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

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?

Being British I'm uncut as are most guys and boys in England, it's just not something that is done.
It is strange being in the US and telling partners that I am uncut, usually they want to see or touch it.
Personally I love the way my own penis looks and if I could find a guy with a cock like mine I'd be all over him with a drooling mouth.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nakedheathen

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?

---

Do more research on HIV/STDs and circumcision or read the posts about it here that are not fradulent junk science promoted by the WHO which have been picked apart and dismembered by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to HIV/STDs, studies and research, and raw data.

You'll see how there's no link between circumcision or male genital mutilation and decreasing HIV and STD rates, and in fact that in many cases circumcision increases the risk of HIV infection and transmission and the infection and transmission of STDs.

Condoms and having safer sex work better than any sort of circumcision or genital mutilation does.

You can claim that "I'm cut and it works fine!" much like women and girls from Africa and the Middle East who have been cut but don't know the difference can claim this about their genitals.

Male circumcision decreases sensitivity and pleasure in the penis, and for women and men who've never been with an intact man with a foreskin they don't know the difference.

Yes male genital mutilation has been restricted in some Scandinavian countries and other European countries as these countries are in the modern age of 2011 and are against the mutilation of a child or baby boy or girl's genitals without their consent.

There are many doctors, surgeons, and nurses in these countries who will refuse to do a circumcision on any baby or child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nakedheathen

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?

---

as of 2007, no its not illegal anywhere in the world, and that may have changed... but I can not find any countries where it is...... only countries where it is restricted.....
its female circumcision ( non medical ) that is illegal in a number of countries.....
( updated ) can not find any countries in the world, where circumcision is illegal, only restricted as of january 2011... so would love to see what countries bidived is talking about....

yes there are people that will not circumcise a child, but that is personal choice.... a bit like the chemists that refuse to fill birth control prescriptions cos of their religious beliefs ( there is one in the town I live in,... and its been stated that its legal for them to refuse to fill prescriptions, but not legal for them to preach personal beliefs in a professional role )

one of the reasons why african countries are used for circumcision studies and STI studies, is the catholic movement is strong over there and opposes the use of birth control ( ironic that they oppose it in places with children dying and starving to death in their 1000's ) and due to the different culture and way of life, and high aids / hiv infection rate, it is one of the perfect places for studying the effects of circumcision / aids, hiv, std

be careful of the studies and reports tho....a few years ago, there was a set of studies that turned out to be totally false, the * guy * that wrote them, was actually a female, using info from other studies and altered to reflect findings that were truely false...... what makes me laugh, is that the pro and anti circumcision groups still use them as proof of their claims, without checking the validity of the studies.....and they are posting and proclaiming the findings of a female that worked in a pizza parlour and never finished high school... yet 3 of the actual experts listed on it, stated they were true findings, even after the truth came out.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

its not really about respecting freedom of choice is it... its about control of others.....

---

LDD, what is more controlling than having an amost helpless infant child who is unable to answer for himself strapped down on a tray and a scalpel taken to his healthy little cock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

LDD, what is more controlling than having an amost helpless infant child who is unable to answer for himself strapped down on a tray and a scalpel taken to his healthy little cock?

---

a circumcision is one operation.... not multiple ops,... but as I got told in this thread, multiple ops are different cos they are done out of love.....

speaking from the experience of a child that was old enuf to understand on going pain and suffering, mentally and emotionally, and hearing their parents constantly say its cos they loved me that I was going thru operation after operation and begging them to stop cos it hurt so much.....

you want to talk about the rights of a child... then apply the fucking rights to all children, not just the ones that suit your purpose.....

you wanna really know about pain, go spend a week in a childrens ward and see what they go thru.... and the way people stay around and say the children are so courageous and strong...... and ignore the fact the children have no fucking choice......

sure reason it out that you are saving the childrens lives by your actions so its a good thing.... but tell me something... who feels the pain, you or them.....

don't tell me about childrens rights when its about your own agenda.....and you are ignoring 99% of the hell children go thru cos you can not say its wrong to do it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

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!

---

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

*Taylor*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

It is very hypocritical that lots of women such as LittleRay and Taylor Made are all for male genital mutilation yet decry what's done to women and girls as female circumcision and falsely claim that you simply can't compare female circumcision with what's done to infant boys at all. :rolleyes:

Or maybe Taylor and these other women are OK with the removal of the clitoral hood of the vagina? Lots of women get their clits pierced and put holes into their clitoral hood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

It is very hypocritical that lots of women such as LittleRay and Taylor Made are all for male genital mutilation yet decry what's done to women and girls as female circumcision and falsely claim that you simply can't compare female circumcision with what's done to infant boys at all. :rolleyes:

Or maybe Taylor and these other women are OK with the removal of the clitoral hood of the vagina? Lots of women get their clits pierced and put holes into their clitoral hood.

---

FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ.. I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose. Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am.

And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is. Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be. IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.

So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

It is very hypocritical that lots of women such as LittleRay and Taylor Made are all for male genital mutilation yet decry what's done to women and girls as female circumcision and falsely claim that you simply can't compare female circumcision with what's done to infant boys at all. :rolleyes:

Or maybe Taylor and these other women are OK with the removal of the clitoral hood of the vagina? Lots of women get their clits pierced and put holes into their clitoral hood.

---

She wasn't pro or anti, she was ... RATIONAL. That is why I quoted her. She didn't exaggerate or fling accusations like a damn ninny, which seems to be what happens to a lot of Anti-Circumcision activists on this board. Not all, but a lot.

You guys are a gross out picture away from being like the Operation Rescue people.

Stay out of how people raise their children. If you don't circumsize your children, good for you. Don't tell me what to do with mine.

*Taylor*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

a circumcision is one operation.... not multiple ops,... but as I got told in this thread, multiple ops are different cos they are done out of love.....

speaking from the experience of a child that was old enuf to understand on going pain and suffering, mentally and emotionally, and hearing their parents constantly say its cos they loved me that I was going thru operation after operation and begging them to stop cos it hurt so much.....

you want to talk about the rights of a child... then apply the fucking rights to all children, not just the ones that suit your purpose.....

you wanna really know about pain, go spend a week in a childrens ward and see what they go thru.... and the way people stay around and say the children are so courageous and strong...... and ignore the fact the children have no fucking choice......

sure reason it out that you are saving the childrens lives by your actions so its a good thing.... but tell me something... who feels the pain, you or them.....

don't tell me about childrens rights when its about your own agenda.....and you are ignoring 99% of the hell children go thru cos you can not say its wrong to do it.....

---

Are you droning on about children who need medical and surgical treatment again? No I cant say it is wrong to operate and help make them better and even save their life when its necessary.

I can say its wrong to operate on a child for no medical reason and occasionally, very rarely I accept, be the cause of the end of that life. Emotive? Yep. I agree. But not over emotional, just how it is.

It is because I can't ignore the children who have no choice because of illness and go through hell, and my inability to prevent that hell, that I feel as I do. To try and make people see that when we can prevent a child going through hell we do. That is why I believe as I do, and its no use getting narked at me for it. Don't worry, I forgive you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

I found what you quoted at mothersagainstcirc.org

If you want to actually read or find my sources you easily can. At least I'm not posting junk science like you are.

---

LOL! Right. Dude, you get less creditable with every post you make. Keep going!!! :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikey3000

LOL! Right. Dude, you get less creditable with every post you make. Keep going!!! :tongue:

---

I don't care if you don't like my posts or sources.

This just shows that they're going against what you want to hear and foolishly believe that circumcision is something that's not genital mutilation at all and that somehow magically protects men and women from HIV and STD infection and transmission better than practicing safer sex correctly or condom use does. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaylorMade

She wasn't pro or anti, she was ... RATIONAL. That is why I quoted her. She didn't exaggerate or fling accusations like a damn ninny, which seems to be what happens to a lot of Anti-Circumcision activists on this board. Not all, but a lot.

You guys are a gross out picture away from being like the Operation Rescue people.

Stay out of how people raise their children. If you don't circumsize your children, good for you. Don't tell me what to do with mine.

*Taylor*

---

So based on your logic parents who are for female circumcision in its many forms as it is not just removing the clit, and immigrants and residents from countries where female circumcision is practiced should somehow be allowed to do this because it's their private right as parents.

Everyone that's anti-genital mutilation when it comes to male genital mutilation performed on non-consenting infant boys should all just STFU since you want to live in denial and pretend that male circumcision performed on infant boys without their consent isn't genital mutilation at all. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

Are you droning on about children who need medical and surgical treatment again? No I cant say it is wrong to operate and help make them better and even save their life when its necessary.

I can say its wrong to operate on a child for no medical reason and occasionally, very rarely I accept, be the cause of the end of that life. Emotive? Yep. I agree. But not over emotional, just how it is.

It is because I can't ignore the children who have no choice because of illness and go through hell, and my inability to prevent that hell, that I feel as I do. To try and make people see that when we can prevent a child going through hell we do. That is why I believe as I do, and its no use getting narked at me for it. Don't worry, I forgive you. :)

---

sammie, you are the only anti circumcision person in this thread that has not ignored it, side stepped it or called it irrelevent....... and I appreciate you sharing your own opinion on what you think about medical surgeries... as circumcision can be a aspect of them......

when a person can say, they are against circumcision, but talk from another angle, using their own words, instead of posting numerous sites, articles and vids, ... then I can respect their stance a lot better, cos it means that they could debate in the street face to face and hear the other person expressing their stance too..... rather than have to abuse people cos they have no sites, vids or articles to copy and paste.....

so thank you for your reply, I appreciate it and the fact you replied in your own words without side stepping, ignoring or calling my post irrelevant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ.. I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose. Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am.

And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is. Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be. IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.

So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.

---

It is men who are circumcised in this country, not women. Male circumcision deprives men of the most sensitive areas of their penis and full pleasure during sex. There is nothing a man can do to fully restore sexual function. That's oppressive, wouldn't you agree?

Yes you can compare both male and female circumcision.

Claiming that you somehow can't compare the two just shows how little you know about either male or female genital mutilation.

"…(B)oth male and female circumcisions raise the same human rights questions. Our mutual fight is against ignorance. People like us, those who have the pain, are the best fighters, because we know the pain of circumcision. What happened to you, you can’t change it, but you can help to stop it from happening to other children."
--Shamis Dirir, Coordinator, London Black Women’s Health Action Project, interviewed in NOHARMM Health & Human Rights Advocate/July, 1997 (read the full article)

People who accept male circumcision as the cultural norm and who are unfamiliar with this debate are sometimes initially surprised when male circumcision is compared to female genital modification (FGM). Can male circumcision be compared to female genital modification? Yes, most definitely male circumcision can and should be compared to female genital modification.

Promoters of male circumcision like to say that there is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM. They point out the differences between male circumcision and the most severe form of FGM, infibulation. They are reluctant to admit that male circumcision is not the only form of male genital modification (MGM) and infibulation is not the only form of FGM.

There are different types of MGM ranging from minor to severe; they include genital piercing, circumcision, subincision, and castration. There are also different types of FGM ranging from minor to severe; they include genital piercing, sunna circumcision, excision, and infibulation.

The different forms of MGM have an analogous form of FGM in terms of damage done to the person whose genitals are being modified. Piercing a boy's penis is analogous to piercing a girl's clitoris or labia. Surgically removing the prepuce of a boy's penis is analogous to surgically removing the prepuce of a girl's clitoris (sunna circumcision). Cutting open the urethra of a boy's penis (subincision) is analogous to cutting off all or part of a girl's clitoris and/or labia minora (excision). And castration is somewhat analogous to infibulation, the most damaging form of FGM, which removes the clitoris and labia and then sews the sides of the vulva together leaving only a small opening.

MGM vs. FGM Male
Genital Modification Female Genital Modification
piercing the penis piercing the clitoris or labia
male circumcision sunna circumcision
subincision excision

All forms of genital modification, including genital piercing, are a violation of a child's right to their own bodily integrity. No national medical organization anywhere on the planet now recommends any form of genital modification for children, not even male circumcision. There is no medical indication for any surgical modification of a child's genitals unless there is a medical condition present that has not responded to less invasive treatments.

Should parents be allowed to pierce their son's penis or their daughter's labia? If it is unethical for a parent to pierce their child's genitals, why is it ethical for a parent to ask a doctor surgically remove a normal, healthy, functional part of their son's penis?

People who say that MGM and FGM can't compare often point to the different conditions that they're usually performed under, with MGM being performed by doctors in a hospital setting while FGM is performed in unsanitary conditions by an unqualified person with no medical training which results in a high complication rate. It may be true that most forms of FGM practiced in the Middle East are done this way, but what neglect to mention is that on these same countries boys are also circumcised in these same conditions, and with similar results yet they don't get nearly as much attention by human rights activists as the girls. Here are some news stories describing how circumcision is performed in these countries and what kind of complications result from it:

Circumcision That Didn't Heal Kills Boy
The Boy's Circumcision Wasn't Healing Properly

CLEVELAND, Posted 6:46 a.m. October 20, 1998 -- A 3-week-old boy died while doctors were trying to fix a problem with his circumcision.

A pediatrician noticed the circumcision performed on Dustin Evans two weeks ago wasn't healing properly and the urethra was blocked.

A routine surgical procedure was needed to correct the problem and clear the hole. While being administered anesthesia on Friday, the boy's heart stopped, said his father, Dustin Evans Sr., 27.

Doctors at Rainbow Babies Childrens Hospital attempted to save the baby by massaging his heart and inserting breathing tubes. He was kept on a life-support ventilator system during the day until it was determined that his heart was healthy, but he had suffered massive brain damage.

Dustin was disconnected from life support about 7:30 p.m. Friday.

."You think," Evans said, "'What could go wrong with a circumcision?' The next thing I know he's dead. The doctors didn't tell us nothing. All they said was that they were sorry. So I guess my 3-week-old son died from nothing."

Here's something you should read if you claim to know anything about male or female circumcision:
www. boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm

Here are the ways you can compare female and male circumcision and show how they both are mutilation and are the same thing but done to different genders.

Both involve cutting or mutilation of the genitals of babies and children who do not consent to it, both are done at the insistence of the parents because of silly religions and their dogma or cultural/societal factors and conformity such as: "OH NOES! MY CHILDREN WILL BE SEEN AS FREAKS IN THE LOCKER ROOM!!!!1", they're both supposedly beneficial both asthetically and with health benefits in countries where male and female circumcision is done, the effects of male and female circumcision are minimized by the supporters, many men and women who have been circumcised or had their genitals mutilated go on to have it done to THEIR OWN CHILDREN, both are extremely painful, both can cause very severe damage and death, and both are done in hospitals.

Ultimately, the message is clear: genital mutilation is gendered. These male and female genital operations are not merely seen to differ in degree, they are seen to differ in kind. Thus, despite the heterogeneous voices speaking out against female circumcision, a common thread unites many: all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign.- Anthropologist Kristen Bell Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 125–148

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

It is men who are circumcised in this country, not women. Male circumcision deprives men of the most sensitive areas of their penis and full pleasure during sex. There is nothing a man can do to fully restore sexual function. That's oppressive, wouldn't you agree?

Continues on.. Blah blah Yadda Yadda. Redacted for lack of personal opinion authenticity and continual hyperbole......

---

Men's Full pleasure.. Hmmmmm. I have yet to fuck a man cut or uncut and one say " awww it would of been better if I had a foreskin" Or "Damn Ain't nuthin like fuckin with my foreskin!".. Pretty much get the same response from both.. "Damn baby your pussy is so good" or some other words of satisfaction. I find it kind of sad, that to further your aguement, which it is for you, as much as it is a game, That for one.. You pretty much spend half your time pretty much insulting men who have had circs whether as an infant or chosen as an adult as one member has come out and spoken for himself how much better he enjoys it. But they are "mutilated" and therefor less of a penis to you. On to number 2. Posting a rare infant death, which even with the information contained within, doesn't attribute the infants death to the circ itself. So medically its irrelevant. I do not know if that infant was born with an inadequate urethra. Which does happen, Just like babies are born with too tight of sphincter in their anus and their body can not pass necessary gas or waste and they become incredibly ill. So he could have been born with the medical issue and his body became toxic due to not being able to properly void itself. The correction of the circ could have been a subsequent issue that was being dealt with simultaneously and not actually what put him into surgery. So You went for shock value and bolstering. Babies die for many reasons. Its a sad fact but it happens.


So you can disagree with me all you like, but to argue with me. You will lose. It takes two and let me just put it kindly.. You're not my "type"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

Men's Full pleasure.. Hmmmmm.

Continues on.. Blah blah Yadda Yadda. Redacted for lack of personal opinion authenticity and continual hyperbole......

---

Sorry but you're wrong. Who cares about who "wins" or "Looses" with attitudes like "circumcision of infant boys isn't genital mutilation at all and simply can't be compared to female circumcision at all!"

There have been cases where infant boys died from the shock that they went into during a circumcision.

Circumcision can cause death indirectly in a variety of ways, such that if the baby had not been circumcised, he would not have died. Below are cases of death caused by:

* Loss of blood
* Anaesthetic
* Infection (septicaemia)
* Painkiller
* Urethra blocked by a circumcision ring

No it is not "rare" for an infant boy to die from being circumcised.

Infant circumcision causes 117 deaths each year in US

April 26th, 2010

A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

The study concluded: “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” And called the deaths “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

what your repeated objections to the word "mutilation" ignore is the botched circumcisions which result in mutilation. For example, when part or all of the glans is removed "accidentally" during routine circumcision, that's mutilation, and removal of the foreskin itself on infants is a mutilation because the infant boy cannot consent at all.

Since I was a horny young man living in San Francisco in the late 1970s, I had the opportunity (and took it) to play with a lot of men. So I know from personal experience that there are plenty of botched infant circumcisions, with various degrees of botchedness. And some of them definitely DO rise to the level of mutilation, even if you don't agree that cutting off pleasurable, sensitive skin is mutilation. It's safe to argue that I know what I'm talking about.

Another point to remember is that an erect penis will often show problems that are not apparent when it's flacid. Most doctors see flacid, not erect penises. They don't see the skin that's so tight that it pulls the head of the penis almost flat, or damage to the glans that is not evident until it tries to expand when aroused, or places where the cut skin didn't grow together properly, and has pockets where bacteria can cause serious problems. So medical opinions that are based on visible damage to flaccid penises are inadequate - it's erect penises that show the damage most clearly.

It's men with backgrounds like mine who have seen the unfortunate, sometimes mutilated, results of botched circumcisions.

I'm sure that Katja or Sammie will write about a woman's perspective of how sex between a man that's cut and one that's intact with a foreskin is completely different and that men who are intact with a foreskin get way more sexual pleasure and give women more sexual pleasure than men who are cut or mutilated can imagine or perceive since they've never had a foreskin with its sensitive nerve endings that was taken away from them moments after they were born without their consent at all. That my dear is mutilation even if you want to wish and claim that it is not.

The overwhelming majority of males on this planet are intact or uncircumcised without and are living perfectly fine without HIV/STDs, penile cancer, or the other dire problems that circumcision proponents declare happen to all or most men who have foreskins that simply don't happen at all to men who are cut. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

So based on your logic parents who are for female circumcision in its many forms as it is not just removing the clit, and immigrants and residents from countries where female circumcision is practiced should somehow be allowed to do this because it's their private right as parents.

Everyone that's anti-genital mutilation when it comes to male genital mutilation performed on non-consenting infant boys should all just STFU since you want to live in denial and pretend that male circumcision performed on infant boys without their consent isn't genital mutilation at all. :rolleyes:

---

Nope. That is not what I am saying. If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said.

Once again, you're playing reductio ad absurdum. From what I can tell in this thread, there is no definitive proof executed by non biased sources that male circumcision is equivalent to clitoral removal. But you had to go there in order to make your argument, which turns me off even FURTHER to what rational arguments could be made.

I've had sex with both cut and uncut men. There really isn't much of a difference once it's at full mast. The uncut man was great, but it wasn't his cock that made it great. It was his instruction and patience, it was his kissing, his oral skill and primal energy that knocked my socks off. Plus, he was Russian. Those guys are amazing in bed.

I'm pretty much done here. Some of you guys are basically the Jerry Fallwells of this site when this issue comes up.

*Taylor*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaylorMade

I'm pretty much done here. Some of you guys are basically the Jerry Fallwells of this site when this issue comes up.

---

Oh, but I've had it on good authority (and only two pages ago) that this debate is coming to its end on this thread! Why leave just before the show ends anyway?

D'oh, yeah, you're one of those reasonable people I like, aren't you? :tong:

From my perspective, it doesn't matter a damn bit what women think about a circumcised or natural penis. This is not about women and their bodies nor does it have to do with any mutilation of female bodies other than to show the hypocrisy of a double standard due to cultural differences. It is a man's body that is mutilated in infancy by his parent or not mutilated. Using such words as "mutilate" and the furthering of information about the sensual nerve fibers in the foreskin will eventually (hopefully) stop this act on males who are not given the right to decide about their own body. Whether parents were not sufficiently educated when they mutilated their sons in the past, has little to do with the present and future. I believe that my parents did not intend to mutilate me when they circumcised me as a two day old boy. They followed cultural customs under the incorrect believe that this was best for males. I doubt very much that they were told that this would reduce my sexual pleasures as an adult. It was a time when such things would not have been discussed by the medical community. That was then. Maybe, this bylaw will lead to stopping this act on males without their permission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

The overwhelming majority of males on this planet are intact or uncircumcised without and are living perfectly fine without HIV/STDs, penile cancer, or the other dire problems that circumcision proponents declare happen to all or most men who have foreskins that simply don't happen at all to men who are cut. :rolleyes:

---

what i can find is that rates of HIV / aids and STI transmission is higher where condoms are not used...... and that there is no difference between cut and uncut males when it comes to using condoms.....

I would love to see your study / stats.... and I mean valid study / stats that show that uncut males are mostly disease free with or without the use of condoms, cos it would be a study that I would find most interesting.....

I tried the NZ sexual health sites and none of them have any studies that support your statement as they too, talk about the usage of condoms, not the state of the penis....

I wonder if that has a lot to do with the fact that females can carry and transmit STIs etc... and they do not have penises but can also use condoms....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenni

From my perspective, it doesn't matter a damn bit what women think about a circumcised or natural penis. This is not about women and their bodies nor does it have to do with any mutilation of female bodies other than to show the hypocrisy of a double standard due to cultural differences. It is a man's body that is mutilated in infancy by his parent or not mutilated. Using such words as "mutilate" and the furthering of information about the sensual nerve fibers in the foreskin will eventually (hopefully) stop this act on males who are not given the right to decide about their own body. Whether parents were not sufficiently educated when they mutilated their sons in the past, has little to do with the present and future. I believe that my parents did not intend to mutilate me when they circumcised me as a two day old boy. They followed cultural customs under the incorrect believe that this was best for males. I doubt very much that they were told that this would reduce my sexual pleasures as an adult. It was a time when such things would not have been discussed by the medical community. That was then. Maybe, this bylaw will lead to stopping this act on males without their permission.

---

.

the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children

[QUOTE=Annika L;201602]Oh, but I've had it on good authority (and only two pages ago) that this debate is coming to its end on this thread! Why leave just before the show ends anyway?

QUOTE]

I do not think I was much wrong either reading the subsequent posts to my statement. Unpredictable thing debate when it is uncontrolled. I am prepared to argue the matter ad infinitum just as so many others seem to be.

What matters is not what we say in these pages but what occurs in the wider world. That is where the battle is being won and lost. This isn't even a skirmish, just a little local bit of bother.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamieknyc

I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.

---

I was going to apologise for my previous outburst. I dont think I shall bother now. Play it if you wish, I've bitten, didn't like the taste much and spat it out. Now if you don't mind can we concentrate on the argument?

"the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children."

OK....if that is what you understood from my post, then let me correct this. It doesn't matter what women think about the form of penis because it is not their body as I stated. They should not have the right to mutilate a male infant unless there is a medical penial emergency. It matters if a parent (mother or father) thinks that they should circumcise their male infant or wait for the man to decide about his own body and circumcision at a later date. There is a need to alter perspectives in North America on this matter. The solo mothers or solo fathers should not have this non medical right. It is not their body. As I stated, I do not believe that my parents or any parent intended male infants harm and I suspect that they were not informed properly about the nerve endings in the foreskin being of anything but not relevant. That is how I suspect that the matter was treated. It is time to stop such incorrect information continuing this custom. It is not however the end of my world that I am circumised and I'm happy with my pecker. I don't miss what I can not remember but I see it as time to stop this custom. The number of men who have commented and gone from natural to cut as an adult is sadly lacking on this thread. Those are the guys to listen to but let your baby boys decide as an adult.

The opinion of a woman doesn't matter as far as to which form of penis gives them pleasure from intercourse. Several women have spent time posting and thinking to state that the form of penis didn't affect them during intercourse. That point is not relevant as far as parents circumcising infant boys.

"The statement about the ignorance of many people on this thread with regard to parents and circumcision seems "selective interpretation" and inflamatory rather than rational and calm in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenni

[I]

OK....if that is what you understood from my post, then let me correct this. It doesn't matter what women think about the penis because it is not their body as I stated. They should not have the right to mutilate a male infant unless there is a medical emergency. It matters if a parent (mother or father) thinks that they should circumcise their male infant or wait for the man to decide about his own body and circumcision at a later date. There is a need to alter perspectives in North America on this matter. The solo mothers or solo fathers should not have this non medical right. It is not their body. As I stated, I do not believe that my parents intended me harm and I suspect that they were not informed properly about the nerve endings in the foreskin being of anything but not relevant. That is how I suspect that the matter was treated. It is time to stop such incorrect information continuing this custom.

The opinion of a woman doesn't matter as far as to which form of penis gives them pleasure from intercourse. Several women have spent time posting and thinking to state that the form of penis didn't affect them during intercourse.

"The statement about the ignorance of many people on this thread with regard to parents and circumcision seems "selective interpretation" and inflamatory rather than rational and calm in my opinion.

---

no, I did not get it from your post tenni... its happened a few times in the thread and its some of the anti circumcision advocates that did it.... but it was not you doing it.....

telling a mother of male sons that her opinion didn't matter cos she did not have a penis, then slamming her for having a opinion that the advocates did not agree with...

telling me that supporting the rights of another female to express her opinion was irrelevent as she was not a parent or a mother, yet she is anti circumcision and pro rights of choice....

telling a male that was circumcised as a adult, that his opinion about his circumcision was incorrect, cos studies said different.....

telling females that their opinions do not matter when it comes to sex with cut / uncut males, while posting studies involving females preferences of cut or uncut penises, to support a anti circumcision stance.....

telling a circumcised male father that his study showing the statements of males circumcised as adults was invalid cos it was part of a hiv aids study... and then studies about hiv / aids and circumcision, are posted by anti circumcision advocates......

so tenni, if its selective interpretation and inflammatory, why have other members noticed the same thing going on and posted about how they are seeing the same thing I am...... and the ironic thing is, that telling the ladies that their opinions do not matter, means that sammie and katja, who are both anti circumcision and pro rights for children, are having their opinions rubbished by the same people they are standing with... the people that want a end to circumcision.....

all that aside.... tenni... who better to know about your penis than you.... who better to know if you are happy with the way your penis works than you..... who better to know if you have any issues over your circumcision than you.......
I am circumcised and I am the same way as you.... I am happy with my penis.... and I am getting a lil pissed off with being told that I can not be happy with my penis cos some study by somebody I have never met, is posted as proof that I can not be happy with my penis cos its cut, therefore I am not allowed to be happy with my body cos somebody else has a issue with circumcision......

so, grab a beer ( or perfered drink ) and join the ranks of the males that are not allowed to be happy with their penises.... cos we are cut males... and are not allowed to be happy.... as stated by anti circumcision males in this thread

"all that aside.... tenni... who better to know about your penis than you.... who better to know if you are happy with the way your penis works than you..... who better to know if you have any issues over your circumcision than you.......
I am circumcised and I am the same way as you.... I am happy with my penis.... and I am getting a lil pissed off with being told that I can not be happy with my penis cos some study by somebody I have never met, is posted as proof that I can not be happy with my penis cos its cut, therefore I am not allowed to be happy with my body cos somebody else has a issue with circumcision......

so, grab a beer ( or perfered drink ) and join the ranks of the males that are not allowed to be happy with their penises.... cos we are cut males... and are not allowed to be happy.... as stated by anti circumcision males in this thread"


Well, I agree with most of the quoted section. Those of us who were circumcised as infants can be happy with what we have. This may be particularly true if we have lived our lives unware about the sensual pleasures by having a foreskin. We will never know or be able to compare. I won't be unhappy now that I know either. I won't want to regrow my foreskin since I'm told that won't bring back the nerve endings.

I don't think if any guy has posted this..funny/pecular sorta issue. Many young men tend to orgasm quickly. Over time most guys learn some control or it happens naturally. This early ejaculation can be a problem for some guys and really isn't funny to those guys. Wouldn't it be amusing if being circumcised was easy on ..easy off...lol Young guys could be circumcised to slow down their pre mature ejaculation. Older guys could bring out their "ol foreskin" and reconnect it if the sensations reduce with age...lol This is maybe a fantasy for today but who knows where technology might go if demand..lol. The discussion of the role of foreskin and ejaculation may be an amusing point of this thread.

Selectivity in debate is a time honoured and inevitable consequence of debate. It is done sometimes deliberately and sometimes inadvertantly. Often it is done because in a structured and formal argument no one can cover every angle involved in an issue and time does not allow anyone to have the time to do so.

In an informal argument, some people try to debate as honestly as their knowledge, instincts and beliefs allow but we are human and with the best will in the world not one of us will ever be the perfect debater. We sidetrack and distract, ambush and talk crap, take detours round the houses, are rude and often personal. For many reasons we are also selective. It doesn't make pleasant reading, but it is the best we are able to do in the circumstances we find ourselves.

We can be as rude or polite as we like, and argue about the rights of parents and the roles of law and the medical profession and the medical evidence. We can argue about all the studies we like and their value. But what it all comes down to is this, just actually owns our bodies and has the power of decision over them? :)

honestly sammie, I would love to believe that we do..... but lol disease and illness have a way of showing us that we do not have control and ownership.... its something that only exists when we have a choice.....IE surgery ( most ), diet, exercise etc....

I have the choice of what I can and can not do with my body ( arguing with the hospital over the need for more surgery and losing, I need it, they will not do it )... so I know that running down the road is not a good idea... nor trying to power lift 180 kgs as I did when I was younger ( much to the doctors horror )....

yes I smoke ( much to the doctors horror ) cos it is my body... and I know that giving up smoking is good for me and will help me live longer ( having more surgeries, and being in more pain is a good thing ???? ) but I have people telling me that smoking is wrong and I have to stop ( ahh whose body is it again and whos right is it....... not mine apparently..... according to the anti smokers ) and as such I should have the right to terminate my * lease * on my body and let my soul upgrade to the pent house version of a body...lol ( legally I am not allowed to... its my body but not my choice.... unless.... my friend, MR .45 calibre has a say )

so yeah sammie, its my body, my choice..... I think... let me check with the anti smokers and the hospital and the dietician and the doctor.... cos they seem to disagree :tong::tong::tong:

littlerayofsunshineyour position is so stereotypical 'cookie cutter' of female members of cultures that embrace MGM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ.

---

Yes, you are pro circ. Contrast this with your different opinion about female circumcision. Female circumcision should be a parent's decision if you stand by your moral criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose.

---

Different subject altogether, but related in a way that contradicts your argument.
The core moral argument of abortion is self determination (you didn't know this?!?). A woman's right to the functions of her own body (while pregnant). True. But killing, circumcising, or any other abuse of the baby after it is born is infringing on the baby's rights to its own body (whether MGM or FGM) and in direct contradiction to the moral tenant supporting abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am.

---

**Sigh** diversional, silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is.

---

My, how radical feminist. Female pain and mutilation is far worse than male; I understand your logic. Then your opinion on modern female circumcision performed in hospitals still suffers from your bias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be.

---

Wow, you are way out, here; I don't think you want to play this card; it is very detrimental to your position. In cultures where FGM is practiced, uncircumcised females are looked on as dirty, poor, second rate. Just like in cultures where MGM is practiced, uncircumcised males are looked upon as dirty, poor, second rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.

---

But breasts aren't necessary in most of the free world. There is baby formula available to most of the free world. There is baby formula available to you. If your had your male children circumcised to prevent cancer (an extremely rare cancer, occurring almost exclusively to men of abysmal hygiene; that is now entirely preventable with HPV virus immunizations), then clearly you've already had a double mastectomy because you would never inflict morality that would savagely victimize an innocent child but ignore the same to save your precious flesh. To the point, you view your breasts as disposable as the flesh of your innocent infant males, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine

So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.

---

LittleRayOfSunshine,
No one here, except perhaps you, has gotten into your kids' pants with any harmful intent. I wonder if you can realize this; I suspect not. Neurosis, cognitive dissonance/adaptive preference formation will follow. People have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying.

Of all your argument here I find the "FGM isn't the same as MGM" the most important and alarming.
Yes, FGM and MGM are far more alike than unalike.
Every single MGM is different from the next; just as every single FGM is different than the next. How much the tissue damage, how aggressive the tissue damage... so the "it's different" argument by presenting the worst of what you're opposed to and contrasting it with the 'best' of what you're ignoring... is invalid. I might just as well point to the most unsavory Jewish circumcision where not only is the penis is ripped and cut apart (as in every MGM, Jewish or not), but if there is no bleeding, the priest sucks on the penis to produce blood so there is a blood sacrifice acceptable to God (little known fact of the Hebrew culture); and then contrast that with anesthetized modern female circumcision in a hospital.
but lets go over it again.
MGM and FGM are customs, VERY seldom medically required.
FGM and MGM are painful and cause permanent physical harm to the victim.
MGM and FGM are intended to rob the victim of sexual feeling/sensation without destroying basic reproductive function.
FGM and MGM are performed without consideration of the personal rights of the child to their own body.
In cultures where FGM and MGM is practiced there are great efforts via wives' tales, etc, to medically, pseudo scientifically, or socially justify the custom.
**Sigh**
The very topic of 'how much pain can I inflict upon an innocent child without warping that child'...
**Sigh**
In order to gain true scientific perspective on the effect of sexually traumatizing a newborn infant... we would have to cut off all sorts of other appendages of the human body, reducing their function and feeling (morally justifying it under "well, if they never know it, they will never miss it" ethics/logic)...
...puts us down in the level of Josef Mengele. We would have to perform this study by the tens of thousands minimum, over a lifetime (80-90 years) using double blind medical standards (please note, none of the pro circumcision medical 'studies' were unbiased double blind studies).

Aside question, why aren't there hundreds of funded studies on the benefits of female circumcision (against dirty snatches, disease, cancer) just like there are on male circumcision?
Aside answer, social bias and custom.

This is one topic where the truth is very ugly (especially to those who cling to custom).

I am against customary FGM and MGM on the basis it is a person's right to their entire body unless they chose, as an informed adult to modify their own body (or something is horribly medically wrong and requires extreme action like FGM).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamieknyc

I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katja

I was going to apologise for my previous outburst. I dont think I shall bother now. Play it if you wish, I've bitten, didn't like the taste much and spat it out. Now if you don't mind can we concentrate on the argument?

---

Being critical of the Jewish religion and being critical of religious rites of male genital mutilation is not even close to the same thing as hating an ethnically Jewish person or someone being an actual Neo-Nazi or Anti-Semite who hates Jews as well as Palestinians since they are Semitic people as well.

By the logic these Jewish groups are using, we can't be critical of Christianity, Islam, or any other religions either.

Which is rather hypocritical since these Jewish groups do claim that all people who practice Islam are ubiquitously against Jews or Israel which is not true.

The Jewish Question

I deliberately invoke the previous WWII intention of this phrase as an argument to MGM and FGM. Think about it when the table is turned.

Doubtless, the Jewish community (not in entirety as has been previously pointed out) will oppose the San Francisco measure. Even those procircumcision Jews outside the SF area will oppose it to save their right to harm their babies for the sake of tradition and culture. Once the measure comes up, it spells the end... of MGM... faster, if the measure passes in SF.

On another note, the legal jewish argument fails for at least the following reasons:

1. The torah shows many examples of Jews killing philistines, Sampson is a great example. Israelis can't go on doing it... oh, wait, Palestinians are being killed nearly daily by Israeli forces and this is ignored by the world unless Israelis are killed (and then just to show the death ratio of Jew vs Palestinian)... my bad. Bad example.

Start again

1. Law prevents Jews from sacrificing big and little animals to God. Killing, mutilating, and burning animals has been a Jewish custom (in direct worship of God) for millennia.
2. Laws prohibiting female circumcision sets a legal precedent against male circumcision. A different set of rules for a different gender is not legally viable (no moral basis).
3. The victim (of MGM) cannot give informed adult consent to permanent damage to his penis. In cases such as personal consumption of peyote, the law is inclined heavily to lean toward the worshipper (of strange religious customs) who can chose for him or her self, in worship of God, consumption of peyote - potential drug problems - consumption normally prohibited by federal laws. However, an infant cannot choose for himself (lack of informed self adult consent). MGM is something inflicted on an innocent 3rd party.


Bring up a child to worship God however you will, but harming the child, especially irreversible destruction of an innocent party, is outside the protection of religion.

End legal argument.

Jamie knyc is showing himself to be highly zionist. To not collude with zionism is to be anti semitic, I think that is his point. Judging from his posts (from a previous thread "we all know the REAL reason", and other posts from this thread), we (folks against harming children) were so hateful and against Jews that we invented this thing called 'morality' just so we could criticize many (but not all) Jews for harming babies and thus defeat them (in the arena of their religion). Yeah, that's it. That's my motivation, that's our motivation, certainly. I was so hateful of Jews, I walked the moral path.

Wow, Jamie, I realize I exaggerated your position here slightly, but the scary part is... I didn't exaggerate very much...

When the Anti-Circ crowd is as adamant about the childs right to live as they are about a piece of skin, I would be more inclined to support their view.

As it is, they worship a piece of skin and foresake the child for political expediency.

Molestation
Mutilation

The words fit.
I stand that FGM and MGM are unquestionably both.
I have stated before and will state again that I have not nor will ever date or marry a woman who is a child molester or a proponent of child molestation (very difficult in USA). Although, I have been stupid from time to time in reducing my standards.

Mutilation is the deliberate destruction of healthy tissue.
No argument - standard neonatal male or unindicated preadolescenct female circumcision is mutilation.

Molestation
At what point did the male or female child give their adult consent to this sexual harm/engagement that has no medical basis?

Uh, tying down an innocent male newborn to deliberately, horribly, destroy part of his his healthy penis is not molestation? WTF?!?

Perspective:

If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and sucks upon it's genitals for sexual gratification... it is clearly molestation.
If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and mutilates it's genitals for social conformity... it is still clearly molestation.

What is the difference to the child between an adult that performs non permanent physical harm in pursuit of sexual gratification

and

an adult that knowingly, permanently, with apathy aforethought, harms an innocent child for his/her sole social conformity needs?

What is the difference in terms of harm to the child?

Molestation
includes knowingly, sexually, harming an innocent child.
(for those of you who harmed, did you think the foreskin was part of the elbow... knee... toe...?)
You contracted someone to sexually harm an innocent.
How could you do that?
What lapse was there?
If you're sorry and repentant that's fine! That's more than fine, you're really human! We can make horrible mistakes in this test called 'life'.
else
If you can give back the 12-15 (typical loss) square inches of the most sensitive, most evolutionary advanced flesh, reconnect all the nerves, arteries, veins, basically undo the evil you have done, then offer it to your male child upon maturity. Tell him all he's missed and all he is missing and all he will miss without a complete penis.
But of course, you can only destroy, so the last line is ludicrous.
You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
else
If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.

Here are more cases of how circumcision really is genital mutilation.

$$$ 1,200,000 Recovery
One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollar Recovery

Bronx County N.Y.
Plaintif Nozik #20875/90
11-22-95

3 year old Jewish Russian Immigrant child Operated by a Mohel in the
Urologist's outpatient clinic. Consent was for urologist to perform circ.
Instead, Mohel negligently amputated the head of the of the penis. The
urologist attempted to reattach the penis and transferred the boy to Bellvue
hospital by ambulance. 80% of the head of the penis necrosed and was lost.

one month long trial
$500,000 Outpatient Clinic
$550,000 Urologist
3rd party (not stated in report-possible the Anesthesiologist?) $150,000
Mohel declared bankruptcy

BOY DIES FROM CIRCUMCISION

Gaines said the ordeal began July 18, when she and
his mother, British Gaines took the boy to Doctor's
Hospital-Airline for a circumcision. Brenda Gaines said
they believed the 30-minute procedure went successfully
until a doctor told them the boy's heart had stopped in the
operating room shortly after the operation.

NEW YORK (AP) -- A clinic has agreed to pay $1.2
million to an 8-year-old immigrant boy who was mutilated
during a botched circumcision five years ago, his lawyer
said.

The settlement was reached a month after a civil
trial began in state Supreme Court on allegations the boy,
then 3, lost part of his penis during the operation,
according to his attorney, Mark Pruzan.

The boy and his family, who asked that their names
be withheld, are Russian immigrants who were referred to the
Brook Plaza Surgical Ambulatory Center in Brooklyn by
agencies that help new Jewish immigrants.

The clinic's attorney, Neil Ptashnik, was quoted in
Wednesday's Daily News as saying that the settlement was
``a business decision'' that carried ``specifically no
admission of guilt.''


The clinic, a doctor and the rabbi who performed the
operation were being sued for causing ``permanent shortening
and disfigurement of the penis.''

BOY IN COMA MOST OF HIS 6 YEARS DIES

The Associated Press

Spartanburg, South Carolina

A boy who was in a coma for more than six years while a legal battle raged
around him has died. But the legal fighting will continue.

Allen A. Ervin was born in July 1985 and had been on life support since
December 1985, when his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during
circumcision.

FAMILY GETS $2.75 MILLION IN WRONGFUL SURGERY SUIT

by Vincent Lupo
American Press Staff Writer

The family of a young boy, whose penis had to be
amputated after it was severly burned during a routine
circumcision perfromed at a state-run hospital, was awarded
$2.75 million by a jury in 14th Judicial District Court.

Jurors made the award against the State of Louisiana
Department of Health and Human Resource (DHHR) and the LSU
Board of Supervisors. The family of the boy asked that they
not be named.

According to testimony during the week-long civil trial
before Juge L. E. Hawsey Jr., the boy who was 2 years old at
the time, was to undergo a routine circumcision at W. O.
Moss Regional Hospital on February 2, 1984.

A third-year surgical resident undergoing training
through the LSU medical program supervised the operation in
which an electrosurgical instrument manufactured by Valley
Lab of Boulder, Colo., was used. The device, commonly used
to stop bleeding during surgery, can cut tissue through heat
transmitted by an electric current.

"Facts: 3 July 91: Plaintiff was born at the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in
Oakland, California. Twelve hours following a normal delivery by C-Section,
the Plaintiff underwent an elected circumcision. During the course of the
circumcision, Dr. Tam, a pediatrician, amputated approximately 30% of the
distal glans penis and transected the glandular urethra. A less than
successful attempt was made to reattach that which had been excised.
Subsequent plastic surgery has been attempted and there is resultant
deformity at the tip of the penis.

Here's a link to a gallery of mutilated penises or botched circumcisions.

http://circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched3sc.html

For those of you who reading this thread who have never seen an intact penis with a foreskin here are some pictures of them next to cut penises.

http://circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

Most men in the world are intact with foreskin, and have no issues with being intact with a foreskin despite what pro-circ advocates like to falsely claim happens if you're intact with a foreskin.

There are 23 medically advanced nations. The U.S. is the only nation which routinely circumcises nearly 63% of its newborn males. Our country represents less than 1/20th of the world population, yet it performs more than half of all infant circumcisions worldwide. If the foreskin is so prone to problems, why haven't other advanced nations adopted routine circumcision? One can't help but wonder why the U.S. is the only medically advanced nation that performs routine infant circumcisions without any medical indication.

Routine Infant Circumcision is limited to English speaking countries. The practice was intoduced to the U.S. through England, but they abandoned it nearly 50 years ago, practicing it now at the rate of only 1%. The rate is 3% in New Zealand, 10% in Australia and 20% to 25% in Canada. RIC is not offered in most non-English speaking countries. It never caught on in Europe, Asia, South or Central America. If the majority of men elsewhere in the world were having medical problems because their penises were left intact, wouldn’t these countries begin the practice?

Worldwide Statistics

The population of the United States is 260 Million. The entire world population is 5 Billion, 700 Million. Out of those, 2 Billion, 647 Million are males currently living. 18% of them are circumcised.

Of the world's male population, the breakdown of the circumcised and intact are:

79 million American infant circs
9 million American child or adult circs
13 million Canada, UK, New Zealand & Australia infant circs
27 million rest of world infant circs
44 million child or adult circs other parts of world
315 million Muslim child/adolescent circumcisions

487 million = TOTAL MEN CIRCUMCISED WORLDWIDE (18%)
2 billion 160 million = TOTAL MEN INTACT WORLDWIDE (82%)

2 billion 647 million = Total Men Living Worldwide

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

Out of the Worldwide Total of 487 Million Circumcised Men:

65% occur as Muslim cultural circumcisions
15% occur in other countries
3% occur in other English speaking countries
17% occur in the U.S.

**Above statistics complied by Demographics International

U.S. Statistics

According to the National Center for Health Statistics in Washington, D.C., the latest figures on circumcision for the four basic regions of the U.S. as of 1994 (the latest reported date) are:

Northeast 69.6%
Midwest 80.1%
South 64.7%
West 34.2%

Average for entire U.S. is 62.7%

Here's an excellent article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul M. Vance

Is it ethical to perform
routine infant male circumcisions?
By M. Paul Vance

Ethical Discussion

Circumcision-the most common surgery performed in the U.S.- is a procedure in search of a disease.

But let us suppose that circumcision causes no "harm" to the male: that it does not lead to death between one in twenty-four thousand and one in five hundred thousand cases; that no penises are inadvertently ablated and that no chromosome XY infants are raised chromosome XX; and that circumcision does not remove erogenous tissue and lead to altered sexual practices.

Let us suppose that adequate pain control techniques are developed (and used) so that during the procedure infants do not rupture their stomachs, vomit, and stop breathing due to overwhelming, intractable pain. Let us suppose that a safe post-operative analgesic is also developed so that the infant does not suffer irritation as urine and feces bathe his raw penis.

Let us also suppose that circumcision prevents masturbation; that circumcision prevents penile cancer, and that circumcision prevents cervical cancer; and that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases; and that circumcision cures meningitis; and that circumcision prevents childhood diseases; and that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections; and that circumcision prevents HIV infections.

Let us suppose all these things.

If we suppose all these things-then, is routine infant circumcision ethical? No.

Medical professionals and parents have fearlessly faced the daunting task of deciding whether an extremely invasive and painful procedure fraught with complications will be medically beneficial to the newborn male at some time in his life. But that is not the issue-the issue is whether an infant male has an "inherent right, inalienable right to his own intact body." (192)

There can be no justification for amputating normal tissue from a normal child.

"I think I could accept a deformity that was an accident of nature, but I can't accept that someone did that to me. I have never been able to accept the fact that when I was a baby someone cut part of my penis off." (193)

"We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right. We recognize that the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts. Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia. Physicians and other healthcare providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts. The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure. We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims. In view of the serious physical and psychological consequences that we have witnessed in victims of circumcision, we hereby oppose the performance of a single additional unnecessary foreskin, clitoral, or labial amputation procedure. We oppose any further studies which involve the performance of the circumcision procedure upon unconsenting minors..." (194)

Routine infant circumcision violates principles I, III, IV, and V of the American Medical Association Principles of Medical Ethics:

"A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical service with compassion and respect for human dignity." (195)

Physicians are not ethically obligated to provide the care a patient's parents or physician's superior want the physician to perform. The physician's primary ethical loyalties are to his own conscious and to the welfare of his patient.

Numerous studies, cited above, have conclusively shown that circumcision is an extremely painful operation; equally numerous also previously cited studies have conclusively shown that effective intraoperative pain relief is available; and physicians have been repeatedly advised-with little avail-to anesthetize infants while they are being circumcised (196, 197, 198).

Routine infant circumcision does not save lives or reduce suffering and it is not medically indicated. It simply is not compassionate to perform an extremely painful, medically unnecessary operation even with (and that is not the case here) the patient's consent.

The foreskin has several functions: protection of the glans during infancy and throughout life, to facilitate copulation, and to detect sensual stimuli. Removing non-diseased, functioning tissue from an infant at the parent's request violates the infant and does not respect the infant's "human dignity".

Circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure with definite risks and only potential benefits. Proper penile hygiene accomplishes the same potential benefits-without the pain or loss of function-and is far less intrusive. Circumcising 100,000 infants without anesthesia to prevent one case of penile cancer later in life, or circumcising 195 infants without anesthesia to prevent one case of hospitalizable urinary tract infections is not "competent medical service".

"A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interest of the patient."

The U.S. has realized that routine female circumcision is "genital mutilation"-that it violates the female's privacy and harms the female physically and psychologically for life.

Routine circumcision began in the U.S in the 1870's to prevent children (boys and girls) from masturbating and as a punishment for masturbation, and to prevent/cure a variety of psychological disorders in males and females of all ages. All the original reasons for instituting routine infant circumcision have been disproved; not a single "new reason" for routine male circumcision is accepted outside the U.S. and Canada. Does the U.S. and Canada know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

No.

It is time for the U.S. to realize that routine male circumcision-although currently legal-is unethical. Routine male circumcision mutilates the genitals, violates the male's privacy, and physically and psychologically harms the male for life. Let it be said here-as is true for most of the females who have been mutilated in Africa, the Middle East, and the U.S.-that most U.S. male victims do not realize they are victims.

Physicians break no law or principle by refusing to circumcise infants. By agreeing to circumcise however, physicians serve the interests of everyone except the person he is ethically obligated to serve: the infant. Circumcision removes normal functioning tissue, inflicts great pain, and induces long-lasting behavioral changes. Circumcising physicians are not performing a procedure "in the best interest of the patient".

"A physician shall respect the rights of patients..."

Like it or not, an infant is a person.

All patients, including infants, have the right to privacy and bodily integrity-physicians have the duty to refrain from violating these rights without sufficient justification.

A parent's desire is not sufficient justification for a physician to violate an infant's rights.

"Physicians shall continue to study, apply and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public...."

As covered previously, circumcision is an extremely painful procedure that permanently removes functioning tissue. Complication rates of circumcision exceed benefit rates; extra hospitalization times for circumcision exceed urinary tract infection hospitalization times; deaths to circumcision approximate deaths to penile cancer. Recommending-even tacitly-circumcision as a beneficial procedure is a failure on the part of the physician to "study, apply.... (and) make relevant information available to patients". Physicians have an ethical obligation to "apply...scientific knowledge" by dissuading parents from seeking to circumcise their infant boys and girls

Physicians who circumcise also violate the medico-ethical principles of autonomy and non-malifience.

Autonomy. For individuals without decision-making capacity, it is at times necessary to violate their present autonomy so as to preserve their future autonomy. (For example, treating an unconscious individual).However, circumcision is non-therapeutic: the infant does not need the operation. Thus, by circumcising the infant, the physician violates the patients autonomy by forever negating the patient's right to decide whether or not he will be circumcised.

Non-malifience. As healers, physicians are bound to practice beneficence and non-malifience. Beneficence commands the physicians to attempt to heal, treat, or alleviate suffering in his patient; non-malifience directs the physician to avoid unnecessarily harming his patient. Circumcising physicians refrain from practicing beneficence and do malifience. Prior to circumcision, the infant is not diseased, does not require treatment, and is not suffering. Here then, the physician can indirectly practice beneficence by recommending to the parents not to have their son circumcised. However, if the physician agrees to circumcise the infant, he inflicts extreme pain on an infant: he inflicts a wound that serves no purpose other than being a result of fulfilling-not the infant's-but other peoples wishes. The only term that can describe such an act is malifience.

Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table. W.H. Auden



192. Milos, Marilyn, National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), http://www.nocirc.org/

193. Denniston, G.C. (1989) "First, do no harm." The Truth Seeker (3):37

194. Excerpt, Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision http://www.nocirc.org/declare.html

195. American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Council on the Ethical and Judical Affairs 1996-1997 Edition,

196. 1996 Position Statement: Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys. Australian College of Paediatrics.

197. Lannon, Carol M., (1999). "American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, Circumcision Policy Statement." Pediatrics 103(3).

198. 1996 Position Statement: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal 154(6): 769-780

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebiyou

You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
else
If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.

---

Wasn't and isn't my intention to involve myself in this latest spat over infant circumcision, but wish you hadnt said that, Blue.. as a filthy radical feminist myself really do wish you hadn't said that.. cos u know zactly where I stand on this issue.. am not gonna make a big hoohah bout it, just think u should hang your fucking head in shame for those words.... it makes feminism sound dirty and that feminism has come down on one side of this argument which it has not in the US to the best of my knowledge.. and in Europe mostly feminist views on circumcision reflect me own... yes Blue it always was gonna take a lot 2 make me say ne thing but ya managed it hun.. congratulations on a job badly done.