Originally Posted by
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for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does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.
