Circumcision....discuss?

[zipman]

As an RN, I am smart enough NOT to *really* say what I want to in this thread.

But if you say it we'll have to believe it!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/07/life.honesty.reut/index.html



Btw, Oliver Clozoff gets my nod for best summation of a ridiculously long thread.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Btw, Oliver Clozoff gets my nod for best summation of a ridiculously long thread.

wow... and I just read one page.

Just goes to show I've been around this bb waaaay too long.

 

[gogonslord]

There are just as many studies which show that there are indeed just as many benefits to circumcision (as a preventative medical procedure) as there are against it.

That is why the AMA and other medical groups advise parents to educate themselves on circumcision before they make their decision.

There are absolutley no medical benefits to circumcision. Only excuses, excuses for the denial, that harm is being done to a child.

Not a single medical organization in the world reccommends circumcision, not even the AMA.

 

[gogonslord]

"rip off" ?? Oh, well now I have never seen that done before.

Maybe, this was innapropriate wording. How about skinned alive, crushed and then amputated?

 

[gogonslord]

First off, I think the differences between western male and African female circumcision as they are practiced are so utterly pronounced that your comparison is laughable. One totally removes the entire sensory organ of the female while the other diminshes some sensitivity of the penis. Sorry, but you're horror and outrage seem rather misplaced to me.

There are varying types of female circumcision as are there varying types of male circumcision. Their original intention were the same, to damage the sexual organs enough, to control people but not enough to completely destroy the genitals. The only difference male circumcision has in your culture that it doesn't have in areas where female circumcision is practiced is that male circumcision has become medicalized.

The amount of tissue removed during male circumcision is anaglous to a type II female circumcision removing the labia minora and clitoral prepuce.

Maybe this graph will put it into perspective for you.

FGM MGM
Cutting? YES YES
Of the genitals? YES YES
Of babies? NO YES
Of children? YES YES
Without consent? YES YES
At parents' behest? YES YES
Removing erogenous tissue? YES YES
Supposedly beneficial? YES YES
Justified by aesthetics? YES YES
Justified by supposed health benefits? YES YES
Justified by religion? YES YES
Justified by sexual effects? YES YES
Justified by custom? YES YES
Justified by conformity? YES YES
Effects minimised by its supporters? YES YES
Performed by its adult victims? YES YES
Extremely painful? YES YES
Can cause harm? YES YES
Very severe damage? USUALLY SOMETIMES
Can cause death? YES YES
Legal in Western countries? NO YES

 

[zipman]

There are absolutley no medical benefits to circumcision. Only excuses, excuses for the denial, that harm is being done to a child.

Not a single medical organization in the world reccommends circumcision, not even the AMA.

Tell that to the AMA.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

 

[gogonslord]

Phimosis: This is generally regarded as narrowing of the foreskin orifice so as to prevent retraction of the foreskin over the glans. Phimosis is normal in very young boys, but is gone by age 3 in 90%. If still present after age 6 it is regarded as a problem. Phimosis affects at least 10% of uncircumcised males, the reported rates being.

True phimosis(BXO) is extremely rare and effects less than 1% of boys. Even this can be treated with less invasive means not involving amputation.

The error in this quote is glaring, but one only need observe the source. The foreskin does NOT become retracticle by the age of 3 in 90% of boys. It is completely variable in all ages and it is NOT a problem if it doesn't retract by the age of three. This is like saying all females should have fully developed breasts by the age of 15. Ludicrous. The foreskin can take as long until the age of 16 or later until it can become retractile.

A tight foreskin is uncommon, and can easily be treated by manual stretching or steroid creams. Infact, many men will live their entire lives with a tight foreskin and never have a single problem. Invasive surgery is not necessary.

Paraphimosis: This is when the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over the glans and is a very painful problem, relieved by circumcision or slitting the dorsal surface of the foreskin.

Paraphimosis, almost always occurs in a medical setting when a catheter is inserted into the penis and the foreskin isn't drawn back to its original position. This is due to medical staff ignorance. Paraphimosis can quickly be reduced with various non-invasive methods.

Frenular chordee This results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised males [110]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Since scar tissue is generally more fragile and less elastic than normal tissue, the tear often re-occurs causing pain, bleeding and is an impediment to sexual activity. This problem can be solved by excising the frenulum during a circumcision. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible.

Frenulum breve, also extremely rare effecting about 5% of men is no reason for circumcision. There are varying degress of brevity and most men with it will live their entire lives not noticing they ever had it. If it is a sever case a frenuloplasty can be performed(Which does not involve removing the frenulum) to aleviate it and pleasure will be restored to the frenulum.

Balanitis and posthitis: To paediatric surgeons, the most obvious medical reasons for circumcision are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin). Both are very painful conditions. The latter is limited to uncircumcised males. Balanitis is seen in 11-13% of uncircumcised men, but in only 2% of those who are circumcised [85, 155]. In uncircumcised diabetic men it is 35% [155]. In boys the incidence of balanitis is twice as high in those who are uncircumcised [97, 126].

Balanitis can affect both circumcised and intact males. In reality, more cases of balanitis have been seen in circumcised males. This can logicaly be deduced because of the glans exposure. Balanitis and posthitis are minor dermatological ailments and(depending on the cause,) can be easily treated with antibiotics. If only all minor infections could be treated with amputation.

Penile skin diseases also include psoriasis, those arising from penile infections , lichen sclerosis, lichen planus, schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis. The various conditions have been extensively reviewed [80, 155] and are either much more common in, or totally confined to, uncircumcised males. For example, all patients with plasma cell (Zoon) balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and non-specific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised [178]. Mycobacterium smegmatis has been implicated Zoon balanitis [80]. Typical symptoms of the latter include erythrema (in 100%), swelling (in 91%), discharge (in 73%), dysuria (in 13%), bleeding (in 2%) and ulceration (in 1%)

So absoulutely absurd, all of these skin conditions can affect both intact and circumcised males and has nothing to do with the presence of foreskin.

Infections of the urinary tract (UTI) are regarded as being common in the pediatric population [157]. The highest prevalence and greatest severity of UTIs is prior to 6 months of age [258, 317]. The association of UTI with lack of circumcision is unequivocal. Most of the evidence has emerged over the past 20 years or so. In 1982 it was reported that 95% of UTIs in boys aged 5 days to 8 months were in uncircumcised infants [105].

A very common reason(but false) given as a reason for the circumcision of boys. Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are rare, and mainly occur in the first year of life. The supposed correlation between intactness and UTIs was only discovered in 1982, long after the custom of circumcision was well-established in the US. Ironically, all the 1982 paper did was quite casually note that "95% of the [male] infants [with UTI] were uncircumcised." without mentioning that virtually no babies born at that hospital (Parkland in Dallas, Texas) were circumcised. The paper went on: "All infants responded promptly to antimicrobial therapy."


Dr Thomas Wiswell
It is Dr Thomas Wiswell who has made it his life's work to establish the UTI-intact penis connection, and he is also a keen circumcisor. His many papers present statistics involving huge samples, tens of thousands of babies (which may convince those who mistakenly think large numbers guarantee accuracy). However, all the babies were born in military hospitals, where circumcision is very much the norm. It is very likely that the intact babies had their foreskins forcibly retracted. It is also likely that a major reason for the babies to be left intact was that they were born prematurly, put in intensive care and catheterised for that reason: the catheterisation, not their intactness, caused their UTIs. There are also issues around the method of determining UTI infection. Some methods of collecting urine samples risk contamination.

One commonly quoted figure is that UTIs are ten times as common in intact boys (1.1%) as circumcised boys (0.1%). This means that circumcision offers an absolute reduction of 1% at best.

Combining the rarity of UTIs, with the only partial prevention attributable to circumcision, To et al calculated that it would take 195 circumcisions to prevent one UTI. One factor that might make it even higher is that doctors unfamiliar with the intact penis are inclined to forcibly retract the foreskin, and this may open the way to infection.

Another confounding factor is that hospitalisiation was taken as the defining degree of seriousness of UTIs: but babies with UTIs are often hospitalised in order to be circumcised, so of course more intact babies appear in the statistics.

The main factor correlating with UTIs in infants is urinary tract abnormalities. Breast-feeding is reported to reduce UTIs' incidence (because the close contact with the mother colonises the baby's body with her benign bacteria in preference to those that cause UTIs).

UTIs are readily treated with antibiotics.

Also, UTI's occur 500% more in females. Should we remove their labias for good measure?

On a side note, some studies have also shown that men have twice the risk of prostate cancer if uncircumcised.

The problem with circumcision is that it is a hydra-headed arguement. You debunk one absurd claim and another comes up. Denial is a tough emotion to deal with and is not easily argued with.

 

[gogonslord]

Tell that to the AMA.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

While you just answered your own question, as I said, it has the most wishy washy statement(obviously.)

 

[zipman]

While you just answered your own question, as I said, it has the most wishy washy statement(obviously.)

Come on, in our litigious society do you really expect any less?

Medicine has become more about preventing lawsuits than anything else.

But to say that there are no benefits to having it done is simply untrue.

 

[Freya]

17 pages about cocks, and not one good picture.

You guys suck.


Oh, and Zip? You have many strong *suites* in my eyes. Of course, I like obnoxiousness in a person.

 

[zipman]

17 pages about cocks, and not one good picture.

You guys suck.


Oh, and Zip? You have many strong *suites* in my eyes. Of course, I like obnoxiousness in a person.

Thanks Freya! You're a doll!

I was just sitting here and wondering how I couldn't have made redcutie's clit hard. I was trying so hard too!

 

[Fagin]

I liked it so much I had it done twice.

 

[gogonslord]

Yes, it's unnecessary surgery. Yes, there are complications, sometimes serious ones (but these are very rare).

Yes, there are many complications, and that's not taking into consideration that it is cosmetic surgery performed on a non-consenting person. One complication is death. One death is too many for unnecessary surgery.

Yes, to argue that circumcision properly performed is mutilation is wildly exaggerated.

You can't change the definition of a word. You may not like the context it's used in, but it's the truth. Women in Africa don't consider their circumcision's mutilation.

Yes, there are some health benefits to circumcision (lower rates of penile cancer and UTI's, for instance).

Penile cancer is one of the rarest of cancers and has nothing to do with foreskin presence. Smegma is not carcinogenic. The main factor for penile cancer are smoking habits. The United States has a higher rate of penile cancer than Denmark(A non-circumcising country.)

Yes, there are cultural considerations to take into account. Yes, female circumcision is performed and should be absolutely unacceptable.

Unbelievable. In one sentence you praise cultural benefactors on males and in the next denounce it for females? Are males not worthy of the same protection as females? Are they lesser beings?

And yes, a serious analogy between female and male circumcision is silly.

They are the same thing.


Even if there were a medical benefit from circumcision, if it protected from AIDS, syphillis, anthrax, aliens or whatever you want to think, it would still be wrong because you are doing it on a NON-consenting person. You apparently don't grasp this as the human rights issue that it is.

If you are a practitioner of medicine, let me remind you: First, Do No Harm.

 

[Cheyenne]

There are just as many studies which show that there are indeed just as many benefits to circumcision (as a preventative medical procedure) as there are against it.

That is why the AMA and other medical groups advise parents to educate themselves on circumcision before they make their decision.

Exactly. Of course, I could go back and pull up all the old threads on this very topic that details the advantages. But people either want to hear that or they don't. They can look them up on their own.

 

[TumbledLove]

You apparently don't grasp this as the human rights issue that it is.
If you are a practitioner of medicine, let me remind you: First, Do No Harm.

gogonslord, you've made many good posts, and this gets to the heart of it.

I'm glad you've kept on topic (as I have tried to). That's more than can be said of half the people here.

..wait for it.. they'll make some nonsensical wisecrack very shortly.

oh well, at least they're helping out by keeping the thread alive.

 

[Cheyenne]

I don't hear that in what Cheyenne said. I pointed out the stupidity of that statement as well.

Lord Gorgonzola or whatever he calls himself, postulated that women who prefer circumcised men do so because they are unhappy with their own sexuality. That is an absolutely absurd notion, with no backing in fact or logic. I would think that even those who are in agreement with him on the issue would see the nonsense in such a remark.

Exactly. But then, TheOlderGuy doesn't "get" many things so it is to be expected from him.

 

[Freya]

gogonslord, you've made many good posts, and this gets to the heart of it.

I'm glad you've kept on topic (as I have tried to). That's more than can be said of half the people here.

..wait for it.. they'll make some nonsensical wisecrack very shortly.

oh well, at least they're helping out by keeping the thread alive.

Nonsensical wisecracks on Lit? You don't say!


*shocked*

 

[TumbledLove]

*bows*

 

[Cheyenne]

Shouldn't that be "Man blames brutal killings on circumcision"?

I am starting to wonder which head they snipped from.

hehe... that was my point.

 

[TumbledLove]

hehe..

 

[Cheyenne]

It gets me fired up too. I really got caught up in the melee of the last long thread on the topic though, so I've tried to pretty much stay out of this one, though I have been following.

It does seem to make a difference that circumcision is not the norm in our society - which does indicate that the motivations for the procedure are primarily cultural and not medical.

I happen to think that it's unecessary surgery and mutilation and as such constitutes abuse - though I recognise that the parent's intentions are rarely malevolent. But then I'm one of those people that gets really angry when I see tiny kids with their ears pierced too.

*Retreating to the sidelines again*

Would you declaw your cat?

*innocent look*

 

[Cheyenne]

True. One in twelve women will develop breast cancer, but I don't think anyone would advocate the removal of breast tissue after puberty as a preventative measure.

Actually, that's exactly what some women do if they are at high risk for breast cancer- have them removed before they get cancer that spreads to other parts of their body. That must be a horrible decision to face.

 

[Cheyenne]

Tumbled have you sought out much needed psychological help?

I'm not being bitchy. Well, not too much. But you really do seem to have some psychological damage. Which may, or may not be, as a result of the circumcision as an infant - that you claim to remember.

I suggested that pages ago and he suggested in reply that his circumcism was caused by mass murder. Uh huh.

 

[Guest]

 

[JinXed]

I suggested that pages ago and he suggested in reply that his circumcism was caused by mass murder. Uh huh.

Come again?