NationStates Jolt Archive

I was on the fence about weather or not to Circumcise a child of mine before watching Tuesday nights Penn & Teller's BullShit.

The only people that seem to benefit from it are the hospitals performing the procedures. $40.00 every 26 seconds.

What does the forum think of this issue.

It is cleaner...

It is cleaner...

only if you dont wash your junk appropriately

It is inconclusive weather higher rates if infection are related to non-circumcision.
Separate studies have proven both sides of the argument.

It is cleaner...
You know what else would be cleaner? Sewing up our arseholes and just having a colostomy bag.

Sorry, I just don't get circumcision. It began as a cultural practice among certain groups, and is now just part of the tradition in North America, but there doesn't seem to be a real reason for it. By the way, up in Canada, it costs $140 a pop. Not bad.

You could argue that removing a woman's outer labia is also 'cleaner'.

Again...showering does wonders for 'cleanliness'.

I've had occassion to compare the uncircumcised penis to the circumcised one, and both are weird looking:) They are also both functional, and the cleanliness depends on the individual.

You know what else would be cleaner? Sewing up our arseholes and just having a colostomy bag.

Sorry, I just don't get circumcision. It began as a cultural practice among certain groups, and is now just part of the tradition in North America, but there doesn't seem to be a real reason for it. By the way, up in Canada, it costs $140 a pop. Not bad.

You could argue that removing a woman's outer labia is also 'cleaner'.

Again...showering does wonders for 'cleanliness'.

I've had occassion to compare the uncircumcised penis to the circumcised one, and both are weird looking:) They are also both functional, and the cleanliness depends on the individual.
Other good points brought up by Penn & Teller.
As well as the fact there is a bundle of nerves in that piece od skin & most children go into a form of shock shortly after the procedure is complete.

There really is no medical reason (phimosis and similar conditions aside) for doing it. There is no functional reason for doing it.

Really, "tradition" and "religion" are the only things that seem to cause it to still be done, and it is a shame that some people do this to children.

I have nothing against people who decide to do it to themselves when they are capable of taking such a decision, like I have nothing against peircing or tatoos or any other body modification made by consenting adults.

It's just that this is done to children who have no say in the matter, for no medical reason at all and that makes me a bit sick to my stomach, actually. I'm glad my parents never did something as unethical as this to me.

In addition to the cleanliness issue (which can be overcome with adequate hygeine), there is the fact that an uncircumcized man is more likely to contract certain STDs. This is likely due to the fact that he has more vulnerable mucous membranes exposed.

That said, I am very much on the fence on the whole thing. I've never interacted with an uncircumcized penis myself, there are statistical reasons to consider it, and I have only seen a few people who think any harm is done. However, it is still a body-altering decision that my gut says should be left up to the person in question.

If a parent is considering it for religious, rather than medical, reasons, there should be no question. It should not be done until the child is old enough to make that decision on their own.

In addition to the cleanliness issue (which can be overcome with adequate hygeine), there is the fact that an uncircumcized man is more likely to contract certain STDs. This is likely due to the fact that he has more vulnerable mucous membranes exposed.

That's not a fact. The findings are inconclusive as of this point.

Other good points brought up by Penn & Teller.
As well as the fact there is a bundle of nerves in that piece od skin & most children go into a form of shock shortly after the procedure is complete.

I take it they neglected to mention (as most anti-circumcision sources do) that it is no longer accepted medical practice to circumcize a child without anesthesia?

Acceptable child mutilation.
A disgusting practice where no medical benifit is indicated.
At least in my opinion.
Leave the poor kid alone. He can make the choice when he's old enough. It'll be tough to stick it back on if he doesn't agree it was a good idea.

That's not a fact. The findings are inconclusive as of this point.

The papers I read were pretty clear.

Of course, nothing in science is fact, but the statistical trends are there.

I think it boils down to this:

Dad wants his sons to look like him.

There is no evil agenda. I know in my parent's case there was simply no question that it would be done to my brothers. Now that we have more immigration, and more people questioning the practice, we suddenly are asking ourselves why we started doing it in the first place. My husband comes from a Catholic nation that does not incorporate circumcision into its beliefs or traditions. For them, the practice is a big question mark. It should be for all of us.

It is needless barbarity. The argument has been reduced to one of cosmetics, because there are no other plausible justifications for it. I for one do not find cosmetics a strong-enough argument to justify infant genital mutilation.

Then again, there are parents who get their infant daughters' ears pierced. People are savages.

The papers I read were pretty clear.

Of course, nothing in science is fact, but the statistical trends are there.

I've read contradicting papers. There is no clear consensus in the matter, so calling it a "fact" or in other way implying that there is a consensus is a bit misleading.

In addition to the cleanliness issue (which can be overcome with adequate hygeine), there is the fact that an uncircumcized man is more likely to contract certain STDs. This is likely due to the fact that he has more vulnerable mucous membranes exposed.

He should be wearing a condom anyway.

:p I was on the fence about weather or not to Circumcise a child of mine before watching Tuesday nights Penn & Teller's BullShit.

The only people that seem to benefit from it are the hospitals performing the procedures. $40.00 every 26 seconds.

What does the forum think of this issue.
True now, less true in the past when it became SOP.

Then again, Cohen's do it for Tips.... :p

When I was a bit younger I got an infection because I wasn't circumsized and let me tell ya, it hurt like SHIT!. I am so glad I eventually got circumsized, and besides most girls I talk to prefer all that skin taken off. Easy access ;)

I made the decision to keep my kid just as he was born so he is uncircumcised... I jsut could not see putting my boy through that... he was made that way for a reason it is not up to me to change it. He knows how to keep himself clean and he has never had any issues... as he gets older I am sure he will take suitable precautions with himself like any other male who is responsible.. but again that is up to him....

It is needless barbarity. The argument has been reduced to one of cosmetics, because there are no other plausible justifications for it. I for one do not find cosmetics a strong-enough argument to justify infant genital mutilation.

Then again, there are parents who get their infant daughters' ears pierced. People are savages.
Hmm...interesting point. I for one am against circumcision, but it is part of my husband's culture, piercing a girl child's ears during infancy, so we did it with my first daughter. We've decided to wait and let my second daughter decide to do it (or not) herself. *shrugs* traditions can change.

I've read contradicting papers. There is no clear consensus in the matter, so calling it a "fact" or in other way implying that there is a consensus is a bit misleading.

I don't call anything from science "fact". That would be incorrect.

Have you read the papers with cell culture from foreskins demonstrating that certain pathogens can enter the tissue more easily?

He should be wearing a condom anyway.

Condoms are not a magic bullet.

When I was a bit younger I got an infection because I wasn't circumsized and let me tell ya, it hurt like SHIT!. I am so glad I eventually got circumsized, and besides most girls I talk to prefer all that skin taken off. Easy access ;)


Funny I prefer the natural look... circumcised just looks mutilated to me

In my opinion, circumcision is a form of cosmetic surgery. Elective cosmetic surgery. As such, why to so many insurance companies cover it?!? My god! They'll find any excuse...ANY EXCUSE not to cover a procedure! I think the day some dickhead vice-president in an insurance company says, "what about circumcision?' at a meeting is the day somebody gets a huge raise. :)

However, it is a very interesting piece of cosmetic surgery, isn't it? I mean, if you ever see a picture of a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis side-by-side, which one would you think was more aesthetically pleasing? I know which one I'd like better. ...:eek: Okay, that came out wrong.

ANyhoo, circumcising your children is a religious rite. As such, I don't see a problem with it. It does no harm. Give the kid the ol' snip-snip. God told ya to. ;)

But let's not pretend it's anything but cosmetic surgery.

You Americans are crazy!

No-one here cosiders circumcision at all (except for them weird religious types)

There is no need if you clean properly.

It's insanity!

Why cut bits off your child?

If you outlaw circumcision, then only outlaws will have beautiful shlongs.

Hmm...interesting point. I for one am against circumcision, but it is part of my husband's culture, piercing a girl child's ears during infancy, so we did it with my first daughter. We've decided to wait and let my second daughter decide to do it (or not) herself. *shrugs* traditions can change.

I find it surprising that you would be willing to pierce an infant's ears. That is a perfect example of gender stereotyping with no basis whatsoever in medicine that has made its way into our culture. Glad to hear that you are letting your younger daughter decide for herself.

In addition to the cleanliness issue (which can be overcome with adequate hygeine), there is the fact that an uncircumcized man is more likely to contract certain STDs. This is likely due to the fact that he has more vulnerable mucous membranes exposed.

That said, I am very much on the fence on the whole thing. I've never interacted with an uncircumcized penis myself, there are statistical reasons to consider it, and I have only seen a few people who think any harm is done. However, it is still a body-altering decision that my gut says should be left up to the person in question.

If a parent is considering it for religious, rather than medical, reasons, there should be no question. It should not be done until the child is old enough to make that decision on their own.
Again for every study that proves that I can show you another that disproves links to higher STD rates.

I find it surprising that you would be willing to pierce an infant's ears. That is a perfect example of gender stereotyping with no basis whatsoever in medicine that has made its way into our culture. Glad to hear that you are letting your younger daughter decide for herself.
Yeah, well, I'll fight for any sons I have to get their ears pierced if they so wish. Basically, it was something that my husband really wanted, and I didn't see the harm. To him it was tradition, but had nothing to do with anything medical...just looks. However, I don't think it's entirely necessary, and he's kind of come around to that opinion too.

I can't believe anyone is offering "let the child choose" as an OK solution. At infancy it's not remembered the next day, but by the time the child is old enough to make a conciencius decision (which really won't come until they're an adult becuase kids don't known and don't care about keeping their penises clean) it becomes a scarring event that you'll never be able to forget.

Most of the anti people are Europeans who have been brought up to think of it as a weirdo practice done by Americans (who as we all know, cause all the world's problems). The supporters are Americans who have been brought up to think of it as a normal procedure done to everyone. Everyone in here is biased and can't make a really informed decision.

As far as I'm concerned, non-religous circumcision is a load of bollocks (no pun intended) Every other mammal in existance gets on just fine without it.

I don't have a strong opinion either way -- although I do find the anti-circumsion lobby more than a bit silly and hysterical.

The Penn & Teller program was interesting.

But let us be clear that they are more than willing to skew things towards a certain outcome.

I respect Penn Gillette, but he is wrong about lots of things. And he is not above making a slanted view seem balanced.

The Circumcision program was a fine example. You might note that many of the "facts" against circumcision came from the 2 women whose credentials were never stated -- other than that just thinking about it makes them cry. These "facts" were often used to "rebut" the statements of actual pediatricians.

Have you read the papers with cell culture from foreskins demonstrating that certain pathogens can enter the tissue more easily?

In vitro, there are findings that allude to it, but there is lack of consensus in the issue as to whether those studies are conclusive, and whether it is important in vivo, though. Which is of course an explanation as to why there are no current international guidelines that would propose circumcision at a grander scale where it is not as prevalent as in North Africa or North America.

Again for every study that proves that I can show you another that disproves links to higher STD rates.

You are quite welcome to do so.

'course there was also a time when the men-folk went to battle relatively unclothed and unpainted... needed a way to fairly rapid way distinguish one side from the other.

A clipped schlong is fairly noticable when skin color just won't do...

In vitro, there are findings that allude to it, but there is lack of consensus in the issue as to whether those studies are conclusive, and whether it is important in vivo, though. Which is of course an explanation as to why there are no current international guidelines that would propose circumcision at a grander scale where it is not as prevalent as in North Africa or North America.

The fact that there is a lack of consensus is exactly why we should neither ban it nor make it mandatory. Parents should be allowed to examine the evidence for themselves and make a decision.

Condoms are not a magic bullet.
First: Condoms work perfectly well when used correctly. If you're worried use spemicidal ones. Just the last popes bad press office suggesting they're no good.

Secondly : In the UK where this operation is unusual STDs and infections are not higher than anywhere else. And no, I haven't got anything to back that statement up but as an uncirumcised and fairly promiscuous man when I was younger I had one mild unine infection in goodness knows how many years and my friends where no worse off. This was before AIDs made condoms essential as well.

Again for every study that proves that I can show you another that disproves links to higher STD rates.

Care to do so?

I hope you have really looked into this and found links rather than relying on the slight of hand of Penn & Teller.

Yeah, well, I'll fight for any sons I have to get their ears pierced if they so wish. Basically, it was something that my husband really wanted, and I didn't see the harm. To him it was tradition, but had nothing to do with anything medical...just looks. However, I don't think it's entirely necessary, and he's kind of come around to that opinion too.
I have an infant daughter (3 months tomorrow) and she's not getting pierced by anything that doesn't boost her immune system. Almost every article of clothing and blanket she owns is pink, and if people are too dim to take that for an indication of gender, they should be embarassed for themselves. The few people who have managed to call her a "he" managed to look embarassed, so it's working.

Don't know about you guys, but my weiner has been skinless all my life. I can honestly say I haven't missed it, in fact, had never thought of it until seeing this thread. Barring the small risk of malpractice and post-op infection, I don't see anything ethically wrong with it. I mean, honestly, it isn't like they tie it up in a knot and wait for it to turn black and fall of like a belly button. I'd like to hear from someone who's been circumsized as an adult, and get their input on sensation. Girls, ever have someone slide your clitoral hood up and down the length of your clitorus? Yeah, something like that.

Circumsizing a baby makes about as much sense as someone attempting to tell you what you're thinking about.

Give a choice to the child. If he decides to do it when he's older, let him. But doing that to him while he can't even speak is just horrific.

Besides, it loses sensitivity for "cleanliness".

I have an infant daughter (3 months tomorrow) and she's not getting pierced by anything that doesn't boost her immune system. Almost every article of clothing and blanket she owns is pink, and if people are too dim to take that for an indication of gender, they should be embarassed for themselves. The few people who have managed to call her a "he" managed to look embarassed, so it's working.
I'm not really strongly pro or anti-ear piercing, so meh. I don't dress my kids in pink, and I don't care if people mistake their gender. Babies are pretty sexless.

As far as I'm concerned, non-religous circumcision is a load of bollocks (no pun intended) Every other mammal in existance gets on just fine without it.

Why are you ok with a parent making a religious decision for a child not yet old enough to determine whether or not they want to be a part of said religion?

As far as I'm concerned, non-religous circumcision is a load of bollocks (no pun intended) Every other mammal in existance gets on just fine without it.

A rather silly argument.

"Every other mammal in exist[e]nce gets on just fine without"....

antibiotics

heart surgery

pain killers

casts

.....

Circumcision may or may not be silly, or wrong, or harmful. But the "it is not natural" argument is not helpful.

Most of the anti people are Europeans who have been brought up to think of it as a weirdo practice done by Americans (who as we all know, cause all the world's problems). The supporters are Americans who have been brought up to think of it as a normal procedure done to everyone. Everyone in here is biased and can't make a really informed decision.
Just so you can experience the pure stupidity of making gross generalizations... I am American, circumcised, and not particularly happy about it. I enjoy sex quite a bit, but it's disturbing to know that I could be enjoying it on a whole other level. The loss of thousands of nerve endings is pretty useful information.

Don't know about you guys, but my weiner has been skinless all my life. I can honestly say I haven't missed it, in fact, had never thought of it until seeing this thread. Barring the small risk of malpractice and post-op infection, I don't see anything ethically wrong with it. I mean, honestly, it isn't like they tie it up in a knot and wait for it to turn black and fall of like a belly button. I'd like to hear from someone who's been circumsized as an adult, and get their input on sensation. Girls, ever have someone slide your clitoral hood up and down the length of your clitorus? Yeah, something like that.
Actually, now you mention it I had a friend in the 80's who had it done for medical reasons.
He was sure that sensation was reduced. As in continued exposure de-sensitised the nerves. BUT he was quite happy about that 'cos he didn't have to recite the alphabet backward to prolong his partners pleasure.
(note careful wording)

The fact that there is a lack of consensus is exactly why we should neither ban it nor make it mandatory. Parents should be allowed to examine the evidence for themselves and make a decision.

I never said it should be banned, I was just countering your claims that you phrased as though they were universally accepted.

Now, the important question is, as there is nothing conclusive that shows circumcision to be an advantage or in other way medically sound (some claim lower instances of penile cancer, but others dispute that, too), why should it be done at all? And why should parents be allowed to decide to have their child's body surgically altered without any good, medical reason? Should we not protect children from such violations?

Circumsizing a baby makes about as much sense as someone attempting to tell you what you're thinking about.

Give a choice to the child. If he decides to do it when he's older, let him. But doing that to him while he can't even speak is just horrific.

Besides, it loses sensitivity for "cleanliness".

I've read more than one source stating that sensitivity is actually *gained*, as the more sensitive parts of the penis are exposed by the procedure.

I don't think anyone can really know if sensitivity is actually lost when an infant has the procedure done.

I think the only reason it isnt considered extremely weird is because its traditional. Female circumcision is extremely rare and so is considered very stange, this suggests to me that male circumcision should end too. Its just an outdated practice which if even a few people who had it done at birth end up resenting it, cannot be justified.

I can't believe anyone is offering "let the child choose" as an OK solution. At infancy it's not remembered the next day, but by the time the child is old enough to make a conciencius decision (which really won't come until they're an adult becuase kids don't known and don't care about keeping their penises clean) it becomes a scarring event that you'll never be able to forget.

Most of the anti people are Europeans who have been brought up to think of it as a weirdo practice done by Americans (who as we all know, cause all the world's problems). The supporters are Americans who have been brought up to think of it as a normal procedure done to everyone. Everyone in here is biased and can't make a really informed decision.

Guess what... I am American, and interestingly enough when I was teaching my kid how to bathe himself made sure his bits were included!!!! So it is second nature to him I am sure....hmmm shot your theory all to hell didn't I?

I never said it should be banned, I was just countering your claims that you phrased as though they were universally accepted.

Now, the important question is, as there is nothing conclusive that shows circumcision to be an advantage or in other way medically sound (some claim lower instances of penile cancer, but others dispute that, too), why should it be done at all? And why should parents be allowed to decide to have their child's body surgically altered without any good, medical reason? Should we not protect children from such violations?

You assume that "good, medical reason" has to be "absolutely conclusive", which it does not. If we waited for "absolutely conclusive" on everything, we'd never make progress.

There are medical indications here. You have examined the evidence and decided that it is not necessary. Others have examined the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion. Some of haven't come to a conclusion yet at all.

I think the only reason it isnt considered extremely weird is because its traditional. Female circumcision is extremely rare and so is considered very stange, this suggests to me that male circumcision should end too. Its just an outdated practice which if even a few people who had it done at birth end up resenting it, cannot be justified.

Comparing FGM to circumcision is really just silly. Now, if you would like to discuss the full removal of the penis instead?

I've read more than one source stating that sensitivity is actually *gained*, as the more sensitive parts of the penis are exposed by the procedure.

I don't think anyone can really know if sensitivity is actually lost when an infant has the procedure done.
Like I said, you expose the sensative parts and then you slap them against your underwear for 12 or more hours a day.
I play guitar. Constantly fingering strings has desensitised my finger tips. Surely other tips become equaly desensitised with constant friction. I know I can't bear to wear clothes if my foreskin is pulled back. It's actually so sensative that it hurts to do so. (don't ask me the cercumstances of that experiment please!). Do circumcised men have similar problems?

You assume that "good, medical reason" has to be "absolutely conclusive", which it does not. If we waited for "absolutely conclusive" on everything, we'd never make progress.

I guess the term "Evidence Based Medicine" and its enormous success, which has heralded a revolution in modern medicine, have eluded you.

There are medical indications here. You have examined the evidence and decided that it is not necessary. Others have examined the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion. Some of haven't come to a conclusion yet at all.

I have yet to come across a single physician who has been able to motivate a pro-circumcision stance with an acceptable evidence degree as per the guidelines of sound evidence based medicine.

I guess the term "Evidence Based Medicine" and its enormous success, which has heralded a revolution in modern medicine, have eluded you.

There is evidence. You have chosen to believe that it is incorrect. This does not mean that everyone has.

I have yet to come across a single physician who has been able to motivate a pro-circumcision stance with an acceptable evidence degree as per the guidelines of sound evidence based medicine.

A physician's job is not to be pro- or anti-. It is to ensure that the parents get the proper information and make an informed decision.

IIRC the biological reason for foreskin is - get this - SUCTION. By having an intact foreskin, secondary vaginal penetrations (i.e. by subsequent male(s)) are more likely to draw out the ejacula of prior males in a biological attempt to increase the odds the "sloppy second" gets to be the father.

Just an FYI... :rolleyes:

personally the only thing i could find against it is when people do it to 13 yr olds.. thats the muslims tradition.. however i am circumcised and it was done when i was 8 days old, so i have no rememberance of it.. and as to the person asking about problems caused by it..i really have no problems with my machinery, thank u very much..

There is evidence. You have chosen to believe that it is incorrect. This does not mean that everyone has.

Pray tell, where in the scale of the different degrees of evidence, as per evidence based medicine, does this "evidence" belong? You are familiar with the scale, aren't you?

A physician's job is not to be pro- or anti-. It is to ensure that the parents get the proper information and make an informed decision.

How is that relevant? A consult with a patient is completely different from public discourse and medical debate.

I would say one of the most important considerations is who will be teaching the boy about sex (in general, it can be assumed it will be the father). I spoke to a doctor or two about this, and there is no conclusive research about circumcision on either side...all the reports are contradicted by other reports and such. The guideline the doctors said was if the father is circumcised, the boy should be too...it saves having to explain what daddys penis looks "different" or "weird". There is the argument that you could wait untill the boy is older and let him decide, but honestly, what if he would have prefered it? Very few men would be willing to let their junk go under the knife.

All in all, I can only give my perspective, which is that of a circumcised male. As far as I can tell, it makes cleaning easy, and sex still feels quite good. Of course, I have nothing to compare it to, so *shrug*

Give a choice to the child.

You also gonna ask the infant what it wants to wear or what it wants for dinner? No ... kids don't really get choices, especially at that age.

Now ... without me having to go into the whole banana slug vs. conquistador speech again, I will say this:

Since there is no harm in circumcision, do it. If not circumcising means he will have to pay a certain "special" attention to his cleanliness, then it is better to circumcise.

If you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it is mandatory. (Yes, that's right Christians, mandatory. You think you get to skip Abraham's covenant? Even Jesus was circumcised.)

If you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it is mandatory. (Yes, that's right Christians, mandatory. You think you get to skip Abraham's covenant? Even
Jesus was circumcised.)

The pope disagrees with you.

You also gonna ask the infant what it wants to wear or what it wants for dinner? No ... kids don't really get choices, especially at that age.

Ah, thanks for clearing it up, then! Now, to get children and have their genitals pierced, their foreheads tattooed, their teeth sharpened, random pieces of skin either scarred or burned in various patterns. What do they care? I own their bodies... :rolleyes:

Ah, thanks for clearing it up, then! Now, to get children and have their genitals pierced, their foreheads tattooed, their teeth sharpened, random pieces of skin either scarred or burned in various patterns.

Many cultures ritually tattoo, scar, pierce, and otherwise place permanent badges of tribal status on children. So what? What makes your culture so vastly superior? What gives you the right to condescend? Should we all just do as Dr. Phil says or should we express our cultural identities?

Hrmmmmm.

What do they care? I own their bodies... :rolleyes:

Actually, you do. A child can't even get its teeth cleaned by the dental hygenist without parental consent. You do own your child's body.

The pope disagrees with you.

Two answers:

1] Which one?

2] Bah! What does the Pope know?

The pope disagrees with me about alot of things (women being able to hold power in the Church, condoms as an effective preventative measure against AIDS). That doesn't make him right. After all, it only took the church what, 600 years to admit the Earth does, infact, revolve around the sun?

no anesthesia

thats all i needed to know to make the decision to not circumsize my son.

Many cultures ritually tattoo, scar, pierce, and otherwise place permanent badges of tribal status on children. So what? What makes your culture so vastly superior? What gives you the right to condescend? Should we all just do as Dr. Phil says or should we express our cultural identities?

Hrmmmmm.

"Violating the dignity of my children is part of my culture, and that's why it's OK, then."

Actually, you do. A child can't even get its teeth cleaned by the dental hygenist without parental consent. You do own your child's body.

You've never read the convention on the rights of children, right? My child can go get an abortion without my consent. I do not own my child's body. And even if I did, that would be no excuse for defiling it.

"Violating the dignity of my children is part of my culture, and that's why it's OK, then."

*snicker* ... yeah ... Nothing like stripping a child's cultural identity to make sure it retains its dignity.

You've never read the convention on the rights of children, right? My child can go get an abortion without my consent. I do not own my child's body. And even if I did, that would be no excuse for defiling it.

Ah ... well ... try Texas. We do own our children. Cultural identity is not defilement and you have no right to say it is.

*snicker* ... yeah ... Nothing like stripping a child's cultural identity to make sure it retains its dignity.

No, that's your cultural identity, not the child's.

Ah ... well ... try Texas. We do own our children. Cultural identity is not defilement and you have no right to say it is.

Oh, yeah, Texas, the highpoint of civilisation... Some cultures chop their children's genitals off. It being a part of the "culture" in no way justifies it or makes it OK.

Sure, you can use your culture as an excuse to lop off a part of you child's body, it doesn't make it acceptable or right in any way.

current medical convention (atleast in the states) is to use anesthesia...at the very least a topical. It can be inquired about by parents and discussed with medical professionals. As surgery is done on infants, I assume (note, assume, not know) that full anesthesia or local anesthesia can be used on infants. Again, thats something to discuss with a medical professional, not something you should be looking to an internet discussion.

The best advice is to discuss the procedure with your pediatriciain. Ask questions. Then, ask lots of questions. Then, ask more questions. If you have doubts, tell the doctor. If you have questions, ask them. If, in the end, you are not comfortable with the procedure, don't do it. If you are comfortable, and want to have it done, then go ahead. You can only make an informed decision once you are informed.

2] Bah! What does the Pope know?

About christianity, more than you ever will, he's infallible. :)

Since there is no harm in circumcision, do it. If not circumcising means he will have to pay a certain "special" attention to his cleanliness, then it is better to circumcise.

You should cut off the ears, too, because those are hard to clean. And the fingernails, which not only get dirty, but grow in long and sharp, causing babies to injure themselves. Throw in the toenails while you're at it. And why bother with any of that hair? Shave it right off.

If you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it is mandatory. (Yes, that's right Christians, mandatory. You think you get to skip Abraham's covenant? Even Jesus was circumcised.)
Ah, the mindless-adherence-to-a-tragically-immoral-belief-system defense. There's a good reason. You should mutilate your child because six thousand years ago, nobody could come up with a better explanation for thunder. In fact, you should take it even further. God loves blood sacrifices. He stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son... you should see if he'll stop you, too. Genesis tells us that God wants you to attempt infanticide to prove you love him.

Many cultures ritually tattoo, scar, pierce, and otherwise place permanent badges of tribal status on children. So what? What makes your culture so vastly superior? What gives you the right to condescend? Should we all just do as Dr. Phil says or should we express our cultural identities?

Oh... I see. If you randomly cut bits off your child, that's disgusting. But if EVERYONE cuts the same bits off their children, then it's cultural... and somehow less disgusting. That's different... I guess...

No, that's your cultural identity, not the child's.

Yeah ... right. Cuz that's how it works. I'm a Jewish Muslim, but I think I'll raise my child Pentacostal. After all ... don't want to impose my thoughts, ideas, or knowledge upon my children. While I'm on it, I better never let the children meet their grandparents or great-grandparents. The child must develop its own cultural identity. Shit ... better put it in a bubble now and save it the agony of being raised.

Oh, yeah, Texas, the highpoint of civilisation... Some cultures chop their children's genitals off. It being a part of the "culture" in no way justifies it or makes it OK.

No culture chops off their children's genitals. Not one. You're usually better at this debate thing, Fass. I'm surprised you'd go so ad hominem so quickly. Not to mention the offhanded slam against Texas, in which I happen to be part of a culture (Caddo, Native American) which has been in Texas longer than any form of human being has been in the Netherlands.

Sure, you can use your culture as an excuse to lop off a part of you child's body, it doesn't make it acceptable or right in any way.

Your child's hair and fingernails are part of that child's body which have about as much use as the child's foreskin. You going to rail against haircuts and nail trims?

You should cut off the ears, too, because those are hard to clean. And the fingernails, which not only get dirty, but grow in long and sharp, causing babies to injure themselves. Throw in the toenails while you're at it. And why bother with any of that hair? Shave it right off.

I trim my children's finger and toe nails all the time. The ears is not part of my culture.

Ah, the mindless-adherence-to-a-tragically-immoral-belief-system defense. There's a good reason. You should mutilate your child because six thousand years ago, nobody could come up with a better explanation for thunder. In fact, you should take it even further. God loves blood sacrifices. He stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son... you should see if he'll stop you, too. Genesis tells us that God wants you to attempt infanticide to prove you love him.

Who said anything about "mindless"? It's only mindless if you do it because someone told you to. The brit milah has a very specific reason and knowing that reason is part of the ceremony itself. God has never asked me to sacrifice my son. He asked Abraham, but He has not asked me. If He asks me to, I will do it. He may or may not stop me. However, if you read carefully, Abraham knew ahead of time that God would stop him.

As for the thunder thing, nothing in Torah explains thunder. That sort of knowledge is left up to man to find out on his own. We've done nicely.

You're just being ignorant.

Oh... I see. If you randomly cut bits off your child, that's disgusting. But if EVERYONE cuts the same bits off their children, then it's cultural... and somehow less disgusting. That's different... I guess...

Depends on which bits.

Bah, I think it's wrong.
You are kind of ruining what could be there.

You're just being ignorant.

You're pretending Texas is a culture, denying that there are cultures that practice full removal of genitalia, and proposing that "culture" is a justification for any barbarity you choose to perpetrate upon your child, and I'm the ignorant one. That's rich.

You're pretending Texas is a culture, denying that there are cultures that practice full removal of genitalia, and proposing that "culture" is a justification for any barbarity you choose to perpetrate upon your child, and I'm the ignorant one. That's rich.

1] Name a culture that practices full removal of genitalia. Name one.

2] Texas is a culture. Texas is the pact of friendship between the Nakodotsi (my tribe) and the Comanche Indians. What the US did with it isn't my concern.

So .... aherm.

Yeah ... right. Cuz that's how it works. I'm a Jewish Muslim, but I think I'll raise my child Pentacostal. After all ... don't want to impose my thoughts, ideas, or knowledge upon my children. While I'm on it, I better never let the children meet their grandparents or great-grandparents. The child must develop its own cultural identity. Shit ... better put it in a bubble now and save it the agony of being raised.

No matter, it's still your culture. Be honest about it, and don't put the responsibility on the child by claiming it's its culture, as if it can even comprehend it.

No culture chops off their children's genitals. Not one.

The vulva and clitoris are not genital? Oh, and somebody seems to forget castrati and eunuchs...

You're usually better at this debate thing, Fass. I'm surprised you'd go so ad hominem so quickly.

Hmm, ad hominem: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. Your character was attacked?

Oh, and it is 02.09 am here. I'm not exactly full of energy.

Not to mention the offhanded slam against Texas,

Hey, you brought it up.

in which I happen to be part of a culture (Caddo, Native American) which has been in Texas longer than any form of human being has been in the Netherlands.

That's supposed to impress me, right? The age of the culture (which is of course not prevalent in Texas at all nowadays) is relevant in what way?

Your child's hair and fingernails are part of that child's body which have about as much use as the child's foreskin. You going to rail against haircuts and nail trims?

Oh, the foreskin naturally falls off by itself nowadays, or can be removed without discomfort for the child? It is a nuisance to the child? Nails and hair are permanently removed? Or does the foreskin grow back?

No culture chops off their children's genitals. Not one.

Of course you've probably heard of Female Genital Mutilation as a part of African culture?
Info About FGM (http://www.members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html)
Female Genital Mutilation is the term used for removal of all or just part of the external parts of the female genitalia. There are three varieties to this procedure.

1. Sunna Circumcision - consists of the removal of the prepuce(retractable fold of skin, or hood) and /or the tip of the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means "tradition".
2. Clitoridectomy - consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (prepuce and glands) and the removal of the adjacent labia.
3. Infibulation(pharonic circumcision)-- consists of performing a clitoridectomy (removal of all or part of the labia minora, the labia majora). This is then stitched up allowing a small hole to remain open to allow for urine and menstrual blood to flow through.

In Africa 85% of FGM cases consist of Clitoridectomy and 15% of cases consist of Infibulation. In some cases only the hood is removed.

If that isn't a case of chopping off genitals as part of a culture I don't know what is.

Although circumcision is a strong tradition in my religion (Judaism, of course :)), it is not necessary and, while I hate to say it, it does qualify as genital mutilation. Of course, the word "mutilation" is an umbrella term. Piercing one's ears and getting a tattoo could count as mutilation. However, pierced ears can be filled in and tattoos can be lasered off. Chopped foreskins can not regenerate unless a circumcised male is highly disciplined and desires to do various "tugging" exercises to regain the form male genitalia was supposed to assume.

However, I, myself am circumcised and if I have male children someday, I will circumcise them too. It seems hypocritical. Circumcision has no real benefits, yet I will probably someday allow the mohel to cut the foreskin off of my sons. Why will I do it?

It's a common practice in my country.

In the United States, around 60% of newborn males are circumcised. Since I plan to live in a Jewish area when I grow up, the numbers will most likely be higher. I won't want my children to feel different and possibly ostracized in locker room situations and the like. Besides...while circumcision gives no real benefits, it does no real harm either. As long as you have a good, skilled mohel (or for the majority of Americans, a doctor in the hospital) who knows what he or she is doing, the circumcision should be relatively quick, and hopefully, not so painful.

...It appears that Keruvalia has run off before my post was acknowledged. Oh well.

Back to the main point: to circumsize or not to circumsize. Not a whole lot of harm is being done either way. The child is young enough and the damage is small enough that I'm inclined not to care whether people choose to do it or not. My boyfriend is uncircumsized, and that has never been an issue (they all look the same erect anyway).

All in all, I wouldn't want to deny people their religious/traditional rights over such a harmless (but also pointless) procedure. I think people should just realize that there is no significant medical benefit either way.

only if you dont wash your junk appropriately

JUNK!! :mad:

"The human wang is a beautful thing"
~guess who :p

but true if u keep "it" washed no problem!

If that isn't a case of chopping off genitals as part of a culture I don't know what is.

Just so ya know, Sunna female hood removal is not necessary nor mandatory. I am fully aware of FGM, but that has no basis in anything except the lies of a few men in power, not in any religious or cultural traditions.

All in all, I wouldn't want to deny people their religious/traditional rights over such a harmless (but also pointless) procedure. I think people should just realize that there is no significant medical benefit either way.

Oh we know. It's why I'm not arguing the medical validity. :D

I'd deny people's right to do this. Most people here seem to have no friggin' clue what the foreskin is/does.

Firstly, and (IMHO) most importiantly, the foreskin makes any form of sexual pleasure significantly more pleasurable. It's got several thousand nerves within it, that cannot be regenerated once removed. Ask a woman with her clitoris removed weather that surgery would be considered barbaric. The differences between the surgeries, aside from the obvious, is that most circumcised males can have an orgasm after the procedure, and that more people know what the clitoris does.

Secondly, it protects the head of the penis. The head actually has no skin on it. It is a mucosal membrane, much like the inside of the lip, nose, and eyelid. It is not ment to be exposed. Without the protection of the foreskin, the mucosal membrane becomes thicker, and the nerves deaden. This also makes sex less pleasurable.

Due to this protection, the presence of the foreskin reduces the drop in sensitivity from aging.

In the uncirucmcised penis, as well as (to a lesser extent), a circumcised one, the head of the penis is very sensative to pain. Even with anaesthesia, the infant is, after circumcision, in for weeks to months of slowly reducing pain from the constant rubbing of the mucosal membranes of the head of the penis and it's clothing, diapers, sheets, whatever.

(Yes, I'm circumcised and bitter/angry about it.)

It's good. So much neater and tidier. It's how a penis should look!

It's good. So much neater and tidier. It's how a penis should look!

The joys of preputial play are worth the negligible hit in aesthetics.

Firstly, and (IMHO) most importiantly, the foreskin makes any form of sexual pleasure significantly more pleasurable.

Subjective


Secondly, it protects the head of the penis.

So do boxers and jeans.

Subjective

Google it. It takes some 30 seconds to know what you're talking about. I could just as easily/accurately say that the removal of the clitoris making sex less pleasurable is subjective.

So do boxers and jeans.

But not nearly as well as foreskin. Besides, gas masks protect against airborn pollution, let's lift restrictions on that, just have people wear masks all the time!

Edit: I'm Intellocracy dammit!

It's how a penis should look!

I tend to be of the opinion that how something 'should look' is how it occurs naturally before you start chopping bits off.

Google it. It takes some 30 seconds to know what you're talking about. I could just as easily/accurately say that the removal of the clitoris making sex less pleasurable is subjective.

Extremism. Removal of the clitoris is equal to removal of the whole penis. Removal of the foreskin is equal to removal of the clitoral hood, which is indifferent to sexual stimuli.

But not nearly as well as foreskin. Besides, gas masks protect against airborn pollution, let's lift restrictions on that, just have people wear masks all the time!

Slippery slope. Try again.

I tend to be of the opinion that how something 'should look' is how it occurs naturally before you start chopping bits off.

You trim your fingernails? Cut your hair? Put on clothing?

You trim your fingernails? Cut your hair?

As far as I'm aware, nobody's foreskin is in danger of growing to an unmanageable length.

Okie guys ... I'm bowing out of this thread.

All the points that will be made have been made (also made in a previous thread, complete with pictures!).

I believe that spiritual "mutilation" is acceptable, whether it is scarring, tattooing, or circumcision. I am also aware that there is no spiritual basis for FGM (does not include hood removal).

Medically, there is no point to any of it, but it can also be argued that there is really no medical point in the daily bath.

I am Jewish and I gave my son a brit milah in order that I fulfill the covenant with Abraham. I will encourage my son to do the same. He will choose to fulfill it or not; however, giving him a bris was not his fulfillment, but mine as his father.

If you think me barbaric or abusive because of this, then so be it. I do not fear, nor do I care for, your judgement.

So, I'm leaving this thread. I've said my peace, others have said theirs, and nobody's mind will be changed. It has been a fun academic exercise.

*takes his coat and hat*

It is a fact that uncircumsized men have more pleasure during sex and have a higher tolerance of pain because of the pain expeirienced in the circumsision.

The joys of preputial play are worth the negligible hit in aesthetics.

Huh? Can you explain that one to me in lamens?

Huh? Can you explain that one to me in lamens?

Prepuce = foreskin. Much fun can be had, and a hell of a lot of enjoyment derived, from this little flap of skin.

It is a fact that uncircumsized men have more pleasure during sex and have a higher tolerance of pain because of the pain expeirienced in the circumsision.

Got a link to that fact?

Extremism. Removal of the clitoris is equal to removal of the whole penis. Removal of the foreskin is equal to removal of the clitoral hood, which is indifferent to sexual stimuli.

You're quite simply wrong on that. It's possible for a female to experience sexual pleasure from other then the clitoris, just as it's possible for a male to experience it from other then any single part of the penis. Personal results do vary, however, in shear specialized nerve count, the foreskin/killed nerves on the head of the penis, most especially the frenulum, is comprable to the clitoris.

Slippery slope. Try again.

Dogs bread for cold, in a cold region, are shaved and dressed with dog-cloting for religious/aesthetic reasons.

Hey, it makes about as much sense.

Prepuce = foreskin. Much fun can be had, and a hell of a lot of enjoyment derived, from this little flap of skin.
Does it actually have nerves within itself that cause this enjoyment?

Does it actually have nerves within itself that cause this enjoyment?

Of course it's innervated. The most sensitive part of my penis is the transition between the foreskin and frenulum (a little sort of ligament connecting the prepuce to the glans, i.e. the head of the penis). Having that part sucked on and teased with the tongue can drive me wild.

Of course it's innervated. The most sensitive part of my penis is the transition between the foreskin and frenulum (a little sort of ligament connecting the prepuce to the glans, i.e. the head of the penis). Having that part sucked on and teased with the tongue can drive me wild.

That's not actually the foreskin though, which is what you lose in a circumcisition. You still have the little ligament bit [at least I do.... :confused:]

Pray tell, where in the scale of the different degrees of evidence, as per evidence based medicine, does this "evidence" belong? You are familiar with the scale, aren't you?

I am familiar with the fact that everybody uses different scales for such things. What scale, pray tell, do you use?

How is that relevant? A consult with a patient is completely different from public discourse and medical debate.

It is relevant because there is not enough evidence for the medical community as a whole to either recommend for or against. Certain doctors have their own preferences, certainly, but no absolute medical reason to recomend it as routine. As such, their job is to present it as an option, with as much information as possible on both sides, and let the parents make their choice.

no anesthesia

thats all i needed to know to make the decision to not circumsize my son.

Incorrect. It is no longer accepted medical practice to perform circumcision without anesthesia. (I work for an anesthesiologist).

Yeah ... right. Cuz that's how it works. I'm a Jewish Muslim, but I think I'll raise my child Pentacostal. After all ... don't want to impose my thoughts, ideas, or knowledge upon my children. While I'm on it, I better never let the children meet their grandparents or great-grandparents. The child must develop its own cultural identity. Shit ... better put it in a bubble now and save it the agony of being raised.

Now, now, no need to intentionally skew what is being said.

You will, of course, raise your child in your culture. However, you should not make permanent decisions which cannot be reversed. Your son may grow up and decide that he believes neither Torah nor the Qu'ran. That would be his choice and he make it.

In the United States, around 60% of newborn males are circumcised. Since I plan to live in a Jewish area when I grow up, the numbers will most likely be higher. I won't want my children to feel different and possibly ostracized in locker room situations and the like. Besides...while circumcision gives no real benefits, it does no real harm either. As long as you have a good, skilled mohel (or for the majority of Americans, a doctor in the hospital) who knows what he or she is doing, the circumcision should be relatively quick, and hopefully, not so painful.

Don't get one of the ones that does it with his mouth. There was a mohel recently who gave 6 or so babies herpes.

Personal results do vary, however, in shear specialized nerve count, the foreskin/killed nerves on the head of the penis, most especially the frenulum, is comprable to the clitoris.

Incorrect. The clitoris has more nerves in it than the entire penis - an organ with no purpose other than inducing orgasm.

You will, of course, raise your child in your culture. However, you should not make permanent decisions which cannot be reversed. Your son may grow up and decide that he believes neither Torah nor the Qu'ran. That would be his choice and he make it.

Ok I'm making one more brief appearence because I have a deep respect for Dempublicents and want to address this post.

If he chooses not to believe, then okie dokie. That is him. I will not hate him or disown him for it.

However, the brit milah was *my* fulfillment, not his. I fulfilled the covenant of Abraham by having his brit milah ... it was not a case of him fulfilling it by getting the brit milah.

If he chooses not to accept the covenant and not have the ritual for his son(s) - yes, I hope many - then I will never say boo about it. His choice is not whether or not to be a part of, because I made that choice for him as is my right as his father. His only choice is whether or not to continue and I will respect that choice.

Make sense? :)

Now, now, no need to intentionally skew what is being said.

You will, of course, raise your child in your culture. However, you should not make permanent decisions which cannot be reversed. Your son may grow up and decide that he believes neither Torah nor the Qu'ran. That would be his choice and he make it.

Not that I'm trying to argue with you but just as a matter of point, parents make thousands of decisions which affect children that may be impossible to reverse, not only physically but mentally also. Many perents will do a lot more damage to their children by the stupid things they teach them than bu removing a flap of skin.

Why the hell did I type all that?

Ok I'm making one more brief appearence because I have a deep respect for Dempublicents and want to address this post.

If he chooses not to believe, then okie dokie. That is him. I will not hate him or disown him for it.

However, the brit milah was *my* fulfillment, not his. I fulfilled the covenant of Abraham by having his brit milah ... it was not a case of him fulfilling it by getting the brit milah.

If he chooses not to accept the covenant and not have the ritual for his son(s) - yes, I hope many - then I will never say boo about it. His choice is not whether or not to be a part of, because I made that choice for him as is my right as his father. His only choice is whether or not to continue and I will respect that choice.

Make sense? :)

It does make sense, and I can see where you are coming from, but I still must respectfully disagree. While you feel that it is your duty to do so, it is still essentially forcing something from your own religious beliefs onto one who cannot yet make their own. I do see how it would be quite a moral dilemna, however.

Not that I'm trying to argue with you but just as a matter of point, parents make thousands of decisions which affect children that may be impossible to reverse, not only physically but mentally also. Many perents will do a lot more damage to their children by the stupid things they teach them than bu removing a flap of skin.

Why the hell did I type all that?

I was speaking specifically about cultural and religious decisions. Obviously, parents will do things like immunize their children (which we hope is irreversable).

That's not actually the foreskin though, which is what you lose in a circumcisition. You still have the little ligament bit [at least I do.... :confused:]

It is often severed, and it is also left incomplete upon circumcision. And it's not just that part, but the whole of my foreskin is very sensitive to oral stimulation. Not to mention that the head of my penis is constantly lubricated and kept supple. I have seen cut penises and their heads have often looked dry, and scaly. Mine, well, I myself can hardly touch it with my fingers directly because it is so sensitive.

It does make sense, and I can see where you are coming from, but I still must respectfully disagree. While you feel that it is your duty to do so, it is still essentially forcing something from your own religious beliefs onto one who cannot yet make their own. I do see how it would be quite a moral dilemna, however.


True! But we, as parents, make choices for our children all the time that they may or may not want. We choose their bedtime, we choose what to cook for dinner, we choose when and where they go to school, we choose how and when to cut their hair, we choose when and whether or not to spank them, we choose who their friends can be, we choose every little aspect of their lives. Everything.

My daughter is in a softball league. She wanted to be in that league, but I chose whether or not I would allow it.

Everything we choose for our children is 100% us. Why, when I'm allowed to choose whether or not my child will wear poly/cotton or pure cotton (as per Torah), is it that one simple thing is frowned upon so much?

It just makes no sense to me. It's like telling a Christian that having their child take first communion is immoral.

Edit: Again, I am only still here because of my respect for Dempublicents. I will not respond to any other poster's replies.

I am familiar with the fact that everybody uses different scales for such things. What scale, pray tell, do you use?

The variation on a single scale is used pretty much all over the world, with people for instance speaking of a level of evidence of 1b, or 3. Educate yourself (http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp).

It is relevant because there is not enough evidence for the medical community as a whole to either recommend for or against. Certain doctors have their own preferences, certainly, but no absolute medical reason to recommend it as routine. As such, their job is to present it as an option, with as much information as possible on both sides, and let the parents make their choice.

Notice that little piece on the linked page about grades of recommendation? Doctors can recommend that things be or not be done. Also, a singular consult is still a long way off from a debate, and, as I said, I have yet to encounter any motivation with a high level of evidence in support of circumcision. Face it, there is no valid medical reason, apart from treatment of phimosis or similar conditions, to have it done.

True! But we, as parents, make choices for our children all the time that they may or may not want. We choose their bedtime, we choose what to cook for dinner, we choose when and where they go to school, we choose how and when to cut their hair, we choose when and whether or not to spank them, we choose who their friends can be, we choose every little aspect of their lives. Everything.

My daughter is in a softball league. She wanted to be in that league, but I chose whether or not I would allow it.

Everything we choose for our children is 100% us. Why, when I'm allowed to choose whether or not my child will wear poly/cotton or pure cotton (as per Torah), is it that one simple thing is frowned upon so much?

It just makes no sense to me. It's like telling a Christian that having their child take first communion is immoral.

If your fchild doesn't liek their bedtime, they can change it when they get older. As adults, they can eat what they like and grow their hair as they please. They can play a sport or not play a sport as they please. If you don't allow blends, but they disagree, they can wear blends later. You child cannot reattach a body part.

Meanwhile, I do believe that having your child take first communion, if it is not his/her own choice, is immoral. The free will provided by God is important to me, and while I will certainly teach my beliefs to my children, I will also be sure that they are exposed to others so that the final decision will be theres.

It is often severed, and it is also left incomplete upon circumcision. And it's not just that part, but the whole of my foreskin is very sensitive to oral stimulation. Not to mention that the head of my penis is constantly lubricated and kept supple. I have seen cut penises and their heads have often looked dry, and scaly. Mine, well, I myself can hardly touch it with my fingers directly because it is so sensitive.

It sounds like you have some uber-sensitive wang, lucky man. I didn't think most people had much, if any, sensitivity in their foreskins.

As for that part being severed and incomplete after some circumcision.....well I'm glad I got a doctor who knew what he was doing. It seems I have the ultimate wang, aesthetically pleasing but still with all the bells and whistles. This has been a good news day :)

If you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it is mandatory. (Yes, that's right Christians, mandatory. You think you get to skip Abraham's covenant? Even Jesus was circumcised.)

According to the Book of Acts, it isn't mandatory. Peter and Paul argued on this point, and Paul prevailed: circumcision is not a necessary prerequisite to become a member of the Christian faith.

Now that being said, I'm not really sure. Studies on people who were circumsized as adults show mixed results on the questions of whether they are more or less likely to contract STD's, more or less likely to suffer skin infections as children, or more or less likely to enjoy sexual pleasure, so I have no real way of knowing whether there is a legitemate reason to take the helmethead look over the hooded monk.

Notice that little piece on the linked page about grades of recommendation? Doctors can recommend that things be or not be done. Also, a singular consult is still a long way off from a debate, and, as I said, I have yet to encounter any motivation with a high level of evidence in support of circumcision. Face it, there is no valid medical reason, apart from treatment of phimosis or similar conditions, to have it done.

While everyone seems to think they have conflicting studies, my searches have yet to turn up anything but propoganda websites with conflicts. What studies I have seen have indicated a clear correlation between increased incidences of infections and diseases in uncircumcized men. I have even seen a study with cell culture which provides a mechanism for these increases.

Now, is preventative medicine a good enough reason for circumcision? I don't know, and won't have to decide for at least several years, but the evidence suggests that the preventative reasons are there. To completely deny that such evidence exists simply because you have a personal belief that it is wrong is irresponsible.

If your fchild doesn't liek their bedtime, they can change it when they get older. As adults, they can eat what they like and grow their hair as they please. They can play a sport or not play a sport as they please. If you don't allow blends, but they disagree, they can wear blends later. You child cannot reattach a body part.

Meanwhile, I do believe that having your child take first communion, if it is not his/her own choice, is immoral. The free will provided by God is important to me, and while I will certainly teach my beliefs to my children, I will also be sure that they are exposed to others so that the final decision will be theres.

Why is it immoral? If they grow up to blieve otherwise, then they would believe that there is no significance in the first communion and thus was a meaningless and harmless ritual. If they grow up to have that faith, then they will thank you for it. Personally I think it's a load of hooey but I'm just interested as to why you say it is immoral as that's a fairly strong word to use.

While everyone seems to think they have conflicting studies, my searches have yet to turn up anything but propoganda websites with conflicts. What studies I have seen have indicated a clear correlation between increased incidences of infections and diseases in uncircumcized men. I have even seen a study with cell culture which provides a mechanism for these increases.

Now, is preventative medicine a good enough reason for circumcision? I don't know, and won't have to decide for at least several years, but the evidence suggests that the preventative reasons are there. To completely deny that such evidence exists simply because you have a personal belief that it is wrong is irresponsible.

Hence my asking you what level of evidence you have. It is the only way we have of actually weighing the importance of these studies and their "evidence" you keep mentioning. Just because you think you have evidence, does not mean that it is correct or that it is consistent, and most certainly is not enough to motivate mass circumcision of children.

Why is it immoral?

Forcing your religion upon another is always immoral.

If they grow up to blieve otherwise, then they would believe that there is no significance in the first communion and thus was a meaningless and harmless ritual.

You may be surprised. I have read essays from those who have been pressured into such things and they do not see it as harmless at all.

If they grow up to have that faith, then they will thank you for it.

If you force them into it, then they have not really done it at all. If they then "grow up to have that faith", then they will need to redo the rituals anyways.

Hence my asking you what level of evidence you have. It is the only way we have of actually weighing the importance of these studies and their "evidence" you keep mentioning. Just because you think you have evidence, does not mean that it is correct or that it is consistent, and most certainly is not enough to motivate mass circumcision of children.

(a) The level of evidence I have doesn't really fit any of those categories, so far as I can tell. I have done a literature search on it and have found nothing contradictory to what I have stated here.

(b) I don't really care how you rate the importance of the studies. They are (1) All that seem to be available and (2) well-done studies, in as much as correlation studies can be

(c) I never said anything about mass circumcsion.

Forcing your religion upon another is always immoral.
I agree but I guess it's just weird hearing someone who is actually religious saying it. So will you take them to church?



You may be surprised. I have read essays from those who have been pressured into such things and they do not see it as harmless at all.
True, I went to an anglican school and now have a negative attitude to organised religion, a lot which, I think, stems from their forceful way of teaching.



If you force them into it, then they have not really done it at all. If they then "grow up to have that faith", then they will need to redo the rituals anyways.True, it's not geniune faith if they are forced into it and genuine faith is really the whole point eh? Didn't realise they would need to redo them though.

1. American council of pediatrics says there's no medical reason to do it. If you want concensus, start there. The only reasons are cultural.

2. Circumcision creates "cornification", toughening the surface of the glans of the penis. Men who were circumcised as adults report that their sensation during intercourse was dulled afterwards, probably as a result of cornification.

3. The glans of the penis protects that part of the body. There have been cases of men scalded by hot liquids who were permanently damaged due to circumcision; other cases of men who were not circumcised who retained full function. In some cases of injury, it was possible to perform a circumcision and restore the man to a semblance of health--that can't be done if the circumcision is performed willy-nilly for no medical reason at birth.

4. Each year, medical error causes irreversable damage to several baby boys. What level of risk is acceptable to do a cosmetic procedure to the private parts of YOUR infant.

Frankly, the circumcision promoters strike me as having their heads in the sand. This is a primitive mutilation ritual which should have no place among advanced societies.

I agree but I guess it's just weird hearing someone who is actually religious saying it. So will you take them to church?

I will take them to church. However, as they get older and more curious, I will take them to whatever church/synagogue/mosque/etc. they wish to go to.
(and I've been called weird before =) I generally take it as a compliment)

True, it's not geniune faith if they are forced into it and genuine faith is really the whole point eh? Didn't realise they would need to redo them though.

Well, I don't think any particular faith would force them to redo it. However, I think that someone may want to repeat it with a faithful attitude if they originally did it simply to please someone else.

1. American council of pediatrics says there's no medical reason to do it. If you want concensus, start there. The only reasons are cultural.

Actually, the latest report I have seen says that there is no medical reason to do it as a routine procedure, not that there is absolutely no reason to do it.

Alot of societies have been banning it.... and I dont blame them.


if anything it is a procedure that the person should choose to have on their own.... when they are of age to decide.

This is something I wouldn't ordinarily share, but since topic came up I can't hold my tongue.

I was circumsized when I was 7 years old, for medical, not religious reasons.

:eek: IT HURT :eek: A LOT! :(

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER FOR THIS MERELY ON GROUNDS OF FAITH.

If its not medicaly neccessary, don't do it. Circumcision is a barbarous practice, like Cannabilism, but much more unpleasent. Its akin to burning people at the stake for witchcraft, or thinking the Earth is flat. It's a painful operation leaving the patient permanently disfugured. Let us men keep all our pieces, a'ight? :mp5:

hey retards, Jews like me are circumsised out of tradition! dont disrespect us! :mad:

second of all, it dosn't leave it disfigured.
girls like it that way :mad:

don't call us barbarians!

hey retards, Jews like me are circumsised out of tradition! dont disrespect us! :mad:

Ok, let's break this one down. HEY RETARDS...DON'T DISRESPECT US!

So, insulting everyone with a remark that also very distastful and, amazingly enough, disrespectful to reatarded folk. Then asking us to respect YOU? Nice work, chachi!

If its not medicaly neccessary, don't do it. Circumcision is a barbarous practice, like Cannabilism, but much more unpleasent. Its akin to burning people at the stake for witchcraft, or thinking the Earth is flat. It's a painful operation leaving the patient permanently disfugured. Let us men keep all our pieces, a'ight? :mp5:

You don't think those comparisons are a bit exaggerated?

Do you people honestly care that much what someone else's penis looks like?

The tradition of circumcision dates back to times with other equaly "usefull then, useless now" traditions, such as burning people at the stake or treating every medical ailment with a judicious open of the veins so the patient could "bleed out their ill humours"

Its a cruel and useless procedure, especialy when you do so without their permission. Tradition is good. Sadism is not. I have absolutely NO problem with judaism. What I know of it makes me respect it. I wasn't even thinking about that aspect when I posted. I was provoked to respond by some very painful memories (physicaly) so all those sweeping statements I made are about the thing itself and my feelings on it. If you chose to take it as an attack on Jews, go bark up another tree. Try to choose the right one next time.

Ok I'm making one more brief appearence because I have a deep respect for Dempublicents and want to address this post.

If he chooses not to believe, then okie dokie. That is him. I will not hate him or disown him for it.

However, the brit milah was *my* fulfillment, not his. I fulfilled the covenant of Abraham by having his brit milah ... it was not a case of him fulfilling it by getting the brit milah.

If he chooses not to accept the covenant and not have the ritual for his son(s) - yes, I hope many - then I will never say boo about it. His choice is not whether or not to be a part of, because I made that choice for him as is my right as his father. His only choice is whether or not to continue and I will respect that choice


Make sense? :)
I can respect that it is part our your religous practice & have no problems with that.

I just have a problem with the hospital culture making it seem like a normal & necessary procedure.

Why are you ok with a parent making a religious decision for a child not yet old enough to determine whether or not they want to be a part of said religion?

Because the choice of the child plays no part directly in the matter. It is a matter of the faith of the parent.

There is a close relationship in covenential ecclesiology amongst the hebrews and reformed church. In both cases the rite (circumcision and baptism relatively) serve as a "sign and seal" of the covenant (For jews the Abramic, for the Reformed the New Covenant)... They are signs in recognition to the body of believers (nation of Israel, Church) of the child being under the covenant by birth from the parents... And a sign upon the parents towards their duties in that covenant... From the two views, operations of that rite are not-optional... Nor decision bearing on the child... They are requirements of their duties in that faith.

Children have no more choice in the faith they are raised in than they do upon the parents they are born to, the nation they grow up in, or much else for that matter.

You are quite welcome to do so.
I will get those studies from my cousin who did aids & STD research at USC. I will get them & post those findings in a later chat. I will also get what i've found in the Uof I medical archives. I have nothing web based I can send you at this point.

Because the choice of the child plays no part directly in the matter. It is a matter of the faith of the parent.

In other words, "the parent can force their faith upon the child, never allowing the child to actually learn to think for itself, and that is perfectly fine." Gotcha.

There is a close relationship in covenential ecclesiology amongst the hebrews and reformed church. In both cases the rite (circumcision and baptism relatively) serve as a "sign and seal" of the covenant (For jews the Abramic, for the Reformed the New Covenant)... They are signs in recognition to the body of believers (nation of Israel, Church) of the child being under the covenant by birth from the parents... And a sign upon the parents towards their duties in that covenant... From the two views, operations of that rite are not-optional... Nor decision bearing on the child... They are requirements of their duties in that faith.

If I was a member of a faith that required me to hit my child with a car, would that be acceptable? How far can a parent go in altering their child's physical form for their own personal beliefs?

Children have no more choice in the faith they are raised in than they do upon the parents they are born to, the nation they grow up in, or much else for that matter.

This is true in many cases and is very unfortunate. Parents are so unsure of their own faith that they never even give their children the benefit of the doubt.

I will get those studies from my cousin who did aids & STD research at USC. I will get them & post those findings in a later chat. I will also get what i've found in the Uof I medical archives. I have nothing web based I can send you at this point.

Thank you.

In other words, "the parent can force their faith upon the child, never allowing the child to actually learn to think for itself, and that is perfectly fine." Gotcha.

Regardless of where they are raised, everyone is capable to "think for themselves"... But as a parent, it is your responsibility to raise your child for their betterment. Those of faith see their faith as an integral part of that process. To enlighten both the jewish and christian views on covenential responsiblity... The covenenant is in agreement upon both the parents, and a future dedication of the child... In the idea of it, if the parents recinded their covenential responsibilities, they would be held liable towards their God before judgment for such failure... In this case, it is a requirement that the parents can only partially keep, as the full end of the covenenat lays upon the future decision of the child... The "sign" whether circumcision of the Jews, or Baptism of the Christian ( or both in the case of the messianics ) serves as a "sign and seal" of their covenential responsibilities... There cursory ceremonial aspect accompanies a form of "oath" towards this covenant as well as outlined responsibilities of the parents and towards the congregation/community as a whole as to their responsibilities towards the child's upbringing.... It is no different then what you yourself would do as a parent in your own child's upbringing.



If I was a member of a faith that required me to hit my child with a car, would that be acceptable? How far can a parent go in altering their child's physical form for their own personal beliefs?

Strawman...


This is true in many cases and is very unfortunate. Parents are so unsure of their own faith that they never even give their children the benefit of the doubt.

You assume this is due to being "unsure" as such... It is not... It is done out of a sureness of this faith in such covenential thought... And just as you sign a contract or testimony out of a sureness of its truth; they enter this covenant as a sureness of it as well...

Strawman...

It's not a strawman at all. The poster was just highlighting that there are cases where the state can and will intervene against the religious wishes and practices of the parents. Therefore if a practice is felt to have an unnecessarily harmful and permanent effect on the child below the age of concent, then the fact that the proceedure has a religious aspect should not necessarily justify its practice.

It's not a strawman at all. The poster was just highlighting that there are cases where the state can and will intervene against the religious wishes and practices of the parents. Therefore if a practice is felt to have an unnecessarily harmful and permanent effect on the child below the age of concent, then the fact that the proceedure has a religious aspect should not necessarily justify its practice.

"Strawman" is "a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument".

The point of contention:


If I was a member of a faith that required me to hit my child with a car, would that be acceptable? How far can a parent go in altering their child's physical form for their own personal beliefs?

It's a textbook strawman. The author creates a view, to which implication is being that of the contender, and then sets up the ground work for a defeat of that argument.

I am not arguing that parents be allowed to run over their children with a car. I am arguing that some things do have valid religious symbology.... Especially in the case of circumcision where their is a ballance in the benefit/harm aspect of the procedure, so it is not a "detrimental" procedure to cause harm.. (Ref: AAP Policy Statement {1999} (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686); CPS Policy Statement {1996} (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/cps1.htm))...

It is in this way the contender setsup a false position (equating running over a child with a car and circumcision) and then uses that as grounds for disapproval....

If this were a moderated point-based debate, the contender would loose points for that statement.

Think about it this way: doesn't it make you shudder to think that some crazy surgeon with a scalpel CUT OFF part of your PENIS?

To me, that's scary. If I had the option, I wouldn't have let the surgeon near me. If God wants to send me to hell for not mutilating my child, then I ask you to bring the sticks, I'll bring the marshmallows.

Also, the STD issue is moot if you don't put yourself in a position that would give you an STD to begin with then your chance of getting one won't increase.

To me, it's not worth the benefits, real or imagined, to mutilate a child. Someone made the arguement that it's like throwing your child in front of a car and mutilating them. Mutilation IS mutilation IS mutilation.

Anyone could say "it's just a piece of skin." Let me fabricate some data that says my child doesn't "need" that extra skin over his elbow. He doesn't "need" that extra skin called "lobes" under his ears. He doesn't "need" that extra skin on his penis. He doesn't "need" that skin covering his internal organs. I know this slippery slope arguement is stupid, but if you can justify one, you can justify them all. I know I can concoct some crazy religion that calls for all sorts of child mutilation. I'm sorry, but that still doesn't justify the mutilation.

"Strawman" is "a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument".

The point of contention:



It's a textbook strawman. The author creates a view, to which implication is being that of the contender, and then sets up the ground work for a defeat of that argument.

I am not arguing that parents be allowed to run over their children with a car. I am arguing that some things do have valid religious symbology.... Especially in the case of circumcision where their is a ballance in the benefit/harm aspect of the procedure, so it is not a "detrimental" procedure to cause harm.. (Ref: AAP Policy Statement {1999} (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686); CPS Policy Statement {1996} (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/cps1.htm))...

It is in this way the contender setsup a false position (equating running over a child with a car and circumcision) and then uses that as grounds for disapproval....

If this were a moderated point-based debate, the contender would loose points for that statement.

I can see where you're coming from, but my interpretation of the original poster's argument wasn't that he was trying to argue against circumcision itself by comparing it to a more serious case. I took it that he was arguing that precedent exists for putting the rights of the pre-consentual individual before the rights of the religious wishes of the parents. The fact that the example given was somewhat hyperbolic does not automatically make it a strawman, because it is the precedent itself he was trying to prove.
Whether or not the procedure is harmful or not is another issue debated elsewhere in the thread and should not be confused with the religious aspects.

Think about it this way: doesn't it make you shudder to think that some crazy surgeon with a scalpel CUT OFF part of your PENIS?


No, it does not...


To me, that's scary. If I had the option, I wouldn't have let the surgeon near me. If God wants to send me to hell for not mutilating my child, then I ask you to bring the sticks, I'll bring the marshmallows.

Incorrect word usage... Circumcision does not fit the definition of "mutiliation".


Also, the STD issue is moot if you don't put yourself in a position that would give you an STD to begin with then your chance of getting one won't increase.

Agreed...


To me, it's not worth the benefits, real or imagined, to mutilate a child. Someone made the arguement that it's like throwing your child in front of a car and mutilating them. Mutilation IS mutilation IS mutilation.

Throwing your child in front of a car does cause mutilation (assuming the car is in motion at significant velocity). However, circumcision is not "mutiliation".


Anyone could say "it's just a piece of skin." Let me fabricate some data that says my child doesn't "need" that extra skin over his elbow. He doesn't "need" that extra skin called "lobes" under his ears. He doesn't "need" that extra skin on his penis. He doesn't "need" that skin covering his internal organs. I know this slippery slope arguement is stupid, but if you can justify one, you can justify them all.

Slipery slop is right... But this does not qualify in the context.


I know I can concoct some crazy religion that calls for all sorts of child mutilation. I'm sorry, but that still doesn't justify the mutilation.

Once again, not mutilation.. You can't simply redefine a word for your use, to create an argument ex nihlo.

I think it's more a matter for the girl. The man's cleanliness is vital to her health. And that's a great way for him to watch out for her needs.

I can see where you're coming from, but my interpretation of the original poster's argument wasn't that he was trying to argue against circumcision itself by comparing it to a more serious case. I took it that he was arguing that precedent exists for putting the rights of the pre-consentual individual before the rights of the religious wishes of the parents. The fact that the example given was somewhat hyperbolic does not automatically make it a strawman, because it is the precedent itself he was trying to prove.
Whether or not the procedure is harmful or not is another issue debated elsewhere in the thread and should not be confused with the religious aspects.

But, at the same time, the strawman hinges on that "whether is it harmful" argument.... And it is accomplished through the strawman case.

Thus, the burden of proof lays on the contender in this case... To which such proof is not satisfied for an abolishment of the practice upon those religious faiths which use the practice.... Thus it is still left upon the contender to provide evidence of such... At present the evidence is based upon the 1971 disclosure by the AAP almost exclusively... With failure to mention that the AAP overturned this ealier viewpoint after further research (1989 and 1999)[Provided ref earlier], as well as that done by the CPS (1996).

This still leaves burden of proof upon the contenders to the practice in the light of its aspects as a religious rite in conduct by those of jewish and muslim faiths.

Mind you, I'm not arguing on a strictly cultural base, as it has become in the US, but a ballance for the protection of certain religions of the practice.

I've read more than one source stating that sensitivity is actually *gained*, as the more sensitive parts of the penis are exposed by the procedure.

I don't think anyone can really know if sensitivity is actually lost when an infant has the procedure done.

Like anything that is regularly exposed to the environment rather than protected, it becomes desensitized and in a sense calloused. Studies have been done using a test of sensitivity both using a pressure test (what amount of pressure is required to respond to touch) and a needle test (two needles brought increasingly closer together until the subject only feels one needle) and they suggest the penis is much less sensitive because of exposure to the environment.

Actually, you can learn about it. For one you can actually force the skin forward to protect the glans. This allows for the head of the penis to become more moist and more sensitive. How do I know? I tested it. I did research on how to stretch the skin forward on the penis and actually did so using tape to keep the skin properly stretched for about six weeks. The tip of my penis became much more moist and the tip is fully exposed once erection occurs so it is equally available to pleasure. The results were quite noticeable. Once I stopped doing it the skin retracted back after about two months, but from what I understand people have successfully stretched the skin to the point of it staying that way. I realize my evidence is anecdotal, but it certainly suggest that the head of the penis benefits from the protection of the foreskin (strange how biology does those things for us), at least in my case. I talked to my mother about it and she said they just didn't know better. She's a RN now and she said most of the people she works with no longer believe in circumcision. I don't know how

Again, neither of these arguments even take into account the thousands of nerves sliced off during the procedure. I'd imagine if we were talking about female circumcision or some equally barbaric and pointless practice on women that this would be a more heated debate.

Also, I would like to see any study (not just to Dem, but to anyone) that shows the incidence of STD's or any other disease is higher among men with natural penises (notice I don't use the term uncircumcized as it's like calling me unparalyzed)

Comparing FGM to circumcision is really just silly. Now, if you would like to discuss the full removal of the penis instead?

FGM generally includes the removal of the clitoris. Female circumcision is the removal of the hood, exactly comparable to male circumcision.

Like anything that is regularly exposed to the environment rather than protected, it becomes desensitized and in a sense calloused. Studies have been done using a test of sensitivity both using a pressure test (what amount of pressure is required to respond to touch) and a needle test (two needles brought increasingly closer together until the subject only feels one needle) and they suggest the penis is much less sensitive because of exposure to the environment.

Actually, you can learn about it. For one you can actually force the skin forward to protect the glans. This allows for the glans to become more moist and more sensitive. How do I know? I tested it. I did research on how to stretch the skin forward on the penis and actually did so using tape to keep the skin properly stretched for about six weeks. The tip of my penis became much more moist and the tip is fully exposed once erection occurs so it is equally available to pleasure. The results were quite noticeable. Once I stopped doing it the skin retracted back after about two months, but from what I understand people have successfully stretched the skin to the point of it staying that way. I realize my evidence is anecdotal, but it certainly suggest that the glans benefits from the protection of the foreskin (strange how biology does those things for us), at least in my case. I talked to my mother about it and she said they just didn't know better. She's a RN now and she said most of the people she works with no longer believe in circumcision. I don't know how

Again, neither of these arguments even take into account the thousands of nerves sliced off during the procedure. I'd imagine if we were talking about female circumcision or some equally barbaric and pointless practice on women that this would be a more heated debate.

Also, I would like to see any study that shows the incidence of STD's or any other disease is higher among men with natural penises (notice I don't use the term uncircumcized as it's like calling me unparalyzed)


I might remind you, those studies were found inconclusive when applied to the wider scale of evidence, whereas there is added sensitivity in the presence of moisture, and increased gladular capacity due and exposure during intercourse in the circumcised penis... Indeed, both have been found to have benefitial aspects in such categories. There is a sense of balance... While the glads of the uncircumcised are more sensitive to touch, they receive less exposure and possess less surface area than those of the circumcised...

I might remind you, those studies were found inconclusive when applied to the wider scale of evidence, whereas there is added sensitivity in the presence of moisture, and increased gladular capacity due and exposure during intercourse in the circumcised penis... Indeed, both have been found to have benefitial aspects in such categories. There is a sense of balance... While the glads of the uncircumcised are more sensitive to touch, they receive less exposure and possess less surface area than those of the circumcised...

Are you unlobotomized? Or do you just have a natural brain. Penises are not uncircumcized and to call them that suggests that circumcision is somehow normal. It's not. There is just a normal penis and a circumcized penis.

Find me any person who can't wear pants because the head of their penis is too sensitive that is circumcized. I would be interested to meet them. You've already met someone here who can't expose the head of his penis and wear pants without being in a great deal of pain. I can find you many, many, many more.

Question for everyone here - would you support it if suddenly doctors were telling you it was okay to give your completely normal infant daughter saline breast implants?

Unnecessary cosmetic surgery is barbaric even if you ignore all evidence that suggests that there are actually medical reasons not to perform the procedure.

Can we start calling it a form of male genital mutilation or does that make it too hard to defend? Make what you think sounds like a reasonable argument and substitute male genital mutilation for circumcision. I'd be interested in hearing how convincing that sounds.

Can we start calling it a form of male genital mutilation or does that make it too hard to defend? Make what you think sounds like a reasonable argument and substitute male genital mutilation for circumcision. I'd be interested in hearing how convincing that sounds.

I state it one last time, it is not mutilation....

The studies that were confired were based upon testing done, and extrapolation of data from both sets... circumcised and the normal penis.

Wearing pants with the gladular material exposed... At least from the concept of normal people does not equate to sexual stimulation... As such, that entire section is ignored for the load of horse maneur that it is. Neither does "pin-pricking" tests done by idiots with an agenda...

More recent studies have made tests based upon gladular exposure during intercourse, and interviews with both partners as towards the effects in process of such. The studies indicated there was no alteration of sexual performance based upon circumcision or none.

And consider yourself lucky that I have not went over and given notice of your ealier flame... As such, since it is obvious that you are incapable of debating this issue in a logical and reasonable manner, and instead to want to throw pedantic tantrums... You're removed from my screen.

I state it one last time, it is not mutilation....

The studies that were confired were based upon testing done, and extrapolation of data from both sets... circumcised and the normal penis.

Wearing pants with the gladular material exposed... At least from the concept of normal people does not equate to sexual stimulation... As such, that entire section is ignored for the load of horse maneur that it is. Neither does "pin-pricking" tests done by idiots with an agenda...

More recent studies have made tests based upon gladular exposure during intercourse, and interviews with both partners as towards the effects in process of such. The studies indicated there was no alteration of sexual performance based upon circumcision or none.

And consider yourself lucky that I have not went over and given notice of your ealier flame... As such, since it is obvious that you are incapable of debating this issue in a logical and reasonable manner, and instead to want to throw pedantic tantrums... You're removed from my screen.

mutilate -
-To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
-To disfigure by damaging irreparably
-To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

My flame? What flame? You mean the question about unlobotomized. I wasn't flaming. I was saying that you are not referred to as being unlobotomized, you just have a natural brain. I was saying that calling you unlobotomized is like calling someone uncircumcized. Culling out people who have not had an unnecessary procedure doesn't make sense. No one here has shown any evidence that the procedure is necessary. I made a similar statement about calling myself unparalyzed. Please notify the moderators that I made a verbal comparison between unlobotomized and uncircumcized. I would interested to hear what I would be warned for. "Hey, you can't call him unlobotomized... cuz it, uh, kind of sounds insulting..."

No one says that one can't perform. This is about the level of enjoyment. It is a form of mutilation and it is a cosmetic procedure and I know from experience that the loss of moisture in the head of the penis decreases pleasure.

Also, we weren't talking necessarily about sexual stimulation. We were pointing out that the head of the penis is more sensitive on a penis that has not had this particular form of male genital mutilation.

I actually don't need any evidence of the damage it does. I need evidence that it has medical benefit that hasn't been reasonable refuted or I'm going to consider it a cosmetic surgery (anesthetic, hmmm... yep it's a surgery). Call me crazy but I don't believe in putting children through unnecessary cosmetic surgery and if a law forbidding cosmetic surgery on minors for anything other than reconstruction was proposed, I would certainly support it.

calling circumcision is like calling heart surgery mutilation. Yes, circumcision is mostly cosmetic (if it isn't then it is due to tradition) But non-circumcision is equally cosmetic. If you get a reputable doctor to perform it, then there will be no problem. If you get some hack to do it, then expect there to be problems. Same with any surgery.

[QUOTE=Tekania*SNIP*
(Ref: AAP Policy Statement {1999} (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686); CPS Policy Statement {1996} (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/cps1.htm))...[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the references. They support the fact that there is little or no medical basis for performing this procedure.

there's a reason it is done so early in life as oppossed to waiting. The procedure becomes more mentally dangerous as the subject ages. There are more physical dangers i think too. By the way my man is circumised and any little men i have later in life will be as well. It just looks better.

calling circumcision is like calling heart surgery mutilation. Yes, circumcision is mostly cosmetic (if it isn't then it is due to tradition) But non-circumcision is equally cosmetic. If you get a reputable doctor to perform it, then there will be no problem. If you get some hack to do it, then expect there to be problems. Same with any surgery.

One, heart surgery holds a medical advantage or most people would call it mutilation. Two, a more apt comparison would be removal of appendix as a part of your body is removed. In the case of removing the appendix, it is mutilation, it's just justified if you are in significant danger. No one here is advocating appendectomies at birth just to prevent appendicitis later in your life. Why not? Is it because there is not tradition of doing that? I sincerely doubt that anyone would advocate male circumcision if there was no tradition behind it. Imagine a world where circumcision has never been done before. Now imagine someone coming up to you and suggested performing a surgery where a part of his penis was removed while there is no compelling evidence of medical benefits. If that person tried to get that procedure performed on your son in that world they'd be lucky to escape with all of their reproductive parts.

I say let the kid grow up, turn 18 and choose for themselves unless there's some kind of complication/medical reason for it...

I like uncut better, it doesn't particularly matter though...

As for piercing infant's ears, that's dumb, not only for not giving them a choice, but the piercings tend to migrate... so often they end up looking really weird.

Oh, and also, circumcision was popularized during the victorian era to keep little boys from masturbating. That is why it left the jewish/muslim community and became popular. The U.S. is the only secular country in the world with a circumcision rate greater than 50%.

By the way my man is circumised and any little men i have later in life will be as well. It just looks better.
No, it does not look better. It looks ugly.

calling circumcision is like calling heart surgery mutilation. Yes, circumcision is mostly cosmetic (if it isn't then it is due to tradition) But non-circumcision is equally cosmetic. If you get a reputable doctor to perform it, then there will be no problem. If you get some hack to do it, then expect there to be problems. Same with any surgery.

You can't call not getting surgery cosmetic. Then the fact that you haven't had a nose job is cosmetic? I would say avoiding unnecessary surgeries no matter how low the risk is not cosmetic, it's common sense.

Also, I thought of this point while at lunch. Heart surgery is reconstructive. Its purpose is to return the heart to normal function. This is hardly the purpose of circumcision.

Why don't we start removing the toenails of infants? They don't really serve a purpose, or so many might say. It would reduce the incidence of nail fungus to nothing. You wouldn't have to clip them or keep them clean, so it would be tidier. If I found someone who did that to their child could I call that mutilation? It's amazing how tradition can make something seem acceptable no matter how barbaric and how medically unnecessary it is.

there's a reason it is done so early in life as oppossed to waiting. The procedure becomes more mentally dangerous as the subject ages. There are more physical dangers i think too. By the way my man is circumised and any little men i have later in life will be as well. It just looks better.

So if you see a nose that would look better on the faces of your little men are you going to get that surgically altered as well, or is it only okay with penises?

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]
No culture chops off their children's genitals. Not one.

Sorry to spoil your cocksure certainty, but there are many cultures and subcultures that remove significant parts of their children's genitalia--much more extensively than circumcision.

You need to find a good book on world mutilation rituals and education yourself before you post more misleading inaccuracies here and elsewhere on this topic.

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]1] Name a culture that practices full removal of genitalia. Name one.

Be happy to. Tuition for private instruction is rather high, so let me know if you're ready to remit several hundred via Paypal, or if you'd rather resort to those excellent community colleges down there in Texas where it'll cost you less.

Once again, not mutilation.. You can't simply redefine a word for your use, to create an argument ex nihlo.

Very sorry to over-rule your personal opinion, but in the formal language of sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies, circumcision, along with other fabulous prehistoric customs like the penis womb, neck-stretching, chin-piercing, lip-stretching, etc., are all categorized as mutilation.

The fact that you seem to like the mutilation doesn't make it not so.

Feel free to argue from your lack of expertise that you don't think that it should be categorized as mutilation. It would be roughly analogous to arguing that humans should not be classified as mammals.

calling circumcision is like calling heart surgery mutilation.

Let's see:

We all seem to agree that there is no medical evidence that circumcision makes anyone healthier. Heart surgery, properly performed, does have therapeutic value.

Circumcision, when it goes wrong, causes the unfortunate total loss of genitalia of many male children annually. Mistakes, after all, do happen. When heart surgery goes wrong, the patient was generally already near terminal to begin with; much less long-term damage is inflicted.

Textbook case of false analogy. Try again, won't you?

Regardless of where they are raised, everyone is capable to "think for themselves"...

Not if they are constantlly encouraged not to do so.

But as a parent, it is your responsibility to raise your child for their betterment.

Allowing them the free will that God gave them and teaching them to critically think for themselves is for their betterment.

Strawman...

Not in the least. I'm just wondering how far you are willing to let a parent alter the body of their child for their own faith.

You assume this is due to being "unsure" as such... It is not... It is done out of a sureness of this faith in such covenential thought... And just as you sign a contract or testimony out of a sureness of its truth; they enter this covenant as a sureness of it as well...

Anyone who feels that they have to force their faith upon another does it because they are actually unsure. If they were sure, they would be secure in the fact that they are correct, whether anyone else is or not.

It is in this way the contender setsup a false position (equating running over a child with a car and circumcision) and then uses that as grounds for disapproval....

Incorrect. I did not equate the two. In fact, I was quite clear that hitting a child with a car would be worse. I am just wondering how far you are willing to take it.

FGM generally includes the removal of the clitoris. Female circumcision is the removal of the hood, exactly comparable to male circumcision.

Not "exactly comparable" as no (even disputed) medical benefits have been shown, and the clitoris has many more nerve endings.

Also, I would like to see any study (not just to Dem, but to anyone) that shows the incidence of STD's or any other disease is higher among men with natural penises (notice I don't use the term uncircumcized as it's like calling me unparalyzed)

These are from a quick pubmed search. I haven't read all of them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15655778

http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw1/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8c8a96d3ba1aa0ba0d5b53d5e5632d15497255440d913ca36997441a79bee3ea22b56c 9e88c50b27d32b87968682578901c673e50d9966c37832be1d97c9c6f9518744853877576c0fceb79f5b78d3bd2e930ab0db 2ca3aceeaa8bc1db769f5f80e2dcf70c7961b55da4796db07ef8a45dc3f666ef02c335c63bf95abff3e8b910aaf1ebb23a1f 0a624bf7ba6ee08b372347c0ed7049c7a4f510188ea569c167bbbeb198b229f1af3b026551c98e056ae4d7131d05c57ab98a f18fbcf843e4d69d9609ba0beabc8ccea6cb9a910a707d2c37985c2af0f84909b93919243fbb9f64688957b88e2b84b854ae 602f73d15f80be5cb6157c3b23765ac0bad24374b5ea

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12213715
This one is interesting, as it provides a possible mechanism for the differences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10195035

Not "exactly comparable" as no (even disputed) medical benefits have been shown, and the clitoris has many more nerve endings.

Actually, the hood on the clitoris has the exact same purpose as the foreskin on the penis and the clitoris and glans of the penis are actually the exact same part just one is male and one is female, i.e. the glans develops from clitoris when male hormones begin being pumped into the fetus.

Read the part about the sensitivity of the glans and the clitoris - http://www.circlist.com/femalecirc/anatfemale.html

Scott, F. Brantley. "Nerve Endings in Glans Clitoris vs. Glans Penis." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 15.7 (July, 1981), 88.
(Several argumentsösome, by famous sexologists, such as Masters and Johnsonöhave been published over the years claiming that the removal of the clitoral hood should not be compared to the removal of the male foreskin, on the ground that the clitoral glans was much more sensitive to stimulation than the male glans. Scott's brief answer to a question sent to the journal would appear to count against any such claim: "Anatomic studies have shown that on a per centimeter surface area, the number of nerve endings in the glans clitoris is equal to that in the same surface area of the glans penis" [88]. The same evidence would seem to support the surgical removal of the clitoral hood, for women who find its presence has the effect of dampening stimulation, on the simple ground that the clitoral glans is so much smaller, and thus offers less opportunity for stimulation than does the male glans.)

Very sorry to over-rule your personal opinion, but in the formal language of sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies, circumcision, along with other fabulous prehistoric customs like the penis womb, neck-stretching, chin-piercing, lip-stretching, etc., are all categorized as mutilation.

The fact that you seem to like the mutilation doesn't make it not so.

Feel free to argue from your lack of expertise that you don't think that it should be categorized as mutilation. It would be roughly analogous to arguing that humans should not be classified as mammals.

For it to be truthfully classified as that, it has to actual QUALIFY against the term.

It does not.... To mutilate requires that a "limb or essential part" be deprived, or that "something must be damaged irreparably"... Of which circumcision does neither... If you insist it does, then how exactly is the "foreskin" an essential part? And how does this cause "irreparable damage"... Burden of proof.... You lack it... The list is false... You can appeal all you like... I could place "circumcision" equally in a list of "benefitial cultural practices" and it would be just as valid a claim as that list of "cultural mutilations"... Because some dickweed puts it in a list, does not make it so..

I don't have to agrue "Humans" aren't "mammals" because humans are in fact mammals... Because Humans are... "Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young."

However, I can equally argue that circumcision does not "deprive of a limb or essential part... or damage irreparably"...

It's not my fault you don't know what "mutilate" means.

One, heart surgery holds a medical advantage or most people would call it mutilation.

Circumcision holds a medical advantage. The question is whether or not said advantage is worth doing the procedure for. I don't purport to decide that for others.

(Ref: AAP Policy Statement {1999} (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686); CPS Policy Statement {1996} (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/cps1.htm))

DEM, The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't agree with your conclusions and states why. And as far as their conclusions being reliable they are referenced by PubMed.

Oh and neither does American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11592271

For it to be truthfully classified as that, it has to actual QUALIFY against the term.

It does not.... To mutilate requires that a "limb or essential part" be deprived, or that "something must be damaged irreparably"... Of which circumcision does neither... If you insist it does, then how exactly is the "foreskin" an essential part? And how does this cause "irreparable damage"... Burden of proof.... You lack it... The list is false... You can appeal all you like... I could place "circumcision" equally in a list of "benefitial cultural practices" and it would be just as valid a claim as that list of "cultural mutilations"... Because some dickweed puts it in a list, does not make it so..

I don't have to agrue "Humans" aren't "mammals" because humans are in fact mammals... Because Humans are... "Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young."

However, I can equally argue that circumcision does not "deprive of a limb or essential part... or damage irreparably"...

It's not my fault you don't know what "mutilate" means.

Damage irreparably? Are you suggesting you can put my foreskin back? Because if you can't its irreparable. And that it's not essential is an opinion. I consider it an essential part that I was deprived of. My parents agree with me and apologized for not knowing better.

DEM, The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't agree with your conclusions and states why. And as far as their conclusions being reliable they are referenced by PubMed.

Oh and neither does American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11592271

Your own source agrees with me. There are medical benefits. It simply comes to the conclusion that these benefits are not enough to recomend routine circumcision. Where in any of my posts have I recomended any such thing?

Not if they are constantlly encouraged not to do so.


Assumption...


Allowing them the free will that God gave them and teaching them to critically think for themselves is for their betterment.

Assumption that there is no critical thinking... You do know that "doctrine" means "to teach" right?


Not in the least. I'm just wondering how far you are willing to let a parent alter the body of their child for their own faith.


My issue is that it is of faith, and connected to the fact that it is not a debilitating act...


Anyone who feels that they have to force their faith upon another does it because they are actually unsure. If they were sure, they would be secure in the fact that they are correct, whether anyone else is or not.

Once again, this is not an issue of "forcing faith"... I'm speaking covenentially here... It is a symbol of their faith, not a forcing of it upon the child. Regardless whether or not the child "adopts" said faith when they reach adulthood they are raised into the ideas of the parent, including that of the parents faith... Which is what it is about... It's a sign and seal of the parents recognized responsibilites, not of the faith of the child.

For example, as a presbyterian, I baptize my child out of the understanding of my responsibility towards God and that child... Not under the guise that the child will be of my faith because of it... If I were unsure of my faith, in this case, I would not baptize my child... The concept is, that "circumcision" equates to this same idea amongst Jews and Muslims... It is a sign and seal of their covenential responsibilities to God, and towards the child...

Damage irreparably? Are you suggesting you can put my foreskin back? Because if you can't its irreparable. And that it's not essential is an opinion. I consider it an essential part that I was deprived of. My parents agree with me and apologized for not knowing better.

Ah, so now you openly lie... Yes, that cements your position...

Your own source agrees with me. There are medical benefits. It simply comes to the conclusion that these benefits are not enough to recomend routine circumcision. Where in any of my posts have I recomended any such thing?

It says that studies about cancer and STD's are inconclusive and that some studies suggest that STD's occur with greater incidence among circumsized men.

The only medical benefit I see that's conclusive (and they admit that the exact proportion to that benefit is in question) is that it reduces the incidence of UTI infections in infants 6-months or younger. Hardly compelling.

The fact is, it makes less sense to do than removing the toenails of babies to prevent them from getting nail infections or scratching themselves. No one would find removing the toenails of babies acceptable and most would agree that its completely barbaric, as is the practice of male genital mutilation. It amazes me that anyone would support the practice and the simple mention of female circumcision inspired you to call it female genital mutilation.

Ah, so now you openly lie... Yes, that cements your position...

Ha, lied? You CAN put my foreskin back? Cool. I'll be right over.

Or am I lying when I consider protecting my glans essential to prevent it from drying out?

Or am I lying that my parents apologized? Cuz how you possibly pretend to know that. For the record, my parents and I discussed after I read an article on it about two years ago. My mother said that back then it was just SOP and they just went along with it. They didn't even know to question it. She said given what she knows now she would absolutely not put a child through an unnecessary surgery.

Is saying I'm lying considered flaming?

It says that studies about cancer and STD's are inconclusive and that some studies suggest that STD's occur with greater incidence among circumsized men.

Most correlative studies can be ruled inconclusive, as all they are is correlation. Quite a bit of medicine is based on correlative studies, however.

Actually, some studies suggest that *some* STD's occur with greater incidence in circumcized men, not all. Of course, I haven't seen any studies that suggest that *all* STD's are higher in the uncircumcized either, just certain ones.

The only medical benefit I see that's conclusive (and they admit that the exact proportion to that benefit is in question) is that it reduces the incidence of UTI infections in infants 6-months or younger. Hardly compelling.

Hardly compelling - to you. I find the pathology of chicken pox hardly compelling enough to recomend using the vaccine on children, as children generally actually benefit from having it. Others disagree with me. This is why people get to make medical decisions for their children. Everything is not absolutely conclusive.

The fact is, it makes less sense to do than removing the toenails of babies to prevent them from getting nail infections or scratching themselves. No one would find removing the toenails of babies acceptable and most would agree that its completely barbaric, as is the practice of male genital mutilation. It amazes me that anyone would support the practice and the simple mention of female circumcision inspired you to call it female genital mutilation.

Now you are grossly exaggerating. Have fun with that strawman, though.

Now you are grossly exaggerating. Have fun with that strawman, though.

So you are saying that removing a baby's toenails would be a gross exaggeration? I would like to see how it's a gross exaggeration. Is it more dangerous? I doubt it. Even if they accidentally removed part of the toe you have nine others and missing part of the toe can hardly be compared to missing part of the penis. Is it more painful? Not likely. Would the medical evidence that it prevents certain medical conditions be fairly conclusive? I'd think so since nail fungus only resides under nails. It would also prevent ripping the nail off accidentally and would completely remove the need to clip your nails. There would no incidence of scratching people with your nails accidentally. And I'd stop tearing out the toes of my sock when I forget to clip my big toe. How am I exaggerating? The only reason you think it's not comparable is because one has become a traditionally accepted practice in the US and the other has not.

Most correlative studies can be ruled inconclusive, as all they are is correlation. Quite a bit of medicine is based on correlative studies, however.

Actually, some studies suggest that *some* STD's occur with greater incidence in circumcized men, not all. Of course, I haven't seen any studies that suggest that *all* STD's are higher in the uncircumcized either, just certain ones.

Much like your studies focused on particular STD's. As most studies are focused, this is no surpise.

Let's just examine one source, shall we? The Kenya/AIDS source you showed did not state whether there is a higher incidence of circumcision in certain populations of Kenya. Whether there is a higher incidence of AIDS in those population that can be attributed to other practices. The summary by the AAP says that no ruling STD's can be made either way. The evidence is not suggestive. Also, since America has such a high incidence of circumcision across so many cultures, it would be much more compelling if the incidence of AIDS among men who have not been mutilated were considerably higher in America. It appears the evidence does not suggest that this is true.

The AAP and ACOG seem to think there is no compelling evidence to support circumcision and so leave it as a choice to parents as a cosmetic procedure. It is NOT a procedure that should performed on infants claiming medical benefits.

I notice that Jocabia and Dempublicents often end up debating each other very heatedly lately...*makes the shame, shame, I know your girlfriend's name motions*.... :fluffle:

Sorry...I had to!

I notice that Jocabia and Dempublicents often end up debating each other very heatedly lately...*makes the shame, shame, I know your girlfriend's name motions*.... :fluffle:

Sorry...I had to!

Yes, well, at least she's not calling me a liar or saying that if she misunderstands a post I deserve to be reported for flaming. I don't mind a heated, but level-headed debate.

Yes, well, at least she's not calling me a liar or saying that if she misunderstands a post I deserve to be reported for flaming. I don't mind a heated, but level-headed debate.
Wow...are you reading this Dem? Jocabia is saying quite nice things about you...I even think he's suggesting you are reasonable!

I have a question about the thread. Have we decided one way or another that circumcision is BS or not?

Wow...are you reading this Dem? Jocabia is saying quite nice things about you...I even think he's suggesting you are reasonable!

I have a question about the thread. Have we decided one way or another that circumcision is BS or not?

TG, Sin.

I think my stance is pretty clear. I feel the exact same way about tattooing your children or similar practices. Earpiercing, while I disagree with it, is far less dangerous and much more reversible. Performing medical procedures that have no proven benefits and are irreversible is, to me, barbaric and unforgivable. Ok, maybe not unforgivable when my parents did it to me, but now we know better.

TG, Sin.

I think my stance is pretty clear. I feel the exact same way about tattooing your children or similar practices. Earpiercing, while I disagree with it, is far less dangerous and much more reversible. Performing medical procedures that have no proven benefits and are irreversible is, to me, barbaric and unforgivable. Ok, maybe not unforgivable when my parents did it to me, but now we know better.
I thought Dem basically felt the same way?

TG.

Wow...are you reading this Dem? Jocabia is saying quite nice things about you...I even think he's suggesting you are reasonable!

YAY! I think we are both being rather reasonable. He obviously has more...er...personal experience with the subject and thus has much more strong feelings associated with it.

I have a question about the thread. Have we decided one way or another that circumcision is BS or not?

I am thoroughly undecided. I have seen enough research to suggest that there may be medical benefits. I really don't think that the benefits outweigh the problems associated, but I can see how some might. At this point, I think it is a decision to be made by parents who (hopefully - it's too bad we can't legislate something like this) have thoroughly researched the issue. I certainly will research it further before I ever have any baby boys. I do *not* think "my religion says so" is a valid reason for doing it.

YAY! I think we are both being rather reasonable. He obviously has more...er...personal experience with the subject and thus has much more strong feelings associated with it.



I am thoroughly undecided. I have seen enough research to suggest that there may be medical benefits. I really don't think that the benefits outweigh the problems associated, but I can see how some might. At this point, I think it is a decision to be made by parents who (hopefully - it's too bad we can't legislate something like this) have thoroughly researched the issue. I certainly will research it further before I ever have any baby boys. I do *not* think "my religion says so" is a valid reason for doing it.
Well I for one enjoy the debates between you and Jocabia...it's all the action without the work on my end:) Some interesting arguments have been raised, and I was pretty 'whatever' about it until now.

TG, Jocabia!

Whats Wrong with Circumcision for Males and Females alike!

YAY! I think we are both being rather reasonable. He obviously has more...er...personal experience with the subject and thus has much more strong feelings associated with it.



I am thoroughly undecided. I have seen enough research to suggest that there may be medical benefits. I really don't think that the benefits outweigh the problems associated, but I can see how some might. At this point, I think it is a decision to be made by parents who (hopefully - it's too bad we can't legislate something like this) have thoroughly researched the issue. I certainly will research it further before I ever have any baby boys. I do *not* think "my religion says so" is a valid reason for doing it.

I agree that's a poor argument. The argument I've heard more since I started talking to people about it, two years ago (warning: anecdotal), is they either want them to look like their father so as not to be confused, that they don't want their sons to be made fun of in the locker room or that it looks better. I can't imagine trying to defend those arguments to my son and telling him that's why I cut of part of his penis (note: I have no son that I know of).

I agree that's a poor argument. The argument I've heard more since I started talking to people about it, two years ago (warning: anecdotal), is they either want them to look like their father so as not to be confused, that they don't want their sons to be made fun of in the locker room or that it looks better. I can't imagine trying to defend those arguments to my son and telling him that's why I cut of part of his penis (note: I have no son that I know of).

I can't see using any of these arguments either. My boyfriend once forwarded the argument that he would have his son circumcized because he saw no harm in it and he was circumcized. I laughed at him.

Of course, he also is fond of stating that, if he really lost sensation by being circumcized, he is glad of it, because sex would likely kill him.

I can't see using any of these arguments either. My boyfriend once forwarded the argument that he would have his son circumcized because he saw no harm in it and he was circumcized. I laughed at him.

Of course, he also is fond of stating that, if he really lost sensation by being circumcized, he is glad of it, because sex would likely kill him.

Actually, I've heard that statement before too. A lot of guys I've talked to about it suggested they were grateful because otherwise they may have trouble lasting (by the way, one of the reasons that sexual dysfunction relating to circumcision should be clearly stated).

Be happy to. Tuition for private instruction is rather high, so let me know if you're ready to remit several hundred via Paypal, or if you'd rather resort to those excellent community colleges down there in Texas where it'll cost you less.

I've already got a couple of degrees, thanks. However, you're avoiding the question. I suspect because you cannot answer it.

Yes, and I'd prefer to look at an uncut one then a mushroom anyday. Seriously people, do you think being cut is more pleasing to the eyes? That's what my mom told me but she also seems to think they only use rubberbands now.

Yes, and I'd prefer to look at an uncut one then a mushroom anyday. Seriously people, do you think being cut is more pleasing to the eyes? That's what my mom told me but she also seems to think they only use rubberbands now.
Rubber BAnds?
Arabian HArness?

Rubber BAnds?
Arabian HArness?

Yes... umm... she seems to think that my brother's cicrumcision was pure of any metal objects. She thinks they used to rubberbands and that rubberbands for everyone.

Yes... umm... she seems to think that my brother's cicrumcision was pure of any metal objects. She thinks they used to rubberbands and that rubberbands for everyone.
What killing the circulation and letting it fall off or killing the circulation and then slicing to stop bleeding? :confused:

What killing the circulation and letting it fall off or killing the circulation and then slicing to stop bleeding? :confused:

Don't ask me. She didn't have a very good explanation. Maybe to cut off the circulation?

Don't ask me. She didn't have a very good explanation. Maybe to cut off the circulation?
Obviously i dont know! :)
i guess thats a good thing! :D

As with any important question, CECIL ADAMS, the worlds smartest man, has already answered this one - and since he is never wrong, you can trust him!
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html

Please thats a weak answer!
http://www.groonk.net/blog/images/murphy_poster_revolution_800.jpg

For it to be truthfully classified as that, it has to actual QUALIFY against the term.

It does not.... To mutilate requires that a "limb or essential part" be deprived, or that "something must be damaged irreparably"... Of which circumcision does neither... If you insist it does, then how exactly is the "foreskin" an essential part? And how does this cause "irreparable damage"... Burden of proof.... You lack it... The list is false... You can appeal all you like... I could place "circumcision" equally in a list of "benefitial cultural practices" and it would be just as valid a claim as that list of "cultural mutilations"... Because some dickweed puts it in a list, does not make it so..

I don't have to agrue "Humans" aren't "mammals" because humans are in fact mammals... Because Humans are... "Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young."

However, I can equally argue that circumcision does not "deprive of a limb or essential part... or damage irreparably"...

It's not my fault you don't know what "mutilate" means.

Sorry wrong definition.

You see, there are more than one meanings to many words, even if only slightly differing, this is not different.

I think the meaning that you were looking for is: render imperfect by excision, etc.

ALTHOUGH, the aforementioned heart surgerry I would too classify as mutilation.

But then I do often molest those around me. 'Molest' is a similar cousin, considerable negative connotions have grown over the denotations, while I may molest others often, if I were to mention this to another in a certain way using this word, they may think me depraved.

The term mutilation is similar, it has bad connotations, technically it may be so, but we don't want to associate things we advocate with such implications. In effect these essentially bring bias, but if we take it for its literal meaning and ignore the connotations then we can hopefully rid ourselves of a struggle assert subjective sentiments. Either that or formulate neutral technical terminology, although in time no doubt that too would become tainted.

Actually, I've heard that statement before too. A lot of guys I've talked to about it suggested they were grateful because otherwise they may have trouble lasting (by the way, one of the reasons that sexual dysfunction relating to circumcision should be clearly stated).

That would be logical. However, the men with intact penises have better control over their orgasms. That is, they feel it "coming" better, and can slow down before it's "too late" so to speak. That way they can actually last longer. Also, uncircumcised men are apparently more gentle lovers than circumcised ones because of their increased sensitivity, and this would benefit the partner.

I have to admit though, that what I wrote isn't exactly unbiased because a lot of it comes from anti-circumcision circles. Personally though I've heard on more than one occasion men who've had adult circumcision saying that because of the loss of sensitivity they haven't enjoyed sex as much as they used to. One person had circumcision because of medical reasons, and later said that if he could go back in time, he wouldn't cut it off unless his life depended on it.

I really don't see the point of circumcision in modern times. I imagine hygiene would have been pretty viable reason in the old times, but not really today. A lot of people say an intact penis is dirty? When I go take a shower in the morning, I pull my foreskin back so the water runs over the tip. It takes about five seconds of my day, and I've got absolutely no problems with hygiene. I imagine you might wanna keep clean down below whether you've got a foreskin or not.

Asthetically I prefer "cut" guys, but really there's no sensible reason for circumcision. All the reasons doctors or others give are crap. Just because I think it looks good is no reason for a guy to cut off part of his body. Unless he just prefers it that way.

Asthetically I prefer "cut" guys, but really there's no sensible reason for circumcision. All the reasons doctors or others give are crap. Just because I think it looks good is no reason for a guy to cut off part of his body. Unless he just prefers it that way.

I always try to imagine that conversation.

"Mom, why did you cut off part of my penis?"
"Cuz we thought it would look better that way, son."
*sounds of crashing and things breaking*

"Mom, why did you cut of part of my penis?"
"Cuz we thought you might have cleanliness problems, son."
*sounds of crashing and things breaking*

And so on...

I agree with you. There should be a better reason than many of the reasons that people use to do this surgery to children.