Register
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 267

Thread: circumcision

  1. #61

    Re: circumcision

    An interesting fact is that there is very little difference between female circumcision Types I and II (which are the large majority of female circumcision) and male circumcision.

    Both remove ~80% of the nerve endings of the genitals, both are practiced on non-consenting children, and both are done for religious/cultural reasons.

    The strongest advocates of female circumcisions in countries where it is practiced? ...Are in fact women. They do it for the same reasons that men circumcise their boys in the West ("it looks better", "it's cleaner", "it was done to me", "your private parts will look just like your mother's or other female relatives", "that's what we've always done to all girls in our family", "it prevents disease", "it's our religion", "it's our culture")

    The only reason female circumcision is considered "worse" is because the majority of it is practiced in unsanitary conditions (as is, coincidentally, the male circumcisions practiced in these countries). But in Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia, female genital mutilation is done in a sterile and modern hospital, just like male genital mutilation is done here.

    It all just comes down to culture, but in the end, both female and male genital mutilation (FGM/MGM) are both wrong, and both are mutilation because the unfortunate person who has them performed on them has no choice in the matter of having his or her genitals mutilated.

    Also there are people who are born intersexed or what used to be called a hermaphrodite and many of these people they too have had their genitals mutilated or were assigned one gender by a doctor or surgeon when it was not their choice, and they wind up having the genitals or sex organs of both genders but identify as both or one or the other.

    There's also the case of the boy in Canada who was cut and his penis was severed, and he was raised as a "girl" and then later once he found out what had happened he killed himself.

  2. #62

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by chtampa View Post
    Doctors get paid for this? I thought they just did it for "tips".
    The foreskin is not a "tip" or anything like that like some Americans believe.

    The foreskin comprises roughly one-third to one-half of the penile skin. On an intact adult, the foreskin is approximately fifteen square inches of tissue (about the size of an index card). It is not "a tip or flap of skin" but a substantial portion of the penis which comprises the most sensitive parts of the penis. It has multiple functions--both protective and sexual including increased sexual pleasure both for the man and his sexual partners either male or female--that are destroyed upon its amputation or the involuntary genital mutilation of the penis A.K.A. circumcision.

    <font color="#1A1A1A"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">

    Infant circumcision means: He'll lose 50 to 80 percent of the erogenous nerve endings contained in the penis. The only moving part of the penis itself, is removed, completely changing the natural mechanics of sex. The penis is naturally an internal organ, much like the female vulva, circumcision renders it an external organ to callous and desensitize over time. In adulthood, he'll likely have scrotal and pubic skin covering part of his erection because the highly specialized, most innervated part of the male body that naturally accommodates for the erection has been amputated and his penis has been mutilated without his consent.

    Why does this pointless and barbaric stone age ritual still go on?
    Last edited by pole_smoker; Sep 25, 2014 at 12:02 AM.

  3. #63

    Re: circumcision

    Just a harmless snip?

    100+ circumcision deaths each year in United States

    Each year in the United States more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications. This is the alarming conclusion of a study, published in the journal Thymos, which examined hospital discharge and mortality statistics in order to answer two questions: (1) How many baby boys dies as a result of circumcision in the neonatal period (within 28 days of birth)? (2) Why are so few of these deaths officially recorded as due to circumcision?
    The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. This compares with 44 neonatal deaths from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, all of which losses have aroused deep concern among child health authorities and stimulated special programs to reduce mortality. (Remember those red noses?) Why, the study asks, has the even greater number of deaths from circumcision not aroused the same response?
    Part of the answer lies in the fact that most circumcision-related deaths are not officially as recorded as due to circumcision at all, but to the immediate cause, most commonly stroke, bleeding, infection or reactions to anaesthesia. Medical statistics are thus at fault in that they do not give the true cause of death at all. Previous studies have given wildly varying estimates the death toll from circumcision. In 1949 paediatrician Douglas Gairdner found that sixteen British boys died each year, while more recent estimates range from a low of two boys per year to a high of as many as 230. Some textbooks and most circumcision promoters claim that there have never been any deaths from circumcision in a modern clinical context (whatever may happen in the insanitary conditions of the Third World). For his study Bollinger collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of the problem.
    But another part of the answer lies in the unique place that circumcision occupies in American medical culture, as an entrenched cosmetic ritual that many parents feel they have to submit their baby boys to, and as a lucrative sideline that doctors are reluctant to abandon. American obstetricians can’t seem to rid themselves of the notion that circumcision of boys is somehow an integral part of childbirth. The study points out that “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” It further points out that because circumcision is a completely unnecessary operation, all these deaths are easily avoidable, and thus characterises the annual loss as neither a beneficial surgery nor a beneficent rite of passage, but as “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”
    Because circumcision is unnecessary surgery (there being no pathology to treat in a normal male baby), the old calculus of surgical risk vs benefit is not nearly enough. “Risk assessment for an unnecessary surgery must be held to a higher standard than that for a life-saving surgery. We accept that a heart transplant carries with it a substantial risk of death, but without it there is a certainty of death. On the other hand, the risk from circumcision, which has no therapeutic value, needs to be zero for the infant’s sake, all the moreso because he is never consulted about whether he wishes to take his chances.”
    Bollinger argues that the scale of the problem remains unrecognised because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and unwillingness on the part of the doctors who performed the surgery or the hospitals where it took place to admit responsibility, or even to acknowledge that circumcision is a surgical operation which, like all surgery, carries real risks. Too often they have tried to blame incorrect care on the part of parents, or even the peculiarities of the boy himself. As well as analysing the figures, the study runs through some of the few prominent instances where circumcision was recognised as the true cause of death, including the Ryleigh McWillis case in Canada, and several United States deaths that somehow made it into the news.
    Some of these make chilling reading, as these excerpts from the article show:
    The first known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, where circumcision was introduced. The first was Julius Katzenstein in 1856 and the second was one-week-old Myer Jacob Levy in 1858. Both boys were circumcised by a Dr. Abrahams, and the same coroner reviewed both deaths. The coroner found that Abrahams had performed the surgeries properly, and that the boys died from blood loss as a result of parental neglect. Neither boy had received a follow-up examination.
    Allen Ervin, born 1985, was in a coma for more than six years before he died. He had been on life support after his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during his circumcision. Demetrius Manker was born in 1993 and died soon thereafter from blood loss. The coroner’s examination found a large, gaping wound on the underside of the boy’s penis extending almost to the scrotum. The coroner listed cause of death as blood loss due to penile circumcision; however, there is no mention of further action being taken. A West Virginia child, whose name was withheld, was born in 1996 without incident and circumcised prior to hospital release. A few days later, the parents rushed him to the emergency room because he was having seizures and his penis had turned green in color. He died the next day from septicemia.
    Because the penis is highly vascularized, blood-loss is a risk even for boys circumcised past the neonatal period. In 2008, a 6-week-old Native American, Eric Keefe, died from massive blood loss. Hospital officials claimed that his circumcision was not to blame, but instead faulted the parents because they had administered over-the-counter pain medication that, they also claimed, thinned his blood.
    Death sometimes occurs following repair of a circumcision complication. Dustin Evans Jr., was circumcised soon after being born in 1998. The surgeon took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a tight “collar” around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was later given an anesthetic in order to repair the damage, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest. His father lamented, “You think, ‘What could go wrong with a circumcision?’ The next thing I know, he’s dead.”
    To stop killing boys, stop circumcising them

    The solution to the problem, Bollinger suggests, does not lie in improving surgical techniques or giving operator better training. “The problem is this: circumcision is a killer of baby boys. No one, except for some human-rights activists, is trying to save them. It is unlikely that improving circumcision techniques would eliminate these deaths. No matter how skilled the physician is, some deaths will always occur.” The only effective way to eliminate this death toll and save these boys is to admit that circumcision is unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery and stop performing it on neonates and minors. This would give all boys the chance to decide for themselves whether they wish to be circumcised, and (if they do) would allow them to choose it for themselves as adults, when the surgical risks are so much less severe.

    Source: Dan Bollinger, Lost boys: An estimate of U.S. circumcision-related infant deaths, THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90.

  4. #64

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by jem_is_bi View Post
    I agree with that. I am cut and don't regret it and my long time partner is uncut that is great too.
    You will find a large number of men are extremely unhappy with the choice that was made for them without their consent too.


    You will also find that most African, Middle Eastern, and Malaysian women who suffered FGM were mutilated by their female family members for whom
    FGM was normalised, and they were happy with it.

    The girls who had this happen have then said things, or were told things like:
    "That's what women's genitals should like", "sex will be more pleasurable for you", "Now you look like your mother or other female relatives", "now your vagina looks like all the other womens does in this country", "now your genitals won't be considered dirty or unclean", "it prevents HIV and other STDs", "your genitals are now more hygienic", "now men will want you more sexually", "your genitals now look beautiful/aesthetically neat", "it's ok, you can still have children" etc etc etc. Revolting stuff really, and yes both FGM and MGM are just as bad as each other.


    Victims of abuse often normalise their abuse. But we've seen the exact same thing happen with male genital mutilation or circumcision.

  5. #65

    Re: circumcision

    Your next step, which is a bit more proactive than cut and pasting other quotes, would be to start mass producing magnetic skin colored loops that say "Save The Foreskin". Sell all you can and then donate the money to Washington Lobbyists to pass a federal law against it. Now is your chance to truly make a difference.

  6. #66

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by pole_smoker View Post
    An interesting fact is that there is very little difference between female circumcision Types I and II (which are the large majority of female circumcision) and male circumcision.

    Both remove ~80% of the nerve endings of the genitals, both are practiced on non-consenting children, and both are done for religious/cultural reasons.

    The strongest advocates of female circumcisions in countries where it is practiced? ...Are in fact women. They do it for the same reasons that men circumcise their boys in the West ("it looks better", "it's cleaner", "it was done to me", "your private parts will look just like your mother's or other female relatives", "that's what we've always done to all girls in our family", "it prevents disease", "it's our religion", "it's our culture")

    The only reason female circumcision is considered "worse" is because the majority of it is practiced in unsanitary conditions (as is, coincidentally, the male circumcisions practiced in these countries). But in Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia, female genital mutilation is done in a sterile and modern hospital, just like male genital mutilation is done here.

    It all just comes down to culture, but in the end, both female and male genital mutilation (FGM/MGM) are both wrong, and both are mutilation because the unfortunate person who has them performed on them has no choice in the matter of having his or her genitals mutilated.

    Also there are people who are born intersexed or what used to be called a hermaphrodite and many of these people they too have had their genitals mutilated or were assigned one gender by a doctor or surgeon when it was not their choice, and they wind up having the genitals or sex organs of both genders but identify as both or one or the other.

    There's also the case of the boy in Canada who was cut and his penis was severed, and he was raised as a "girl" and then later once he found out what had happened he killed himself.
    This makes a lot of sense when you think about how genitals are formed in the womb in the first place. For instance at the time the baby begins to form the genital sections, there is that genetic code that seperates that spot between our legs to determine if it is a boy or a girl. The scrotal tissue of a boy (if it is to be a girl) seperates starting to form the lips of the vagina and do much more. I think of it as the same type of tissue in areas, just shaped differently. More to it than that of course but the long and short of it

  7. #67

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by JUSTLUVIN View Post
    This makes a lot of sense when you think about how genitals are formed in the womb in the first place. For instance at the time the baby begins to form the genital sections, there is that genetic code that seperates that spot between our legs to determine if it is a boy or a girl. The scrotal tissue of a boy (if it is to be a girl) seperates starting to form the lips of the vagina and do much more. I think of it as the same type of tissue in areas, just shaped differently. More to it than that of course but the long and short of it
    Yes that is true that in the womb the fetus or baby has a stage where both the genitals of either gender are the same.

    Either way circumcision of both genders is nothing but a mutilation of the genitals that they are not asking for.

  8. #68

    Re: circumcision

    NPR had a story this afternoon about how Female Gential Mutilation is gaining a lot of focus in Britain and apparently public support is primarily against it. I do find it an interesting double standard..then again as far as I know a lot of blokes in Europe aren't circumsized to start with so that's probably not a concern on the public radar.

    I get what you are saying, I really do - it's just a sore (literally) topic for a lot of folks.. As much as it would be nice to be "natural" I can't fault my parents for it but if I have my own son I don't think I would circumcize him. I don't know if that would lead to some awkwardness after gym class or not.

    Yes, I have often thought about the idea that the genetic variation in the external genitals not being that different, one chromosome between male and female. Heck if you look at the right porn videos you can even see some ladies with extraordinarily large clitoris; one guy seemed to be having a heap of fun giving his female friend a "blow job" while he pleasured himself..

  9. #69

    Re: circumcision

    First,God created man, then woman, then temptation,then confusion

  10. #70

    Re: circumcision

    Here's one I saw from collegehumor..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

  11. #71

    Re: circumcision

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...nts&ir=Parents

    I'm a bit depressed. Our midwife gave me a book about circumcision. I've started the book and can't put it down. I'm not sure that I'll ever fully recover.
    The book tells me that the foreskin is like an eyelid protecting the sensitive mucous membrane underneath. Circumcision removes this protective skin, so the skin underneath keratinizes, meaning it hardens and desensitizes, like a callus. Therefore, the book posits, circumcision removes length and girth from the penis and decreases enjoyment of sex.
    You do not say these things to a man. I'm trying to climb out of the hole. I tell myself that most men in the United States are circumcised, so it's a level playing field. It just means that uncircumcised men are heroes and that we are at a disadvantage when we leave the country.
    Now, keep in mind that whether or not sex is less pleasurable without a foreskin is, of course, very difficult to test. Nobody is lining up for a double-blind controlled study: Have sex. Rate it on a scale from 1 to 10. Then lose the foreskin, heal, have sex again with the same partner, and rate it again from 1 to 10. Any takers?
    So it's difficult to test the reduced-pleasure hypothesis. And people don't talk about it much, so we don't gather much anecdotal evidence, either. Unless you are a professional sex worker or my friend Adeline, you probably rarely talk about sex, especially the specifics. I don't even know which of my friends have a foreskin and which don't. Maybe I'll ask the question on Facebook: "Share or Like if you have a foreskin."
    We all know about circumcision's Jewish roots in the covenant between God and Abraham, but whom do we have to thank for the mass popularization of circumcision? When did it cross the gentile line? In Victorian England, of course. Yes, the same folks who made sex and farting socially unacceptable. Will Ferrell and Judd Apatow owe Queen Victoria big-time. What if nudity, masturbation, and farting weren't funny?
    In the 1800s, germ theory was gaining attention and people believed circumcision could fight the ultimate germ demon, smegma. Sounds like a Batman villain. They incorrectly believed smegma to be a breeding ground of bacteria. This is hogwash. Smegma is actually found in most animal genitalia and, in fact, serves to clean and lubricate the genitals, moistening the sensitive mucous membrane between the foreskin and the penis. The word smegma itself is Greek for soap.
    Circumcision was the new snake oil. It was touted to prevent or cure syphilis, epilepsy, hernia, headache, clubfoot, alcoholism, gout, and, god forbid, masturbation! As I read older parenting books, I am absolutely astonished at how often people bring up masturbation. They were obsessed. "We must stop this epidemic!" I suppose things have changed. Just last night I watched Seth Rogen masturbate right on screen at the cinema.
    Lots of folks, these days, defer the decision of whether or not to circumcise to the thinking of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Seems sensible. But the AAP is about as reliable on the matter as Steve Martin's Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. The AAP has flip-flopped its position at least four times. In 1971 the academy officially concluded that it was not a medical necessity. In 1989 they announced that there were good medical reasons for it. In 1999 they were neutral, stating in a report that the health benefits of the procedure were slim. And most recently, in 2012, the AAP changed their official stance, saying that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
    One of the founders of the American Medical Association, Lewis Sayre, in the late 1800s started recommending circumcision to cure paralysis and gross motor problems. He believed that a tight foreskin threw off the nervous system. "Hmm, this patient is paralyzed. Must be a tight penis."
    All this is another perfect example of why we must, in parenting as in life, gather data, but ultimately stay grounded and follow our own hearts and intuition.

    In the end, my wife and I chose not to circumcise. People ask me, "What will you tell your son when he asks why his penis is different from yours?" I don't understand this concern. Why must his penis match mine? Our hair color is different. We have different noses and his teeth are better than mine. Should he get braces and a retainer to mimic my overbite?

  12. #72

    Re: circumcision

    Your child is your child, and you love them for who they are.

    I am amazed at the sense of trauma or violation people feel over this issue..if you truly feel that way I am sorry you are in so much pain. I guess it is normal to grieve a loss, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't speak your own opinion. I guess personally I sort of see it as in the past, what's done is done and I can't change it.

    I personally don't think the surgery is necessary except maybe in a small number of cases where the foreskin does not retract properly.

    Maybe you have to understand that in the 1800's people were just happy to have roof over their head and a full stomach..no internet research or youtube videos..I suspect that's probably true all the way up until at least 1940 or so.. We care about how people "feel" now, but back then just putting food on the table was good enough.

    As far as religious purposes, I may be reading it wrong but my understanding is that circumcision was a covenant with the people of Israel, so how this "logic" applies to gentiles I'm not really sure.
    Last edited by elian; Oct 6, 2014 at 4:58 PM.

  13. #73

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by elian View Post
    Your child is your child, and you love them for who they are.

    I am amazed at the sense of trauma or violation people feel over this issue..if you truly feel that way I am sorry you are in so much pain. I guess it is normal to grieve a loss, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't speak your own opinion. I guess personally I sort of see it as in the past, what's done is done and I can't change it.

    I personally don't think the surgery is necessary except maybe in a small number of cases where the foreskin does not retract properly.

    Maybe you have to understand that in the 1800's people were just happy to have roof over their head and a full stomach..no internet research or youtube videos..I suspect that's probably true all the way up until at least 1940 or so.. We care about how people "feel" now, but back then just putting food on the table was good enough.

    As far as religious purposes, I may be reading it wrong but my understanding is that circumcision was a covenant with the people of Israel, so how this "logic" applies to gentiles I'm not really sure.
    I'm not cut or mutilated but I can understand why some men feel left out, jealous, or angry that their parents or some doctor mutilated their genitals permanently without their consent.

    The large number of men I've met who don't like how they're cut or how they had that choice taken away from them are not happy that their penises have scars, reduced sexual pleasure for they and their partners, and that their penis is not the way a penis is supposed to look, function, and be with a foreskin. They told me how had it been up to them they would have left their genitals intact and kept their penis the way it is supposed to be.

    It's akin to a woman that is cut discovering that the majority of women in the world have intact genitals and have no health consequences, and actually enjoy sex more than women who are mutilated do.

    Even then if the foreskin does not retract, genital mutilation is not necessary. Some adult men have a foreskin that does not retract at all and they're fine.

    BTW the foreskin is not supposed to retract for the first year or so, and it's never to be forced back, and only the owner of the penis is supposed to retract it when they are ready to.

    In most societies and cultures including in the United States and Canada circumcision or male genital mutilation was not really that widespread until the 1950s or 1960s, as the majority of people and cultures worldwide do not mutilate the genitals of infant or young boys.

    The youtube video you posted before explains why people who are not Jewish or Muslim got into genital mutilation in the United States.

    There are a lot of Jewish doctors in the United States, and of course the majority of them are going to be for male genital mutilation even for people who are not Jewish or Muslim. Also, doctors make a lot of money from genital mutilation and if a doctor himself is cut or is a woman and mutilated the genitals of her sons they are probably for genital mutilation and spread the lies and myths about it like how it's "painless" or that "infants don't feel pain from it" which are not true.

    I used to correspond with a gay German man who was cut. I asked him why he was cut if he was not Jewish or Muslim. He said how it was because some doctor wanted to make lots of money, and convinced his parents to do it to him. His parents did not mutilate his younger brother's genitals.

    I also used to correspond with a man in South Africa and when I asked him if he had a foreskin he found the question silly as he was not cut/mutilated, and he said how unless you're part of some African tribe that mutilates the genitals of their males you're not cut. He was surprised when I told him how most men in the United States are cut/mutilated and he did not understand why.

  14. #74

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by JUSTLUVIN View Post
    YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact
    How did you get into foreskin restoration? A guy I know did try it and he was not successful. He did it with various methods, and then later a device for multiple years and it did not work for him.

  15. #75

    Re: circumcision

    Their is so much information about circumcision "to do or not to do is the question". It's very confusing, so all I can say is, I am not cut, I was born at home, I'm 71 years old and no problems, and my friends love it too. So, I say, leave the male babies dick along

  16. #76

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by easytriker View Post
    Their is so much information about circumcision "to do or not to do is the question". It's very confusing, so all I can say is, I am not cut, I was born at home, I'm 71 years old and no problems, and my friends love it too. So, I say, leave the male babies dick along
    True, circumcision of infants and young boys is nothing but genital mutilation.

    If men who were involuntary mutilated or 'cut' could experience what it's like to not be cut they would never advocate male genital mutilation, or have wanted it for themselves.

  17. #77

    Re: circumcision

    theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason

  18. #78

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by easytriker View Post
    theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason
    Yes it prevents infections which happen when the boy's genitals are mutilated and there's an open wound there which does get infected, and then a mutilated penis with scars and decreased sexual sensitivity and pleasure for his future partners as an adult happens.

  19. #79

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by easytriker View Post
    theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason
    Yes I found this article you will like.


    I'm grateful to my parents for so many reasons, but near the top of that long list is their seeing fit to birth me as a low-class Protestant boy in 1970s London, which meant that it never even crossed their minds to cut off the end of my dick. Only Jews and Muslims and aristocrats mutilated male genitals in Europe back then.
    Now there's public wondering, verging on debate, whether Baby Cambridge will be carved up by druids, his foreskin ground with a mortar and pestle and scattered into a north wind at Stonehenge, under the light of a full moon. All I would dare tell William and Kate is that their beautiful boy deserves to go through his blessed life exactly the way they've made him. Let his royal penis keep its crown.
    I will confess that when we moved to North America, I grew up wondering whether my commoner's penis had something wrong with it, beyond the usual adolescent complaints. My mom and dad, bless them, had no idea that children were routinely butchered over here — because if you didn't already know that circumcision was something people did, would you ever imagine doing it? — and so they failed to prepare me for locker rooms, sex-ed films, and pornography filled with penises that looked like mine if it were trying to escape itself. To this day, I look at my penis and have no idea what would have been missing and what would have remained had I been born under a crueler star. It's like trying to picture my face without a nose on it.
    The "argument" for circumcision, then and now, consists only of vague assertions of better hygiene, as though we still live in caves and rely on birds to pick us clean. If I stopped washing my penis, would it end up smelling like a cheese factory? Yes. I imagine an unwashed circumcised penis wouldn't be in tip-top shape, either. But here's how I avoid making trouser curds: I clean and maintain my penis, quite lovingly. I do the same thing with my fingernails, because sometimes dirt gets under them, too, and my parents also neglected to have them pulled out when I was born.
    In fact, I'd wager my penis is cleaner than average because I'm mindful of its upkeep and rubbing soap on it feels amazing. Unlike the doorknobs of dead flesh wielded by so many of my American cousins, the head of my penis remains, almost forty years after its construction, spectacularly sensitive. I don't know what sex is like for circumcised men, but I know it's not as good as it is for me. They have rods; my full brothers and I have lightning rods.



    Amy Schumer has a pretty great and true stand-up bit about uncut guys never broadcasting their extra wares in advance, just in case they've found a woman who far prefers a cut dick. (That same woman would no doubt raise almighty hell if men said that her vagina would look better with its labia hacked off.) I don't think I've told any of the women of my life what they were getting in advance of our hasty relations, partly because I didn't know which piece of bad news to break first, but mostly because it took me a while to get over those terrible teenage feelings of abnormality.
    My boys, uncut both, will never bear that freak's burden. I will tell them again and again that their penises are perfect and divine — probably not in public very often — and besides, they are lucky enough to have been born in a more enlightened age, when fewer and fewer parents are taking scythes to their prized infant sons all the time. Like so many insane things we once did in the name of mindless tradition, circumcision is slowly being relegated to history and its last-gasp glories, to a time when we never dared to counsel our future kings and queens, and we never failed to bow before their mangled little princes.

  20. #80

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by easytriker View Post
    Their is so much information about circumcision "to do or not to do is the question". It's very confusing, so all I can say is, I am not cut, I was born at home, I'm 71 years old and no problems, and my friends love it too. So, I say, leave the male babies dick along
    Yes even Jews are against male genital mutilation. I found this article. I also have met Jewish men who were not cut, and none of the males in their family were cut.

    I'm not a circumcision fan, not as a Jew, not as a man. I belong to a branch of Judaism — Reconstructionist — that considers itself enlightened and progressive; no "Chosen People" stuff, no rules about matrilineal descent, and yet, thanks to the apparently intractable belief that humankind's covenant with God somehow specifically demands that each and every Jewish male must suffer ritual genital mutilation, Reconstructionists still insist upon the practice.

    Ritual. Genital. Mutilation. That's precisely what circumcision is, and it is performed for no other reason than virgins were sacrificed to King Kong. The "health" reasons put forth on behalf of such routine disfigurement are unproved, including the belief, prevalent in the 19th-century U.S., that removing a foreskin would cut down on masturbation. As for the ethical and moral issues involved in performing elective surgery on a newborn — a situation where informed consent by the patient is an impossibility — well, hey, a covenant's a covenant. With the Lord!

    What particularly galls me is the mealy-mouthed dishonesty practiced by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which oh-so-carefully crawls a tightrope spun of silken shite:

    "New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys."

    The procedure? Ritual genital mutilation.
    Last edited by pole_smoker; Oct 19, 2014 at 11:59 PM.

  21. #81

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by easytriker View Post
    theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason
    The vast majority of the medical organizations in the world are opposed to infant circumcision. This includes:

    The Canadian Pediatric Society

    Royal Australasian College of Physicians

    British Medical Association

    Royal Dutch Medical Society

    The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,

    The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,

    The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,

    The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,

    The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,

    The Netherlands Urology Association,

    The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association

    Royal College of Surgeons of England

    Swedish Pediatric Society

    College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

    Royal Australasian College of Surgeons

    Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

    Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations

    Australian Medical Association

    The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan

    Saskatchewan Medical Association

    Norwegian Medical Association,

    Norwegian Nurses Organization,

    Norwegian Ombudsman for Children,

    Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo,

    Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics,

    Central Union for Child welfare in Finland,

    Denmark National Council for Children,

    German Association of Pediatricians,

    British Association of Pediatric Urologists,

    German Society for Pediatric Surgery,

    French National Council on AIDS,

    German Association of Child & Youth Doctors

  22. #82

    Re: circumcision

    http://cphpost.dk/news/danes-want-ci...ned.11320.html

    Danes want circumcision banned

    75 percent want an end to the practice
    by Christian Wenande
    Three out of every four Danes want to ban the circumcision of boys, unless it's for medical reasons. AYouGov survey for Metroxpress newspaper revealed that 74 percent of the over 1,000 Danes asked want to completely or partially ban the circumcision of boys, while just 10 percent want the practice to remain legal.
    “Circumcision is cutting a healthy part of the body from a boy,” Lena Nyhus, the founder of Intact Danmark, an association against the circumcision of children, told Metroxpress. “Denmark ought to be a pioneer when it comes to children's rights. We need an age limit of 18 years.”

  23. #83

    Re: circumcision

    May 5, 2014
    17:14
    http://cphpost.dk/news/why-denmark-m...sion.9454.html


    Why Denmark must carry the courage of its convictions on circumcision



    by M Thomas Frederiksen


    The Danish people should know that the world is watching your debate on underage ritual circumcision.

    This is deeply personal and important to me, as I am myself a victim of this vile practice – due to my misfortune of being born in the United States. Although my young mother was not keen on the idea, a doctor insisted on doing it, and she relented.
    What were this man's motivations? Why was it so important to him what my penis looked like? Why did he think that the most intimate part of my body, my 'private parts', my penis, was his prerogative? I'll never know what he wanted from me. But what ever it was, he took it. He had his way with me. He carved his pay-check into my penis. He carved his religion into my penis. He carved his tribal marking into my penis. He carved his custom into my penis. He carved his grotesque aesthetic preferences into my penis. He carved his obscene signature into my penis.
    Without our consent
    All over the world, boys, girls, and intersex children share stories like mine. The context varies, the method of mutilation varies, the language varies, but one thing thing cuts across all of these stories – we resent what was done without our consent. We have been forced to live our whole lives with the preferences of another permanently carved into our genitals – and we resent what was done without our consent. We have been treated as things, means to the ends of others – and we resent what was done without our consent. We are human beings with our own desires, our own religious sentiments, our own ways of expressing our sexuality – and we resent what was done without our consent.
    I've watched the debate unfolding in Denmark with elation and frustration. The Danish people know what is right, and want to do the right thing: protect underage boys. However, the voices of the perpetrators have been allowed to dominate the discussion, while once again the screams of the victims have fallen on deaf ears. This is why I must speak out.
    Americans fancy themselves the leaders of the world. We have the military might – so we must be right. We can bring more brute force to bare then any other country on the face of the earth. Sadly, most Americans do not realise that this brute force is not leadership – it is bullying.
    Time for moral leadership
    In sharp contrast, the Danish people have a chance to exercise true leadership: moral leadership. However, your politicians waver, wring their hands and drag their feet. I ask them to look me in the eye and tell me why their failure to protect boys is not blatant sexism. I ask them to look me in the eye and tell me why their failure to protect the sons of minorities is not blatant racism. I ask them to look me in the eye and tell me why our pain is irrelevant.
    It doesn't matter if some parents defy the law. It doesn't matter if some boys are taken to other countries to be cut. Why? Because a Danish ban on underage ritual circumcision will send a clear signal to the whole world that boys deserve equal protection. Other countries will follow suit, and the debate will shift dramatically – even in countries like the United States. A ban in Denmark will ultimately protect boys and intersex children all over the world. You know what is right – have the courage of your convictions!
    M Thomas Frederiksen is a machinist and toolmaker living in Florida, USA. Undergoing a years-long process of non-surgical foreskin restoration has given him first-hand experience of the difference that mobile skin makes to intimacy.

  24. #84

    Re: circumcision

    http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/

    Genital Mutilation American Style

    By Rio Cruz


    Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
    "Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.
    Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.


    The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not allow us to see anything wrong.
    I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
    He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
    The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.


    My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor. Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
    The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
    The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state of complete and total shock.
    The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp. He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to his mother. Welcome to America, little man.
    "Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one child born in this country who has any condition requiring this procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.
    Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability," said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on this issue and they flee into the shadows.
    However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery. It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember, girls are protected by law from such parental requests.
    Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons. It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed of this fact.


    The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal, erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment. Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of "criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all ethical concerns are off.
    It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to it."
    Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual," says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First, Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr. Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."
    Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs. Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the sensitivity of an old garden glove.

  25. #85

    Re: circumcision

    Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:
    ***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops.
    ***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.
    ***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin.
    ***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system.
    ***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's corpuscles.
    ***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.
    ***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
    ***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
    ***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.
    ***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system.
    ***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.
    ***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
    ***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
    ***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina.
    ***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
    ***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
    *** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
    ***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its growth.
    *** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.
    *** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.
    And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every year from circumcision and related complications.

  26. #86

    Re: circumcision

    I get into this subject of circumcision a lot in mixed company and was talking about female circumcision when this one woman, a friend of mine, seemed rather curious about it all. She was asking how one would know. I tried to tell her the best way I could since I am not a woman. She went home and a couple of weeks later she saw me and told me that she had been circumcised when she was younger but didn't know it had happened to her till she asked her mom. They had tried to keep it a secret from her for some reason. She was obviously angry cause she wondered why her sexual experiences were not the same as some of the others she discovered

  27. #87

    Re: circumcision

    Well, my grandson was born a couple weeks ago. We were there. When they carted him off for mutilation, my son could see me hiding extreme frustration and anger and I had a hard time staying in the room without losing it. He said that the doctor had come in and spent about an hour with them prior to doing this. He never suggested they do it, just gave him information. Information I'm sure was designed to maximize the hospital bill. Oh yea, this was in a HEAVY mormon city. The information that stuck with her and the only reason they did this was that it looked better. I bet her nasty raged cunt would 'look better' hacked off too.

  28. #88

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersexual11 View Post
    Well, my grandson was born a couple weeks ago. We were there. When they carted him off for mutilation, my son could see me hiding extreme frustration and anger and I had a hard time staying in the room without losing it. He said that the doctor had come in and spent about an hour with them prior to doing this. He never suggested they do it, just gave him information. Information I'm sure was designed to maximize the hospital bill. Oh yea, this was in a HEAVY mormon city. The information that stuck with her and the only reason they did this was that it looked better. I bet her nasty raged cunt would 'look better' hacked off too.
    Sorry to hear that this happened.

    What does being in a heavy Mormon city have to do with things? I am not Mormon but I lived in a city where there are Mormons but you will find them in all cities around the world.

  29. #89

    Re: circumcision

    u right Mormon irrelevant. circumcension (sp) can be a health decision, less infections during life. if this not topic, i apologize.

  30. #90

    Re: circumcision

    i do know that circumsisized or not has little to do with sensitivity of penis.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top