Hmm, here's another video about female circumcision from the same producer..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1VaR9SpafE
Hmm, here's another video about female circumcision from the same producer..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1VaR9SpafE
Re: Article re: circumcision
There was an obsession with this topic in the bisexual.com forums at the turn of February 2010 that lasted into March 2010, culminating in a member outing a particular several-headed troll, and accusing them of fanning the flames of controversy. I heard of late that this self-same troll, operating under yet a different alias, actually dug up the thread in question in an attempt to revive the smoldering arguments.
The worst of it was that nobody even seemed to realize that their collective chains were being jerked and so people resumed posting opinions to a thread that was sure to collapse shortly (with no doubt a minimum of flame fanning) into another dark age of barbarism.
Just a little historical perspective.
I hope my achievements in life shall be these: that I will have fought for what was right and fair, that I will have risked for that which mattered, that I will have given help to those who were in need...that I will have left the earth a better place for what I've done and who I've been. (C. Hoppe)
Very well said, Annika.
This is one of those issues where I'm not inclined to say outright that anyone is "wrong". People are entitled to their own opinion, life is complicated and who am I to judge what other people believe when I am just as failable? As cut, I tell you that I have no idea what it feels like to be any other way and I trust that my parents made the best decision they knew at the time - life is for living - and the giggly bits are just one part of who I am.
I just always assumed that circumcision had been around "forever" and at least in the US apparently it was/is more modern practice then I knew.
I've always been fascinated by the interaction of society, history and technology so it doesn't surprise me to learn that here is yet another way that Victorian philosophy has influenced our culture. The whole "manifest destiny" doctrine sort of grates on my nerves. Jekyll and Hide is an interesting metaphor..so prim and proper on the outside but still having to deal with the gamut of emotions that all humans possess. I was about to say that is unique, but I'm not so sure - I think Roman life, at least in the higher class was about the same way - dignified and proper in public but hell raising orgies, adultery, back room political deals at night.
I can see this is a traumatic issue for so so I will leave it alone now.
Last edited by elian; Jul 24, 2010 at 8:25 AM. Reason: Read all of the prior posts just now
I'm trying to stay out of this. My only true comment is that I dare anyone on this thread to say these things to a mother, face to face. Its easy to be so hateful and offensive when sitting safely behind your computer.
Tell a woman that she must hate her child...please! Tell her she's a monster...I beg you. Have a camera man there. I want to see a Youtube vid of you getting your ass handed to you.
I doubt you have the stones. Pathetic keyboard cowboys.
Pasa
I agree RissaOriginally Posted by rissababynta
I am so angry about how this thread has been hijacked over the years. And not just by the trolls.
You people need to grow up.
There is nothing wrong with vigorous debate. We all have strong feelings about something. I knew in posting this article two and a half years ago that people would voice different perspectives on the issue. That's absolutely fine.
What I have a problem with is the "holier than thou" attitudes of many of you. Last I checked, none of us were perfect.
There is something seriously wrong when you display such a lack of respect for other human beings, even those with whom you disagree.
My 7 year old kids act better than this.
Peace
Love of one's country is a beautiful thing. But why should love stop at the border?
- Pablo Casals
Geesus. Can't this thread die? Please?
Pasa
Oh boy, again with the cut/uncut. Some people never learn.
For the last time, circumcision is the best. So now excuse me while go to my Jewish controlled health providers and see what other body parts I can lob off. One can never be too careful, ya know.
I agree.
Anyone who does any sort of genital mutilation under the guise of "surgery" to an infant or condones it is clearly a monster and does not love their children or have their sons' best interests at heart at all.
Darling, you do your cause no good whatever by acting an speaking like a silly arse. I suggest that you chill a little, take a breath, put you brain into gear and think, and continue to make arguments on the merits and demerits of the cause you espouse, not on your opinion of the personal traits of your opponents.
I am not trying to argue here, but just trying to convey another perspectives:
- Any good parent would never have intentionally done any harm to their children. I have two kids and I can attest to it.
- Keep in mind that when we were born, our parents knowledge and attitude were very different than what we have today
- At the time circumcision was a common thing to do, so they allowed it with GOOD intentions. I must emphasise GOOD because otherwise your parents would have abandon you long time ago because of the mischief that you did as a child.
- The decision was based on what they knew at the time. We are talking about the time when women were still stereotyped to stay at home.
- It was done, it is gone. Blaming anyone is not going to get us anywhere. We cannot change the past. c'est la vie. In Buddhism, it is all about acceptance to obtain inner peace.
Before anyone start firing at me, here are my own facts:
- I was not circumcised when I was born.
- I was circumcised at 20 years old, after making an educated decision based on the pros and cons of what I learnt.
- My 6 years old son is not circumcised. He will make his own decision.
- My personal preference is cut. I like my cut penis and I like other men's cut penis. As I mentioned on my earlier post, I find it aesthetically sexy.
- If you are not happy with your body, then learn to live with it. I have a small cock (4.5 inches) in comparison to most guys. What can I do? Bitching and crying about it is not going to make it any bigger.
- I just learn to accept the facts that I cannot change and find ways to make the best out of it.
Here is what we need to remember (in my own opinion):
- Freedom of speech means everyone has the right to say what is in their mind. It is a good thing, otherwise, none of us would be here on this website as we would have been jailed, tortured and murdered because of our sexual orientation.
- There are always two side of the coins:
- 'Good' circumcision: the ones that parents did/do with good intention, but either with or without educated knowledge on it.
- BAD circumcision: the ones that is forced onto a person. This is what we need to focus on eliminating.
- I am not sure what outlawing the practice would achieve, because there are different medical reasons why a circumcision had to be performed.
- By outlawing the practice, we are going to see a black market where untrained and unqualified 'doctor'/'rabbi' would have a great day. We are going to see A LOT MORE circumcision nightmare stories that you see today.
- Yes, qualified and trained doctors/rabbis are human, so they are prone to make mistakes. Shit happens. But at least, if you look at the number of mishaps that happens today in a controlled environment, it is very minimum.
There is a check and balance in the medical system that ensure the doctors/rabbis are trained accordingly- Also, by outlawing certain things (circumcision in this case), we are now infringing on other's freedom of speech.
At the end of the day, it is about Yin and Yang. We may never agree on every single commas, hyphens or dots, but it is the matter of finding the balance.
Just to cool everyone down:
I see Buddhism as a way of looking at life from a different perspective. There is no discrimination in this way of life. There is a new movie called Shaolin (Andy Lau and Jackie Chan) which is a very good movie. Even the soundtrack is great (here is the one with translation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRYV4EKkW98
Last edited by look4one; May 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM.
Here's the basic scoop from a buddy of mine, a university professor of neuranatomy:
Circumcision cuts into and cuts off metres of important veins (blood return) and occasionally an artery (in the frenulum; blood supply). This alters the normal vascularity and ultimately the physiology of the penis, forcing a complex healing by putting capillaries into different duty. This affects the amount of blood that reaches the meatus -- likely an important component of meatal stenosis and the chief reason almost all intact men have functional meatal lips and most circumcised men don't. The meatal lips are the culmination of the raphe and are direct beneficiaries of the frenular artery. The lips, of course, are what close tightly together to keep pathogens out of the urethra. Another marvel of nature.
Also, the veins running through the foreskin ensure that in its relaxed, forward position the prepuce is not just a blanket, but a heated blanket. This in turn regulates the temperature of the glans, which in turn helps determine how close to the body the testicles ride (cool=closer to body=less sperm produced). Most circumised males have a consistently colder glans than intact males; some have an uncomfortably cold glans, particularly after sitting for long periods or after sports.
The efficiency of bloodflow through the foreskin & glans is a factor in proper tumescence and detumescence, though the body works mightily to overcome the vascular obstacles posed by the severing of a significant chunk of the venous system of the penis through circumcision. The alternate "mapping" the body is forced to do after iatrogenic injury is a marvel of nature, but never quite as effective as the original.
One of the foreskin's primary functions is to serve as an "early alert" system to tumescence; it is ultra-sensitive to any change in diameter of the glans and lets a male know well in advance of any change. Obviously, without a foreskin there is no monitoring of the glans and some circumcised males joke that they are well on their way to erection before they realize it. Not a big problem in most settings, but also not the way the body was designed to work.
The skin of the penis is unique on all the body, in that it is not attached to the underlying fascia. You can actually roll the tip of the foreskin all the way down to the pubic bone (depending on the elasticity of the frenulum). The body achieves this through a complexly-evolved nerve system that does not have the nerve endings run down from layer to layer as on the rest of the body; but rather, laterally in a specialized structure that allows complete freedom of the gliding top layer of skin. This means that the nerve endings are in fact attached to the body only at their extreme ends -- the pubis, and where the foreskin doubles back again and "ends" at the sulcus behind the glans. Since the rested foreskin is doubled-over, any cut that "shortens" it in this doubled state actually removes a cylindrical section from this sleeve, short-circuiting the complex nerve structure. Again, the body springs into action to repair this injury by having nerve endings attach over time to whatever nerves are nearby; but the section of the brain that corresponds to the nerve endings severed through circumcision go "black" and remain that way.
Circumcision, as a wound, also lays down a complex and irrreversible system of fibroblasts at the site of the circumcision scar, between layers of skin and the underlying fascia. Invisible to the naked eye, this dense web of cells defeats the purpose of the unique outer skin structure of the penis by creating an "anchor" which limits the mobility of the shaft skin and its gliding mechanism so important to sex. It is also why so many men at some point encounter difficulty with foreskin restoration, as these fibroblasts first need to break down before progress in stretching can be made.
My take on it is that some people don't care about any of this. They just like circumcision because they think cut cocks are "prettier".
I'm amazed that some basic issues are still overlooked.
1) There is no thing as a standardized "circumcision". The foreskin is integral to the penis (even fused in childhood) and there's no dotted line along which to cut. It's not like tonsils or the appendix which are identifiable structures. Circumcision is just less penile skin; unfortunately, it's a pretty evolved, vascular and innervated part of the penis that's surgically removed.
No two American guys have the same circumcision, so it's ridiculout to talk about it as if it's 2 camps: intact and circumcised. It's more like intact and a few million ways to have less penis. Some guys have "loose cuts" and some are cut so tight you want to cry for them. Some have straight cuts, and some have dark, jagged scars. Several have skin tags and skin bridges from the operation. Most circumcised men have meatal stenosis. The great news is that the penis is so fundamental to how we function that it bounces back from even the most savage cutting. Isn't that comforting to know?
2) Debates about sensitivity are bullshit, and fortunately there wasn't much of that here. Yes, the foreskin is sensitive and provides a vast amount of sensory feedback, when healthy and understood, but sensation shouldn't be confused with sensitivity. It is entirely possible for a circumcised guy to be more sensitive, because he lacks the mediating feedback from the foreskin. It's like the intact penis provides a balance of sweet and sour, high notes and low notes, while a penis lacking foreskin can be too "sweet" or too "sour". So I tend to believe guys who say they couldn't stand any more sensitivity; they'd probably have a more fulfilling and balanced sexual experience if they weren't cut.
A guy who connects well to his intact penis would never want to be circumcised; one who never had a foreskin beyond Day 2 or who never learned to read the biofeedback from his prepuce is more inclined to be undaunted about circumcision. As it is, intact men overwhelmingly vote to stay that way... only about 6 per 100,000 Finnish men (a very intact society) opt to get cut.
My apologies to Flounder as I have not yet found the other threads on this subject and found this one somewhat fascinating.
Fascinating because of the flamatory responses and marks of 'urban legend' building.
Fascinating because of the degree that reactions blamed the influence of a misrepresented Jewish tradition. The real issue hinges on two points that have nothing to do with religion:
a. Is there valid medical evidence that male circumcision has true health benefits?
b. Is there valid medical evidence that male circumcision results in a significant loss of sensitivity?
On a., I have looked through the actual recent medical report that claims there is statistical evidence of less disease incidents among circumcised males in countries where diseases involve the penis. My wife teaches medical students about medical research and how to evaluate it and neither one of us found alarming evidence that the report was biased. The report we read actually, following good practises, indicates that the finding was not conclusive and the outcome should be not be taken as recommending circumcision because cultural factors on health may effect the outcome. But it did show a statistical significant outcome in history of related diseases between circumcised and uncircumcised males of the communities examined. Most of the controversy is from the interpretations of others reported and implied which claimed interpretations outside of the actual report.
On b., I have not found any validated scientific studies that report on a lost of sensitivity over the population of circumcised men vs uncircumcised. I have seen reports on that complications or inappropriate procedures can result in this damage and actual pre-op warnings about possible complications mention the loss as a possiblity. What I did notice is that reports of such problems were anecdotal (Wikipedia uses the terms 'unreliable' and 'cherry-picked' to describe anecdotal). Note that valid studies may exist; I just didn't find any.
Overall, the reports I did see indicated that there were probably valid benefits but not to such a degree that circumcision was recommended much less a medical necessity. When circumcision is not preformed, then training and practices to ensure cleanliness is indicated. In proverty stricking communities where cleanliness is an issue or where culturally men may not take care to keep penis clean and STD is rampant, the benefit from circumcision may be greater for public health reasons.
Finally, 'mutilation' is an overly emotionally charged term, especially when tied to religious issues. Where the procedure is inept or in unsantitary conditions such as village head man performing ritual circumcision, circumcision qualifies as mutilation. Where it is performed it is performed as a carefully managed medical procedure, it is closer to the class of removing an appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, or wisdom teeth. These all have advocates that suggest that they are too often medically unnecessary unless there is clear evidence of infection/damage.
Personally, if I had a son, I would struggle over this decision and would not want it done unless I had a doctor who clearly explained the choice at a practical level in as unbiased a presentation as possible. I understand the risks are higher to do this procedure later in life where the body has lost the resilence and recovery of a youth below the age of consent. It is tough decision for parents, who are responsible, but it is their responsibility to make the decision if it is to be done at the earlier age. I tend to reject surgical intervention and medication that does not have a clear justification so I probably would reject circumcision in the absence of other factors.
---Just read BiDaveDtown's two posts which were being written the same time as mine. I found them very helpful and resolved most of my hesitation about whether I would reject or decide for circumcision for my hypothetical son. I would reject it and would hope, as a parent, I had a doctor that would give me this information. However, I still am bothered by the emotionally loaded nature of many of the earlier posts.
Last edited by liberlib; May 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Updated information
This is a useless piece of information for levity if nothing else.My take on it is that some people don't care about any of this. They just like circumcision because they think cut cocks are "prettier".
Within a very short time of moving from Northumberland to the central belt of Scotland I quickly found out that many guys referred to their penis as either cavalier (uncut, pretty with a nice hat) or roundhead (cut, ugly with a round helmet). This is a throwback to the civil war when the King's cavaliers (gay exciting but bad) fought the Parliament's roundheads (good, stern and boring).
Most guys north of the border consider their willies prettier and cavalier because they are uncut, whereas those who are circumcised think theirs are at least superior if not pretty. That most women in Scotland, and in Europe prefer a cavalier cock is the deciding factor, and I am only talking about this side of the Atlantic. It kind of makes a nonsense of your statement above Dave, although probably most north American women would agree with you.
I was talking about people in countries where male genital mutilation is ubiquitious and people in those countries think that a chopped penis is "prettier" than one that's intact with a foreskin.This is a useless piece of information for levity if nothing else.
Within a very short time of moving from Northumberland to the central belt of Scotland I quickly found out that many guys referred to their penis as either cavalier (uncut, pretty with a nice hat) or roundhead (cut, ugly with a round helmet). This is a throwback to the civil war when the King's cavaliers (gay exciting but bad) fought the Parliament's roundheads (good, stern and boring).
Most guys north of the border consider their willies prettier and cavalier because they are uncut, whereas those who are circumcised think theirs are at least superior if not pretty. That most women in Scotland, and in Europe prefer a cavalier cock is the deciding factor, and I am only talking about this side of the Atlantic. It kind of makes a nonsense of your statement above Dave, although probably most north American women would agree with you.
I also am from a country where men are left intact with a foreskin and men and women find cut penises to be ugly, strange, and that something major is missing from a man's penis!
The whole "circumcision protects against HIV and STDs!" argument does not hold water at all.
If it did then why did an entire generation or two of bisexual and gay men who were all cut at birth and born in the United States get infected with HIV and other STDs and die from AIDS?
Circumcision is not something magical that's going to prevent you from getting infected with HIV or other STDs if you're not having safer sex and using condoms.
So what country are you from? Profile says US from Dallas TX. No one is staying being circumsized reduces risk for HIV and STDS. Only safe sex with condoms or abstinence will do that. It does eliminate a lot of other nasty and painful things that can happen when the prepuce is left intact. You obviously have an opinion that circumcision is wrong, well not everyone shares your opinion, and not everyone equates circumcision to mutilation.
DD, Nasty and painful things can and do happen to any part of the body. We usually leave them intact, even those we can live without.
Yes. Like tonsils or appendixes
Pasa
I do believe you are right, darling, and only usually removed in cases of medical need which I think is the point Sammie is trying to make. Of course if one is able to afford it, one may elect to have them removed at considerable expense to oneself. Of course that is one's own personal tonsils and appendix when old enough to make an informed decision for one's self. That is also the point.
Actually, tonsils and appendix are removed when necessary not something you wait til someone is a certain age to do it. Tonsils less so that appendix but emergencies still come up.I do believe you are right, darling, and only usually removed in cases of medical need which I think is the point Sammie is trying to make. Of course if one is able to afford it, one may elect to have them removed at considerable expense to oneself. Of course that is one's own personal tonsils and appendix when old enough to make an informed decision for one's self. That is also the point.
There is however a medical link to less penile cancer in circumsized boys, the better hygiene when foreskins are removed makes certain other illnesses less likely to surface.
All in all I wish Drew would just lock all circumcision threads. The debate is going nowhere. People from areas where circumcision was not routinely practiced like England and people in areas where it was practiced routinely like America will never agree. In the end it's a decision PARENTS have to make. I can't help but notice that the majority of those in favor of a ban on circumcision don't have children and have no clue what information is provided to parents at the hospital about all the pros and cons.
Last edited by DuckiesDarling; May 22, 2011 at 10:43 PM. Reason: typo
I do believe that is what I said.
As to Drew looking at threads on circumcision, who are you or anyone else to say it is going nowhere? When people feel strongly about things they say so and that is what democratic debate and free speech is about. Many issues are recurrent, and it is quite possible that the pro circumcision lobby is winning the debate, although the discomfiture which you and others seem to feel with it makes me wonder. The fact that in the United States fewer new parents are routinely allowing their sons to be circumcised points to quite the opposite being the case.
DD, this is not a debate we can or should suppress or stifle, no matter how uncomfortable we are with it. It can be argued that we spend an inordinate amount of time debating it, but that is quite a different matter. The fact that some make it a very personal issue and begin accusations which have no substance in fact, and misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue the true nature of one side or other of the argument is regrettable but in many debates such things happen. That is the nature of democratic debate. Such people do their cause no good whatever, and by their confrontational and often obnoxious manner, prolong the debate and lose much value of the main thrust of their otherwise often excellent arguments. We both know to whom I refer.
part of the trouble is not the debate, its the way its conducted.....
recently, a member in the site, decided in all their infinite wisdom or lack of it, to refer to people that circumcise kids, as child molestors.....
as any person knows, the defination of child molestor means something totally different..... and to label any person with that label, is totally insensitive and lacking in any understanding of how people would react to being called one of them....specially a parent.... there are many other name sthat could be used, but no, the member used that label.....
while I respect a persons right to express their opinion, a lot of the members have watched as anti circumcision threads are started in the site, and 9/10 immediately, circumcised males are referred to as mutilated etc etc....
not only it is insulting to circumcised males, but the attacks on parents and other people, are excessly nasty, rude and downgrading.... specially when some males have no option but to have a adult circumcision, it is a personal issue and something they can find hard to do.... but to then be told that they have a mutilated, semi functional penis and that many people find circumcised penises to be unsightly.... well, put yourself in the guys shoes, and imagine you have had a breast removed, then be told that you are a mutilated person......
that is a lot of the issues with the numerous threads about circumcision, most of the people doing the judgemental BS are not parents themselves, they are predominately males and lack the ability to post a expressive opinion, without downgrading, insulting and humilating other members in the site......
strangely enuf its generally the same members that are known for their thoughtless and offensive remarks in other topics to other members as well....
The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands
And again.
http://www.iraresoul.com/circumcision.html
Who am I Katja? Just one of the parents of three boys that was told that I was a child molester for circumsizing my kids. And to reiterate, the debate has descended to mudflinging of that nature. It's no longer a debate it's simply one side diatribing the other to death and when that doesn't work flinging out the worst names they can call some just for shock value.
I want the threads like this stopped because of that very reason. It would be different if some people on here had an ounce of common sense about things that don't even concern them personally.
I watched the video of a circumcision on a baby boy posted in Sammie's post above. I would suggest everyone watch it, then ask themselves if they would still wish to put their infant son through such trauma.
I should, and will warn you, that the video is very distressing. However it is better to be aware of the realities of this operation, than to rely on the assurances of doctors with perhaps a vested interest in the remuneration of the outcome.
It has puzzled me as to why this practice has persisted in the US, in contrast to all the other modern industrialised nations. The medical reasons often quoted by adherents in the US, have been shown to be incorrect. If they were correct, one would expect a much higher rate of penile cancer etc in countries that didn't routinely practice this operation.
The simple fact is, that there isn't a correspondingly higher rate.
One is left with the conclusion, there must be some other reason for the disparity in medical opinion. A previous poster happened to mention the fee they paid to the doctor for the performance of this operation on their son. Multiply this fee by one million, the approximate number of male circumcisions in the US, every year, and one is left with the impression that this is quite a lucrative endeavour for US doctors and hospitals.
Intrigued, I wondered if anyone had undertaken any research on this topic. Without too much difficulty I came across the following article, which addressed a number of issues raised in this thread. I have been unable to copy and paste it for you, but I include the link to the article, for you to read yourselves. I would urge you to do so, it answers some of the points raised by those US parents, who stated in the thread, that they acted on the advice of doctors in making their decision to have this operation on their son.
Here is the link, the first part deals with female circumcision the second part male circumcision:-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l...0Union&f=false
This must play its part in the continuation of the practice in the United States. It is a lucrative market for American peadiatricians and hospitals. A word of caution and someone mentioned this in a much earlier discussion on the topic. It can be argued that state run health services do not practice infant circumcision routinely because of financial constraints as dictated by the public purse. This is especially so now as health services find themselves under real pressure due the the economic mess we find ourselves in.
Circumcision, while once more common in the UK for instance than it is now began to drop off around the establishment of the National Health Service in 1948. It was never quite as prevalent as in the United States at its peak, but it was once more common than it is now.
It is not an argument I would accept but it is one which can be and is thrown at the anti circumcision lobby.
There is an argument in the British medical profession generally and paeditrics in particular about whether infant circumcision is an infringement in the human rights of a child and many medical people believe it to be nothing more than legalised infant mutilation (their term not mine). Elective surgery as a precaution for the prevention of the possibility of future disease is not unknown and can be performed within the NHS under certain circumstances. Removal of breast tissue in women is one such instance. But no parent can elect to have her child's healthy breast tissue removed. That must be done with the informed consent of the individual involved. Similarly no parent should be given the right to elect to have their son's healthy penile tissue removed.
The video in Sammie's post is graphic and somewhat gruesome. I agree with you that it is essential viewing so that people know exactly what we are debating.
in a nut shell, its a operation that is basically cosmetic surgery in most cases, and only for some, a medically needed operation.....and in both cases its called circumcision.....
why not ask that circumcision be made a elective surgery requiring consent of the patient, unless it is deemed medically essential to perform the op at a earlier age by experts and specialist.... and still leaves the option open for adult circumcision, instead of the straight out * ban circumcision then hide our faces when its actually needed and a person can not have the op done *
that solves the issue of kids getting circumcised, leaves the door open for people that need it done for medical reasons, its a compromise that works in favour of near everybody..... and brings a lil more peace to the world....lol......
The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands
Has anyone suggested anything different? Not from anything I have read in these pages. The whole debate is about informed consent of the individual concerned. And no one has suggested that there should be an absolute ban on child circumcision when it is medically required. Then, as with any other surgical procedure, parental consent would be required taking into account information and appropriate medical advice received. That is only right and proper.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks