NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm

It's about damn time!

Er, how about some more commentary. As is, it's link spam.

That's good. I'm guessing the extremists will still force their wives and kids to do it, but at least the government is against it.

Full Grown Moose?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm

It's about damn time!

Umm...

WHAT THE F*CK IS F.G.M.?

Umm...

WHAT THE F*CK IS F.G.M.?

Female Genital Mutilation.

Female Genital Mutilation.

Oh.

That was the second time today I learned I supported the striking down of something I previously didn't know what it was.

When are they going to ban male genital mutilation?

congratulations to egypt!

better late than never.

When are they going to ban male genital mutilation?

I think that's already illegal. :p Unless you mean circumsiscion, which is beneficial. The male equivalent of FGM would be simply hacking off all of the male genitalia, not a small portion for hygiene reasons. ;)

I think that's already illegal. :p Unless you mean circumsiscion, which is beneficial. The male equivalent of FGM would be simply hacking off all of the male genitalia, not a small portion for hygiene reasons. ;)

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

Gorramit! Just 2 weeks before my vacation to Egypt where I planned to mutilate the genetalia of several women. I was even going to take a few courses in it. Bwaaa... =C

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

My circumsized friend says that circumsision decrease the chance of acquiring some diseases and infections. How is that not beneficial?

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation.

Nonsense. Are you yourself a circumcised male?

I'm a curcumcised male and to me itwould look and feel strange to have a huge flap of unnecessary skin. Plus the disease prevention thing is true too I hear. And don't women prefer it if their partner was circumcized....? I dont see how it affects pleasure, just hygene and looks.

Note this is a reply to Zarakon. I totally agree that female genital mutilation is wrong.

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

Not this shit again.

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

Why on earth must we be obsessed about receiving our pleasure from sex? Not wanting to be a troll, a prude, or anything like that, but why? Since when did something become bad because it reduced the pleasure of sex?

Note, I am not saying that this ban is a bad idea, I am just making inquries.

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

I wouldn't know, myself, but people who've been circumscised late in life tend to claim there's little difference as to pleasure during sex. Even if it were diminished, however, it still wouldn't be comparable with FGM, which basically completely destructive of the female genitalia, from how I've heard it described. Male circumscision is to FGM what a slight sunburn is to being burned at the stake, I'd say.

Also since I was circumsized I can last longer. Therefore, I am more generous by sacrificing my pleasure for hers, ergo, I will go to heaven where there is infinite awesome secks.

<- Win.

My circumsized friend says that circumsision decrease the chance of acquiring some diseases and infections. How is that not beneficial?
It does, but it accomplishes no more than what general good hygeine can do.

My complaint when it comes to circumcision is it being practiced on babies or those who are too young to make an informed decision. If you want, at eighteen or what have you, to go and get your foreskin cut off, then so be it. But for the love of humanity, please do not force it upon anyone. I was luckily spared that, and I will never decide to get circumsized. I like my foreskin.

My complaint when it comes to circumcision is it being practiced on babies or those who are too young to make an informed decision. If you want, at eighteen or what have you, to go and get your foreskin cut off, then so be it. But for the love of humanity, please do not force it upon anyone. I was luckily spared that, and I will never decide to get circumsized. I like my foreskin.

Oh, the humanity! ;) I'm still pissed about that Rubella innoculation that was forced on me as a toddler - didn't anyone ever think that maybe I *wanted* German Measles? :p Alright, so it's not quite the same, but we tend to do basic surgeries on babies for convenience sake. Harelip, cleft-palate, circumscision, things like that. I think it took a month for the doctors to patch me up when I was born, before I could leave the hospital - including two weeks under a lamp for jaundice. Who the hell gets jaundice, anyway? That's just my luck. :p Not a fan of hospitals. Ugh.

This is an interesting article regarding male circumcision:

http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/2754/womenpref.html

Oh, the humanity! ;) I'm still pissed about that Rubella innoculation that was forced on me as a toddler - didn't anyone ever think that maybe I *wanted* German Measles? :p Alright, so it's not quite the same, but we tend to do basic surgeries on babies for convenience sake. Harelip, cleft-palate, circumscision, things like that. I think it took a month for the doctors to patch me up when I was born, before I could leave the hospital - including two weeks under a lamp for jaundice. Who the hell gets jaundice, anyway? That's just my luck. :p Not a fan of hospitals. Ugh.
Nuh uh. Circumsion in this case in not equivocal. It is a permenant surgery and it does not provide any benifit that cannot be accomplished through simple good hygeine in this day and age of easy baths and showers. Simply keep your baby's penis clean until they are able to clean themselves then just get them in the habit of keeping it as clean as possible, and they'll be fine. It was done that way with me, and I am just fine.

I intend to do the same with any son I ever have, and unless we suddenly lose all of current civilizations niceties, I don't see any reason anyone should ever be circumsized, at least not without their informed consent.

Nuh uh. Circumsion in this case in not equivocal. It is a permenant surgery and it does not provide any benifit that cannot be accomplished through simple good hygeine in this day and age of easy baths and showers. Simply keep your baby's penis clean until they are able to clean themselves then just get them in the habit of keeping it as clean as possible, and they'll be fine. It was done that way with me, and I am just fine.

I intend to do the same with any son I ever have, and unless we suddenly lose all of current civilizations niceties, I don't see any reason anyone should ever be circumsized, at least not without their informed consent.

Harelip and cleft palate are permanent, too. We do it early because it's convenient, that's all. Sure, the kid could wait until he/she turns 18 to get it done, but it's quicker to do it all at once. The way I see it, you don't *need* to be circumscised, but it cuts down on risk of disease and doesn't affect any of the functions of the organ - if I had a kid, I'd probably want the doctor to go ahead with it, so long as there was no disagreement with her or her family. :) If there were any argument, I'd concede simply because it isn't a big deal, though.

Harelip and cleft palate are permanent, too.

I don't know about harelip, but a cleft palate is hazerdous to one's health and requires surgery.
We do it early because it's convenient, that's all.

Convinient for the mother/father to decide for the child, sure.
Sure, the kid could wait until he/she turns 18 to get it done, but it's quicker to do it all at once. The way I see it, you don't *need* to be circumscised, but it cuts down on risk of disease and doesn't affect any of the functions of the organ - if I had a kid, I'd probably want the doctor to go ahead with it, so long as there was no disagreement with her or her family. :) If there were any argument, I'd concede simply because it isn't a big deal, though.

Sorry, but that's not your choice to make. It's the kid's body, not yours. Unlike everything else you have cited--barring possibly the harelip, as I have no idea what that is--circumsiion is no longer necessary as the very same effect can be achieved with a bit more careful washing. That kid would have to live without his foreskin for the rest of his life. What if he wanted foreskin? What right do you--or anyone else--have to make that choice for him? At least give him the chance to grow old enough to understand the consequences and results of circumsion before using it.

All of that said, we shouldn't have thread-jacked this thread. Circumsion, while unnecessary, is in no way comporable to female genital mutiliation, which is just disgusting and horribly damaging to a woman's rights to her own body.

I don't know about harelip, but a cleft palate is hazerdous to one's health and requires surgery.


Convinient for the mother/father to decide for the child, sure.


Sorry, but that's not your choice to make. It's the kid's body, not yours. Unlike everything else you have cited--barring possibly the harelip, as I have no idea what that is--circumsiion is no longer necessary as the very same effect can be achieved with a bit more careful washing. That kid would have to live without his foreskin for the rest of his life. What if he wanted foreskin? What right do you--or anyone else--have to make that choice for him? At least give him the chance to grow old enough to understand the consequences and results of circumsion before using it.

All of that said, we shouldn't have thread-jacked this thread. Circumsion, while unnecessary, is in no way comporable to female genital mutiliation, which is just disgusting and horribly damaging to a woman's rights to her own body.

Eh - I don't think anyone's going to speak up in *favor* of Female Genital Mutilation, so I don't know how much of a thread-jack it is. :p

As for circumscision, it can save your life, and does for some people, and not just in sub-Saharan Africa. STD thrive among the 'civilized' just as easily. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there's any benefit in *not* circumsizing a child, so I'd leave it to the parents to decide. The kid being old enough to understand the consequences is really only important when there actually are consquences, which there don't really seem to be, outside minor aesthetic concerns. As for parents having rights to approve surgeries on their kids, I don't think that's going anywhere. ;)

Bah. I could continue to point out how simple measures can take away all of those risks in society in countries like the United States, but it seems what really is at issue here is our philosophies on the rights of the individual versus the rights of the guardian/what have you. Since we will most likely not come to agree on this, let us agree to disagree on this subject and let it be closed.

Personally, i think that my penis looks better circumsized

Bah. I could continue to point out how simple measures can take away all of those risks in society in countries like the United States, but it seems what really is at issue here is our philosophies on the rights of the individual versus the rights of the guardian/what have you. Since we will most likely not come to agree on this, let us agree to disagree on this subject and let it be closed.

No problem. ;) Also, I never disagreed that good hygiene can help solve some problems - so can abstinence, for that matter. And of course, circumscision doesn't make anyone immune from STD - I just think it boils down to cosmetics and tradition, that's all.

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

Once more, with feeling:

Circumcised males do not mind (Well, except for the "mommy never loved me" types who need something to complain about). SO stop championing our "rights", for God's sake, and find something constructive to do.

And about the "decreased sexual pleasure":
"a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.

The sexual effects of circumcision are not well understood and researchers' findings are often contested.
In other words: bullshit.

I, personally, would much rather be circumcised at birth than suffer an infection and be forced to remove it later. Or fall in love with a girl with a very Jewish family and be forced to remove it later.

Once more, with feeling: Circumcised males do not mind...so stop championing our "rights", for God's sake, and find something constructive to do.

You win the thread.

I'm circumcised for religious reasons. I think that comparing male circumcision to female circumcision, aka FGM, is bad. See, male circumcision may have benificial effects. FGM, on the other hand, is an torture worthy of Saddam.

As for the OP, kudos to the Egyptians!

My circumsized friend says that circumsision decrease the chance of acquiring some diseases and infections. How is that not beneficial?

What diseases does it prevent that simple washing now and then wouldn't prevent as well?

Why on earth must we be obsessed about receiving our pleasure from sex? Not wanting to be a troll, a prude, or anything like that, but why? Since when did something become bad because it reduced the pleasure of sex?

Note, I am not saying that this ban is a bad idea, I am just making inquries.

Have sex, and then come back and ask that question again ;)

Oh, the humanity! ;) I'm still pissed about that Rubella innoculation that was forced on me as a toddler - didn't anyone ever think that maybe I *wanted* German Measles? :p Alright, so it's not quite the same, but we tend to do basic surgeries on babies for convenience sake. Harelip, cleft-palate, circumscision, things like that. I think it took a month for the doctors to patch me up when I was born, before I could leave the hospital - including two weeks under a lamp for jaundice. Who the hell gets jaundice, anyway? That's just my luck. :p Not a fan of hospitals. Ugh.

Well, harelip and cleft palate would seriously inconvenience the child, as well as being regarded a deformity by the majority of people the child will meet in life.
Since when is a foreskin a deformity?
Personally, I prefer my guys uncut...

And it only took them until 2007! Such a progressive nation.

I, personally, would much rather be circumcised at birth than suffer an infection and be forced to remove it later. Or fall in love with a girl with a very Jewish family and be forced to remove it later.

What if you fall in love with a girl who thinks circumsized is weird and yucky? Are you going to tape your foreskin back on?

I see circumsision at birth the same way I see having your appendix removed right after birth (which happened to most babies born in Germany in the 60s and early 70s. I kept mine cause my mom had a fight with the doctor about it) : unneccessary surgery.
Teach your kid how to keep his willy clean, and how to have safe sex later on in life, that'll be much better guarantee against infections than snipping off parts of his body.

What if you fall in love with a girl who thinks circumsized is weird and yucky?
Very unlikely in the United States.

As for Egypt, took them long enough,

Very unlikely in the United States.

As for Egypt, took them long enough,

*shrugs*
I find them very weird indeed, but then again, I'm not in the US.

I see circumsision at birth the same way I see having your appendix removed right after birth (which happened to most babies born in Germany in the 60s and early 70s. I kept mine cause my mom had a fight with the doctor about it) : unneccessary surgery.


That is a GREAT idea. The appendix will either a) do nothing or b) give you appendicitis. Why could you possibly want it? It's surgery to remove to a ticking time bomb from you.

That is a GREAT idea. The appendix will either a) do nothing or b) give you appendicitis. Why could you possibly want it? It's surgery to remove to a ticking time bomb from you.
It's completely unnecessary. Exactly how many people get appendicitis, and out of them, how many people die from appendicitis? Not many. Not many at all.

Have sex, and then come back and ask that question again ;)

The things people say about sex lead me to two conflicting conclusions. One is that sex must be unimaginably pleasurable to the point of defying description. It would have to be to even come close to the joy I can create within my own mind.

Either that or it's scarce better than masturbation and most people simply posses a mind far weaker than mine.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

The things people say about sex lead me to two conflicting conclusions. One is that sex must be unimaginably pleasurable to the point of defying description. It would have to be to even come close to the joy I can create within my own mind.

Either that or it's scarce better than masturbation and most people simply posses a mind far weaker than mine.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

To quote Bottle : You get out of sex what you put into it.
People who expect it "to just happen" will more than likely be extremely disappointed.

It's different from masturbation, and it can indeed be world-shakingly amazing. That depends on you, your partner, and the situation.
Toys can help, too. ;)
Personally, I would say I've got a very lively imagination. But you can't imagine sex until you have it.

To quote Bottle : You get out of sex what you put into it.
People who expect it "to just happen" will more than likely be extremely disappointed.
You could say that about a lot of things in life. Your education, career, family, hobbies etc.
It's different from masturbation, and it can indeed be world-shakingly amazing. That depends on you, your partner, and the situation.
Toys can help, too. ;)
Personally, I would say I've got a very lively imagination. But you can't imagine sex until you have it.
It's these kind of statements that make me think people in general are weak-minded. "Can't imagine sex until you have it"? If that's that's the case, then sex is different than everything else that's ever existed in the history of human thought. There are people, writers, actors, musicians, artists, who imagine and convey situations that they've never come close to being in purely through the strength of their minds.
When you talk about sex that way, it makes it seem like its something intangible, and it very certainly is not. It is merely a biological activity.

I suppose for the average person it may be the greatest thing they'll ever regularly experience, but not all of us are average.

some general comments and/or observations

MEN: Circumcision has been shown to decrease the likelihood of contracting AIDS (so have abstinence and fidelity) and is now recommended practice in areas that are particularly hit by the disease. Anecdotal evidence does suggest that the lessening of sensation is an aid to those men who might have a tendency to reach their objective before their partners have achieved theirs ;) Non-circumcision male genital mutilation tends to be instigated by the said genitalia's owner inc. but not limited to piercing (ouch!), tattoo-ing (double ouch!) and widening of the urethral opening (why? why would you want to?). Babies' tiny wieners do not require a lot of cleaning. A simple wipe will do as thorough 'cleaning' will simply upset their bodies' natural flora and increase the chance of infection.

WOMEN: FGM does not remove the whole clitoral structure. Recent research shows that the 'love nub' is just the tip of a much more extensive sexual iceberg. It does not completely remove pleasurable sensation but does make other aspects of womanhood, particularly birth a lot more difficult and I doubt that mortality rates associated with birth, both for infants and mothers, are lessened by its continued practice. FGM is also carried out by females on females. Maybe the menfolk prefer it but they don't DO it. It is wholly unnecessary and the quicker it's firmly banned worldwide the better.

As an aside, I once found myself in a bar chatting with a couple of tattoo artists. The topic of pain came up and one told a story about a friend of his who was also a tattoo artist. Said friend decided to turn his own one-eyed trouser snake into a another snake. He started by tattooing an eye onto his purple helmet and nearly passed out due to the pain :eek:. When he had recovered from that experience he had a problem - only one eye on the snake and the knowledge of how unutterably sore it was going to be to do the other. It took him the best part of a bottle of vodka to tattoo on the second eye.

MORAL: leave your little general alone!

You could say that about a lot of things in life. Your education, career, family, hobbies etc.

It's these kind of statements that make me think people in general are weak-minded. "Can't imagine sex until you have it"? If that's that's the case, then sex is different than everything else that's ever existed in the history of human thought. There are people, writers, actors, musicians, artists, who imagine and convey situations that they've never come close to being in purely through the strength of their minds.
When you talk about sex that way, it makes it seem like its something intangible, and it very certainly is not. It is merely a biological activity.

I suppose for the average person it may be the greatest thing they'll ever regularly experience, but not all of us are average.

It's been described by many, but I found that none of the descriptions matched my own experience. At all.
Can you imagine what parachuting or bungee jumping feel like? What your arms and legs will feel like during the fall? That feeling in your stomach?
If you can, and if you find out that what you imagined is exactly what it is like in real life, you might have a point.
The thing about physial experiences is that everybody thinks they can imagine them perfectly in advance. I've never met a single person who really could, though. Including all you oh-so-non-average people.

The thing about physial experiences is that everybody thinks they can imagine them perfectly in advance. I've never met a single person who really could, though.
You actually may have a point. The actual experience is always far worse than the imagined one.

You actually may have a point. The actual experience is always far worse than the imagined one.

You're saying you never had a single positive experience in your life?
I find that a bit hard to believe.

My circumsized friend says that circumsision decrease the chance of acquiring some diseases and infections. How is that not beneficial?

If it's such a great idea, evolution would have done it already.

EDIT: This mischievous post has been answered enough times already! I regret its effect on the thread, and retract (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829840&postcount=141) whatever serious proposition I might seem to be making. Just leave it please :)

The things people say about sex lead me to two conflicting conclusions. One is that sex must be unimaginably pleasurable to the point of defying description. It would have to be to even come close to the joy I can create within my own mind.

Either that or it's scarce better than masturbation and most people simply posses a mind far weaker than mine.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

Thank you, and I find it interesting that no-one has bothered to answer my question.

If you look at it really, not a single poster has come up with a valid negative reason for male circumcision - reducing the pleasure of sex is not at all valid; and the "if you washed them properly, it makes no difference" is not valid either; they are merely attempts to worm your way out of the fundamental question - is there really anything wrong with my penis having its foreskin cut off - I say, no, and there have been no decent reasons brought up by the posters in this forum.

And if Cabra West wants me to fulfil his mission, then I will need some assistance here.

If it's such a great idea, evolution would have done it already.

If evolution is so great, then why the hell do we still have an appendix?

Thank you, and I find it interesting that no-one has bothered to answer my question.

If you look at it really, not a single poster has come up with a valid negative reason for male circumcision - reducing the pleasure of sex is not at all valid; and the "if you washed them properly, it makes no difference" is not valid either; they are merely attempts to worm your way out of the fundamental question - is there really anything wrong with my penis having its foreskin cut off - I say, no, and there have been no decent reasons brought up by the posters in this forum.

And if Cabra West wants me to fulfil his mission, then I will need some assistance here.

Whose mission? :confused:

Well, is there a good reason not to surgically remove the appendix and tonsils of every newborn baby? The only reason is that it's completely and totally unneccessary surgical work. Plastic surgery to alter the baby's appearance according to the aesthetical ideas of the parents.
There's no reason to make it illegal or anything, of course not. But it does make me wonder about the mindset of the parents.

[on topic]Good for Egypt -just got to enforce it now.[/on topic]

I was circumcised at age 3 (I think) for medical reasons - foreskin too tight or something - and it hasn't affected me so far as I can tell. Its really not that big a deal.

If evolution is so great, then why the hell do we still have an appendix?

Cause it's not harmful. Only a very, very few minority of people get appendicitis. Bascially it's the same reason why we still have our tailbone, too.

Have sex, and then come back and ask that question again ;)

Perhaps you could enlighten me? Purely for proving your point of course ;) .

Personally, I prefer my guys uncut...

Awww, guys only? What about non-gender specific people?

Cause it's not harmful. Only a very, very few minority of people get appendicitis. Bascially it's the same reason why we still have our tailbone, too.

Hey, I might be slow but I'll type out an answer with my walking stick.

If evolution is so great, then why the hell do we still have an appendix?

So you're saying that the foreskin is a remnant of an actual organ, with a known use?

Don't draw us a picture, but ... what kind of organ ..?

Perhaps you could enlighten me? Purely for proving your point of course ;) .


Oh, poets, writers and porn producers have already described it in detail. There's little I could add ;)


Awww, guys only? What about non-gender specific people?[/QUOTE]

Well, I never had a circumcized girl.. and I think it might be somewhat awkward.

*...*

Well, I never had a circumcized girl.. and I think it might be somewhat awkward.

Might be a job for us little men. Hmmm.

Heh, the moment I saw the thread title, I thought to myself:

"Bet there will be somebody crying 'WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!' and comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation within 6 posts."

I was off by one. Must be losing my touch.

I was just about to point out that almost no mammal lacks a foreskin in the male.

But I'd rather listen to Bottle. To the topic!

Heh, the moment I saw the thread title, I thought to myself:

"Bet there will be somebody crying 'WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!' and comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation within 6 posts."

I was off by one. Must be losing my touch.

Yeah. But who really wants to talk about Egypt? Eh. :p

Male circumcision is still genital mutilation. Just because it its not as severe as female circumcision doesn't make it ok.

If evolution is so great, then why the hell do we still have an appendix?

Because it isn't enough of a problem to exert any real selection pressure, especially if you access to good health-care.

Male circumcision is still genital mutilation. Just because it its not as severe as female circumcision doesn't make it ok.

You're right - the fact that there's no appreciable difference outside cultural expectations is what makes it o.k. :p

Male circumcision is still genital mutilation. Just because it its not as severe as female circumcision doesn't make it ok.
I know this may sound crazy, but one could--in theory--discuss female genital mutilation without having to spend page after page reassuring men that their penises are important to us.

Why should we? Female genital mutilation has been banned, now its time to cover males as well.

Why should we? Female genital mutilation has been banned, now its time to cover males as well.

It is silly to ban something that in some cases has medical justification.

Why should we? Female genital mutilation has been banned,
Oh, well then that's that!

*dusts off hands in a business-like manner*

Whew, now we can all get back to worrying about the state of the world's penises!

Circumsiscion is genital mutilation. And in a civilized country, it is not beneficial. All it does is decrease the pleasure of sex.

True. It's a shame so many people wrongly believe it's beneficial. ALL of the health claims can be easily countered, so you're left with the religious ones, and nobody should be able to harm a child (physically or otherwise), male or female, just because their religion tells them too.

You don't see loads of uncircumcised people getting all the health problems that it's claimed they're more prone to do you?

You don't see loads of uncircumcised people getting all the health problems that it's claimed they're more prone to do you?

Not unless you count tens of millions of Africans. ;)

Anyway, on topic - I think Africa is still the #1 place for FGM today. Islam has made inroads there. It's encouraging to see an islamic state ban it, to say the least, given that fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm

It's about damn time!

I wonder when will they ban Male Genital Mutilation...

Gender equality should also apply to male children: They have equal right to an intact body. :(

I can't be arsed with all the other pages, especially as this thread is likely to end up as loads of pages, but:

My circumsized friend says that circumsision decrease the chance of acquiring some diseases and infections. How is that not beneficial?

Your circumcised friend has unfortunately been misled. I'm uncircumcised, as are virtually all of my friends, and we haven't had the health problems that it's claimed we're more prone to.

Nonsense. Are you yourself a circumcised male?

Whatever the ethics, saying that male circumcision is genital mutilation is not nonsense. Using standard terms rather than pretty ones, it is the mutilation of a penis, just as the circumcision of a girl is the mutilation of a vagina. Cutting part of someone's genitalia away is mutilation, regardless of the sex of the person.

Not unless you count tens of millions of Africans. ;)

Anyway, on topic - I think Africa is still the #1 place for FGM today. Islam has made inroads there. It's encouraging to see an islamic state ban it, to say the least, given that fact.

Those health problems are because of the various rapes that happen there due to the ill-informed idea that "raping a virgin cures AIDS"

Not unless you count tens of millions of Africans. ;)

Anyway, on topic - I think Africa is still the #1 place for FGM today. Islam has made inroads there. It's encouraging to see an islamic state ban it, to say the least, given that fact.

It's a cultural tradition that's practiced both by Muslims and Christians in the area. And yes, there are quite a few Christians in Northern Africa.
However, I do appreciate it that Egypt not only bans it without enforcing the ban, but actually takes action and raises awareness. The practice is banned in most countries, but it isn't prosecuted, making the ban more or less netirely pointless.

Whatever the ethics, saying that male circumcision is genital mutilation is not nonsense. Using standard terms rather than pretty ones, it is the mutilation of a penis, just as the circumcision of a girl is the mutilation of a vagina. Cutting part of someone's genitalia away is mutilation, regardless of the sex of the person.

And I mutilate my fingernails every few weeks or so, when I cut them. :p Not the same as hacking off the fingers. ;)

Those health problems are because of the various rapes that happen there due to the ill-informed idea that "raping a virgin cures AIDS"

Eh. It's true that some people have believed that, but I doubt even a thousandth of a percent of AIDS infections there have anything to do with rape.

It's a cultural tradition that's practiced both by Muslims and Christians in the area. And yes, there are quite a few Christians in Northern Africa.
However, I do appreciate it that Egypt not only bans it without enforcing the ban, but actually takes action and raises awareness. The practice is banned in most countries, but it isn't prosecuted, making the ban more or less netirely pointless.

That really is the most important part. It seems to be a deeply-ingrained cultural phenomenon where it's still practiced in many cases. I remember a few years back, 20/20 had an interview with a wealthy Egyptian college professor who had it voluntarily done to herself for "modesty" reasons. It really kind of boggles the mind.

Eh. It's true that some people have believed that, but I doubt even a thousandth of a percent of AIDS infections there have anything to do with rape.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aids-virgins.htm

Looks like you're wrong there, unfortunately.

And I mutilate my fingernails every few weeks or so, when I cut them. :p Not the same as hacking off the fingers. ;)

1. You have a choice to do so and 2., cutting off the SKIN on your fingers would be mutilating your fingers.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aids-virgins.htm

Looks like you're wrong there, unfortunately.

I know some people believe it, as I was saying before. It's just unlikely that any significant percentage of overall AIDS infections are rape-related, that's all. The myth isn't singularly responsible for the AIDS epidemic, was the point I was trying to make.

1. You have a choice to do so and 2., cutting off the SKIN on your fingers would be mutilating your fingers.

They're equivalent procedures when comparing the amount of harm done, though, I'd say. ;)

Eh. It's true that some people have believed that, but I doubt even a thousandth of a percent of AIDS infections there have anything to do with rape.

No, that's cus of not using protection. Nothing to do with genital mutilation (except possibly for it being harder to keep the penis clean due to it having no foreskin to protect it)

EDIT: some is to do with rape

No, that's cus of not using protection. Nothing to do with genital mutilation (except possibly for it being harder to keep the penis clean due to it having no foreskin to protect it)

A person who never uses protection might be pretty likely to contract AIDS, sure, circumscised or not. Even if one in a thousand cases are prevented due to circumscision, though, you're into tens of thousands when you look at the entire continent.

I know some people believe it, as I was saying before. It's just unlikely that any significant percentage of overall AIDS infections are rape-related, that's all. The myth isn't singularly responsible for the AIDS epidemic, was the point I was trying to make.

You didn't read what I linked to, do you?
Research shows that 1 in 5 South African men believe the myth. 1 in 9 South Africans are infected with HIV. Now do the maths, please.
It's not singularly responsible, no, especially since the myth only started when the epidemic was already in full swing, but it's doing its fair share to ensure that the rate of infections won't decline any time soon.

You didn't read what I linked to, do you?
Research shows that 1 in 5 South African men believe the myth. 1 in 9 South Africans are infected with HIV. Now do the maths, please.
It's not singularly responsible, no, especially since the myth only started when the epidemic was already in full swing, but it's doing its fair share to ensure that the rate of infections won't decline any time soon.

Believing the myth doesn't mean those 20% are likely to act on that belief - it's still rape, after all. Even if I believed raping a virgin would give me a million dollars in gold and a new car, I sure as hell wouldn't go do it.

Believing the myth doesn't mean those 20% are likely to act on that belief - it's still rape, after all. Even if I believed raping a virgin would give me a million dollars in gold and a new car, I sure as hell wouldn't go do it.

21,000 child rapes, and some 37,000 adult rapes, were reported in South Africa last year. According to the South African Police Service, only one in 35 are actually reported. The actual incidence of rape could well be in excess of a million per year. It can only be speculated and extrapolated then that the actual incidence of child/infant rape has reached alarming and phenomenal proportions that should signal urgent intervention from the highest levels of government, and society-at-large.

Linky (http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm)

It would seem that many South Africans don't have that much of a problem with rape.

A person who never uses protection might be pretty likely to contract AIDS, sure, circumscised or not. Even if one in a thousand cases are prevented due to circumscision, though, you're into tens of thousands when you look at the entire continent.

That's one problem (along with many others) - the belief that genital mutilation can prevent AIDS. It's as bad as the rape idea.

If you go to a hospital and ask to have your arms chopped off for no reason, a doctor is not going to do it. In fact if you go and ask for your appendix removed, any dr, besides "Dr Nick" wouldn't take it out unless it was inflamed. So why should doctors chop off a huge piece of skin loaded with nerve endings from newborn baby boys' genitals in the hospital for no good reason?

Linky (http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm)

It would seem that many South Africans don't have that much of a problem with rape.

Sounds pretty bad, though it still looks like a small piece of the overall infection pie, even in South Africa. It's hard to believe that sort of thing could be culturally prevalent, but I guess it can happen. :(

They're equivalent procedures when comparing the amount of harm done, though, I'd say. ;)

Strangely enough, I've never seen somebody either lose blood or lose sensation by cutting their fingernails (although, judging from your username of 'thumbless', I might have to change that...). Moreover, I have seen animals take measures to ensure their nails or claws are at an appropriate length. Neither, for that matter, have I ever seen anybody's penis actually grow in length as a result of not regularly snipping it short! I'm sure many men would actually encourage such a phenomenon, but not if it involved curling back and digging into your flesh. Talk about f**king yourself...

Now, if your penis did in fact grow in length and require regular circumcision to prevent it from curling back and digging into your flesh, not only would I have enough material to write a prize-winning medical journal, but I'd also have a good laugh too.

If you want to have the end of your penis snipped off, that's fine.

DO IT WHEN YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF!!!

I would make the exact same argument for women, in fact, to bring this discussion back to topic (it's not as if these forums are dominated by blokes or anything... ahem...). If a woman actually wants to get some FGM done, let her do so when she's legally old enough to make the decision one way or the other. At the end of the day, like so many things, this issue comes down to a personal choice which is not being offered. I'd no more see FGM banned entirely than I would see FGM forced upon a woman who didn't want it. As to why somebody would actually want it, that's their problem.

Educate, don't legislate!

Sounds pretty bad, though it still looks like a small piece of the overall infection pie, even in South Africa. It's hard to believe that sort of thing could be culturally prevalent, but I guess it can happen. :(

It's called desperation. Fear of death is one of the most powerful motivators of humans everywhere. It's easy to believe nonsense like this particular myth if you want to believe, and taking action is just the next logical step in an effort to save your own skin.
I'm not excusing anything here, mind, I'm just saying it can happen anywhere.

Strangely enough, I've never seen somebody either lose blood or lose sensation by cutting their fingernails. Moreover, I have seen animals take measures to ensure their nails or claws are at an appropriate length. Neither, for that matter, have I ever seen anybody's penis actually grow in length as a result of not regularly snipping it short! I'm sure many men would actually encourage such a phenomenon, but not if it involved curling back and digging into your flesh. Talk about f**king yourself...


By all accounts, the loss of sensation caused by circumscision is minimal at best. While I wouldn't promote circumscision as a miracle cure-all for STDs, it doesn't seem to hurt, which tips the balance in favor of it to my reckoning. ;)

If you go to a hospital and ask to have your arms chopped off for no reason, a doctor is not going to do it. In fact if you go and ask for your appendix removed, any dr, besides "Dr Nick" wouldn't take it out unless it was inflamed. So why should doctors chop off a huge piece of skin loaded with nerve endings from newborn baby boys' genitals in the hospital for no good reason?

Good question. Especially when the foreskin is there to protect, and you can clean what's underneath by simply peeling the foreskin back (and if it doesn't peel back, there's no need to hack it off - I can't remember what you can do but it's something simple). In the UK, though there are some (religious) advocates of circumcision, doctors are advised that if they perform the procedure they could face legal action from the child (or another interested person) at a later date. http://www.norm-uk.org/

By all accounts, the loss of sensation caused by circumscision is minimal at best. While I wouldn't promote circumscision as a miracle cure-all for STDs, it doesn't seem to hurt, which tips the balance in favor of it to my reckoning. ;)

Indeed. Promote it to the adults who can make the decision for themselves, then. 'Minimal' is still a measurement, after all.

By all accounts, the loss of sensation caused by circumscision is minimal at best. While I wouldn't promote circumscision as a miracle cure-all for STDs, it doesn't seem to hurt, which tips the balance in favor of it to my reckoning. ;)

Doesn't hurt? See my link above.

Indeed. Promote it to the adults who can make the decision for themselves, then. 'Minimal' is still a measurement, after all.

The effects as they seem to be don't look profound enough that I'd deny the parents their right to have it done at birth. The choice shouldn't be legislated as it stands, I don't think.

I can think of a medical reason for male circumcision: Phimosis for example.

The effects as they seem to be don't look profound enough that I'd deny the parents their right to have it done at birth. The choice shouldn't be legislated as it stands, I don't think.

The parents THEIR right to have ANOTHER PERSON (child) mutilated at birth? What the heck? What about the child's right to choose? Genital mutilation can be done later if the child desires it, but it can't be undone.

The effects as they seem to be don't look profound enough that I'd deny the parents their right to have it done at birth. The choice shouldn't be legislated as it stands, I don't think.

It's not the parent's penis, it's not their 'right' in any sense of the word. They're still cutting off a part of that child's body, and until you can indisputably prove with 100% accuracy that there is absolutely no negative physical effect whatsoever to having it removed, it's still not their right. You can't prove that. And even if you could, frankly speaking, even then it's an irreversible aesthetic change over which they should have no control anyway.

I can think of a medical reason for male circumcision: Phimosis for example.

And I can tell you to read this http://www.norm-uk.org/faq.html

It's not the parent's penis, it's not their 'right' in any sense of the word. They're still cutting off a part of that child's body, and until you can indisputably prove with 100% accuracy that there is absolutely no physical effect whatsoever to having it removed, it's still not their right. You can't prove that. And even if you could, frankly speaking, even then it's an irreversible aesthetic change over which they should have no control anyway.

Even if you could prove it, it's still not their right. It may be fun and not harm a child to throw a cake on their head, but it's not a right.

Even if you could prove it, it's still not their right. It may be fun and not harm a child to throw a cake on their head, but it's not a right.

Sorry, I missed out the word 'negative'. If the child is demonstratively suffering from a medical condition as a direct result of having a foreskin, then it becomes the parent's duty to have it removed. But even then, there's still not a 'right' involved, you're correct.

It's not the parent's penis, it's not their 'right' in any sense of the word. They're still cutting off a part of that child's body, and until you can indisputably prove with 100% accuracy that there is absolutely no negative physical effect whatsoever to having it removed, it's still not their right. You can't prove that. And even if you could, frankly speaking, even then it's an irreversible aesthetic change over which they should have no control anyway.

You can't prove that, in all cases, the procedure will work with no complications and cause no harm, sure. I don't think doctors rationalize their decision to operate or not operate that way, however. Parents as it stands have wide rights over whether a child has any of a great number of surgeries, from tonsils and adenoids to harelip and cosmetic surgeries to the face. It's not that circumscision has no effect, but rather that its effects aren't significantly different from any of those things that no one's questioning a parent's right to.

And I can tell you to read this http://www.norm-uk.org/faq.html

I realise that there are techniques and creams that can be used however there are some instances where it is more prudent to perform a circumcision. They are in the rarity though.

You do realize circumcision was popularized among non-jews in the middle ages to keep boys from masturbating don't you?

I realise that there are techniques and creams that can be used however there are some instances where it is more prudent to perform a circumcision. They are in the rarity though.

If you actually HAVE the condition then there MAY be rare occasions where circumcision is necessary - I seriously doubt it though, as there are plenty of alternatives. But circumcising a child because of what MIGHT happen does not prevent phismosis and is as ridiculous as chopping off someone's leg because it MIGHT get gangrene.

You can't prove that, in all cases, the procedure will work with no complications and cause no harm, sure. I don't think doctors rationalize their decision to operate or not operate that way, however. Parents as it stands have wide rights over whether a child has any of a great number of surgeries, from tonsils and adenoids to harelip and cosmetic surgeries to the face. It's not that circumscision has no effect, but rather that its effects aren't significantly different from any of those things that no one's questioning a parent's right to.

But they are. Read that link (http://www.norm-uk.org) and evaluate websites based on what it says in the FAQ section about websites offering different views.

You can't prove that, in all cases, the procedure will work with no complications and cause no harm, sure. I don't think doctors rationalize their decision to operate or not operate that way, however. Parents as it stands have wide rights over whether a child has any of a great number of surgeries, from tonsils and adenoids to harelip and cosmetic surgeries to the face. It's not that circumscision has no effect, but rather that its effects aren't significantly different from any of those things that no one's questioning a parent's right to.

If you went into any hospital and demanded wholly unnecessary surgery for your child when the child clearly didn't want it, you'd be thrown out. Otherwise your parent could just walk into a hospital, claim that they felt you looked unsightly with two arms - or that said arm was vulnerable to gangrene, frostbite, or breakages - and have one cut off whether you wanted it or not. As it stands you can't do that. Just as it should be for circumcision.

And it's not really the choice of the parents as to whether those effects 'aren't significantly different', is it? Please prove that they aren't significantly different.

But they are. Read that link (http://www.norm-uk.org) and evaluate websites based on what it says in the FAQ section about websites offering different views.

I browsed it already. They're an advocacy group, made up of people who perceive their circumscision as having been harmful to them. That's fine, but given that it's done routinely and with little or no ethical debate here, I'd say your average doctor has no problem with it.

In any case, it's not done as a form of social control, as with FGM. It's not done to destroy someone's sex drive, or to make them "loyal" to their spouse, as in FGM. The moral imperative to act for/against male circumsiscion doesn't even compare, to my mind.

In any case, it's not done as a form of social control, as with FGM. It's not done to destroy someone's sex drive, or to make them "loyal" to their spouse, as in FGM. The moral imperative to act for/against male circumsiscion doesn't even compare, to my mind.
Actually it is.

Actually it is.

Anyone who thinks it has any such effect is much mistaken, if that's the case. :p

I browsed it already. They're an advocacy group, made up of people who perceive their circumscision as having been harmful to them. That's fine, but given that it's done routinely and with little or no ethical debate here, I'd say your average doctor has no problem with it.

Well, these are the people affected. It's unnecessary and superfluous, and a number of people regard it as harmful. So why do it? There are no positive effects whatsoever.


In any case, it's not done as a form of social control, as with FGM. It's not done to destroy someone's sex drive, or to make them "loyal" to their spouse, as in FGM. The moral imperative to act for/against male circumsiscion doesn't even compare, to my mind.

Well, then why do it in the first place?

Well, these are the people affected. It's unnecessary and superfluous, and a number of people regard it as harmful. So why do it? There are no positive effects whatsoever.


Those are people who *think* they've been affected. A small minority believe it, which isn't surprising considering the culture over there being decidedly against it. Conduct a similar survey here, where almost every male has had it done, and you might get different results. ;) Being circumcised over there would make you unusual or odd, and that in itself might harm you, I'd believe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm

It's about damn time!

Congrats.

If you actually HAVE the condition then there MAY be rare occasions where circumcision is necessary - I seriously doubt it though, as there are plenty of alternatives. But circumcising a child because of what MIGHT happen does not prevent phismosis and is as ridiculous as chopping off someone's leg because it MIGHT get gangrene.

I wasn't talking about infant circumcision, I was talking about circumcision as a remedy to some people afflicted with Phimosis.

I don't really care either way about infant circumcision except that it is an unnecessary expense on the medical budget.

Those are people who *think* they've been affected. A small minority believe it, which isn't surprising considering the culture over there being decidedly against it. Conduct a similar survey here, where almost every male has had it done, and you might get different results. ;) Being circumcised over there would make you unusual or odd, and that in itself might harm you, I'd believe.

And you, of course, are a qualified judge to determine if they have been hurt or are just mental nutcases who want to feel victimised?
You still fail to provide a single shred of evidence that removing the foreskin has any positive effects whatsoever.
You're current argumentation seems to be "it doesn't harm them, so let's do it". Getting your little finger cut of won't harm you either, will it? Why not cut them all off? Just think how much money can be saved on gloves and mittens.

And you, of course, are a qualified judge to determine if they have been hurt or are just mental nutcases who want to feel victimised?
You still fail to provide a single shred of evidence that removing the foreskin has any positive effects whatsoever.
You're current argumentation seems to be "it doesn't harm them, so let's do it". Getting your little finger cut of won't harm you either, will it? Why not cut them all off? Just think how much money can be saved on gloves and mittens.

Isn't there an argument that it reduces the chance of contracting HIV from an infected woman? Then again the study was performed in Africa where hygiene standards could be a big issue

And you, of course, are a qualified judge to determine if they have been hurt or are just mental nutcases who want to feel victimised?
You still fail to provide a single shred of evidence that removing the foreskin has any positive effects whatsoever.
You're current argumentation seems to be "it doesn't harm them, so let's do it". Getting your little finger cut of won't harm you either, will it? Why not cut them all off? Just think how much money can be saved on gloves and mittens.

I can't play the guitar without my little finger. Well, I suppose you could cut off my little finger on the right hand, but not the left. Of course, I need my right little finger to play the saxophone, so I kinda need both. :p

Seriously, though - the hygiene benefits of circumsicion are well documented. I'm not especially qualified to judge the legitimacy of all that, since I'm not a doctor, but doctors in general perform circumsicion routinely. I'll leave that to them. Someone posted an msn.com article on the hygiene benefits in the thread MUSLIMS: which is currently on Page 1. That's my rationale for continuing to allow parents to make the decision, as I've been saying as long as I've been involved in this thread.

I can't play the guitar without my little finger. Well, I suppose you could cut off my little finger on the right hand, but not the left. Of course, I need my right little finger to play the saxophone, so I kinda need both. :p

Seriously, though - the hygiene benefits of circumsicion are well documented. I'm not especially qualified to judge the legitimacy of all that, since I'm not a doctor, but doctors in general perform circumsicion routinely. I'll leave that to them. Someone posted an msn.com article on the hygiene benefits in the thread MUSLIMS: which is currently on Page 1. That's my rationale for continuing to allow parents to make the decision, as I've been saying as long as I've been involved in this thread.

Why not let the child make the decision when they are old enough, though, rather than let the parents chop it off before they even get the chance to engage in rational thought? If it is such a bonus as you say, then surely every rational adult will have it done! Sexual transmitted diseases don't even become a factor until then anyway, unless the child has some bigger problems than simply considering a circumcision.

Simply saying that 'doctors do it regularly' isn't an argument. 'Doctors' used to regularly drill holes in people's heads to relieve headaches, doesn't make it right or wrong - just regular.

Why not let the child make the decision when they are old enough, though, rather than let the parents chop it off before they even get the chance to engage in rational thought? If it is such a bonus as you say, then surely every rational adult will have it done! Sexual transmitted diseases don't even become a factor until then anyway, unless the child has some bigger problems than simply considering a circumcision.

Simply saying that 'doctors do it regularly' isn't an argument. 'Doctors' used to regularly drill holes in people's heads to relieve headaches, doesn't make it right or wrong - just regular.

Actually, isn't there some merit to that whole "hole-drilling" thing? I saw a t.v. show about it once, and I think it actually is somewhat effective in relieving certain kinds of pain. Not totally sure, though.

As for circumcision, there just doesn't seem to be anything about it that sets it apart from the myriad other surgeries that parents regularly elect to have done, which could also wait until the child reaches majority. The fact that it's done on a sex organ isn't enough to create an entirely new category requiring different considerations.

Actually, isn't there some merit to that whole "hole-drilling" thing? I saw a t.v. show about it once, and I think it actually is somewhat effective in relieving certain kinds of pain. Not totally sure, though.

As for circumcision, there just doesn't seem to be anything about it that sets it apart from the myriad other surgeries that parents regularly elect to have done, which could also wait until the child reaches majority. The fact that it's done on a sex organ isn't enough to create an entirely new category requiring different considerations.

Drilling a hole through your head when all you have is a headache has no merits whatsoever.

And no, there isn't enough justification for having a circumcision done on a person without their permission. Whether it's a sexual organ or not. Exactly what other wholly unnecessary surgeries with potentially negative side-effects (OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER, HOWEVER DEBATABLE) did your parents forcibly have done to you when you were a child?

You're addressing the question of why not, when I'm asking the question why. I'm talking basic rights for the child here, when you're talking about a very minor potential benefit which would only apply to them when they are adults anyway.

Drilling a hole through your head when all you have is a headache has no merits whatsoever.

And no, there isn't enough justification for having a circumcision done on a person without their permission. Whether it's a sexual organ or not. Exactly what other wholly unnecessary surgeries with potentially negative side-effects (OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER, HOWEVER DEBATABLE) did your parents forcibly have done to you when you were a child?


According to Wiki, the hole-drilling thing is of some benefit intreating epidural and subdural hematomas, whatever the hell those are. :p

What my parents had done to me is neither here nor there, but it remains their right (or at least it was when I was a minor) to see to the child's health however they see fit, provided professionals concur as to legitimate purpose. I've given examples of that before, if I recall.

Edit: To anyone interested: I hate to cut my part of the discussion short (hah! get it?) but I have to work. ;) See everyone later. :)

Props to Egypt for joining the 21st century. Now if they actually enforce it, progress will have been made.

Whose mission?

The mission, have sex and ask that question later.

Well, is there a good reason not to surgically remove the appendix and tonsils of every newborn baby? The only reason is that it's completely and totally unneccessary surgical work. Plastic surgery to alter the baby's appearance according to the aesthetical ideas of the parents.
There's no reason to make it illegal or anything, of course not. But it does make me wonder about the mindset of the parents.

Maybe in the case of the appendix, yes, however, circumcision is generally a very minor piece of work that could be done by your run of the mill doctor.

So you're saying that the foreskin is a remnant of an actual organ, with a known use?

Where did you get that idea from? The foreskin is simply a piece of unnecessary skin; it can be kept, and doing so is unlikely to be of harm, but it can also be cut off and doing so is not going to be harmful - no-one has still given me a valid reason as to why male circumcision is bad and should therefore be banned.

Male circumcision ain't like female circumcision in the slightest, one is cutting off a piece of unnecessary skin, and the other one is reconstructing the genitals. Now, if male circumcision were chopping off the whole penis, then perhaps there might be a problem, but it isn't, so there is no problem.

So you're saying that the foreskin is a remnant of an actual organ, with a known use?

Where did you get that idea from? The foreskin is simply a piece of unnecessary skin; it can be kept, and doing so is unlikely to be of harm, but it can also be cut off and doing so is not going to be harmful - no-one has still given me a valid reason as to why male circumcision is bad and should therefore be banned.

I haven't set out to do that, and I'm not interested in arguing it, and it's as off-topic as this evolution thing.

The appendix is present and working in other mammals. So is the foreskin. One is an organ, the other is as you say a flap of skin.

If you say they are just the same, you could show how the foreskin is the remnant of some organ or appendage which once had a function. How else to explain it's existence if it is not a survival benefit just like it is?

Male circumcision ain't like female circumcision in the slightest, one is cutting off a piece of unnecessary skin, and the other one is reconstructing the genitals. Now, if male circumcision were chopping off the whole penis, then perhaps there might be a problem, but it isn't, so there is no problem.

This was in answer to someone else, so I'll leave it.

The appendix is present and working in other mammals. So is the foreskin. One is an organ, the other is as you say a flap of skin.

If you say they are just the same, you could show how the foreskin is the remnant of some organ or appendage which once had a function. How else to explain it's existence if it is not a survival benefit just like it is?

The appendix and foreskin are the same in that they are unnecessary items in humans; alright, they may be needed for other mammals, but in humans they are completely unnecessary - therefore, there is little harm in keeping it, and there is no harm in getting rid of it.

Millions of people have had their foreskin cut off over the centuries with next to no harm resulting - as I said before, if it is not harmful, and there are no benefits to keeping the foreskin, then why must we ban male circumcision?

Isn't there an argument that it reduces the chance of contracting HIV from an infected woman? Then again the study was performed in Africa where hygiene standards could be a big issue

Yes, but in areas where people regularly practice safe sex (ie. using condoms), the contribution from being circumcised seems to be negligible.

When it comes right down to it, I haven't seen any convincing evidence for routine infant circumcision and don't plan to have any little boys that I might have circumcised. From what I can tell, circumcision doesn't do much of anything that teaching your son proper hygiene and encouraging safe sex wouldn't do.

Currently, I'm not aware of any medical association that recommends routine infant circumcision. Some used to (I believe both the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics did at one time), but no longer recommend it.

If it's such a great idea, evolution would have done it already.

So we should stop making medicine because if diseases were bad for us then we would be immuned through evolution?

What diseases does it prevent that simple washing now and then wouldn't prevent as well?

Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'

Circumcision can reduce the rate of HIV infections among heterosexual men by around 60%, a study suggests.

The South African study, reported in Public Library of Science Medicine, found it had a protective effect for some of the 3,280 young men involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm

The appendix and foreskin are the same in that they are unnecessary items in humans; alright, they may be needed for other mammals, but in humans they are completely unnecessary - therefore, there is little harm in keeping it, and there is no harm in getting rid of it.

Millions of people have had their foreskin cut off over the centuries with next to no harm resulting - as I said before, if it is not harmful, and there are no benefits to keeping the foreskin, then why must we ban male circumcision?

And as I said before, I'm not arguing it here. I have no idea where you got the idea that I advocate "banning male circumcision" or why you would ask that question.

I made a flippant remark, the one about evolution doing it if it was worth doing. I am done explaining that remark, and I regret being part of the problem as regards hijacking this thread.

Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'

Circumcision can reduce the rate of HIV infections among heterosexual men by around 60%, a study suggests.

The South African study, reported in Public Library of Science Medicine, found it had a protective effect for some of the 3,280 young men involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm

Interestingly enough, when similar studies are attempted in 1st world countries, they show no significant difference, suggesting that hygiene and safe sex practices have quite an effect here.

Interestingly enough, when similar studies are attempted in 1st world countries, they show no significant difference, suggesting that hygiene and safe sex practices have quite an effect here.

In places where parents feel that their children have a good chance of not catching HIV then there may not be a benifit. However, as it sometimes can be benificial depending on the community (both country and otherwise) it should be left up to the parents.

So we should stop making medicine because if diseases were bad for us then we would be immuned through evolution?

In the long term, diseases are good for us. And our evolution is too slow and too affected by other factors than disease for "evolved immunity" to work. The disease vectors evolve far quicker than we could, so each body fights in it's own way.

We have evolved a strategy for dealing with disease. Fighting specific vectors one by one is a job for medicine, which I would obviously not be foolish enough to dismiss as unnecessary.

EDIT: Bolded a word. I do not mean "evolve a strategy" in the gameplayer's sense.

And as I said before, I'm not arguing it here. I have no idea where you got the idea that I advocate "banning male circumcision" or why you would ask that question.

I made a flippant remark, the one about evolution doing it if it was worth doing. I am done explaining that remark, and I regret being part of the problem as regards hijacking this thread.

That is fair enough, my remarks about banning male circumcision were more directed at the other people that commented about banning it than you in particular.

In the long term, diseases are good for us.
Is that a yes?

Is that a yes?

No. :rolleyes:

In places where parents feel that their children have a good chance of not catching HIV then there may not be a benifit. However, as it sometimes can be benificial depending on the community (both country and otherwise) it should be left up to the parents.

As a general rule, I would agree with this, not because I think it will ever actually be more beneficial than teaching your children proper hygiene and safe sex practices, but because I think others might be swayed more than I am by the data that is out there.

I do not, however, think that parents should do it for any reason other than being convinced by medical data that it is beneficial and if there were a way to legally enforce that, I'd advocate it.

In the long term, diseases are good for us. And our evolution is too slow and too affected by other factors than disease for "evolved immunity" to work. The disease vectors evolve far quicker than we could, so each body fights in it's own way.

We have evolved a strategy for dealing with disease. Fighting specific vectors one by one is a job for medicine, which I would obviously not be foolish enough to dismiss as unnecessary.

My point was should we determine what medical procedures we should preform based on evolution?

My point was should we determine what medical procedures we should preform based on evolution?

Yeah, I thought I'd dodged it ;)

It's a hard case to make, but for cosmetic or marginally-enhancing reasons perhaps yes.

It could be argued that male circumcision is a cosmetic procedure primarily. It IS primarily cosmetic when used as a religious initiation. It's used as a way for religions to regulate who their followers can have sex with.

Is that really the business of medicine?

Jesus H Christ...

Recent studies have shown that some 90% of Egyptian women have been circumcised. (from the article)

90% of women in this country have had this done to them?!

I mean, I'm happy that they're putting a stop to this, but it's insane that it not only continued as long as it has, but is so prevalent.

Yeah, I thought I'd dodged it ;)

It's a hard case to make, but for cosmetic or marginally-enhancing reasons perhaps yes.

It could be argued that male circumcision is a cosmetic procedure primarily. It IS primarily cosmetic when used as a religious initiation. It's used as a way for religions to regulate who their followers can have sex with.

Is that really the business of medicine?

Does it merit being banned because it might be used badly when it can, in fact, save live?

In the long term, diseases are good for us. And our evolution is too slow and too affected by other factors than disease for "evolved immunity" to work. The disease vectors evolve far quicker than we could, so each body fights in it's own way.

We have evolved a strategy for dealing with disease. Fighting specific vectors one by one is a job for medicine, which I would obviously not be foolish enough to dismiss as unnecessary.
My point was should we determine what medical procedures we should preform based on evolution?

The strength of that point is kind of dawning on me now.

This was WRONG, and I retract it:

My circumsized friend says that circumsision decrease the chance of acquiring some diseases and infections. How is that not beneficial?

If it's such a great idea, evolution would have done it already.

It does, but it accomplishes no more than what general good hygeine can do.well.. then it means Male-Genital-Mutilation is good for the environment.. cos after the mutilation they dont need to shower everyday. :D

yes! Take that female oppressors!

Umm...

WHAT THE F*CK IS F.G.M.?

Dude.. all you had to do was click the link. You would have seen the header reading - " Egypt forbids female circumcision "

I don't agree with circumcision of any form period. I see they have had this "BAN" in effect for 10 years already ..... " A ban was introduced nearly 10 years ago but the practice continued to be allowed in exceptional circumstances. "

Exceptional circumstances? What can that be? Have these people been doing this so long that their body.. their genes/dna ...whatever.. have begun to cause deformity if their foreskin isn't removed by a certain age? Or are these exceptional circumstances those of 'these parents or this doctor .. religious whoever' who really really want this to be done for chastity or whatever cultural reasons?

What a bunch of bologny. I know there are many different types of female circumcision. Some where they remove the foreskin (skin of the clit) only, some the inner lips only, some the inner and outer lips, some the entire clit and the rest -- that being an extreme form. But either way all of it is unnecessary and IMO wrong. It just comes down to .. should the parents have the right to do such a thing to their child for whatever reason.

It's more common with men, and the majority seem to fair well in spite of it. But I still would not circumcise my son if/when I had one. I'm a female .. so this female circumcision makes me cringe.. no way would I want or think it good for any part of my stuff to be snipped. Ugh. But if it was done as a child and caused no real harm.. I wouldn't know any different now would I? But that doesn't make it OK. I say Nay!

I think since this is such a part of their culture, it will continue for years to come. Ban or no ban.