Male Circumcision

[Lyricmaniac]

There are many beliefs and customs surrounding it, both for and against. What are your beliefs in regard to circumcision? Provide support and explanation when possible.
-------------------------
I believe in circumcision. I'm a Jew, and my people have been circumcised since the days of Abraham. It's a pretty well ingrained tradition.

[ccoa]

No offense to the Jewish members of the community, but neonatal circumcision is a barbaric and unethical procedure.

There is no evidence that it provides any real medical or physical benefits. Studies that showed a significant reduction in STDs and infections have since been proven to be vastly overstated or completely wrong. No medical association in the US, Canada, or Australia recommends non-therapeutic circumcisions at any age.

It is completely unethical to subject an infant to pain, stress, and risk to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision. Physicians who do so are violating their oaths. Consent is needed for a cosmetic, permanent alteration, particularly one with risk of severe infection, lifelong disfigurement, or even death.

If a person wishes a circumcision for whatever reason when he is old enough to understand the choice, then that's fine. Insane, but fine. ;) But this isn't something a parent has a right to choose for their child, and it definitely isn't something a doctor should agree to do.

[Mac]

I was circumcised that's about all i can put towards it.

It's beneficial in other ways..for example, those who have not had it done have to regularly pull down the foreskin and vigorously scrub lol.

[Euphony]

My family has no Jewish heritage that I'm aware of, but a lot of the males in my family have been circumcised, and I'm pretty sure that a Jewish doctor performed my circumcision.

I've had absolutely no problems with it, and I'm not at all mad at my parents for having it done to me. Regardless of this study or that study, back then my parents truly believed that it was for the benefit of my health. In their minds, they were exchanging a short moment of pain that I would never remember for a life of health benefits. And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't being done by someone who was certified.

Meh. That's all I can really say, since we could argue in circles all day about this was proven, that was proven, etc. I'm sure there are a million doctors out there who contradict each other with pros and cons. Personally I'm perfectly happy with my circumcised penis, and that's the end of it for me.

I do think that it should be a decision based on health beliefs and not purely on religious beliefs. But, you know, whatever floats your boat. Hey, if I have to trust someone to do something to my penis, it's going to be a Jewish doctor.

[supershigi]

I'm not sure about the studies on STDs, but I mentioned on Lyric's journal about smegma (which I now know how to spell, haha). A not easily embarassed guy friend of mine said that despite regular showers, he often dealt with smegma while growing up until a doctor advised him to do what Mac said (pull down the foreskin and vigorously scrub, which he found to be uncomfortable due to heightened sensitivity). I think doctors universally agree (and it just makes sense) that circumsized guys deal with smegma far less (if at all) because there's no pocket for it, so to speak.

But I don't have a penis, nor am I Jewish, so I'm no expert on the subject matter :)

[HawkZombie]

I was cut, and my son was cut.

My wife's a nurse and she wouldn't have it any other way. Number 1 Reason: Cut guys can't get yeast infections. Hygeine is better, and overall health of the unit is better.

It's not recommended because of the religious stigma to it I'd imagine, but ask any medical doctor and physician, and they'll tell you why overall it's better for health.

I suffered no long term effects, and neither has my son. Uncut = dirty, usually, as most men are NOT trained in how to properly clean and care for it. Talked to a guy one who didn't even know you were supposed to pull the foreskin back (He's a virgin).

Given a choice, if I wasn't and looked at the data and whatnot, I'd opt for it. So my parent's saved me from having to go through the stress and trauma now :P.

I'm with Euphony on this one: It is a decision that should be based in health benefits, not religious beliefs. That's why we did it.

[Barbatos]

I don't see what the big deal with health benefits is. As far as I'm concerned, there are none. Smegma? Big deal, wash it off in the shower.

An uncut penis head is sheathed within the foreskin and stays moist and sensitive. When you're circumsized, the penis head dries up and loses almost all sensitivity. Hey if having stronger orgasms isn't something you wish you could have experienced, then by all means enjoy your circumsized penises. I for one, hate mine.

There are plenty of sources about this on the internet, here's the first one I found: http://www.norm.org/whyrestore.html

[Euphony]

"Smegma" is seriously the grossest sounding word, and Googling/Wikiing it is NOT advised. Eww. XD

[Lyricmaniac]

I don't understand why so many of you have come out so strongly against the religious influence in certain people's choice to circumcise their son.

[Euphony]

I don't think there's any problem with letting your religion influence your choice, but I do think that it shouldn't be the only influence. You should genuinely weigh the health-related pros and cons, too, just to make sure you're certain. I mean, if there are non-Jewish families that decide to have it done, there might be Jewish families who decide not to have it done. You never know, your opinion on health might override your opinion on tradition.

Really, that goes for any major decision influenced by religion. Even if the situation is a tradition, I think it's perfectly okay to step outside the religious circle and approach it from a non-religious angle, just to make sure you know exactly how you feel before moving on. Some people might not be comfortable doing that, though. It depends on how the religious community that you belong to might receive it.

[Lyricmaniac]

There are Jews who don't do it, but they're in the minority. If it meant cutting off the penis, I wouldn't do it. If it meant harming the use of the penis, I wouldn't do it. It's cutting off a piece of skin that serves very little purpose if any. Studies for many years leaned toward circumcision in fact. Still, my main reasoning would be my religion. It's one of the very few things almost all Jews do, regardless of how religious you are. I don't see a problem with upholding long-standing religious customs.

P.S. to Ccoa: I do take offense to calling circumcision barbaric, and I think you pretty well knew I would after having to include the beginning "no offense" in your sentence. If you have to include a "no offense" starter, there's offense meant to be had.

[ccoa]

I'm not going to water down my opinion just because you might find it offensive. Why ask for opinions on a matter if you don't want to hear them? Personally, I take offense to your statement that I meant to offend. I didn't, I'm simply stating my (very strong) opinion on circumcision after researching it thoroughly before each of my sons was born.

[Lyricmaniac]

Don't water down your opinions, but don't start off with a "no offense" appeaser. No offense at all of course, but sometimes you really come across as a bit too self-righteous and preachy. I'd appreciate you not responding to me or others in that way.

[ccoa]

Very typical of you, Lyric. Don't like what you hear so you lash out.

Fine, I won't respond to you at all, if it makes you happy. Gods forfend I might offend someone with an opinion. They're very dangerous you know.

[The Finest Brew]

tbh, I don't see what the big deals. I rarely even think about it, nor do I damn my parents for doing it. That said, from my viewpoint, an un-circumsized penis is incredibly un-attractive, and it affects how I am with my significant other when we're in the sack. Others I've asked about it claimed that, for the most part, they agree with that opinion.


But hey, that's what a small group of people think, so it's not good for a majority opinion.

[J.D. Slasha]

Filipinos (as myself) wait until they're between 10-15 years of age to get circumsized. It's kinda' like a rites of passage I guess. The crazy thing is you're awake throughout the entire thing. I was. God.

[Thunderclam]

There's a religious tradition of forced female circumcision. Do you support that, Rach?

Having said that, I was circumcized and am fine with it. Because the tip of the penis thickens and part of the shaft becomes scar tissue, there is less mucous membrane on the penis through which one can be infected by STDs and STIs. In fact, they are still saying that it can reduce HIV infection in men by up to 60%.

There's still a lot of controversy over this, though, especially considering that this statistic about the HIV is feared to give rise to increased sexual carelessness.

[Lyricmaniac]

Thunderclam, no, but that's a whole different topic. That removes a part of the female anatomy that is highly functional.

Ccoa, typical on all ends. Preachy, snooty, self-righteous. I like your idea; don't post to me. I promise to return the favor.

J.D. What was that like? Did they numb it?

[Ronove]

Preggo, you asked for an opinion. She gave it. Yes, she insulted it, but it's her opinion. She gave reasons for her opinion. In no way should you expect her to "sugar coat" or tone her opinion down. What more do you want in a DEBATE topic?

To be honest, I think it should be up to the guy to say yes or no. If parents wish to do it (though it should be the boy's decision), then they better have researched it thoroughly before relying on "tradition". I loathe things that are based on tradition without any extra thought process because just doing things based on tradition does prove to be deadly sometimes.

[Barbatos]

P.S. to Ccoa: I do take offense to calling circumcision barbaric, and I think you pretty well knew I would after having to include the beginning "no offense" in your sentence. If you have to include a "no offense" starter, there's offense meant to be had.

Do you consider female circumcision to be barbaric? It does pretty much the same thing as male circumcision. And while not religious in origin, it is widely accepted in middle eastern and african cultures.

[Lyricmaniac]

It is not in many ways at all similar to male circumcision. Even most opponents of male circumcision admit that it is a separate issue from female circumcision. Female circumcision often involves removing the clit or stitching the vagina shut. That is completely different from removing male foreskin.

Rye, she came up with a solution and I accepted it. Over and done with.

[Barbatos]

It is not in many ways at all similar to male circumcision. Even most opponents of male circumcision admit that it is a separate issue from female circumcision. Female circumcision often involves removing the clit or stitching the vagina shut. That is completely different from removing male foreskin.


They both accomplish the same thing in that they reduce the amount of pleasure a person can have from sex. I suppose removing the clit removes almost all pleasure in a woman, but foreskin removal is pretty close to that anyway.

[Lyricmaniac]

My husband doesn't have a foreskin and orgasms very well. Removing foreskin does not take away all of the pleasure in a man. It also doesn't shrivel and dry the penis head like suggested. It does keep it clean though.

[ccoa]

Diedrupo, you are a perfect example of why it's unethical to do to someone who can't give consent - it's more or less permanent and not everyone is going to be happy with the result.

Although I can't imagine many adult males would actually chose to be circumcised. Here are your choices:

Get a big needle stuck in your penis to numb it. There is some debate over whether the needle hurts less or more than the actual circumcision. Have a piece of your penis cut off, and deal with the pain and soreness for days or weeks afterwards.

Go without anesthesia or topical anesthesia. Have a living piece of your penis with many nerve endings in it surgically removed while you're awake and aware. Also deal with the pain and soreness afterwards.

Given how few males will willingly get a vasectomy, which is a much safer and much more minor surgery, I wouldn't be surprised if they quickly went out of style, so to speak, if they were restricted to consenting adults only.

Additionally, there is no way to tell how large an infant's penis will grow. It is very common for doctors to remove too little or too much skin when circumcising. Too little can be corrected later or ignored, but too much can cause problems, including pain during an erection, without corrective surgery. It is much safer to circumcise a penis after it stops growing.

[HawkZombie]

I have never once regretted being cut, and honestly...I get a LOT more orgams than if I were cut (main reason is my wife has told me several times if I were uncut, she wouldn't even think about sex with me...to her an uncut penis is gross, and she finds them medically unappealing as well. Hell, several partners I've been with have commented about how they prefer cut guys.). I've heard about guys complain 'It dosen't feel as good' but I wonder...

What do they have to compare it to? Seriously? If anything, I don't orgasm in 2 min. like most uncut guys I hear about, and have lasting stamina in bed. Sometimes it's hard for me to orgasm, but not because of the foreskin missing from my penis. You have nothing to compare it to. Personally, I rather like having my penis look like it's NOT like a dog's or other animal's.

ccoa: I found your use of the term barbaric offensive as well. It would be if I called you uneducated for not getting your sons cut. You implied anyone who did this didn't care, and simply did it because we're all 'barbaric sheep of religion'...at least that's how I took it. This is a simple debate, not an argument over who is right or wrong.

And since it seems to be a hot button...

Abortion. Nothing to do with this topic, but look at this: Is it barbaric to kill an unborn fetus in the body if it has no choice in the matter? Then why is cutting off a piece of 'living' skin so horrendous? If you're for abortion but against circumcision, then there's a conflict of interest there IMO.

As I've sad before: I'd get cut if I wasn't. I'd go through the 'torment' to have a healthier glans on the penis, and I'd get more BJs out of the deal too ;)

Yeah, it's crass....but ask most any person which they'd rather have in their mouth.

[ccoa]

ccoa: I found your use of the term barbaric offensive as well. It would be if I called you uneducated for not getting your sons cut. You implied anyone who did this didn't care, and simply did it because we're all 'barbaric sheep of religion'...at least that's how I took it. This is a simple debate, not an argument over who is right or wrong.

*shrug* You can call me uneducated and I wouldn't be offended. I'd simply prove it wrong.

If you want to take it that way, that's your right, but I didn't imply anything of the sort. You're being overly defensive about being religious, IMO, and reading in things that aren't there.

People get their kids circumcised for all sorts of reasons, and religion is only one of them. Actually, the only time it's for religious reasons is if you are Jewish - everyone else does it because of tradition, or medical reasons, or not wanting to deal with awkward questions from the child later. Doesn't make me think of it as any less barbaric or unethical, regardless of the reason. The only reason I mentioned religion at all is because if you speak out against a religious tradition for any reason, people get offended. Therefore, I wanted to be clear I meant no offense by it. Can't help it if you were offended anyway.

Abortion. Nothing to do with this topic, but look at this: Is it barbaric to kill an unborn fetus in the body if it has no choice in the matter? Then why is cutting off a piece of 'living' skin so horrendous? If you're for abortion but against circumcision, then there's a conflict of interest there IMO.

Not only does this not have anything to do with the topic, but it's completely missed the target since I'm not for abortion.

As I've sad before: I'd get cut if I wasn't. I'd go through the 'torment' to have a healthier glans on the penis, and I'd get more BJs out of the deal too ;)

And that would be your right to choose as an adult. But your parents had no way of knowing what you would prefer in the future.

Also, the "gross" factor seems to be a cultural preference - if fewer men were circumcised, the cultural stigma would be reduced. Same as if women decided to stop doing the ridiculous cultural ritual of shaving their legs - within a few years, a generation at most, no one would consider it "gross" any more.

[Barbatos]

I
What do they have to compare it to? Seriously? If anything, I don't orgasm in 2 min. like most uncut guys I hear about, and have lasting stamina in bed. Sometimes it's hard for me to orgasm, but not because of the foreskin missing from my penis. You have nothing to compare it to. Personally, I rather like having my penis look like it's NOT like a dog's or other animal's.

We know about the difference from adult men who were circumsized. Besides it makes sense. Imagine if your penis head was lubricated 24/7 instead of dry. You can almost sense that it'd feel much better during sex or fapping.

Also damn Ccoa, don't take away shaven legs from us! Please women, shave or wax your legs. And wear miniskirts more often to show them off. If you don't have the body for it then leave your legs unshaved, nobody will care.

[HawkZombie]

I never directed my abortion comment towards you, ccoa.

And I find you saying the way I took your comment was a result of 'being overly defensive about being religious' is even more offensive than saying I was barbaric for getting my son circumcised. :P...I didn't do it for religious reasons, I did it for hygiene and health reasons. I just got the feeling from your comment that you were focusing on the religious aspect of it for that one point, and it's known you are very anti-religion in several regards. But meh...you think I'm barbaric, and I think you were uneducated in your decision.

And the 'gross' factor isn't cultural. It's not the aesthetically unappealing part, it's smell and awful taste. This is what I've been told from several women who agree with my wife. Most men are -not- properly educated in proper care of their penis if it has a foreskin, and most of those don't because of how sensitive it is to clean properly (it causes great discomfort, so some merely 'get it wet' and think that's good enough). So you're saying that in a generation taste and olfactory senses will adjust? I personally don't buy it. (And yes, one girl I know says her husband cleans it daily, but it still smells foul)

If I were uncut, we wouldn't be married right now. She's told me that several times. I firmly believe that getting a circumcision is a right the parents can enact that isn't neither barbaric nor unethical. It is simply a medical decision and should be treated as such. People not doing proper research, speaking to several medical professionals, and going in uneducated before making the final decision? That's unethical. Because most of the sources, aside from men wearing prosthetic foreskins (yes, they exist) complaining they're missing out, will say it's worth it for several well documented reasons.

Chief of which are health benefits and hygiene reasons.

[HawkZombie]

We know about the difference from adult men who were circumsized. Besides it makes sense. Imagine if your penis head was lubricated 24/7 instead of dry. You can almost sense that it'd feel much better during sex or fapping.

Also damn Ccoa, don't take away shaven legs from us! Please women, shave or wax your legs. And wear miniskirts more often to show them off. If you don't have the body for it then leave your legs unshaved, nobody will care.

Ok, you got me there, but I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

During masturbation or sex, my penis never felt 'dried out' at any point, nor did it need the extra lubrication from being inside a bacteria's wet dream of a foreskin. Yes, the last comment was my personal feel on the subject, but it makes sense...when was the last time you had a bladder infection? My friend who's uncut gets them at least twice a year, if not more.

[JuuNi]

I honestly think this is so far off topic its beginning to insult me! of all people!

As one of the "UnCut" I'm a wee bit insulted by the fact people seem to think my penis is unclean and smells and is more likely to harbor some kind of STI of some wort or another. Yes that was a typo, but hey, I think its funny!

Frankly that is far from whats being debated, I thought we were talking about the fact that in some religions and traditions the parents decide at a young age that their child should have a piece of foreskin removed because of a belief. This cannot be reversed, and if the child grows up and doesn't wish to follow the beliefs of their parents then they may not have wanted the whole knife + penis = slicey slicey.

This really just brings up the question of how much can the parents decide for their childs life based on their beliefs and not waiting until the child can decide for himself. As cutting off a piece of skin is pretty permanant, and with some cases isn't really wanted.

[ccoa]

You are being overly defensive, because you're reading anti-religion into my comments. You assumed that I was speaking against "barbaric religions."

I didn't imply at all you did it or had it done for religious reasons anywhere, so I have no idea where that came from.

Most men are -not- properly educated in proper care of their penis if it has a foreskin, and most of those don't because of how sensitive it is to clean properly (it causes great discomfort, so some merely 'get it wet' and think that's good enough). So you're saying that in a generation taste and olfactory senses will adjust? I personally don't buy it. (And yes, one girl I know says her husband cleans it daily, but it still smells foul)

More uncircumcised men = more education in how to be hygienic. One girl is circumstantial evidence, and is thus not really a support in an argument. Show me a study that says a properly cleaned uncircumcised penis smells and/or tastes worse than one that is circumcised.

I've met men who smell and/or taste bad, and they were all circumcised. Their bathing habits were fine. I don't really buy this argument at all from a personal standpoint, I would need to see properly documented evidence that, yes, it is less hygienic or appealing even if it is cleaned properly.

People not doing proper research, speaking to several medical professionals, and going in uneducated before making the final decision? That's unethical.

You call me uneducated, despite the fact that I did research, spoke to three different pediatricians and one surgeon, and got all of the available literature on the process before making my decision. So in other words, anyone who doesn't chose as you did is uneducated, no matter what they do beforehand. Makes sense.

The foreskin serves a vital purpose.
[quote

Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no glands that produce oil that moisturizes our skin. The foreskin produces that and maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.

The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.

The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis. These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.

As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.

There are also numerous studies showing that circumcision does not reduce the chances of urinary tract infections (some have shown, in fact, that it increases them because there is less protection from bacteria) or STDs.

Circumcision was brought into popular use because it was believed it would keep boy children from masturbating. Not because it's cleaner, more attractive, or healthier. It's an outdated custom that should be reconsidered and only offered to consenting adults.

[HawkZombie]

I wrote out this big reply...but screw it.

I'm not feeding an argument any further. I'm out.

[J.D. Slasha]

J.D. What was that like? Did they numb it?

It was kinda' crazy because the synesthesia like only half worked. But in all reality I feel so much more sensation now as opposed to before. Buuuut that's-a-my-opinion and something within my culture that's commonly accepted. I say, do whatever floats yer boat yknow?

Also, VOTE!

:3

[Lyricmaniac]

Sketch, if you are offended by the statement, it obviously means there's something wrong with you, you barbarian. You're obviously overly sensitive because there's nothing wrong in calling you an unethical barbarian for following a long-standing and medically accepted tradition. I read into the statement exactly as you did.

Sketch, I believe you're Christian. If not, please correct me. Do Christians believe in the old testament circumcision stuff? I know my ignorance is showing. I'm pretty sure those of the Islamic faith circumcise as well.

If someone wishes to remain uncut, good for them. Pull back and wash it. However, I'd rather they not look down on me and my decision to follow my religious beliefs.

[HawkZombie]

Preggo: To my shame in my knowledge of my faith, I dunno. We did it for medical reasons. My parents did it for religious. However, I dunno if there are any Non-Denominational Christian practices for the act that are followed. I was baptized Lutheran, and circumcised the same...so I am clueless, really :P

[JuuNi]

If someone wishes to remain uncut, good for them. Pull back and wash it. However, I'd rather they not look down on me and my decision to follow my religious beliefs.

Ok, heres something that'll hurt. For one, I'm not looking down on you, I completly understand the whole belief thing here, but where do you draw the line on forcing your belief on your children (i.e circumcision at a young age - where it cannot be undone) or allowing them free choice (i.e teaching them from a young age about the belief/tradition - so they can decide when they're ready).

I believe thats my main criticism about male circumcision where religion is involved. As for the health mumbo jumbo, I'm not the researching type, all I know is, I lead a healthy sex life with my foreskin, we've been through thick and thin together, theres been some tight spots but we pulled through as a team and frankly, I'd miss the little guy if he were to be put under the knife.

[Lyricmaniac]

Considering circumcision is really the ONLY religious act done by parents for children in Judaism, I'd say that's where I draw the line. :) It is something every Jewish male from Abraham to our time now has done. It is one of the few traditions that was practiced even in times of exile and upheaval. It's a big one.

Like I said, if your belief is to keep your child uncut, that's great for you. You have the right to choose what's comfortable for your family. What I don't accept is being called an unethical barbarian for choosing what I feel is right for my family.

Sketch: That's ok. If there are any other Christians, I would like their input.

[supershigi]

I had to read a lot about female circumcision because it was a fairly popular affirmative being used one year in policy debate. The case was called FGM (female genital mutilation), and I'd have to say it's pretty barbaric... I'm using the definition of barbaric as: "possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization."

The reason I think FGM is barbaric is because it stems from cultural beliefs that are far behind the modern system; it's not rooted in hygiene, it's there specifically to oppress women. They basically remove the clitoris so women can't feel stimulation this way; it's often used as either punishment or to keep women "in check" and it's pretty awful. There's no medical reason to remove the clitoris. The procedure removes sexual function in the same way as castration; it often damages reproductive functions and destroys external stimulation.

The reason I don't believe male circumcision is barbaric is because there are actual reasons for the procedure that extend beyond tradition. If this weren't the case, then regular doctors would not be willing to perform this procedure. There is unquestionable evidence that removing the foreskin prevents men from having yeast infections and other complications. So I don't see this as being barbaric in my sense of the definition. As for letting the male decide; I think a lot of men advocate having it done at such a young age because it's more painful and traumatic if it's done later in life. It's not traumatic for the infant, they never would remember something like that. There are also fewer complications medically associated with performing the procedure at a young age (my friend is a doctor and he pointed this out). I think as long as there is a health related reason, then there's nothing barbaric about it. It's very very different from FGM, both in the procedure itself and in the cultural roots.

I don't think ccoa is uneducated, and I don't think Lyric's choice to get her baby circumcised is barbaric. I think there is sufficient medical evidence to justify parents getting this procedure done, and I think there's sufficient medical evidence to justify not getting it done. The doctor-friend I mentioned previously isn't religious at all, but he believes that there are plenty of reasons the medical community adopted it... her are a few:


It has been speculated that the foreskin is a source of secretions, pheromones, etc, but given the dubious authorship of these reports and the absence of any research support, such suggestions should be regarded as fanciful. In fact, for references that cite evidence to the contrary see [603a].
It has been suggested [93] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:
• The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.
• The moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans of both a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis, which have been found to have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms) [556]. This means that the inner lining is a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria. (A photograph of a histological section illustrates this later, in the section on the AIDS virus.)
• The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.
• The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed in detail later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' [608], as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [639, 640]. Rather, the foreskin tends to trap and transmit micro-organisms, both to the man himself, and his sexual partners.


The point is, the definition of barbaric would be used for practices that have no modern application or basis. But the fact that the outcome of modern scientific studies have influenced whether or not this procedure is offered in medical facilities shows that it's anything but barbaric. As with many other medical procedures, it's not the end all; it's not something you have to do... but it's certainly not barbaric.

[ccoa]

It's not traumatic for the infant

That may not be true, there have been studies that show pain and stress, including the pain and stress of a circumcision, retard and damage brain development in infants. It's still traumatic and can cause long-term damage, they just don't remember it.

It's also a much more major surgery if done as an infant, because the foreskin is attached to the glans. That means they're pretty literally stripping the skin off the entire last 1/4 of the penile shaft (Ow). Later in life, since it's grown apart, it can be removed simply by cutting away in a ring shape. A smaller wound means fewer chances for infection. Also helping with fewer chances for infection - adult penises are not regularly held inside diapers where they come into long-term contact with urine and feces.

[Barbatos]

It was kinda' crazy because the synesthesia like only half worked. But in all reality I feel so much more sensation now as opposed to before. Buuuut that's-a-my-opinion and something within my culture that's commonly accepted. I say, do whatever floats yer boat yknow?

Also, VOTE!

:3

Maybe the age when you get it matters? My coworker was in his late 20s when he had to get it snipped due to phimosis and it was great for him at first because his dick head was exposed, and it was still moist and sensitive, but over time it dries up and he lost most of the sensation he had before in it. Since you got it around 10-15, I really doubt you remember what it felt like. And really, you probably weren't old enough to really take advantage of an uncut penis yet. :p


As far as the infections and stuff are concerned, sure that might happen, but I wouldn't sacrifice sexual pleasure for protection against yeast infections. I mean come on. Hell yeah i'd take a yeast infection or two for improved sensation.

I guess I should get back to my futile attempts at foreskin reconstruction.

[J.D. Slasha]

I was 13 when it happened, I'm 21 now, still lovin' using it hehe.

Annnyyyway, yay! :3

VOTE (srsly if someone is of age and doesn't vote I WILL FIND YOU AND TAKE OFF ALL MY CLOTHES AND HUG YOU UNTIL YOU DO).

[supershigi]

@ccoa: But the thing is, these studies are correlative; they apply to any medical procedure that causes a base level of pain to the infant. If done properly, the medical community agrees that the stress of circumcision is comparable to that from an injection for immunisation. Thus far there hasn't been a single conclusive study that male circumcision has caused mental development problems in children. In fact, no research examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision even exists.

One example of why there are plenty of non-religious doctors who advocate infant circumcision is that infant urinary tract infections are far more serious of a matter than adult UTIs. A study done by the Journal of Pediatrics shows that circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely that the male infant will suffer a UTI. Infants have a much harder time recovering from UTIs, and there have been infant deaths linked to it.

I just think the concrete evidence available for why infant circumcision is beneficial far outweighs the evidence on the negative. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be practiced by modern doctors. There have been tons of studies done by reputable scientific sources that reveal the benefits of circumcision at a young age... so while I don't think it's absolutely necessary, I don't think it's barbaric at all. I think if a parent wants to have their child circumcised, they can be just as educated about their decision; there is plenty of solid scientific evidence out their to support their decision.

Let me reiterate, I don't think ccoa is uneducated; she's done a lot of research and made a decision based on the information she's obtained. I also don't think those like Lyric who opt to circumsize their male infant are barbaric or uneducated, because there is plenty of modern scientific evidence to support their decision as well. There's a lot of grey area in the world of medicine even today, so we shouldn't criticize those who take a different route :) It just happens to be one of those not black-and-white things.

[Lyricmaniac]

Shigi, you hit the nail on the head. It's not that I object to people who choose not to circumcise. It's that I object to people who call me names because I choose to circumcise especially when the medical community supports my religious beliefs.

[ccoa]

@ccoa: But the thing is, these studies are correlative; they apply to any medical procedure that causes a base level of pain to the infant. If done properly, the medical community agrees that the stress of circumcision is comparable to that from an injection for immunisation. Thus far there hasn't been a single conclusive study that male circumcision has caused mental development problems in children. In fact, no research examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision even exists.

The pain and discomfort of literally losing a covering of skin from a sensitive area lasts for weeks, not moments. And there are many who chose to have the procedure done to infants without anesthesia.

http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/emde/
http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/dixon/

A team of Canadian researchers produced new evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.

The authors believe that "neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli." They also write that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination."

Taddio, A. et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," The Lancet 349 (1997): 599–603.

One example of why there are plenty of non-religious doctors who advocate infant circumcision is that infant urinary tract infections are far more serious of a matter than adult UTIs. A study done by the Journal of Pediatrics shows that circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely that the male infant will suffer a UTI. Infants have a much harder time recovering from UTIs, and there have been infant deaths linked to it.

And many infants have died from complications from circumcisions. The complication rate is very high - 1 in 500 who have the procedure have serious complications afterwards. This is fact - not study.

Also, the study you're quoting is very controversial. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/ Most significantly, Isreali studies have shown the opposite - that circumcised boys are more likely to develop UTIs.

I just think the concrete evidence available for why infant circumcision is beneficial far outweighs the evidence on the negative. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be practiced by modern doctors. There have been tons of studies done by reputable scientific sources that reveal the benefits of circumcision at a young age... so while I don't think it's absolutely necessary, I don't think it's barbaric at all. I think if a parent wants to have their child circumcised, they can be just as educated about their decision; there is plenty of solid scientific evidence out their to support their decision.

Unfortunately, the evidence isn't all that concrete. Most reputable medical organizations do not recommend neonatal circumcisions for that reason. Ten years ago, it was believed to be beneficial. More recent studies have shown it probably isn't.

Once again, I am not against circumcision in general. I believe, however, it should be the choice of the person receiving it, whether it's for religious, medical, or aesthetic reasons.

[Thunderclam]

I see both sides of this argument. I think the fundamental issue is harm. Arguing this from the point of view of religious tradition is stupid because religions have advocated harmful traditions time and again. Saying "it's tradition" counts as an ethical "is", not an ethical "ought". Yeah, infant circumcision does happen, but SHOULD it happen?

And the only real way to look at this is the Harm Principle, in my opinion.

If it does have harms, short-term or long-term, for the child then it is a simple thing to make a normative claim about it, saying "this practice should not occur in this way". But unfortunately, the situation isn't that cut and dried (no pun intended!).

If the short-term and long-term benefits of this practice can be weighed against the harms favorably, to not practice infant circumcision can be ruled as more harmful than practicing it.

It seems like there's very little agreement about the harms for either approach, which is why people are throwing research at each other.

I do respect your religious beliefs, Rachel, and understand your contention about female circumcision (though the two can be looked at as fundamentally similar). However, for all the harshness of her words, Ccoa is at least trying to present a rational argument. Pleading religion, much less tradition, is not sufficient to make an argument that has any weight for people who aren't Jews, unless we're willing to actually talk about the ethical ramifications of this practice, which it seems Ccoa and Shigi are inclined to do.

Wires are certainly being crossed in this thread. Which is kind of epidemic to this forum, I think, since the intent of a discussion thread is rarely clear enough for people to actually know how they should approach the topic. What you end up with is a bunch of people pinning their opinions to the vacuum until someone disagrees, which creates an argument, which all too often devolves into ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, and argumentative atrocities I can barely look at let alone acknowledge and deconstruct them.

So in effect: fucking messes.

[supershigi]

Actually, many infants have not died from circumcision. 1 infant in 500,000 is a far more accurate estimate, and this number is on par with the number of deaths that stem from other infant related medical procedures. And as I mentioned before, even this insignificant number of deaths is entirely correlative. All of the same qualms presented in the critique of the Wiswell study can be applied to circumcision related infant mortality. Not to mention the fact that there have been a number of case-control studies done on the link between circumcision and decreased infant UTIs beyond Wiswell's study. This is the outcome from one of many Australian and North American studies that have been conducted over the last ten years.


Data on 402 908 children were identified from 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies, and seven case–control studies). Circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.20; p<0.001) with the same odds ratio (0.13) for all three types of study design.


And I have a hard time seeing the impact of the first study you quoted, or any of the information provided in the two links; especially in the Dixon/Holve one. I mean for starters, the sample size for D/H was like 31 babies. Not to mention how small the variance actually was in the outcome. I mean, they're trying to draw lines between things like, "In 31 babies, the circumsized baby had an 0.2% less response to a rattle according to our scale," therefore "this baby will have significant brain developmental problems." The second study also had minimal consequences in a small sample size... I'm sorry, but a difference of perceived REM sleep in 20 babies by a minor differential does not equal developmental problems or post-traumatic stress sydnrome, that's ludicrous. If these studies actually meant anything, then doctors would not be practicing circumsicion in legitimate medical facilities. The fact still remains that there are ZERO studies on the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision.

But see, this is my whole point... we could go back and forth in an evidence war about the chances of benefits vs. chances of negative effects. The fact is, it's a grey area. It's not morally wrong or morally right for parents to make this decision for their children based on the information out there right now. You've made that choice for your children, and that's fine. Other folks, both religious and non-religious have made that choice for their kids, and that's fine.

It's funny to be debating about "grey medical areas" at this point because we're dealing with one now. It seems as though the county requires vetrinarians to advocate feline leukemia vaccinations. But this seems to be very controversial; my first cat actually died because she had a tumor in her mouth that they say stemmed from her feline leukemia vaccination. Our other cat died from feline leukemia. And there seems to be evidence going in both directions. I'm not sure what we'll end up doing, so I've just been asking for input from folks with cats to see what they did.

[Alisa_Tana]

the men in my family, as far as I'm aware, are all circumcised. (never mind that my eldest brother gave himself a prince albert, but that's another topic). Why, I never really asked.
I honestly have never given the topic much thought.

Parents make medical decisions for the treatment of their children all the time, although mostly they're dealing with life saving procedures... I think in the case of non life threatening situations the decision should wait until the child is old enough to understand the choices and consequences.


On a side note... the Sarah Connor Chronicles today mentioned Genesis story of Shechem and Dinah (34)... Jacob's daughter Dinah was raped (or at least had sex before being married) and the guy that did it wanted to marry her. Jacob's sons told him that only after his entire village was circumcised that they would allow the marriage. Well, the village did it, and while they were in pain, Dinah's brothers massacred the entire town.
Wow. That's just plain evil.

[supershigi]

Parents make medical decisions for the treatment of their children all the time, although mostly they're dealing with life saving procedures... I think in the case of non life threatening situations the decision should wait until the child is old enough to understand the choices and consequences.


I pretty much agree with this; although I think parents often have to make non life threatening decisions concerning their children's health as well. I know my parents were faced with decisions about vaccinations or treatment options that weren't always 100% certain one way or another... they weren't always life threatening, but they were of significant enough importance in a health related way, which I think is a reasonable brightline.

When I see parents getting their baby's ears pierced, or forcing their kids to get cosmetic surgery (I was shocked to learn how frequently parents encourage their children to have eyelid surgery in Korea; one of my friends was pretty much forced to fly back to Korea one summer against her will to have it done). Now that I think is silly; I think the child should be able to make a decision about such matters that have nothing to do with their health.

[Lyricmaniac]

Evan, it's the way it was said that bothers me. It's not the point she made, but how she decided to make it. It bothered me because she seems to be a champion of PCism until it applies to her. She won't have you asking people if they're virgins or using "racial" terms in the vegas thread, but she doesn't mind calling the people who follow their religion unethical barbarians. That is the problem I had with it. There are others in this thread who have disagreed with me but have done it respectfully (like you, Juu, and others have).

If medically circumcision was seen as harmful to my child, I wouldn't do it, but it's not. If anything, modern medicine supports it. Fundamentally circumcision is circumcision, male or female, but medically and biologically it is not.

[ccoa]

Actually, many infants have not died from circumcision. 1 infant in 500,000 is a far more accurate estimate, and this number is on par with the number of deaths that stem from other infant related medical procedures. And as I mentioned before, even this insignificant number of deaths is entirely correlative.

If you're quoting the AAP report from 1989, it's been shown to have vastly understated the rate and range of complications from circumcisions.

But even assuming it was right, at 1.2 million circumcisions in the US alone each year, and circumcisions being a routine practice since the early 1900s, that adds up to "many" dead infants in my opinion. For a procedure that has not been proven that the benefits, assuming there are any, outweigh the harm.

The medical establishment wants to believe that the procedure is beneficial. They don't want to believe that they've been doing it for no reason for years. So they desperately try to make up reasons why removing a healthy, functional part of the human body is medically beneficial.

All of the same qualms presented in the critique of the Wiswell study can be applied to circumcision related infant mortality. Not to mention the fact that there have been a number of case-control studies done on the link between circumcision and decreased infant UTIs beyond Wiswell's study. This is the outcome from one of many Australian and North American studies that have been conducted over the last ten years.

In the study they failed to take into account that UTIs can be caused by forceably retracting the foreskin of the penis before it has completely detached from the glans - something parents may do and have done if not properly educated on how to care for an uncircumcised penis. Neither Dr. Wiswell nor the AAP studies appear to have considered this possibility as an intervening causal variable in the results, making the results suspect. They also failed to take into account that some of the study group were premature infants (who are almost never circumcised and are at higher risk for all infections, including UTIs) and whether the infant was breastfeeding or not, which protects against infections

Additionally, there have been documented cases of UTIs caused by infections from circumcisions - at least one of which has led to an infant death.

It used to be routine to remove appendixes to prevent appendicitis, as well. This was believed to be purely beneficial, since the appendix was believed to have no useful function. This was later proven wrong, and now healthy appendixes are no longer removed. Removing healthy tissue to prevent a disease that is treatable with antibiotics is completely illogical, if it's even true that it does. That's like pulling healthy teeth to prevent cavities. Yes, some people do die from septic cavities, but that doesn't mean we should all be toothless.

Foreskin has a vital purpose in protecting from disease and infection and protecting the glans, as well as serving a purpose during sexual intercourse. Removing healthy, functional tissue to prevent disease doesn't make sense. Should we remove the labia from women to prevent yeast infections and UTIs? Especially since the rate of UTIs in female infants is higher than that in males.

While individual doctors may vary, neonatal circumcision is not recommended by the AAP, and hasn't been since 1999. While some doctors will perform the surgery if parents request it, it is not recognized by most insurance companies or the AAP as valid preventative care. You can find their statement here (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/), which references 1996 studies by the Australian College of Paediatrics, Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, and Canadian Paediatric Society which all found that neonatal circumcision had no medical rationale.

Ironically, the AAP are adamantly opposed to all types of FGM, including Type I, and counsels it's members to never perform such surgeries . Type I FGM is identical to male circumcision - it is removing the skin surrounding the clitoris, the same skin that would become the foreskin in a male. There are no debates about whether removing this skin is beneficial - it is seen as a barbaric mutilation by almost everyone except in the regions it is still practiced in. Even the name betrays what people think about it - Female Genital Mutilation.

Shigi, you say you agree that in "non-life threatening" situations or not for "significant" health care reasons the procedure, no matter what it is, should wait until the individual is an adult. However, the incidence of deaths from UTIs and the sketchiness of the "evidence" that circumcision prevents them means that a claiming a circumcision averts a life-threatening situation (even though it puts the infant's life in danger at the time) or provides "significant" health benefits is weak, at best.

It is misleading to speak of a medical “benefit” of a procedure when serious complications occur at a rate far greater than the problem the procedure was meant to address and when less invasive but effective interventions are available.

EDIT: Also, I have not called anyone barbaric or unethical at any point. I called the procedure such, and that is my belief. A person doing something unethical for what they believe to be good reasons is not generally a bad person. Nor are they a barbarian. I missed it in your last most, but I have not called anyone barbaric, and nor will I.

[Barbatos]

Ok, you got me there, but I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

During masturbation or sex, my penis never felt 'dried out' at any point, nor did it need the extra lubrication from being inside a bacteria's wet dream of a foreskin. Yes, the last comment was my personal feel on the subject, but it makes sense...when was the last time you had a bladder infection? My friend who's uncut gets them at least twice a year, if not more.

I'm putting this under spoiler tags since it might offend some people.

Dude I can't even jack off without lube. Jacking off dry hurts like hell! Maybe you have a pretty meaty penis, but those doctors sure snipped me so much that my skin is real thin. (I'm circumsized in case you forgot, and I hate it).

Also, I can't orgasm while wearing a condom, or getting a blow job, and I suspect it is due to being circumsized. Only barebacking for me!

I'd gladly take a couple bladder infections a year in order to have enhanced sexual pleasure any day. It's like making a deal with the devil. I have no moral values so i'm all for it!

My husband doesn't have a foreskin and orgasms very well. Removing foreskin does not take away all of the pleasure in a man. It also doesn't shrivel and dry the penis head like suggested. It does keep it clean though.

Uhh when was the last time you touched your husband's penis? The head was dry, was it not? And it does have a shrivelled look. At least mine does anyway. Maybe jews have developed a resistance to dry penises or something.

Anyway, read this: http://news.softpedia.com/news/CIrcumcision-Decreases-by-Four-Times-Penis-039-s-Sensitivity-52117.shtml

[ccoa]

The first part sounds like they cut too much skin, which I outlined earlier as a possible problem when performing the procedure on an infant. It means the skin of your penis can't freely slide (or possibly at all) over the shaft, which may cause your need for lubrication. When the skin slides up and down, little or no lubrication should be needed for masturbation (I'm embarrassed to say I'm speaking from experience here.) Of course, that might not be the issue, so let me know if I'm wrong.

(If that's the case, it also means your penis may be up to 25% smaller than it could have grown, because of the loss of skin tissue and arteries for it. Oops?)

The rest of that might be due to the circumcision, but might not. It may be some other problem. Have you seen anyone about it? It might be a good idea to consult a specialist.

[HawkZombie]

Died (Yay! Mine is hidden too!):

I can usually only orgasm with a BJ...lol...but I think it's more psychological than physical.

Also, yeah, I've got a rather...uh...large member, so jerking off dry has never hurt once. In fact, I rather enjoy it (gives a rougher sensation)...I'm actually more a fan of rougher sex, so maybe being lubed up all the time might not be such a good thing for me :P

It comes down to personal preference, I guess...I'm sorry you hate being cut so much.

[The Finest Brew]

Died, as said before, that sounds more like another problem. Hell, maybe it is psychological, or it could be medical.

I can masturbate without lube, and it's more comfortable for me if I don't use it. As for sex, it all depends on the situation. Condoms don't really affect my performance either.

[Barbatos]

The first part sounds like they cut too much skin, which I outlined earlier as a possible problem when performing the procedure on an infant. It means the skin of your penis can't freely slide (or possibly at all) over the shaft, which may cause your need for lubrication. When the skin slides up and down, little or no lubrication should be needed for masturbation (I'm embarrassed to say I'm speaking from experience here.) Of course, that might not be the issue, so let me know if I'm wrong.



You hit it on the nail there. My skin doesn't slide at all, because there's not much skin at all there to slide to begin with. I have like negative foreskin left.

[ccoa]

You hit it on the nail there. My skin doesn't slide at all, because there's not much skin at all there to slide to begin with. I have like negative foreskin left.

Well, it could be worse. Some people with that problem actually experience pain during an erection. I know that's pretty cold comfort, though. :upset: I'm sorry for your problems, for what it's worth.

[supershigi]

Shigi, you say you agree that in "non-life threatening" situations or not for "significant" health care reasons the procedure, no matter what it is, should wait until the individual is an adult. However, the incidence of deaths from UTIs and the sketchiness of the "evidence" that circumcision prevents them means that a claiming a circumcision averts a life-threatening situation (even though it puts the infant's life in danger at the time) or provides "significant" health benefits is weak, at best.


As I said before, we could go back and forth in an evidence war for pages but it's not going to convince either of us of the opposite. I still firmly believe that current evidence proves that deaths and complication by circumcision are just as rare and correlative as deaths caused by typical preventitive medical procedures. I don't believe the current evidence on circumcision as a preventitive procedure is "sketchy" either. But rather than continue this discourse (because we could probably go on for days playing the evidence validation game), I'm just going to say that we should agree to disagree.

[ccoa]

Certainly, if you'll at least answer this question:

Should we remove the labia from female infants to prevent urinary tract infections?

[supershigi]

Should we remove the labia from female infants to prevent urinary tract infections?



Type I FGM is identical to male circumcision - it is removing the skin surrounding the clitoris, the same skin that would become the foreskin in a male. There are no debates about whether removing this skin is beneficial - it is seen as a barbaric mutilation by almost everyone except in the regions it is still practiced in. Even the name betrays what people think about it - Female Genital Mutilation.


Okay, for starters, in the majority of documented cases, Type I refers to the removal of the clitoris, so no, it's not identical to male circumcision. In the cases of Type I where only the clitoral hood is removed, unlike with the foreskin of the penis, the size and connected area make it near impossible for doctors or midwives to only remove the skin and not interfere with the nerve tissue on the clitoris itself. There have been overwhelming studies done that reveal nerve damage and infection in rates that vastly superceded anything we've seen with male circumcision. In more cases than not there are complications. When it comes down to it, there is no way the evidence out there supports benefits outweighing physical harm in FGM of any type. I don't want to be pulled into a debate about this, it would last forever; I have two 40lb rubber tubs in my garage filled with evidence on this topic leftover from policy debate. To answer your question, no, I don't believe in Type I FGM or FGM of any kind, and I think there is a ridiculous amount of medical evidence and studies done by doctors and international human rights groups that will back up the idea that FGM (Type I or otherwise) is in no way identical to male circumcision.

But really, I would rather just agree to disagree because this is becoming rather tedious, and like Sketch I would prefer to opt out of something I feel has clearly has become a fundamental difference in views and evidence analysis. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. I have my views on FGM because I've researched it very extensively and actually worked with several human rights doctors who have spent time in Africa fixing women who were damaged from this procedure. I'm only responding to this to answer your question; but I would really rather no longer be invovled in this discussion.

[ccoa]

As you wish. That wasn't the question I asked, however.

[supershigi]

My answer to your question was this:


no, I don't believe in Type I FGM or FGM of any kind


"FGM of any kind" includes FGM Type 2 (one subdivision is removal of the labia), so yes, I did answer your question. There are groups of doctors that go to Africa with the sole purpose of fixing girls who endure complications as a result of all types of FGM. Basically I don't believe in any type of FGM because the evidence that currently exists reveals that a large number of physical complications exist post procedure as compared with benefits. Hopefully this answers your question about how I feel on this issue.

[ccoa]

According to the American medical community, Type II is only when it includes the removal of the clitoris. Removal of the Labia alone is not classfied. Sorry we were working from different definitions. ^^;

[Lyricmaniac]

This thread has gone down the toilet. I specified male circumcision because female circumcision is its own debate and I really didn't want to discuss it in this thread. In addition, the digs, the cuts, and the trolling are too much. How do I close this thread?

[Ronove]

Lyric, if anyone posts anything else about female circumcision, I will delete their posts. If you really want, I can offer to delete the ones about female circumcision. This is still a debate if people still want to talk about it. You don't have to close it right now. But! If you surely want to, just tell me and I will. I'm just saying to try and give it a chance if you can.

[Lyricmaniac]

No, don't go deleting their posts, but perhaps they can kindly make a new thread about that subject if they wish to discuss it. I will clarify this thread in case the title wasn't clear enough. Male v. female circumcision is its own debate. This is specifically for male circumcision and whether or not you believe in it.

[Zeriab]

I live in an area (or maybe it's just my network, I dunno) where circumcision is highly unethical and only acceptable when there is a medical reason for it. (No the evidence here is for how it may help in the feature is not a medical reason. A very case-specific diagnose would be required)
It's a bit like a person's appendix. There was a time where it was removed if there was surgery nearby to prevent appendicitis.
There appear to be evidence for the appendix actually have some function and thus it is only removed in case of appendicitis.
The same deal with circumcision. I am not talking physiologically wise. I am talking about the mental attitude toward the circumcision.

*hugs*
- Zeriab

[supershigi]

According to the American medical community, Type II is only when it includes the removal of the clitoris. Removal of the Labia alone is not classfied. Sorry we were working from different definitions. ^^;


Oh, it's no problem :) I was using the World Health Organization's definition (I believe it falls under Type 2a).

[JuuNi]

This is specifically for male circumcision and whether or not you believe in it.

Ah, well in which case, just to clarify a previous statement. No, I do not believe in circumcision unless I was about to die from haveing too much foreskin.

[Thunderclam]

Hahaha. Could you imagine dying from having too much foreskin? Somehow I picture your foreskin sort of getting into your throat and fucking up your breathing because it's SO MASSIVE.

Without being able to convincingly make a case that male circumcision unequivocally harms a substantive (majority) of people who undergo it, there's no real reason to continue this thread.

[Barbatos]

Without being able to convincingly make a case that male circumcision unequivocally harms a substantive (majority) of people who undergo it, there's no real reason to continue this thread.

Actually it does harm people (in the form of reducing sexual pleasure), but I guess most people don't mind or care since it's a several thousand year old cultural tradition.

[The Finest Brew]

From the sound of things Died, it seems to really only affect people who get their circumcisions botched. In that case, go to the professionals.


Jews are here for a reason.B-)

[Lyricmaniac]

In that case, go to the professionals.


Jews are here for a reason.B-)

HAHAHAHA! Best quote ever.

[Thunderclam]

Substantive majority, Died. I didn't mean you. Can you prove that the majority of people who undergo circumcisions are harmed?

I'm circumcized and fine.

[Zeriab]

How can you circumcise someone without harming them?
The body reacts as though it is an injury and it most definitely stress the body.
I don't believe that anyone here think circumcision when performed as independent event in the specific situation without regards to the future is does not harm the one circumcised physically.

The argument seems more to be that the injury is not lasting and that it may in the future be beneficial.

Since circumcision is a surgical operation the burden of proof should been on it not being harming rather than the other way around.
There are cases where it would be very unwise to circumcise. It should be banned by law (if it is not already) to circumcise children if they are a hemophiliac (bleeder).
It is most likely not very wise to conduct the circumcision on weak or sick people due to the stressful nature.

There are also cases where it is a good idea. If for example the foreskin is too tight. There are probably also other cases although I can't think of any that are not very extreme and most likely very rare. (Like frostbites or grangrene although I doubt that would happen without the person being in much worse trouble)

I have focused on the purely on the medical aspect although I know that culture and religion can be a motivation. (Loss of social status can be a big motivation)

On a side-note there have not been focus at all on the environment where you live in. Maybe there is a difference if you are like in Greenland and Siberia where it is very cold or in Sahara or Death Vally with dry heat or the rain forest where it is warm and most.
I don't know whether there are any difference or not. I do believe it's worth considering.

*hugs*
- Zeriab

[Alisa_Tana]

Harry Potter, Superman and Wolverine are uncut. ^__^

[ccoa]

Unless the scalpel was made of kryptonite, I don't think it's even possible to circumcise Superman. ^^; And, uh, wouldn't Wolverine's just grow ba- nevermind.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the studies that show that circumcisions protect infants from UTIs are correct.

According to those studies, 0.188% of circumcised infants will get a UTI, and 0.702% of uncircumcised infants will get a UTI. In other words, you need to perform 195 circumcisions to prevent 1 infant urinary tract infection.

Now, the rate of serious, short-term complications after a circumcision is 2-10%, depending on which study you're looking at. For the sake of being completely fair, we'll say it's 2%. That means that of those 195 circumcisions, 4 infants will have a serious complication from their circumcision.

That means that serious complications from the procedure happen at a greater rate than the disease it is meant to protect from!

Additionally, rooming in and breastfeeding have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of all infections, including UTIs. Antibiotics are an effective treatment for most UTIs. Which means that less drastic and risky prevention techniques and treatments exist for urinary tract infections.

Removing the foreskin does result in a permanent loss of function, since the foreskin plays a role in the immune system, in protecting the glans, provides sensory input during sexual intercourse (or masturbation ;) ), and plays a lubricating role during sexual intercourse.

It is misleading to speak of a medical “benefit” of a procedure when serious complications occur at a rate far greater than the problem the procedure was meant to address, when less invasive but effective interventions are available, and when the procedure results in a permanent loss of function. Any medical professional who understands the scientific evidence but who agrees to circumcise is acting unethically, since a physician’s primary duty is to act in the best interest of his patient (the baby in this case, not the parents).

[HawkZombie]

Superman we dunno...Kyrptonians might have been having this very discussion, and the El's might've decided to cut Kal before he was sent off into the rocket.

Jor El - I still think it's unnatural...I mean...it's there to sheath and protect! I'm a scientist! I know these things!
Lara El - Well, My father did it, his father did it before him, and so on and so on! Brainiac says it's good for long lasting penile health, and many people on Earth practice the same custom.
Jor El - Oh god, don't get me started on the Earth thing again.

As for wolverine....You got me there :P

[ccoa]

I think my geek rating went up by >9000.

[HawkZombie]

I think my geek rating went up by >9000.

XD...It was only a matter of time before this thread became a giant superman penis joke

LOL