Circumcision

[Speedo]

find that statistic a bit hard to believe. I would expect it would be much higher than 62%. My Greek friend says girls would freak out, and not even know what it was at first. If there were so many uncircumcised I don't think they would have reacted like that.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

Ironically, I was at a (female) friend's house the other day and started flipping through a Glamor (or Glamour, whatever) magazine out of boredom. It had one of those articles about "25 most embarrassing sex moments" or something like that.. but one of them was "you get in bed and find something unexpected." First on the list? "An uncircumcised penis." So it's not like they're being encouraged not to be shallow.

 

[Hitro]

I oppose both. That the female version is even worse doesn't make the male one right.

I guess the thought of it alone is rather discomforting for any uncircumcised man, at least it is for me.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Well, I can't say I'm an expert on the subject... what kinds of negative effects can happen? I've been circumcised since birth, and have had no problems that I can remember.

Did you see my post to MattBrown on page 2? The procedure left me with a patch of scar tissue, tissue which is prone to breaking thus leaving an open sore. But at least it doesn't bleed. And no, that isn't the most significant reason I'm against it, the lack of consent for an unnecessary procedure with questionable benefits is the most significant. It's the same reason I would be against chopping the ear lobes off infants with hygiene as the excuse if this culture were fond of the practise; ear lobes are pretty much useless, and I wear no jewelry so especially so in my case, but routinely amputating ear lobes should not be allowed. Arguments for infant appendectomy and tonsillectomy would I think be far stronger than those for infant circumcision.

 

[RedWolf]

10,000, thats alot of posts.......back on topic, yes thats true, but there are still plenty of people who might not actually use there showers to the full extent they should (I could name a few ) And if it does not hurt, the chance of infection is not high, and there is the possibility it could keep you healthier, why not do it if you feel the need to? No one is suggesting it should be mandatory, but that it should be availible if the parents want it. (I can't see many growing men wanting to have it done )

Well then maybe we should allow the dirty people to choose circumcision as a "low maitenence" package but lets not force it on all males based on the lowest common denominator.

 

[RedWolf]

Of course, because no one remembers it, and when done properly it is not that painful, and heals quickly.

Can anybody actually believe that it's non painfull? They chop a piece of a baby's body off (fully awake and with no painkiller). This piece of skin is full of nerve endings and probably the most sensitive part of the penis. Babies scream and thrash about and sometimes go into shock from the pain which is why they sometimes go quiet.

Just because babies won't remember it should I be allowed to slap my one year old in the face everyday? Or cut off a finger or two at birth? (Not that I have a 1 year old)

I've never understood the argument - "they won't remember it". The point isn't about remembering it or not - the point is that it hurt right THEN. Thats what pain is about.

The American and Canadian pediatric societies both have said that there is no medical reason for routine male infant circumcision.

There are certain medical conditions that can require circumcision later in life but strangely this is the "cure" only in North America. Doctors in Europe will use other methods to solve these problems however when you go to a doctor with a foreskin problem in North America they will almost always reccomend circumcision as the first solution. Funny how "cutting it off" wouldn't be accepted as a cure for any other part of the body when afflicted with a minor curable ailment.

If guys want to have themselves circumcised for aesthetic reasons (ie: shallow girls like it better) but I'm strongly oppossed to holding babies down and cutting parts of their bodies off. (We'd find it incredibly irresponsible for parents to tatoo their new borns due to the fact that a child is too young to consent to having their body physically altered)

 

[Aphex_Twin]

However, there are studies regarding hygiene (especially in young males 0-13 yrs. of age), mainly because boys tend to be dirtier (than girls), so they may not clean themselves as thoroughly as they should. This leads to increased infections.

Your hands get dirty. So what now, cut them off?

 

[Hundegesicht]

Can anybody actually believe that it's non painfull? They chop a piece of a baby's body off (fully awake and with no painkiller). This piece of skin is full of nerve endings and probably the most sensitive part of the penis. Babies scream and thrash about and sometimes go into shock from the pain which is why they sometimes go quiet.

Are you for real? They stick a little ring around the foreskin and it falls off after a couple days... I don't even think it causes more than mild discomfort. How could that cause that much pain? Do you have ANY sources showing that the procedure is painful? Has anyone here ever witnessed it happening?

 

[Ren]

I'm opposed to any procedure forced upon someone or done without their consent. This is no exception.

Of course I can't vote that I'm opposed to either, because if someone wants it done then that's their business.

I've always wondered... (and I hope this doesn't get me banned or warned... it's simply a curious question)... does being uncircumcised act like a natural condom in the sense that it makes you, um, "longer lasting"?

No, because the foreskin gets pulled back; exposing a much more sensitive 'head'. Unless, off course, it can't be pulled back (and if that were the case, I'd be trying to get it fixed).

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm opposed to male infant circumcision on the consent grounds.

I don't think I need explain why I'm opposed to forced female pubescent circumcision.

If an adult, of either sex, wants it done, well, it's their body. As long as they pay for the procedure, I'm fine with it.

 

[Plotinus]

:Has anyone here ever witnessed it happening?

No, but my girlfriend has. She was horrified when her brother recently had his newborn son circumcised, because she remembered how he had appeared to suffer when he had it done himself!

I find it very strange that in the US, of all places, where Christianity is so deeply entrenched, they should regard circumcision as the norm. Evidently, not many Americans have read Galatians 5:2 (having faith is worthless if you are circumcised), or 5:12 - to paraphrase, "If only the knife would slip!"

To the person who asked if being circumcised would be considered strange in Europe, all I can say is that American children must have to spend a lot of time naked in each other's presence, because I can't recall any opportunities for comparison when *I* was at school. At swimming pools etc. I have certainly never seen an uncircumcised thingummy, and if I did I would probably stare at it in amazement for a socially unacceptable amount of time. When I have seen such a thing in - er - pictures, I always think it looks utterly vile, like it's been skinned. How American women can prefer that look I cannot imagine. I also don't quite understand what it would be like to *be* circumcised. Does the exposed part lose its extreme tenderness and toughen up? I'm sorry, but that's just gross.

However, I do know one or two people who have had it done - one who had "tightness" problems and had it done as an adult with agonising consequences, and of course my girlfriend's brothers. They appear to come from some very peculiar wing of the Catholic Church which encourages it. Don't ask.

 

[Plotinus]

I might add that I'm always rather horrified when I see toddlers or even little babies with pierced ears. What kind of parent pierces a child's ears without its consent, necessitating the use of sleepers, when the child is hardly going to go around decked in jewellery for years to come? If that kid decidees it wants pierced ears, it can have them for itself when it grows up. However, I think that circumcision is worse, partly because most girls do have pierced ears whereas circumcision is unusual, and partly because if the child decides they don't want it they can just let their ears close up later. You can't reverse circumcision (although in Hellenstic times, some cosmopolitan Jews apparently had an operation of some kind to make it look like they hadn't been circumcised - since only Jews did it then - I can't imagine that, but ouch!).

 

[ComradeDavo]

Sometimes males 'need' to be circumised for medical reasons. It is healthier and better for them to do so (or so I have been told).

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sometimes males 'need' to be circumised for medical reasons. It is healthier and better for them to do so (or so I have been told).

I'm not aware of any condition that can only be helped by circumcision (which might say more about my medical knowledge than anything else), but surely you agree it's a big difference doing surgery* for immediate medical grounds, and on societal-cultural grounds?

* OK, I know some posters in this thread don't want to classify it as surgery, but I don't know another word for medical intervention to remove parts of an organ. Well, beyond "amputation", but that doesn't sound any better, does it?

 

[RedWolf]

I'm not aware of any condition that can only be helped by circumcision (which might say more about my medical knowledge than anything else)

You will find many non-north american doctors that agree with you on that issue. There is almost ALWAYS another way. Circumcision is the LAST resort in places where doctors are trained to actually heal the condition. In north america it is the FIRST resort.

Most people don't realize this and they go to the doctor with a problem, who looks at it and says "Sorry sis but you have to be circumcised I'll make the appointment for you next week". People assume that their doctor knwos whats best (and don't realize that North American doctors have a very strong pro-circumcision bias since it's "what they know") so they go and have it done.

 

[RedWolf]

Are you for real? They stick a little ring around the foreskin and it falls off after a couple days... I don't even think it causes more than mild discomfort. How could that cause that much pain? Do you have ANY sources showing that the procedure is painful? Has anyone here ever witnessed it happening?

Are you for real? The foreskin in young infants is attached to the head of the penis.. it's not even meant to be retracted at that age. So first they tear it from the head of he penis, put a clamp on it and then slice the foreskin off with a scalpel. I have done a lot of reading on this subject and have NEVER heard of the method of which you mention. I've seen pictures of the procedure and it's bloody and involves knives. Also heard testimony from nurses and doctors that refuse to do it. Seriously you may not actually understand the procedure that was performed on your son - AFTER the circumcision is performed they do put some kind of bell shaped ring on the penis.. but this is NOT the circumcision. It was done with knives and clamps.

I have a link to a page with pictures of the procedure but It's graphic and am not sure I'm allowed to post them here so I won't. But they aren't hard to find. Anybody that wants it tell me and I'll PM it.

Some facts: (found in approximately 5 minutes of searching)

"After a two year investigation, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that the "potential medical benefits" of infant circumcision aren't significant enough and therefore, they do not recommend it as a routine procedure."

"Routine Infant Circumcision [RIC] is not practiced in most medically advanced nations. Unlike American parents, few parents worldwide are actually faced with this choice. Their babies are automatically brought home intact. 82% of the world’s living men are intact."

"Just as the fingernail is fused to the finger,“at birth the foreskin is fused to the glans.”[Fleiss] In orderto remove it, the foreskin is pulled, torn, crushed and cut. We now knowthat babies actually feel pain more intensely than adults. [Anand] Most babiesscream wildly. Blood pressure and heart rate increases markedly. Some gointo severe shock, and lapse into a semi-comatose state. This is oftenmisunderstood by medical professionals who later insist that the baby experiencedno pain because they laid there without moving or crying. Babies continueto feel pain after the surgery."

"A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.

The researchers discovered that for those circumcised without anesthesia there was not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing."

"Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised, according to a report from the University of Alberta in Edmonton."

 

[Marla_Singer]

I don't even understand how excision could be called "female circumcision". This is simply against the Human Rights.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Your post is the most traumatizing thing I've read in a while Redwolf. I did know most of this before but seeing it all in once place and reading it at once almost makes me hurt just reading it.

I've always been adamantly against both forms of circumcison. It's torture for women and I don't understand why it's ok for males to endure it.

I even tried for a long time to convince my sister to avoid the procedure for her son to no avail. What's worse is that it's not mandatory in Canada and is not covered by our healthcare system. My sister is rather poor and $350 is money she doesn't have. If I'm wrong and it is covered by our healthcare system I don't know why she had to pay extra but the point is some people think it's so important they go into debt over it.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I've always been adamantly against both forms of circumcison. It's torture for women and I don't understand why it's ok for males to endure it.

Come on ! "male" circumcision is only about removing skin. "female circumsition" (excision) is about removing the whole thing.

Both would be the same if "male" circumcision was about removing the penis, not simply the extra-skin around.

 

[RedWolf]

Your post is the most traumatizing thing I've read in a while Redwolf. I did know most of this before but seeing it all in once place and reading it at once almost makes me hurt just reading it.

I've always been adamantly against both forms of circumcison. It's torture for women and I don't understand why it's ok for males to endure it.

I even tried for a long time to convince my sister to avoid the procedure for her son to no avail. What's worse is that it's not mandatory in Canada and is not covered by our healthcare system. My sister is rather poor and $350 is money she doesn't have. If I'm wrong and it is covered by our healthcare system I don't know why she had to pay extra but the point is some people think it's so important they go into debt over it.

You're right - not covered by our healthcare system precisely because it is not a medically required procedure. It's an attempt actually to curb the practice.

 

[RedWolf]

Come on ! "male" circumcision is only about removing skin. "female circumsition" (excision) is about removing the whole thing.

Both would be the same if "male" circumcision was about removing the penis, not simply the extra-skin around.

Nobody is saying that male circumcision is as BAD as female circumcision - clearly it's not. BUT I ams saying it's wrong for precisely the same reason - not medically neccesary, it's incredibly painfull, it impairs the natural sexual functioning of the penis, and is an irreversible procedure performed without the consent of the individual involved.