contribute to them of their own free will.
According to my screen, this debate has attracted 90 contributions but over 1200 viewers. Undoubtedly many of them will be the contributors following the debate. However, if it causes even one person to pause for thought and rethink their attitude toward circumcision, then a child might be saved the ordeal of that operation. In which case I will have considered my time well spent.
I think by labelling people douche-bags that you might well be guilty of the behaviour you accuse others of.
As with newspapers, one can either buy and read the more lurid tabloids or stick with the broadsheets that give a more reasoned, and thoughtful consideration of the facts.
It would be a mistake to blame the message for the inability of the messenger to impart his/her message in a reasoned and less strident tone. If you dislike certain contributors, then the option of placing them on ignore is available, in which case you will not even see their contribution to this, or any other debate.
If you, as an educated man, have stooped to calling people douche-bags then what hope have those, without your educational advantages, of conducting a reasoned, logical and civilised debate?
Those with entrenched views on either side of this debate will no doubt still retain those views. It is to those who are undecided, or who wish to be in receipt of all the information, before they make their informed decision, that I would address my remarks.
If anyone wishes to think of me as a douche-bag along the way, that is their prerogative. I, for my part, shall try not to lose too much sleep over it.
I did seriously consider saying something quite similar Dark, as I did think it was somewhat ironic that a man who bemoans attacks by some upon others, did precisely that himself in a particularly insulting way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
Name calling is very mature and constructive is it not? In effect, Pasadena, by the words he used, was addressing himself, although I very much doubt whether that entered his head, and would be very much surprised if he would accept it.
It seems to me that were I to have a son today, I would not circumcise him. In the past, I would have circumcised him because I am circumcised. I don't find the arguments about cleanliness as convincing as I once did. I'm fine with being circumcised and don't miss my foreskin. I never knew that the foreskin had so many nerves increasing pleasure either. I have been with a couple of guys who are uncircumcised. It is mildly interesting to compare the difference but there really doesn't seem much difference unless the foreskin can not or does not retract.
Only a man who has spent his life until at least mid teens and then after that point decides to get circumcised can really inform me of the difference. I would listen to him. From what I recall, the opinions vary as much as this thread has.
I do think that with more education and the passing of bylaws about circumcision will eventually sway parents not to circumcise. However, I find passing such a bylaw very peculiar. I do not understand a city doing such a thing but maybe this has happened before where a bylaw is passed restricting medical procedures within its boundaries? I'm much more in favour of all levels of government, permitting any medical procedure to be a decision made between the doctor and the patient. (that includes abortion and is the present stance of my country's federal government...all things may change with a wacko fundamentalist party in power though...lol) There have been recent incidents in Canada where the doctors believe in one approach and the parents of a patient have a differing view. Either one has taken the matter to court. In at least one case, it involved a child on life support. I don't think that the courts made a final decision. I'm not sure if the parents took the child to the US or died before a decision was made. So, such bylaws may be found to be very questionable imo.
btw
I had two identical twin buddies in my teens and early twenties. One was circumcised and the other was not at a very early age. They told me that their parents made this decision to distinguish between the two. They were very identical except for that fact. An amusing part was that the uncircumcised guy was referred to as "firehose" by the other twin and another brother. Well, we all found it funny. Neither made a statement about sensation as I recall but that probably wasn't a topic that young guys of that era got into with each other...lol
darkside
circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is true, but it is a very extreme method of prevention. As I mentioned before, we don't amputate a healthy leg on the off-chance it might be injured at some remote point in the future, turn gangrenous and need amputation. We generally wait until until it is a medical necessity, after having considered all the other less extreme options. Then and only then, would we pursue amputation. On the premise that if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
unfortunately that is why I brought up the issue of females in NZ having full breast removal cos of a family history of breast cancer, without the patient having any symptoms at all of having cancer
precursor surgery is starting to become a normal aspect of medicine in NZ.....
funny how the medical profession is starting to contradict its own stance of not operating and removing healthy tissue to prevent a issue that the patient doesn't have.......
Clearly you are pro mutilation and you are pro-circumcision Long Duck even though you're pretending that you're not and like Darkside wrote you're not actually answering any questions or saying anything of importance yet you're just answering questions with the same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
You're pulling percents and numbers out of thin air about how you're claiming that most boys in the UK simply have to be circumcised because of foreskins that don't retract at all.
In the UK circumcision is not as common as you falsely claim that it is, and less than 5% of men and boys in the UK actually get cut.
Boys in the UK and in general DO NOT need to get circumcised because of a foreskin that does not retract at all.
In fact the foreskin is not supposed to be retracted at all for the first two years of life.
Male Circumcision is the greatest failed medical experiment in history, it was started back when actual doctors and other medical professionals at the time thought that if a man masturbated, got sexual pleasure, or if he enjoyed sex and his penis that there was something wrong with him.
Hence male circumcision was promoted as a way to curb masturbation, stop sexual desire, limit sensations in the penis, keep one's body "clean" as opposed to actually washing with soap and water daily, and doctors actually thought that sex and masturbation were "bad" for everyone.
Introduction. There is much uncertainty among health care workers about when the foreskin of a boy should become retractable.1 This has caused many false diagnoses of phimosis, followed by unnecessary circumcision, when, in fact, the foreskin is developmentally normal.
History. The first data on development of retractile foreskin were provided in 1949 by the famous British paediatrician, Douglas Gairdner.2 His data have been incorporated into many textbooks and still is repeated in the medical literature today. Gairdner said that 80 percent of boys should have a retractable foreskin by the age of two years, and 90 percent of boys should have a retractable prepuce by the age of three years.2
Unfortunately, Gairdner’s data are inaccurate,3-4 so most healthcare providers have been taught inaccurate data.4 Retractability usually occurs much later than previously believed.3 This page provides accurate data, derived from newer and better studies, for healthcare providers.
Current View
Almost all boys are born with the foreskin fused with the underlying glans penis. Most also have a narrow foreskin that cannot retract. Non-retractile foreskin is normal at birth and remains common until after puberty (age 18). Some boys develop retractile foreskin earlier, and about 2 percent of males have a non-retractile foreskin throughout life. Non-retractile foreskin is not a disease and does not require treatment.
There are three possible conditions that cause non-retractile foreskin:
* Fusion of the foreskin with the glans penis
* Tightness of the foreskin orifice
* Frenulum breve (which is rare and cannot be diagnosed until the previous two reasons have been eliminated)
The first two reasons are normal in childhood and are not pathological in children. The third can be treated conservatively, retaining the foreskin.
Infants and pre-school. Kayaba et al. (1996) reported that before six months of age, no boy had a retractable prepuce; 16.5 percent of boys aged 3-4 had a fully retractable prepuce.5 Imamura (1997) examined 4521 infants and young boys. He re-ported that the foreskin is retractile in 3 percent of infants aged one to three months, 19.9 percent of those aged ten to twelve months, and 38.4 percent of three-year-old boys.6 Ishikawa & Kawakita (2004) reported no retractability at age one, (but increasing to 77 percent at age 11-15).7 Non-retractile foreskin is the more common condition in this age group. Compare these data with Gairdner’s data!
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/...aylor/fig2.jpg
Percentage of boys with fused foreskin by age according to Øster
School-age and adolescence. Jakob Øster, a Danish physician who conducted school examinations, reported his findings on the examination of school-boys in Denmark, where circumcision is rare.8 Øster (1968) found that the incidence of fusion of the foreskin with the glans penis steadily declines with increasing age and foreskin retractability increases with age.8 Kayaba et al. (1996) also investigated the development of foreskin retraction in boys from age 0 to age 15.5 Kayaba et al. also reported increasing retractability with increasing age. Kayaba et al. reported that about only 42 percent of boys aged 8-10 have fully retractile foreskin, but the percentage increases to 62.9 percent in boys aged 11-15.5 Imamura (1997) reported that 77 percent of boys aged 11-15 had retractile foreskin.6 Thorvaldsen & Meyhoff (2005) conducted a survey of 4000 young men in Denmark.9 They report that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years in Denmark.9 Non-retractile foreskin is the more common condition until about 10-11 years of age.
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/kayaba/fig3.gif
Percentage of boys with tight ring totally non-retractile foreskin according to Kayaba et al.
Discussion. Boys usually are born with a non-retractile foreskin. The foreskin gradually becomes retractable over a variable period of time ranging from birth to 18 years or more.8,9 There is no “right” age for the foreskin to become retractable. Non-retractile foreskin does not threaten health in childhood and no intervention is necessary. Many boys only develop a retractable foreskin after puberty. Education of concerned parents usually is the only action required.10
Avoidance of premature retraction. Care-givers and healthcare providers must be careful to avoid premature retraction of the foreskin, which is contrary to medical recommendations, painful, traumatic, tears the attachment points (synechiae), may cause infection, is likely to generate medico-legal problems, and may cause paraphimosis, with the tight foreskin acting like a tourniquet. The first person to retract the boy’s foreskin should be the boy himself.3
Making the foreskin retractable. Occasionally a male reaches adulthood with a non-retractile foreskin. Some men with a non-retractile foreskin happily go through life and father children. Other men, however, may want to make their foreskin retractile.
The foreskin can be made retractable by:
* Manual stretching11-12
* Application of topical steroid ointment13-14
Male circumcision is outmoded as a treatment for non-retractile foreskin, but it is still recommended by many urologists because of lack of adequate information, and perhaps because of the fees associated with circumcision. Nevertheless, circumcision should be avoided because of pain, trauma, cost,15,16 complications,15 difficult recovery, permanent injury to the appearance of the penis, loss of pleasurable erogenous sensation,17 and impairment of erectile and ejaculatory functions.18-20
References:
1. Simpson ET, Barraclough P. The management of the paediatric foreskin. Aust Fam Physician 1998;27(5):381-3.
2. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. Br Med J 1949;2:1433-7.
3. Wright JE. Further to the "Further Fate of the Foreskin." Med J Aust 1994;160:134-5.
4. Hill G. Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust 2003;178(11):587.
5. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156(5):1813-5.
6. Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn 1997;39(4):403-5.
7. Ishikawa E, Kawakita M. [Preputial development in Japanese boys]. Hinyokika Kiyo 2004;50(5):305-8.
8. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43:200-3.
9. Thorvaldsen MA, Meyhoff H. Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose? Ugeskr Læger 2005;167(17):1858-62.
10. Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Wisniewski ZS. et al. Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust 2003 178 (4):155-8.
11. Dunn HP. Non-surgical management of phimosis. Aust N Z J Surg 1989;59(12):963.
12. Beaugé M. The causes of adolescent phimosis. Br J Sex Med 1997; Sept/Oct: 26.
13. Orsola A, Caffaratti J, Garat JM. Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology 2000;56(2):307-10. [Full Text]
14. Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, et al. Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol 2003;169(3):1106-8. [Abstract]
15. Van Howe RS. Cost-effective treatment of phimosis. Pediatrics 1998; 102(4)/e43.
16. Berdeu D, Sauze L, Ha-Vinh P. Blum-Boisgard C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medicinal approaches and their economic effect. BJU Int 2001;87(3):239-44.
17. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993;80:1231-6.
18. Denniston GC, Hill G. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology 2004;64(6);1267.
19. Shen Z, Chen S, Zhu C, et al. [Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2004;10(1):18-9.
20. Masood S, Patel HRH, Himpson RC, et al. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: Are we informing men correctly? Urol Int 2005;75(1):62-5.
This is getting ridiculous. Personally, I don't think anyone who isn't a parent will have any idea of the way it feels to be called a child molestor because something thinks circumcision is wrong. Get over your egos and remember that just because you feel something is wrong, it doesn't mean everyone thinks it is wrong. Just because you don't think there is a medically proven need to circumcise does not mean everyone thinks that. And finally, I challenge those of you that call parents of circumsized children "child molesters" that are cirumcised to go up to your mother and tell her you feel she is a child molester because she dared to listen to the doctors when they told her the pros and cons and made a choice out of love.
When you can do that, I want you to count the seconds til the most extreme pain you can imagine inflicting on the woman that gave birth to you fleets across her face before she hides that hurt behind a mask and pretends she still cares about you just the same.
Sure it's fine to say it to someone you will never have to meet face to face, not so fine when it's the person who has loved you since conception, now is it?
So stop the rhetoric, stop the personal attacks, and remember that just because you think something is right it doesn't mean that the rest of the world will ever agree with you.
Circumcision has been proven in several studies to prevent penile cancer, to stop the spread of diseases that can be caused by lack of hygiene. It's been proven to have a positive impact on men's health. If in the future the entire MEDICAL society, not people's personal opinions, but medical facts, that circumcision is not recommended then parents will have that information. Until then it does no good to keep bleating about and calling circumcised men mutilated and parents child molesters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
Well, DD, with respect, we could turn your statements around and say that because you think this debate is ridiculous doesn't mean the rest of us think so. Likewise, because you agree with circumcision, doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree with it.
As to the entire Medical Society being in favour of circumcision, perhaps you missed this little snippet among the many posts:-
The American Medical Association (1999) noted that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada did not recommend routine circumcision of newborns. It supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics(...there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision...)
Reference: "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99):Neonatal Circumcision". 1999 AMA Interim Meeting: Summaries and Recommendations of Council on Scientific Affairs Reports. American Medical Association. December 1999. pp. 17.
Perhaps you were misinformed by the doctors who advised you regarding your sons.
As to your feeling aggrieved by being called a Child-Molester, I can understand that, I believe the person that made that reference is no longer with the site, but as I recall, they apologised to you and retracted their statement before they left.
The fact that they allowed their emotions to get the better of their judgment is regrettable. These things sometimes happen in the heat of debate as you yourself will have found when you implied that uncircumcised males in the locker-room were freaks.
As an uncircumcised male myself, I could take umbrage but I don't. I recognise that what you said was stated in the heat of the moment. I've been called worse before and will no doubt be again, such is life.
The statements made in your last paragraph regarding the benefits of circumcision have already been discredited. Again see your own countries Medical Association's view.
As I have said before to others, no one is forced to participate in this, or any other thread. They read and post contributions of their own free will, they can place on ignore anyone who insults them, so they no longer need to see their posts. To those that wish to continue discussing the issues involved, that is their right. To those that don't, thank you for your contribution, and feel free to start a different thread with the topic of your choice.
Why are you claiming that a son talking to his mother or parent(s) about why he was circumcised without his consent is somehow "bad" or emotional blackmail?Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
Parents and their children should be allowed to speak openly and honestly about sex, sexuality, and even their genitals. There's nothing wrong with a child asking his mother or father just why they had him circumcised.
No circumcision is not done out of "love" but it's done for vanity reasons, by parents who think that their kids are going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's or if other boys say something in the locker room to them-which they can just tell those boys, "Dude why are you staring at my dick?", and circumcision on boys is done as semi-castration and control of a man's sexuality and his penis which is why it became so popular in the United States to begin with. You can argue that female genital mutilation is done for the same reasons and it is hypocritical of people to say, "FGM is sick, wrong, and horrible! But male circumcision done to baby boys is perfectly fine and it's necessary!"
Penile cancer is one of the rarest cancers - rarer even than breast cancer in men - and figures for it are hard to come by. Circumcised men get penile cancer at about the same tiny rate as intact men. You're more likely to get anal cancer or colon cancer than you are penile cancer just because you have a foreskin.
No there are not health benefits to ripping off tissue filled with erogenous nerve endings from a boy's penis. Then again as a woman you could get breast cancer, cancer of the cervix, cancer of the uterus/ovaries, or even cancer of the Vulva yet nobody is daring to suggest that you or other women or girls get such parts of your body removed because of the risk of cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Cancer Society
Circumcision can actually cause penile cancer.
Furthermore if penile cancer was produced by lack of hygiene then simply washing daily with soap and water works fine. If Penile cancer were really a risk for men with a foreskin you'd see men throughout the world getting it and this does not happen at all.Quote:
J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):557-61; discussion 561. Related Articles, Links
Outcome of penile cancer in circumcised men.
Seyam RM, Bissada NK, Mokhtar AA, Mourad WA, Aslam M, Elkum N, Kattan SA, Hanash KA.
Department of Urology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. rmseyam@hotmail.com
PURPOSE: We previously reported on a group of patients with post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis. We now study the long-term outcome of these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the available charts of 22 patients presenting between October 1979 and May 2000.
RESULTS: Of 22 patients 18 underwent ritual circumcision with extensive scar development. Median age at diagnosis was 62.4 years. The penile lesion was dorsal and proximally located in 15 patients. Median delay before diagnosis was 12 months. Clinically 14 patients had stage T1-T2 disease, with 13 having no lymph node involvement and none with distant metastasis, 8 patients had stage T3-T4 disease. A total of 15 patients were treated surgically with total penectomy (10) or conservative local excision (5), inguinal lymph node dissection (9) and subsequent penile reconstruction (3). Pathological staging in 15 patients revealed 10 patients with stage T1 and in 8 patients with lymph node dissection none had nodal metastasis. Histopathological classification was 20 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 sarcoma and 1 verrucous carcinoma. Six patients refused surgery and 1 was referred for palliation. Median followup was 14.5 months and median survival was 14.5 months. The 3-year survival was 42% for stage T1-T2 and 13% for T3-T4 (p = 0.0052). Median survival for the surgical group was 34 months whereas for nonsurgical group was 3 months (p = 0.0016). Recurrence-free survival in the surgical group was 50%.
CONCLUSIONS: Penile carcinoma in circumcised men is a distinct disease commonly following circumcision. Delayed diagnosis and deferring surgical treatment are associated with increased mortality.
PMID: 16406995 [PubMed - in process]
I am not pro circumcision, i view it as something that is medically needed at times and pro mutilation, no thats your term that you are cuddling like a security blanketQuote:
Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy
the stats came from the uk medical board, and if you do the maths on the population of the ul versus the number of circumcisions, yes, it comes in under 5%, so you are telling me I am wrong and incorrect, while posting a statement that supports what I posted.....
you make the statement that circumcision of a child is mutilation, so as I have already asked you,....is a child that is treated surgically for a non retractable forekin issue that has not responded to other treatments, also mutilated......
and if so, would you allow your own children to be * mutilated * if it was medically needed, or would you state that no, you will not allow your children to be * mutilated *, even if it was medically needed for the well being of the children
remember I am refering only to medically needed circumcisions, not elective ones, and I am refering to foreskins that do not respond to any other treatments, only foreskins that do not respond to any other treatments and so require surgery.......
btw, your study on penile cancer...... ahhh 22 people over 11 years ????
and that makes penile cancer common in circumcised males ????
did they have trouble finding enough males with circumcised penises to make up more numbers.......
surely it can not be that hard... there appears to be a lot more males with penile cancer than your study indicates so they should not be lacking in subjects to use in their study
US penile cancer rates
I've just finished reading through this site, I had missed the link when it was posted before. I found it very interesting and informative:-
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com..._northrup.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDD.
New Zealand has a relatively small population for the size of the country, I believe in the order of 4 million. Without researching the exact figures, I imagine around half of those would be female, and of this figure a large number would be either female children or older or elderly women.
This would leave a smaller percentage of adult women,of child-bearing age. Of this group I am sure only a smaller percentage would have a history of breast cancer within their family history. Of this reduced percentage, I am fairly certain that most have not entertained the idea of surgical removal of their healthy breasts in order to prevent any chance of breast cancer at some indeterminate point in their future life.
I would suggest that any woman who was minded to do so would have to undergo extensive counselling/therapy sessions to dissuade her from such a drastic course of action.
Even if she were then to get through all that, she would have to find a surgeon willing to undertake such an operation on healthy tissue.
As one of the first tenets of medical ethics is to do no harm, I can't really see her having much success in finding such a surgeon. The surgeon would have to justify it in terms of medical ethics and I doubt if his liability insurance would cover him in the event that the operation was unsuccessful or in the event of complications arising. In which case the surgeon would be making him or herself liable in a civil law suit.
So no, I wouldn't accept for one minute that such pre-emptive surgery,( or pre-cursor surgery as you call it), was becoming the norm in New Zealand, or any other industrialised country.
The cost of having such an operation performed privately would be prohibitive and I can't really see the New Zealand tax-payer being willing to pay for such an operation where there is no medical need of it.
I think this woman, or women,( you used the plural in your example), would be offered frequent breast examinations to reassure her/them and intervention surgery only if and when necessary.
I would also be interested to know where you obtained the figures you quoted regarding circumcisions on boys in the UK as it does not accord with any statistics relating to the UK that I have ever seen.
This is the information and break-down I have read on circumcision rates in the UK :-
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_...owitem&item=66
Darkside, honey, the person that called me a child molester for circumsizing my sons is the person who started this thread. He has never apologized for it and if he did I wouldn't believe it. Fran, backed it up by saying she thought it was molestation and it was done by doctors. When the stupidity of the statement was brought to her attention she apologized for saying it was molestation with all it's inferences.
Now as to saying my kids wouldn't be looked at as freaks, that was not a heat of the moment statement, that was a truth. In an area where most children are circumcized then uncircumsized children are threated differently by their peers, the same a circumsized child in a locker room of uncircumsized children in your land would be treated.
Agree or disagree all you want, but it doesn't do your cause any justice when you refuse to even acknowledge the points on the other side.
I found these quotes on a site and they are from 4 very well known authors and how they feel about circumcision. Andrew Sullivan happens to be a gay man.
Quote:
Andrew Sullivan, author, The Conservative Soul
If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they’d be arrested for abuse. The great unmentionable, of course, is that religion, not medicine, is behind this practice—Judaism and Islam, to be precise. Many secular men, in other words, bear the scars of someone else’s religion on their own bodies for life …My own view is that forcing boys to have most of their sexual pleasure zones destroyed without their express permission is a form of child abuse.
Christopher Hitchens, author, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
As to immoral practice, it is hard to imagine anything more grotesque than the mutilation of infant genitalia … In some animist and Muslim societies it is the female babies who suffer the worst, with the excision of the labia and the clitoris … In other cultures, notably the “Judeo-Christian,” it is the sexual mutilation of small boys that is insisted upon.”
Michael Chabon, author, Manhood for Amateurs
The stated reason for this minutely savage custom is that God—the God of Abraham—commanded it … Nothing having to do with this particular version of God and His supposed Commandments could ever satisfactorily explain my willingness to subject my sons … to mutilation: the only honest name for this raw act that my wife and I have twice invited men with knives to come into our house and perform, in the presence of all our friends and family, with a nice buffet and a Weekend Cake from Just Desserts.
Shalom Auslander, author, Foreskin’s Lament
I found myself … sitting across the way from Patricia, a formerly Orthodox, currently Buddhist, macrobiotic, pro-Palestinian, animal-rights-activist art director. “I can’t believe you’re even considering it,” she said “Why don’t you just cut off his finger or slice off his nose? Stab him—knife him—for God” … I was beginning to feel a bit like a foreskin myself. “Why don’t you just punch him in the face?” she suggested”… Wait eight days, invite the family over, put out some wine and kugel, and just punch him in the fucking face.
Here's a history of circumcision and how it is genital mutilation and does decrease sexual pleasure for men and women.
Quote:
The idea of separating the prepuce from the penis is older than the Old Testament. The first depiction of the procedure exists on the walls of an Egyptian tomb built in 2400 B.C.—a relief complete with hieroglyphics that read, “Hold him and do not allow him to faint.” The notion appears to have occurred to several disparate cultures, for reasons unknown. “It is far easier to imagine the impulse behind Neolithic cave painting than to guess what inspired the ancients to cut their genitals,” writes David L. Gollaher in his definitive tome Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery. One theory suggests that the ritual’s original goal was to simply draw blood from the sexual organ—to serve as the male equivalent of menstruation, in other words, and thus a rite of passage into adulthood. The Jews took their enslavers’ practice and turned it into a sign of their own covenant with God; 2,000 years later, Muslims followed suit.
Medical concerns didn’t enter the picture until the late-nineteenth century, when science began competing with religious belief. Before long, surgeons were using circumcision to treat all manner of ailments.
There was another, half-hidden appeal to the procedure. Ever since the twelfth-century Jewish scholar and physician Maimonides, doctors realized that circumcision dulls the sensation in the glans, supposedly discouraging promiscuity. The idea was especially attractive to the Victorians, famously obsessed with the perils of masturbation. From therapeutic circumcision as a cure for insomnia there was only a short step toward circumcision as a way to dull the “out of control” libido.
In the thirties, another argument for routine circumcision presented itself. Research suggested a link between circumcision and reduced risk of penile and cervical cancer. In addition to the obvious health implications, the finding strengthened the idea of the foreskin as unclean. On par with deodorant and a daily shower, circumcision became a means of assimilating the immigrant and urbanizing the country bumpkin—a civilizing cut. And so at the century’s midpoint, just as the rest of the English-speaking world began souring on the practice (the British National Health Service stopped covering it in 1949), the U.S. settled into its status as the planet’s one bastion of routine neonatal circumcision—second only to Israel.
“The first time I saw an uncircumcised penis, I was turned off by it. I was young, like 21. It didn’t look like it was clean. It’s totally different with my husband. The first guy had a lot of foreskin— even with an erection it was still hooded— whereas my husband is never hooded. The skin moves. I didn’t even know he was uncut until he told me. There are varying degrees of foreskin, I now realize.”
— 32-year-old woman, married to an uncut Englishman
“Oral sex is more interesting with uncircumcised. There’s just more there; you get to engage with it. Every other girl I’ve talked to about it said she thought uncut penises were gross, but to me it’s just a little turtleneck. What’s the big deal?”
— 28-year-old single woman
“The first time I saw an uncircumcised penis, I was 21. It was my first trip to Europe alone, and I hooked up with a French guy for a week. I was fascinated by it, because I didn’t have the same equipment. It’s fetishized in the gay community, I think, for that reason. You want what you don’t have. I also feel like uncircumcised men have more intense orgasms than I have.”
— 42-year-old circumcised gay man
“My husband, who is circumcised, is impossible to get off. Like, impossible! The only other person I have been with wasn’t circumcised. To get him aroused, I could just take the outer casing and peel it back, and I could tell by his face that the feeling was like, holy shit, that is good. You never get that with circumcised.”
—32-year-old married woman
LILAC COLORED GLASSES
Ooh, and here's the best part. Okay, girls who have done it with a cut penis, hopefully you know what I mean…you know right when the penis is going in, there's almost like, a sharp sensation? Not, like, ouch, knife sharp but more like…like how an orange must feel when you stick a wooden juicer into the middle of it? Well when the penis has foreskin, that sensation isn't there. Entry feels a lot smoother and to me that's much more enjoyable.
And you know that drop of pre-ejaculate (pre cum in laymen's terms)? Well when I was with circumcized guys that was kind of like "ew, wipe it off" but with foreskin that drop of fluid is preserved and serves as a lubricant for the man. Know what that means? No rawness or chafing after repeated intercourse! Hooray!!
- a 26-year-old from Pittsburgh living in Belgium
THE JOYS OF THE UNCIRCUMCISED PENIS
I have never been with anyone who was uncircumcised until I met my new boyfriend, and it's amazing. The extra skin is like having an extra ridge there. When I have children, I won't have the boys circumcised, because I want their wives to be very happy. It's almost like he has a cock ring on. You know those condoms that have the big ridges on them? Well, that's what it's like. Besides, a dick is a dick. It just looks a little different. And my boyfriend's is the perfect size. You usually don't remember how big men's dick's are, but you remember the really small ones. Girth matters and size and length matter. Basically, I have to have a perfect dick. And now I've got the length and the girth and a bonus I didn't even know existed.
- Heidi Mark, Playboy's Miss July, 1995
The foreskin is my go-to guy when I'm lazy during BJ or handjobs! It's the dick that strokes itself!
- dictaste on Dodson and Ross, April 8, 2010
I have two sons under three. Their father is cut, but I persuaded him not to circumcise them. A previous longtime boyfriend had been uncircumcised, and as a woman with a narrow vaginal opening, the sex with him, which had often been painful with others even with lubricant, was much easier and kinder on my body. (After giving birth, this was no longer an issue :) ..
- newtrack on the Chronicle of Highr Education, June 23, 2010
... someone who was probably done at birth, ... and who has absolutely no idea what it's like to have a foreskin. Or indeed any idea of what it's like from a woman's point of view to put up with a circumcised man pounding away for what seems like hours, getting more and more sore. I've only got a sample of two to go by, but the experience with those two men was fundamentally different to those where the men had all their equipment.
Sunday1Morning in the Independent, May 7, 2011
our public health system is taxpayer funded.... but the hospitals are run for profit.... and they will do operations that lessen the cost to the hospitals and that is their primary concern, not patient care, health and wellbeingQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
liability insurance does not exist, as you can not sue the hospitals, they will not touch you surgically unless you sign a waiver exempting them from any wrong doing in the event that they fuck up.
I am not in the US, I am in NZ... its a totally different system and setup
I had to sign a waiver in front of my father while he was laying dying on a hospital bed, cos I was told, I do not sign, they will send him home, but even if i signed the waiver, there was no surgeon in the hospital that had even done the op he needed, so they were going to be reading the instructions from a book as they operated.....
I signed, he survived...
most breast and cervix cancer treatments, breast reduction and obesity ( stomach stapling ) are partly funded .... and cost is always stated to be a deciding factor by the health service and commission ( in the lower north island, about 200 people are deemed to be in urgent need of obesity surgery, 8 operations a year are funded ) and now people are flying over to china for the surgery they need in NZ.....
a full breast removal for a patient with a family history of breast cancer, yet no signs of cancer themself, is fully funded.... cos its cheaper to do that, than ongoing cancer treatments...
recently there was a nationwide campaign over the fact that only a few months of a near year long cancer treatment, was subsidised, even tho it was stated by the company that produced the treatment that the full course had to be used in order to work
currently, it is perferable that if you are a mother having a child, you are in and out on the same day, with the max stay being 3 days and that you recover at home and monitor your own home.....
if you are elderly, and terminal, its perfered that you go die at home, rather than in a hospice recieving care in your last days.....
I can get a vasectomy from my doctor in his private practice, but not at the local hospital
the rescue / emergency transport helicopters are used by the hospitals regularly, but the helicopters are funded primarily by donations from the public and ringing a ambulance will cost you $75 even if its a life and death emergency...
remember darkside, this is NZ, the land where people have equal rights and discrimination is illegal, the LGBT can marry etc etc.... one of the highest rated countries for respecting human rights and the treatment of people, in the world.......
as dd can tell you, a few years ago, I broke my arm and tore up the muscles in my shoulder, requiring surgery, I had to sit at home and wait for about a week before i got the surgery..... and legally I could not do a dammed thing about it.......
Yet another interesting site for prospective parents, this time from Australia:-
http://www.circinfo.org/parents.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDD.
Any lawyer can tell you an agreement or contract signed under duress is not legally valid. Consider this, if you cannot legally sue the hospitals in New Zealand, why would they need you to sign the waiver, it would be superfluous?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
I may be wrong, but I think I have been in more male locker/shower rooms than you have, so I think, of the two of us, I might have the more realistic perspective of what goes on in there. I did detail my experiences in a previous post, which you either did not read, believe or agree with. That is your choice.
As to all the reasons I have heard put forward in favour of circumcision, that was indeed the worst. Children tease each other on all manner of things, obesity, ginger hair, small penis. It is transitory and they get over it.
One wouldn't expect the Mother of a child with ginger hair to shave his head, just in case he was teased about it, so why would anyone expect a Mother to have her child put through an operation on the remote possibility that he would be teased about his foreskin?
School children spend only a fraction of their school life, naked in the shower in front of their peers anyway.
The wish to fit in might be very powerful to some, but it is no basis for putting an infant child through the trauma of an unnecessary operation. Children have died and still die each year following this operation, if any of your sons had been among those fatalities, would you still feel the same way?
If someone told you what to do with your body, you would would quite rightly tell them, it is your body, your decision.
If a woman has a right to have an abortion on the basis that it is her body, her right to choose, irrespective of what the Father might think, why is it somehow less important to let your son choose what he wants to do with his body?
Long before he reaches an age of informed consent and realises the importance and function that part of his anatomy will have in his life, you have removed that choice from him. His body, your choice. When it should be his body HIS choice.
At least when he asks why, you'll have an answer for him. You wanted him to fit in.
A hundred years ago, no one in your country imagined having a black man as President, just a few years ago they asked, 'Well why not have a black President?' Cultural attitudes change.
It has not always been the case that children in your country were routinely circumcised, it is a hang-over from Victorian times. Victorian pre-conceptions belong back in Victorian times, the World has moved on.
There is a wealth of information out there, detailing the harm, the risks and trauma this operation exposes an unsuspecting infant to. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself.
I found this interesting and thought about it and discussed it with several of women and girls at work because mine is the not the only experience. We came up with much the same conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey3000
None of us have ever found any discernable difference in sexual longevity between the circumcised and uncircumcised. The difference is not longevity but in the experience and feel of one over the other.
All of our experiences have been most commonly with uncircumcised men because that is the majority penile availability, but that is not all of our preference. But it has not been the exclusive experience of any of us.
In general I do agree with your assessment Katja, but must say two of the longest performances I have ever had were by two cut guys.
One who was quite amazing, but the other went and an on without pause and it became so tedious. You will know the type I expect. A bit too much to drink and it is monotonous and just never ends and you pray for the guy to be beamed up. I had to chuck him off in the end because I like more than just to be humped by a 14 stone lump who was concentrating on his own cum and didnt really give much care to mine.
I don't think he was enjoying it either tbh but was going at it because he felt he had to and wasnt going to give up out of pride and vanity.
its the way the law works in NZ, its all up to shit.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
I am not sure about the US, I believe that you can give consent, yet the hosital can be held legally liable but over here its very different
the medical waiver is on the same document that you sign, giving permission for the operation to proceed, so if you do not sign it, you are stating that you do not wish to have the operation...
you are consenting to a operation and exempting the doctors, nurses and hospital of any wrong doing, because you agreed to the operation, knowing the risks you face, so they are not liable
they can be held accountable if they are examining you and preforming tests and you die... but that becomes a police matter and the doctors can be charged with manslaughter, as their actions or failure to diagnosis you, may have resulted in you dieing while under their care, cos you have not signed any documents exempting them......
its human rights and right of consent gone wrong..... you may have the right to expect medical treatment but the hospital and the doctors have the right to decline it unless they are satisified that you know and accept all the risks and the responsibility for your own actions in consenting to surgery and that you will not hold them liable.......
its the trouble with human rights, it can go both ways and that is why a lot of NZ'ers are not happy, they demanded their rights and got them, and so did everybody else
I'm an intact American man who has a foreskin and I've been in lots of men's locker rooms where I was the only man who had a foreskin.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
Nobody both male friends and peers, or total strangers has treated me like a freak or did anything like you described since I have a foreskin and I'm not cut.
Even when I was younger and in school it was not a big deal.
Thanks for that link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
In Australia today circumcision of baby boys is rare, and the uncut penis is the normal thing among young people, but many parents are still anxious about the subject. Because Australia has a past history of widespread circumcision, they may be unfamiliar with the normal penis and worried that they will not know how to look after it. They may also have been alarmed by reports in the media about the risks to health supposedly caused by the foreskin, or they may have heard stories from relatives or friends that the normal penis is somehow difficult to look after or prone to problems.
This page aims to answer questions commonly asked by parents who are considering whether to circumcise their baby boy and to reassure them that all these fears are groundless. Boys are exactly right the way nature made them.
Circumcision: Frequently asked questions
Introduction
Parents want to make the best decision for the health of their children, but not all Australian state health departments and medical bodies are equally forthcoming with information for parents on the risks of circumcision and care of the normal (intact) penis.
What is male circumcision?
The word circumcision means “to cut around”. In male infants, circumcision is a surgical operation which involves tearing the foreskin* away from the glans (head) of the penis, clamping it and cutting it off. There are several techniques in use, including one (Plastibel) that is intended to slowly strangle the foreskin, but they all involve cutting, blood and removal of sensitive tissue. The skin of the penis is a complex movable sheath with no clear indication of where it should be cut during a circumcision. This means that the amount of foreskin removed from one operation to the next can be very different, and no two circumcisions are the same.
Does any medical organisation recommend circumcision of boys?
No medical organisation anywhere in the world recommends routine circumcision of boys. Many organisations state that there is no medical indication for routine circumcision, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, and the American Academy of Paediatrics.
Is circumcision less painful for a baby than for an adult?
Infants experience excruciating pain during circumcision and for weeks afterwards, and they can show behavioural changes such as frequent crying, avoidance of physical contact, reluctance to breast-feed, and sleep disturbance. Local anaesthetic creams such as EMLA are not adequate, and a general anaesthetic poses a significant risk for infants under the age of six months. Circumcision in adulthood is less risky and painful, since men can undergo general anaesthesia and receive pain relief during the post-operative period.
Isn’t circumcision just a “tiny snip” with no risks?
The risks of circumcision include bleeding, infection, damage to the glans and frenulum**, excessive skin removal, scarring, loss of penis, and even death. Infant circumcision carries more risks than adult circumcision, as a baby’s penis is very small and difficult to operate on, and more penile skin is removed than in adults. Excessive tissue removal is a common problem, and this can cause painful erections and even restrict the growth of the penis at puberty.
Will a boy feel upset if he looks different to Dad?
All penises are different, just like noses. Boys don’t have plastic surgery so that their noses look like their fathers’, so why would a baby need his penis to look the same? Different doctors perform circumcision differently, and some remove a lot of skin while others remove only a little. This means the chance of a circumcised boy looking exactly like his father is very slight. A boy is far more likely to be upset if he is circumcised and his father is not.
Is circumcision necessary to prevent UTIs in infants?
Some research suggests that circumcised infants may have a lower incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs). Approximately 0.188 per cent of circumcised infants and 0.702 per cent of intact infants develop a UTI. This difference is too slight to matter, and female infants have a far higher incidence of UTIs than circumcised or intact boys (5 per cent). Mothers will be happy to know that immediate breastfeeding protects male and female infants from such infections. If a UTI does occur, the most conservative treatment is with antibiotics and more rigorous follow-up in rare cases of recurrent infections. Chronic UTIs are often the result of abnormalities in the urethra or bladder which will usually require internal surgery.
Should a boy’s foreskin be retracted everyday for cleaning with soap and water?
The foreskin* of most newborn boys is stuck to the glans and cannot be retracted. Forcible retraction can result in tearing, scarring and infection, with the result that circumcision may become medically necessary because of the consequent damage. A boy will retract his foreskin when he is ready to do so, and it is normal for this to happen any time between the ages of 3 and mid-teens. After the foreskin has become retractable boys either know instinctively or can be shown how to gently retract and wash underneath it with water. Diluted soap can help with cleaning, but it must be thoroughly rinsed away so as to avoid irritation of the foreskin’s sensitive inner surface. Too much soap can cause skin problems, such as eczema, that used to be blamed on the foreskin.
Are most men in the world circumcised?
Only about 20 per cent of men worldwide are circumcised. Most men (80 per cent) are not circumcised, including the vast majority in Britain, Europe, non-Moslem Asia, and South America. Circumcised men are a minority confined to the Middle East, some African tribes, Islamic regions of Asia, and the USA. The number of circumcised men in Australia and Canada is in steady decline.
Do women prefer circumcised partners?
There is no firm evidence that women have any preference on this question. Women in countries where circumcision is common sometimes state a preference for circumcised partners because this is what they are accustomed to; in countries where circumcision is unknown or rare, women are more likely to state a preference for uncircumcised men. This effect of cultural conditioning should not legitimise the practice. Many women also report smoother intercourse and greater sexual satisfaction with intact partners compared to circumcised partners (1). Most women are far more interested in whether their partner is loving and kind.
Does circumcision affect a man’s sexual function and pleasure?
Circumcision removes complex tissue containing thousands of highly specialised fine touch receptors and nerve fibres. The loss of sexual sensitivity and function is proportional to the amount of foreskin removed; a tight circumcision that prevents movement of the foreskin during intercourse and other sexual activity is particularly damaging. Men circumcised as infants may be unaware of this, but many men circumcised as adults report a definite loss of feeling and functionality.
Is circumcision necessary to prevent penile or cervical cancer?
The principal risk factors for penile and cervical cancer are cigarette smoking and exposure to various strains of the human papilloma or wart virus (HPV), through unprotected sex with multiple partners. Cancer of the penis is an extremely rare disease with less than 1 case per 100,000 men and a median age of diagnosis of 64 years. Circumcised men do develop penile cancer, which can develop on the circumcision scar. Among men, cancer of the breast and of the testicles is more common than cancer of the penis, yet nobody recommends precautionary amputation of those body parts. Cervical cancer in women can now be prevented by a vaccine.
Is circumcision necessary to prevent HIV-AIDS and other STDs?
Although many studies have claimed that circumcision can reduce an adult male’s risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), there is no convincing proof that the incidence of STD infection differs significantly between cut and uncut men. Studies that claim otherwise are usually done in poor and under-developed countries and do not take into account personal hygiene, complex social customs, education level, medical services, traditional sexual practices, and genetic factors in susceptibility to disease. Similar studies in industrialised nations, such as Australia, find that circumcision does not reduce the risk of STD transmission. There is, however, evidence that circumcision increases the risk of some STDs.
Studies in Africa suggest that circumcision does reduce the risk of infection with AIDS as a result of unprotected heterosexual intercourse. These studies are not relevant to Australia, where AIDS is not a heterosexual epidemic (as in Africa) but a relatively rare disease confined to specific sub-cultures (homosexual men and intravenous drug users). The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations has stated that circumcision has no role to play in the control of AIDS in Australia.
Apart from all this, reducing the risk of STDs could never be a justification for circumcising infants or children, since they are not sexually active and thus not at risk. Sexual promiscuity and failure to practise safe sex are far more serious risk factors for STDs than normal anatomy.
What about phimosis and paraphimosis?
Phimosis means a foreskin that cannot be fully drawn back to uncover the glans. Nearly all infants and young boys have phimosis, which is the normal condition of the infant and juvenile penis. The foreskin usually becomes retractable over time, and action is needed only if the boy is experiencing discomfort or pain. If phimosis persists it can usually be cured by application of steroid cream.
Paraphimosis refers to a condition where the foreskin has been retracted but has become stuck behind the glans and cannot be pulled forward again. The problem can usually be fixed with cold water and gentle compression, but in rare cases, where the foreskin is very tight, urgent medical attention is required.
Does circumcision make the penis grow bigger?
No. There is no evidence that circumcision makes the penis grow bigger. Logically, if you cut the end off something it must get smaller. One Australian survey actually found that circumcised men had shorter erect penises than men with uncircumcised penises.
I have reread the thread all over again.... and I have noticed that mikey posted a study where adult circumcised males has mentioned not having the lack of feeling claimed by the anti circumcision crew...
I am curious, do the anti circumcision crew only have pages and pages of experts that say that you lose feeling.... and fuck all of studies that involve a large group of adult circumcised males that report a clear loss of feeling.....
and the only rebuttal to mikey's study, is that it was a hiv /aids study, therefore the feedback from adult circumcised males is not valid
the other thing I am still waiting to see, is a valid argument on why it is ok to remove the choice of circumcision for people.... if you remove circumcision as a option for people, you remove the right of choice as well.....
I do wish you would get it right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Not one person is anti circumcision let me make that quite plain once and for all. The debate is not about circumcision or its wisdom.
The debate is about infant circumcision and whether parents have a right to decide for the child whether or not he retains his healthy foreskin, or whether once old enough and able to decide for himself after being given the relevant information to help him make up his own mind, that decision is his.
Not one person on what you call the anti circumcision people wishes to see the option ever being removed from those who want it for themselves. That is their decision.
What we are arguing is that unless there is considered to be an immediate medical need, parents do not have the right to decide for their child whether or not he retains a part of his body which is not superfluous, is meant to be there, and subjects that child to physical and psychologal trauma which is unnecessary on the basis that at some indeterminate time in their future life, they may by retaining that body part damage it or pick up some disease or they may not be hygienic in its care. On that basis almost any body part you care to mention should be removed at birth, our skin flayed and teeth removed as they appear.
In addition, we would lock ourselves away in a padded box with its own purified air supply to prevent catching infections, airborne viruses and broken bones.
tell that to bluebiyou .... as his remarks to people about circumcision make it very clear his stance..... and if he is not anti circumcision and people that do it.... then calling people child molestors etc etc must be terms of endearment....
circumcision is circumcision, if you are against it for children but ok with it for adults, then a person is being a hypocrite, if they are saying how wrong circumcision is.
the fact that circumcision is being labled as mutilation, is not saying that they are anti infant circumcision
Bluebiyou will speak for himself I have no doubt. I am not sure if you are correct that he is saying it is wrong for adults. It is their decision much as it is for a person to have a boob reduction or many other kinds of precautionary or cosmetic surgery. People are unhappy with many parts of their body and some do surgically change them, and others worry about disease and elect to have the perceived threat removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
I am not saying adult circumcision is necessarily cosmetic, but no doubt some men must I would think have such an operation for cosmetic reasons, but mostly it will be because they are concerned and convinced by the health and hygeine arguments, and possibly even what sexual pleasure improvements they feel they can gain.
Should a person opt for circumcision for themselves for cosmetic reasons or any other reason it can easily be argued that it is a form of self induced mutilation, but few would consider it such. In the case of an infant or a child whose parents elect to take that decision on his behalf then that becomes involuntary circumcision and immediately falls into the category of mutilation. If someone decided to remove any healthy body part without you being allowed to make that decision for yourself, would you not consider yourself mutilated?
The accusation of child molester is a very emotive one and in the context of this discussion is one which should not be bandied about lightly. It is a pity it was ever raised and is not one I would ever use.
However, if I was an African woman and had been circumcised without my agreement I would certainly consider myself at the very least molested and certainly mutilated. So we should not be surprised if at least some of those who have had circumcisions of a healthy foreskin as a young child feel that way.
British paediatricians and other medical practicioners are debating among themselves right now whether or not this is the case and whether it is an infringement of the legal rights of the child and an assault on their person.