The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

[Bluebiyou]

SF to vote on male circumcision in November

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/sf-to-vote-on-male-circumcision-in-november/?iref=allsearch

Yea!!! An important step has been taken. This is an important milestone even if we lose. It will not be an easy battle. The other side will fight like the pro slavery against the abolitionists 170 years ago in America. Can you imagine how most popular feelings in the south were if you announced anti slavery epithets in 1840? They will view us and call us "radicals" for not 'going with the flow'.

Viva La Resistance!

[lizard-lix]

As a cut male, I really can't understand the big deal...

My cock works fine, it is easier to keep clean and I have never seen any valid medical data showing that male circumcision is harmful.

Personally I do not waste my time on MALE circumcision, I DO think that outlawing FEMALE circumcision is a MUCH more worthy fight since the clitoris and hence the primary means to orgasm is removed.

So I guess the Jewish folks in SF will have to cross the bridge... I wonder if they plan to have cock cops to check incoming...

There are so many more important things to fight about, outlawing male circumcision seems insignificant in light of all the prejudicial things us dis-oriented folks have to deal with.

Just my 2 cents...

Liz

[csrakate]

Here we go again....Sorry to tell you this, Liz, but according to these activists, you are mutilated and I am a molester for having my sons circumcised. This is a hot issue on this site and it seems to bring out the very worst in some people. I'm just sitting back waiting for the proverbial SHIT to hit the fan!

Sigh.....like I said....here we go again!

[sammie19]

I have always been in two minds about male circumcision. On the one hand I do see the likes of Fran's argument that until such times as a child is old enough to be able to make up his own mind based on information available to him, it can be argued that to remove the foreskin is an assault on a helpless child. It has taken from him the the right to choose, and, arguably deprives him of much additional sexual pleasure he will now never know.

I also see from the other point of view the concern parents have over the sexual health and hygeine of their child and the strong religious motivations and traditions which involve male circumcision. The argument that what he doesn't remember he will never miss is sound also and so I can see Lizard's point of view. Another issue is that I am told that circumcision is a more serious operation for an adult male than for a baby boy. Something which may create mental obstacles in the way of many men choosing circumcision or otherwise based on the principle of informed consent.

From a strictly female point of view, living in a country where most men are uncircumcised it is what I have been most accustomed to, but have had sufficient experience of circumcised men to know I prefer the other kind. That is not to say I have not enjoyed sex with circumcised men it is merely to say that there are options available to a woman that a man without a foreskin cannot provide. Women of America for instance will probably have quite the opposite experience and preference to those in the UK and Western Europe. So from a purely sexual point of view it is a subjective judgement we will all have made or have to make.

It is an issue which pours forth very strong emotions, and should I ever have a child, shall I have him circumcised? No I will not. Do I think it should be banned unless informed consent is given by the person upon whom the procedure is carried out? Instinctively I say yes, but there are far more serious issues in our world than something which divides two continents. Clitorectomy being one. Poverty, discrimination and prejudice being just a few others. I would argue for the principle of informed consent of the individual concerned except in cases of medical need, but I don't think I would go to the wall for it.

[Briar Rose]

It was a moot point for us. My son was born with a serious version of hypospadias. The surgeon used his foreskin to do the penile reconstruction. I think the number of boys born with hypospadias is about 1% in the US (and the numbers are apparently on the rise).

We talked about it at the time, (two decades ago), before we knew about the hypospadias, and I remember that all the information we could find indicated that it was healthier to circumcise. The doctors all recommended it. We never saw anything to indicate otherwise. Now of course, with the growth of the internet, you can find both sides of the discussion.

If I were having a boy now, I don't think I would do it. Though in the US, it would make him a minority and a potential target for bullying in middle and high school.

[drugstore cowboy]

The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.

Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.

Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it.

Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all.

Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.

It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.

The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.

Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.

Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.

The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here.

Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl.

Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.

Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.

the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.

Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?

It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.

People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.

If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!


It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.


The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

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 and genital mutilation against our sons.

in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.

forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.

In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.

I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.

I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.

Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.


We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.

Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:

- It has never been shown to be necessary
- The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
- It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts.
- It’s a very unpleasant procedure.
- The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.

There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.

If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.

Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.

Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.

For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.

You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.

117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.

It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.

[look4one]

I am fortunate to have experienced both. I was circumcised when I was 20 yrs old. It was my own decision to have the circumcision. Keep in mind that

I grew up in Indonesia to a Chinese family. So circumcision to the majority of the populations who are Moslem is something as normal as celebrating sweet seventeenth birthday. It is just a part of life that they have to go through as part of their culture. Indonesian Moslem normally circumcised their boys at around 8 years old.

My family do not have the circumcision culture, so we never had the need to go through it. Some of my male family did get circumcised for various reasons, majority due to health.

Personally, I like being circumcised. I find it aesthetically sexy. Also from hygiene point of view, it is a lot better. I used to get a lot of infections due to the foreskin being thick and at times I did not clean it properly.

Over the years, I have tried to look at the bigger pictures and practicality of things regarding any subject. In regards to circumcision, if we look at the history of the cultures (I consider some religions as culture i.e. Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc) promoting circumcision, I am sure that there was a very good reason back in time of why it was done.

One reason that I could think of was due to water shortage and the nomadic nature of the culture. The Jews and Moslem were some what nomadic people. Circumcision is a good way to ensure that the males did not get penile infections as the availability of water to clean up may not always be available.

The same thing could be said about not eating pork as we know if it was not cooked properly, worms could be transferred to human through pork.

Just my two cents in this matter ;)

I love cut cock!!!

[jamieknyc]

Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.

[drugstore cowboy]

Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.

No it is not "racist".

There are Jews and Moslems who do not practice male or female genital mutilation, yet they are still Jewish and Moslem.

I dated a Jewish man who had an intact penis with a foreskin since his Jewish mother and Jewish father did not want him to be circumcised at all. He is still Jewish despite not being cut.

All circumcisions both male and female are pointless genital mutilation.

Did anyone see the model named Robert on Sean Cody the other week? He had something called a "bridge" that developed after his circumcision as an infant.

After seeing it I think it should be a crime.

Here's a picture of a nasty "bridge" on a cut penis.

http://www.noharmm.org/images/penis-bridge1.gif

I support this ban 100%.
It is not about removing parental rights, it is about protecting personal rights. The rights of men to make their own choices about their genitals.

There are MANY decisions we must make for our children. That is part of our responsibility as parents. However, this should NOT be one of them. Routine Infant Circumcision is a medically unnecessary COSMETIC surgery on an individual who is unable to consent. That makes it completely unethical and not a valid parental choice.

(And I am talking only about routine circ, barring an actual medical need) There is NO reason that this type of procedure cannot be delayed until the age of consent of the individual owning the genitals.

Up until 1997 in this country, female circ was legal. Now it is not. What is the difference? Why are our daughters protected by law, but not our sons? There should be no difference. Equal rights, equal protection. It has to start somewhere.

I'm fully in favor of freedom of religion, but your religious freedom does not give you the right to amputate or otherwise modify any perfectly normal and healthy part of SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY.

The child's body is not property of his/her parents or their culture or religion.

If a religion called for the tattooing or branding of an infant or child, that wouldn't make ok. If a religion called for any other part of the human body, for example an earlobe (you don't really need that, right?...), to be cut off of a baby or child, that wouldn't make it ok. And of course when religion calls for any cutting of the female genitals - no matter how minor - that doesn't make it ok.

So why then is the penis different than every other body part in this regard? What gives parents the right to cut part of it off and deprive the child of the right to choose for the rest of his life?

I know infant male genital mutilation ("circumcision") is widely accepted in our culture, but that in and of itself doesn't make it ok, so I urge folks to really think critically about this!

[Katja]

Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.

If it is racist, then all laws which prohibit female genital mutilation are racist, and if any such law to prohibit male circumcision is struck down by the courts as being racist, then so should all law which prohibits that of the female.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Guys..its not anyone is asking you to do it Right Now. Ow. Thats all Im saying on this. Its too hot of a topic..like Kate said. And I dont really recall of any women Ive personally known having a genital mutulation.
Going to go curl up by Kate with the endless cookie plate.
Cat

[Long Duck Dong]

the proposal is to make it illegal to do pretty much anything to the male penis unless the person is 17 years olf

they better have a medical exemption in there for medical issues, that protects the doctors in the event of penis / foreskin surgery that needs doing well before the child is 17...... or they could end up with issues like children with a extra tight foreskin that is cutting off full circulation to the penis and will result is a deformed penis, and the parents being told, * sorry, can't operate, it may be a medical issue, but we are not allowed to do anything *

simple result, is parents will go out of state, for circumcisions and medical penis surgery....

it is a dangerous game we play, using the personal rights card.... cos its used to push a personal agenda and often not thought out that well.....

[DuckiesDarling]

The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.

Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.

Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it.

Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all.

Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.

It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.

The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.

Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.

Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.

The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here.

Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl.

Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.

Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.

the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.

Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?

It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.

People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.

If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!


It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.


The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

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 and genital mutilation against our sons.

in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.

forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.

In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.

I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.

I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.

Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.


We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.

Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:

- It has never been shown to be necessary
- The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
- It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts.
- It’s a very unpleasant procedure.
- The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.

There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.

If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.

Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.

Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.

For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.

You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.

117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.

It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.

Thank you for revealing yourself, Drugstore Cowboy, cause you sure as fuck weren't around when I was Twyla or when Pasa was active. Ignored and I really hope Drew deals with you soon.

As for Kate's statement, I couldn't agree more.

[BiDaveDtown]

For those who believe male circumcision should be allowed for religious reasons; GET REAL.

Do you know what the bible, what Orthodox Judaism and most of Islam says about us bisexual and gay men?!

I guess it also means that you condone female circumcision for religious reasons and the fact that Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and especially Islam put women in a subservient position to that of men.

If you're arguing for male circumcision because of religion/culture, or freedom of religion then you are for female circumcision as well since there are various religions and cultures worldwide who do this to girls as a part of their religion or culture.

No one chooses their religion when they are born. Boys are born Jewish through their Jewish mother or they are Moslem because of their Moslem mother or Moslem father, therefore they are Jewish or Moslem, therefore they DO NOT need their foreskins chopped off to become Jewish or Moslem. Also, let them decide if they want to be Jewish or Moslem when they are older.

Religion is not a sufficient reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Actually there is not sufficient reason.

If I know anything I know dick. Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult. It makes sex harder and less pleasurable for the receptive partner. And it desensitizes the penis, POTENTIALLY decreasing sensitivity and sexual pleasure.

Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would POTENTIALLY limit that for a child.

There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that can’t be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose.

Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too.

It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc.

Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD!

Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed!

Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory.

There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut.

I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that this is being done in San Francisco.

Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring.

I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision.

Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision.

I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation.

It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should.

Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS.

I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin.

The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway.

Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum.

Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood.

Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.

[bizel]

my father had to be 'cut' in the war. he said it was the most painful thing he had every endured, as did all the other guys that had to undergo it. but he said it was the best thing - in the long run- and was glad he'd had it done. i don't understand all the reasons behind why as he never talked much about the war, though he was in the intelligence so maybe that had something to do with it and where he was posted. a two second snip as a baby, never to be remembered as an adult, would have been kinder. either way, i think it should be the parent's decision, like breast feeding etc. i'm sooooo fed up with 'experts' coming out with decisions which may be altered again in the future. and i'm soooo fed up with non-experts pointing fingers judging a preference when it ultimately causes no long term damage to the male. female circumcision is a totally different ballgame - there is NO COMPARISON, so don't even try to compare the two. the loss of a clitoris and sexual pleasure is criminal. personally i prefer a cut dick (not because of father - no love lost there) that's just me.

[Katja]

Thank you for revealing yourself, Drugstore Cowboy, cause you sure as fuck weren't around when I was Twyla or when Pasa was active. Ignored and I really hope Drew deals with you soon.

As for Kate's statement, I couldn't agree more.

Drew will deal with him how? By banning him? What has the man said to justify that? That you don't like the message or messenger? So much for the much lauded American ideal of freedom of speech. I don't like the pro-circumcision lobby's stance but the last thing I would do is to try and have its advocates gagged or banned however inflammatory they may be.

[BiDaveDtown]

my father had to be 'cut' in the war. he said it was the most painful thing he had every endured, as did all the other guys that had to undergo it. but he said it was the best thing - in the long run- and was glad he'd had it done. i don't understand all the reasons behind why as he never talked much about the war, though he was in the intelligence so maybe that had something to do with it and where he was posted. a two second snip as a baby, never to be remembered as an adult, would have been kinder. either way, i think it should be the parent's decision, like breast feeding etc. i'm sooooo fed up with 'experts' coming out with decisions which may be altered again in the future. and i'm soooo fed up with non-experts pointing fingers judging a preference when it ultimately causes no long term damage to the male. female circumcision is a totally different ballgame - there is NO COMPARISON, so don't even try to compare the two. the loss of a clitoris and sexual pleasure is criminal. personally i prefer a cut dick (not because of father - no love lost there) that's just me.

Proving that women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

When was the last time they had an actual penis? Where's your medical degree?

Since you claim that male genital mutilation is no big deal at all then it should not be a big deal if you get your clitoral hood removed.

Yes you can compare FGM or female genital mutilation with MGM or male genital mutilation.

I don't believe in circumcision at all for anyone.

Did you even read my post about how I'd been with lots of cut men who had major issues because of circumcision? They could get some sexual pleasure but it was not as though they had an intact penis with a foreskin that has lots of sensitive nerve endings.

I've been with cut men who had lots of trouble getting off and with some parts of their cut penis they had no feeling at all or the feeling was greatly reduced. Then there were the unsightly heavy scars on their penises. :eek:

Once they saw the pleasure that I get because I have a foreskin they were jealous and angry that they did not get this.

Women can have sex and sexual pleasure after FGM is done to them but it's not going to be the same and as if they had a vagina that was fully intact and had never had anything done to it. The sexual pleasure is going to be greatly reduced or non-existent in some parts.

The same goes for men who have had their genitals mutilated.

[BiDaveDtown]

I'm amazed that some basic issues are still overlooked.

1) There is no thing as a standardized "circumcision". The foreskin is integral to the penis (even fused in childhood) and there's no dotted line along which to cut. It's not like tonsils or the appendix which are identifiable structures. Circumcision is just less penile skin; unfortunately, it's a pretty evolved, vascular and innervated part of the penis that's surgically removed.

No two American guys have the same circumcision, so it's ridiculout to talk about it as if it's 2 camps: intact and circumcised. It's more like intact and a few million ways to have less penis. Some guys have "loose cuts" and some are cut so tight you want to cry for them. Some have straight cuts, and some have dark, jagged scars. Several have skin tags and skin bridges from the operation. Most circumcised men have meatal stenosis. The great news is that the penis is so fundamental to how we function that it bounces back from even the most savage cutting. Isn't that comforting to know?

2) Debates about sensitivity are bullshit, and fortunately there wasn't much of that here. Yes, the foreskin is sensitive and provides a vast amount of sensory feedback, when healthy and understood, but sensation shouldn't be confused with sensitivity. It is entirely possible for a circumcised guy to be more sensitive, because he lacks the mediating feedback from the foreskin. It's like the intact penis provides a balance of sweet and sour, high notes and low notes, while a penis lacking foreskin can be too "sweet" or too "sour". So I tend to believe guys who say they couldn't stand any more sensitivity; they'd probably have a more fulfilling and balanced sexual experience if they weren't cut.

A guy who connects well to his intact penis would never want to be circumcised; one who never had a foreskin beyond Day 2 or who never learned to read the biofeedback from his prepuce is more inclined to be undaunted about circumcision. As it is, intact men overwhelmingly vote to stay that way... only about 6 per 100,000 Finnish men (a very intact society) opt to get cut.

[BiDaveDtown]

Here's the basic scoop from a buddy of mine, a university professor of neuranatomy:

Circumcision cuts into and cuts off metres of important veins (blood return) and occasionally an artery (in the frenulum; blood supply). This alters the normal vascularity and ultimately the physiology of the penis, forcing a complex healing by putting capillaries into different duty. This affects the amount of blood that reaches the meatus -- likely an important component of meatal stenosis and the chief reason almost all intact men have functional meatal lips and most circumcised men don't. The meatal lips are the culmination of the raphe and are direct beneficiaries of the frenular artery. The lips, of course, are what close tightly together to keep pathogens out of the urethra. Another marvel of nature.

Also, the veins running through the foreskin ensure that in its relaxed, forward position the prepuce is not just a blanket, but a heated blanket. This in turn regulates the temperature of the glans, which in turn helps determine how close to the body the testicles ride (cool=closer to body=less sperm produced). Most circumised males have a consistently colder glans than intact males; some have an uncomfortably cold glans, particularly after sitting for long periods or after sports.

The efficiency of bloodflow through the foreskin & glans is a factor in proper tumescence and detumescence, though the body works mightily to overcome the vascular obstacles posed by the severing of a significant chunk of the venous system of the penis through circumcision. The alternate "mapping" the body is forced to do after iatrogenic injury is a marvel of nature, but never quite as effective as the original.

One of the foreskin's primary functions is to serve as an "early alert" system to tumescence; it is ultra-sensitive to any change in diameter of the glans and lets a male know well in advance of any change. Obviously, without a foreskin there is no monitoring of the glans and some circumcised males joke that they are well on their way to erection before they realize it. Not a big problem in most settings, but also not the way the body was designed to work.

The skin of the penis is unique on all the body, in that it is not attached to the underlying fascia. You can actually roll the tip of the foreskin all the way down to the pubic bone (depending on the elasticity of the frenulum). The body achieves this through a complexly-evolved nerve system that does not have the nerve endings run down from layer to layer as on the rest of the body; but rather, laterally in a specialized structure that allows complete freedom of the gliding top layer of skin. This means that the nerve endings are in fact attached to the body only at their extreme ends -- the pubis, and where the foreskin doubles back again and "ends" at the sulcus behind the glans. Since the rested foreskin is doubled-over, any cut that "shortens" it in this doubled state actually removes a cylindrical section from this sleeve, short-circuiting the complex nerve structure. Again, the body springs into action to repair this injury by having nerve endings attach over time to whatever nerves are nearby; but the section of the brain that corresponds to the nerve endings severed through circumcision go "black" and remain that way.

Circumcision, as a wound, also lays down a complex and irrreversible system of fibroblasts at the site of the circumcision scar, between layers of skin and the underlying fascia. Invisible to the naked eye, this dense web of cells defeats the purpose of the unique outer skin structure of the penis by creating an "anchor" which limits the mobility of the shaft skin and its gliding mechanism so important to sex. It is also why so many men at some point encounter difficulty with foreskin restoration, as these fibroblasts first need to break down before progress in stretching can be made.

My take on it is that some people don't care about any of this. They just like circumcision because they think cut cocks are "prettier". :rolleyes:

[bizel]

Proving that women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

When was the last time they had an actual penis? Where's your medical degree?

Since you claim that male genital mutilation is no big deal at all then it should not be a big deal if you get your clitoral hood removed.

Yes you can compare FGM or female genital mutilation with MGM or male genital mutilation.

I don't believe in circumcision at all for anyone.

Did you even read my post about how I'd been with lots of cut men who had major issues because of circumcision? They could get some sexual pleasure but it was not as though they had an intact penis with a foreskin that has lots of sensitive nerve endings.

I've been with cut men who had lots of trouble getting off and with some parts of their cut penis they had no feeling at all or the feeling was greatly reduced. Then there were the unsightly heavy scars on their penises. :eek:

Once they saw the pleasure that I get because I have a foreskin they were jealous and angry that they did not get this.

Women can have sex and sexual pleasure after FGM is done to them but it's not going to be the same and as if they had a vagina that was fully intact and had never had anything done to it. The sexual pleasure is going to be greatly reduced or non-existent in some parts.

The same goes for men who have had their genitals mutilated.

yes, you are correct. i am a woman, i don't have a penis. and i get really fed up with that argument as well. i don't need to fall off a cliff to know the landing is going to hurt! and only women doctors can treat woman cos they share the same equipment. yes, they SOMETIMES have more empathy but sometimes they don't. so don't you tell me i'm not entitled to have an opinion. i know plenty of cut guys, and have read plenty of things from cut guys and unless they are all the biggest liars, they are happy and sexually active and experiencing great sex.

as for 'women sticking their noses out of male's genitals', how about if male circumcision is so horrendous, father's actually develop a spine and put their foot down?? because if it were true, fathers around the world would have outlawed this ages ago. men are incredibly protective of their 'old fellas' and they have been the lawmakers for centuries. it's not like women have had the power to control this. and the fact that you claim female circumcision is the same as male in result, clearly to me says you have no empathy for female sexual pleasure and have issues that go beyond your groin. start blaming the fathers as well. they have a voice, they had the choice!

[tenni]

Drew will deal with him how? By banning him? What has the man said to justify that? That you don't like the message or messenger? So much for the much lauded American ideal of freedom of speech. I don't like the pro-circumcision lobby's stance but the last thing I would do is to try and have its advocates gagged or banned however inflammatory they may be.

Good points Katja.

Both Pasa and Twyla/DD have been banned previously. By reading previous threads, it is not hard for a new poster to read the comments of Pasa and the many thousands of comments from Twyla/ DD and connect the dot to the same character with a different name after Twyla was banned.

I suspect that this is an attempt to dismiss Drug Store's view by labelling/connecting Drug Store as a previous banned "troll" (showing himself). Perhaps in some poster's minds, labelling someone a troll automatically dismisses their thoughts as worthy of consideration?......a strange group Borg thought process maybe..;) What does it matter if he is the same character? After all, Twyla was banned and she is DD now...no different from whether Drug Store is really a previously banned poster. Follow the rules and you should be able to comment...if you are bisexual...lol

As far as SF, I wonder what are the consequences beyond male circumcision as far as parental rights to make medical/cosmetic decisions for their male children? Why is the line drawn at circumcision versus accepting or denying a parent the right to prevent their son from getting his nose, ear, penis, scrotum, belly button pierced as a five to seventeen year year old? Would it ban parents from having any input in these cosmetic procedures done on the young guy?

[tenni]

I don't understand why a heterosexual woman feels the need to comment on male circumcision on a bisexual website? How does this topic connect to being a partner of a bisexual man? Do you have a son or hoping to have a son? What are you getting out of this? Do you have a growing sense of entitlement now on this site? wtf??:(


yes, you are correct. i am a woman, i don't have a penis. and i get really fed up with that argument as well. i don't need to fall off a cliff to know the landing is going to hurt! and only women doctors can treat woman cos they share the same equipment. yes, they SOMETIMES have more empathy but sometimes they don't. so don't you tell me i'm not entitled to have an opinion. i know plenty of cut guys, and have read plenty of things from cut guys and unless they are all the biggest liars, they are happy and sexually active and experiencing great sex.

as for 'women sticking their noses out of male's genitals', how about if male circumcision is so horrendous, father's actually develop a spine and put their foot down?? because if it were true, fathers around the world would have outlawed this ages ago. men are incredibly protective of their 'old fellas' and they have been the lawmakers for centuries. it's not like women have had the power to control this. and the fact that you claim female circumcision is the same as male in result, clearly to me says you have no empathy for female sexual pleasure and have issues that go beyond your groin. start blaming the fathers as well. they have a voice, they had the choice!

[Bluebiyou]

yes, you are correct. i am a woman, i don't have a penis. and i get really fed up with that argument as well. i don't need to fall off a cliff to know the landing is going to hurt! and only women doctors can treat woman cos they share the same equipment. yes, they SOMETIMES have more empathy but sometimes they don't. so don't you tell me i'm not entitled to have an opinion. i know plenty of cut guys, and have read plenty of things from cut guys and unless they are all the biggest liars, they are happy and sexually active and experiencing great sex.

as for 'women sticking their noses out of male's genitals', how about if male circumcision is so horrendous, father's actually develop a spine and put their foot down?? because if it were true, fathers around the world would have outlawed this ages ago. men are incredibly protective of their 'old fellas' and they have been the lawmakers for centuries. it's not like women have had the power to control this. and the fact that you claim female circumcision is the same as male in result, clearly to me says you have no empathy for female sexual pleasure and have issues that go beyond your groin. start blaming the fathers as well. they have a voice, they had the choice!

Bizel, cool it.
Please.
You show compassion, yet misunderstanding.
My father also was natural (uncut). In WWII the army required him to be cut. He refused. It didn't happen. He had no regrets (why should he? I'm sure he would have told them to also go to hell if they told him to get lobotomized or cut toes or fingers off).
I could see if I was forced into doing something and was afraid to stand up to it, and allowed it to be done, I would look back on it with my male ego like 'it was probably the best thing', and find some incidental positives too. A clear form of 'adaptive preference formation' (subset of cognitive dissonance). We've already seen many examples of this on these threads.

And despite modern rhetoric, FGM and MGM share much in common.
Both are done on innocent children.
Both are sexual mutilation/molestation.
Both are intended and succeed to critically reduce sexual feeling/gratification hopefully without killing procreation ability.
Both are for the cleanliness of the victim.
Both are very painful. Except for Rizzababies male children. She assured us they escaped all pain when she did it to them/him. We can take her word for it.
Both are customs.
Both are farces.
Both are wrong, doubly so when enforced by a member of the opposite sex. A man has no business endorsing FGM as a woman has no business endorsing MGM. If you're unable to see why that's wrong on two levels... take some time.

As far as your references of 'cut guys'...
Don't write any masters' thesis papers using your logic method, you'll never graduate.

But keep with your empathy and you'll find the right path.

[Ninnian]

Tenni.... becuase some of us women HAVE male children?.. and its not only a SEXUAL issue.

Flay me and castigate me, oh all-knowing Zealots!! I have a son who I did not have cut * BUT WISH I HAD*!!
The Skin issues, the adhesions, the doctor forcibly retracting his not-yet-ready foreskin to teh base of his penis when he was still so very young.The subsiquent infections....
oh Yes, I've live dthis and my son is living it... and yet as a teenager.. I cannot stand over his shoulder and ensure that he cleans himself properly! All teh talks about hygeine, all the " Boy, make sure...".. yeah.. uhuh.. RIIIIGHT.Anyone whose raised a child can tell you just how well that registers.All I have to do now is look at teh fight I have to get him to keep his hair clean...liek many teenage boys.. shower tiem is about "personal time"... which may or may NOT coincide with real hygiene.Makes me shudder.

So many of you can just go jump in your own self righteous ponds and stew in teh mental muck you so diligently throw at others.

No wonder I rarely look at the threads...
Nin

[mikey3000]

Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.

Then I can't wait for the ban on breast implants. We'll see how that goes over.:eek:

Why is it that the strongest resentment against circumcision comes from the homosexual front? That is the one thing I've learned within these stupid threads. I like my cut cock. I don't care if you do or not. If you don't then don't suck it. Very easy. It is nothing but pure politics and a certain group pushing their agenda for their own good.

For fuck's sake!!! Get over yourselves already!!!

[DuckiesDarling]

As Jamie pointed out, and he is a lawyer with knowledge of the law actually works in the US no matter how many try to second guess our government, this law would not be allowed to stand. It would be a violation of Freedom of Religion. Next, we have a separation of church and state for a good reason. Third, what the people who approve of this proposed law do not understand and therefore will always underestimate. When it comes to a vote, all those people who are silent will be voting. They will be the ones that will take this rhetoric about people being child molesters to heart and not in the way you intend. They will not vote for this. They will be the ones who were circumsized at birth and had no problems. They will be the loving parents that circumsized their children as advised by a doctor. They will be the ones that will be counted when it counts. Not a few outraged posters on a bisexual site making the most out of rhetoric that is sure to do nothing but inflame.

[littlerayofsunshine]

I don't understand why a heterosexual woman feels the need to comment on male circumcision on a bisexual website? How does this topic connect to being a partner of a bisexual man? Do you have a son or hoping to have a son? What are you getting out of this? Do you have a growing sense of entitlement now on this site? wtf??:(


Tenni, Please.. have an on topic opinion or move on. You are like the old fart still combatin the cowboys and the indians that only live in your mind, but try to make us all relive your delusions. You are the second most mysoginystic, xenophobic, and damn near racist bloke on the block. So many people are too scared to get involved in your pettiness, But damn man, At your age, and how you try to show yourself as an "artistic" man. You should be able to rise above all this childishness that you relay. You offer less insight and ramble on, spending 40 minutes to edit and re edit thoughts to make yourself feel better, diluting any point you might have potentially made. In fact I never understood why you never have a full opinion. But normally end on a question or a smirk. BTW The story of the little girl you wrote twice in two different post, Made me shutter.


Back to the topic of circ. I wish molestation would stop being used as a term in reference of. Honestly as a child victim of it. Its an insult to us. The thousands year old practice of removing a piece of flesh that doesn't inhibit growth, function, or remove all sensitivity is not molestation. Molestation involves sexual gratification and deviancy or a way to gain power and control over an individual. Circ is a preference, a preference granted the infant doesn't have choice in. But neither does an infant that gets her ears pierced, or a tribal child that gets forced tattooed to show status or tribe.

Male circ shouldn't be banned, If it was you would see so many religious followers leave, their technology leave, their tax dollars, money... Leave.. There are still grown men that go and have it done, there are grown men that wish that it hadn't been done to them. Some boys need it, due to the fact that their foreskin didn't develop normally and it is too tight around the head of an erect penis, that friction from movement, sex, masturbation, causes intense pain and sometimes tearing, the scars remaining can cause even more pain and lessen retraction of the foreskin. They split the scars and hope it works, so for some circ may be what helps them lead a normal healthy sexual life.

FEMALE CIRC is not comparable to male circ and to even be able to compare. the removal of the glans would have to take place. So lets back off that argument. Female circ is done in pubescent times, male circ at newborn stage, where chemicals are flooding through the body and even a action such as suckling a nipple, dummy, or bottle will cause pain relieving hormones to ease the discomfort.. Male circ is done to this day for esthetic reasons and health reasons *Where proven or not* Based on religious values. Female circ is done to make a woman less sexual, to make a girl less responsive, to make them not get pregnant at a young age, to make them less likely to cheat on their husband to whom they were most likely promised to by the time the child was school age. To gain power over the girl and to control her.. That is the true molestation.

Shout out to Ninny ******Hugs girl**** You gave me a lady boner when I saw your post. LTNS!

[Long Duck Dong]

ladies have every right to talk about circumcision, after all, its the ladies who also want to enjoy a penis......

I may own a penis but it doesn't give me the right to tell ladies that they should stay out of the thread, just cos they do not have a penis.... as they have the right to speak about their own personal perferences to do with penises

it would be like telling males to STFU about breast cancer and breast removal, as it is important to the ladies to know that ladies with breast reconstruction surgery, that we see them as ladies still, that they are more than just a pair of breasts and a vagina......

its a sad day when some bisexuals forget that there is more to the world than sex, cocks, pussy, casual sex and other bisexuals.....

[Katja]

It would be a violation of Freedom of Religion.

The United States legal system almost certainly violates freedom of religion in many ways and of many religions, just as the laws of all nations do in sometimes small and sometimes large ways. Does it not violate the right of moslem men to take more than one wife? Does not the United States and many other countries violate the Roman Catholic faith by allowing contraception and abortion contrary to the articles of faith of that religion and the decisions of its Pontiff? Does not the United States and many other countries violate the freedom of religion of many faiths by allowing the practice of homosexuality?

The United States and many other countries have abolished many barbaric practices of many religions such as slavery (and count Christianity and Judaism in on that one). Should Suttee now be allowed in India for example on grounds of freedom of religion? Interesting point is it not?

[littlerayofsunshine]

it would be like telling males to STFU about breast cancer and breast removal,


I would just like to comment that men, especially those who are older and have developed what is Slangfully termed "Moobs", should have a "Moob" exam because they have the possibility of getting breast cancer too. That is one thing, that can cross both gender barriers. Its a small percentage, but still a reasonable cause to get an exam.

Just sayin....

[DuckiesDarling]

I would just like to comment that men, especially those who are older and have developed what is Slangfully termed "Moobs", should have a "Moob" exam because they have the possibility of getting breast cancer too. That is one thing, that can cross both gender barriers. Its a small percentage, but still a reasonable cause to get an exam.

Just sayin....

I would have to agree with you, LittleRay. The Derby this year had another annual walk of survivors of breast cancer. For the first time, we had a male walking hand in hand with his wife. Everyone dressed in shades of pink to represent the Susan G. Komen Foundation. They took the opportunity of the male's appearance to remind everyone that anyone can get breast cancer.

[Bluebiyou]

... and I have never seen any valid medical data showing that male circumcision is harmful...


WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
lizard... I have never seen any valid medical data showing that African American slavery was harmful to the slave...
I have never seen any valid medical data showing that female circumcision is harmful...
I have never seen any valid (by NAZI doctors) medical data that any atrocity committed by NAZIs was harmful...

do you 'get it' yet? Your logic is flawed mostly by it's complete inversion.
"Prove the destruction is harmful"?!?!?

Wait for it...

missing logic/morality link coming...

It's not for the caring people to prove double negatives... this is the common vortex of those who do evil "you can't prove that to me (that my actions are wrong)". Lizard, you're spouting no new defense, has been used as an excuse by many offenders throughout history... to the present. Serial killers who blame the victim for doing the wrong thing, looking the wrong way, shouldn't have been there... it was the victim's fault.

Intro to morality and personal responsibility 101: It's your total responsibility... as the active destructive protagonist... to totally prove... on all levels... beyond any medical, ethical question...

Lizard lix....

"Prove beyond any medical and ethical doubt that male and female circumcision is absolutely necessary, and does no harm to the victim."

You can't do it.

It's great you can manipulate argumentative tactics to try to reverse ethical and medical responsibility. People come into this world okay as they are. You want to violently change them. You are the protagonist. You want to harm babies. By reversing the logic you manipulate the argument; the folks who say "you shouldn't hurt babies" you respond by "it's never been proven to me the babies were hurt, you can't prove that to me!!" Excellent tactic! You would have been a great asset to a debate team in your high school.

But I have razed your argument.
Did you have any VALID point?

[littlerayofsunshine]

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/general/119480d1251341044-teds-senate-seat-up-grabs-godwin.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Godwin_WikiWorld.png

[drugstore cowboy]

I find it hypocritical and interesting that women are flipping out about female circumcision all while claiming that male circumcision is perfectly fine and somehow is not mutilation at all and can't be compared to female circumcision.

These women are in some serious denial and are clearly not for equality for both men and women and I've noticed how they're all American or from the United States and they're just telling themselves this because they had their own sons' penises mutilated because some doctor claimed it was the best thing to do and they didn't do their own research but just wanted to help the doctor or surgeon make more money from mutilation which is what happens with circumcision in hospitals and when a doctor or surgeon performs male genital mutilation.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Useless, and possibly unconstitutional law. Even more useless thread. But it has made a decision easier. From now on, every time Tenni uses someone's gender or sexual orientation as a reason to attack them or publicly attempt fo invalidate them or rhewir words, I will report him.

His lack of tolerance and his obvious mysoginy have gone on for too long. I encourage many of you to join me in this.

Pasa

[Katja]

Useless, and possibly unconstitutional law. Even more useless thread. But it has made a decision easier. From now on, every time Tenni uses someone's gender or sexual orientation as a reason to attack them or publicly attempt fo invalidate them or rhewir words, I will report him.

His lack of tolerance and his obvious mysoginy have gone on for too long. I encourage many of you to join me in this.

Pasa

Having read many of tenni's numerous posts on the subject of women and heterosexuals I see no evidence that he is particularly either a mysoginist or anti heterosexual. He does have particular views about heterosexual women and people being members of this site and being able to express their points of view on forums and that is a point of view which is quite valid if somewhat misplaced. I do believe him to be foolish in his attitudes on these matters but it is surely not a hanging offence to be foolish.

Tenni does seem to have a personal grudge against several people on site, but from what I have read, the feeling is mutual but we can't be compelled to like or love everyone. Personal animosity is not hanging offence either.

If either foolishness or personal animosity were capital offences, many of the regular posters in forums would be long gone.

[mikey3000]

I find it incredible that a community who screams for acceptance of diversity can be so divisive on the appearance of a dick. It is so petty. There are so many more important injustices going on in this world and everyone seems fixated on the possible performanve of another's body part. Pretty stupid.

......................................


Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men
ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — More than 98 per cent of men who are circumcised can enjoy the same levels of sexual satisfaction and performance as men who are not, according to a study of nearly 4,500 males published in the January issue of the UK-based urology journal BJU International.


The randomised trial, carried out by researchers from Uganda and the USA, was undertaken because previous studies showed that the procedure -- which is now recommended as an efficient way to reduce HIV transmission - showed conflicting results.

"Previous studies have been problematic and shown contradictory results" points out co-author Professor Ronald H Gray from the Bloomberg School of Health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.

"Studies focusing on men circumcised in adulthood were highly selective, because there were medical indications for surgery, circumcised infants can't provide before and after comparisons and in most studies sample sizes were small and follow-up was short.

"This study, carried out as part of an HIV prevention initiative, enabled us to compare two groups of men with the same demographic profiles and levels of sexual satisfaction and performance at the start of the study."

The research team looked at 4,456 sexually experienced Ugandan men aged from 15 to 49 who did not have the HIV virus. 2,210 were randomised to receive circumcision and 2,246 had their circumcision delayed for 24 months.

They followed up both sets of men at six, 12 and 24 months and then compared the information on sexual desire, satisfaction and sexual performance for the circumcised men and the control group.

Their research showed that:

•98.6 per cent of the circumcised men reported no problems in penetration, compared with 99.4 per cent of the control group.
•99.4 per cent of the circumcised men reported no pain on intercourse, compared with 98.8 per cent of the control group.
Sexual satisfaction was more or less constant in the circumcision group -- 98.5 per cent on enrolment and 98.4 per cent after two years -- but rose slightly from 98 per cent to 99.9 per cent in the control group. This difference was not felt to be clinically significant.

At the six-month visit there was a small, but statistically significant, difference in problems with penetration and pain among the circumcised group, but this was temporary and was not reported at subsequent follow-up visits.

There was considerable consistency between the men in each group when it came to age, religion, marital status, education and number of sexual partners in the last year. The majority of the men were Catholic, married, had one sexual partner and were educated to primary school level.

"Our study clearly shows that being circumcised did not have an adverse effect on the men who underwent the procedure when we compared them with the men who had not yet received surgery" concludes Professor Gray.

"Other studies have already shown that being able to reassure men that the procedure won't affect sexual satisfaction or performance makes them much more likely to be circumcised."

"BJU International was very keen to publish this large-scale study as there has been a lot of conflicting evidence about the effects of circumcision" says the journal's Editor, Professor John Fitzpatrick from University College Dublin, Ireland.

"We believe that these findings are very important as they can be used to support public health messages that promote circumcision as an effective way of reducing HIV transmission."

The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention. Rakai, Uganda. Kigozi et al. BJU International. Volume 101, pp 65-70. January 2008.


:2cents:

[Long Duck Dong]

now that is a good study...

it uses people that can give full and active feedback in a study, not babies....

it covers the aspect of sexual performance and experiences

it covers a good range of males that have differing sexual experiences.....

and it beats the hell out of the * I know many guys that say * argument....

thanks for posting that mikey.....

[sammie19]

More levity about the issue for you to peruse. You may believe it flippant but with a little thought, it can be seen that sometimes flippancy does send us a thought provoking message.

http://www.iraresoul.com/circumcision.html

[Long Duck Dong]

the choice for me is one like the choice for immunization, sammie, there are pros and cons and the best I can hope for is to make the right decision at the right time

as a parent ( I am a legal listed parent which means its on paper, there is no factual proof of paternity ) I would view my role as a person that would have to weight up my options...

with immunization, there is a risk of side effects that can be servere in rare cases and its the same with circumcision, there can be side effects that are servere in rare cases.....

what is the right choice to make, the health and wellbeing of the child is paramount, and in both cases, my choice can result in issues for the child....
well it is easy to say that circumcision is wrong yadda yadda yadda... we have to bear in mind that there are issues that can arise in children that are not circumcised......

the thread is about a petition to push a personal agenda to ban circumcisions cos people do not believe in them... well, if circumcisions are so wrong, why are they performed on adults for medical reasons, which flies in the face of the argument that there is no medical need for a circumcision....

so as a parent, I would have to look at that aspect of things and not the tunnel vision view that circumcisions are wrong and should be banned.... and make a informed choice, knowing that only time will tell if I have made the right choice.....

medical science is not perfect, nor are parents..... but they are both expected to be, by many people that have a one eyed view of a issue.....

[Darkside2009]

I don't believe that immunisation and circumcision are valid comparisons. One has proven medical benefits without pain or personal injury and the other except in certain rare cases, doesn't.

I think the point that is being made again and again, is that modification of the body, whether it be by tattoos, piercings, augmentation or reduction should be made by the individual concerned, and not by any other person.

It is not as though we are talking about life threatening conditions that require immediate surgery, we are discussing an elective operation in which the patient concerned is not given a say in the matter.

I seem to recall that there was a recent outcry in the US about some mother giving her child botox injections.

If the child on reaching adulthood decides for themselves that they wish to be circumcised, tattooed or pierced, that is entirely their decision. As a society we quite rightly place restrictions on minors buying alcohol or firearms or driving a vehicle. In the UK at least it is illegal for a minor to be tattooed in a tattoo parlour, and yet it is somehow deemed acceptable to cut bits from the penis of infants that are unable to defend themselves.

To my mind, we abrogate the trust reposed in us when we allow such procedures to happen. As I see it, our duty is to nurture and care for our offspring, until such time as they are able to fend for themselves.

I only hope debate on this matter leads more parents to question the validity of the advice they are receiving from doctors. The Chinese once bound the feet of their women, causing deformity and damage in the process. This practice has died out, one can only hope, that circumcision in time, will also be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I would refer everyone to this article regarding circumcision in the US, it makes for interesting reading. I would also suggest they watch the link to the video posted by Sammie, above, showing an actual circumcision being performed on an infant.

It is graphic and disturbing, but perhaps that will help clarify in people's minds what we are actually debating, something that no amount of words could convey.

The article I refer to :-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ljZZ9ZvD_kQC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Incidence+of+penile+cancer+in+European+Union&source=bl&ots=GyVKiwOEIe&sig=6-ClqXQDRAFhCbCI_R7O2M6KLYo&hl=en&ei=hhTbTZCONMKxhAeSpMm_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Incidence%20of%20penile%20cancer%20in%20European %20Union&f=false

[Bluebiyou]

I find it incredible that a community who screams for acceptance of diversity can be so divisive on the appearance of a dick.
No. Mikey, it's a gross oversimplification (and clear manipulation on your part) to state that circumcision is just "the appearance". I could rip apart just "the appearance" if that were your true motivation; but it's not, it's just an argumentative/distractive ploy on your part.

It is so petty. There are so many more important injustices going on in this world and everyone seems fixated on the possible performanve of another's body part. Pretty stupid.
No Mikey, I believe you're trying to belittle, in every manipulative way *sigh*
1 molesting/mutilating innocent children is not petty, not even by custom.
2 "possible performance", possible Mikey, possible??? WTF? there is no question of circumcision damage, it is intentional, the damage and loss of feeling is the substantiation... the reason for circumcision! Possible performance?!?! Really Mikey?!? Please immediately present this argument if you want to use it again... present it prominently as a principle argument.
3 "of another's body part", same evasive moral angle as "why do those abolitionists cause trouble? They're not the ones being enslaved."
By the way I thought you claimed the center of this matter (in your first sentence) was only about the appearance of a dick...


Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men

Forgive me Mikey, I disliked you before, but I quickly get over it. I'd much rather be friends with you, Pasa, Duck, Twyla, ...
My opposition to you is entirely because you're maintaining a stance where harsh language required here.

Bullshit 101

How can deliberate destruction of 1/4 to 1/3 (complete destruction by complete removal of nerve paths and nerve endings) and incidental destruction of 1/4 shaft feeling (formerly transmitted via electrical signals through nerves now simply gone), desensitization due to direct glans continuous exposure and kerotinatization of penis glans.
And all of this destruction does NOT reduce feeling of penis? ... Really Mikey? Are you going to tell us "day is night" next?
I expect no less of neurosis.

Everyone would have to be a willful idiot... to wish this (circumcision) destruction into non destruction.


ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — More than 98 per cent of men who are circumcised can enjoy the same levels of sexual satisfaction and performance as men who are not, according to a study of nearly 4,500 males published in the January issue of the UK-based urology journal BJU International.

The randomised trial, carried out by researchers from Uganda and the USA, was undertaken because previous studies showed that the procedure -- which is now recommended as an efficient way to reduce HIV transmission - showed conflicting results.
Fertile ground for bias.
Isn't homosexualty illeagal in Uganda (death penalty), and isn't the USA pathetically (via cultural tradition) pro-circumcision? (violation of medical standards)
Why is HIV mentioned here, if this is an unbiased article?
These people set out to prove circumcision is okay for HIV prevention... they unashamedly announce it for God's sake!
Double blind medical standards gone (in addition to ethical abandonment)??????????

"Previous studies have been problematic and shown contradictory results" points out co-author Professor Ronald H Gray from the Bloomberg School of Health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Yeah, "problematic" inasfar as not solidly supporting circumcision...


"Studies focusing on men circumcised in adulthood were highly selective, because there were medical indications for surgery, circumcised infants can't provide before and after comparisons and in most studies sample sizes were small and follow-up was short.

"This study, carried out as part of an HIV prevention initiative,

HELLO! openly declared medical bias!Red flag!!!

enabled us to compare two groups of men with the same demographic profiles and levels of sexual satisfaction and performance at the start of the study."

The research team looked at 4,456 sexually experienced Ugandan men aged from 15 to 49 who did not have the HIV virus. 2,210 were randomised to receive circumcision and 2,246 had their circumcision delayed for 24 months.

Wait... WHAT?!?!?!?!?

They followed up both sets of men at six, 12 and 24 months and then compared the information on sexual desire, satisfaction and sexual performance for the circumcised men and the control group.

Their research showed that:

•98.6 per cent of the circumcised men reported no problems in penetration, compared with 99.4 per cent of the control group.
•99.4 per cent of the circumcised men reported no pain on intercourse, compared with 98.8 per cent of the control group.
Sexual satisfaction was more or less constant in the circumcision group -- 98.5 per cent on enrolment and 98.4 per cent after two years -- but rose slightly from 98 per cent to 99.9 per cent in the control group. This difference was not felt to be clinically significant.

Please note the careful selection and wording of the statistics. This isn't a legitimate medical study with anything to do with the thesis or conclusions (for anyone familiar with the medical ethical standards).

At the six-month visit there was a small, but statistically significant, difference in problems with penetration and pain among the circumcised group, but this was temporary and was not reported at subsequent follow-up visits.
There was considerable consistency between the men in each group when it came to age, religion, marital status, education and number of sexual partners in the last year. The majority of the men were Catholic, married, had one sexual partner and were educated to primary school level.

"Our study clearly shows that being circumcised did not have an adverse effect on the men who underwent the procedure when we compared them with the men who had not yet received surgery" concludes Professor Gray.
"Other studies have already shown that being able to reassure men that the procedure won't affect sexual satisfaction or performance makes them much more likely to be circumcised."

Nice vague reference and generalization.


"BJU International was very keen to publish this large-scale study as there has been a lot of conflicting evidence about the effects of circumcision" says the journal's Editor, Professor John Fitzpatrick from University College Dublin, Ireland.

"We believe that these findings are very important as they can be used to support public health messages that promote circumcision as an effective way of reducing HIV transmission."

Reannouncement of bias.


The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention. Rakai, Uganda. Kigozi et al. BJU International. Volume 101, pp 65-70. January 2008.
Uganda... Right... The sexually unbiased capital of the world with no other agenda.

:2cents:

Mikey, I wish I didn't have to rag you; anger/rebuke takes so much energy from me...
But your position, even your proof is very full of holes, bias, and manipulation, all towards sustaining an evil.

Please do not harm any more children than you already have.
I beg you.
This insanity (of harming children) must be resisted and countered by all morally cognizant human beings.
If you simply uttered doubts to your children, they might pick up the torch from there and end family 'tradition/logic' in harming little ones. It might not have to be inflicted on the next generation. It might be stopped.
This is the entire point of personal growth affecting social progression; to stop the stupid crap, the harm, to allow children to grow up and exceed the parents.

I steadily maintain that since circumcision has not, cannot grab medical or ethical high ground in any logical argument that it is doomed by it's very discussion... I am ecstatic San Francisco has taken the initiative. Even if they lose, the question is brought publicly up... and thus will eventually die by logic, reason, and ethics.

To quote the last 20 year stand by the American Pediatric (Association?)...
There is no medical indication for routine circumcision of newborns.

[Long Duck Dong]

bluebiyou, I have to say, its you that is doing damage to your own argument....

most of what you are using is statements by people that claim etc etc etc.... but at the end of the day, there is no full study that proves your claims and the people that would know best, the effects, are the adult circumcised males, as they have the penises that are being used... and that is the study that mikey provided

your totally hilarious argument against mikeys study, is that its for hiv / aids prevention and so that makes it null and void... and that its in uganda .....

I am sorry, but are you trying to say that penises in uganda are some how not valid penises cos they are not in the US... or that cos homosexuality is illegal over there that any study of penises in uganda is faulty ?

now you make the claim that the findings are faulty, I put it to you bluebiyou, instead of picking apart mikeys post with your hilarious attempt to debunk the study, how about you come up with a study on your terms ( must be in the US, must be where homosexuality is legal etc ) that counters mikeys study... and I am talking about at least 4,500 adult circumcision cases that prove your claims about circumcision

now I am not pro or anti circumcision.. I view it as a medical needed procedure at times..... and most of your argument is on the basis that it hurts children and damages nerve endings....... but I am curious, if you are so anti circumcision as cruel and inhumane.... then what is your stance on cancer treatments etc for kids, that infect a hell of a sight more suffering to children, that can last years.... and often, involves far more pain and suffering than a quick operation to remove a circumcision......

one thing I have noticed in a lot of anti circumcision advocates, is that they will inflict long term pain and suffering on kids ( medical operations ) and use the stance that its in the best interests of the kids, yet accuse others of child abuse cos of a circumcision.....
its a double standard cos no matter what way you look at it, pain is pain, suffering is suffering and kids are kids.... regardless of the reason for taking up a scalpel

[Katja]

now I am not pro or anti circumcision.. I view it as a medical needed procedure at times..... and most of your argument is on the basis that it hurts children and damages nerve endings....... but I am curious, if you are so anti circumcision as cruel and inhumane.... then what is your stance on cancer treatments etc for kids, that infect a hell of a sight more suffering to children, that can last years.... and often, involves far more pain and suffering than a quick operation to remove a circumcision......

one thing I have noticed in a lot of anti circumcision advocates, is that they will inflict long term pain and suffering on kids ( medical operations ) and use the stance that its in the best interests of the kids, yet accuse others of child abuse cos of a circumcision.....
its a double standard cos no matter what way you look at it, pain is pain, suffering is suffering and kids are kids.... regardless of the reason for taking up a scalpel

I beg your pardon? What kind of absolute dross is this? You are equating the removal of healthy penile tissue with what are considered necessary treatments for children aimed at curing their disease and preventing a lifetime of suffering or even often agonising death?

Of course many treatments for terminal and other serious illnesses can themselves cause pain and suffering which people of all ages would not otherwise endure during the normal course of their illness. But that is not out of a sadistic wish to inflict pain on a child or anyone else, but for what is hoped to be and very often is successful in curing the illness which may in the end kill or cause the child permanent disability and sometimes disfigurement. The medical profession uses what knowledge, technology and skills it has to try and cure the sick, and it often will involve pain and suffering from the treatment often over a long period of time. It is the state of the medical technology and knowledge available. Are we to allow children (or adults for that matter) to die needlessly when there is a treatment available even although that treatment will involve much pain and suffering over a long period of time which may in the end save that child's life? Because a treatment itself can cause pain and suffering are we never to allow it even although that is the only hope for the child?

In respect of these treatments, there are few parents, pro or anti circumcision who would not grasp the opportunity to give their child a chance of life and good health knowing that a side effect of that treatment may be more pain and suffering, may be over a long period of time and may in the end not do what is hoped of it. Even the most successful treatments sometimes end in death. Even simple surgical procedures end in death. Even a simple surgical procedure such as circumcision of healthy penile tissue.

Use of such treatments to combat disease are not a double standard as you suggest but a beacon of hope for child and family alike.

Your statement is crass and has positively no bearing on the case for or against circumcision.

[Darkside2009]

Quote LDD.

now I am not pro or anti circumcision.. I view it as a medical needed procedure at times..... and most of your argument is on the basis that it hurts children and damages nerve endings....... but I am curious, if you are so anti circumcision as cruel and inhumane.... then what is your stance on cancer treatments etc for kids, that infect a hell of a sight more suffering to children, that can last years.... and often, involves far more pain and suffering than a quick operation to remove a circumcision......

one thing I have noticed in a lot of anti circumcision advocates, is that they will inflict long term pain and suffering on kids ( medical operations ) and use the stance that its in the best interests of the kids, yet accuse others of child abuse cos of a circumcision.....
its a double standard cos no matter what way you look at it, pain is pain, suffering is suffering and kids are kids.... regardless of the reason for taking up a scalpel[/QUOTE]


Children or adults for that matter that don't have cancer are not given cancer
treatment, so I don't really see the point of the above statement.

Medical treatment, as opposed to elective surgery, is given to treat a medical condition, often one that threatens the life or health of the patient. Operations are performed on that basis. Routine circumcision is not performed on that basis.

It is the unnecessary surgery without medical need, on a child that has not given his consent, that forms the argument of this thread, not that people may need surgery at some point in their lives. Or that pain and suffering may be involved.

We don't remove an appendix or gall bladder unless it is causing problems, so there is no medical necessity to remove a foreskin if it is not causing problems.

In my opinion, it is fine for adults to consent to elective surgery on their own bodies if they so wish. It is not alright for adults to consent to elective surgery on the bodies of someone else, especially if that someone else is too young to give their consent.

We ask our children their preference for breakfast cereal, why not leave them to decide if they wish to be circumcised or not? Why rob them of the choice? They will have to make many decisions for themselves in later life, one more decision will not hurt. At least they will have made it for themselves, it will not have been foisted upon them without their consent.

In answer to DD, as to feeling like a freak in a shower room, I have never felt this. As an uncircumcised male, I have been in shower rooms all over the World, with people who were circumcised and those who were not, I have never in my life heard any disparaging remarks on whether anyone was circumcised or not.

Boys from puberty upwards are only interested in size and comparing their endowment with those of their friends or class-mates, who could attract the most girlfriends, who was smartest, who could fight the best and who was best at sport.

For those less endowed, it spurred them on to attract girls by their personality and by their prowess in other areas, by being funny, or good at sports.

To suggest that young males with foreskins in the school locker/shower room would be regarded as freaks is simply not true and is no different from someone else in this thread mis-labelling you a monster, or child-molester.

Labeling people as freaks, monsters or child-molesters is wrong. It does not do anything for the debate and only serves to detract from an honest, and thoughtful consideration of the points at issue. That is the only basis on which any debate can be won or lost.

[BiDaveDtown]

is that its for hiv / aids prevention and so that makes it null and void... and that its in uganda .....

I am sorry, but are you trying to say that penises in uganda are some how not valid penises cos they are not in the US... or that cos homosexuality is illegal over there that any study of penises in uganda is faulty ?

The whole "circumcision protects against HIV and STDs!" argument does not hold water at all.

If it did then why did an entire generation or two of bisexual and gay men who were all cut at birth and born in the United States get infected with HIV and other STDs and die from AIDS?

Circumcision is not something magical that's going to prevent you from getting infected with HIV or other STDs if you're not having safer sex and using condoms correctly to begin with. This is what people are going to believe in Africa that circumcision somehow prevents the transmission or infection of HIV and that condoms do not have to be used and safer sex does not have to be done if someone is circumcised.

Male circumcision offered no protection to women, and male circumcision actually increased the risk to women. Women also are placed at greater risk from unsafe sex practices when they, or their circumcised male partners, wrongly believe that with circumcision they are immune to HIV and therefore they choose not to use condoms.

In the latest Uganda study it is 56 circumcisions to prevent one HIV infection per year. They fail to mention that more than a third of the circumcised men were infected before the study started, and hence were not admitted to it.

Caution must be exercised in applying the results of this study to individual risk-reduction strategies. For example, the result that no circumcised men seroconverted during the course of the study might be casually interpreted to mean that a circumcised man cannot be infected with HIV through heterosexual sex. This conclusion is illogical, as the relatively small sample size (50 circumcised seronegative men) and short duration of follow-up (median less than 2 years) allow for a significant possibility that infection of circumcised men would be observed in a larger population or over a longer period of time. The fact that over one-third (29/79) of the circumcised men in this study were HIV-positive on entry demonstrates that transmission to circumcised men occurs in this population, and it seems extremely unlikely that heterosexual transmission did not contribute.

[Long Duck Dong]

the point I was making, darkside, is that one form of suffering is deemed unacceptable, another is not... we can inflict severe suffering on kids in the name of wellbeing and say that its acceptable ( surgical operations ), while decrying the suffering of children with a circumcision cos its unneeded suffering.... yeah we can in effect be setting them up later in life for a adult circumcision any way

do the children have a choice ??? no, we make the choice for them.... yet mention circumcision, and then the stance becomes *right of the children to decide *... funny how we play the double standards.....

what is my point ?? its simple,.... mutilation, child molestors etc surrounding circumcision.... yet parents that sign the consent for prolonged suffering on children, using surgical procedures, are seen as loving parents......

if I circumcised a child with the intent of avoiding a possible adult circumcision, I am deemed a cruel person... but not if I say ok, do any number of ops on my child so they have a bright / better future....

lil hint, juliana wetmore.... google her..... and the pain and suffering of circumcision becomes very mild compared to what we can put kids thru...

[Long Duck Dong]

The whole "circumcision protects against HIV and STDs!" argument does not hold water at all.

If it did then why did an entire generation or two of bisexual and gay men who were all cut at birth and born in the United States get infected with HIV and other STDs and die from AIDS?

Circumcision is not something magical that's going to prevent you from getting infected with HIV or other STDs if you're not having safer sex and using condoms correctly to begin with.

In the latest Uganda study it is 56 circumcisions to prevent one HIV infection per year. They fail to mention that more than a third of the circumcised men were infected before the study started, and hence were not admitted to it.

Caution must be exercised in applying the results of this study to individual risk-reduction strategies. For example, the result that no circumcised men seroconverted during the course of the study might be casually interpreted to mean that a circumcised man cannot be infected with HIV through heterosexual sex. This conclusion is illogical, as the relatively small sample size (50 circumcised seronegative men) and short duration of follow-up (median less than 2 years) allow for a significant possibility that infection of circumcised men would be observed in a larger population or over a longer period of time. The fact that over one-third (29/79) of the circumcised men in this study were HIV-positive on entry demonstrates that transmission to circumcised men occurs in this population, and it seems extremely unlikely that heterosexual transmission did not contribute.

read back to my post.... I was talking about the effects of adult circumcision in mikeys study post... I was not arguing validity of circumcision to prevent aids / hiv.....

now where is your link to your study..... where is the scientific references and study location..... its all good and well to talk about your study... where is it so I can read it.....

[BiDaveDtown]

How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections

Robert S. Van Howe, Michelle R. Storms

Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Marquette, MI, USA

Correspondence: Dr. Robert S. Van Howe, Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, 413 E. Ohio Street, Marquette, MI 49855, USA.
Tel. +1.906.2287454 - Fax: +1.906.4852726. E-mail: rsvanhowe@att.net, vanhowe@msu.edu

Key words: circumcision, HIV infection, risk compensation.

Conflict of interest: the authors report no conflicts of interest.

Received for publication: 25 October 2010.
Accepted for publication: 9 December 2010.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (by-nc 3.0).

©Copyright R.S. Van Howe and M.R. Storms, 2011
Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
Journal of Public Health in Africa 2011; 2:e4
doi:10.4081/jphia.2011.e4

Share |
Abstract

The World Health Organization and UNAIDS have supported circumcision as a preventive for HIV infections in regions with high rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV; however, the circumcision solution has several fundamental flaws that undermine its potential for success. This article explores, in detail, the data on which this recommendation is based, the difficulty in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public, the impact of risk compensation, and how circumcision compares to existing alternatives. Based on our analysis it is concluded that the circumcision solution is a wasteful distraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. By diverting attention away from more effective interventions, circumcision programs will likely increase the number of HIV infections.


Introduction

At the XVIII International AIDS conference held in Vienna, there was a strong push to gather funding to circumcise 38 million men in sub-Saharan Africa within the next five years. The belief is that male circumcision provides the best hope of decreasing the spread of HIV infection there. We believe these efforts are misguided.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS have supported circumcision as an HIV preventive in regions with high rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV, the circumcision solution has several fundamental flaws that have been glossed over by its proponents within these organizations. These proponents, who have been touting the “benefits” of circumcision for decades, have developed plans to circumcise Africa on behalf of WHO and UNAIDS.1 If their goal is to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa, circumcision will only serve to divert resources away from effective measures.
In this paper, we will expose the lack of scientific evidence, biological plausibility, and epidemiological evidence that provides the foundation for the circumcision solution. We will demonstrate how circumcision will likely increase the number of heterosexually transmitted HIV infections. Finally, we will discuss how poorly circumcision compares with other interventions.
Lack of scientific evidence

The results of three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often presented as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that male circumcision prevents HIV infection.2 After all, RCTs are the gold standard of medical experimentation. However, such accolades only apply to well-designed, well-executed trials. The three RCTs were neither.
The trials were nearly identical in their methodology and in the number of men in each arm of the trial who became infected. The trials shared the same biases, which led to nearly identical results. All had expectation bias (both researcher and participant), selection bias, lead-time bias, attrition bias, duration bias, and early termination that favored the treatment effect the investigators were hoping for.3 All three studies were overpowered such that the biases alone could have provided a statistically significant difference.
The common hypothesis for these trials was that male circumcision would decrease the rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV infections. A basic assumption adopted by the investigators was that all HIV infections resulted from heterosexual transmission, so no effort was made to determine the source of the infections discovered during the trial. There is strong evidence that this assumption was not valid.
In the South African trial, men who reported at least one episode of unprotected sex accounted for 2498 person-years and 46 HIV infections during the trial. Among the remaining men, who accounted for 2076 person-years, 23 become infected although they either had no sexual contact or always used a condom. These men, who had infection rate of 1.11/100 person-years (95%CI=0.74-1.67), presumably became infected through non-sexual means. The men at sexual risk of infection had an infection rate of 1.84/100 person-years (95%CI=1.38-2.46). It would be expected that all men in the trial shared the same baseline risk of non-sexual transmission and any additional risk could be attributed to sexual transmission. The infections attributed to sexual contact would be the difference between the total rate and the non-sexually transmitted rate (0.73/100 person-years). Consequently, only 18 (0.0073 infections per person-year * 2498 person-years) of the 69 infections in the South African trial can be attributed to sexual transmission.4
Similarly, in the Ugandan trial, men who consistently used condoms had the same rate of infection as those who never used condoms (Consistent condom use: 1.03/100 person-years; No condom use 0.91/100 person-years; RR=1.13, 95%CI=0.54-2.38, P=0.74). Men who reported no sexual partners for the duration of the trial accounted for 1252.1 patient-years and 6 infections (0.48/100 persons-years, 95%CI=0.22-1.07). If this rate is subtracted from the rate in sexually active men, at most 35 of the 67 infections in the Ugandan trial can be attributed to sexual transmission.5
Finally, in the first three months of the Kenyan trial, five men became HIV-positive who reported no sexual activity in the period before the seroconversion (0.73/100 person-years, 95%CI=0.30-1.76). If this rate is subtracted from the overall rate of infection in the trial, at most 36 of the 69 infections in the Ugandan trial can be attributed to sexual transmission.6 Conservatively for the three trials, 89 of the 205 infections (43.1%) were sexually transmitted. Without knowing which infections were sexually transmitted, it is impossible to test the hypothesis of whether circumcision reduces the rate of sexually transmitted HIV. Basing policy on studies that were unable to answer their own research question is unwarranted.
Lack of biologic plausibility

How does cutting off the foreskin prevent the transmission of HIV? This question remains unanswered. Proponents of the circumcision solution have speculated that the interior mucosa of the prepuce is thinner and more prone to tearing, but mucosa of the inner and outer prepuce have been shown to be of the same thickness.7 Proponents also speculate that HIV is more likely to be transmitted through the foreskin because it has a high concentration of Langerhans cells, which they believe are the entry point for HIV. Research has shown that Langerhans cells are quite efficient in repelling HIV and explains why the transmission rate of HIV is one per 1000 unprotected coital acts.8 The inner foreskin secretes langerin, which kills viruses.9 Langerhans cells also protect against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which may explain why circumcised men are at greater risk for getting an STI (unpublished data). In general, mucosal immunity provides a stronger barrier to infection than the skin. Finally, to support their plausibility argument, circumcision proponents have identified the sub-preputial space as a harbor for sexually transmitted viruses. Meta-analyses assessing the susceptibility to genital infections with herpes simplex virus and human papilloma virus have not shown an association with circumcision status.10,11,12 Unfortunately, these speculations have been repeated so often in the medical literature that many physicians and public health officials consider them factual. There is, however, no direct scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the foreskin is a predisposing factor for infection.
Lack of consistent epidemiological evidence

If the RCTs are to be believed and circumcision provides 50% to 60% protection from sexually transmitted HIV infection, then the impact of circumcision should be readily apparent in the general population. This is not the case. In Africa, there are several countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV infected than intact men, including Malawi, Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Tanzania.13,14,15 Even in South Africa, where one RCT was undertaken, 12.3% of circumcised men were HIV-positive, while 12.0% of intact men were HIV-positive.16 If the national survey data that are available from 19 countries are combined in a meta-analysis (Table 1) the random-effects model summary effect for the risk of a genitally intact man having HIV is an odds ratio of 1.10 (95%CI=0.83-1.46), indicating that on a general population level, circumcision has no association with risk of HIV infection. Among developed nations, the United States has the highest rate of circumcision and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV.17 Within the United States, blacks have the highest rate of circumcision18,19,20,21 and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV.22 Among English-speaking developed nations there is a significant positive association between neonatal circumcision rates and HIV prevalence (data currently under submission, Scot Anderson). On a population level, circumcision has not been found to be an effective measure and may be associated with an increase in HIV risk.
logo
Table 1. Meta-analysis of population survey results from 19 countries15,16 comparing HIV prevalence based on circumcision status using fixed-effects and random-effects models on exact odds ratios and confidence intervals.11


Risk compensation

Risk compensation occurs when people believe they have been provided additional protection (wearing safety belts) they will engage in higher risk behavior (driving faster). As a consequence of the increase in higher risk behavior, the number of targeted events (traffic fatalities) either remains unchanged or increases.23,24 When modeling HIV infections in San Francisco, Blower and McLean found that if an HIV-vaccine offered 50% protection, but reduced condom usage, or increased other risky behaviors, it would likely result in higher HIV infection rates.21
Risk compensation will accompany the circumcision solution in Africa. Circumcision has been promoted as a natural condom,25 and African men have reported having undergone circumcision in order not to have to continually use condoms. Such a message has been adopted by public health researchers. A recent South African study assessing determinants of demand for circumcision listed “It means that men don’t have [to] use a condom” as a circumcision advantage in the materials they presented to the men they surveyed.26 If circumcision results in lower condom use, the number of HIV infections will increase.
African men, on average, have coitus once a week,27 and use condoms in 48% of their sexual encounters with women.5 Assume that 20% of sexually active women are HIV-positive, partners were contacted randomly, condoms are 98% effective when used, the baseline circumcision rate is 5%, and circumcision reduced the transmission rate of HIV infection by 50%. Since the transmission rate of HIV from females to males is one per 1000 unprotected coital acts, the HIV infection rate in men in this scenario would be 0.537 per 100 person-years (which is far below the rate reported in the three RCTs). If the circumcision rate increases from 5% up to 75%, the infection rate would decrease to 0.344 per 100 person-years. If in the baseline scenario with a 5% circumcision rate condom use increased from 48% up to 67.9% of sexual encounters, the infection rate would be 0.344 per 100 person-years. Consequently, the impact of a fifteen-fold increase in the rate of circumcision could be accomplished by a relative 41% increase in the use of condoms.
The leap of faith

Interventions and medications that demonstrate efficacy in a research setting are often failures in a clinical setting. Circumcision will provide another example of this. The results from the RCTs are of questionable value, and it is unknown how they will translate to the real world. Numbers gathered from general populations are outside the 95% confidence intervals generated by the RCTs.
Research results often fail to translate to other settings because the research population differs considerably from the targeted population. For example, to save money in a trial of a new antihypertensive medication, participants with the highest blood pressure will be recruited for the trial, because it is easier to show effectiveness in those with more severe disease. The new medication may do well with the participants, but when the medication is released for general use, it may not be beneficial for those with mild hypertension, let alone those who are normotensive.
The men attracted by a free circumcision to enroll in the RCTs are not representative of the general population. The RCT participants were required to want to be circumcised. A faithful monogamous man with a faithful spouse would have little motivation to seek a free circumcision. This selection bias may have resulted in enrollment of men more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors. The free circumcision and financial inducements may have added to the selection bias.
If the selection bias resulted in more men at high risk of infection being in the trial, then the results would apply only to men who engage in high-risk behaviors. This would be consistent with the observational studies finding that the association between circumcision status and HIV infection was present primarily in studies of high-risk men.
Instead of targeting sexually active men at high risk of HIV infection, the circumcision solution proposes circumcising all males (of all ages), which would be equivalent to recommending the above antihypertensive medication to everyone regardless of their blood pressure. In addition to the national survey data (Table 1), observational studies of general populations have for the most part failed to show an association between circumcision status and HIV infection.28,29,30 There is no scientific reason to believe that the RCT results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure. Using the scenario above, if it is assumed that circumcision has only a 10% protective in the general population then increasing the circumcision rate from 5% up to 75% would decrease the infection rate from 0.548 to 0.509 per 100 person-years. Increasing condom use from 48% up to 51.8% would result in the same gains. So a fifteen-fold increase in the circumcision rate would have the same impact as a 3.8% absolute increase in the use in condoms.
Attractive, less invasive, less expensive, more effective alternatives

Before Africans address sexually transmitted HIV, a concerted effort to eliminate the iatrogenic spread of the virus is needed. As the numbers from the RCTs indicate, most infections can be attributed to non-sexual transmission. While this indictment of the medical system is unsettling, ignoring iatrogenic sources of infection will only allow the African epidemic to flourish.31
When it comes to sexually transmitted HIV infections, proponents of circumcision have consistently failed to compare the effectiveness and cost of circumcision to currently available alternatives, which include condoms, aggressive surveillance and treatment of STIs, and antiretroviral therapy (ART).
ART is a secondary preventive measure. When those infected with HIV are treated with ART, the viral counts can decrease to where the patient is no longer contagious. HIV-infected patients on ART with no currently active STI no longer need to use condoms to protect their partners.32 A recent model predicted that a “test and treat” model in a sub-Saharan setting could reduce the number of new HIV infections by 55-73.2%,33 making this approach attractive in Africa, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.34 This intervention directs prevention at those most likely to benefit: those exposed to the virus. With the circumcision solution, the vast majority of men who are circumcised will not benefit from the procedure (Figure 1). Secondary prevention is a more efficient use of resources and many HIV experts consider primary prevention extremely wasteful and ineffective.8 The “test and treat” approach is effective regardless of whether the infection was sexually or iatrogenically transmitted. Such an approach would not be limited to ART, as the use of other medications proven to decrease viral counts, such as decitabine and gemcitabine, may also become available.35
Aggressive surveillance and treatment of STIs has been shown to reduce the number of HIV infections by 40%36 at a cost of $217.62 per HIV-1 infection averted.37 This is more cost-effective than models for circumcision, which extrapolate the data collected from the 21 to 24 months of the RCTs to over 20 years, have predicted. These models, which incorporated major assumptions of questionable validity, presented circumcision as favorably as possible. In addition to being more cost-effective, aggressive surveillance and treatment of STIs have the advantage of treating and preventing the spread of STIs and avoiding the damage caused by removing the most sensitive portion of penis.38 Part of the success of STI treatment research may be due to a reduction of iatrogenically transmitted HIV, as the STIs were treated in research facilities.
In studies of discordant couples, condoms have been shown to be more than 99% effective in preventing infection.39 Condoms, in a public health setting, cost 2.5¢ each.40 A safe circumcision performed under sterile conditions in Africa using local anesthetic costs approximately $75,41 so for the cost of an adult circumcision, 3000 condoms, at 2.5¢ per condom, can be purchased. The nearly complete protection provided by condoms is a bargain compared with circumcision. In the first hypothetical scenario outlined above, the 0.193 infections per 100 person-years decrease in HIV infection rate brought by circumcision costs $52.50 per person. The cost per person of the additional condoms (at 2.5¢ each) for one year to achieve the same impact on the infection rate would total 25.87¢. To have the same effect for one year, circumcision costs 202.9 times more than condoms. Proponents for circumcision would argue that circumcision is a one-time expenditure, while condoms would be an ongoing expense. Using the scenario above with 3% discounting and assuming an average of weekly sexual contact over 45 years, the lifetime difference in the cost of condoms would be $6.13 per person. With 5% discounting the lifetime difference in cost would be $4.83. If circumcision is only 10% effective, with a 3% discount, the lifetime difference in cost of condoms would be $1.25.
One complaint has been that the 2.5¢ condoms are not attractive, which may explain why they are underused. Based on this analysis, if a man is having sex weekly for 45 years, an upgrade to condoms that cost ten times as much would be cost neutral (assuming a discount rate of 3%). Of course, if sexual contact was less frequent or a man was in a mutual monogamous relationship, further condom upgrades could be justified.
This is, however, a false comparison because, unlike circumcision, condoms can provide nearly complete protection.
Circumcision proponents believe that circumcision is the only proven effective preventive tool for HIV infection and have argued that condoms are ineffective.42,43 Condoms would be expected to be ineffective in regions where the majority of infections are from non-sexual transmission. Abstinence, be faithful, and condoms (ABC) should remain the focus of primary prevention for sexually transmitted HIV, but more resources need to be focused on the non-sexually transmitted infections, which is a much more efficient means of transmission.31
How rational is it to tell men that they must be circumcised to prevent HIV, but after circumcision they still need to use a condom to be protected from sexually transmitted HIV? Condoms provide near complete protection, so why would additional protection be needed? It is not hard to see that circumcision is either inadequate (otherwise there would be no need for the continued use of condoms) or redundant (as condoms provide nearly complete protection). The argument that men don’t want to use condoms needs to be addressed with more attractive condom options and further education that sex without a condom and without a foreskin is potentially fatal, while sex with a condom and a foreskin is safe. No nuance is needed. Offering less effective alternatives can only lead to higher rates of infection.
Rather than wasting resources on circumcision, which is less effective, more expensive, and more invasive, focusing on iatrogenic sources and secondary prevention should be the priority, since it provides the most impact for the resources expended. The second tier would be primary prevention that focuses on the ABCs.
Resources are not unlimited. With the push for circumcision, public health workers in Africa are finding that resources that previously paid for condoms are now being redirected to circumcision. With every circumcision performed, 3000 condoms will not be available. For every circumcision performed, a health care provider is prevented from caring for someone in need of medical care. With trained medical providers busy performing circumcisions, patients will be forced to seek medical care provided in settings where sterility of equipment is less likely and HIV is more likely to be spread iatrogenically. For every circumcision performed, there are fewer resources that can be put into ART and other chemotherapies. Male circumcision is an unnecessary distraction that depletes the limited resources available to address the HIV epidemic. It also fails to address the underlying causes for the epidemic in Africa.

References in next post.

[BiDaveDtown]

Here are the references to the study in the previous post.


References

1.World Health Organization, UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. 2007. Available at: http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf
2. World Health Organization, UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. 2007. Available at: http://www. unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
3. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet 1999; 354:1813-5.
4. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2005;2:e298.
5. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-66.
6. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:643-56.
7. Dinh MH, McRaven MD, Kelley Z, et al. Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision. AIDS 2010;24:899-906.
8. Chin J. The AIDS pandemic: the collision of epidemiology with political correctness. 2007. Radcliffe Publ., Abingdon, OX,UK
9. de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, , et al. Langerin as a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007;13:367-71.
10. Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:101-10.
11. Van Howe RS. Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis. J Infect 2007;54:490-6.
12. Van Howe RS, Storms MR. Circumcision to prevent HPV infection. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:746-7.
13. Garenne M. Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J AIDS Res 2008;7:1-8.
14. Demographic and Health Surveys. HIV Prevalence and Associated Factors (Chapter 15). In: Rwanda National Health and Demographic Survey for 2005. Available at: http://www.measuredhs.com/ pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
15. Mishra V, Medley A, Hong Ret al. Levels and Spread of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors: Evidence from National Household Surveys. 2009. DHS Comparative Reports No. 22. Macro International Inc., Calverton, MD, USA.
16. Connolly C, Shanmugam R, Simbayi LC, Nqeketo A. Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: Results of a national survey in 2002. S Afr Med J 2008;98:789-94.
17. UNAIDS, World Health Organization. Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance Project: Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 1998. Available at: http://www. unaids.org/hivaidsinfo/statistics/june98/global_report/index.html.
18. O'Brien TR, Calle EE, Poole WK. Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985-1986. South Med J 1995;88:411-5.
19. Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004. Sex Transm Dis 2007;34:479-84.
20. Mor Z, Kent CK, Kohn RP, Klausner JD. Declining rates in male circumcision amidst increasing evidence of its public health benefit. PLoS ONE 2007;2:e861.
21. Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract 1995;41:370-6.
22. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Racial/ethnic disparities in diagnoses of HIV/AIDS - 33 states, 2001-2005. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 2007;56:189-93.
23. Blower SM, McLean AR. Prophylactic vaccines, risk behaviour change, and the probability of eradicating HIV in San Francisco. Science 1994;265:1451-4.
24. Richens J, Imrie J, Copas A. Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons. Lancet 2000;355:400-3.
25. Bonner K. Male circumcision as an HIV control strategy: not a 'natural condom'. Reprod Health Matters 2001;9:143-55.
26. Bridges JFP, Selck FW, Gray GE, et al. Condom avoidance and determinants of demand for male circumcision in Johannesburg, South Africa. Health Policy Planning 2010; e-pub ahead of print.
27. Sawers L, Stillwaggon E. Concurrent sexual partnerships do not explain the HIV epidemics in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence. J Int AIDS Soc 2010; 13: 34.
28. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9:927-34.
29. O'Farrell N, Egger M. Circumcision in men and the prevention of HIV infection: a "meta-analysis" revisited. Int J STD AIDS 2000;11: 137-42.
30. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Int J STD AIDS 1999;10:8-16.
31. Gisselquist D. Points to consider: responses to HIV/AIDS in Africa, Asia and Caribbean. 2008. Adonis & Abbey Publ. Ltd, London, UK.
32. Vernazza P. La prévention du sida devient plus simpl, mais aussi plus complexe! Bull Med Suisses 2008;89:163-4.
33. Bendavid E, Brandeau ML, Wood R, Owens DK. Comparative effectiveness of HIV testing and treatment in highly endemic regions. Arch Int Med 2010;170:1357-54.
34. Charlebois ED, Havlir DV. “A Bird in the Hand...”: a commentary on the test and treat approach for HIV. Arch Int Med 2010;170:1354-6.
35. Clouser CL, Patterson SE, Mansky LM. Exploiting drug repositioning for discovery of a novel HIV combination therapy. J Virol 2010;84:9301-9.
36 Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. Impact of improved treatment of sexually transmitted diseases on HIV infection in rural Tanzania: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1995;346:530-6.
37. Gilson L, Mkanje R, Grosskurth H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of improved treatment services for sexually transmitted diseases in preventing HIV-1 infection in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. Lancet 1997;350:1805-9.
38. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int 2007;99:864-9.
39. de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. N Engl J Med 1994;331:341-6.
40. Shelton JD, Johnston B. Condom gap in Africa: evidence from donor agencies and key informants. Br Med J 2001;323:139.
41. Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya J, et al. Adult male circumcision: results of a standardized procedure in Kisumu District, Kenya. BJU Int 2005;96:1109-13.
42. Potts M, Halperin DT, Kirby D, et al. Reassessing HIV prevention. Science 2008;320:749-50.
43. Klausner JD, Wamai RG, Bowa K, et al. Is male circumcision as good as the HIV vaccine we’ve been waiting for? Future HIV Ther 2008;2:1-7.

[Darkside2009]

the point I was making, darkside, is that one form of suffering is deemed unacceptable, another is not... we can inflict severe suffering on kids in the name of wellbeing and say that its acceptable ( surgical operations ), while decrying the suffering of children with a circumcision cos its unneeded suffering.... yeah we can in effect be setting them up later in life for a adult circumcision any way

do the children have a choice ??? no, we make the choice for them.... yet mention circumcision, and then the stance becomes *right of the children to decide *... funny how we play the double standards.....

what is my point ?? its simple,.... mutilation, child molestors etc surrounding circumcision.... yet parents that sign the consent for prolonged suffering on children, using surgical procedures, are seen as loving parents......

if I circumcised a child with the intent of avoiding a possible adult circumcision, I am deemed a cruel person... but not if I say ok, do any number of ops on my child so they have a bright / better future....

lil hint, juliana wetmore.... google her..... and the pain and suffering of circumcision becomes very mild compared to what we can put kids thru...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange, I thought I was making myself abundantly clear. I differentiate between ELECTIVE surgery and surgery of MEDICAL NECESSITY. In the latter one is treating the illness, in the former one is performing surgery for reasons other than medical necessity.

There may well be pain and suffering involved in both. In the latter surgery is performed as a necessity to remove a threat to life, or to prolong life itself.

To use your example of cancer, we give chemotherapy and radiation-therapy to kill the cancer cells in order to prolong the patient's life. The alternative is to allow the patient to die, the patient might well die anyway but we did the best we could to save and prolong their life. The surgery was undertaken for the greater good of saving the life, the attendant pain and suffering was incidental and worth the risk in gaining remission, or extra years of life for the patient. The benefit out-weighed the risk

In contrast routine circumcision, being elective surgery, does not grant the patient any added benefit and as any surgery carries with it a risk, it makes the patient vulnerable to that risk. There is no benefit to outweigh the risk.

As adults, people make decisions all the time to take the risks of elective surgery, as they believe the resulting larger breasts, or whatever, outweigh the pain and discomfort. That is fine, I don't have a problem with adults deciding what to do with their own bodies.

I do have a problem with them making decisions for elective surgery for others in cases where there is no threat to health or life.

We don't, as a society, amputate a healthy leg on the off chance it may become infected with gangrene and need amputation at some distant point in the future. Why should a healthy foreskin be any different?

If the child reaches adulthood, you can ask them then if they would like their foreskin removed. I believe in most cases they will answer no, in any case it will have been their decision, not one that was made for them.

I appreciate that many parents in the US thought they were making the best decision for their infants at the time the circumcision was performed, on the advice of their doctor. However, as the article I posted the link to stated, the main American Health Associations have clearly stated, for a long time, that routine circumcision as elective surgery is not necessary or beneficial to the infant patient. They do not recommend it.

With all due respect, perhaps those parents should have conducted more research on the matter before giving their consent. If I was able to discover the views of the American Health Associations inside of five minutes, I'm sure they could have too, instead of listening to a doctor that had a remunerative interest in the outcome.

I sincerely hope that this practice of routine circumcision of infants, dies out in America and for this reason I wish the proposed legislation every success.

[Darkside2009]

Thank you, Bidave, for the interesting article, I hope it helps parents arrive at a more informed decision. If, after reading your post, only one parent decides not to put their son through this elective surgery your post will have been worth it. It will have provided, one step in the right direction.

[tristancir]

I'm for leaving this as a parental decision. Make all the arguments you want about pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision. How about stop intruding on others' lives and minding your own business? Embark on education campaigns if you must, but please, no more laws.

No one is forced to circumcise their son. It is a choice. Let's leave it that way. This is just another example of some who hold a certain belief (circumcision is bad) and intend to force that belief on others by law if necessary. These are the same people who turn around and complain that others are forcing beliefs on them.

The interesting part of this entire circumcision story is that in another generation it will be all but absent from America. The statistics are trending downward in a dramatic fashion.

[Katja]

I'm for leaving this as a parental decision. Make all the arguments you want about pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision. How about stop intruding on others' lives and minding your own business? Embark on education campaigns if you must, but please, no more laws.

No one is forced to circumcise their son. It is a choice. Let's leave it that way. This is just another example of some who hold a certain belief (circumcision is bad) and intend to force that belief on others by law if necessary. These are the same people who turn around and complain that others are forcing beliefs on them.

The interesting part of this entire circumcision story is that in another generation it will be all but absent from America. The statistics are trending downward in a dramatic fashion.

No, darling, you are quite wrong. It is not we who force our beliefs on others except in the sense that we believe that it should not be the right of a parent to force theirs upon their sons when that son cannot answer for himself.

Occasionally someone has to lose in an argument of belief, and this is especially important on issues where one group is making unnecessary decisions about the future of others who are unable to make those decisions for themselves.

People used to believe in slavery and burning witches but were forced by others who believed them to be wrong to think again. Hindu wives were burnt on the funeral pyre of their husbands and this too was a fundamental issue of belief for many. Many wives went to the flames voluntarily but many did not. Many in fact were as young as 6.

Occasionally, we have to put a stop to issues where people take decisions which they really have no right to take. That is in part what this argument is about.

[Long Duck Dong]

bidived..... ahh I asked for a study reference, what you posted, was a paper talking about randomized studies....

a study is what mikey posted, that laid out who was tested, why, what for, the test groups and the findings....

a paper is something somebody writes about studies that have been done, and selects parts of them, and uses them to point out some aspects of different areas......

now if you can please find the study ( control groups, who did the studies, where why and how, numbers used, methodology etc etc ) I would like that every much... cos all you have posted is the equal to a blog post, its a personal overview of a issue..... and while there are a shitload of references that you have posted with it... its still not a study....

[Long Duck Dong]

darkside... elective surgery? in most cases it is.... until its required cos of a medical issue... and that is where the issue arises....

the argument is being used that the children should have the right of choice... again, yes, they should, when possible.... unfortunately, there are cases when it is medically required to do a circumcision on a young child...
that places us in the grey area, of do we as parents, say yes or not.....

thats where I keep coming back to, is the grey area and how the issue of circumcision revolves around the right of choice but there are occasions when the right of choice is not possible to do....

the grey area is also the difference between circumcision and invasive surgery on a child... say we have one child, we say no to inflicting pain and suffering on a child by way of circumcision, then we are told that it needs to be done urgently for a medical reason... we then has the dilemma of do we stand by our beliefs, or sidestep them and say, its ok cos its medically needed.....

and that brings me back to the people in the threads that are talking about mutilating kids etc etc... and their one eyed stance that circumcision is mutilation... does that mean that a parent that gives consent for a medically needed circumcision, is guilty of mutilating their child, or acting in the best interests of the child.....

we are parents that are acting in the best interests of our children.... and there are times that we have to stop and say, what we preach, is not always what we practise..... and that is why, darkside, most of the people in the thread are not parents, but telling other people how to bring up their kids and how they are mutilating their kids etc etc.....

that is why I am not judging people on the issue of circumcision.. as they may say no to circumcision and end up saying yes to it anyway......
and regardless of all the studies and statements about how wrong / bad it is.... until we find a way to get rid of all foreskin related issues, circumcision will always be a aspect of life for parents and medical experts......

btw I am still waiting for the anti circumcision crew to come up with a alternative to circumcision in the event that a circumcision is medically essential... and I think I asked them for an alternative solution, 3 years ago in the site and I am still waiting for one..... and that leads me to believe they do not have a alternative, they just wait to preach their beliefs about circumcision and how wrong it is etc etc etc....


lastly, you mention about elective surgery like breast reduction...... we have ladies in NZ that are opting for full breast removal and reconstruction, not cos they have cancer, but cos they have a family history of breast cancer..... ironically, some of the same ladies, are anti circumcision campaigners.... arguing that the removal of healthy tissue from the penis has no basis at all......
quess they have never heard of a non retractable necrotising foreskin....

[Katja]

btw I am still waiting for the anti circumcision crew to come up with a alternative to circumcision in the event that a circumcision is medically essential... and I think I asked them for an alternative solution, 3 years ago in the site and I am still waiting for one..... and that leads me to believe they do not have a alternative, they just wait to preach their beliefs about circumcision and how wrong it is etc etc etc....


lastly, you mention about elective surgery like breast reduction...... we have ladies in NZ that are opting for full breast removal and reconstruction, not cos they have cancer, but cos they have a family history of breast cancer..... ironically, some of the same ladies, are anti circumcision campaigners.... arguing that the removal of healthy tissue from the penis has no basis at all......
quess they have never heard of a non retractable necrotising foreskin....

LDD, most of the issues you raise have been covered ad infinitum in this and other threads. I will concentrate on only two.

A foreskin can be partially restored. This can be done surgically or by other means (some quite comical in appearance but no laughing latter to the individual concerned, but quite effective). What cannot be restored are the severed nerves. Just as a severed hand at present cannot (always be) be reattached or restored perfectly we do not have the ability to do so with a severed forskin. But we have the technology and knowledge to compensate in many instances. At present this is the best that can be done for most amputees.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/restore.html

If I may touch on your argument regarding breast removal as a precaution against cancer, this too has been commented upon in several threads on the issue of circumcision including this one and these more than adequately cover your point. One successfully treated cancer sufferer made it quite clear that although she knew that one day the cancer may return to her breast, the option of a full mastechtomy had never entered her head. Some women take the opposite view, including some in high risk groups and even statiscally low risk groups who opt to have their breasts removed as a precaution. That is their choice. Their choice, no one elses. Their choice based on information which they are given once they are mature enough to do so.

Few of us are anti circumcision per se. We are anti needless circumcision performed on the child. Equally we are against needless removal of a child's breast tissue. In both instances, it is they and no-one else, once grown and given the information they require who should be the only ones to make that decision.

[Long Duck Dong]

what I was asking of the anti circumcision advocates, is a alternative to circumcision,..... if circumcisions are so bad in their eyes, come up with a way that the medical experts can use to avoid having to remove non retractable foreskins... foreskin restoration is a repair job..... not a alternative to circumcision.....

I am sure that a large number of males would love to have a alternative to adult circumcision, and would appreciate having a alternative, rather than hearing that they are mutilated and how the parents of young kids are child molestors

however, like I said, I have been waiting for a few years for a valid answer...

as for the breast cancer thing... I find it ironic that some ladies will have healthy tissue removed and say its a good thing to do and the right thing to do, but if you say the removal of healthy skin such as the foreskin, to avoid future issue, is a good move, they will tell you that there is no reason to remove healthy tissue if there is no issues with it.....

in essense you have a person arguing that the removal of healthy tissue is right, while telling you its wrong ..... and that is what amuses me....

as for the last part..... the right of consent and choice... that works and I agree, untill you have a person that is a adult but incapable of making a informed decision, IE intellectually impaired person.....
then who has the right to decide......??? it comes back to the caregivers, the medical experts etc etc... in the same way a childs circumcision is in the hands of a parent and doctor..... or in both cases, the courts....

lol I threw that one in to show that its not all plain sailing... that we have a viewpoint that people should be allowed to make informed choices for their own bodies... but all too often, we forget that not everybody can.....

so it comes back to a grey area again, not a clear cut ideal......

[Katja]

what I was asking of the anti circumcision advocates, is a alternative to circumcision,..... if circumcisions are so bad in their eyes, come up with a way that the medical experts can use to avoid having to remove non retractable foreskins... foreskin restoration is a repair job..... not a alternative to circumcision.....

I am sure that a large number of males would love to have a alternative to adult circumcision, and would appreciate having a alternative, rather than hearing that they are mutilated and how the parents of young kids are child molestors

however, like I said, I have been waiting for a few years for a valid answer...

as for the breast cancer thing... I find it ironic that some ladies will have healthy tissue removed and say its a good thing to do and the right thing to do, but if you say the removal of healthy skin such as the foreskin, to avoid future issue, is a good move, they will tell you that there is no reason to remove healthy tissue if there is no issues with it.....

in essense you have a person arguing that the removal of healthy tissue is right, while telling you its wrong ..... and that is what amuses me....

as for the last part..... the right of consent and choice... that works and I agree, untill you have a person that is a adult but incapable of making a informed decision, IE intellectually impaired person.....
then who has the right to decide......??? it comes back to the caregivers, the medical experts etc etc... in the same way a childs circumcision is in the hands of a parent and doctor..... or in both cases, the courts....

lol I threw that one in to show that its not all plain sailing... that we have a viewpoint that people should be allowed to make informed choices for their own bodies... but all too often, we forget that not everybody can.....

so it comes back to a grey area again, not a clear cut ideal......

The alternative to circumcision is non circumcision. Once such a procedure has been done then in time the individual may wish to try and restore that which he has lost as best he is able in accord with the level of technology and knowledge we possess. That is also his choice just as remaining foreskinless is his right.

You are right LDD. Some people never have the capacity no matter how old they may be to make such decisions for themselves for the very reasons you mention. In this country mentally impaired adults have been sterilised and evn had abortions for example, not because they have anything medically wrong with them but because it has been considered by responsible adults and guardians (and I use this term 'responsible' guardedly here), medical professionals and the courts that they would never be fit to raise a child, or to know how to say no to advances from unscrupulous individuals and because of the risk of a child suffering the same genetic condition as a mentally impaired parent.

These 'responsible' adults, the medical professionals and the courts felt in the best interests of that adult, that sterilisation was in their best interests. I am not criticising those people, professionals or the courts for those decisions, but remarking upon what is quite a dilemma. It was considered that these people (not all women) could never be responsible enough to make informed decisions on their lives for reasons all of us should be able to understand. Without being party to these considerations I am unable to judge whether the right decision was taken or not and neither is anyone else not directly involved. Such a scenario has also been played out in respect of a very few mentally impaired children.

However, in respect of childhood circumcision we are not talking about such young people who will never be able to make that choice for themselves. In time the vast majority will have that ability if it is allowed them by their parents. Some will not for much the same reasons as exist in respect of the types of cases I have mentioned above. Some may, because of mental impairment never have the ability to make that decision for themselves. In most instances it will never prove necessary.

Informed consent means allowing a person to make such decisions for him or herself. It also means that occasionally there will be an adult who is unable to make such decisions in which case he or she will have a guardian or responsible adult (or adults), medical professionals and courts of law to make that decision for them.

In the case of circumcision of men this will be a very rare necessity usually only taken in times of medical need (normally without recourse to the courts), and while I am unable to envisage a reason why an otherwise healthy man, mentally impaired as he may be, would require to be subjected to the removal of healthy penile tissue and would find it difficult to support such a move without very good reason, I do not entirely rule it out. Even if such a scenario is ever acted out, I would imagine that such cases would be very rare indeed. It would not be, as is now the case of infant boys, an everyday common occurence because that mentally impaired adult has rights of legal protection that a new born or infant child does not.

[Darkside2009]

what I was asking of the anti circumcision advocates, is a alternative to circumcision,..... if circumcisions are so bad in their eyes, come up with a way that the medical experts can use to avoid having to remove non retractable foreskins... foreskin restoration is a repair job..... not a alternative to circumcision.....

I am sure that a large number of males would love to have a alternative to adult circumcision, and would appreciate having a alternative, rather than hearing that they are mutilated and how the parents of young kids are child molestors

however, like I said, I have been waiting for a few years for a valid answer...

as for the breast cancer thing... I find it ironic that some ladies will have healthy tissue removed and say its a good thing to do and the right thing to do, but if you say the removal of healthy skin such as the foreskin, to avoid future issue, is a good move, they will tell you that there is no reason to remove healthy tissue if there is no issues with it.....

in essense you have a person arguing that the removal of healthy tissue is right, while telling you its wrong ..... and that is what amuses me....

as for the last part..... the right of consent and choice... that works and I agree, untill you have a person that is a adult but incapable of making a informed decision, IE intellectually impaired person.....
then who has the right to decide......??? it comes back to the caregivers, the medical experts etc etc... in the same way a childs circumcision is in the hands of a parent and doctor..... or in both cases, the courts....

lol I threw that one in to show that its not all plain sailing... that we have a viewpoint that people should be allowed to make informed choices for their own bodies... but all too often, we forget that not everybody can.....

so it comes back to a grey area again, not a clear cut ideal......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You raise the same point over and over again. It has been answered over and over again. An elective surgery is one that is not medically necessary.

If an adult, in full possession of their faculties, wishes to undergo elective surgery on their own body, I don't have a problem with that, as long as they have been given all the relevant information they need to make an informed decision.

If an adult needs surgery that is medically necessary, then they can have it, if they so wish. Bear in mind here that an adult in full possession of his/her mental faculties, can refuse medical treatment. As long as they do not have some contagious disease that requires them to be quarantined, I don't have a problem with that either.

If an adult that is mentally impaired needs surgery that is medically necessary then they should have it. If they are unable, through the nature of their impairment, to assimilate the relevant information in order to give their informed consent, then their case will be dealt with, (in the UK ) under the Mental Health Act 1983, or such legislation as may replace it.

For the purposes of the above Act, mental illness, incomplete, or arrested development of mind, psychopathic disorder, and any other disorder or disability of mind. A person suffering or appearing to be suffering, from mental disorder can be detained in hospital, either for assessment or for treatment.

Detention for assessment normally takes place on an application for his/her admission made by his nearest relative or approved Social Worker. This is supported in either case by the recommendation of two doctors that it is desirable in the interests of the patient's own health and safety or for the protection of others.

The application authorises detention for up to 28 days. In the case of emergency, however, detention may be for up to 72 hours on an application supported by one doctor only and made by an approved Social Worker or the patient's nearest relative.

The procedure for detention for treatment is the same as the normal procedure for detention for assessment. The application authorises detention for six months, renewable for a further six months, initially, and then for periods of one year on a report to the hospital managers by the doctor in charge.

Discharge of a person detained may be effected by the managers or the doctor in charge and, within certain limits, the nearest relative; in the case of detention for treatment, discharge may also be directed by a Mental Health Review Tribunal.

The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, provided for more care in the community for patients who previously may have been treated in secure hospitals.

The above Mental Health Act has safeguards, in the form of a Commission, which is the regulatory body established in 1983 to monitor the operation of the above MHA. Its members, appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, include psychiatrists, nurses, lawyers, members of other clinical professions, and lay people. Commissioners are responsible for regularly visiting patients detained under the Act, reviewing psychiatric care, investigating certain complaints, and advising Government Ministers.

In addition there is the previously mentioned Mental Health Review Tribunal, to which applications may be made for the discharge from hospital of a person detained there for assessment or treatment of mental disorder or under a hospital order or a guardianship order.

When a patient is subject to a restriction order or direction an application may only be made after his/her first six months of detention.

Such tribunals include legally and medically qualified members appointed by the Lord Chancellor and are under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.


If an adult female, in full possession of her faculties, wishes to have her healthy breast tissue removed in order to remove the chance of getting breast cancer that would be elective surgery. Her body, her decision, I don't think it is a choice many women would opt for, but again it is her body, her decision.

If a child needs surgery as a matter of medical necessity, to prolong their life, or alleviate their suffering, they should have it, it is a matter between the child and his/her parents. Again, I do not have a problem with this.

Medical necessity is where the patient's life or health is at risk and where the benefits of undergoing the surgery outweigh the risks inherent in any surgery.

In my opinion, a child should not be forced by the parent to undergo the risk of surgery where that surgery is unnecessary, or of no medical benefit. It merely serves to put the child at risk for an invalid or inadequate reason. This is an opinion shared by the American Medical Associations.

A parent should wait until the child reaches adulthood and is able to make an informed decision for themselves. Their body, their decision.

I hope this makes my viewpoint clear to you.

Two other points I would address. I have never in this thread or any other, accused anyone, of being a monster, a child-molester, mutilated or a freak.
They are accusations that have been levelled by other people, not by me. I am quite capable of articulating my own beliefs and opinions and do not need to stoop to such a level.

I regard these threads as a medium for the exchange of ideas. Where I believe the views or ideas of other posters are erroneous or unfounded I have sought to persuade them by the logic of my viewpoint. The sole point in doing so, is that they might examine their own ideas and beliefs afresh.

By the same token I have examined my own beliefs and ideas in the light of other poster's arguments. That is the nature of debate and how it should be, a continual process of learning.

We, each of us, have topics that are dear to our hearts. Something we feel passionately about. For me personally, one of those topics is defending those who for whatever reason are unable to defend themselves. It has been the reason I have been willing to expend so much time and energy on this topic, trying to answer each and every dissenting view thrown at me. Despite on occasion, thinking that some posters were being deliberately obtuse.

For the poster who argued that the decision to circumcise or not circumcise should be as a result of education, not law, I would answer this.

Research the opinions of your own countries Medical Associations, they have been stating for many years that the elective surgery of routine circumcision of infants is unnecessary. Although circumcision rates are dropping in the US, the message obviously isn't getting out there quickly enough in the face of vested interests and cultural attitudes.

Female circumcision is illegal in both our countries, it is enforced by law. We owe our sons no less than parity of esteem. If following the debate in this thread, has caused even one parent to change their minds about circumcising their son, I will feel my efforts have been well rewarded.

To those still undecided, look again at the video posted by Sammie showing an infant being circumcised. Listen to the fear and pain in that baby's cries and tell me you are unmoved by his plight. Tell me again that you understand why the child's Father could sit there and allow that to happen to his off-spring. Tell me again, that having witnessed it once, you would consent to it happening again to any of your own children, to your neighbour's children, to any child. The remedy is only a legal act away.

[sammie19]

When I was little, I was a bit of a fractious baby and not good at sleeping much. My parents in their desperation provided me with a dummy to keep me quiet. It worked and I was a remarkably contented baby from then on. Until visiting my Gran who threw it out with the bathwater so to speak and refused me access to it.

I wasn't fractious by its loss but am told I did have trouble dropping off to sleep, and ever since that day even now when tired my thumb automatically heads for my mouth and gets a good suck. This also happens if I am under stress in some way and upset. And even now most mornings when I waken up my thumb is in my mouth. I am almost oblivious of the thumb heading for my mouth in my waking hours but do try to control it when I realise what I am doing but try as I may I have never entirely managed to stop it. When asleep there is nothing I can do about it.

It may not seem much to do with circumcision but this is how I feel about it; if the loss of my dummy when young created these little psychological habits in me at a time when I was too young to remember what psychological damage does the loss of a small fleshy body part do to an infant boy?

[mikey3000]

It may not seem much to do with circumcision but this is how I feel about it; if the loss of my dummy when young created these little psychological habits in me at a time when I was too young to remember what psychological damage does the loss of a small fleshy body part do to an infant boy?
Well, I guess if a newborn could fit his penis in his mouth, you might have a point, but since he can't, your point is unvalid.

[mikey3000]

No. Mikey, it's a gross oversimplification (and clear manipulation on your part) to state that circumcision is just "the appearance". I could rip apart just "the appearance" if that were your true motivation; but it's not, it's just an argumentative/distractive ploy on your part.

No Mikey, I believe you're trying to belittle, in every manipulative way *sigh*


Forgive me Mikey, I disliked you before, but I quickly get over it. I'd much rather be friends with you, Pasa, Duck, Twyla, ...
My opposition to you is entirely because you're maintaining a stance where harsh language required here.

Bullshit 101

How can deliberate destruction of 1/4 to 1/3 (complete destruction by complete removal of nerve paths and nerve endings) and incidental destruction of 1/4 shaft feeling (formerly transmitted via electrical signals through nerves now simply gone), desensitization due to direct glans continuous exposure and kerotinatization of penis glans.
And all of this destruction does NOT reduce feeling of penis? ... Really Mikey? Are you going to tell us "day is night" next?
I expect no less of neurosis.

Everyone would have to be a willful idiot... to wish this (circumcision) destruction into non destruction.


Fertile ground for bias.
Isn't homosexualty illeagal in Uganda (death penalty), and isn't the USA pathetically (via cultural tradition) pro-circumcision? (violation of medical standards)
Why is HIV mentioned here, if this is an unbiased article?
These people set out to prove circumcision is okay for HIV prevention... they unashamedly announce it for God's sake!
Double blind medical standards gone (in addition to ethical abandonment)??????????

Yeah, "problematic" inasfar as not solidly supporting circumcision...


HELLO! openly declared medical bias!Red flag!!!

Wait... WHAT?!?!?!?!?

Please note the careful selection and wording of the statistics. This isn't a legitimate medical study with anything to do with the thesis or conclusions (for anyone familiar with the medical ethical standards).

Nice vague reference and generalization.

Reannouncement of bias.

Uganda... Right... The sexually unbiased capital of the world with no other agenda.


Mikey, I wish I didn't have to rag you; anger/rebuke takes so much energy from me...
But your position, even your proof is very full of holes, bias, and manipulation, all towards sustaining an evil.

Please do not harm any more children than you already have.
I beg you.
This insanity (of harming children) must be resisted and countered by all morally cognizant human beings.
If you simply uttered doubts to your children, they might pick up the torch from there and end family 'tradition/logic' in harming little ones. It might not have to be inflicted on the next generation. It might be stopped.
This is the entire point of personal growth affecting social progression; to stop the stupid crap, the harm, to allow children to grow up and exceed the parents.

I steadily maintain that since circumcision has not, cannot grab medical or ethical high ground in any logical argument that it is doomed by it's very discussion... I am ecstatic San Francisco has taken the initiative. Even if they lose, the question is brought publicly up... and thus will eventually die by logic, reason, and ethics.

To quote the last 20 year stand by the American Pediatric (Association?)...
There is no medical indication for routine circumcision of newborns.

LOL!!! Un-fucking believable. And yuou have the nerve to say that I manipulate? Are you on crack? Please read your posts before you hit the send button. You and your psudo-intellectual rebuttals are a joke. Never mind the topic, you attack the messenger. Man, you are no accademic at all. NOt even close. You chose to try and discredit the presenter of opposing information to push your own personal agenda. Everyone sees right through your bull shit.

So bottom line. There is lots of scientific proof for circumcision. Show me one valid medical study that indicates circumcision is harmful. And please try to not let your fetish for foreskins show. I want scientific proof, not your subjective preferences. But I don't demand it. Frankly I can't care less about your personal feelings on the subject. You have your opinions, I have mine and everyone else has theirs. Vive la difference!!!!!

[sammie19]

Well, I guess if a newborn could fit his penis in his mouth, you might have a point, but since he can't, your point is unvalid.

Invalid?

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=greg_boyle

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=greg_boyle&sei-redir=1#search="pyschological+effects+of+infant+circumcision"

Maybe but not quite I think.

An regarding your claim that there is no evidence that male circumcision is harmful, the very act of circumcision is harm inflicted upon a human being. We need no medical studies to tell us that. It can be argued this harm is for the greater long term good of the individual, but removing a small or large piece of healthy tissue and its incumbent nerves must by any literal difinition be regarded as harm. Or do Canadian dictionaries differ in some way from the Oxford English Dictionary. I suppose surgical castration was not considered harmful by those who turned healthy young boys and men into eunuchs.

[Long Duck Dong]

Invalid?

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=greg_boyle


Maybe but not quite I think.

An regarding your claim that there is no evidence that male circumcision is harmful, the very act of circumcision is harm inflicted upon a human being. We need no medical studies to tell us that. It can be argued this harm is for the greater long term good of the individual, but removing a small or large piece of healthy tissue and its incumbent nerves must by any literal difinition be regarded as harm. Or do Canadian dictionaries differ in some way from the Oxford English Dictionary. I suppose surgical castration was not considered harmful by those who turned healthy young boys and men into eunuchs.

then by defination, any medical procedure is inflicting harm upon a person, even when done by a medical expert, if it involves surgical procedures...... and therefore, surgeons are misleading people when they fail to tell the person that the surgeon is medically trained to harm people.....

also by defination, the inflicting of cruel and unusual pain and suffering upon a civilian, is covered under many human rights laws, which would, in effect, make a surgeon, a civilian quilty of forms of torture ... so when are we banning surgeries, chemotherapy and other forms of medical treatment that are methods of harming a person, but concealed as surgical / medical procedures.....

yet we go to the doctors and surgeons for the betterment of our health and well being..... and we are happy to allow pain and suffering in the form of tattoos, piercings etc......

when it comes down to using definations, its never a good idea, cos if you want to apply definations to a issue, people like me can use the blanket effect to show how and where it applies to many other aspects as well.....

what makes the difference between a surgeon doing a circumcision and a surgeon removing a breast... is our own viewpoint, but both are removing healthy tissue from the human body and that is inflicting cruel and unusual pain and suffering....

so sammie I would suggest you avoid getting sick ever again, or you may have to go see those people that are inflicting such pain and suffering on the masses.... the people we see to make us better

[sammie19]

then by defination, any medical procedure is inflicting harm upon a person, even when done by a medical expert, if it involves surgical procedures...... and therefore, surgeons are misleading people when they fail to tell the person that the surgeon is medically trained to harm people.....

also by defination, the inflicting of cruel and unusual pain and suffering upon a civilian, is covered under many human rights laws, which would, in effect, make a surgeon, a civilian quilty of forms of torture ... so when are we banning surgeries, chemotherapy and other forms of medical treatment that are methods of harming a person, but concealed as surgical / medical procedures.....

yet we go to the doctors and surgeons for the betterment of our health and well being..... and we are happy to allow pain and suffering in the form of tattoos, piercings etc......

when it comes down to using definations, its never a good idea, cos if you want to apply definations to a issue, people like me can use the blanket effect to show how and where it applies to many other aspects as well.....

what makes the difference between a surgeon doing a circumcision and a surgeon removing a breast... is our own viewpoint, but both are removing healthy tissue from the human body and that is inflicting cruel and unusual pain and suffering....

so sammie I would suggest you avoid getting sick ever again, or you may have to go see those people that are inflicting such pain and suffering on the masses.... the people we see to make us better

Like you, I am no intellectual but I try at least to use my head and think things through. I see a great deal of difference from surgically removing a healthy body part for dubious religious and cultural reasons and using surgery for sound medical reasons especially the body part of an infant who cannot make the decision for himself.

Occasionally human beings do have to suffer in the interests of their long term health because they have a medical complaint. They may elect to have a surgery when they have no medical complaint, and that is the crux of the argument. Infants are unable to elect, they have it inflicted upon them. I call that harm, I don't know what you call it.

[Long Duck Dong]

Like you, I am no intellectual but I try at least to use my head and think things through. I see a great deal of difference from surgically removing a healthy body part for dubious religious and cultural reasons and using surgery for sound medical reasons especially the body part of an infant who cannot make the decision for himself.

Occasionally human beings do have to suffer in the interests of their long term health because they have a medical complaint. They may elect to have a surgery when they have no medical complaint, and that is the crux of the argument. Infants are unable to elect, they have it inflicted upon them. I call that harm, I don't know what you call it.

so i would ask, ( i know you are not a parent and have not had kids )... in the event that your children needed surgery... would you stand by your statements, or change them according to the reasoning.....

most parents will change their stance and then argue that they are right for changing their stance according to different aspects, using the argument that they deem one to be wrong and one to be right

they are actually both wrong, as surgery is the inflicting of harm upon a child without their right of choice or consent, based on your defination, yet one is right and the other is wrong.....and they are both surgeries.....

and again, thats why I walk the middle ground / grey area, as I do not see a reason for children to be circumcised, but I accept that there are times that it needs to be done for medical reasons.....

that means that the surgeon is acting in the role of a surgeon, and performing a medical procedure, that I may or may not agree with, but it doesn't make them a asshole for doing a unneeded circumcision and a hero for doing a needed one...... cos the same surgeon could be the one that cuts away a foreskin on a child and on another child, removes a cancerous growth on the penis of a child...... and he is simply a human person performing a operation

yet, we would run the surgeon down for one act, praise him for another.... and ignore the fact that we are changing our opinion of him based around him doing what we want or not.... yet all too often, we are the ones being the hypocrites cos we are not sticking to our own stances that we dictate to others

[sammie19]

so i would ask, ( i know you are not a parent and have not had kids )... in the event that your children needed surgery... would you stand by your statements, or change them according to the reasoning.....

most parents will change their stance and then argue that they are right for changing their stance according to different aspects, using the argument that they deem one to be wrong and one to be right

they are actually both wrong, as surgery is the inflicting of harm upon a child without their right of choice or consent, based on your defination, yet one is right and the other is wrong.....and they are both surgeries.....

and again, thats why I walk the middle ground / grey area, as I do not see a reason for children to be circumcised, but I accept that there are times that it needs to be done for medical reasons.....

that means that the surgeon is acting in the role of a surgeon, and performing a medical procedure, that I may or may not agree with, but it doesn't make them a asshole for doing a unneeded circumcision and a hero for doing a needed one...... cos the same surgeon could be the one that cuts away a foreskin on a child and on another child, removes a cancerous growth on the penis of a child...... and he is simply a human person performing a operation

yet, we would run the surgeon down for one act, praise him for another.... and ignore the fact that we are changing our opinion of him based around him doing what we want or not.... yet all too often, we are the ones being the hypocrites cos we are not sticking to our own stances that we dictate to others

Your post is stupid. I am able to rationalise that a surgery to deal with a medical complaint which someone has or has had is not the same as a surgery to deal with a complaint that someone does not and may or may not ever have at some distant point in their future.

The first causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with an immediate problem or the recurrence of a problem they may already have had, the second causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with nothing. To deal with such problems by necessity other healthy tissue is often "harmed", certainly damaged, but that is not in itself causing harm. It is quite the contrary.

The second I argue is harm if it is done without the knowledgable consent of the person to whom the the the surgery is inflicted, or self harm if it is a procedure they have been old enough to be able to opt for themelves in the interests of possibly preventing some disease or other thtat may or may not happen. If someone wants to have themselves self harmed because of fear of some ailment they may never have that is their choice and their right. I have no objection to that at all. I do have objection to others deciding for those who are too young to decide for themselves.

Having a surgery performed to deal with an existing problem or the recurrence of a past problem such as breast cancer is not a hypocrisy as you infer but often sensible practice in the interests of keeping a patient hale and hearty. You do keep harping back to the same point and turning yourself inside out for no reason and increasingly make yourself sound and look foolish and it might be a good idea to find another pet subject to harp on about before you begin to look and sound idiotic.

[Floridaguy4u]

I have thought for a long time that most of the people in that state were Jackasses now I am sure of it. This in goverment at its ver worst. Whats next?
These people are part of the Anti Christ movement. Glad I live in the South!

[sammie19]

I have thought for a long time that most of the people in that state were Jackasses now I am sure of it. This in goverment at its ver worst. Whats next?
These people are part of the Anti Christ movement. Glad I live in the South!

Why? Because they are anti circumcision? Better not tell my mum or grans' they are in the anti christ movement or they will have the rest of you fried for breakfast and batter you senseless with their copies of the Holy Bible and they have some nice friends who will do just the same with theirs.

You do have many weird ideas across there as to what constitutes Christianity. Really you do. No wonder so many people in this and other western countries think you have more than your fair share of nuts and cooks when it comes to religion.

Btw. My dad's mother, one of the Gran's I was talking about? She has her dad's family bible which records family births, deaths and marriages going back to 1774. Its old and its HUGE and weighs a ton. She hits you with that you won't know anything about the fry up.

[Bluebiyou]

LOL!!! Un-fucking believable. And yuou have the nerve to say that I manipulate? Are you on crack? Please read your posts before you hit the send button. You and your psudo-intellectual rebuttals are a joke. Never mind the topic, you attack the messenger. Man, you are no accademic at all. NOt even close. You chose to try and discredit the presenter of opposing information to push your own personal agenda. Everyone sees right through your bull shit.

So bottom line. There is lots of scientific proof for circumcision. Show me one valid medical study that indicates circumcision is harmful. And please try to not let your fetish for foreskins show. I want scientific proof, not your subjective preferences. But I don't demand it. Frankly I can't care less about your personal feelings on the subject. You have your opinions, I have mine and everyone else has theirs. Vive la difference!!!!!
Uh, sorry Mikey.
But thank you. Between you and LDD's clearly irrational support of circumcision in the last several posts (if either one of you made a single valid point I missed it), you have ended up supporting the anti circumcision side of the argument.
In your most resent post I see nothing but 'back atcha!'.
In medical terms, circumcision is an accepted cure in a desperate search of a disease; you'd have to be a magnitude-10 liar to understand history (perhaps the last 130 years or so) and say otherwise.

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.

Thank you San Francisco!
Once the arguing begins, it becomes quickly obvious that circumcision is a custom (that many hold tightly to) of harming baby boys and nothing more.
Circumcision in other parts of the world is also a custom (that many hold tightly to) of harming girls typically at the transition age of adolescence.
Go San Francisco! Raise the banner!

[mikey3000]

Circumcision protects against 2 common sexually transmitted diseases: studies

Last Updated: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 | 5:47 PM ET CBC News Back to accessibility links
Supporting Story ContentStory Sharing ToolsShare with Add This Print this story E-mail this story
Related
Internal Links
Circumcision helps prevent HIV infection, studies confirm
YOUR VIEW: This study makes a case for circumcision. What do you think?
Video
Ron Charles reports: Circumcision protects against 2 common sexually transmitted diseases: studies (Runs: 2:04)
Play: QuickTime »
Play: Real Media »
External Links
Abstract of circumcision study, New England Journal of Medicine
Editorial extract, NEJM
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites - links will open in new window)

End of Supporting Story ContentBack to accessibility links Beginning of Story ContentDr. Anthony Fauci, of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, says there is compelling evidence of the health benefits of circumcision. (Dennis Cook/Associated Press)Circumcision helps protect heterosexual men against genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but has no effect on the bacteria that causes syphilis, two trials in Uganda show.

The study in Wednesday's New England Journal of Medicine builds on earlier research that found circumcision reduces a man's risk of HIV infection by more than 50 per cent.

"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, which funded the study.

"This new research provides compelling evidence that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections as well."

The latest data showed a 25 per cent reduction in herpes and a 34 per cent reduction in the prevalence of HPV among participants.

The 3,393 men were aged 15 to 49 and initially tested negative for both HIV and herpes simplex virus type 2, which causes genital herpes.

A control group of 1,709 men received medical circumcision after a delay of 24 months. All participants were followed for herpes and syphilis infection for two years.

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Dr. Matthew Golden of the University of Washington called for circumcision to be made widely available in North America.

"For most parents, the default should be circumcision," said Golden. "Obviously, these are complex decisions, and parents have to do what they think is right for their children, but there are significant health benefits."

Canadian pediatricians weigh evidence
Circumcision rates have been plummeting in Canada since the 1970s, when the Canadian Pediatric Society recommended against routinely performing the procedure.

The society has been reviewing that recommendation, and officials said the new study will be included in the review.

"This certainly provides new information that would tip the scale to say there may be quite relevant medical information that would demonstrate that there was a benefit that previously wasn't appreciated," said Dr. Robert Bortolussi of the Canadian Pediatric Society in Halifax.

If circumcision does become a recommended procedure, it could take time before it becomes widely available — partly because many doctors were never taught how to do it, Bortolussi said.

The human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. It causes cervical cancer, which kills 300,000 women globally every year, and anal and penile cancers.

The World Health Organization and the United Nations' program on HIV/AIDS have promoted circumcision since 2007 for reducing the risk of AIDS in areas where heterosexual transmission is high.

[Long Duck Dong]

Your post is stupid. I am able to rationalise that a surgery to deal with a medical complaint which someone has or has had is not the same as a surgery to deal with a complaint that someone does not and may or may not ever have at some distant point in their future.

The first causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with an immediate problem or the recurrence of a problem they may already have had, the second causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with nothing. To deal with such problems by necessity other healthy tissue is often "harmed", certainly damaged, but that is not in itself causing harm. It is quite the contrary.

The second I argue is harm if it is done without the knowledgable consent of the person to whom the the the surgery is inflicted, or self harm if it is a procedure they have been old enough to be able to opt for themelves in the interests of possibly preventing some disease or other thtat may or may not happen. If someone wants to have themselves self harmed because of fear of some ailment they may never have that is their choice and their right. I have no objection to that at all. I do have objection to others deciding for those who are too young to decide for themselves.

Having a surgery performed to deal with an existing problem or the recurrence of a past problem such as breast cancer is not a hypocrisy as you infer but often sensible practice in the interests of keeping a patient hale and hearty. You do keep harping back to the same point and turning yourself inside out for no reason and increasingly make yourself sound and look foolish and it might be a good idea to find another pet subject to harp on about before you begin to look and sound idiotic.

reasoning and rationalising...... snorts... they are what people use to justify their contradictions in stances, statements and opinions..... and how they cover their ass when they are doing what they tell others not to do....

take two twins...

one is having a elective circumcision
one is having a medical circumcision

the parents sign the consents for both.....

both children will suffer discomfort

you will have differing opinions on the actions of the parents....

take the same twins, put them both in for tonsilectomies....

both children will suffer discomfort

yet there will be a overwhelming silence as it will be deemed that the parents acted in the best interests of the children and therefore it is ok for the parents to let the children suffer discomfort.......

it is reasoning and rationalising that allows people like you to say that circumcision is wrong cos its the cutting of healthy flesh from the body... but that the removal of infected tonsils is ok even tho its the removal of flesh from the body.....

either way, its still the removal of flesh from the body..... and a cause of discomfit...... and it doesn't make a difference if its a adult or a child....

the only difference that exists, is in your own mind when you want to justify your actions, when you sign consent forms for a person to have surgery....
its what allows you to say circumcision is wrong, while saying removing the tonsils is acceptable....

in simple terms, many parents say they would never hurt their children, then sign surgical consent forms..... its a contradiction in statements.... and that is why i say that yes, I would allow a person to suffer... cos there are times that I have no choice in the matter.. but I would rather be honest and truthful... than have a stance of I would never hurt then give consent for them to hurt cos of medical reasons.....

[Long Duck Dong]

Uh, sorry Mikey.
But thank you. Between you and LDD's clearly irrational support of circumcision in the last several posts (if either one of you made a single valid point I missed it), you have ended up supporting the anti circumcision side of the argument.


you clearly missed me saying a number of times I am not for or against circumcision and that I view it as a medical procedure that is sometimes needed for issues such as non retractable foreskins, in children and adults..... and that I view circumcision as a grey area cos of that fact......

it would be like me driving down the middle of the road and you saying I am driving on the footpath...... I am clearly not the one that is irrational

[Darkside2009]

New England Journal of Medicine on Circumcision

Medicine? ---no

Science? ----no

Politics?------yes

Did the New England Journal of Medicine Circumcise Medical Information?

To the Editor:

The New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM) printed a strongly pro-circumcision (anti-normal anatomy) editorial by Dr. Thomas Wiswell,1 but did not print the pro-normal anatomy alternative opinion (see Abstracts & Analysis). When misinformation in Wiswell's editorial was brought to the attention of the editor, there was no attempt to correct Wiswell's exaggerated benefit claims. Strangely enough, the NEJM printed a Sounding Board discussion of circumcision in 1990 examining the purported advantages and disadvantages of circumcision2,3.

What has happened in the last seven years to make circumcision less controversial? Why does the NEJM only present the purported benefits of circumcision? Why did the NEJM fail to print any letters critical of this pro-circumcision agenda? Let's recap some of the research that they overlooked.

Circumcision is losing popularity in the United States and has been discredited by the Canadian Pediatric Society4 and the Australasian Pediatric Surgeons5 in 1996 position papers. Taylor described the unique innervation of the preputial mucosa in 1996, and its loss to circumcision6. Taddio et al. showed that circumcision with and without local anesthesia (EMLA) resulted in negative behavioral changes in a child's' response to pain7. Laumann has shown that circumcision causes sexual behavior changes and an apparent increased risk of many venereal diseases in adult men8. Price has questioned whether parents can ethically change their child's genitalia9. The editorial staff at NEJM could not have missed these advances. So why did they not present another Sounding Board article, and instead choose to present only a pro-circumcision editorial by Wiswell?

In a previous article in the NEJM, Royce et al. insinuated that the prepuce may be a risk factor for HIV infections.10 This factually inaccurate article was referenced in a letter to the editor as proof that circumcision protects an individual from HIV infections.11 Fortunately, Laumann pointed out the fallacy of this logic. "The lack of rigorous, systematic controls for co-factors relevant to the particularities of the African context, the prophylactic status of the presence or absence of the foreskin remains an open question12." But the fact that the NEJM failed to print our letter of criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis), suggests that the NEJM only prints material that supports neonatal circumcision.

Beyond Wiswell's proclamation of the benefits of circumcision, the research presented by Taddio et al.13 was proclaimed as a major advance. When the limitations of this form of local anesthesia was brought to the attention of the editors, they failed to print the criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis). They failed to point out that this form of local anesthesia (EMLA) did not prevent the long term negative behavioral response to pain previously reported in the Lancet7!

Interestingly, the lack of effects of EMLA on long term negative behavioral changes caused by circumcision was printed in a British medical journal. Presumably, Taddio is smart enough to submit negative studies to European medical journals7,14 and luke-warm studies to American medical journals13.

Certainly, over the last seven years, the NEJM has shifted from a balanced approach, to a one-sided, pro-circumcision stance, even though the lion's share of the medical literature would encourage a shift in the opposite direction. It is hoped that in the near future, the NEJM will have the courage to confront the ethical problems and medical complications associated with circumcision. Maybe then, it will be acceptable for a physician to tell the parents of a newborn child, "Your baby has normal anatomy, so there is no need to charge you money to surgically alter this child's genital anatomy. If your son or daughter wants to change their genital anatomy, they are free to do so after age 18, when they can make an informed decision." Physicians will then be able to teach parents not to fear normal anatomy.

Normal anatomy is not as dirty and dangerous as once thought. Even if a part of the body is malformed, diseased, or carries some risk, an individual must retain the right to refuse surgery. Prophylactic removal of normal anatomy to please parents, or to produce income for the physician is unethical. I hope the NEJM can temper its pro-circumcision agenda. Circumcision of medical knowledge and information is more dangerous than amputating part of the penis from a restrained, non-consenting baby.

Christopher J. Cold, MD
Department of Pathology
Marshfield Clinic

References

Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1244-5.
Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1308-12.
Poland RL. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322:1312-5.
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Can Med Assoc J 1996; 154:769-80.
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Guidelines for circumcision. April 1996.
Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996; 77:291-95.
Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997; 349:599-603.
Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practices, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997; 277:1052-7.
Price (Bull. Medical Ethics).
Royce RA, Sena A, Cates W Jr, Cohen MS. Sexual transmission of HIV. N Engl J M ed 1997; 336:1072-1078.
JAMA 1997; 278(3):201
Laumann EO. JAMA 1997; 278(3):203
Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, Rastogi P, Ben-David S, Shennan A, Mulligan P, Koren G. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1197-1201.
Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995; 345:291-2.
Information quoted on this site is with the written permission of the authors.

Return to Table of Contents

[drugstore cowboy]

You'd have to be completely crazy to think that any sort of genital mutilation or removal of healthy tissue from the genitals rich with nerve endings somehow prevents HIV, HPV (genital warts), and herpes so effectively to the point that it works better than using condoms correctly and having safer sex work at preventing such STDs. :rolleyes: There's even a vaccination for HPV now and I'm sure Mikey will claim that circumcision works better than the vaccination for HPV.

More concerns raised about the HIV/Circumcision research

You may remember before Christmas there was a lot of media attention to new research from Africa that suggested men who had been circumcised had lower HIV rates than men who had not undergone this procedure. I had a few questions about the research - particularly why it was a halted trial that went straight to media rather than being published anywhere.

Other colleagues working in the area of HIV have raised more specific concerns about the HIV/Circumcision research and the issues it raises. In particular there are worries that a population that’s not particularly health literate may interpret the study as circumcision gives immunity from HIV, and also that this research doesn’t include the health of women.

One such colleague, David Gisselquist*, has provided some thoughtful analysis of this latest research. He has kindly allowed me to reproduce his views on the HIV/Circumcision trial here:

“Three prospective studies report that circumcision protects African men from sexual acquisition of HIV. What is going on is not so clear. If circumcision is so protective, then why do CIRCUMCISED men in 6 of 10 African countries have HIGHER HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men in Demographic and Health Surveys (see attached table)? If circumcision protects men from sexual acquistion of HIV (and that may be so), then data on HIV prevalence suggests that most HIV in men in Africa is coming from something else.

Table showing HIV prevalence and circumcision
http://circumstitions.com/Images/hiv-10-africa.gif

High HIV incidence and prevalence in women, especially young women, almost defines Africa’s HIV epidemic. So let’s look at HIV in women vs. male circumcision (see table above). If we consider countries in Southern Africa in a group, and all other countries in Africa as another group, we find:
(a) Southern Africa: Women in Lesotho have more HIV than women in Malawi, even though a much higher percentage of men are circumcised in Lesotho.
(b) Rest of Africa: The percentage of men circumcised ranges from 9% to 95%, while HIV prevalence in women ranges from 1.9% to 8.7%. The 3 countries with the highest HIV prevalence in women are (in order) Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania with, respectively, 83%, 25%, and 69% of men circumcised.

The African AIDS literature is awash in fantasies about sugar daddies, and no doubt there are some. But what about risks during gynecological and antenatal care? If researchers in Europe had not looked at blood risks for groups of European women with 20%-50% HIV prevalence, but just winked and implied that the women were promiscuous (and lied about it), the researchers would be recognized as incompetent and probably anti-female. But AIDS experts get away with that sort of behavior in Africa.

Some specific questions that have been avoided for decades: Are multidose vials of tetanus contaminated? What happens to women when specula are reused without sterilization? Is equipment used to draw venous blood during antenatal care sterile? What about conditions during delivery?

When is safe health care for women in Africa going to be a priority in AIDS prevention? Circumcising men will not make women’s health care safe”.

*David is an anthropologist and economist and co-runs a listserve called RELASH (REporters and LAwyers for Safe Healthcare). RELASH is looking for reporters, lawyers, and others interested to share ideas about how to respond to unexplained HIV infections - to promote investigations, compensation and change.

[sammie19]

reasoning and rationalising...... snorts... they are what people use to justify their contradictions in stances, statements and opinions..... and how they cover their ass when they are doing what they tell others not to do....

take two twins...

one is having a elective circumcision
one is having a medical circumcision

the parents sign the consents for both.....

both children will suffer discomfort

you will have differing opinions on the actions of the parents....

take the same twins, put them both in for tonsilectomies....

both children will suffer discomfort

yet there will be a overwhelming silence as it will be deemed that the parents acted in the best interests of the children and therefore it is ok for the parents to let the children suffer discomfort.......

it is reasoning and rationalising that allows people like you to say that circumcision is wrong cos its the cutting of healthy flesh from the body... but that the removal of infected tonsils is ok even tho its the removal of flesh from the body.....

either way, its still the removal of flesh from the body..... and a cause of discomfit...... and it doesn't make a difference if its a adult or a child....

the only difference that exists, is in your own mind when you want to justify your actions, when you sign consent forms for a person to have surgery....
its what allows you to say circumcision is wrong, while saying removing the tonsils is acceptable....

in simple terms, many parents say they would never hurt their children, then sign surgical consent forms..... its a contradiction in statements.... and that is why i say that yes, I would allow a person to suffer... cos there are times that I have no choice in the matter.. but I would rather be honest and truthful... than have a stance of I would never hurt then give consent for them to hurt cos of medical reasons.....

Now you have degenerated into idiocy. I need say no more.

[Darkside2009]

http://www.circumcision.org/ethics.htm

I have been unable to cut and paste this, so I've included the link.

[drugstore cowboy]

Long Duck there actually was something that happened with genital mutilation and two twins, that had devastating results.

The other twin who was not circumcised at all after his parents saw with horror what happened to his brother developed into a fine adult man and never needed any genital mutilation at all.

(text sampled from another site)

Once upon a time, in a decade called the Sixties, a little boy named Bruce was born. He had a twin brother, and at first, life was fine for the children. They had a mommy and daddy who loved them and wanted to do the right thing for them. In fact, they started out life just the way most of us do in the US and Canada. Canada being the country where this story takes place.

Then one day it was time to go down to the hospital to get circumcised. They did this delicate operation with an electrocautery gizmo, one of several methods that had been developed for doing the usually-unnecessary and painful procedure.

Can you tell that our idyllic story of two sweet twins is about to take a turn for the worse?

Little Bruce’s baby brother was circumcised, wailed, eventually healed; well, his circumcision did not go awry, anyhow. I know there are anti-circumcision activists all around me who would deny that “healing” is possible after circumcision: after all, part of your body is then by definition missing. I agree with you guys, OK? So don’t email me those awful pictures of circumcised babies you keep on your websites. Don’t snail mail me your pamphlets, either, unless you have published something new recently, in which case go ahead and I will put all literature in the Center for Sex & Culture archives.

But I digress from my story. Back to little Bruce.

Little Bruce’s circumcision did not go so well. His penis was lost. Yes, lost, dear reader: This is not an allegory, this is a story about a damned circumcision that went so far south that, when it was over, a little boy’s dick was gone.

Don’t be bashing Canada over this, now. The same thing happens here.

Because it was the Sixties, a brave new decade when it seemed that anything was possible and the future was close enough to touch, Bruce’s distraught parents and doctor called upon an Expert. The Expert they called upon was a pretty famous guy who was about to become, thanks to Bruce’s sad accident, a lot more famous indeed. His name was John Money, and he studied gender, among other things, and was convinced that the difference between the sexes was primarily one of genital plumbing and social construction. That is, babies were born, put into pink or blue blankets, and treated immediately in pink and blue ways by parents and everyone else. The little creatures were, in fact, infinitely malleable, but since grown-ups were not, rigid gender expectations began to be imposed on the tiniest kids, and the kids learned what the parents expected of them and turned into Boys and Girls and later Men and Women.

In the case of Bruce, one of these pesky problems of gender differentiation was no longer an issue: his genital plumbing was pretty much toast, and docs in that decade had yet to learn how to reconstruct an infant penis. No one thought they would have a good shot if they tried. So Dr. Money recommended they do something else. He suggested they do some basic reconstructive surgery to make Bruce’s damaged genitals look female, and to put the kid in a dress, call her Brenda, and turn her into a girl.

Now, there are many adult transgendered women who hated being the little boys they were raised to be and always wished someone would come along and get them a nice little yellow dress. This, however, was not Bruce’s situation. He did not yearn to be a girl, but he was also too young when this accident happened to have a clearly developed sense of himself as a boy. That’s what everybody thought, anyway. And Dr. Money was certain that he could not only help Bruce, a.k.a. Brenda, recover from this horrible damage, but also prove a huge point about gender to all of society. Especially good: Brenda had a twin! It was a built-in control group, a perfect experiment.

If you went to college in the 1970s or 1980s and took any Psych, Soc, or similar classes, you heard about Bruce/Brenda, except s/he was called John/Joan in Money’s influential book *Man and Woman, Boy and Girl*. Money made absolute hay over the twins, announcing their existence to the world, writing them up in scientific journals, showing up at their house every so often to monitor their progress or having them travel to his lab at Johns Hopkins. Money’s fame and influence was a done deal now, thanks largely to his role in the lives of the twins.

Brenda got dresses and dollies. She went to school and did everything else in her life dressed and in all other ways identified as a girl. She wasn’t happy... but for years and years she didn’t know why.

The world outside didn’t get the word that the twins study wasn’t a perfect example of social gender construction, that the happy little home into which the twins were born was fraught with tension over Brenda’s distress, that no one (including the great Money, whom people kept trusting until it was way too late) seemed to be able to help.

Finally a suicidal, troubled teen Brenda was told why “she’d” always felt so different.

She put her boy’s clothes back on and never took them off again. It’s a good thing this happened when it did, because she (and her family) had been putting off a big surgery she needed: vaginoplasty. How could she become a normal woman if she didn’t have a vagina?

Brenda did not take back the name Bruce. Instead, this young man took a new name, strove to construct a new identity that would allow him (and his hormones, and his chromosomes) to move on into adult maleness. His new name was David Reimer.

Reimer struggled to be a man without having had the back-up of male learning and conditioning. John Money was half right, you see: that part *is* critically important to the types of men and women we can become. It’s just not the only part of the equation. Reimer did his best: He married, raised his wife’s kids, tried to make himself and them a normal life after anything-but-normal beginnings. He consented, at first reluctantly, to let the story of his life be told. His biographer, John Colapinto, produced a fabulous, thought-provoking book called *As Nature Made Him*. It made John Money look like a royal jerk, making one think that perhaps gender problems weren’t the only obstacle young David had to overcome.
Then, about a month ago, David Reimer died: suicide.

DAVID REIMER, REST IN PEACE

It may be the first peace since before the circumcision. It is certainly a painful time for his friends and family, and is also a utterly painful moment for gendernauts of all kinds. Any of us who is gender-dysphoric, transgendered, intersex, or a fellow traveler who wants to see gender become a less-binding social construction (that’s where I come in) has suffered a little with David Reimer when we found out about his strange and distressing life. For Reimer’s example proves that it’s still hard for most to accept anything but Either/Or when it comes to gender. He couldn’t be a man, the Experts reasoned, because he doesn’t have a penis, so what does that leave? An artificial woman, not driven, as male-to-female transsexuals are, by her own sense of inner female identity, but rather by the directive of a supposedly-expert adult.

The fact is, no one is yet truly expert in matters like this. Yes, we’re getting a handle on gender dysphoria, and of course transpeople are experts on their own lives. But that’s not really what this case is. David Reimer was an unwitting and then unwilling gender explorer, a person thrust into some of the biggest existential questions of all because one doctor had an accident and another doctor had a theory.

I send blessings to Reimer’s spirit, the part that could be said to be free of gender, as many of us would like to be. I wish him peace, a man who just wanted to be an ordinary guy, thrust into a most extraordinary life.

POSTSCRIPT

Money’s pretty much been demoted. I hope he had a pang when the news of Reimer’s death came his way; he wasn’t exactly open to acknowledging he might have fucked up while the object of his experimentation was still alive. Certainly most of us in and near the gender studies field do not idolize Money they way he came, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, to expect. He was a rock star of sexology then; now, he’s inextricably linked to an experiment that ended badly, in fact tragically.

The community of people most touched by the ramifications of this case and Money’s theories are probably our intersex friends and neighbors. Even more than transpeople, intersex folk, who are often born with “ambiguous” genitals (that is, the doc can’t easily tell if the newborn is female or male), are put as infants into a gender role that may or may not match their own sense of themselves. Sex roles aren’t all; often surgeries are performed to make these kids’ teeny genitals match some doctor’s template of “normal” dicks and clits. And of course David Reimer’s life and struggles should be of passing interest to anyone who thinks about getting their little boy circumcised. In both cases – intersex and circumcision – doctors use sharp knives to shape the body, trimming off nerve-endowed tissue in the process. It’s even possible Reimer decided to check out because he couldn’t have a damned orgasm.

Speaking of “normal,” a word I don’t like much: That’s where David Reimer’s life touches every one of ours. Who hasn’t had someone try to keep us in line by questioning whether or not we were “normal”? Too often we keep *ourselves* in line this way. “Am I normal? Is this normal? Do I look/sound/seem normal?” Tiny Bruce got put in a pinafore because his young parents were terrified that their child would live a life that was not normal; sadly, that’s exactly what happened, but in a way completely different than they expected. And each of us is put into boxes marked “normal” and either learn to live within them, or escape, sometimes sustaining damage in the attempt.

That’s the genesis of pink and blue, two and only two genders. It’s what makes people afraid to be their individual sexual selves, too, whether that’s queer, kinky, or just enthusiastic. People, “normal” kills. It killed David Reimer, I’m sure.

In fact, circumcision kills, too. You may know I wrote about this ten years ago; the essay is part of my collection *Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture*. People circumcise their little boys mostly to make them look “normal,” when the irony is, a truly normal penis is uncircumcised. That’s how they come from the factory, right? Full of nice nerve endings which you’ll want to play with your entire life, given the opportunity. Once in a while, though, the doc slips. These things happen. And in fact a scary website exists to tell you about all the hazards of this common and almost always medically unnecessary procedure. Check it out, especially if you plan to have any kids: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html.

If David Reimer’s fight for his own life is to have larger meaning, maybe it will be that we all use his example to examine attitudes about sex, gender, and professional expertise that do not serve us. I know that I will keep his memory alive in that way: his is a stunning example of expectations (and medical authority) gone awry, and I want change, in his name.

[Darkside2009]

Science and Circumcision

Basic tenets of science: These can be used as a litmus test for claimed benefits.

Conclusions based solely on known flawed data cannot be considered valid.
All studies have known flaws - flaws of commission and/or flaws of Omission.
Flaws = not scientifically compelling
The worth of a theory is determined by its ability to make accurate predictions.

No predicted reduction or elimination is found in the real world.
Failure to fulfill prediction = not scientifically credible.
The rates of these are HIGHER in many circumcising countries than in many intact countries, hence the alleged predictions are contradicted by empirical evidence. Unlike "medical science," SCIENCE demands that prediction be fulfilled EVERYTIME to be credible.

Elaborating on both the flaws and failure of predication, here is a critical analysis of recent "studies" purporting that circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV.

Randomized Controlled Trials

In SCIENCE, a (R)andomized (C)ontrolled (T)rial is a trial where all of the factors are CONTROLLED with one, and only one factor (chosen at random) altered, and the results are examined.

For the Circumcision/HIV studies, we have the following:

None of the factors are CONTROLLED. These factors are examined, only based on self-reporting (notoriously unreliable) and then examined STATISTICALLY.

The only things that might have been random were those chosen to be circumcised.

Not CONTROLLED were:

The time needed for healing for those circumcised BEFORE the trial was initiated - less exposure time.
Rates of exposure for each group
Dry sex:
Concern voiced over "dry sex" practices in South Africa
The practice and prevalence of dry sex among men and women in South Africa: a risk factor for sexually transmitted infections?
'Dry sex' and HIV infection among women attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic in Lusaka, Zambia.
Dry and tight: sexual practices and potential AIDS risk in Zaire
Dry sex in Zimbabwe and implications for condom use
Traditional vaginal agents: use and association with HIV infection in Malawian women
The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience
"Dry sex" worsens AIDS numbers in southern Africa: Sub-Saharans' disdain for vaginal wetness accelerates the plague.
Anal sex
Homosexual sex
Genital warts reoccurrence: how they were treated, and the final efficacy of that particular treatment. (Excision or chemical)
Thwart Genital Warts
Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts Among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic
Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review
The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals
The accuracy of the tests to determine seroconversion--rates of false or negative determinations
Is the African AIDS pandemic a bluff?
AIDS IN AFRICA?
The time needed to manifest all seroconversions
Any chance of a follow-up as the test was stopped early and ALL subjects were circumcised.
Equal amount of "safe-sex counseling" for both groups:
Postoperative follow-up visits were scheduled at 24–48 hours, 5–9 days, and 4–6 weeks.
All participants in both groups were followed up at 4–6 weeks, and at 6, 12, and 24 months post-enrolment
Control is control, "playing with the numbers" is merely an accounting scheme.

And all of this involved nothing but statistical analysis.

Author bias is a common problem with many studies (and all authors have long been circumcision advocates):

Latest news in NAM
Another shortcoming of the studies is the small sample size.

Small sample size: With few subjects, the law of small numbers applies with a vengeance.

(Roughly, when you're dealing with small numbers, random variations assume disproportionate importance. IE, there might be 3 murders in a small community one year and 14 the next, but it's stupid to say "The murder rate has more than quadrupled!" and blame the difference on policing, penalties, or anything else. Next year there might be 7 or 1.)

Finally, enough men dropped out of the studies before completion to completely nullify any claimed result.

Speculation

And in an attempt to lend credence to these studies, there are SPECULATIVE mechanisms given for this claimed reduction. None of these mechanisms have any scientific and logical support--most have already been refuted by the facts and evidence.

"The protective effect of circumcision against HIV infection is thought to derive in part from postsurgical development of a layer of keratinised squamous epithelial cells that limit viral entry to underlying HIV target cells. How long it takes the residual tissue to fully heal and become keratinised has not been studied.
Keratinization is a long term phenomena and could not have any effect on conversion is the short time period of the studies.
Some circumcisers claim that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur: How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
"There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not,15 but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised."
In a correspondence to Short, Szabo claims to have done a study, but this study was never published. He claims the epithelia of the exposed glans is not keratinized, but infers (without any evidence) that the remaining foreskin of the circumcised penis is and that of the intact foreskin is not.
The inner preputial mucosa is unkeratinised, making it vulnerable to HIV infection."
The CDC has shown that undamaged epithelia do not transmit the HIV virus: Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers
Ironically, since keratinization logically causes a further loss of sensation and sensitivity, an ardent circumcises claims to have done a study (never published , and not seen by anyone) proving that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur: How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
That circumcision reduces the risk of male HIV infection is biologically plausible. The foreskin is rich in HIV target cells (Langerhans' and dendritic cells, CD4+ T cells, and macrophages).
Erroneous speculation on many levels.
The langerhan cells produce langerhin, which kills the HIV virus
Scientists Discover 'Natural Barrier' to HIV
Macrophages digest the HIV virus
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
The foreskin produces lysozyme which also kill the HIV virus
Lysozyme and RNases as anti-HIV components in beta-corepreparations of human chorionic gonadotropin.
Summary of evidence that the foreskin and lysozyme may protect against HIV infection
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
Summation:Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers
The foreskin is retracted over the shaft during intercourse, which exposes the inner mucosa to vaginal and cervical fluids.
Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers
Also, breaches in the mucosa can occur due to microtears during intercourse, especially at the frenulum,

False, in fact the opposite is the truth, a tight circumcision results in more abrasive and friction laden sex which would lead to more breaches in the tissue.

The case against circumcision

[also see p.61, May issue, Men's Health] The work of Laumann et. al JAMA 1997, 277: 1052-57, Taylor & Lockwood, BJU, 1996, 77:291- 5, and Halata & Munger, Brain Research, 1986, 371: 205-30 explains:

The mutilated man with his keratinized, desensitized glans, and absent the fine-touch receptors and erogenous mobility of the foreskin, ultimately requires inordinate stimulation of his residual penile nerve endings to achieve pleasure and orgasm. When this becomes plunger sex resulting in dryness, abrasion, pain and bleeding, female orgasmic potential shrivels. This requires we take a closer look at the notion of vaginal dryness as a ‘female’ problem.
Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to genital ulcer disease, which could increase HIV entry.
Actually the opposite is true
Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts Among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic
Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review
The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals
STD's
CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice
Syphilis down, gonorrhea up in U.S., study finds
Country Circumcision Rate HIV Rate
USA 80.00% 0.60%
Ethiopia 100.00% 4.40%
Japan <1%
0.10%

Europe <2% average <0.2%
Failure of prediction-In science, it only takes ONE exception to invalidate a hypothesis or theory.
Circumcision rates:

Japan <1%
USA 80.00%
Ethiopia 100.00% Circumcision and HIV: A lie will be halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on.
HIV rates:

Japan 0.10%
USA 0.60%
Ethiopia 4.40%
Protective factor: 1/0.5 =2X
US vs. Japan

USA (80% X 2) + (20 X 1) = (160) + 20) = 180
Japan (1 X 2) + (99 X 1) = (2) + (99) = 101
Protected ratio: 180/101 =1.8 LOWER in the USA.
Reality rates: 6X HIGHER in the USA
Discrepancy: 6.0 X 1.8 = 11X = 1100% error
Ethiopia vs. Japan

Circumcision rate:

Ethiopia 100.00%
Japan 0.40%
HIV rate:

Ethiopia 4.40%
Japan 0.10%
Ethiopia (100 X 2) = 200
Japan (1 X 2) + (99 X 1) = (2) + (99) = 101
Protected ratio: 200/101 = 2X LOWER in Ethiopia
Reality rates: 44X HIGHER in the Ethiopia
Discrepancy: 2 X 44 = 88 X = 8800% error
The largest acceptable error in science is 1 sigma = 5%

Those advocating circumcision to reduce the incidence of HIV either ignore this empirical and contradicting evidence, or try to dismiss it with various excuses, like: Intravenous drug usage or homosexual activities.

However, they never provide any hard numbers of these factors for various countries or a model that should include them to explain this discrepancy.

For these excuses to be credible, one would need to assume:

That the US has 11X as many homosexuals than Japan; and Ethiopia has 88X as many as Japan—when it is widely accepted that the rate of homosexuality is 5 –>10 % in all cultures...

OR

That even though people in Ethiopia can barely afford food and shelter, they can afford 88X the recreational drugs than Japan and 8X that of the USA.

For a critique of epidemiological studies in general, here is one:
Epidemiology critique

Information quoted on this site is with the written permission of the authors.

Return to Table of Contents

[Darkside2009]

http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/science.html

For some reason the above site is not amenable to cutting and pasting, but it contains a very interesting rebuttal of the claims Mikey laid out, in his post from the New England Journal of Medicine.



I noticed two things in the Ugandan study put forward by Mikey. It refers to adult male circumcision of heterosexual males with one partner.

The other that it mentioned transmission of the HIV virus, and not immunity from the HIV virus.

If the subjects only had one partner and only engaged in heterosexual/vaginal, sex with that partner, that in itself would reduce the transmission of the HIV in many cases.

It should be noted that condoms would perform the same function without any operation being necessary, and without the attendant risk of post-operative infection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to LDD's remarks, it is the procedure of circumcision we are discussing in this thread, and whether or not it is medically necessary. Also whether or not it should be routinely performed on infants. NOT the doctors themselves.

To say a doctor might perform an operation of medical necessity one day and a routine, elected operation the next, is neither here nor there. It is a mere distraction from the point of this thread and is not germane to the debate.

To give two examples, Adolf Hitler was the architect of the Third Reich, during his early years as Leader, he was responsible for building autobahns, controlling prices, reducing unemployment in Germany. He also loved animals, children, was a vegetarian, non-smoker, tee-totaler and was a reasonably good painter, as well as being responsible with Speer for many beautiful buildings.

If that was all he was, we would be lauding him from the roof-tops. However he was also responsible for mass-murder and the deaths of millions. Same person, different behaviour, both happening in Germany.

Just as I don't have any problem distinguishing the ethics of his behaviour, I don't have any problem distinguishing between an elective surgery on an infant, and one that is conducted on an infant of medical necessity to save his life.

Both involve pain and suffering, both involve risk. In one the benefit greatly outweighs the risk and in the other it puts the child at risk for no benefit.

It is the reason for performing the surgery that is important, not the surgeon.

Similarly, one Dr. Mengele no doubt in his earlier medical career, may have saved lives and alleviated sickness, but I have no problem in distinguishing that from his later carrying out horrific experiments on twins in the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany. Same person, different ethical reason.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also say that in regard to adult male circumcision, that the adult, provided he is in full possession of his faculties, can rationalise that his wound will heal and that the pain will dissipate and eventually cease.

An infant child cannot rationalise in this manner. He only knows that he is being held down and subjected to great pain. The person who would normally comfort and soothe him and remove the source of his pain, being notable by their absence and or indifference to his cries.

[mikey3000]

Argument: Circumcision increases sexual stamina and satisfaction
From Debatepedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[Edit]Parent debate
Debate: Infant male circumcision
[Edit]Supporting quotations
Edgar J. Schoen, MD. "Sexual Activity". Opposing Views - Clinical Professor of PediatricsIt has been claimed that the foreskin is important for normal, pleasurable sexual activity, and until recently this myth has not been tested. Since 2000 a number of studies from around the world have compared measurements of sexual pleasure before and after adult male circumcision. Published results have shown no significant differences whether or not the foreskin is present. Indeed, circumcised men have some advantages. Circumcised men have been found to engage in more varied sexual activity. Women, by a margin of about 3 to 1, prefer the circumcised penis, mainly because of cleanliness which is of particular importance in oral sex. There is a minimal difference in the sexual act itself – circumcised men take slightly longer to reach orgasm after vaginal insertion, an effect considered to be advantageous. Longer and cleaner sex is better sex.


Lerche Davis. "Adult Circumcision Affects Sexual Performance. Circumcised Men Take Longer to Reach Ejaculation, but That May Be OK". WebMD Health News. 2 Feb. 2004 -- Feb. 2, 2004 -- Adult circumcision affects a guy's sexual performance -- but not in a bad way, according to a new study.

Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as "an advantage, rather than a complication," writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology.

Circumcision -- the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis -- typically occurs immediately after birth or during childhood, in the Muslim and Jewish tradition. In the U.S., 77% of boys are circumcised, according to the researchers.

But what about guys who don't get circumcised as babies, who decide on circumcision when they are adults? Can it give them sexual problems they didn't have before? That's what Sekul sought to determine.

Under the Knife

In this study, Senkul enrolled 42 men -- all about 22 years old -- who had not been circumcised. All but a few wanted circumcision for religious reasons. All were heterosexual and sexually active, and none was using a medication or device to promote erections.

Before the circumcision, doctors evaluated their sexual performance by asking about sex drive, erection, ejaculation, problems, and overall satisfaction.

The men were also asked to note how long they took to reach ejaculation -- during at least three sessions of sexual intercourse.

Twelve weeks after the surgery, the men again answered detailed questions about their sex lives. They reported on how long reaching ejaculation took.

The results: Everything was working smoothly -- except ejaculation, which took "significantly longer" after circumcision.


Temucin Senkul. "Circumcision in Adults: Effect on Sexual Function". Urology Journal. January 2004 - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of adult circumcision on sexual function in men circumcised only for religious or cosmetic reasons.

METHODS: The study group consisted of 42 male patients with a median age of 22.3 years (range 19 to 28) referred for circumcision from June 2002 to January 2003. Of the 42 men, 39 desired circumcision for religious reasons. Before circumcision, their sexual performance was evaluated using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) and ejaculatory latency time. The BMSFI evaluation and ejaculatory latency time measurements were repeated after a postoperative interval of at least 12 weeks. The scores in the five main sections of the BMSFI and the ejaculatory latency times before and after circumcision were analyzed.

RESULTS: The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.


Brittany Risher. "Circumcision: Pros and Cons. The Sexual Effects of Circumcision". Men's Health. - If you're circumcised, Ian Kerner, Ph.D., a sex therapist and author of She Comes First, says you may need more friction to reach orgasm. He recommends trying different positions, such as doggy style or missionary, that allow you to maximize stimulation. Or ask your woman to do Kegel exercises and squeeze her pelvic floor muscles, which will put more friction on the head of your penis.


I. Solinis A. Yiannaki. "Does circumcision improve couple's sexual life?". MD Consult Preview. 2007 - Background: The aim of the study was to compare sexual life and enjoyment of men (and their partner) that were circumcised as adults before and after their circumcision.

Methods: The study included 123 sexually active men that were circumcised two years before or more. The mean age was 36 years (22–64). All the men filled a questionnaire about the quality of their sexual life and the sexual enjoyment before and after circumcision. Also, there were questions about partner's sexual life improvement. The results are presented below.

[...]65% reported that the ejaculation latency time increased significantly after circumcision".


"Wrapped In Controversy". 4 Men's Health - "Robert Van Howe of Michigan State University used a similar method to measure sensitivity at 19 points along the penises of 163 men, he found that the five most sensitive points were all in portions of the penis removed by circumcision, especially those in folds exposed as the penis becomes erect."


"Adult Circumcision Stories - Men Circumcised As Adults Tell It As It Is...". No more stench and girls like the look better for medical student in Germany. Circ Info. - "I have also noticed that I can control my ejaculations a lot better since I am circumcised.

During sexual intercourse the foreskin easily moves over the glans and therefore gives excessive stimulations that may lead to premature ejaculations. This is my explanation to Badger's findings on better sex with circumcised men. Yes, it's a shame: here in Germany the circumcision rate of neonates is below one per cent."


"Better sexual performance for another man in USA". Testimonial. Circ Info. - Better sexual performance for another man in USA

"My sexual performance improved after being circumcised because my self-image improved and my confidence was better " there was no loss of sensation, simply a different feeling ... which I happen to find far, far better and more satisfying to my eternal surprise and joy."


"Hygiene, appearance and sexual benefits says man from New Zealand". Testimonial. Circ Info. - Notably as orgasm approached and the glans swelled to its maximum, the foreskin would remain behind the glans and the overwhelming constant sensations on the now very sensitive glans would trigger a sudden rush to orgasm. Today, the control is greater as the glans is stimulated earlier in intercourse and I think the receptors "down-regulate" so that, great as it feels, there seems to be no sudden rush of sensation to unstoppable orgasm. I acknowledge that psychological factors play a part in this on a day to day basis, but overall the effect is a smoother escalation and control of sexual tension.

The wonderful sensations in the frenulum have remained the same. The glans is not as sensitive, as I can tolerate clothes rubbing it, which was absolutely intolerable before, but once the glans is moistened it feels exactly the same as the uncirc'd state. It has been over 8 years since the circ, it was done at age 42, and I have been dying to tell guys that the "cut" state is great and their partners really do benefit.


"Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function". Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function. Circinfo - The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. In fact, some uncircumcised men have been known to complain that their penis is too sensitive, leading to pain, and seek circumcision to relieve this. Diminishing sensitivity is in fact desired by many men and women in order to prolong the sex act by preventing premature ejaculation [86].

Orgasm, the culmination of the sex act, is not related to the foreskin, and involves activity of neurones in the hypothalamus of the brain.

It should also be added that anecdotes cannot be accepted, and any hypothesis they might suggest must be tested by scientific research before receiving serious consideration. Fanciful speculation by anti-circ proponents must be disregarded, as should dubious publications involving biased study groups [404]. So let’s look at the scientific evidence.

Masters & Johnson undertook clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men [352]. Sexual pleasure also appears to be about the same.

Two US studies published in 2002 both found similar or greater sexual satisfaction in men after circumcision as adults [123, 182]. The mean age of the men in each study was 37 and 42, respectively. In the smaller survey [123] there was no difference in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, problem assessment or satisfaction compared with what the men recalled sex being like prior to foreskin removal. Penile sensitivity was the same.

The Collins paper stated that their study was prompted by reports by proponents of "foreskin restoration", in particular the "disparity between the mythology and medical reality of circumcision regarding male sexuality" [123].

In the Fink study of 123 men [182], 62% said they were satisfied with having been circumcised (they liked their new look) and 50% reported benefits. There was no change in sexual activity. Penile sensitivity, although not tested directly, was thought by some of the men in this study to be slightly lower (but not statistically so), which may have contributed to their claims of better sex. Although there was no change in sexual activity, some of the men thought erectile function was slightly less (category scores: 12.3 vs 11.1, P = 0.05), which is the opposite of the very much larger National Health and Social Life Survey [327]. Fink and co-workers point out that this would, however, have to be confirmed by duplex Doppler ultrasound before a definitive conclusion could be made. Furthermore, the outcome of this study could have been affected by the fact that 93% of the men had been circumcised for a medical problem. Both the men and their partners preferred the appearance of the penis after it had been circumcised. As in other studies [327] oral sex became more frequent, but there was no change in anal sex or masturbation [182]. Their partners were also more likely to initiate sex with them.

A report in 2004 of men circumcised for non-medical reasons in Turkey showed an increase in ejaculatory latency time, which may or may not reflect decreased sensitivity, but this was considered by the men as an advantage in that they could prolong intercourse [520]. Another study, discussed below, found ejaculatory latency time was significantly lower in Turkish men compared with men in the USA, UK and European countries [598].


"Adult Male Circumcision Not Linked To Sexual Dysfunction". Medical News Today. 19 Nov 2008 - The World Health Organization recommends male circumcision as an important element in HIV prevention programs, and the procedure is promoted in high-risk heterosexual populations. While the benefits of circumcision are well-documented (they also include reduced rates of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, and cervical cancer and chlamydia in female partners), there remains a concern that adult circumcision may impair sexual function.

A new study has found that adult circumcisions do not lead to sexual difficulties among men who were already sexually active. The study appears in the November 2008 issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine the official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.

The study group consisted of 2,684 men in Kisumu, Kenya between 2002 and 2005. Both groups underwent six detailed evaluations between one month and 24 months after circumcision. "More than 99 percent of the men studied reported that they were satisfied with their circumcision, and the majority of men reported both greater penile sensitivity, and easier use of condoms," said lead author John N. Krieger, M.D., of the University of Washington.

The results also showed no significant difference in the frequency of erectile dysfunction, inability to ejaculate, pain during intercourse or lack of pleasure during intercourse. Circumcised men also had progressively higher rates of sexual satisfaction over time.

"These findings are reassuring in view of current efforts to promote male circumcision to prevent HIV infections in some countries, particularly in eastern and southern Africa," say the authors. They also note that continued evaluation and counseling in HIV and sexually transmitted disease risk reduction remain critical.

"This topic has been highly controversial." says Irwin Goldstein, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine. "I am pleased to be able to publish irrefutable evidence that circumcision does not have negative side effects regarding sexual health; rather it is quite the opposite."


Emily Bazelon. "Or Not To Snip?Slate's findings on circumcision and sex." Slate. Feb. 13, 2006 - Of the 79 men who'd experienced sex snipped and unsnipped, 43 said sex improved (55 percent) after their circumcisions, 23 said it went downhill (29 percent), and 13 said there was no change or a mix of pros and cons (16 percent). Click here to read women and gay men compare sex with snipped and unsnipped partners.

Daniel got snipped as a college sophomore to combat recurrent genital warts and premature ejaculation. "You can imagine my relief when I found that sex could last much longer."

Two were pleased with the results, and two were ambivalent. One of them, Eric, said that when he lost his inner foreskin, he lost some sensation. (According to the article in Urologia, "many studies have shown the presence of thousands of erogenous nerve endings on the inner layer of the foreskin.") The upside was that sex lasted longer. "Sex became less exciting but more satisfying," he wrote. Other men reported a similar trade-off. ("Is it better to have a glass of excellent wine, or a bottle of very good wine?" mused one.)


"Cutting the competition." Economist. 19 Jun 2008 - the lack of a foreskin could make insertion, ejaculation or both take longer. Perhaps long enough that an illicit quickie will not always reach fruition.

[Long Duck Dong]

Now you have degenerated into idiocy. I need say no more.

idiocy ??? no... just pointing out a simple fact

if a person wants to use the stance that they will not subject a child to pain, suffering or harm, then that person had better not sign a surgical consent form for a child.... cos the moment they do, they are doing what they said they would not......

if i was to use the stance that I would not subject a child to pain and suffering or harm, then sign on a surgical consent form.... regardless of my reasoning, I have done exactly what I said I would not do...

it is why a lot of second time parents will not say that they will not inflict pain, suffering or harm on a child, as they learnt from the first time, that there are times you have no choice, you will have to put the child thru pain and suffering.....

so if I am degenerating into idiocy, then those parents that realise the truth in my words, must be raving mad lunatics..... and the world must be full of them

[Long Duck Dong]

With regard to LDD's remarks, it is the procedure of circumcision we are discussing in this thread, and whether or not it is medically necessary. Also whether or not it should be routinely performed on infants. NOT the doctors themselves.

To say a doctor might perform an operation of medical necessity one day and a routine, elected operation the next, is neither here nor there. It is a mere distraction from the point of this thread and is not germane to the debate.


I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *

however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
anyways, back to the circumcision issue

circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative

cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....

[Long Duck Dong]

drugstore cowboy... it was a scenerio I was using to show the difference in the way that parents will justify one issue yet oppose another... both of which result in pain and suffering in children..

and then defend their 180 degree change in opinions with saying they would not subject a child to pain and suffering, but do it then justify the fact they did it....

its a issue a parent would understand so why you posted the david raimer story I have no bloody idea, I can only conclude you are not a parent and therefore missed what I was saying

[drugstore cowboy]

circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative

cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....

The issue you're talking about with the non-retractable foreskin is not an issue that means that a man has to get cut if he has an issue with his foreskin where it does not retract.

There are now creams that can be used to prevent the non-retracting foreskin, and stretching techniques that stretch out the foreskin so it can be retracted if there's an issue with retraction and the boy or man does not have to have his foreskin removed at all.

BTW the issue with foreskin retraction that you're claiming happens does not happen at all in nearly 99% of intact boys and adult men with foreskins who are perfectly healthy and able to retract their foreskins without any issues at all.

[Long Duck Dong]

The issue you're talking about with the non-retractable foreskin is not an issue that means that a man has to get cut if he has an issue with his foreskin where it does not retract.

There are now creams that can be used to prevent the non-retracting foreskin, and stretching techniques that stretch out the foreskin so it can be retracted if there's an issue with retraction and the boy or man does not have to have his foreskin removed at all.

BTW the issue with foreskin retraction that you're claiming happens does not happen at all in nearly 99% of intact boys and adult men with foreskins who are perfectly healthy and able to retract their foreskins without any issues at all.

21,000 british schoolboys a year, are operated on for non retractable foreskins that do not respond to other treatments....

up to 77% of young children are born with foreskins that will not retract and it is estimated that up to 28% of them will require treatment at some stage by the time they are 15

so yeah you must be right and the medical experts must be wrong, cos you post in a forum and they do the operations and treatments of children....

I think I will trust the experts if you do not have any objections, as they have facts and fiqures based on actual events

[Darkside2009]

I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That might well be HIS opinion, it is not a term I would use, or have used.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is two questions, not one. Answer to the first is no, if a child has an unnatural growth removed from their penis it is not a mutilation, anymore than surgically removing a wart from the end of their nose.

Answer to the second. You would need to ask Blue, but I assume he means mutilated in the sense that an unnecessary operation was performed on HEALTHY tissue, removing it from the rest of the body. He can correct me if I have the sense of his argument wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


anyways, back to the circumcision issue

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(My answer) The only person I have seen to suggest that is you. Everyone else has been stating,(time and time again I might add), if an adult in full possession of his faculties wishes to have HIMSELF circumcised, that is entirely his choice.

What I, and they have stated, repeatedly, is that it is morally wrong to circumcise the HEALTHY penis of an infant, to remove HEALTHY tissue from another human being without their consent, in cases where it is not medically necessary. The decision should be deferred until such time as that child becomes an adult and can make that choice for themselves. Their body, their choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) As I understand it, the foreskin in babies is often initially fused to the glans, but separates naturally. If the foreskin is unhealthy and is beyond repair, by any other treatment, then it is removed by circumcision. But such cases form only a tiny percentage of the circumcisions performed in the US each year.

With respect, you know that, I know that, everyone on this thread knows that. LDD. You are trying to defend the indefensible by ignoring the answer you have received, each and every time you have raised this same question.

What the anti-circumcision lobby here object to, is the circumcision of healthy infant penises for purely cultural reasons. Subjecting infants to an unnecessary operation which causes them pain, distress and the risk of post-operative infection on the whim of their parents, however well meaning, is morally wrong.

Every surgical operation carries with it the risk of infection, and going into shock during the operation, and of post operative infection afterwards, during the recovery period. To put an infant at risk of that together with the pain and trauma involved is simply wrong, when there is no medical necessity to do so. That decision should be the child's, when they reach adulthood, and are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Not having it forced upon them whether they might want it or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(My answer) With respect, we both know that is not what you are doing. You have asked the same question again and again, you have been answered again and again. Merely repeating the question does not bring forth a new answer, it merely serves to make you seem dim-witted, and we both know you are not.

[Darkside2009]

I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That might well be HIS opinion, it is not a term I would use, or have used.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is two questions, not one. Answer to the first is no, if a child has an unnatural growth removed from their penis it is not a mutilation, anymore than surgically removing a wart from the end of their nose.

Answer to the second. You would need to ask Blue, but I assume he means mutilated in the sense that an unnecessary operation was performed on HEALTHY tissue, removing it from the rest of the body. He can correct me if I have the sense of his argument wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


anyways, back to the circumcision issue

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(My answer) The only person I have seen to suggest that is you. Everyone else has been stating,(time and time again I might add), if an adult in full possession of his faculties wishes to have HIMSELF circumcised, that is entirely his choice.

What I, and they have stated, repeatedly, is that it is morally wrong to circumcise the HEALTHY penis of an infant, to remove HEALTHY tissue from another human being without their consent, in cases where it is not medically necessary. The decision should be deferred until such time as that child becomes an adult and can make that choice for themselves. Their body, their choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) As I understand it, the foreskin in babies is often initially fused to the glans, but separates naturally. If the foreskin is unhealthy and is beyond repair, by any other treatment, then it is removed by circumcision. But such cases form only a tiny percentage of the circumcisions performed in the US each year.

With respect, you know that, I know that, everyone on this thread knows that. LDD. You are trying to defend the indefensible by ignoring the answer you have received, each and every time you have raised this same question.

What the anti-circumcision lobby here object to, is the circumcision of healthy infant penises for purely cultural reasons. Subjecting infants to an unnecessary operation which causes them pain, distress and the risk of post-operative infection on the whim of their parents, however well meaning, is morally wrong.

Every surgical operation carries with it the risk of infection, and going into shock during the operation, and of post operative infection afterwards, during the recovery period. To put an infant at risk of that together with the pain and trauma involved is simply wrong, when there is no medical necessity to do so. That decision should be the child's, when they reach adulthood, and are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Not having it forced upon them whether they might want it or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(My answer) With respect, we both know that is not what you are doing. You have asked the same question again and again, you have been answered again and again. Merely repeating the question does not bring forth a new answer.

[sammie19]

idiocy ??? no... just pointing out a simple fact

if a person wants to use the stance that they will not subject a child to pain, suffering or harm, then that person had better not sign a surgical consent form for a child.... cos the moment they do, they are doing what they said they would not......

if i was to use the stance that I would not subject a child to pain and suffering or harm, then sign on a surgical consent form.... regardless of my reasoning, I have done exactly what I said I would not do...

it is why a lot of second time parents will not say that they will not inflict pain, suffering or harm on a child, as they learnt from the first time, that there are times you have no choice, you will have to put the child thru pain and suffering.....

so if I am degenerating into idiocy, then those parents that realise the truth in my words, must be raving mad lunatics..... and the world must be full of them

I stand by my use of the word.

Every parent knows, my parents certainly did, that if it is the difference between life and death, good or bad health, sound of body or disablement for their child, and the only way to help that child is to sign a consent form for surgery, while it may cause pain and suffering, it is not causing the child harm.

There are risks involved in any kind of surgery, but the alternative of doing nothing when an invasive treatment such as surgery is the only feasible option, that is causing harm. My parents knew that when they signed the consent form for the removal of my appendix. The alternative to surgery was peritonitis and certain agonising death.

Parents of certain fundamentalist religious groups put their faith in God and refuse to allow surgery or even blood transfusions for their children when they have critical health problems. Occasionally English courts have become involved and overruled parental decision not to operate because of the threat to the life of the child. Now you tell me, who is causing harm? The courts who decide that the child will have a chance of life and good health, or parents who by their belief in scripture, will have condemned their child to death?

I may not be a parent. But I do know the difference between unavoidable pain and suffering to stave of ill health and death, and harm. I also know the difference between having the right of decision over our own bodies and not.

[Pasadenacpl2]

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

[Katja]

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.

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.

[Darkside2009]

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.

[Katja]

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.

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.

[tenni]

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

[Long Duck Dong]

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.......

[drugstore cowboy]

21,000 british schoolboys a year, are operated on for non retractable foreskins that do not respond to other treatments....

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.

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/cold-taylor/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.

[DuckiesDarling]

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.

[Darkside2009]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

[drugstore cowboy]

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.

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?

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.


The leading sites of cancer in males are: prostate, with 317,100 cases; lung, 98,900; colon and rectum, 67,600; bladder, 38,300; lymphoma, 33,900; melanoma, 21,100; oral, 20,100; kidney, 18,500; leukemia, 15,300; stomach, 14,000; pancreas, 12,400; and liver, 10,800.

Having listed prostate and testis separately, it listed "other and unspecified reproductive". The projected number of cases of "other and unspecified reproductive, male" cancers for 1996 was 1,200. Even if we assume that these are all penile cancer cases - not all of which would be sited on or near the foreskin - that is a tiny fraction of all cancers. With a total of 649,100 cases of cancer in males, "other and unspecificed reproductive" cancers in males amounted to 0.18% of malignancies.

The leading sites of cancers causing death are: lung, 94,400; prostate, 41,400; colon and rectum, 27,400; pancreas, 13,600; lymphoma, 13,600; leukemia, 11,600; esophagus, 8,500; liver, 8,400; stomach, 8,300; bladder, 7,800; kidney, 7,300; and brain, 7,200. Projected deaths from "other and unspecified reproductive" cancers in males were 220. That's 0.093% of the total cancer deaths.

Some of the rare cancers, other than "other and unspecified reproductive, male" that men are more likely to get and perhaps die from, include: lip, tongue, mouth, pharynx, oesophagus, small intestine, larynx, bone, connective tissue, Hodgkin's disease, testis, and thyroid.

Male breast cancer amounted to 1,400 cases, with 260 deaths, so American men are more likely to suffer and die of breast cancer than penile cancer - yet no-one suggests neonatal amputation of a male's useless breasts to protect him against this malignancy.


Total Estimated New Cancer Cases and Deaths, United States:

Cancer Sites New Cases Deaths

Vulva 3,300 900

Vagina & other genitalia 2,300 600

Testicular 7,400 300

Penile and other genital 1,400 200

As a cancer risk, it is at least twice as dangerous to have intact labia and intact ovaries and an intact uterus as an intact foreskin.

Figures from the American Cancer Society.

[drugstore cowboy]

Circumcision can actually cause penile cancer.


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]

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.

[Long Duck Dong]

Clearly you are pro mutilation and you are pro-circumcision Long Duck even though you're pretending that you're not

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&#37; 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.


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 blanket

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 (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/penile.htm)

[Darkside2009]

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/10F/doctor_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.

[Darkside2009]

This is the information and break-down I have read on circumcision rates in the UK :-

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_media_resources.html?action=showitem&item=66

[DuckiesDarling]

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.

[BiDaveDtown]

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.


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.

[BiDaveDtown]

Here's a history of circumcision and how it is genital mutilation and does decrease sexual pleasure for men and women.


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.

[BiDaveDtown]

“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

[Long Duck Dong]

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/10F/doctor_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.

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 wellbeing

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.......

[Darkside2009]

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?

[Darkside2009]

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 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.

[Katja]

Argument: Circumcision increases sexual stamina and satisfaction
From Debatepedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[Edit]Parent debate
Debate: Infant male circumcision
[Edit]Supporting quotations
Edgar J. Schoen, MD. "Sexual Activity". Opposing Views - Clinical Professor of PediatricsIt has been claimed that the foreskin is important for normal, pleasurable sexual activity, and until recently this myth has not been tested. Since 2000 a number of studies from around the world have compared measurements of sexual pleasure before and after adult male circumcision. Published results have shown no significant differences whether or not the foreskin is present. Indeed, circumcised men have some advantages. Circumcised men have been found to engage in more varied sexual activity. Women, by a margin of about 3 to 1, prefer the circumcised penis, mainly because of cleanliness which is of particular importance in oral sex. There is a minimal difference in the sexual act itself – circumcised men take slightly longer to reach orgasm after vaginal insertion, an effect considered to be advantageous. Longer and cleaner sex is better sex.


Lerche Davis. "Adult Circumcision Affects Sexual Performance. Circumcised Men Take Longer to Reach Ejaculation, but That May Be OK". WebMD Health News. 2 Feb. 2004 -- Feb. 2, 2004 -- Adult circumcision affects a guy's sexual performance -- but not in a bad way, according to a new study.

Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as "an advantage, rather than a complication," writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology.

Circumcision -- the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis -- typically occurs immediately after birth or during childhood, in the Muslim and Jewish tradition. In the U.S., 77&#37; of boys are circumcised, according to the researchers.

But what about guys who don't get circumcised as babies, who decide on circumcision when they are adults? Can it give them sexual problems they didn't have before? That's what Sekul sought to determine.

Under the Knife

In this study, Senkul enrolled 42 men -- all about 22 years old -- who had not been circumcised. All but a few wanted circumcision for religious reasons. All were heterosexual and sexually active, and none was using a medication or device to promote erections.

Before the circumcision, doctors evaluated their sexual performance by asking about sex drive, erection, ejaculation, problems, and overall satisfaction.

The men were also asked to note how long they took to reach ejaculation -- during at least three sessions of sexual intercourse.

Twelve weeks after the surgery, the men again answered detailed questions about their sex lives. They reported on how long reaching ejaculation took.

The results: Everything was working smoothly -- except ejaculation, which took "significantly longer" after circumcision.


Temucin Senkul. "Circumcision in Adults: Effect on Sexual Function". Urology Journal. January 2004 - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of adult circumcision on sexual function in men circumcised only for religious or cosmetic reasons.

METHODS: The study group consisted of 42 male patients with a median age of 22.3 years (range 19 to 28) referred for circumcision from June 2002 to January 2003. Of the 42 men, 39 desired circumcision for religious reasons. Before circumcision, their sexual performance was evaluated using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) and ejaculatory latency time. The BMSFI evaluation and ejaculatory latency time measurements were repeated after a postoperative interval of at least 12 weeks. The scores in the five main sections of the BMSFI and the ejaculatory latency times before and after circumcision were analyzed.

RESULTS: The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.


Brittany Risher. "Circumcision: Pros and Cons. The Sexual Effects of Circumcision". Men's Health. - If you're circumcised, Ian Kerner, Ph.D., a sex therapist and author of She Comes First, says you may need more friction to reach orgasm. He recommends trying different positions, such as doggy style or missionary, that allow you to maximize stimulation. Or ask your woman to do Kegel exercises and squeeze her pelvic floor muscles, which will put more friction on the head of your penis.


I. Solinis A. Yiannaki. "Does circumcision improve couple's sexual life?". MD Consult Preview. 2007 - Background: The aim of the study was to compare sexual life and enjoyment of men (and their partner) that were circumcised as adults before and after their circumcision.

Methods: The study included 123 sexually active men that were circumcised two years before or more. The mean age was 36 years (22–64). All the men filled a questionnaire about the quality of their sexual life and the sexual enjoyment before and after circumcision. Also, there were questions about partner's sexual life improvement. The results are presented below.

[...]65% reported that the ejaculation latency time increased significantly after circumcision".


"Wrapped In Controversy". 4 Men's Health - "Robert Van Howe of Michigan State University used a similar method to measure sensitivity at 19 points along the penises of 163 men, he found that the five most sensitive points were all in portions of the penis removed by circumcision, especially those in folds exposed as the penis becomes erect."


"Adult Circumcision Stories - Men Circumcised As Adults Tell It As It Is...". No more stench and girls like the look better for medical student in Germany. Circ Info. - "I have also noticed that I can control my ejaculations a lot better since I am circumcised.

During sexual intercourse the foreskin easily moves over the glans and therefore gives excessive stimulations that may lead to premature ejaculations. This is my explanation to Badger's findings on better sex with circumcised men. Yes, it's a shame: here in Germany the circumcision rate of neonates is below one per cent."


"Better sexual performance for another man in USA". Testimonial. Circ Info. - Better sexual performance for another man in USA

"My sexual performance improved after being circumcised because my self-image improved and my confidence was better " there was no loss of sensation, simply a different feeling ... which I happen to find far, far better and more satisfying to my eternal surprise and joy."


"Hygiene, appearance and sexual benefits says man from New Zealand". Testimonial. Circ Info. - Notably as orgasm approached and the glans swelled to its maximum, the foreskin would remain behind the glans and the overwhelming constant sensations on the now very sensitive glans would trigger a sudden rush to orgasm. Today, the control is greater as the glans is stimulated earlier in intercourse and I think the receptors "down-regulate" so that, great as it feels, there seems to be no sudden rush of sensation to unstoppable orgasm. I acknowledge that psychological factors play a part in this on a day to day basis, but overall the effect is a smoother escalation and control of sexual tension.

The wonderful sensations in the frenulum have remained the same. The glans is not as sensitive, as I can tolerate clothes rubbing it, which was absolutely intolerable before, but once the glans is moistened it feels exactly the same as the uncirc'd state. It has been over 8 years since the circ, it was done at age 42, and I have been dying to tell guys that the "cut" state is great and their partners really do benefit.


"Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function". Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function. Circinfo - The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. In fact, some uncircumcised men have been known to complain that their penis is too sensitive, leading to pain, and seek circumcision to relieve this. Diminishing sensitivity is in fact desired by many men and women in order to prolong the sex act by preventing premature ejaculation [86].

Orgasm, the culmination of the sex act, is not related to the foreskin, and involves activity of neurones in the hypothalamus of the brain.

It should also be added that anecdotes cannot be accepted, and any hypothesis they might suggest must be tested by scientific research before receiving serious consideration. Fanciful speculation by anti-circ proponents must be disregarded, as should dubious publications involving biased study groups [404]. So let’s look at the scientific evidence.

Masters & Johnson undertook clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men [352]. Sexual pleasure also appears to be about the same.

Two US studies published in 2002 both found similar or greater sexual satisfaction in men after circumcision as adults [123, 182]. The mean age of the men in each study was 37 and 42, respectively. In the smaller survey [123] there was no difference in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, problem assessment or satisfaction compared with what the men recalled sex being like prior to foreskin removal. Penile sensitivity was the same.

The Collins paper stated that their study was prompted by reports by proponents of "foreskin restoration", in particular the "disparity between the mythology and medical reality of circumcision regarding male sexuality" [123].

In the Fink study of 123 men [182], 62% said they were satisfied with having been circumcised (they liked their new look) and 50% reported benefits. There was no change in sexual activity. Penile sensitivity, although not tested directly, was thought by some of the men in this study to be slightly lower (but not statistically so), which may have contributed to their claims of better sex. Although there was no change in sexual activity, some of the men thought erectile function was slightly less (category scores: 12.3 vs 11.1, P = 0.05), which is the opposite of the very much larger National Health and Social Life Survey [327]. Fink and co-workers point out that this would, however, have to be confirmed by duplex Doppler ultrasound before a definitive conclusion could be made. Furthermore, the outcome of this study could have been affected by the fact that 93% of the men had been circumcised for a medical problem. Both the men and their partners preferred the appearance of the penis after it had been circumcised. As in other studies [327] oral sex became more frequent, but there was no change in anal sex or masturbation [182]. Their partners were also more likely to initiate sex with them.

A report in 2004 of men circumcised for non-medical reasons in Turkey showed an increase in ejaculatory latency time, which may or may not reflect decreased sensitivity, but this was considered by the men as an advantage in that they could prolong intercourse [520]. Another study, discussed below, found ejaculatory latency time was significantly lower in Turkish men compared with men in the USA, UK and European countries [598].


"Adult Male Circumcision Not Linked To Sexual Dysfunction". Medical News Today. 19 Nov 2008 - The World Health Organization recommends male circumcision as an important element in HIV prevention programs, and the procedure is promoted in high-risk heterosexual populations. While the benefits of circumcision are well-documented (they also include reduced rates of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, and cervical cancer and chlamydia in female partners), there remains a concern that adult circumcision may impair sexual function.

A new study has found that adult circumcisions do not lead to sexual difficulties among men who were already sexually active. The study appears in the November 2008 issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine the official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.

The study group consisted of 2,684 men in Kisumu, Kenya between 2002 and 2005. Both groups underwent six detailed evaluations between one month and 24 months after circumcision. "More than 99 percent of the men studied reported that they were satisfied with their circumcision, and the majority of men reported both greater penile sensitivity, and easier use of condoms," said lead author John N. Krieger, M.D., of the University of Washington.

The results also showed no significant difference in the frequency of erectile dysfunction, inability to ejaculate, pain during intercourse or lack of pleasure during intercourse. Circumcised men also had progressively higher rates of sexual satisfaction over time.

"These findings are reassuring in view of current efforts to promote male circumcision to prevent HIV infections in some countries, particularly in eastern and southern Africa," say the authors. They also note that continued evaluation and counseling in HIV and sexually transmitted disease risk reduction remain critical.

"This topic has been highly controversial." says Irwin Goldstein, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine. "I am pleased to be able to publish irrefutable evidence that circumcision does not have negative side effects regarding sexual health; rather it is quite the opposite."


Emily Bazelon. "Or Not To Snip?Slate's findings on circumcision and sex." Slate. Feb. 13, 2006 - Of the 79 men who'd experienced sex snipped and unsnipped, 43 said sex improved (55 percent) after their circumcisions, 23 said it went downhill (29 percent), and 13 said there was no change or a mix of pros and cons (16 percent). Click here to read women and gay men compare sex with snipped and unsnipped partners.

Daniel got snipped as a college sophomore to combat recurrent genital warts and premature ejaculation. "You can imagine my relief when I found that sex could last much longer."

Two were pleased with the results, and two were ambivalent. One of them, Eric, said that when he lost his inner foreskin, he lost some sensation. (According to the article in Urologia, "many studies have shown the presence of thousands of erogenous nerve endings on the inner layer of the foreskin.") The upside was that sex lasted longer. "Sex became less exciting but more satisfying," he wrote. Other men reported a similar trade-off. ("Is it better to have a glass of excellent wine, or a bottle of very good wine?" mused one.)


"Cutting the competition." Economist. 19 Jun 2008 - the lack of a foreskin could make insertion, ejaculation or both take longer. Perhaps long enough that an illicit quickie will not always reach fruition.

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.

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.

[sammie19]

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.

[Long Duck Dong]

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?

its the way the law works in NZ, its all up to shit.....

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

[BiDaveDtown]

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.

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.

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.

[BiDaveDtown]

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?

Thanks for that link.

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.

[Long Duck Dong]

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.....

[Katja]

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!

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.

[Long Duck Dong]

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

[Katja]

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.

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.

[Darkside2009]

Here we go again....Sorry to tell you this, Liz, but according to these activists, you are mutilated and I am a molester for having my sons circumcised. This is a hot issue on this site and it seems to bring out the very worst in some people. I'm just sitting back waiting for the proverbial SHIT to hit the fan!

Sigh.....like I said....here we go again!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would seem the first mention of molesters and mutilated in this thread was by CSRAKATE at post number 3. Not Bluebiyou.

As she declares in this same post she had her sons circumcised, I'm assuming that her stance indicates she is pro-circumcision.

Now you can try to move the goalposts all you want. You can try to deflect attention from a rational consideration of the facts under discussion in this thread, by introducing these perceived slights.

It does not alter by one iota, that the routine, circumcision of infant children is morally and ethically wrong. It does not provide any protections that its advocates claim. It takes away from the infant, rights and decisions about his own body that are properly his decision, when he is old enough to make an informed decision.

As an infant has not built up full immunity, it puts that child at risk of post-operative infection and even death.

As infants can't be given general anaesthetic, it subjects them to unnecessary pain and suffering.

All the medical associations in all the developed World are of the same opinion, there is no need for the routine circumcision of infants.

Think of it this way, if the infant reaches the age of adulthood, they can make an informed decision for themselves. They might well come to you and say, 'You know, Mother you were right, I do need to cut bits off my body.'

It will have been their choice, regarding their body. If you make that choice for them you rob them of the option.

[Darkside2009]

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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This link might be of interest to Katja, Sammie and other women in the site.

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/doctor_northrup.html

It gives a perspective on the issues you both raised.

[Darkside2009]

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One is the choice of an informed adult about his own body, the other is unnecessary pain and suffering forced upon an infant without their consent for no medical benefit.

I don't see any hypocrisy there, quite the opposite, their body, their choice, your body, your choice.

It's a simple concept.

[csrakate]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would seem the first mention of molesters and mutilated in this thread was by CSRAKATE at post number 3. Not Bluebiyou.

As she declares in this same post she had her sons circumcised, I'm assuming that her stance indicates she is pro-circumcision.



I am not PRO anything....it was a decision that I arrived at after much discussion and thought....an INFORMED decision with the information I was given at THAT TIME. Would I do the same thing today? I have no idea....but it still chafes that some would consider me a molester for doing something that I believed, at the time, was a healthy choice for my child. I would NEVER presume that my way is the RIGHT way nor would I chastise someone for making a different choice than myself....That's not for me to decide.

Basically, all I was saying is that I hate it when this thread subject comes up....as it does, ad nauseum.....It never ends well and feelings are always hurt because instead of simply giving their opinion, people tend to attack the opposition, on BOTH sides.....Neither side is innocent of less than kind comments. I just hate controversy...plain and simple.

[Darkside2009]

its the way the law works in NZ, its all up to shit.....

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not quite, LDD, when one signs a waiver at a hospital regarding an operation at a hospital, there is an implication that the surgeon performing the operation is competent in that field of surgery and that he will not be medically negligent.

The waiver is not a blank cheque for the hospital. If the surgeon for example was drunk, when performing the operation, both he/she and the hospital would be guilty. If the surgeon was an ear, nose and throat specialist and was carrying out ones heart surgery in a manner that no competent heart surgeon would perform the operation, then again that is negligence.

The General principle for negligence is that a duty of care exists, that that duty of care has been breached, and as a result of that breach of care, direct, consequent damage/harm has been caused/resulted.

Think it through, if you thought the surgeon was drunk or incompetent, would you sign a waiver agreeing to him/her operating on you?

[Darkside2009]

I am not PRO anything....it was a decision that I arrived at after much discussion and thought....an INFORMED decision with the information I was given at THAT TIME. Would I do the same thing today? I have no idea....but it still chafes that some would consider me a molester for doing something that I believed, at the time, was a healthy choice for my child. I would NEVER presume that my way is the RIGHT way nor would I chastise someone for making a different choice than myself....That's not for me to decide.

Basically, all I was saying is that I hate it when this thread subject comes up....as it does, ad nauseum.....It never ends well and feelings are always hurt because instead of simply giving their opinion, people tend to attack the opposition, on BOTH sides.....Neither side is innocent of less than kind comments. I just hate controversy...plain and simple.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The infant child has more than his feelings hurt.

As I've said more than once, participation in any thread is the decision of the individual, no one is forced to read the thread or contribute to it.

Votes for women was a controversial subject at one time. If people had not discussed it and agitated for a change in the law, you would be denied one of your most democratic rights.

People here are arguing for another right, that of any human being to decide for themselves whether they wish to have surgery on their body that has no medical benefit.

If you don't wish to participate in this debate by all means find or start another thread that is of interest to you. I myself, do not participate in many of the threads on this site. The reason being that they are not of interest to me. However, I understand if you do not wish to engage in controversial topics, thank you for your contribution thus far.

[sammie19]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This link might be of interest to Katja, Sammie and other women in the site.

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/doctor_northrup.html

It gives a perspective on the issues you both raised.

It gives a great perspective on the issues and men too should click the link and absorb every word. It may open at least some of their eyes. I havent had time to view it all but enough of it to know that much of its practical content concurs with my own sexual experience.

There is a difference between how men who are circumcised and those who are not go about having intercourse and there is a very different feel about the act and the penetration. The link explains very well from my own personal perspective why I have always preferred uncircumcised men.

The more important issue of circumcision itself is covered in depth and very easy to understand and so thanx dark. It was very informative addition to this debate, and contains much that I didn't know.

[Long Duck Dong]

Darkside2009 and katja

so that is why I asked in the thread for people to define their statements of circumcision is mutilation to see if they are applying the statement to one of a few groups, or across all groups

the groups are
child that have elective surgery
child that has medical surgery
adult that has elective surgery
adult that has medical surgery

the statement has been made that circumcision ( the removal of healthy tissue from the penis ) is mutilation... and by that defination, a circumcision at any age, fits the criteria of removal of healthy tissue from the penis and therefore is mutilation

so I am curious ( being a adult male that was circumcised as a child ) as to when my penis is going to stop being refered to as mutilated and known as circumcised

or if the posters that are making the statements are going to come into the thread and state where they stand.... or if they will avoid the thread and the question.



as for the remark by bluebiyou and child molestors, that statement was made in another thread dealing with circumcision by bluebiyou, .... and something that a number of members are still unimpressed about

[Darkside2009]

LDD.

Your question has already been answered numerous times, I don't propose to waste any more of my time repeating my answers to you.

As to your second point, if Bluebiyou wishes to think of your penis as mutilated because you have been circumcised, that is up to him.

If you wish to take offence at the way he thinks or refers to your penis, that is up to you.

I have no control over how either of you think, or express yourselves. I would suggest that if you do not wish to read his comments, that you avail yourself of the ignore button. I would offer the same suggestion to Bluebiyou.

I am responsible for my own comments on this site, not the comments of anyone else.

My dictionary,(Chambers), defines mutilate this way:-

To injure by cutting off a limb, to maim, to remove a material part of; to damage or spoil beyond recognition; to deform by slitting, boring or removing a part. Adjective, mutilated.

Now you both know the dictionary definition, and what it covers, perhaps you will couch your language accordingly. So the rest of us can get on with the debate.

[Long Duck Dong]

Not quite, LDD, when one signs a waiver at a hospital regarding an operation at a hospital, there is an implication that the surgeon performing the operation is competent in that field of surgery and that he will not be medically negligent.

The waiver is not a blank cheque for the hospital. If the surgeon for example was drunk, when performing the operation, both he/she and the hospital would be guilty. If the surgeon was an ear, nose and throat specialist and was carrying out ones heart surgery in a manner that no competent heart surgeon would perform the operation, then again that is negligence.

The General principle for negligence is that a duty of care exists, that that duty of care has been breached, and as a result of that breach of care, direct, consequent damage/harm has been caused/resulted.

Think it through, if you thought the surgeon was drunk or incompetent, would you sign a waiver agreeing to him/her operating on you?

no cos I have the right of consent and choice...... I do not have to agree to or consent to any surgeon or doctor operating on me and I normally meet the surgeon a couple of hours before the op, when the consent forms are signed...

if I refuse to sign it, I have not given consent for the operation.... so the power is in my hands.... but I am acutely aware that shit happens and even the best of surgeons and doctors are not perfect.....

that is why I have a DNR order on my medical records or in simple terms, if my heart stops beating, do not restart it, let me die..... cos I am not interested in living forever and I do not want a effort made to resus me and run the added risk of me being left semi brain dead....
and yeah before I had that added, I had been resused a few times on the operation table, and it was no fault of the surgeon that my heart stopped, it is a issue that can not be treated medically as its not my heart that is the issue

the only time that waiver is enforced, is in the event of a life and death emergency, and in that case, operations are done to stabilise the patient only, until next of kin can be found to sign a consent form and give permission for more operations to take place......

the hospital have the power to refuse to operate as well, and that is what people in NZ are getting pissed off about... they want the hospital to undertake risky operations on patients, when the patients are deemed uneligable for surgery.....

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD.

Your question has already been answered numerous times, I don't propose to waste any more of my time repeating my answers to you.

As to your second point, if Bluebiyou wishes to think of your penis as mutilated because you have been circumcised, that is up to him.

If you wish to take offence at the way he thinks or refers to your penis, that is up to you.

I have no control over how either of you think, or express yourselves. I would suggest that if you do not wish to read his comments, that you avail yourself of the ignore button. I would offer the same suggestion to Bluebiyou.

I am responsible for my own comments on this site, not the comments of anyone else.

My dictionary,(Chambers), defines mutilate this way:-

To injure by cutting off a limb, to maim, to remove a material part of; to damage or spoil beyond recognition; to deform by slitting, boring or removing a part. Adjective, mutilated.

Now you both know the dictionary definition, and what it covers, perhaps you will couch your language accordingly. So the rest of us can get on with the debate.

I was asking bluebiyou, I was asking drugstore cowboy and a few others, if I was asking you, I would have asked you.... so there is no reason for you to answer for them... they are more than capable of posting themselves.... or not.....

now I tend to think that my posts are valid, as part of the issue is that child circumcision is seen as mutilation.... and using your defination, yes, it would fit the criteria for mutiliation

but yes, lets go back to the * topic * of is child circumcision acceptable....
and it appears that most people are saying no, not if its elective... yes if its medical.... but best leave it til the person is a adult....

so yeah that works.... but most of the posts in the thread is not about children and if its ok or not, its about the nature of circumcision and the pros and cons of it....

[Darkside2009]

Your post was addressed with both my name and Katja's at the top, that is why I replied.

As you did not ask Blue personally for an apology on the way he thought or expressed himself, but merely couched it as a complaint that anti-circumcisionists, had referred to you, and others, in certain terms, that you regarded as abusive.

I disassociated myself from the tarring by association, as I am entitled to do.

As regards your second point, much time and effort has been expended on stating why people believed routine circumcision was wrong for infants. This was to counter the perceived benefits put forward by those in favour of such routine circumcisions.

I would add that much of the discussion on various points has been in answer to queries that you raised, often repeatedly. I'm quite happy to stay on topic, rather than wandering off on a tangent. However, if any contributor raises a comparison that they think is valid, it would seem churlish of me not to answer them, in as far as I am able to.

Throughout this debate I have sought to deal only with the issue because I think personal abuse does not serve any useful purpose. I have tried to present my arguments as best as I am able in order to persuade others to share that view.

Whether they listen to and consider the points I raise is entirely up to them, I have tried to address their concerns, I can do no more than that.

[DuckiesDarling]

What it comes down to are people's personal opinions. Comparing circumcision of infant boys to the mutilation of females at puberty that have their entire clitoris removed is not kosher. One is done for medical reasons, and even if you don't agree with the reasons, it is still a valid medical procedure. Should it still be routine? It's being argued amongst medical professionals but for the time being it is considered preventative care and covered as part of the birth expenses on most major insurances. The other is something that is horrifying not because it's on a female but because if the same was done to males the world would end, they would all be made eunuchs at bith.

There was a heated thread on here regarding the American Pediatric Association approving a small nick to satisfy the customs of the patient's families without them taking the child out of the country to have it done fully and without anesthesia. It was a step in the direction of eradicating female genital mutilation.

But telling people who had their children circumsized that they mutilated them, indeed telling a circumsized male they were mutilated is insulting. We have had several circumsized males post on this board about the fact they don't feel they are missing any pleasure and that they don't feel "mutilated". Now granted there are times that some circumcisions are not well done, it could be ineptness of the doctor or a problem with healing. But those are not in every case.

To the poster who claimed that circumcised males have smaller penises....I wonder if you lined up everyone in the world that was circumsized and everyone who wasn't circumsized and compared averages exactly who was longer.... gee they would be about equal. Circumcision removes skin, not erectile tissue. So please read more about medical issues if you are going to make inflammatory statements like that.

Now as long as the thread stays on the topic of circumcision without derailing into personal attacks then it's a good argument. But when you sit there and state that studies are not valid just because you don't agree with the results you invalidate your entire position.

[Darkside2009]

What it comes down to are people's personal opinions. Comparing circumcision of infant boys to the mutilation of females at puberty that have their entire clitoris removed is not kosher. One is done for medical reasons, and even if you don't agree with the reasons, it is still a valid medical procedure. Should it still be routine? It's being argued amongst medical professionals but for the time being it is considered preventative care and covered as part of the birth expenses on most major insurances. The other is something that is horrifying not because it's on a female but because if the same was done to males the world would end, they would all be made eunuchs at bith.

There was a heated thread on here regarding the American Pediatric Association approving a small nick to satisfy the customs of the patient's families without them taking the child out of the country to have it done fully and without anesthesia. It was a step in the direction of eradicating female genital mutilation.

But telling people who had their children circumsized that they mutilated them, indeed telling a circumsized male they were mutilated is insulting. We have had several circumsized males post on this board about the fact they don't feel they are missing any pleasure and that they don't feel "mutilated". Now granted there are times that some circumcisions are not well done, it could be ineptness of the doctor or a problem with healing. But those are not in every case.

To the poster who claimed that circumcised males have smaller penises....I wonder if you lined up everyone in the world that was circumsized and everyone who wasn't circumsized and compared averages exactly who was longer.... gee they would be about equal. Circumcision removes skin, not erectile tissue. So please read more about medical issues if you are going to make inflammatory statements like that.

Now as long as the thread stays on the topic of circumcision without derailing into personal attacks then it's a good argument. But when you sit there and state that studies are not valid just because you don't agree with the results you invalidate your entire position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kosher means pure or clean according to Jewish law, in regard to food, prepared according to Jewish dietary law.

In Judaism the female is not circumcised, just the male at eight days old.

A valid medical procedure in the eyes of whom? Certainly not in the eyes of your own countries medical associations, or cancer associations. Not in the eyes of their counterparts in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany, France, I could go on but suffice to say of every other industrialised country in the World. Hardly my own personal opinion.

Considered preventative care by whom? Insurance companies? You pay the premiums they will happily insure you against any risk, even that of a satellite in outer space falling down and hitting you on the head.

And there are fewer such insurance companies accepting that it is preventative care each year, which is why the rate for routine circumcision of infants is falling year by year in the US.

Calling an uncircumcised person a freak is insulting too. I got over it so will they and you.

As to a circumcised male posting on this board that they don't feel they are missing any pleasure. If they were circumcised as infants, how would they know? They don't have a history of having a sex life whilst having a foreskin to compare it with. I've never been to Vegas, how am I meant to know what I might be missing if I've never been there?

In circumcision, a great many nerves are removed completely. The nerves simply aren't there to transmit the sensation they would otherwise have had. If the nerves and sensation are absent, the pleasure can only be curtailed, it cannot be enhanced without the nerves to transmit it.

No, studies are invalid if they do not prove what they set out to prove. In order for a study to be viable the correct methodology has to be adopted. Too many variables and you just get useless data.

The study has to be capable of achieving the same results if the procedure is followed elsewhere. Verification is the key.

Now if you had been following the thread from its inception and the links posted, you will have seen the holes in the Ugandan experiment and how it was discredited.

Not just, that it was discredited, but that it put poorly-educated people at risk, by making them think they were immune to HIV. Leading many of them as a consequence, into behaviour that increases their risk of their being infected by HIV and other STI's. So instead of providing protection from what it set out to do, it makes the complete opposite more likely to occur.

So in conclusion, it is not just a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of a human infant being allowed to grow as God and Nature intended, free from the whims of any other person. To make cosmetic choices about their body a choice for them, and them alone and all the excuses in the World can't change that.

[Long Duck Dong]

Your post was addressed with both my name and Katja's at the top, that is why I replied.

As you did not ask Blue personally for an apology on the way he thought or expressed himself, but merely couched it as a complaint that anti-circumcisionists, had referred to you, and others, in certain terms, that you regarded as abusive.

I disassociated myself from the tarring by association, as I am entitled to do.

As regards your second point, much time and effort has been expended on stating why people believed routine circumcision was wrong for infants. This was to counter the perceived benefits put forward by those in favour of such routine circumcisions.

I would add that much of the discussion on various points has been in answer to queries that you raised, often repeatedly. I'm quite happy to stay on topic, rather than wandering off on a tangent. However, if any contributor raises a comparison that they think is valid, it would seem churlish of me not to answer them, in as far as I am able to.

Throughout this debate I have sought to deal only with the issue because I think personal abuse does not serve any useful purpose. I have tried to present my arguments as best as I am able in order to persuade others to share that view.

Whether they listen to and consider the points I raise is entirely up to them, I have tried to address their concerns, I can do no more than that.

I am not offended by blues stance, I have said that blue has offended a number of members with his statements....... personally I would love to see blue make that statement to peoples faces if he believes it and see what people think of being called by the label he used..... cos I already know what would happen.....

with the statement that children should have the right of choice in regards to circumcision... it works, it sounds good, its positive but when it comes down to medical needed circumcision, the rights of the child are null and void, as we make the choice for them.... so we are making a statement that we will exercise when it suits us to apply it, and other times, go against what we stand for....
in order to make ourselves look better, we try and limit our statements only to the aspects of surgery and medical treatment of children where a choice is a option so we do not look like hypocrites that do not practice what we preach

with the remarks that circumcision is mutilation of a child, well any operation can be deemed mutilation of a person, child or adult, elective or medical... and even if we deem the term mutilation as offensive and abusive, by defination its correct, we alter the human body by changing it with cutting and removing tissue from the human body......
but the statement is used to target certain people while exempting ourselves from the same label, so rather that say that any person that has been through a operation has be mutilated, it is limited to circumcised people are mutilated......

that is why I have thrown in the variables, as it shows that we will change our stance on any issue, while avoiding the simple facts of the issue and its the way a lot of debate is done in the forums.....

and pretty much everything posted has not shown that circumcision is right or wrong, only that people can come up with any number of studies that they will throw around as * proof *.... and not admit that circumcising a child is something that is right in some eyes, wrong in others.... and that we are happy to tell other people how to be parents and live their lives, but god help those that tell us how to be parents and live our lives.....

in NZ we have removed the ability of parents to discipline their children as its child abuse, but retained the expectation that parents are responsible for their children until the age of 18....
under the age of 16 a child is not deemed to be responsible for their own actions and therefore can not be touched by the police.... but their parents are responsible for their actions

in NZ, there is a move to apply that to medical issues, in that the parent doesn't have the right to say yes or no to medical procedures for children, that it becomes the right of surgeons and medical experts to say yes or no...... and we are talking about completely removing a parents rights

its already in the US.... you may not deny a child access to medical treatment and care, so as a parent you are already limited in what you may do for your child and that includes saying no to treatment of a child for whatever reason.....
its only a matter of time before the US follows in NZ's footsteps and turns parents into human incubations with no rights and all the responsiblity.....

but what would I know... I only live in NZ and am watching a country imploding, using the same principals that people in the us and uk, believe are the right things to do....

learn from our mistakes, don't repeat them, cos the next generation of our children, is the future of our country.... and what we see as freedom and rights of people, we are already moving to cap again....

[Katja]

Let us examine this accusation of hypocrisy of which you seem so keen.

Is it a hypocrisy for a parent to refuse to have a child circumcised when the foreskin is perfectly healthy, and then if at some future stage it is damaged in some way, or disease makes it necessary to remove it before he is old enough to evaluate the issues and decide for himself? Is it a hypocrisy to believe in the rights of a child and then inflict upon that child any treatment or other without his say so because he is unable through immaturity to properly understand the issues involved?

The answer is plainly no. Parents have a duty of care to their children and there are times when in the childs best interest, at a time in their lives when they do not understand what is happening to them, except possibly in the most rudimentary terms, that parental responsibility means that things will be done for the sake of that child's continued well being.

Sammie mentioned her appendix operation. Was her parents decision to give consent for her to be operated upon in such circumstances when had she been left untreated, her life would have been threatened a hypocrisy? Of course not.

There are times of medical necessity when parental responsibility means that occasionally, the wishes of the child will be overridden. In the case of case of infant circumcision, when medical necessity is not immediate or an issue, there is no such pressing need. And until such a pressing need appears, then also quite plainly, parents have no moral right to insist on the removal of an important piece of bodily tissue.

In the UK, children who are able to consider the issues of circumcison and are thought by paediatricians be mature enough to have some say in whether or not they are circumcised. Should parents disagree being one such instance, then the wish of that child is paramount whether to be circumcised or not in accord with his wishes. If two parents disagree (about religious circumcision) when a child is too young to be involved in the discussion and understand the issues involved, no circumcision of a healthy foreskin will be undertaken. Other than for religious reasons or pressing medical need the NHS does not allow circumcision of infants or young children.

The above is but a weak half way house in protecting fully the rights of a child and not entirely satisfactory but it is better than a child having no say whatever until he is of maturity. This is a hypocrisy because it recognises that the child will at some time in his life be able to understand the issues and make the decision for himself, but until that time will only be the arbiter of his own fate in the case of parental disagreement.

On the question of mutilation every disfigurement we have in life is a mutilation however great or small. The word raises many negative emotions within us. Darkside has quoted from one dictionary but there arent many which would differ much from that definition. We often couch the disfigurement with other words which reduce our sensitivity and do not allow us to think of that disfigurement as a mutilation but that is exactly what it is from the childhood scar on the knee to amputation of a limb and worse. And indeed, circumcision.

If you truly believe that circumcision has not been proved right or wrong that is your right, and in a way I agree with you. What we do with our bodies is our concern and our decision to do with them as we will. What we insist on doing with the bodies of others, in this instance the body of an infant child in my opinion, has been plainly demonstrated to be a wrong over and over again. Not simply in these pages, but in society on general which is why infant ciircumcision is on the decline, even the circumcisons which are performed for religious purposes.

Fewer parents in western societies are taking the decision to have their infant circumcised. Even those Jewish, and I believe Islamic people who have immigrated to or live in those societies. In time infant circumcision will become a thing of the past just as have many unpleasant practices throughout our social history. Should it be made illegal except in cases of immediate medical need? Yes, without doubt.

[Long Duck Dong]

to answer your question, in a sense, yes.... I am refering to preachers hypocrisy... cos if people like bluebiyou and drugstore and bidaved had children and they had to have them circumcised for medical reasons, then they have done exactly what they condemned and judged others for doing and that is having a child circumcised.... and the reasoning doesn't apply as they have the stance that circumcised children are mutilated so in effect they have mutilated their own children while condemning and judging others for the same thing


preachers hypocrisy is when somebody * preachs * a message about how wrong people are for what they do, and what sort of people do that etc etc etc....
then they turn around and do pretty much what they have been condemning in others, and trying to justify it by changing the nature of what they have done ( the elective versus medical circumsicion )

parental hypocrisy is different in that first time parents will make statements like they would never do anything to hurt their children they love them too much, then they sign off on surgical consents .....
many parents that are second ( or more ) time parents, say things a lot different with their second ( or more ) kids

any parent that has children will know that parental hypocrisy is something that most parents have done... it doesn't make them bad parents, it makes them honest parents.... such as sammies parents, they acted in the best interests of sammie and possibly went against their own stance that they would never do anything to hurt / harm her..... and I do know from something sammie posted once, that her parents love her and care deeply for her.... but that was more to do with protecting their daughter and accepting her choices in life

its why I say circumcision for me, is a grey area.... its not right and its not wrong.... but I do not just narrow circumcision down to a child and the removal of a healthy foreskin..... ( again back to the elective v's medical circumcision, child and adult circumcisions ) and so I have to sit with the grey area aspect....

if you want a simple answer about child circumcision and should it be banned.... my answer is no.... it should not be... there are better ways of dealing with circumcision than removing the choice for people......

we like the right of choice, we advocate the right of choice,... banning it is the removal of a right of choice.... and if its banned, we can not use the argument that its for the benefit of the child, as we have also removed the right of choice for the adult as well.....

more and more people are moving away from circumcision now....freely and by choice.... not cos its wrong, but cos they can not see a reason for it.....
and at times that is the best way to bring about change.....

the shift in LGBT acceptance is a example.... more and more people are accepting of the LGBT not cos we got in their faces all the time and rammed our opinions down their throats but cos we didn't.... we call those people our friend, our lovers, our supporters... and they stand with us cos we do not stand against them

[tenni]

mu·ti·late *(mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

When I read this meaning and compare it to the thoughts of those who believe that circumcision is a mutilation of a penis, it makes sense in part. It does disfigure the penis from its original natural state but sometimes there is no difference in appearance between an erect cirumcised or erect uncut penis from my experience. With comments about the sensitivity of the foreskin's nerves, it makes sense that they would see it as damaged irreparably as far as sexual pleasure. Those of us who are circumcised at birth have no idea what that might have been like. Most of us seem happy as we are though. We are deprived of something but I don't think of my former foreskin as a limb. Is it an essential part? Not for me and many others who were circumcised at birth. We don't consider ourselves crippled but some seem to resent their circumcision and attempt to "regrow" the foreskin. Is it imperfect or altered? Yes.

It seems appropriate to claim that a child's foreskin has been mutilated imo. It isn't how we in North America normally think of ourselves but it does make sense to me now.

[Katja]

to answer your question, in a sense, yes.... I am refering to preachers hypocrisy... cos if people like bluebiyou and drugstore and bidaved had children and they had to have them circumcised for medical reasons, then they have done exactly what they condemned and judged others for doing and that is having a child circumcised.... and the reasoning doesn't apply as they have the stance that circumcised children are mutilated so in effect they have mutilated their own children while condemning and judging others for the same thing


preachers hypocrisy is when somebody * preachs * a message about how wrong people are for what they do, and what sort of people do that etc etc etc....
then they turn around and do pretty much what they have been condemning in others, and trying to justify it by changing the nature of what they have done ( the elective versus medical circumsicion )

parental hypocrisy is different in that first time parents will make statements like they would never do anything to hurt their children they love them too much, then they sign off on surgical consents .....
many parents that are second ( or more ) time parents, say things a lot different with their second ( or more ) kids

any parent that has children will know that parental hypocrisy is something that most parents have done... it doesn't make them bad parents, it makes them honest parents.... such as sammies parents, they acted in the best interests of sammie and possibly went against their own stance that they would never do anything to hurt / harm her..... and I do know from something sammie posted once, that her parents love her and care deeply for her.... but that was more to do with protecting their daughter and accepting her choices in life

its why I say circumcision for me, is a grey area.... its not right and its not wrong.... but I do not just narrow circumcision down to a child and the removal of a healthy foreskin..... ( again back to the elective v's medical circumcision, child and adult circumcisions ) and so I have to sit with the grey area aspect....

if you want a simple answer about child circumcision and should it be banned.... my answer is no.... it should not be... there are better ways of dealing with circumcision than removing the choice for people......

we like the right of choice, we advocate the right of choice,... banning it is the removal of a right of choice.... and if its banned, we can not use the argument that its for the benefit of the child, as we have also removed the right of choice for the adult as well.....

more and more people are moving away from circumcision now....freely and by choice.... not cos its wrong, but cos they can not see a reason for it.....
and at times that is the best way to bring about change.....

the shift in LGBT acceptance is a example.... more and more people are accepting of the LGBT not cos we got in their faces all the time and rammed our opinions down their throats but cos we didn't.... we call those people our friend, our lovers, our supporters... and they stand with us cos we do not stand against them

Watching a child suffer and doing nothing while claiming to love and care for that child. Now that is a hypocrisy. Not acting to stop that suffering. Having the child go through surgery to stop suffering is not a hypocrisy but a true act of love. So lets throw that one out of the window for the stupidity it is.

We ban many things, LDD, which remove from us choice. In respect of infant children alone are not allowed to deliberately kill one, or break his bones, torture, punch or kick him or poke his eyes out. We are not allowed to starve that infant, neglect or act in a cruel manner towards him in any way. We must in law provide for education of that infant which meets with the approval of the education authorities, and seek medical care for him when he is unwell. We are not allowed to abandon that child to his fate or sell him for monetary gain. When he is older, we are not allowed to throw him into the street to fend for himself until he reaches the age of 16 or force him into work (part time) until he is 13 and we cannot stop his education until he is 16 or force him into full time work rather than continue his education until the age of 18. We are not allowed in law to force a marriage upon that child. We are unable to supply him with alcohol in public house until he is 18, or allow him to purchase it from an off licence or supermarket. Similarly he is not allowed to purchase cigarettes until he is 16 and we are not allowed as adults to enter a tobacconist, supermarket or other retailer and purchase them on his behalf. We are not allowed to supply him with listed narcotics. Parents are not allowed to have removed from that infant any other part of his body when there is no medical need.

LDD, there is a whole raft of things parents have no choice over when it comes to infants and children. Just what is so frightening about this small piece of a penis which justifies its removal from an almost new born child and that parents must retain choice over whether he retains it or not? So just who are we removing choice from if we follow your logic and advice? Lo and behold, certainly not a young child. We are empowering him, and restoring to him and his peers rights over his body which have been stolen from him and generations of infant boys.

[Darkside2009]

...if you want a simple answer about child circumcision and should it be banned.... my answer is no.... it should not be... there are better ways of dealing with circumcision than removing the choice for people......

we like the right of choice, we advocate the right of choice,... banning it is the removal of a right of choice.... and if its banned, we can not use the argument that its for the benefit of the child, as we have also removed the right of choice for the adult as well.....

more and more people are moving away from circumcision now....freely and by choice.... not cos its wrong, but cos they can not see a reason for it.....
and at times that is the best way to bring about change.....

the shift in LGBT acceptance is a example.... more and more people are accepting of the LGBT not cos we got in their faces all the time and rammed our opinions down their throats but cos we didn't.... we call those people our friend, our lovers, our supporters... and they stand with us cos we do not stand against them

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a society we have banned lots of practices, speeding, drunk driving, foot-binding, abortions by unqualified people, human sacrifice, the list is endless.

We have banned those practices because we deem it of great benefit to our society as a whole and to each individual within it.

Now some individuals might wish to climb in their car when drunk, and drive over the speed limit back to where they live. We denigrate such practices and penalise the individual caught engaging in them. Is it a curtailment of the individual's choice? Absolutely. Should it be? Of course, because that curtailment of the individual right to drive as and when they please, ensures the rights of everyone else to walk, or drive home in safety, without some drunk crashing in to us in his car

We make human sacrifice illegal, we curtail the choice of those who might wish to perform such rituals, by deciding that to allow it, would impinge on the right to life of the person to be sacrificed.

As a society, we make such balancing acts all the time, between the rights of the individual versus the rights of society, always have done and always will do.

Homosexuality was once a hanging offence in the UK, attitudes changed, homosexuals were no longer hanged, they were given a prison sentence.(Oscar Wilde, served two years), attitudes changed again and society decided that homosexual acts performed in private between consenting adults should not be illegal. It was left to individual choice.

However, we still ban homosexual acts between adult and child no matter if they are performed in private or public. As a society we do so to protect the right to the child to live an innocent life, free from molestation or predatory behaviour, until such time as they reach adulthood, and can make an informed decision for themselves as to where their sexual inclinations lie.

Of those who break this law we heap odium and abuse. Yes it has curtailed the right of the paedophile to engage in sex with whomever he/she wishes. We regard it as a greater good that the right of the child is protected from interference by the adult.

To give another example, you may exercise your choice to park your car on your lawn, that does not give you a right to park your car on your neighbour's lawn and impinge his right to enjoy his garden

As an individual, your rights end where mine begins. In the exercise of your right, you do not have carte-blanche to impose upon mine.

As a society, we allow branding of our livestock, but we don't permit branding of our children.

Yes, the attitude of society can and does change over time. It changes because like-minded people have banded together and agitated, and educated for that change. They continued that agitation until such time as the law was changed.

You are doubtless aware of the actions taken against the Suffragettes, force-feeding them when they went on hunger strike etc, but the result of their actions was a change in the law, and votes for women.

Women were no longer considered a chattel of their husbands or Fathers to dispose of as they wished. If they had not organised, educated and agitated votes for women would not have come about. They forced society to stop, think, and rationalise its position. That rationalisation decided there was no valid reason why women should not have the vote.

There are few if any, that would wish to return the law to the state it was previously. There may well have been individuals within the Suffragette movement that we would find, personally obnoxious, and who used inflammatory language in order to try and get their point across.

That does not and did not denigrate from the message, that votes for women was the fair and decent choice to arrive at.

We are meeting on a site that once would have been deemed illegal, times have changed, laws have changed. What might have been an acceptable practice at one time has in the light of increased human knowledge become less acceptable, and the reasons for prolonging it, less rational.

Your right to circumcise ends where my foreskin begins. By all means make choices and decisions for yourselves, but don't impinge upon the choices for your children to make, they have rights too.


Those advocates for a change in the law in San Francisco, are seeking to give the individual the choice for themselves, once they reach the age of eighteen, and are able to make an informed choice, as to what modifications they make to their own bodies.

As of the time of writing, I understand that they have gained enough people in support to trigger a ballot on the motion. It seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition and I wish them every success.

[Katja]

So just who are we removing choice from if we follow your logic and advice? Lo and behold, certainly not a young child. We are empowering him, and restoring to him and his peers rights over his body which have been stolen from him and generations of infant boys.

I have made a proper dogs dinner of these last few sentences of my last post.

If, much belatedly I can amend them to read;

So just who are we removing choice from if we follow your logic and advice? Lo and behold, the young child. We on our side are empowering him, and restoring to him and his peers their rights over their bodies which have been stolen from them and generations of infant boys.

[sammie19]

When I entered this discussion it would be too much to say I had an open mind, because on the subject of circumcising infants I did not and this hasn't changed. I held the opinions expressed in the thread because of a belief that our bodies are inviolate without our express permission except in circumstances in which we are too young or incapacitated to be able to take a considered decision, but only in the most exceptional ie immediate life or health threatening circumstances.

Earlier in the thread I said that while I felt it was wrong, that there were far more important issues faces us than this one. While this remains still true, my error has been in the almost trivial place I have always given to the issue, but as it has gone on, my attitude to it has hardened and hardened quite substantially. There may be many issues which are more important, but this is still an important issue even if only to generations of unborn children.

My attitudes have partly been hardened because of a number of contributions by people who are of a similar opinion to myself, but more so by some of those who are of the opposite opinion. They have twisted and turned and shown me by their defensiveness, bankruptcy of thought and the increasing desperation of their arguments that deep inside themselves they know their case is being dismantled brick by brick and will continue to be so. They have singularly failed to show justification for inflicting upon a new born little boy an operation to remove a healthy part of his penis.

In some cases, such is the desperation of their argument it is almost as if they have grasped into thin air for anything which will be of use as justification and instead of convincing they have been descredited in my mind and in some cases made to look foolish and even worse pathetic, however sincere they are in believing their own words. They, more than any on my own side of the argument have proven my case for me to me as if any were needed, and confirmed and strengthened my belief that circumcising an infant's healthy foreskin is a grave wrong we should erradicate and as has been suggested, make unlawful.

The very history of infant circumcision in Europe, North America and elsewhere and the reasons for its spectacular rise at the beginning of the last century outwith the religious sphere alone should convince us of that.

[Long Duck Dong]

katja,

hy·poc·ri·sy

noun /hiˈpäkrisē/ 
hypocrisies, plural

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense

unless people are signing for people to have totally pain free surgery... then they have consented to them to suffer pain and harm as a delibrate ac

if i was to sign for a child to have surgery, I would do it knowing its going to hurt cos I have had surgeries, and I know the children will suffering cos of the surgery regardless of what it is for and what suffering it may ease

people like you that want to say that you will not harm a child and have not cos under exemption a,b,c,d, e, it was done out of love, it was done for their own, it was good cos it was needed, are the people that willl justify any action you undertake......

I will stand up and say, yes I will harm a child in it is deemed needed, IE surgery cos I would have no choice but to sign the forms knowing the child will suffer cos of my delibrate actions in signing the papers, regardless of the reason I am signing them......

but if you want, katja, I will say I am wrong for stating that yes I will harm a child if its deemed needed medically... I will say that people are not hypocrites for saying that they will not harm a child, then do it and make excuses for the harm ...... and change my stance when I need to to justify my actions that contradict my statements....

cos according to you, i can say that and not be a hypocrite.... cos I sure as hell do not believe it and it goes against what I say I will do, regardless of my reasoning for doing it

[Long Duck Dong]

I have made a proper dogs dinner of these last few sentences of my last post.

If, much belatedly I can amend them to read;

So just who are we removing choice from if we follow your logic and advice? Lo and behold, the young child. We on our side are empowering him, and restoring to him and his peers their rights over their bodies which have been stolen from them and generations of infant boys.

sure empower them, go for it...... be like nz, and watch the under 16s commit crimes cos they are empowered by the knowledge that the law can not touch them, so they know they can get away with it.....

be like NZ and tell the children they are no longer allowed to be punished by their parents, then blame the parents for not disciplining the children and not keeping them under control

be like nz with the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate in the world, one of the highest teen binge drinking rates in the world, one of the highest teen drink driving causing death rates in the world....

we have empowered the children alright.... and we have lost control.... and the thing is it started from something simple... the right of the children to have a choice... and it grew from there.... now we are a country out of control and they are starting to pass laws to try and regain control again... and failing.... and the teen suicide and death rate is climbing faster and faster as the teens has too much freedom and no boundaries and many of them can not handle it......

but what would I know.... I have only buried a good number of them and and had to counsel their friends who ask why it is that nobody stopped them.... and my answer is that we gave them rights and empowerment, but not the maturity or guidance to use them constructively

[Long Duck Dong]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a society we have banned lots of practices, speeding, drunk driving, foot-binding, abortions by unqualified people, human sacrifice, the list is endless.

We have banned those practices because we deem it of great benefit to our society as a whole and to each individual within it.

Now some individuals might wish to climb in their car when drunk, and drive over the speed limit back to where they live. We denigrate such practices and penalise the individual caught engaging in them. Is it a curtailment of the individual's choice? Absolutely. Should it be? Of course, because that curtailment of the individual right to drive as and when they please, ensures the rights of everyone else to walk, or drive home in safety, without some drunk crashing in to us in his car

We make human sacrifice illegal, we curtail the choice of those who might wish to perform such rituals, by deciding that to allow it, would impinge on the right to life of the person to be sacrificed.

As a society, we make such balancing acts all the time, between the rights of the individual versus the rights of society, always have done and always will do.

Homosexuality was once a hanging offence in the UK, attitudes changed, homosexuals were no longer hanged, they were given a prison sentence.(Oscar Wilde, served two years), attitudes changed again and society decided that homosexual acts performed in private between consenting adults should not be illegal. It was left to individual choice.

However, we still ban homosexual acts between adult and child no matter if they are performed in private or public. As a society we do so to protect the right to the child to live an innocent life, free from molestation or predatory behaviour, until such time as they reach adulthood, and can make an informed decision for themselves as to where their sexual inclinations lie.

Of those who break this law we heap odium and abuse. Yes it has curtailed the right of the paedophile to engage in sex with whomever he/she wishes. We regard it as a greater good that the right of the child is protected from interference by the adult.

To give another example, you may exercise your choice to park your car on your lawn, that does not give you a right to park your car on your neighbour's lawn and impinge his right to enjoy his garden

As an individual, your rights end where mine begins. In the exercise of your right, you do not have carte-blanche to impose upon mine.

As a society, we allow branding of our livestock, but we don't permit branding of our children.

Yes, the attitude of society can and does change over time. It changes because like-minded people have banded together and agitated, and educated for that change. They continued that agitation until such time as the law was changed.

You are doubtless aware of the actions taken against the Suffragettes, force-feeding them when they went on hunger strike etc, but the result of their actions was a change in the law, and votes for women.

Women were no longer considered a chattel of their husbands or Fathers to dispose of as they wished. If they had not organised, educated and agitated votes for women would not have come about. They forced society to stop, think, and rationalise its position. That rationalisation decided there was no valid reason why women should not have the vote.

There are few if any, that would wish to return the law to the state it was previously. There may well have been individuals within the Suffragette movement that we would find, personally obnoxious, and who used inflammatory language in order to try and get their point across.

That does not and did not denigrate from the message, that votes for women was the fair and decent choice to arrive at.

We are meeting on a site that once would have been deemed illegal, times have changed, laws have changed. What might have been an acceptable practice at one time has in the light of increased human knowledge become less acceptable, and the reasons for prolonging it, less rational.

Your right to circumcise ends where my foreskin begins. By all means make choices and decisions for yourselves, but don't impinge upon the choices for your children to make, they have rights too.


Those advocates for a change in the law in San Francisco, are seeking to give the individual the choice for themselves, once they reach the age of eighteen, and are able to make an informed choice, as to what modifications they make to their own bodies.

As of the time of writing, I understand that they have gained enough people in support to trigger a ballot on the motion. It seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition and I wish them every success.

and as I have said darkside,... I am not supporting or opposing circumcision, I am saying simply that it is a medically needed operation at times.....

I do not have the right to tell others how to live their lives, in the same way they do not have the right to tell me how to live my life...... but many people will believe their way works and their way is best.....

who am I to decide what way is right and what way is wrong...... unless I want the world to conform to what I want the world to be like......

I thought that the LGBT community would have understood what it is like to be told that they may not have rights cos others say so.... but its clear that we will scream blue murder about others doing it to us, but we are ok with doing it to others.....

so i go back to my original statement, which is as long that the medical exemption exists do that a medically needed circumcision can be done if needed, then I do not really care who is trying to change what for who and why.... and that I do not see circumcision as right or wrong, merely a medically needed op at times.....

otherwise, i would have to do the double standards thing and say that non medical circumcision is wrong, so is medical circumcision but its needed so its ok to do but its not ok unless the child is old enuf to choice, in which case its right, but circumcision is still wrong and mutilating people is wrong but its right when its for a medically needed op in which case its still mutilation but its ok cos its done out of love.......

and people wanna tell me that I have screwed up thinking ???? roflmao, oh please...

[Katja]

and people wanna tell me that I have screwed up thinking ???? roflmao, oh please...

I do believe I shall allow others to make their minds up about that. :)

[Katja]

cos according to you, i can say that and not be a hypocrite.... cos I sure as hell do not believe it and it goes against what I say I will do, regardless of my reasoning for doing it

In the context of medical need as opposed to whim, belief, vanity or plain old want, or taking the decision away from another when there is no medical need, and not accepting your interpretation of the word harm in the context of this argument, you can indeed say (in the context of this debate) that you are no hypocrite. I am sorry if you do not believe it, but I can't help how your mind works.

[Katja]

sure empower them, go for it...... be like nz, and watch the under 16s commit crimes cos they are empowered by the knowledge that the law can not touch them, so they know they can get away with it.....

be like NZ and tell the children they are no longer allowed to be punished by their parents, then blame the parents for not disciplining the children and not keeping them under control

be like nz with the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate in the world, one of the highest teen binge drinking rates in the world, one of the highest teen drink driving causing death rates in the world....

we have empowered the children alright.... and we have lost control.... and the thing is it started from something simple... the right of the children to have a choice... and it grew from there.... now we are a country out of control and they are starting to pass laws to try and regain control again... and failing.... and the teen suicide and death rate is climbing faster and faster as the teens has too much freedom and no boundaries and many of them can not handle it......

but what would I know.... I have only buried a good number of them and and had to counsel their friends who ask why it is that nobody stopped them.... and my answer is that we gave them rights and empowerment, but not the maturity or guidance to use them constructively

We are discussing circumcision of infant children not the social problems of the world. That is quite a seperate issue and a distraction from this discussion.

[Katja]

When I entered this discussion it would be too much to say I had an open mind, because on the subject of circumcising infants I did not and this hasn't changed. I held the opinions expressed in the thread because of a belief that our bodies are inviolate without our express permission except in circumstances in which we are too young or incapacitated to be able to take a considered decision, but only in the most exceptional ie immediate life or health threatening circumstances.

Earlier in the thread I said that while I felt it was wrong, that there were far more important issues faces us than this one. While this remains still true, my error has been in the almost trivial place I have always given to the issue, but as it has gone on, my attitude to it has hardened and hardened quite substantially. There may be many issues which are more important, but this is still an important issue even if only to generations of unborn children.

My attitudes have partly been hardened because of a number of contributions by people who are of a similar opinion to myself, but more so by some of those who are of the opposite opinion. They have twisted and turned and shown me by their defensiveness, bankruptcy of thought and the increasing desperation of their arguments that deep inside themselves they know their case is being dismantled brick by brick and will continue to be so. They have singularly failed to show justification for inflicting upon a new born little boy an operation to remove a healthy part of his penis.

In some cases, such is the desperation of their argument it is almost as if they have grasped into thin air for anything which will be of use as justification and instead of convincing they have been descredited in my mind and in some cases made to look foolish and even worse pathetic, however sincere they are in believing their own words. They, more than any on my own side of the argument have proven my case for me to me as if any were needed, and confirmed and strengthened my belief that circumcising an infant's healthy foreskin is a grave wrong we should erradicate and as has been suggested, make unlawful.

The very history of infant circumcision in Europe, North America and elsewhere and the reasons for its spectacular rise at the beginning of the last century outwith the religious sphere alone should convince us of that.

Be careful of those feelings, darling. Occasionally when attitudes harden we lose sight of what is important and the attitude becomes more important and even detrimental to us than the issue.:)

[Long Duck Dong]

In the context of medical need as opposed to whim, belief, vanity or plain old want, or taking the decision away from another when there is no medical need, and not accepting your interpretation of the word harm in the context of this argument, you can indeed say (in the context of this debate) that you are no hypocrite. I am sorry if you do not believe it, but I can't help how your mind works.


my interpertion of the word * harm *
harm
–noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

now if my defination of harm is incorrect, feel free to show me when my defination of harm is wrong, so we can rewrite the worlds dictionaries with your defination of harm

[Katja]

my interpertion of the word * harm *
harm
–noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

what is your defination of harm ??? any action against a child that results in pain and suffering unless its done by a parent that loves their children ???

I know the definition of harm. And it does not involve the necessity and efforts to repair and heal. To do nothing is harm.

[Long Duck Dong]

I know the definition of harm. And it does not involve the necessity and efforts to repair and heal. To do nothing is harm.

so surgery does not damage tissue, flesh and muscle, per the defination of harm.... ???? got it and I can now go tell all the surgeons that they were wrong, my body doesn't bear scar tissue from surgeries, its scar tissue from them doing nothing about my injuries

and to do nothing is to harm a person.... tell that to the elderly and terminal that want to die, and can't cos they have their lives artifically prolonged by medical science and the legal system.... cos I am pretty bloody sure that they will tell you that they want you do nothing cos keeping them alive is prolonging their suffering, not easing it.....

so tell me again that I am wrong for applying your rule of thumb to that situation, cos you have a different rule of thumb for that situation.....
while I apply the same rule to that that I apply to children and circumcision...

I will harm a person by my actions as there are times that I have no choice but to do so..... regardless if I agree with the reasoning for my actions or not

[csrakate]

Please LDD....you are splitting hairs and misconstruing simple wording and in doing so, you are confusing your very own theory. One minute you are saying that scar tissue as a result of possible life saving surgery is doing harm yet you argue that we should "do no harm" to allow the elderly to die without intervention. To "do no harm" is simple....and can be better explained by Hippocrates himself:

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

I don't necessarily subscribe to the "anti-circumcision" platform, but using those terms, you can see where they get the argument that it is, perhaps, "jumping the gun" for actual prevention of disease. It's not the same thing as the scenarios you attempt to compare it to.

[Katja]

so surgery does not damage tissue, flesh and muscle, per the defination of harm.... ???? got it and I can now go tell all the surgeons that they were wrong, my body doesn't bear scar tissue from surgeries, its scar tissue from them doing nothing about my injuries

and to do nothing is to harm a person.... tell that to the elderly and terminal that want to die, and can't cos they have their lives artifically prolonged by medical science and the legal system.... cos I am pretty bloody sure that they will tell you that they want you do nothing cos keeping them alive is prolonging their suffering, not easing it.....

so tell me again that I am wrong for applying your rule of thumb to that situation, cos you have a different rule of thumb for that situation.....
while I apply the same rule to that that I apply to children and circumcision...

I will harm a person by my actions as there are times that I have no choice but to do so..... regardless if I agree with the reasoning for my actions or not

I said to repair and heal. If the option, knowledge and capacity exists to do those then of course doing nothing is to harm. In the very loosest sense there may be 'harm' to unaffected tissue but that is not aimed at inflicting harm on a human being but is an endeavour to save them and heal. When we have the knowledge to repair and heal and the ability to do so, then doing nothing is without doubt to do harm.

To do nothing but allow one to die a natural death can also be to harm. I am not saying that we should artificially keep them alive, but as their lives ebb we should use all our resources and knowledge to allow them to pass away as peacefully and as painlessly as possible. It is their choice that we do nothing, yet until they make that choice, every effort must be made to keep them alive as comfortably and painlessly as possible while expending all efforts to preserve their lives. To do other is to harm.

To euthenase is to harm, yet is aimed at relieving suffering and allowing a person to die with some dignity and as peacefully as possible at a time of their choosing. We are ending deliberately a persons life at their request so by definition it is to harm. But it can also be a great act of mercy and one which has brought many relief from their agonies and suffering.

What we are debating is choice. No parent can allow their child to suffer needlessly when treatment is available which will heal or at the very least relieve suffering. That may be harm in your books but not mine. It is not the same as taking away from a child the choice of whether to keep or lose a part of his penis when there is no medical reason to do so. That is harm.

You may bandy the word 'harm' about all you like LDD, and you may use it in any way that you wish. Because with every word you utter to distract from the real debate, you do nothing to further any real consideration of it. We disagree on what this little four letter word really means and will never agree. I suggest we move on and get back to the real issue, and on this interpretation of a small but very important word I intend to say no more.

[Long Duck Dong]

Please LDD....you are splitting hairs and misconstruing simple wording and in doing so, you are confusing your very own theory. One minute you are saying that scar tissue as a result of possible life saving surgery is doing harm yet you argue that we should "do no harm" to allow the elderly to die without intervention. To "do no harm" is simple....and can be better explained by Hippocrates himself:

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

I don't necessarily subscribe to the "anti-circumcision" platform, but using those terms, you can see where they get the argument that it is, perhaps, "jumping the gun" for actual prevention of disease. It's not the same thing as the scenarios you attempt to compare it to.

well kate....

its like my father, who needed urgent major surgery to save his life and it was a high risk op..... and I signed the papers.... and people will automatically think I did it to save his life.... the truth is the opposite, i did it in the hopes it would end his life.....

now immediately, thats seen as cold and heartless.... not the actions of a loving person that cares about somebody, cos i am wishing death on them.....

the fact that my father has a life long alcohol problem and its destoryed his marriage, his life etc etc, will not be taken into account and nor will the action that his health is failing and he will suffer greatly as he dies.....

all that will be seen by people, is me standing by watching my father suffer to hell and back... and their best wishes would be with me..... yet if they knew that I signed those papers in the hope that he died on the operating table and never suffered a day longer, I would be seen as a cold hearted bastard....... and not the fact I wait to see my fathers suffering come to a end

circumcision is the same principal... if as a parent I act pre emptively with circumcising a child, its wrong, how dare I do that..... but it can be done out of love... cos if that child was not circumcised and grew up, suffering greatly with issues... then asked me why I had not had him circumcised as a child cos now its going to take 6 months to heal... what can i say ???

I could have acted in the best interests of him and prevented the issue of future suffering, and got told I was a bad parent,.... or not acted and as a result of my inactions, he suffers......

in my fathers case, my actions were right and wrong, I acted to end his suffering which is generally seen as wrong.... but his suffering ended, which is seen as right.... now he suffers another type of pain cos of my action.... and where are the people that judged me on my actions.....??? no where to be seen...

in the case of a child, my actions would be right and wrong... I would not act to circumcise him... and that would be seen as right.... then he would suffer later in life and my inaction, seen as wrong.... but when he suffers the pain of a adult circumcision.... where are all the anti and pro circumcision people ??? no where to be seen.....

I would still be walking the middle ground and standing right there beside my father and the child while the other people are off somewhere distance, arguing their way is right... while avoiding being in a situation where they see the results of their own stance and statements......

if people want to be anti circumcision, go for it, but instead of posting child circumcision vids, go make friends with a adult that is having a adult circumcision and watch him barely able to walk around and unable to have sex, and spend 6 months with him until he is fully healed.... then tell me that infant circumcision is cruel.... but many people avoid that or never see it... but by god will they harp on about how cruel it is to a child and how the child suffers... for a couple of days......

[Darkside2009]

Quote:from CSRAKATE

..."The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a person has gangrene in their leg that hasn't responded to anti-biotics, then with their permission, after explaining all the possible outcomes, we remove the leg to stop the gangrene spreading throughout the body and killing the patient.

The loss of the leg is regrettable, the post-operative pain and suffering to the patient is regrettable, as is the scarring that ensues.

The operation is undertaken for the greater good of the patient, it saves his/her life and is preferable to the patient keeping the infected leg and dying, when the gangrene spreads throughout the body.

The benefit, gained by the patient, outweighs the risk of the surgery and the post-operative pain and suffering.

It is a simple enough concept, and one which most people have no problem understanding, or agreeing with, (as evidenced by CS's above quote).

There may be some adults, who when informed of all the available choices, will decide to keep the leg and die with their body intact. As informed adults, that would be their choice. I would suggest it is a choice few if any adults would opt for.

In contrast, routine circumcision on infants, does not convey any benefit to the child, to outweigh the danger inherent, in any operation to a child so young.

If it is not broke, don't fix it.

[Long Duck Dong]

I said to repair and heal. If the option, knowledge and capacity exists to do those then of course doing nothing is to harm. In the very loosest sense there may be 'harm' to unaffected tissue but that is not aimed at inflicting harm on a human being but is an endeavour to save them and heal. When we have the knowledge to repair and heal and the ability to do so, then doing nothing is without doubt to do harm.

To do nothing but allow one to die a natural death can also be to harm. I am not saying that we should artificially keep them alive, but as their lives ebb we should use all our resources and knowledge to allow them to pass away as peacefully and as painlessly as possible. It is their choice that we do nothing, yet until they make that choice, every effort must be made to keep them alive as comfortably and painlessly as possible while expending all efforts to preserve their lives. To do other is to harm.

To euthenase is to harm, yet is aimed at relieving suffering and allowing a person to die with some dignity and as peacefully as possible at a time of their choosing. We are ending deliberately a persons life at their request so by definition it is to harm. But it can also be a great act of mercy and one which has brought many relief from their agonies and suffering.

What we are debating is choice. No parent can allow their child to suffer needlessly when treatment is available which will heal or at the very least relieve suffering. That may be harm in your books but not mine. It is not the same as taking away from a child the choice of whether to keep or lose a part of his penis when there is no medical reason to do so. That is harm.

You may bandy the word 'harm' about all you like LDD, and you may use it in any way that you wish. Because with every word you utter to distract from the real debate, you do nothing to further any real consideration of it. We disagree on what this little four letter word really means and will never agree. I suggest we move on and get back to the real issue, and on this interpretation of a small but very important word I intend to say no more.

the real debate ??? snorts..... go be with a adult male that has a adult circumcision that takes 6 months to heal, and tell him every day, about how grateful he should be to you for your stance that he had the right of choice about being circumcised..... cos he will tell you that it fuckin hurts a lot... and right of choice is a lousy painkiller......

lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

[Darkside2009]

Quote by LDD.

...if people want to be anti circumcision, go for it, but instead of posting child circumcision vids, go make friends with a adult that is having a adult circumcision and watch him barely able to walk around and unable to have sex, and spend 6 months with him until he is fully healed.... then tell me that infant circumcision is cruel.... but many people avoid that or never see it... but by god will they harp on about how cruel it is to a child and how the child suffers... for a couple of days......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already answered this question before, but just for your benefit.

An adult in full possession of his faculties can rationalise that his pain will abate and his penis eventually heal. The operation can be conducted under General anaesthetic.

By contrast, an infant can't rationalise that the pain will abate and eventually cease, neither can he rationalise that his penis will heal. All that he can feel is the pain, he has no idea of how long it will last. As an infant, he cannot be given General anaesthetic because of the inherent risk in doing so.

All that he knows is that the person who normally cares for him is not stopping or preventing the pain he is suffering.

To say that the adult takes six months to heal and the infant will heal in two days is not only incorrect, it is utter nonsense. An infant's immune system is not as developed as an adult's, the risk of post-operative infection is greater.

I respectfully suggest, that you review, and edit, your arguments before posting them, as scraping the barrel for excuses only serves one purpose.

[Darkside2009]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can hear what the infant had to say about it, simply by viewing the video link posted in this thread. If you can't hear it well enough, try turning up the volume.

[Darkside2009]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the same logic as demonstrated here, does that mean I should not have an opinion on slavery, or of rapists? After all, I've never owned a slave, or raped anyone.

[drugstore cowboy]

May 25, 2011|By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times

Performing a circumcision on a boy under age 18 — even for religious reasons — would be illegal under a measure that a San Diego group hopes to place on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot.

Go SD! :)

[drugstore cowboy]

To "do no harm" is simple....and can be better explained by Hippocrates himself:

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

Removing the foreskin of an infant boy is nothing but genital mutilation and is causing the infant boy nothing but harm any way you want to define it.

[Long Duck Dong]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the same logic as demonstrated here, does that mean I should not have an opinion on slavery, or of rapists? After all, I've never owned a slave, or raped anyone.

you have the option of doing it... the freedom of choice..... but I need to check something with your statement...

are you refering to non consentual stranger rape, or the legal defination of rape and the same with slavery, is it the defination of people in chains, or the legal defination.....

the reason I ask, is that sex without consent, is legally a form of rape, if the female doesn't give consent.... and husbands have been charged with marital rape....

with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM...

what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....

it comes back to what I have been saying that what first time parents say, is often very different to second time parents.... as they learnt from the first experience that things we say, sound good to us... but often we do the opposite.... and that is why they change their wording.....

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....

[Long Duck Dong]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can hear what the infant had to say about it, simply by viewing the video link posted in this thread. If you can't hear it well enough, try turning up the volume.

where is the video of the adult.... ???? you know... the one that is not used cos it doesn't have the shock value or work the sympathy angle..... cos believe me, there is a lot more skin, tissue and blood involved so its a lot more graphic....but its harder to feel the same sympathy for a adult as it is for a child..... so the child vid is used cos most people would react to it....

my point is proven there by way of the comments about how its better if a adult goes thru it than a child.... yet if people saw the mess it made of a adult... then they would realise the truth of what they are saying......

[Long Duck Dong]

Quote by LDD.

...if people want to be anti circumcision, go for it, but instead of posting child circumcision vids, go make friends with a adult that is having a adult circumcision and watch him barely able to walk around and unable to have sex, and spend 6 months with him until he is fully healed.... then tell me that infant circumcision is cruel.... but many people avoid that or never see it... but by god will they harp on about how cruel it is to a child and how the child suffers... for a couple of days......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already answered this question before, but just for your benefit.

An adult in full possession of his faculties can rationalise that his pain will abate and his penis eventually heal. The operation can be conducted under General anaesthetic.

By contrast, an infant can't rationalise that the pain will abate and eventually cease, neither can he rationalise that his penis will heal. All that he can feel is the pain, he has no idea of how long it will last. As an infant, he cannot be given General anaesthetic because of the inherent risk in doing so.

All that he knows is that the person who normally cares for him is not stopping or preventing the pain he is suffering.

To say that the adult takes six months to heal and the infant will heal in two days is not only incorrect, it is utter nonsense. An infant's immune system is not as developed as an adult's, the risk of post-operative infection is greater.

I respectfully suggest, that you review, and edit, your arguments before posting them, as scraping the barrel for excuses only serves one purpose.

a adult can rationise out why a operation is being done.... and a child can't ? true.... now go back to what I have said, about harming a child and while we as adults can rationise things out and do the we do it cos we love the child, the child doesn't understand that we put them thru surgery to make them better, they understand it fucking hurts.....

as I said to katja, we can rationize and reason out why we do things to children, and how it may be right in our eyes, but it still fucking hurts...... now you are saying that adults can rationize pain and reasoning but children can't......

why are you using the stances I have, if my stances are wrong and do not apply to the issue.... are you going to tell yourself that you are out of line now... or does that only apply to me ?

[Bluebiyou]

the real debate ??? snorts..... go be with a adult male that has a adult circumcision that takes 6 months to heal, and tell him every day, about how grateful he should be to you for your stance that he had the right of choice about being circumcised..... cos he will tell you that it fuckin hurts a lot... and right of choice is a lousy painkiller......
Likewise.... go be with an adult female that has had an adult mastectomy that takes... to heal... and tell her why she shouldn't have been spared the pain by routine neonatal double mastectomy.
I think the females (requiring adult mastectomies) will outnumber the males (requiring adult circumcision) more than 10 to 1.
With over a magnitude of difference, shouldn't we start lopping off breasts of females at birth?
Due to the high rate of female breast cancer - 1 in 8 women in a lifetime, plus all the women who develop other breast problems that would be more easily 'solved' by just loping the breast off. Men on the other hand have 1 in 5000 lifetime chance of developing penile cancer. Less than 1% of the adult male population are circumcised for any valid medical reason at all (closer to .1% actually)


lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....
wow, that ... is really... stretching... kinda blips over and warps reality of any perspective...
Should I lop off the healthy legs of my children at birth - because some people lose their legs in automobile accidents, and some to disease? - sort of logic...
"My children have a 75% probability of having a painful death in their lifetime so I should euthanize them at birth so they don't have to go through that pain" would be the ultimate conclusion of the logic you're using, LDD.

[Long Duck Dong]

Likewise.... go be with an adult female that has had an adult mastectomy that takes... to heal... and tell her why she shouldn't have been spared the pain by routine neonatal double mastectomy.
I think the females (requiring adult mastectomies) will outnumber the males (requiring adult circumcision) more than 10 to 1.
With over a magnitude of difference, shouldn't we start lopping off breasts of females at birth?
Due to the high rate of female breast cancer - 1 in 8 women in a lifetime, plus all the women who develop other breast problems that would be more easily 'solved' by just loping the breast off. Men on the other hand have 1 in 5000 lifetime chance of developing penile cancer. Less than 1&#37; of the adult male population are circumcised for any valid medical reason at all (closer to .1% actually)

wow, that ... is really... stretching... kinda blips over and warps reality of any perspective...
Should I lop off the healthy legs of my children at birth - because some people lose their legs in automobile accidents, and some to disease? - sort of logic...
"My children have a 75% probability of having a painful death in their lifetime so I should euthanize them at birth so they don't have to go through that pain" would be the ultimate conclusion of the logic you're using, LDD.

females generally do not have developed breasts at birth..... so its going to be a lil hard to do a mastsectomy on underdeveloped breasts isn't it......

boys are born with a foreskin.... so it can be removed.....

now I would suggest you go to the library and find some books with pics of babies in them and then go view some adult porn, so you can see the difference between a baby and a adult female, and then you will see how hard it is to do a bloody mastsectomy on a baby.... and why its done on maturing or matured females.....

and in answer to your seond statement
no, blue.... I am not suggesting you do that... I am letting you decide as a parent of your children, decide what is best for your children.... and watching you tell other people how to bring up their children according to the rules of bluebiyou..... and honestly, if my children has a 75% chance of a violent death... I would think very seriously about what i am letting my children get involved in, if the risks are that high... so blue, I will politely suggest you move to a remote island in the middle of nowhere if you are really that concerned about the risks to your chidlren in todays society....

btw, are you related to sue bradford in NZ, the greens party politician that got spanking banned in NZ, to protect the children.... yet she was often seen belting her own 4 children and screaming at them, while telling other people how wrong they were with the way they brought up their own children
and her idea was that it would reduce the number of cases of children abuse by empowering the children...... strange enuf, the cases of infant death by abuse have tripled and are climbing....... and where is sue bradford ??? she quit parliament and got the hell out of government.....

[Darkside2009]

Quote: LDD

where is the video of the adult.... ???? you know... the one that is not used cos it doesn't have the shock value or work the sympathy angle..... cos believe me, there is a lot more skin, tissue and blood involved so its a lot more graphic....but its harder to feel the same sympathy for a adult as it is for a child..... so the child vid is used cos most people would react to it....

my point is proven there by way of the comments about how its better if a adult goes thru it than a child.... yet if people saw the mess it made of a adult... then they would realise the truth of what they are saying......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no video of an adult circumcision posted here, for the simple reason that the topic we are discussing on this thread is the routine circumcision of infants. Everyone here seems to understand that but you, why is that?

However, in the interests of fairness. If you think it is relevant by all means post a video of an adult having a circumcision. We can compare screams, from an infant that doesn't know what is happening to it, with an adult that does.

Now you can scrape up one excuse after another to try and distract the discussion from the topic, the only effect these excuses are having is to make you look more and more absurd with each post you make.

The only stance I am adopting is against the routine circumcision of infants. It is a stance I have held and maintained throughout this debate.

I have no difficulty differentiating between an operation performed for medical reasons, that has a benefit to the patient. Compared with one that is performed for cultural reasons, that has no benefit to the patient whatsoever, and puts his life at risk for no good reason.

Neither do I have any difficulty differentiating between the risks of an operation to an adult, and the risks of that same operation to an infant child.

Neither do I think an infant will heal in a couple of days after a circumcision, apparently you do for some reason, although all the evidence is to the contrary.

[Darkside2009]

[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;201111]

what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You most certainly implied that Katja's opinion was invalid, simply because she had not been circumcised herself and then went on to compound it by saying only those who had had an adult circumcision could tell us about it.

That would exclude the opinions and experience of those surgeons who have performed such operations and the nurses and spouses involved in post operative care. Not to mention the doctors and pharmacists who decide what might be safe doses of analgesics to give you to combat the pain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....[/QUOTE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you end your post with maudlin self-pity. Very droll, really! The debate is only served if you remain rational and save the drama for those that appreciate it.

[Katja]

Let me deal with this hypothesis of me being male and circumcised. Why would I, other than if it were required medically undergo such a thing? I would not. But if I did, it would only serve to reinforce my hatred of it being inflicted upon a new born child. Most of those adult males who undergo such an operation will not have had their sons circumcised, and I am quite sure that because of their experience it would reinforce their belief that their decision to leave their son penile intacto the right one.

Circumcised fathers mostly do not remember their circumcision. They dont at a day or two old. But if they did, or they could be placed into the body of an uncircumcised male for the duration of an adult circumcision, I doubt very many of them would be pro infant circumcision either. That too is a hypothesis, but equally as valid as having it done to me.

I will now deal with female mastechotomy of an infant. Infant females do not have fully formed breasts it is true. But it is perfectly feasible for the tissue which in time will develop into breasts to be surgically removed. I know of no instances, but I would have thought it likely that the immature breasts of young girls have been removed for perfectly sound medical reasons but not many in society would recommend it as a precaution against disease and having it done for any other reason without the permission of the person concerned is an illegal act. As indeed is removal of female genital tissue. Why then do we allow male genital tissue to be removed without the permission of the individual concerned?

[Long Duck Dong]

[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;201111]

what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You most certainly implied that Katja's opinion was invalid, simply because she had not been circumcised herself and then went on to compound it by saying only those who had had an adult circumcision could tell us about it.

That would exclude the opinions and experience of those surgeons who have performed such operations and the nurses and spouses involved in post operative care. Not to mention the doctors and pharmacists who decide what might be safe doses of analgesics to give you to combat the pain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....[/QUOTE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you end your post with maudlin self-pity. Very droll, really! The debate is only served if you remain rational and save the drama for those that appreciate it.

darkside... learn the difference between opinion, and personal experience will you... for christ sakes....

I have personal experience as a circumcised male, katja doesn't... neither of us have the personal experience of being circumcised as a adult male..... we both have opinions about it..... but lack the personal experience.....
therefore we have opinions not based on personal experience of being circumcised as a adult male

I said to katja that if she was to EXPERIENCE a adult circumcision on her OWN penis, I would be curious to see if it changed her OPINION about adult male circumcision after EXPERIENCING what a adult male goes thru.....

it does NOT make her opinion invalid, cos if it does, it makes the opinion of ANY person that have not EXPERIENCED a adult male circumcision ( and I am refering to being circumcised, not being the doctor or nurse etc that does the op or hands out the pain meds ) totally invalid as well.... cos their OPINION is not based on personal experiences.....

again, katjas OPINION is not invalid cos she doesn't have a penis, it simply means she lacks the personal EXPERIENCE of being circumcised, something I have, but we both lack the personal EXPERIENCE of being circumcised as a adult male, so we both only have OPINIONS about it

[Katja]

And I say to you LDD, why would I want to? It has no bearing, but if it did, I repeat, it would certainly reinforce my beliefs regarding routine infant circumcision.

I do believe most women, and men for that matter, were they to experience your hypothesis would feel preciseley the same where they were pro or anti routine infant circumcision at the outset.

[Darkside2009]

1. Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....


2. ...what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....

The first account is what you actually said to Katja, the second account is what you claimed to have said. Two different things entirely, the first was condescending the second wasn't.

As she will never have a male circumcision because of her gender, and you will never have an adult male circumcision, because you are already circumcised, the point was entirely invalid. Her opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours. So your condescension to her was uncalled for and merely compounded by the sarcasm which followed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: LDD.

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You complained loudly enough when you thought anti-circumcisionists were making jibes at pro-circumcisionists, by calling them, mutilated, monsters and child molesters. Yet you engage in the same inflammatory behaviour yourself. Your apology has been notable by its absence.

Civility doesn't cost anything.

[BiDaveDtown]

y
with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM...

You're wrong about slavery and BDSM.

What's done in BDSM even within Master/slave total power exchange relationships is not actual slavery at all.

In a Master/slave relationship it's all totally consensual and the slave has control over what happens to him/her and can leave or terminate the relationship at any time.

Not everyone that has a Master/slave relationship even does it full time like you're assuming. Many people who are in consensual Master/slave relationships only do them during sex only.

A Master/slave BDSM relationship has nothing to do with modern or historical non-consensual slavery and should not be compared to it.

This has nothing at all to do with circumcision or Male genital mutilation so why are you even bringing it up as a topic at all?

I found this article and it's an excellent read and it actually has to do with the topic unlike your posts.

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


Genital Mutilation American Style
How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good thing.

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."

Part 2 in next post.

[BiDaveDtown]

Part 2 of the article in previous post.


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.

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.

It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.

Such persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence against routine circumcision should alert us to the fact that irrational, more emotional and compulsive forces may also be at work. These forces have been identified and were alluded to earlier: the seldom mentioned psycho-sexual pleasure derived by some, possibly many, circumcising physicians.

The notion that the ranks of circumcising doctors harbor what have been termed "circumsadists" and "circumfetishists," comes as a shock to many parents who never considered the notion. They realized they were being pressured insistently by their pediatrician or urologist to have the procedure done, but it never entered their minds that darker motives may have been at issue. "The idea that we turned our son over to some pervert who got off sexually by handling and cutting our baby's penis just makes me sick," said one mother when learning of this possibility. "I had no idea such people existed."

Few people outside the medical profession do realize this. As with the Catholic church and the pedophiles lurking within the folds of its priesthood, the medical profession has coalesced around a wall of lies and silence that allows these sadists to do their work in obscure anonymity.

One person who does recognize their prurience is John Erickson. He has done extensive work on this subject and maintains a web site dedicated to the Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child. "It would never occur to most parents that the doctor's real reason for wanting to circumcise their child might be sexual," he says. "They hold their doctors in such high esteem that this whole area of surgical sexual perversion never comes up."

Carla Miller, founder of Patients in ARMS, a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to reforming medical standards and eradicating patient abuse, who herself was sexually mutilated by an American doctor, has also given serious thought to this issue. She echoes the words of others who likewise have been victimized. "Like rapists, serial killers, and other sociopaths, serial circumcisers probably get a chemical high from doing the circumcision. The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingers affects the circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug, as irresistible as heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent elixir the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive."

To date, the medical establishment has done nothing to identify and excise such sadists from their midst. They continue to cut and torture in protected anonymity, cold and oblivious to the screams all around. Perhaps the institutions that hire them actually support their compulsions because they help provide a steady cash flow for all. For obvious reasons, such "circumsadists" relish doing these procedures and are a principal source for the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that fill their pockets and the coffers of the sponsoring hospitals and clinics.

It should be obvious to any caring, feeling person that amputating normal, healthy, sexually sensitive tissue for no valid medical reason whatsoever, especially when such a mutilative procedure is harmful both short term and long, performed against the child's screaming protests and with no informed consent, can only be regarded as an act of supreme cowardice, devoid of moral or ethical support. Given these facts, any physician who performs such acts should be held suspect, the onus of perversion entirely on him or her. A loving parent should think long and hard before offering their son to any circumciser.

The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

Last year a group of civil rights attorneys took note of this fact and banded together to form Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC). They are currently assessing this area of human rights concern and are starting to bring lawsuits against offending physicians and physician groups. Attorney J. Steven Svoboda, a former Human Rights Fellow at Harvard Law School and director of ARC, considers circumcision to be medical malpractice. "The medical profession, which has perpetuated this tragic disfigurement of baby boys' genitals, will now be challenged by an organization of legal professionals." If physicians cannot find the ethical and moral center sufficient to end this barbaric habit, then let a stop be applied by the courts. At the very least, it should make for spectacular theater. However you look at it, the case against circumcision is building towards critical mass and it won't be long before the whole putrid business falls of its own dead weight.

For more information contact:

National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)
Post Office Box 2512
San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
U.S.A.
Telephone: (415) 488-9883
Fax: (415) 488-9660
http://www.nocirc.org/

Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
Seattle, Washington, 98107
U.S.A.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
2961 Ashby Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
USA
Tel. 510-848-4437
E-mail: svoboda1@flash.net
http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm

Patients In ARMS
(Advocates Reforming Medical Standards)
7480 Gravies Road
Dieters, Missouri 63023
USA
(314) 274-ARMS
Carmilarms@aol.com

[Katja]

Ty BiDave for rescuing this chaotic, well distracted debate on infant circumcision from the inanity of those who would by their insistence in talking dross ruin a debate on an incredibly important issue of human rights. Interesting article and very much to the point which is more than can be said about some of the posts on this thread.

[tenni]

BiDave & Katja
It is an interesting article but the comment from Carla Miller seems probably sensationalized due to her own history? At least, I hope that the doctor who did my circumcision was not feeling alive by doing such a procedure.

"Like rapists, serial killers, and other sociopaths, serial circumcisers probably get a chemical high from doing the circumcision. The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingers affects the circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug, as irresistible as heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent elixir the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive." "

As far as BiDave comment, this is not an isolated approach to discussion and debate by this poster. I believe others have referred to this strategy as "circular logic" or circular reasoning". I'm not sure if it is or not but others have made such statements similar to your own.

" A Master/slave BDSM relationship has nothing to do with modern or historical non-consensual slavery and should not be compared to it.
This has nothing at all to do with circumcision or Male genital mutilation so why are you even bringing it up as a topic at all?"

[Katja]

The one part of the article I may take issue with is the part about serial circumcisers. I believe they are more likely to become desensitised rather than 'turned on' by the volume of circumcisions they perform over a number of years. Rather like a production line worker. Some may well get a high, but even that will involve being desensitised to the suffering of the child.

[tenni]

The term "serial Circumciser" is unusual to me but a minor point in the article. These people are doctors for the most part (excluding Jewish and Muslim?) and would be desensitized as they would be to any operation. I'm not certain but yes, I suspect that circumcision was part of a specialist category and not Family Practioner. I don't know what they think but suspect that most would have thought that they were doing something appropriate and look at it as no different from giving an injection to a child , tonselectomy and adnoid removal (which was also far more frequent at one time than may have been needed). Now, these may not be seen as equivalent to circumcision though by some. I was also a young child who had both of those operations done and I'm happy that it was. I was one that suffered from a lot of colds/sore throats and the medication available at one time may not have been as successful as today's meds. I remember crying with pain in my throat and ears particulary. Even though my parents prepared me for an operation as best as they could, once it started all hell broke lose with my behaviour. (lies about icecream and jello after..pfft ;) I'm sure that I carried on screaming and fighting them off as a four to six year old as soon as they put the anesthetia over my face...lol (think that I can remember it just a bit too..lol) There was no kid size valium or needle to make me drowzy first. Yucky tasting, awful smelling ether. (no idea why I associated it with a taste but I still can vaguely experience the sensation...sick as a dog after too) I doubt that my doctor thought of himself as a "serial tonselectomist" even though that would have been a specialist category (ear, nose throat doctor)...lol I would have not been the only kid to fight until under I bet...lol (opps floating off topic kinda)

I do agree that I hope that it would be more desensitized rather than get pleasure. That would be just too creepy.

[Long Duck Dong]

You're wrong about slavery and BDSM.

What's done in BDSM even within Master/slave total power exchange relationships is not actual slavery at all.

In a Master/slave relationship it's all totally consensual and the slave has control over what happens to him/her and can leave or terminate the relationship at any time.


I never said it was actual slavery.... I said by defination......

" with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM

I never said it was actual slavery, but a form of slavery..... and I would know cos I have been in the lifestyle and I still belong to some groups as a observer and advisor.......

some of the following, use the basis of slavery as a implied role, in their role play......

gorean lifestyle is a lifestyle where the female is property and the gorean master *sell / trade * their female property.... a slave has no rights at all, some people live it 24 / 7

master / mistress and slave, the slave has limited freedom and rights, be it consentual.....

rope play and bondage, the person is bound and tied up, restrained etc....

[Long Duck Dong]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You complained loudly enough when you thought anti-circumcisionists were making jibes at pro-circumcisionists, by calling them, mutilated, monsters and child molesters. Yet you engage in the same inflammatory behaviour yourself. Your apology has been notable by its absence.

Civility doesn't cost anything.

and your ignorance is blindingly obvious.....

acknowledging that her opinion IS valid, as a mother, parent, caregiver, lover, pro rights advocate, etc... is something I have done, darkside....
lack of ownership of a penis nor not being circumcised, DOESN'T invalidate her opinion and nor did I say it did...... that was your understanding of what I said

you are the one saying that I implied that katjas opinion is invalid.. I have stated clearly it isn't and on what grounds, and even shown where the same statement applied to me as well......

now I would suggest you apologise to both of us...

[Long Duck Dong]

And I say to you LDD, why would I want to? It has no bearing, but if it did, I repeat, it would certainly reinforce my beliefs regarding routine infant circumcision.

I do believe most women, and men for that matter, were they to experience your hypothesis would feel precisely the same where they were pro or anti routine infant circumcision at the outset.

and yes, i would be inclined to agree.....

the following is strictly personal feelings and doesn't make any other parent or person wrong....... and nor it is pro or anti circumcision, its anti surgeries

pre emptive surgery is great as risk reduction.... but honestly, I would want a 100% money back quarantee that my child would have a medical need for a operation at 8-9 etc etc and want proof of it if I was to agree to a infant circumcision.... but I would perfer a non medical option that would be quaranteed to eliminate any need of surgery for any reason

I personally am sick to death of having surgeries so I would not want to inflict that on a child, if possible.. and even if it was medically needed, I would be looking at ways to reduce any pain and suffering on a child, so they do not suffer in any way...... and that comes from my own experiences as a child, my first op was at age 5 and I suffered badly for 2 weeks

I have watched a number of my partners, friends and family go thru multiple operations.... and if possible I would love to be able to remove surgery as a option and have miracle healing in its place....but I am realistic in that, its not going to happen any time soon

if we could find a way to have foreskins that regen like a lizards tail, that would be a compromise.... but again, I would perfer that nobody has to have surgery at all for any reason......

[BiDaveDtown]

I never said it was actual slavery.... I said by defination...

Who cares?

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or any type of surgery, mutilation, or even actual valid medical procedure (which female and male circumcisions are not since they're mutilation of the genitals), at all.

If you want to go off on tangents about completely different subjects like this complete with pointless navel gazing that are not about the topic in the main thread why not just make a completely new thread?

Stop trying to pointlessly brag. I've been involved with BDSM, BDSM and leather groups and organizations, and even total power exchange Master/slave and other type of relationships for longer than you've been alive; but you don't see me pretending to know it all, or going off on tangents, navel gazing, and other topics out of nowhere that have nothing to do with the main topic in the thread.

BDSM and even Master/slave relationships even if they are 24/7, involve any sort of bondage, and even if they are doing Gorean BDSM Master/slave total power exchange relationships are not a type of slavery and therefore are not included in the actual legal definition of "slavery" (as in Chattel slavery or other types of illegal slavery that's non-consensual) since they're agreed upon by all the people involved, contracts are even made up in many cases and signed, and it's entirely consensual unlike chattel slavery which is not consensual or roleplay at all.

Back to what this topic is actually about, here's an informative essay I found.


Each and every single day, thousands of innocent, helpless, newborn baby boys are taken into an operating room, strapped onto a restraining table, arms and legs firmly bound, and literally have their penises 'skinned alive'.

First, surgical instruments are used to tear the skin loose from the head of the penis. This delicate, highly-innervated, extremely erogenous tissue is then peeled back from the helpless baby's tiny penis, like ripping a fingernail off a finger.

The peeled-back tissue is then placed in a vise-clamp, and the tissue is crushed for approximately 10 to 20 minutes, while the baby screams in abject horror, his poor body twisting and convulsing from the pain. His tiny heart nearly explodes as his heartbeat soars to a staggering two hundred or more beats per minute.

Then, as shock begins to set in, his breathing stops and his body turns blue. A doctor then takes a knife and amputates all this exquisite tissue from the baby's penis, forever altering that innocent child's life.

There are no painkillers, no sedatives, no anesthesia - the baby is wide awake through the entire horrific experience. All the while, the unrelenting, inescapable pain permeates every fiber of that little baby's mind. If he's one of the more fortunate ones, he'll lapse into a comatose, catatonic state as his body shuts down while trying to escape the bombardment of his senses with unimaginable pain.

After the amputation, there are no sedatives, no painkillers, no magical soothing ointments, lotions, or salves. His tiny, bloodied, nearly-skinless penis is a giant open wound - raw, bleeding, and extremely painful - and it is left in agony, to 'heal itself' over the course of the next several weeks or months.

And while the penis heals, each and every time the baby urinates he is subjected to incredible pain, as the uric acid comes in contact with the exposed flesh.

This 'procedure' is euphemistically referred to as a 'simple circumcision'.

Every year more than a million and a half helpless baby boys are sexually mutilated in North America. These children have the most private and personal parts of their bodies amputated for the sole purpose of depriving them of their natural right to experience the exquisite range of sensual pleasure God intended them to have. All other excuses put forward in the hopes of justifying this butchery, whether medical, religious, or otherwise, are lies designed to perpetuate the mutilations.

Society will not permit circumcision of a girl's clitoris, but the foreskin is a man's clitoris ... they are sexually analogous. The foreskin is the primary erogenous zone on a man's body! It is an abomination that this atrocity continues to be perpetrated in every hospital in North America, day in and day out, with such impunity!

[BiDaveDtown]

The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90%). More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.

For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.

www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html


British Journal of Urology International, Volume 83, Supplement 1, Pages 79-84, January 1, 1999.

The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner

K. O'HARA and J. O'HARA

Male circumcision, the most commonly performed surgery in the USA, removes 33 - 50% of the penile skin, as well as nearly all of the penile fine touch neuroreceptors. To date no study has investigated whether this dramatic alteration in the male genitalia affects the sexual pleasure experienced by the female partner or whether a woman can physically discern the difference between a penis with a foreskin. The impact that male circumcision has on the overall sexual experience for either partner is unknown.

The tip of the foreskin, and some or all of the frenulum, are routinely removed as part of circumcision. This tissue contains a high concentration of the nerve endings that sense fine touch. After circumcision, the surface of the glans thickens like a callus. The glans is innervated by free nerve endings that can only sense deep pressure and pain.

The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man's sexual appetite. Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman's sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up. The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary 'sexual' organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman's ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.

The survey included 40 questions; the results were analyzed for age, number of lifetime partners, preputial status of the most recent partner, preference for vaginal orgasms (as defined below) and their preference for a circumcised or intact penis. The survey defined 'vaginal orgasm' as 'an orgasm that occurs during intercourse, brought about by your partner's penis and pelvic movements and body contact, along with your own body's pelvic movements, with no simultaneous stimulation of the clitoris by the hands'. Premature ejaculation was defined as the man 'usually (50-100% of the time) has had his orgasm within 2-3 minutes after insertion'. The survey included three sets of responses for the respondents to rate their sexual experiences with their circumcised and unaltered male partners.

The survey is continuing and this article reports the preliminary results.

With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm. Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation. Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often or occasionally as opposed to rarely or never [with an intact partner]. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners. They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners.

During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with'. On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to 'want to get it over with' and considerably more likely to 'really get into it.'

When the women were divided into those older or younger than 40 years, the older women were more likely to rate their frequency of orgasm as higher with an unaltered partner. Women 29 years or younger were more likely to prefer orally induced orgasms, while women over 40 years preferred vaginally induced orgasms more than those aged <29 years.

Ratings of experiences with circumcised men compared with normal men (uncircumcised), overall (satisfaction) rating: 1.81 / 8.03 [ie: four and a half times more likely to consider the sexual experience satisfactory with an intact partner than with a circumcised partner].

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher, had more positive post-coital feelings with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall. These women were more likely to prefer being on top during coitus to achieve vaginal orgasm. They were also more likely to have an unaltered man as their most recent partner.

The women who preferred circumcised partners were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered. These women had fewer unaltered partners, which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have a consequence of ... inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction.

When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them. They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower and unaltered partners higher. When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.

These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folded layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed against the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.

As stated, circumcision removes 33-50% of the penile skin. With this skin missing, there is less tissue for the swollen corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum to slide against. Instead the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve pulls the vaginal secretions from the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn. Unlike the anatomically complete penis, there is no sensory input to limit withdrawal. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine touch. To compensate for the imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa, and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubis and clitoris.

Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.

The responses in Sets 1, 2 and 3 are more a measure of intimacy than physical differences in thrusting patterns. While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin.

In asking women to evaluate their experience based on all of their lifetime sexual partners, there may be an element of recall bias, but the circumcision status of the most current sexual partner did not alter the findings. Women who preferred vaginal orgasms had a strong preference for unaltered partners. Women who preferred circumcised partners were half as likely to prefer vaginal orgasms, but there were too few women preferring circumcised partners to make any valid statistical claims. This would suggest that the foreskin makes the most positive impact during vaginal intercourse.

Another weakness of the survey is its preoccupation with vaginal intercourse. Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised counterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying.

Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision.

[Darkside2009]

Interesting articles, BIDave. I too, think the doctors probably become inured to the baby's distress, rather than experiencing some sexual gratification from it. One Dr. Mengele in the World was enough. The thoughts of the money they make from it probably salves their conscience.

I am glad to hear there are a growing number of people and organisations in the US against this practice and hope that one day this stain against your national character will be removed completely.

Hurrah! for Texas.

[Long Duck Dong]

The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90%). More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.

For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.

www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html


roflmao........ so foreskins make people better lovers ??? roflmao.... does that mean that lesbians are useless in bed for they do not have a foreskin....

sorry... that study doesn't prove the validity of circumcision... it merely shows the personal preference of a study group.....but don't take my word for it.... start a poll in the site here.. and ask them if a foreskin makes you a better lover......

[DuckiesDarling]

No pain relief at all? What a fucking joke. I am done with this thread. This is no longer a debate on the merits of circumcision or even the merit of the proposed ban that was in the OP. It's just another opportunity for people who don't know jack about actual procedures to go post their personal opinions and have them stated as gospel. There are several methods of pain blocks used before the surgery. Yes SURGERY, not a mutilation. SURGERY. Do some more research don't just post anonymous people in anonymous blogs trying to make something sound like a Mengele experiment, which by the way was in very fucking poor taste to anyone on this board who has any family members involved in the Holocaust.

[Long Duck Dong]

Who cares?

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or any type of surgery, mutilation, or even actual valid medical procedure (which female and male circumcisions are not since they're mutilation of the genitals), at all.

If you want to go off on tangents about completely different subjects like this complete with pointless navel gazing that are not about the topic in the main thread why not just make a completely new thread?

Stop trying to pointlessly brag. I've been involved with BDSM, BDSM and leather groups and organizations, and even total power exchange Master/slave and other type of relationships for longer than you've been alive; but you don't see me pretending to know it all, or going off on tangents, navel gazing, and other topics out of nowhere that have nothing to do with the main topic in the thread.

BDSM and even Master/slave relationships even if they are 24/7, involve any sort of bondage, and even if they are doing Gorean BDSM Master/slave total power exchange relationships are not a type of slavery and therefore are not included in the actual legal definition of "slavery" (as in Chattel slavery or other types of illegal slavery that's non-consensual) since they're agreed upon by all the people involved, contracts are even made up in many cases and signed, and it's entirely consensual unlike chattel slavery which is not consensual or roleplay at all.

Back to what this topic is actually about, here's an informative essay I found.

ahh darkside was the first to bring it up in post 160, I replied in 163..... and yet, its my fault... snorts..... so am I responsible for darksides actions too ????

I understand now.... slave and mistress has nothing to do with slavery even tho it uses the term slave......

consenting slavery has nothing to do with slavery cos its consenting.....

bondage has nothing to do with limiting freedom, cos you are only tying people up, they are not actually restricted in any way by being tied up

quess I am wrong again, and the BDSM is right cos they talk about enjoying being slaves to masters, and thats not slavery.....

so when are you going to join with the rest of the people that want to rewrite the dictionary definations to have new meanings..... IE your defination v's the rest of the worlds


btw, extreme body modding can involve aspects of bdsm...... unless the sites that deal with that are wrong too, and the media and news reports are wrong too.... or shock horror.... they are all right... and I am wrong....

[Long Duck Dong]

The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90&#37;). More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.

For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.

www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html

I just went and checked out your study....

ACTUAL-STUDY-Do-Women-Prefer-Uncut-Cock (http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?15587-ACTUAL-STUDY-Do-Women-Prefer-Uncut-Cock)

This survey surveyed 138 women. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred non-intact circumcised sexual partners while 118 or (85.5%) preferred intact non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners.]

Of the 139 surveys returned, one considered a man who was undergoing foreskin restoration as having a foreskin; this survey was excluded from analysis. Not all questions were answered by all respondents. Contradictory answers showed that not all respondents understood the questions; the responses and unanswered questions were excluded from the analysis. The demographic profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 The demographics of the respondents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variable Mean/median number


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mean (SD) age (years) 37.3 (9.2)
Number of partners;
Mean (SD) 14.7 (11.2)
Median (SD)
Preferred vaginal orgasm 71
Preferred position for attaining
vaginal orgasm;
woman on top 54
man on top 54
rear entry 4
no preference 9


While this study shows clearly that women prefer the surgically unaltered penis, it does have shortcomings. The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter of an anti-circumcision organization. However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences. This selection bias may be compensated to the degree that each respondent acted as her own control, using her subjective criteria on both types of penises. The findings cannot be completely attributed to selection bias.


quess your study is built on limited people that did not answer all questions or understand them and that some data was removed from the study.....
that would invalid it as a genuine case study, as the results have been altered while the findings were calculated........

[Darkside2009]

Found this interesting video on circumcision, by a Jewish guy. I think he is from Chicago, it contains an excerpt from a man that was circumcised as an adult. It is about an hour long, but bear with it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4&feature=related

And this second link to a video by a mother who had circumcised her first two sons:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u5qoRnxiyk&NR=1

And a third link:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSSvBh97O-4&feature=related

[Darkside2009]

Two parts of the same video link.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc70D2ApFg&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ&NR=1

[Darkside2009]

and your ignorance is blindingly obvious.....

acknowledging that her opinion IS valid, as a mother, parent, caregiver, lover, pro rights advocate, etc... is something I have done, darkside....
lack of ownership of a penis nor not being circumcised, DOESN'T invalidate her opinion and nor did I say it did...... that was your understanding of what I said

you are the one saying that I implied that katjas opinion is invalid.. I have stated clearly it isn't and on what grounds, and even shown where the same statement applied to me as well......

now I would suggest you apologise to both of us...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katja is neither a mother or a parent, so who on Earth are you talking about now? As I suggested before, it might be a good idea if you reviewed and edited your posts before you posted them. It might clarify in your mind what you are trying to say. It will also make the task of trying to follow your line of reasoning a lot easier.

[chuck1124]

I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.

[Katja]

I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.

No one is trying to stop people getting circumcised Chuck. We are trying to prevent infant circumcision of young children without their consent. Remove breast tissue and girls are 100&#37; less likely to develop breast cancer. No one is suggesting or would suggest removing young girls breast tiissue without their consent when they are healthy.

The figures you quote are arguable and while you may be right that is insufficient reason too foist upon an infant something which should be his decision. The vast majority and I mean the overwhelming majority of uncircumcised men do not develop either penile cancer or urinary tract infection and the numbers do not justiify such a serious alteration of a penis. We are likely to develop many diseases in our lifetime. Must we start surgically removing every part of our body which is prone to disease?

The argument of female and male circumcison is pertinent. It is true that the procedure for girls is far more invasive and destructive, but to deny that the two are not two peas from the same pod is an ill-advised and misconceived attempt by those in favour of infant circumcision of rationalising that one gender needs legal protection and the other should have his rights of choosing for himself removed from him.

[Darkside2009]

I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck, I would suggest that you start from the beginning of the thread and read through it from the start, including the links provided. You will see it deals with this myth that circumcision prevents Aids and urinary tract infections, and the many so-called 'health benefits' it provides.

A moments thought should be enough to convince you on the Aids argument. The US has the highest rate of HIV infection of all the Industrialised countries in the World, it is also the one industrialised country that routine circumcision is performed on infants.

Now if routine circumcision provides this protection, why is the rate of HIV infection greater in the US than say France, Germany or the UK? Or even of the European Union as a whole, which has a greater amount of population.

The simple answer is, it doesn't. Urinary tract infections in males are uncommon and can be easily treated with anti-biotics, there is no need to remove a part of the penis containing thousands of nerve endings.

Lastly, the medical associations in all of the industrialised nations in the World do not advocate routine circumcision of infants. That includes the main medical associations in your own country.

You don't need to take my word for that, just do the research yourself, google it.

What the advocates in San Francisco are trying to do is make circumcision illegal for those under the age of eighteen. Once the person reaches eighteen they can decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their body, their decision, when they are old enough to make an informed choice. Not someone else's decision to perform an unnecessary operation on their body.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your country makes people wait until they are twenty-one before they can legally start drinking in a bar. Isn't making a decision about their own body more important than deciding between a beer or a soft-drink?

Similarly, the law makes it illegal before the age of eighteen, to walk into a tattoo parlour and get a tattoo. Isn't a decision about cutting off part of your own body more important than deciding which tattoo to have and which inks to use? At least a tattoo can be removed by laser, if you grow bored with it. You can't replace a foreskin with all those nerve endings.

[mikey3000]

Circumcision cuts cervical cancer rates
13:40 11 April 2002 by Emma Young
Increasing the rate of male circumcision could slash cases of cervical cancer in women, according to a new report.

A team led by Xavier Castellsagué at Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona reviewed seven studies from five countries on a total of almost 2000 couples.

Women with "low-risk" partners - men who had previously had fewer than six sexual partners - had a similar risk of cervical cancer, whether their partner was circumcised or not. But women with "high-risk" partners were 58 per cent less likely to develop cervical cancer if their partner had been circumcised.

The team also found that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was present in almost 20 per cent of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than six per cent of circumcised men. HPV is sexually transmitted and contributes to the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Circumcision is important because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be especially vulnerable to infection.

Easily cured
A link between male circumcision and reduced risk of cervical cancer has long been suspected. But the new study quantifies that risk.

"If we assume that 25 per cent of men around the world are circumcised, then the general adoption of circumcision might lead to a further reduction in the incidence of cancer of the cervix of 23 per cent to 43 per cent," write Hans-Olov Adami of the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden and Dimitrios Trichopoulos of the Harvard School of Public Health, US, in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial accompanying the research paper.

Worldwide, there are about 466,000 cases of cervical cancer each year. The disease is easily cured if detected early enough, and most deaths occur in the developing world.

Castellsagué's team used data from Brazil, Spain, Thailand, Colombia and the Philippines.

Journal reference: New England Journal of Medicine (vol 346, p 1105)

[Darkside2009]

The information below is taken from this site:-

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/cervical-cancer-vaccine

I would suggest you note the dates, and the number of people involved in the study.

Once again, why would you want to cut a piece of your child's body when a simpler option of a vaccine is freely available? It is being routinely offered to school-girls in the UK.


HPV vaccines

Can you tell me about the vaccine to prevent HPV (human papilloma virus)?

This page is about the new vaccines to prevent HPV which prevents cervical cancer. There is information about

What the human papilloma virus (HPV) is
HPV and cancer
Research into vaccines to prevent HPV
The HPV vaccination programme
Men and boys and the vaccine
Research into views about HPV
If girls are sexually active before having the vaccine
Side effects of the vaccine
Do we still need cervical cancer screening?


What the human papilloma virus (HPV) is
There are over 100 different types of human papilloma virus (HPV). It is sometimes called the wart virus or genital wart virus as some types of HPV cause genital warts. A number of HPV types are passed on from one person to another through sexual contact. Many women will be infected with the HPV virus at some time during their lifetime. Often the virus causes no harm and goes away without treatment.

Back to top


HPV and cancer
Some types of HPV can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is cancer of the neck of the womb. About 2,900 women are diagnosed with this type of cancer every year in the UK. Most women infected with HPV don’t go on to develop cervical cancer. But for some, infection with HPV can go on to cause

Genital warts
Changes in the cervix, which may develop into a cancer
Changes in the vaginal tissues, which may develop into vaginal cancer
Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of 10 (70&#37;) cancers of the cervix. Most of the remaining 30% of cervical cancers are associated with other high risk HPV types. HPV types 6 and 11 cause genital warts but are rarely linked to cancer. You can find out more about the risks and causes of cervical cancer in the cervical cancer section of CancerHelp UK. HPV is also a risk factor for other types of cancer including vaginal cancer, vulval cancer, anal cancer, cancer of the penis and mouth and oropharyngeal cancers.

Back to top


Research into vaccines to prevent HPV
Several research trials have tested vaccines as a way of preventing infection with HPV. A trial testing Gardasil called FUTURE II reported its results in October 2005. This phase 3 trial involved over 12,000 women aged between 16 and 26. These women did not have HPV before the start of the trial. The women were divided into two groups. Half the women were given Gardasil and the other half had a dummy vaccine (placebo). Both groups of women had 3 injections of either the vaccine or placebo over six months. Over the following two years the women had regular checks to see if they had got HPV, or had any pre cancerous changes to the cells of the cervix, which could develop into a cancer. The group who had the vaccine showed no pre cancerous changes. Of the 5,258 women who had the placebo, 21 had pre cancerous changes, which is 0.4%. The researchers found that Gardasil protected against HPV types 6 and 11, as well as 16 and 18. Gardasil was licensed in the UK in September 2006 for girls and women aged between 9 and 26.

Two phase 3 trials have tested the vaccine Cervarix. The first was for women under 26. It involved over 18,000 women from all over the world, including the UK. This study was called PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal to prevent Cervical cancer In young Adults). The second was for women of 26 and over. The trials found that Cervarix was useful in preventing HPV infection. Cervarix was licensed in the UK in 2007 for the prevention of pre cancerous changes in the cervix in girls and women between the age of 10 and 25. It is used in the NHS HPV vaccination programme, which started in Autumn 2008.

There is not enough evidence at the moment that the vaccine prevents other types of cancer. Research has shown that Gardasil can prevent the development of anal warts which are caused by HPV types 6 and 11. At the moment we don’t know whether the vaccine will prevent HPV infection in the mouth. There is research going on to look at the link between HPV and these other types of cancer and how to prevent it.

Back to top


The HPV vaccination programme
In the UK, girls in year 8 at school (aged 12 to 13) are offered the Cervarix vaccine. Girls have three injections over 6 months given by a nurse. A letter about the vaccine and a consent form is sent to the parents of the girl before she has the vaccine. It is up to her whether she has the vaccine.

It is also possible to have the vaccination privately. The cost for private treatment varies from doctor to doctor. We are hearing reports of about &#163;500 being charged for a course of 3 injections.

If girls take up the vaccination, the programme will prevent at least 7 out of 10 cancers of the cervix and possibly even more in the future. But it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cancer to develop after HPV infection. So any benefits in reducing cervical cancer won’t be seen for quite a long time. But the number of cases of pre cancerous changes in the cervix (CIN) will fall quite rapidly. It is not certain how long the vaccination gives protection for. So far the trials have followed people up for 6 years so we know that it lasts at least this long. It is expected that the vaccines should last for life but more research is needed to find out if this is the case. It may be that women will need a booster dose at some time.

Back to top


Men and boys and the vaccine
The HPV vaccine is not licensed for men in the UK at the moment. HPV does increase the risk of other types of cancer including penile and anal cancers in men. However it is not the only cause of these cancers and we don’t know how many of these cancers would be prevented by having the vaccine. They are rare cancers and vaccinating all men would be very expensive. It is thought that by vaccinating girls it will reduce the number of men getting HPV because you become infected through sexual contact.

Back to top


Research into views about HPV
A large project called The HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Core Messages Study is looking at the scientific evidence about HPV as well as finding out people’s views about HPV testing. Based on this, the project aims to develop messages that could help people make informed decisions about HPV testing and vaccination. You can find information about HPV trials on the CancerHelp UK clinical trials database.

Back to top


If girls are sexually active before having the vaccine
The vaccine is being offered to girls from the age of 12 because they are unlikely to be sexually active and to have caught HPV. The research so far has shown that the vaccine works best at preventing HPV infection in younger women. If you are sexually active before you have the vaccine you may already have HPV and the vaccine won’t get rid of it. But there are still benefits from having the vaccine. There are many different types of HPV so even if you have HPV it may not be HPV 16 or 18. Types 16 and 18 are the types that are most likely to cause cancer of the cervix and it is these types that the vaccine protects against.

If girls become sexually active during the course of the vaccine injections it is important to complete the course of injections. There is no research yet into how much protection, if any, girls will have against HPV infection after the first or second injection. It is only after the 3 injections that we know the vaccine is protective.

Back to top


Side effects of the vaccine
The side effects are usually mild and include

Headache
Aching muscles
Redness and soreness around the site of the injection
Fever
Feeling and being sick
Stomach pain
Diarrhoea
Itching, rash
Dizziness
Back to top


Do we still need cervical cancer screening?
Yes – we will definitely still need the cervical screening programme in the UK. The vaccines don't prevent infection with all types of HPV. Also from the research so far, we don't think the vaccines will help prevent cervical cancer in women already infected with HPV. And it takes about 10 to 20 years after HPV infection for a cervical cancer to develop. So it’s very important to remember that women will still need cervical cancer screening (smear tests) for many years to come. There is more information about cervical cancer screening in the cervical cancer section of CancerHelp UK.

Back to top

Increase text
Decrease text
Print this page
Glossary
E-newsletter
Help
Contact us
Join Race for Life
Print basket
Save pages here and print in one go
Add this page
View basket
What's this?

What do you think of our website?
Please complete our short user survey and let us know

Mrs Ren&#233;e Dangoor


CancerHelp UK is generously supported by Dr N E Dangoor OBE to honour the life of Mrs Ren&#233;e Dangoor

Questions about cancer?
Call our nurses on freephone 0808 800 4040 9am until 5pm Monday to Friday.

Cancer Chat
Visit our forum to talk to other people affected by cancer

Updated: 19 April 2011

About CancerHelp UK Terms and conditions Privacy Accessibility Contact us Site map
Cancer Research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (1089464) and in Scotland (SC041666).
Registered as a company limited by guarantee in England & Wales No. 4325234.
Registered address: Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD.

[drugstore cowboy]

Long Duck here are your own opinions and words about how male circumcision is a bad thing and how you do think that it's genital mutilation done to boys and their penises. You can try to deny it all you want or claim that you never said it but you did.

I did a search and I found some of your own words and opinions on male circumcision, how you believe that yes it is genital mutilation and that you're not for parents' mutilating their sons' penises, and the lasting effects of what being circumcised did to you.


my penis has been mutilated from a botched circumcision


in a purely medical sense, the removal of the vulva and the clitoris is regarded as a form of mutilation of the human body... and the same can be applied to the removal of the foreskin

mutilation is the unneeded removal of part of the human body.... circumcision for religious reasoning, is marking the human body to set a difference between people.....also using medical logic...circumcision is the removal of the foreskin to mark a person... and in 99% of cases, circumcision falls under the heading of mutilation

the child has no choice in the matter......in the case of my parents, they chose... the circumcision was blotched and I was left scarred... and that has been proven medically... some areas of my penis have NO feeling due to scarring....and the doctor called it MUTILATION

[mikey3000]

Gardasil side effects examined
Published On Wed Aug 19 2009Email Print Rss Article

Andrea Gordon
Family issues reporter
Thirty-two deaths and 12,424 adverse reactions ranging from dizziness to autoimmune disorders were reported in the United States in the two years after the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was launched, according to a new study.

The study, published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, said the rate of adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine reported between June 2006 and the end of 2008 was consistent with results from earlier clinical trials, and for other vaccines.

But it noted the exception was a higher proportion of fainting and blood clots reported following the 23 million doses administered during that period.

"It's generally a very safe vaccine and the benefits seem to continue to outweigh the risks," lead author Dr. Barbara Slade said in an interview from Atlanta. Only 6 per cent of the adverse reactions were serious, but the authors noted the need for ongoing long-term studies of the effects.

Slade, a medical officer in the immunization safety office at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said this is the first major summary of reported side effects and gives physicians, parents and young girls who may be immunized a reference point for discussing the risks and benefits.

Two other articles in the current issue of the journal sounded a cautionary note about the controversial vaccine, which has been introduced across Canada for girls ages 9 through 26 and involves three doses over six months.

The vaccine is aimed at preventing four types of sexually transmitted HPV that are responsible for up to 70 per cent of cervical cancer and 90 per cent of genital warts.

An editorial by Norwegian physician Dr. Charlotte Haug noted "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain.

"Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.

``So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine," she wrote.

A separate article titled "Marketing HPV Vaccine" raised questions about manufacturer Merck & Co. Inc.'s aggressive campaign pitching Gardasil as an anti-cancer vaccine rather than to guard against the virus.

It also raised concerns that professional medical associations in the U.S. received funding and company materials used for public education about the vaccine.

"By making this vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to all adolescents maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored," wrote authors Sheila and David Rothman.

In Ontario, this fall will mark the third year Gardasil is being offered to Grade 8 girls at no cost. During its first year, 49 per cent of eligible girls in the province received the first dose.

Toronto Public Health statistics show a higher uptake, with 69 per cent of Grade 8 females receiving the first dose last fall, up from 63 per cent the first year.

[Long Duck Dong]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katja is neither a mother or a parent, so who on Earth are you talking about now? As I suggested before, it might be a good idea if you reviewed and edited your posts before you posted them. It might clarify in your mind what you are trying to say. It will also make the task of trying to follow your line of reasoning a lot easier.

remember when you said that I was implying that katjas opinion was invalid.... and I told you to learn the difference between opinion and experience.....

katjas opinion is valid.... her opinion that children should have a choice..... but any other opinion about what happens to a child that is being circumcised or is circumcised, or putting children thru surgery. why and how parents do it etc, is not based on any personal experience at all

katjas opinion is still valid, most of her statements that are not based on personal experience, are hearsay.... as it is people like DD that are parents and mothers , that have valid opinions about what happens with a circumcision as they have been there and seen it happen in front of them.....

now I did not imply that, its a simple fact, supported by your statement that katja is not a mother or parent....... so I would suggest you stop trying to make out that other people are trying to invalidate her valid opinion, when you are busy blowing holes in most of her statements by showing she has no experience in those areas......

[Long Duck Dong]

Long Duck here are your own opinions and words about how male circumcision is a bad thing and how you do think that it's genital mutilation done to boys and their penises. You can try to deny it all you want or claim that you never said it but you did.

I did a search and I found some of your own words and opinions on male circumcision, how you believe that yes it is genital mutilation and that you're not for parents' mutilating their sons' penises, and the lasting effects of what being circumcised did to you.

smiles.....

the first statement..... and the last sentence of the second statement.... read them carefully..... the DOCTOR called it mutilation... a bit like you, saying how circumcised males are mutilated....

now read the part where I said, using purely medical sense and by medical logic..... where does it say, in MY OPINION
my opinion, as stated clearly in this thread, is that all surgeries are forms of harm and mutilation of the human body etc......not just one form... cos surgery is generally the cutting and removing of healthy tissue.....

I also refered to MY parents, not ALL parents.... it was a statement about my own experience and not applied to other parents, its why I said, in the case of my parents....
as I have stated in this thread, any child lacks a choice in medical matters, the choice comes down to the doctors and the parents and in some cases, the courts... and that covers surgeries, not just circumcision

the missing post which you seem to have neglected to add, is the one where I state it was found that the lack of sensation in my penis was not from the circumcision, as the doctors thought... it was in fact from a spinal injury that has affected the feeling in my legs and lower back / torso......


how about a lil less word twisting and shit stirring, drugstore... or go back to school for some remedial reading classes......

[Darkside2009]

remember when you said that I was implying that katjas opinion was invalid.... and I told you to learn the difference between opinion and experience.....

katjas opinion is valid.... her opinion that children should have a choice..... but any other opinion about what happens to a child that is being circumcised or is circumcised, or putting children thru surgery. why and how parents do it etc, is not based on any personal experience at all

katjas opinion is still valid, most of her statements that are not based on personal experience, are hearsay.... as it is people like DD that are parents and mothers , that have valid opinions about what happens with a circumcision as they have been there and seen it happen in front of them.....

now I did not imply that, its a simple fact, supported by your statement that katja is not a mother or parent....... so I would suggest you stop trying to make out that other people are trying to invalidate her valid opinion, when you are busy blowing holes in most of her statements by showing she has no experience in those areas......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point is what?

That DD's opinions are more valid than Katja's because DD had three son's circumcised and Katja didn't? That her opinions are less valid because she didn't personally experience them? That is illogical. It would invalidate everything we learned in life because we hadn't personally experienced it.

In which case we need pay no attention to DD, or any other parent saying her son's didn't suffer any pain during the operation, for the simple reason she, and they, they didn't experience the pain themselves, their sons did.

The whole point of education is to inform each of us sufficiently to give an informed opinion. To give a simple example, World War 2 finished before I was born, therefore I did not have any personal experience of the fighting. However from my education I still know what happened back then and have valid opinions on the matter, the causes and effects and the personalities involved.

Part of the reason for becoming educated is to learn from past mistakes, so we don't continue to make them. It is not enough to have been there and not learned anything from the experience. If that were the case one might as well have slept through it.

I suggest that prospective parents do the research themselves, so they are in the position of making an informed decision. Look at the reasons these circumcisions were introduced, look at the 'benefits' claimed for them; look at the evidence if any to support these claims; look at the evidence against; examine the moral and ethical implications; compare the results with other industrialised countries in the World; including whether any group has a vested financial interest in these operations continuing; what happens if the operation goes wrong. Why not leave it for your son to decide whether or not he wishes to be circumcised? His body, his choice.

All these should be considered before the surgery, for it will be too late afterwards.

Just as the Chinese once thought foot binding was a great idea, the practice died out, through education, increased awareness of the harm it was doing, and eventually law to make it illegal. Despite the personal experience of those that thought it was a great idea to bind the feet of their wives and daughters.

I happen to think all children are entitled to the same consideration. For those parents who have already had their children circumcised, it is too late.

For those hoping, or planning to have a family, the choice is still open, will you join the ranks of the foot-binders, or put the money you save to better use, such as your son's college education fund? Which do you think he will thank you for?

[mikey3000]

And here's another angle that no one has considdered...

The main agruement against circumcision is that proper cleaning techniques taught to the young boy can conquer all the ill effects of poor hygene and STI transmission later in life, correct? Well, anyone who has kids can attest to the fact that kids and soap don't always agree and it is by shear repetition over the years of youth that a child will eventually learn to clean themselves properly. Aggreed?

Has anyone considdered the psychological ramifications done to a young man whose first sexual stirrings are from memories of his mom tugging and scrubbing his weiner in the tub? :eek: Ewwwww!!! I bet the library shelves are full of text books dealing with this issue.

I'm just sayin...
:rolleyes:

[Darkside2009]

No, that is not the main argument against circumcision, as you are well aware, it is merely one of them.

As an intact man, I had no difficulty as a child in washing myself, either in the bath or a shower. When I became old enough to do it myself, it was just another ingrained habit and really didn't pose a problem. It didn't and doesn't take any longer to wash my groin area than it does to wash my face, or my hands.

I fail to see why it would prove of any more difficulty to Canadian or American boys than it would to Irish, English, or any other Nationality.

Before circumcision became commonplace in America, and before the advent of indoor plumbing, people washed from a bowl or a bath that had to be filled with buckets of hot water. It didn't seem to present any insurmountable problem then either. No one thought of circumcision as an alternative to soap and water, not even the Jews who practised it for religious reasons.

As to your Oedipus complex, I don't think we'll delve too deeply into that if it is all the same to you. lol God's pity on your poor Mother.

Besides which, you informed us you thought you were becoming more Gay, it's your poor father I'm worried about. lol

[drugstore cowboy]

Foreskin Amputation: What Is Lost Forever

* ALL of that exquisite, highly erogenous, touch-sensitive nerve tissue is completed removed from the penis, thus robbing the man of all of the pleasure which would normally be derived through the normal, natural, touch stimulation of the penis.

* In addition, virtually all of the pressure-sensitive nerve endings located on the surface of the glans, are also stripped from the penis, because the foreskin is literally torn from the glans during the circumcision amputation, and the bulk of those glans nerve endings are ripped from the glans in the process.

* A man who has been circumcised at birth,
o can never experience a true orgasm;
o it is physiologically impossible, because the normal development of that specialized pleasure centre within the brain requires nerve triggers from the maturing foreskin tissue in order to form. Without those foreskin triggers during the child's adolescent development, that pleasure centre atrophies.

* The female sexual partner is also affected by circumcision.
o Because the circumcised penis no longer has any skin mobility, the shaft of the penis rubs directly against the delicate tissue inside the vagina, creating friction and causing chaffing during intercourse.
o The foreskin of a normal penis produces natural emolliants which lubricate the penis, reducing friction, thereby making intercourse more comfortable. The circumcised penis is no longer capable of producing that lubrication, which leads to friction and chaffing, making intercourse painful.
o The majority of erogenous nerve endings within the vagina are located in the first inch to inch and a half of the mucosal lining just inside the vagina. The contact between the foreskin - which is also mucosal tissue - and the mucosal tissue within the vagina, produces a highly-pleasurable interaction for both sexual partners. The absence of the mucosal foreskin tissue means there is no interaction, and therefore none of the pleasurable sensations which would normally be felt.
o The foreskin also plays a MAJOR role in the stimulation of the female "G-spot". As the penis moves back and forth, sliding within its foreskin, the foreskin continuously stretches and collapses along the length of the shaft. Inside the vagina, at a point just behind the female pubic bone, the foreskin gets "bunched up" as the shaft glides in and out. As the foreskin "bunches up", it applies pressure on the vaginal tissues in that spot. That spot of tissues is known as the female "G-spot". A circumcised penis has no foreskin, and therefore is incapable of putting pressure on the female's "G-spot". While it is possible to stimulate the G-spot via other methods (eg: finger(s)), nature designed the penis for this role, as it was meant to strengthen the intimacy and sexual bonding between the two partners.

[drugstore cowboy]

Circumcision Removes More Than Just Skin

When an infant's penis is 'circumcised', this is what is forever lost:

* 50 to 80% of the total penile skin system, radically immobilizing the remaining shaft skin. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin measures 15 to 20 square inches, about the size of a postcard.

* Most of the erogenous nerve tissue on the penis. The foreskin contains between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture. The amputation of this highly-innervated tissue reduces the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin.

* The densely innervated Ridged Bands, a specialized, extremely erogenous section of the prepuce located at the juncture of the outer foreskin and inner mucosal tissue.

* Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the Dartos fascia.

* Thousands of coiled, fine-touch receptor cells, including Meissner's Corpuscles.

* An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.

* Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and portions of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, severely damaging its natural function.

* Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within the body's immune system.

* The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa which produces antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, the same as found in mother's milk, and plasma cells which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.

* Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate, moisturize, and regulate a healthy pH balance, thereby maintaining the erotogenic sensitivity of the glans.

* The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible sexual signals/stimulants.

* Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component.

* Estrogen receptors - the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.

* The connective synechiae, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops during infancy. It is destroyed when the foreskin is torn from the glans during the circumcision operation.

* The frenulum, the sensitive 'V'-shaped tethering structure at the base of the glans on the underside of the penis, is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.

* The protective covering of the glans, which is actually an internal organ. The foreskin shields the glans from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects the glans from dirt and other contaminants.

* Loss of sexual sensitivity in the glans. The glans of an intact penis is normally a soft, moist, delicate organ, similar in texture to the smooth skin lining the inside of the lips of your mouth. When the foreskin is amputated it no longer provides protection to the glans against abrasion, or even exposure to the air. This causes the glans to dry out - imagine what would happen to your eyeballs if your eyelids were removed. It also causes the skin on the glans to thicken and harden as a protection against abrasion. This 'callousing' effect - known as keratinization - causes any remaining nerves on the glans to become buried under many layers of skin cells, severly reducing the sensitivity of the glans to external stimulation - such as a soft touch. The sensitivity continues to decrease over time, until eventually all sensitivity is lost.

* 10% to 20% of the penis's 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's length due to scarring, and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly-vascularized foreskin.

* The gliding action of the penis within its foreskin. The foreskin's abundance (15-20 sq.in.) of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its anatomically unique ability to smoothly slide back and forth within itself, thereby permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina.

* The deep pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.

* There is considerable evidence that a circumcised penis loses its capacity for subtle electromagnetic communication that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes, an interaction which contributes to the sense of the healing power of sexual ecstasy. In other words, circumcision forever diminishes the intensity of both the male and female orgasm and its physical, psychological, and spiritual benefits.

* Many babies die as a result of circumcision, a fact the circumcision industry obscures and conceals.

[drugstore cowboy]

The circumcisors within the medical profession offer various and sundry lies in order to promote circumcision, and they denounce any ill-effects. But one only has to look at what is happening in society to see the consequences of circumcision. The facts cannot be hidden by the lies.

First, the vast majority of circumcised men are NOT AWARE of the PHENOMENAL LOSS their bodies have been subjected to. This is not the same as saying that the vast majority of circumcised men do not have problems with their circumcised penises. In fact, quite the contrary is true. 20/20 News (ABC TV) featured a special segment in their March 20th, 1998 telecast. They reported the current statistics that over 18 million men‡ in the United States suffer from impotence, and that tens of millions of other men suffer from various other sexual dysfunctions. The facts clearly indicate that millions of men are indeed experiencing sexual problems because of their circumcisions. The problem is that men do not talk publicly about these problems - except of course to their doctors, who are busy either denying that any problem exists or blaming it on "old age".
‡ Note: The January 2003 issue (pp. 51-52) of Good Housekeeping magazine reports it's now estimated that between 20 and 30 million men in the U.S. are affected by Erectile Dysfunction (impotence).

Such overwhelming numbers of sexual dysfunction are unique to North America. Statistics from European countries where circumcision is virtually non-existent are minuscule in comparison.

Comparisons of statistics for violent crime, especially rape and other violence directed towards women, reveal the same lopsided proportions when evaluating crime in North America compared to European nations.

Divorce rates in North America have exploded over the past 20 years and incompatibility (ie: problems in the bedroom) heads the list of reasons given. Certainly it is much easier to get a divorce than it was 20 years ago. Prior to that, people stuck it out (amicably or not) primarily because of the stigma associated with divorce. So the ease of getting a divorce accounts for the rise in the number of divorces - but doesn't answer why so many people are seeking a divorce. While this might sound sexist, the majority of divorces are the direct result of the males seeking out new female sexual partners. And they're seeking those partners because sex is not satisfying with their current partner - and they blame that current partner for the problem. In reality, it is the male who has the problem: his lack of a foreskin results in an inability to fully sexually bond with his mate, the inability to become aroused as he gets older because of the keratinization of his penis, and because the sexual orgasm pleasure center in his brain has atrophied he is unable to ever be fully satisfied in his sexual couplings.

The inability of his body to feel sexual satisfaction leads to compulsive sexual behavior. One example of this behavior is the insatiable consumption of pornography in North America. Tens of millions of the American population are sex addicts, and more than 520 chapters of Sex Addicts Anonymous have been founded in the United States and Canada. This is indicative of the serious and significant neuropsychological problems which result from circumcision. Despite the staggering odds of contracting aids or some other sexual disease, millions of men make use of the services of prostitutes every year. The need to fill that unsatisfied sexual craving within the brain is extremely powerful. It's like an itch that can't be scratched, and it overrides normal, rational thought. Even Presidents are not immune to this fundamental psychophysical need.

When the drug Viagra was introduced to the American public, sales went ballistic. In less than a month, over 900,000 prescriptions for the drug were issued. Sales are expected to exceed 1 BILLION dollars the first year in the U.S. alone. Obviously there are a LOT of men out there who are experiencing serious sexual functionality problems. Unfortunately, Viagra will only provide the man with an erection - it will not increase the sensitivity of his penis, nor will it restore any of the amputated erogenous nerve tissue. In addition, Viagra poses serious health risks to a large percentage of the men who will use it, and it is going to lead to extremely serious health problems down the road for all of those users.

And still the doctors claim "there is no problem with circumcision".

[drugstore cowboy]

No caring, loving, normal human being could possibly inflict such destructive injury such as circumcision or male genital mutilation upon a helpless baby.

Only the truly sociopathic can do such a horrific thing or decide to have it done to their children under the ruse of health/hygiene, an outdated religion or religious text, because they think that their sons will be "freaks in the locker room", because of societal pressure, so the boy will have a penis that looks like his father's (Can you say Daddy issues?! ;)), because they think that mutilating their son's genitals will somehow protect him as an adult from HIV and other STDs better than condoms and teaching him about safer sex and HIV/STDs ever will, or because a doctor or nurse recommended it and they're too incompetent to do their own research which even the American Medical associations have said how there is not recommendation or reason for infant male genital mutilation or circumcision.

[Long Duck Dong]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point is what?

That DD's opinions are more valid than Katja's because DD had three son's circumcised and Katja didn't? That her opinions are less valid because she didn't personally experience them? That is illogical. It would invalidate everything we learned in life because we hadn't personally experienced it.

In which case we need pay no attention to DD, or any other parent saying her son's didn't suffer any pain during the operation, for the simple reason she, and they, they didn't experience the pain themselves, their sons did.

The whole point of education is to inform each of us sufficiently to give an informed opinion. To give a simple example, World War 2 finished before I was born, therefore I did not have any personal experience of the fighting. However from my education I still know what happened back then and have valid opinions on the matter, the causes and effects and the personalities involved.

Part of the reason for becoming educated is to learn from past mistakes, so we don't continue to make them. It is not enough to have been there and not learned anything from the experience. If that were the case one might as well have slept through it.

I suggest that prospective parents do the research themselves, so they are in the position of making an informed decision. Look at the reasons these circumcisions were introduced, look at the 'benefits' claimed for them; look at the evidence if any to support these claims; look at the evidence against; examine the moral and ethical implications; compare the results with other industrialised countries in the World; including whether any group has a vested financial interest in these operations continuing; what happens if the operation goes wrong. Why not leave it for your son to decide whether or not he wishes to be circumcised? His body, his choice.

All these should be considered before the surgery, for it will be too late afterwards.

Just as the Chinese once thought foot binding was a great idea, the practice died out, through education, increased awareness of the harm it was doing, and eventually law to make it illegal. Despite the personal experience of those that thought it was a great idea to bind the feet of their wives and daughters.

I happen to think all children are entitled to the same consideration. For those parents who have already had their children circumcised, it is too late.

For those hoping, or planning to have a family, the choice is still open, will you join the ranks of the foot-binders, or put the money you save to better use, such as your son's college education fund? Which do you think he will thank you for?

no, thats your point darkside, you are the one trying to invalid what people say while claiming its me doing it.....

lack of experience means that opinions are based around personal belief and the beliefs of others...... not hands on experience..... so opinions that are made about what has or has not happened, are often invalid as they are based on what other people say and if the other people got it wrong, then so are the opinions based on the incorrect info

DD's understanding of circumcision is based on her own experiences and what she saw when it happened.... katjas opinion is based around websites and videos..... and if I wanted advice about what happens, I would go to the person with the hands on experience as they know what happens....
cos if I went to katja, she would have to send me to websites and videos

with DD I would ask questions, talk about how things do not match what others post etc etc etc....

[Long Duck Dong]

No caring, loving, normal human being could possibly inflict such destructive injury such as circumcision or male genital mutilation upon a helpless baby.

Only the truly sociopathic can do such a horrific thing or decide to have it done to their children under the ruse of health/hygiene, an outdated religion or religious text, because they think that their sons will be "freaks in the locker room", because of societal pressure, so the boy will have a penis that looks like his father's (Can you say Daddy issues?! ;)), because they think that mutilating their son's genitals will somehow protect him as an adult from HIV and other STDs better than condoms and teaching him about safer sex and HIV/STDs ever will, or because a doctor or nurse recommended it and they're too incompetent to do their own research which even the American Medical associations have said how there is not recommendation or reason for infant male genital mutilation or circumcision.

and what does that make parents that put their children in for medical surgery.... or do you have the same double standards ????

its love when we put children thru multiple ops that have the children in extreme pain...but its not love when its a circumcision......

I have personal experience with childhood surgeries I have been through them.... and I can tell you now... love doesn't come into it, when you are talking about on going prolonged pain and suffering.... cos no matter how much my parents may have loved me, I went through agony for years

how many operations did you go through, drugstore....

[drugstore cowboy]

no, thats your point darkside, you are the one trying to invalid what people say while claiming its me doing it.....

lack of experience means that opinions are based around personal belief and the beliefs of others...... not hands on experience..... so opinions that are made about what has or has not happened, are often invalid as they are based on what other people say and if the other people got it wrong, then so are the opinions based on the incorrect info

DD's understanding of circumcision is based on her own experiences and what she saw when it happened.... katjas opinion is based around websites and videos..... and if I wanted advice about what happens, I would go to the person with the hands on experience as they know what happens....
cos if I went to katja, she would have to send me to websites and videos

with DD I would ask questions, talk about how things do not match what others post etc etc etc....

My ex partner actually is a nurse and he has worked in hospitals where circumcisions have been done and he's been present when it's happened.

My ex partner is actually a medical professional unlike your girlfriend Duckies Darling and Mikey3000 who are claiming that circumcision causes no trauma at all to the infant, and that it's perfectly fine and a good thing that somehow has to be done.

He has not performed a circumcision at all as he finds them to be disgusting and tells parents he refuses to perform them at all when they ask but he's been around and seen male circumcisions happen.

The baby boys scream, cry, go into shock, and why would they do anything else? This happens even if a general anesthetic is used. In many cases they don't use any sort of anesthetic at all.

Do you think that they'd actually enjoy the sensation of getting one of the most sensitive parts of their body and a very sensitive part of their penis ripped off, torn off, sliced off, and in some cases burned off.

The parents do freak out and many times do regret circumcising their sons, and by then it's too late. There are some hospitals that do not even ask parents if they want their boy circumcised and they just go ahead and do it anyway even if the parents have said beforehand that they do not want it done to their son. Talk about setting yourself up to be sued!

My ex told me how he's seen other nurses lie and tell parents things like, "Your son slept through the entire thing!" when they bring the freshly mutilated boy in shock back to his parents and he's silent and not responsive because of the trauma just inflicted upon him the parents actually think that their son is "asleep". :rolleyes:

[Long Duck Dong]

My ex partner actually is a nurse and he has worked in hospitals where circumcisions have been done and he's been present when it's happened.

My ex partner is actually a medical professional unlike your girlfriend Duckies Darling and Mikey3000 who are claiming that circumcision causes no trauma at all to the infant, and that it's perfectly fine and a good thing that somehow has to be done.

He has not performed a circumcision at all as he finds them to be disgusting and tells parents he refuses to perform them at all when they ask but he's been around and seen male circumcisions happen.

The baby boys scream, cry, go into shock, and why would they do anything else? This happens even if a general anesthetic is used. In many cases they don't use any sort of anesthetic at all.

Do you think that they'd actually enjoy the sensation of getting one of the most sensitive parts of their body and a very sensitive part of their penis ripped off, torn off, sliced off, and in some cases burned off.

The parents do freak out and many times do regret circumcising their sons, and by then it's too late. There are some hospitals that do not even ask parents if they want their boy circumcised and they just go ahead and do it anyway even if the parents have said beforehand that they do not want it done to their son. Talk about setting yourself up to be sued!

My ex told me how he's seen other nurses lie and tell parents things like, "Your son slept through the entire thing!" when they bring the freshly mutilated boy in shock back to his parents and he's silent and not responsive because of the trauma just inflicted upon him the parents actually think that their son is "asleep". :rolleyes:

your ex partner said..... and how much did you actually see yourself.... ????

I think I would take the word of a person that I can actually talk to, over the word of a person on a forum that never actually witnessed things, but their ex partner said.......

in the same way that you are posting site after site of what other people said..... and I am listening and talking to parents that were actually there when it happened and people that are circumcised, as adults and children.... and talking from my own personal experiences.....

[drugstore cowboy]

your ex partner said..... and how much did you actually see yourself.... ????

I think I would take the word of a person that I can actually talk to, over the word of a person on a forum that never actually witnessed things, but their ex partner said.......

in the same way that you are posting site after site of what other people said..... and I am listening and talking to parents that were actually there when it happened and people that are circumcised, as adults and children.... and talking from my own personal experiences.....

What makes you assume that I've never seen an infant's circumcision?

I actually have seen an infant circumcised on more than one ocassion.

It's not something I would like to see again as it was very disturbing and the infant boy screamed in horror.

The mutilation was done under the pointless genital mutilation ritual known as a "Bris" that's done in Judaism.

I also have been present in a hospital where an infant was circumcised and I saw it happen.

What my partner told me about what happens when a boy is circumcised is true. He's witnessed 100's of circumcisions over the decades he has worked as a nurse in the neonatal section of various hospitals.

Even though you and others want to deny it circumcising an infant boy is traumatic to him, and it's a pointless outdated barbaric mutilation.

Here comes the flood of denial...and anger from people who are pro-mutilation.

[Long Duck Dong]

show me where I have denied its traumatic, cos I have posted in this bloody thread how I know surgery is hell, I have been thru it..... so I would suggest that you go to the hospital and have your head removed from your ass...

as for what makes me assume, oh, only the fact that you are pushing websites and your ex partners opinion as gospel,... and suddenly you have personal experience that you never mentioned in any other post.....

I would have mentioned my own experiences before I referred to my ex partners experiences...... but thats just me....

and I know people that have seen 100's of aliens and flying saucers..... but I still rely on what I have seen, cos until I can say definitely I have seen one, then there is only their opinion that they exist and what they say happened, is real and not their own personal twist on something so me saying to other people that they are real cos my friend saw them, is about as good as the 100's of men that Isuckandswallow talked to and who told him that they were pissed off at being cut ( yes, he said 100's of men )

[Darkside2009]

no, thats your point darkside, you are the one trying to invalid what people say while claiming its me doing it.....

lack of experience means that opinions are based around personal belief and the beliefs of others...... not hands on experience..... so opinions that are made about what has or has not happened, are often invalid as they are based on what other people say and if the other people got it wrong, then so are the opinions based on the incorrect info

DD's understanding of circumcision is based on her own experiences and what she saw when it happened.... katjas opinion is based around websites and videos..... and if I wanted advice about what happens, I would go to the person with the hands on experience as they know what happens....
cos if I went to katja, she would have to send me to websites and videos

with DD I would ask questions, talk about how things do not match what others post etc etc etc....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that a person was present in person, does not mean that they were aware of, or understood what was going on. Parents in hospitals often defer to doctors who they wrongly assume know what they are doing. If they did know in every case, their would be no malpractice suits in court, no botched operations, no deaths from circumcision.

Parents on here have even said their baby slept through the whole operation when in fact the baby had gone into a state of catatonic shock. I could give further examples, but there would be little point.

So you believe whomsoever you wish, and I shall believe the consensus of medical opinion throughout the World when it states, there is no need for, or benefit from, routine circumcision.

As to eye-witness testimony, ask any lawyer what the courts think of that without supporting evidence.

With regard to which of us is making more sense in what we say, I'll let others decide that for themselves, I'm all for personal choice.

[Long Duck Dong]

no, thats your point darkside, you are the one trying to invalid what people say while claiming its me doing it.....

lack of experience means that opinions are based around personal belief and the beliefs of others...... not hands on experience..... so opinions that are made about what has or has not happened, are often invalid as they are based on what other people say and if the other people got it wrong, then so are the opinions based on the incorrect info

DD's understanding of circumcision is based on her own experiences and what she saw when it happened.... katjas opinion is based around websites and videos..... and if I wanted advice about what happens, I would go to the person with the hands on experience as they know what happens....
cos if I went to katja, she would have to send me to websites and videos

with DD I would ask questions, talk about how things do not match what others post etc etc etc....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that a person was present in person, does not mean that they were aware of, or understood what was going on. Parents in hospitals often defer to doctors who they wrongly assume know what they are doing. If they did know in every case, their would be no malpractice suits in court, no botched operations, no deaths from circumcision.

Parents on here have even said their baby slept through the whole operation when in fact the baby had gone into a state of catatonic shock. I could give further examples, but there would be little point.

So you believe whomsoever you wish, and I shall believe the consensus of medical opinion throughout the World when it states, there is no need for, or benefit from, routine circumcision.

As to eye-witness testimony, ask any lawyer what the courts think of that without supporting evidence.

With regard to which of us is making more sense in what we say, I'll let others decide that for themselves, I'm all for personal choice.

strangely enuf, thats why I would go talk to a medical expert, rather than people in a forum with no parental experience, posting websites and articles and vids as proof of what they say.......

its also why I never went to a car mechanic when I needed surgery......

feel free to tell the parents that they have no idea what happened, but I am not as quick to tell people that they have no idea about anything, as strangely enuf, not everybody is that stupid that they can not tell the difference between a sleeping child, and a catatonic child.......

not every child reacts the same way or feels things the same way.... surely your own life experience would have taught you that people react to pain differently....

people post articles done by medical professionals as proof of their claims about circumcision, and now you are talking about how doctors and hospitals get it wrong..... so in effect, websites and articles are being posted by medical professionals that may have got it all wrong.....

I will stick with my personal experiences thank you darkside, and the experiences of other people that are actually medically trained, such as my cousin monick that is a head nurse at the local hospital and had her own children circumcised...... cos I am pretty sure that she would know the difference between catatonic and sleeping... and I would trust her as she was also the head nurse that dealt with me when my father needed the urgent surgery I refered to earlier in this thread....... and I am fuckin sure that she would not be head nurse if she could not tell the difference between a catatonic baby and a sleeping one.....
but we run hospitals here differently to the US and UK, bear that in mind.....

if I want a perspective of sex with cut v's uncut males, I could ask around the forum as there is plenty of people, like katja that could talk about that from personal experience...... or I could believe the study posted in this thread that was posted in a british journal, using 139 females that apparently did not understand most of the questions or did not answer them... cos that really must be a valid study, or people like bidaved would not have posted it to support his stance.....

if I want a perspective of a adult male that was cut as a adult male, I would ask the member that posted in this thread and who got told that his opinion meant nothing, despite the fact he had personal experience with a issue that I have not had.....

and I would leave the other people to post all their articles and studies etc etc etc.... as support for their abuse and insulting of members.....

btw, believing what you want, doesn't make your opinion invalid, darkside, but if you are believing incorrect studies and articles, it makes you look like a total idiot when you say parents can not tell the difference between a catatonic child and a sleeping on

[Katja]

I do not require personal experience of many things to know and firnly believe that they are wrong. I have never personally experienced taking another person's life, clubbing a dog to death, drive while under the influence of alcohol, or kidnapping a child. For some things personal experience is not necessary.

For this reason I do not believe LDD and his argument regarding the necessity of personal experience stands up to scrutiny. My belief is that routine circumcision of an infant child at parental request (or insistence take your pick) when there is no medical need is as wrong as removing the young genital or breast tissue from a young girl and should be made just as unlawful.

I need no personal experience of any of these things to know that each is a great wrong inflicted upon a child. Some day I may develop breast or cervical cancer. Did my parents have the right to have these removed at any stage before I was old enough to make that decision for myself? No they did not. They are part of my body, and until such times as they become diseased and injurious to my continued good health to such an extent that they threaten my life, I will hang on to them, and even then, will make sure that prior to cervix or breasts being surgically removed, every medical remedy possible is undertaken and I am left with no option. We should accord the same respect and rights to an infant boy in respect of his foreskin.

[Annika L]

There is a certain kind of person who can recognize when a topic is controversial, when people on both sides have reasons for believing and acting as they do, but that the issue is sufficiently emotionally charged on both sides that rational debate (on either side) is not entirely possible. Their egos are not so brittle that they need to convert every person to their viewpoint, and to them, this is good, because they realize that due to the emotional nature of the argument, they cannot convert people from the opposing viewpoint to their own.

Such people tend to be called "reasonable people". I like 'em.

[Darkside2009]

An interesting video link dealing with death from circumcision:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyiBdP4GfO8

And another dealing with the many possible complications that can arise, both during, and after circumcision:-

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

[Darkside2009]

A tragic case of circumcision gone wrong, resulting in the death of a child, see and listen to what the child's parents had to say about it:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YSBS9y9YvQ&feature=related

Children are still dying each year in the US from routine circumcision. Is an unnecessary operation worth the risk, of death or serious medical complications that can threaten his life?

I for one don't think so.

[Darkside2009]

A light-hearted, humorous view of the circumcision debate, from Penn and Teller. Part of their Bullshit series:-

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584

[Katja]

There is a certain kind of person who can recognize when a topic is controversial, when people on both sides have reasons for believing and acting as they do, but that the issue is sufficiently emotionally charged on both sides that rational debate (on either side) is not entirely possible. Their egos are not so brittle that they need to convert every person to their viewpoint, and to them, this is good, because they realize that due to the emotional nature of the argument, they cannot convert people from the opposing viewpoint to their own.

Such people tend to be called "reasonable people". I like 'em.

I do detect a gentle rebuke in this post.

This certainly a controversial topic, at least in one part of the world, and some people have become emotionally involved in the debate and I do agree that rational debate is not entirely possible. I do not believe either that entirely, rational debate has been lost. Being emotional does not necessarily mean that we lose rationale or remain sufficiently dispassionate that we are unable to argue logically and sensibly with enough rationale to be effective, and there is much in this debate, from both sides which meet this criteria.

I do not have an ego which is brittle, nor do I feel the need to convert every opponent to my point of view. I say every opponent because we do not require conversion of every opponent to win an argument or win change. We do however require to win some, and also to convince those who are undecided or simply unknowledgable about an issue.

If we did not or could not persuade people, then why have a debate? What would ever change? Why else in western societies has routine infant circumcision outside of the religious arena (and appears to be losing ground there too) almost become a thing of the past and why in its last great bastion, the United States, has its incidence halved in the last 40 years? Mostly because people, rational, reasonable people on both sides have argued, often passionately and emotionally, but dispassionately and rationally enough in a determined attempt to convince others of the rightness of what they believe, and that to date, those who are against routine infant circumcision, appear to be getting the best of the argument.

I am a reasonable person. To me. How others view me is something I would never be so jumped up to second guess, but most people do seem to think so. Not all those who do not feel the need to win over their opponents are reasonable people nor does the world tend to call them so. Many such people on both sides have huge egos, not always brittle, and try to bludgeon opponents aside. Some refuse to enter into debate or withdraw from it not because of of rationale or even a lack of it, but because they do not like or wish to hear or even listen to the words of the other side.

The other side of the unbrittle ego Annika. It is not all quite 'reasonable' as you seem to make out and not always quite so likeable.

What I do think of this debate is that it is coming to its end. At least in these forums although not in the wider world. Not permanently I suspect or hope, for issues such as this remain live issues which people will feel strongly about, and until such times as they become settled and uncontroversial, they will always be liable to rear their heads. It is quite right that they do, however uncomfortable we may be with them and upon whichever side we happen to be on.

[Long Duck Dong]

I do not require personal experience of many things to know and firnly believe that they are wrong. I have never personally experienced taking another person's life, clubbing a dog to death, drive while under the influence of alcohol, or kidnapping a child. For some things personal experience is not necessary.

For this reason I do not believe LDD and his argument regarding the necessity of personal experience stands up to scrutiny. My belief is that routine circumcision of an infant child at parental request (or insistence take your pick) when there is no medical need is as wrong as removing the young genital or breast tissue from a young girl and should be made just as unlawful.

I need no personal experience of any of these things to know that each is a great wrong inflicted upon a child. Some day I may develop breast or cervical cancer. Did my parents have the right to have these removed at any stage before I was old enough to make that decision for myself? No they did not. They are part of my body, and until such times as they become diseased and injurious to my continued good health to such an extent that they threaten my life, I will hang on to them, and even then, will make sure that prior to cervix or breasts being surgically removed, every medical remedy possible is undertaken and I am left with no option. We should accord the same respect and rights to an infant boy in respect of his foreskin.

rolls eyes......

forming a opinion is easy..... I can say that beating a person senseless in the middle of the street is wrong and a crime and agree with you.....
but I can actually tell you what it feels like, and what was going thru my head at the day, why I did it, and if I was drunk or sober.....
that is personal experience......

you can share your opinion about circumcision and parents and children, but you have no personal experience as a parent with children, so yes, your opinion is still valid that children should have rights....
it doesn't take personal experience to say that its wrong and the children should have rights.....
but I can not ask you what you felt about having your children circumcised cos you lack that personal experience, i would have to ask a parent that has had their children circumcised....

and that is my point.... some things require talking to people with personal experience, vs opinions....
things like flying in a plane, being in the military, working in a bar, running a marathon etc etc...... many people have opinions about them, but only the people that have done them can give me a personal account of what they experienced......

so my point about opinions vs personal experience is very valid, anybody can have a opinion about what is right or what is wrong, but people with personal experiences, have a understanding that people that have not experienced it, do not have......
yet you will see many people without that personal experience, tell people like me, with the personal experience, that we have no idea what we are talking about..... and thats the hilarious part...

so yet again, it doesn't make your opinion wrong or invalid, it simply means I can come to you for a opinion, and go to DD for a detailed account based on personal experience.....

[drugstore cowboy]

rolls eyes......

forming a opinion is easy..... I can say that beating a person senseless in the middle of the street is wrong and a crime and agree with you.....
but I can actually tell you what it feels like, and what was going thru my head at the day, why I did it, and if I was drunk or sober.....
that is personal experience......

you can share your opinion about circumcision and parents and children, but you have no personal experience as a parent with children, so yes, your opinion is still valid that children should have rights....
it doesn't take personal experience to say that its wrong and the children should have rights.....
but I can not ask you what you felt about having your children circumcised cos you lack that personal experience, i would have to ask a parent that has had their children circumcised....

and that is my point.... some things require talking to people with personal experience, vs opinions....
things like flying in a plane, being in the military, working in a bar, running a marathon etc etc...... many people have opinions about them, but only the people that have done them can give me a personal account of what they experienced......

so my point about opinions vs personal experience is very valid, anybody can have a opinion about what is right or what is wrong, but people with personal experiences, have a understanding that people that have not experienced it, do not have......
yet you will see many people without that personal experience, tell people like me, with the personal experience, that we have no idea what we are talking about..... and thats the hilarious part...

so yet again, it doesn't make your opinion wrong or invalid, it simply means I can come to you for a opinion, and go to DD for a detailed account based on personal experience.....

Your girlfriend Duckies Darling is NOT a medical professional and she's pro circumcision, so she's going to claim that it's perfectly fine and normal and simply has to be done since she thought her kids would be "freaks in the locker room".

I actually have seen circumcisions preformed and so has my ex partner and I posted about OUR personal experiences which you're pretending don't matter or are not nearly as valid as your girlfriend's. :rolleyes:

Again what's with the hypocrisy? You did post about how circumcision of both boys and girls is genital mutilation and how this is your opinion.

You can try to twist your own words around and pretend to claim that "Oh the doctor said it was mutilation! I didn't at all!" but right here you did say how circumcision is genital mutilation, and you did agree that circumcising male infants is genital mutilation.


Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
my penis has been mutilated from a botched circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
in a purely medical sense, the removal of the vulva and the clitoris is regarded as a form of mutilation of the human body... and the same can be applied to the removal of the foreskin

mutilation is the unneeded removal of part of the human body.... circumcision for religious reasoning, is marking the human body to set a difference between people.....also using medical logic...circumcision is the removal of the foreskin to mark a person... and in 99% of cases, circumcision falls under the heading of mutilation

the child has no choice in the matter......in the case of my parents, they chose... the circumcision was blotched and I was left scarred... and that has been proven medically... some areas of my penis have NO feeling due to scarring....and the doctor called it MUTILATION

[mikey3000]

This topic is really starting to bore me. Bottom line is I really don't have a preference at all. Cut, uncut, who really cares. What I do object to is dickhead fanatics who feel they have the right to impose their beliefs on others and start insulting those who disagree with their PERSONAL beliefs. It is our job as parents, not yours, to make decisions and set beliefs for our children. And we do as we see fit given the most up to date RELIABLE information availiable. Not, "my ex partner is a nurse, yada, yada yada..." When you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (with a propper scientific study) that circumcision is harmful, then maybe people will listen to you. Until then your hysterical name calling and accusations have done nothing but hurt your cause. Now I will purposfully direct people to view the WHO's viewpoint and recent HPV transmission studies just because I know there are freaks like you out there making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

Now I am so done with this stupid and pathetic thread, but be sure of one thing, from now on I'll never pass an oppourtunity to stick up for circumcision as an acceptable health choice for new parents and their sons because getting an STI could be much more damaging to their child and others in the long run. See, I just don't think of the possible sexual benefits to oneself, but the long term health and well being of others as well.

That's why there will NEVER be acceptance of the LGBTQ community, because we are the last to be accepting of others's beliefs, no matter what part of the globe we come from. I am so ashamed of, and yet also glad that said fanatics never reproduced.

[drugstore cowboy]

This topic is really starting to bore me. Bottom line is I really don't have a preference at all. Cut, uncut, who really cares. What I do object to is dickhead fanatics who feel they have the right to impose their beliefs on others and start insulting those who disagree with their PERSONAL beliefs. It is our job as parents, not yours, to make decisions and set beliefs for our children. And we do as we see fit given the most up to date RELIABLE information availiable. Not, "my ex partner is a nurse, yada, yada yada..." When you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (with a propper scientific study) that circumcision is harmful, then maybe people will listen to you. Until then your hysterical name calling and accusations have done nothing but hurt your cause. Now I will purposfully direct people to view the WHO's viewpoint and recent HPV transmission studies just because I know there are freaks like you out there making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

Now I am so done with this stupid and pathetic thread, but be sure of one thing, from now on I'll never pass an oppourtunity to stick up for circumcision as an acceptable health choice for new parents and their sons because getting an STI could be much more damaging to their child and others in the long run. See, I just don't think of the possible sexual benefits to oneself, but the long term health and well being of others as well.

That's why there will NEVER be acceptance of the LGBTQ community, because we are the last to be accepting of others's beliefs, no matter what part of the globe we come from. I am so ashamed of, and yet also glad that said fanatics never reproduced.

does anybody recall the creation of an HPV vaccine? why should anyone have 2/3 of their sexual responsiveness and feeling removed, when there is a vaccine to help prevent infection? I agree, the WHO study is bogus. there is another one from New Zealand, which is much larger, and have a different outcome. why, since the 1870’s, has the medical community been working double overtime, to find something which circumcision cures? I realize it is a $250 million+ a year business in the US. what part of “first, do no harm”, are they not getting? damaging or removing the frenulum and inner foreskin, they might as well remove the head, because the frenulum and inner foreskin are much more sensitive. sick stuff, making kids bleed for the parents’ ego and false beliefs. 4 1/2 million years of human evolution is not a mistake. why do we never hear of hygiene problems caused by the female foreskin or the clitoral hood and the tissue known as the labia? it’s the same tissue.
why do we keep seeing the same illogical article posted over and over?

[BiDaveDtown]

This topic is really starting to bore me. Bottom line is I really don't have a preference at all. Cut, uncut, who really cares. What I do object to is dickhead fanatics who feel they have the right to impose their beliefs on others and start insulting those who disagree with their PERSONAL beliefs. It is our job as parents, not yours, to make decisions and set beliefs for our children. And we do as we see fit given the most up to date RELIABLE information availiable. Not, "my ex partner is a nurse, yada, yada yada..." When you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (with a propper scientific study) that circumcision is harmful, then maybe people will listen to you. Until then your hysterical name calling and accusations have done nothing but hurt your cause. Now I will purposfully direct people to view the WHO's viewpoint and recent HPV transmission studies just because I know there are freaks like you out there making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

Now I am so done with this stupid and pathetic thread, but be sure of one thing, from now on I'll never pass an oppourtunity to stick up for circumcision as an acceptable health choice for new parents and their sons because getting an STI could be much more damaging to their child and others in the long run. See, I just don't think of the possible sexual benefits to oneself, but the long term health and well being of others as well.

That's why there will NEVER be acceptance of the LGBTQ community, because we are the last to be accepting of others's beliefs, no matter what part of the globe we come from. I am so ashamed of, and yet also glad that said fanatics never reproduced.

We can argue that you're a "dickhead fanatic" when it comes to being pro-mutilation or pro-circumcision for infant boys.

There have been proper scientific studies posted, you've just conveniently ignored them and pretended that they somehow do not count since they do not tell you that infant circumcision is a good thing or that being cut somehow does protect against HIV and other STDs as well as using a condom correctly and consistently, and having safer sex does.

The whole thing you posted about HPV transmission is BS. I know lots of CUT hetero men who have gotten HPV from women and they've passed it along to women. I know cut gay men who have HPV and herpes.

If circumcision is a great protector against HPV, then why is Israel handing out the HPV vaccine to men in a country where 99% of the males are circumcised?

Let’s not forget this was not an independent study. The researchers from the WHO lifted their numbers off a study that was already underway, and had nothing to do with HPV.

Lowering a risk by 25% is not that much of a lowering….HPV is so common now in men. They're saying 44% of males carry the virus. The way to go with this disease is immunization.

The main result of the WHO HPV study is that circumcision does not protect men from acquiring HPV in the first place. Why is this not headlined? Because it does not support circumcision.

Only 12% of the 285 men (34 men) were not circumcised, so the statistical significance of any findings regarding circumcision is low. Only about 29% of the men were infected with HPV - circumcised or not - thats only about TEN of the non-circumcised men.

They only tested every six months, about the same as the median time it took HPV to clear, so it is quite preposterous to claim they had found anything worthwhile about the time of clearance of HPV in the small fraction of the small fraction of the total who were not circumcised and had HPV.

This really is junk science, and junk reporting of it.

And its a skin on skin contact thing. One can get it on the mucus membrane in their mouths during falacio. and mucus membrane is what the glans of the penis is made of too. On circumcized males the warts can be so small that they simply look like regular penile bumps that all men get from time to time. It can be very decieving.

The thing with HPV is that it isn’t just one disease there are dozens of strains of it. There are strains that will only show up on a penis and strains that wont show up on a penis at all, since there isn’t really one test that can be done statistics like this are really unreliable.

HPV is a skin to skin disease, can get HPV using condoms so I can’t imagine that being circumcised or not would have a big impact.

Don’t forget that HIV rates are highest in countries where male genital mutilation is common.

There is at least statistical evidence that circumcision may actually increase the risk of AIDS in gay men.

Of the gay and bisexual men who contracted HIV and then died of AIDS in the U.S., nearly 95% were circumcised. Also, the death rate for intact bisexual and gay men was slightly lower. Draw your own conclusions.

The public health bureaucracy used to spread pro-circumcision propaganda with impunity. There was no one to stop them, because the mainstream media acted as a willing conduit for their false assertions (circumcision, far from preventing penile cancer, actually promoted it in the form of cancer of the circumcision scar, but they conveniently forgot to tell you about that). Now the Internet acts as a check and balance on pro-circ bias and phony research.

Circumcision is just culturally accepted mutilation the logic is basically remove a part of the body to lower the risk of certain diseases but I don’t see why we stop there why not remove a woman’s breasts to reduce the rates of breast cancer. Idiot.Logic.

Many women with a history of breast cancer in their family CHOSE to remove their breasts to prevent the cancer. However, the key word there is choice. I don’t think a new born baby boy gets to chose rather he has his genitals mutilated or not.

I’m sure removing the labia off of newborn girls might reduce a little their chances of getting HPV (which there is a vaccine for these days, btw). If you would not consent to have the labia removed from your newborn girl and you consent to have your son circumcised, you are a hypocrite

Try using condoms and having safer sex, instead of mutilating male babies.

Using condoms correctly and having safer sex actually works at preventing HIV and other STDs includinv HPV, unlike genital mutilation.

I guess you lived under a rock during the early 80s Mikey300, when bisexual and gay men in the United States who were all cut and had been since birth were getting infected with HIV and other STDs and dying off in very large numbers.

If circumcision actually had worked against prevention of infection and transmission of HIV and other STDs we would know it by now. Those bisexual and gay men who were pretty much all cut would not have gotten HIV, died from AIDS, or gotten other STDs.

[Darkside2009]

Mikey,

This is the site for the Canadian Paediatric Society, and their position on routine circumcision :-

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm

You don't need to believe me, see what your own country's medical association had to say about it.

As to the name calling, I'm not going to respond to that, other than to say, if you or anyone else, wishes to think of me in those terms that is your prerogative.

I for my part wish you and your family nothing but health and happiness.

[Katja]

One of the inevitable occurrences of an emotional and controvesial debate, especially one which involves children is the polarisation of a debate, where proponents of each side become more entrenched in their position. This appears to be the case with Sammie19 on one side, and Mikey3000 on the other. This in itself is not necessarily fatal to rational debate, but it can be more infurious to it, and make resolving more difficult, more tortuous and protracted and very often more bitter.

In this instance it may be regrettable but people are not automatons and do have emotions and feelings and so these things are an acceptable price to pay in a world of free speech and the democratic ideal. They are an acceptable price whichever side we are on, for the future well being of an infant child.

[Katja]

rolls eyes......

forming a opinion is easy..... I can say that beating a person senseless in the middle of the street is wrong and a crime and agree with you.....
but I can actually tell you what it feels like, and what was going thru my head at the day, why I did it, and if I was drunk or sober.....
that is personal experience......

you can share your opinion about circumcision and parents and children, but you have no personal experience as a parent with children, so yes, your opinion is still valid that children should have rights....
it doesn't take personal experience to say that its wrong and the children should have rights.....
but I can not ask you what you felt about having your children circumcised cos you lack that personal experience, i would have to ask a parent that has had their children circumcised....

and that is my point.... some things require talking to people with personal experience, vs opinions....
things like flying in a plane, being in the military, working in a bar, running a marathon etc etc...... many people have opinions about them, but only the people that have done them can give me a personal account of what they experienced......

so my point about opinions vs personal experience is very valid, anybody can have a opinion about what is right or what is wrong, but people with personal experiences, have a understanding that people that have not experienced it, do not have......
yet you will see many people without that personal experience, tell people like me, with the personal experience, that we have no idea what we are talking about..... and thats the hilarious part...

so yet again, it doesn't make your opinion wrong or invalid, it simply means I can come to you for a opinion, and go to DD for a detailed account based on personal experience.....

You may roll your eyes all you like, but sometimes it is well to have those who do not have personal experience to view any issue with eyes which see what those too close to an issue cannot. It is often called 'an independent view' but I am the first in my own case to admit that I have long since ceased to be independent in this debate. Yet it was just that independence of thought as a young girl which eventually turned my mind to believe that which I have argued over the last few weeks.

You are right. Personal experience is important, but not always as important as you think it. Having or not having personal experience does not invalidate an opinion, but sometimes personal experience can blind us to the reality just as easily as can a lack of it. In both instances it can make us so stiff and intransigent that we will never change our minds.

I came to support the anti infant circumcision lobby because I had an open-ness of mind and knew little,thought even less and had never taken a position on or been indoctrinated into a view until I began to think and learn about it when I was about 16 years of age. The catalyst was not a debate on circumcision because in England or the rest of the United Kingdon, there is no debate about it among the general population. The catalyst was a 17 year old boy, the first I had slept with who had been circumcised and his question to me, of the difference between sex with a guy who was circumcised and one who was not.

[sammie19]

Again what's with the hypocrisy? You did post about how circumcision of both boys and girls is genital mutilation and how this is your opinion.

You can try to twist your own words around and pretend to claim that "Oh the doctor said it was mutilation! I didn't at all!" but right here you did say how circumcision is genital mutilation, and you did agree that circumcising male infants is genital mutilation.

Isn't this another form of genital mutilation? Metaphorically ripping the balls off someone and his argument?:tong:

And rolling of eyes, in the way which both LDD and Cowboy have done is hardly an way of accepting a person's arguments as valid. More an expression of exasperation and contempt for another view and dismissing it as having any credibilty whatever. Not a way to win friends and influence people and it is no way to cool inflamed tempers or passions.:(

[Long Duck Dong]

You may roll your eyes all you like, but sometimes it is well to have those who do not have personal experience to view any issue with eyes which see what those too close to an issue cannot. It is often called 'an independent view' but I am the first in my own case to admit that I have long since ceased to be independent in this debate. Yet it was just that independence of thought as a young girl which eventually turned my mind to believe that which I have argued over the last few weeks.

You are right. Personal experience is important, but not always as important as you think it. Having or not having personal experience does not invalidate an opinion, but sometimes personal experience can blind us to the reality just as easily as can a lack of it. In both instances it can make us so stiff and intransigent that we will never change our minds.

I came to support the anti infant circumcision lobby because I had an open-ness of mind and knew little,thought even less and had never taken a position on or been indoctrinated into a view until I began to think and learn about it when I was about 16 years of age. The catalyst was not a debate on circumcision because in England or the rest of the United Kingdon, there is no debate about it among the general population. The catalyst was a 17 year old boy, the first I had slept with who had been circumcised and his question to me, of the difference between sex with a guy who was circumcised and one who was not.

there is nothing wrong with being anti circumcision, until you start telling other people that they are wrong because of what you believe.....and thats what so many people are seeing in this thread....

the constant abuse and bashing of people for making a choice that others do not argue with....... and thats why a lot of members avoided this site, cos like so many other threads in the site, dealing with circumcision, its always turned out the same way......

you want to support the rights of the children ? that admirable.... and I can respect that, but parents are sick to death of hearing about how to raise the perfect children and be the perfect parents.... and how they could do better
and yes you can argue that you are only talking about one thing only.... but so are the food experts and the immunisation experts, and the schooling experts and the neo natal experts, and the pre school experts, and the people on tv and in the books and in the websites and in the videos.....

and that is something you would really understand as a parent.... how pissed off you would become, getting told time and time again, how to raise your children according to everybody elses rules and quidelines.....

and we are talking about every day life, not things like foot binding and circumcision.....

[Long Duck Dong]

does anybody recall the creation of an HPV vaccine? why should anyone have 2/3 of their sexual responsiveness and feeling removed, when there is a vaccine to help prevent infection? I agree, the WHO study is bogus. there is another one from New Zealand, which is much larger, and have a different outcome. why, since the 1870’s, has the medical community been working double overtime, to find something which circumcision cures? I realize it is a $250 million+ a year business in the US. what part of “first, do no harm”, are they not getting? damaging or removing the frenulum and inner foreskin, they might as well remove the head, because the frenulum and inner foreskin are much more sensitive. sick stuff, making kids bleed for the parents’ ego and false beliefs. 4 1/2 million years of human evolution is not a mistake. why do we never hear of hygiene problems caused by the female foreskin or the clitoral hood and the tissue known as the labia? it’s the same tissue.
why do we keep seeing the same illogical article posted over and over?

I can tell you now, that there are grave concerns arising in NZ over the vaccine as some females have died after having the vaccine or suffered severe side effects..... and a number of doctors have stopped using it until its retested.......

its not 1 injection its 3 over a number of months and the study is not matching what the doctors are seeing......

[Katja]

there is nothing wrong with being anti circumcision, until you start telling other people that they are wrong because of what you believe.....and thats what so many people are seeing in this thread....

the constant abuse and bashing of people for making a choice that others do not argue with....... and thats why a lot of members avoided this site, cos like so many other threads in the site, dealing with circumcision, its always turned out the same way......

you want to support the rights of the children ? that admirable.... and I can respect that, but parents are sick to death of hearing about how to raise the perfect children and be the perfect parents.... and how they could do better
and yes you can argue that you are only talking about one thing only.... but so are the food experts and the immunisation experts, and the schooling experts and the neo natal experts, and the pre school experts, and the people on tv and in the books and in the websites and in the videos.....

and that is something you would really understand as a parent.... how pissed off you would become, getting told time and time again, how to raise your children according to everybody elses rules and quidelines.....

and we are talking about every day life, not things like foot binding and circumcision.....

Yet another distraction from the debate. This debate is not about raising our children. It is about whether or not we leave them as nature intended until such times as they are able to make any decision about what happens to their body parts for themselves.

The argument is not about how we raise our children to be good citizens. I have my own ideas in how it should be done but only once becoming a parent and am faced with the reality can I truly get any idea about how I would raise children. This argument is not about that so can you stop producing irrelevant posts about something which is not pertinent and concentrate on what is.

I will pick you up on this LDD. How else can I or anyone else change minds about something I believe in unless I tell people what I believe? If we do not do that nothing changes. It really is hard lines if some people get upset about what I or anyone else says, but it is what debate is about. So cease this constant barrage of distraction and irrelevance and face up to the reality of the world.

One final thing. Although not as such an issue of how to raise a child to be a good citizen, once upon a time foot binding was an everyday issue in China for millions of girls, female genital mutilation remains so for millions in (and outside) of Africa, and the circumcision of infant boys for millions around the globe, in particular the United States.These issues were or are everyday life and of immense importance to hundreds of millions.

[Long Duck Dong]

Your girlfriend Duckies Darling is NOT a medical professional and she's pro circumcision, so she's going to claim that it's perfectly fine and normal and simply has to be done since she thought her kids would be "freaks in the locker room".

I actually have seen circumcisions preformed and so has my ex partner and I posted about OUR personal experiences which you're pretending don't matter or are not nearly as valid as your girlfriend's. :rolleyes:

Again what's with the hypocrisy? You did post about how circumcision of both boys and girls is genital mutilation and how this is your opinion.

You can try to twist your own words around and pretend to claim that "Oh the doctor said it was mutilation! I didn't at all!" but right here you did say how circumcision is genital mutilation, and you did agree that circumcising male infants is genital mutilation.

you are not a medical expert either.... and sure you have personal experiences watching.... but thats watching..... can you talk from the personal experience of being circumcised as a adult, or being a circumcised male ????

as for DD, her opinion is her opinion, I do not have to agree with her opinion... but, its like your opinion, nobody has to agree with your opinion either.... or you.... tho they were welcome to ignore you as i believe many people have already....

as for twisting my words, i know what I wrote,... and I have explained it... and its there in black and white, " the doctor called it mutilation " the same way you are telling people they are mutilated...
and I said by medical logic... in the same way i have said in this thread, " by defination, all surgeries harm and damage the human body "...

if I wanted to say that circumcision is wrong and mutilation, I would be acting like your identical twin..... cos you are the one telling people that they are mutilating their children, constantly.......

[Long Duck Dong]

Yet another distraction from the debate. This debate is not about raising our children. It is about whether or not we leave them as nature intended until such times as they are able to make any decision about what happens to their body parts for themselves.

The argument is not about how we raise our children to be good citizens. I have my own ideas in how it should be done but only once becoming a parent and am faced with the reality can I truly get any idea about how I would raise children. This argument is not about that so can you stop producing irrelevant posts about something which is not pertinent and concentrate on what is.

I will pick you up on this LDD. How else can I or anyone else change minds about something I believe in unless I tell people what I believe? If we do not do that nothing changes. It really is hard lines if some people get upset about what I or anyone else says, but it is what debate is about. So cease this constant barrage of distraction and irrelevance and face up to the reality of the world.

One final thing. Although not as such an issue of how to raise a child to be a good citizen, once upon a time foot binding was an everyday issue in China for millions of girls, female genital mutilation remains so for millions in (and outside) of Africa, and the circumcision of infant boys for millions around the globe, in particular the United States.These issues were or are everyday life and of immense importance to hundreds of millions.

tell people what you believe by all means, but respect their right to disagree..... cos thats the same thing you would like people to do with you....

circumcision is a aspect of raising children, its one of many choices a parent faces, breast feed or not, circumcise or not, natural meds or artificial meds, medical surgery or not....... and thats stuff that parents deal with right from the moment the child is born and some times before they are born....
so its got nothing to do with raising children to be good citizens, but the right of the parent to raise their children as best they can, the way they see fit, without people constantly sitting in judgement of them for not being perfect parents

I have been talking about differing aspects and issues arising around children and the rights of children and how they would apply in one respect, and be ignored in the next respect..... and watching the way that people get edgy and worked up about that..... and how its irrelevant, when in fact its aspects of childrens rights and surgeries, and the thread is about banning circumcision which is a surgery on children and the rights of choice for children.... so,... who has the open mind and who is blind to any other options and opinions

[tenni]

I think that if this bylaw passes and stands up to court challenges that it will alter matters significantly.

It is not about merely having an opinion and respecting other people's opinions. This is more along the lines about abortion and who has the right to determine what happens to a person's body imo. The argument on that issue is also controversial and illustrates the confusion on rights.

If there is no immediate danger to the health/survival of the child, the parent may not have the legal right to alter/mutilate the child's body. Despite some North Americans' getting upset, circumcision meets the definition of mutilation of a body. What has not happened in North America is a realistic understanding about a social custom versus newer information on how this mutilation impacts an infant's future.

I think that I have previously posted how this has played out in my country so far. Even when the child's health/survival is at immediate risk, the courts are asked to intervene when a parent refuses medical treatment or insist on prolonging life when the medical authorities differ from the parents. I don't think that the Supreme Court of my country and maybe your country have made a final decision on this question over who has the right to decide. I think that they have made individual decisions on when a parent refuses medical help to save the child though but only on a case by case situation. The courts were dealing with the decisions when medical authorities wanted not to prolong the life with a procedure deemed questionable but parents wanted it but didn't make a decision yet. The child was terminal in the medical authorities view. (not sure as it was a tricky court challenge) Canada has made a decision on abortion and there are no laws on abortion. It is seen as a decision to be made between the "individual" and the medical authorities. If medical authorities state that circumcision on infants is not appropriate, I wonder why Canada has circumcision happening then? Strange? Maybe the medical boards have not stated it in a way that seems strong enough. I wonder if this circumcision was taken to court what would happen? Parental rights are not able to over ride all decisions about a child's survival or body.

I think that rather than discuss opinions on the merits of circumcision, it may be more effective to discuss how your society interprets the rights of the individual to make decisions about their body.

[jamieknyc]

if this law is passed, there isn't a chance in the world that it will stand up in court.

[tenni]

Why do you write that Jamie? What decisions have your courts made on the rights as to who makes decisions about a child parents versus the medical authorities?

QUOTE=jamieknyc;201378]if this law is passed, there isn't a chance in the world that it will stand up in court.[/QUOTE]

[DuckiesDarling]

if this law is passed, there isn't a chance in the world that it will stand up in court.

Bingo. Jamie, as a lawyer, I am sure you are more qualified than anyone on this forum to explain how US law works and all the other ramifications that people seem to disregard while pushing for what THEY think is right.

[sammie19]

Bingo. Jamie, as a lawyer, I am sure you are more qualified than anyone on this forum to explain how US law works and all the other ramifications that people seem to disregard while pushing for what THEY think is right.

Jamie is of course a supreme court judge and knows these things doesn't he? Wont both sides have lawyers if it goes to the supreme court? Both cant be right. He at best has a line, but not quite the house.

[Darkside2009]

Jamie,

It will also raise the public profile of the issue, and have the effect of making people think about it, and talk about it. I'm sure quite a number of those will go away and do the research on the subject themselves, and thus be better informed on the issue, when they come to make a decision.

That, in itself can only be a good thing, lay aside the bruised egos, being better educated never hurt anyone.

I don't suppose the opposition to slavery was an easy ride either, or votes for women, or Gay rights, but if those early activists hadn't put in the effort the law would not have changed.

As Mao said, 'the longest journey will always begin with the first step'.

We owe it to the future generations of children to try.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Why do you write that Jamie? What decisions have your courts made on the rights as to who makes decisions about a child parents versus the medical authorities?

QUOTE=jamieknyc;201378]if this law is passed, there isn't a chance in the world that it will stand up in court.[/QUOTE]

Several. Parental rights have been upheld even unto the death of the child (no transfusions or r blood given to Jehovas Witnesses). There is no litmus test as to the le el of devoutness that can be given to aualify, either.

As for awareness, the only place this is even talked about with any frequency is gay websites and marginally within the gay community itself. It is to the gay community what abortion is to a small section of the religious right.

Pasa

[drugstore cowboy]

if this law is passed, there isn't a chance in the world that it will stand up in court.

This is also coming from someone who is pro-mutilation, anti-Moslem as seen in other threads, loves to play the ultimate victim card, and who maliciously considers male genital mutilation the same piercing one's ear lobes. :rolleyes:

Female Genital Mutilation of infants is illegal in the United States, eventually male genital mutilation of infants will be as well.

Sorry Pasa, male genital mutilation is talked about among Heterosexual men, among parents, among people of all genders/orientations, among Jewish and Moslem people against such mutilations in their religions, and not just among gay men or on "gay" websites even if you want to claim that it only is.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Nope. Out of all the political forums I participate in, only the gay ones ever mention it. I'm active politically both locally and with state politics. Ive never heard this issue even breathed about. Im on forums for other non sexual past times that have huge off-topic real world discussions. Never once has this topic come up.

I reside in both the hetero and the gay communities. This issue isnt terribly important or thought about outside the gay commmunity. And even then only a small minority even care enough to get worked up about it. Certainly wasnt a topic of conversation at the NLA conference or at LUEY this year.

Pasa

[drugstore cowboy]

Nope. Out of all the political forums I participate in, only the gay ones ever mention it. I'm active politically both locally and with state politics. Ive never heard this issue even breathed about. Im on forums for other non sexual past times that have huge off-topic real world discussions. Never once has this topic come up.

I reside in both the hetero and the gay communities. This issue isnt terribly important or thought about outside the gay commmunity. And even then only a small minority even care enough to get worked up about it. Certainly wasnt a topic of conversation at the NLA conference or at LUEY this year.

Pasa

Leather has become such a joke in the past 4 decades, and it's all about money and consumerism.

It has been like this since the late 70s and early 80s when the contests started, and leather became a total joke like it all still is today.

There are people who are in the gay and Hetero "communities" who are against circumcision and even people who are into leather who are even if you want to deny it. Stop living in such a bubble.

[jamieknyc]

Jamie is of course a supreme court judge and knows these things doesn't he? Wont both sides have lawyers if it goes to the supreme court? Both cant be right. He at best has a line, but not quite the house.

Anyone who has taken second-year Constitutional law in law school could write the opinion on that. It is a no-brainer that the law will be stricken down on First Amendment grounds.

[Katja]

Jamie may be right but I really think we should allow your supreme coourt to make that decision.

One thing we know is that in this country there have been the extremely rare cases of small Christian sects such as the Jehovah Winesses who are opposed to surgery or blood transfusions where a court has decided that the interests and well being of a child takes precedence over the religious conviction of the parents and such treatment has been ordered by the court. As far as I know such cases only enter the legal arena where a child's life in endangered.

To the credit of the Jehovahs Witnesses however no stigma is attached to child or parents for this apparent contravention of their beliefs in such circumstances.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Uh..sorry but that is just a poorly answered reason. It is inappropriate for you to think that we have taken a USA second year constitutional course. You are writing to an international audience.

Does the USA first amendment Constitutional right (freedom of religion?) permit female circumcision? Haven't reasons for female circumcision also been connected to a religious freedom (forms of Islam and some other religions)?

Pasa has given a more detailed explanation as to why parental rights might over ride the child's rights to control what happens to his own body. However, his reason has not held up in my country in every case and especially if the child's life was medically determined to be threatened.

Well, in our nation it has.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Leather has become such a joke in the past 4 decades, and it's all about money and consumerism.

It has been like this since the late 70s and early 80s when the contests started, and leather became a total joke like it all still is today.

There are people who are in the gay and Hetero "communities" who are against circumcision and even people who are into leather who are even if you want to deny it. Stop living in such a bubble.

Leather's status in your eyes isnt really relevant to theconversation at hand. And, as I was pointing out, I dont live in a bubble. I' m working and living and playing in a wide variety of communities.

Are you capable of debating without attacking others?

Pasa