Circumcision

[Fantasies_only]

Not FROM the war but since the war. United States is a very jeudochristian culture. You can see influence of Jewish values in just about everything; food, TV/Radio, education, medicine, politics regarding the middle east... hell the fact there even IS a Israel has quite a bit to do with Jewish influence on US government.
The tripartite Declaration

I think most of that has to do with immigration to places like Philadelphia (work place of Ben Franklin) and Eilis Island (placement of statue of liberty).

Incidentally, at the time of Ben Franklin (sex addict turned porn addict turned pedophile), Queen Victoria ruled just across from Canada, which was nearer Pennsylvania than it is now.

surgery to remove the clitoral hood is becoming a more and more popular cosmetic procedure in the west, as many believe it can allow for increased sexual pleasure and sensitivity for women who have problems in that area.

I think you mean designer vagina surgery.
Female circumcision has been outlawed in most US states and some countries.

 

[nh23]

In my book, keeping options open for him to decide is always better. So I would say you are fucked if you do, not if you don't. But I am sure you were not fully informed and made the best choice you could at the time.

And the arguments for STDs/AIDs is pretty weak, it really amounts to making it a little less likely he will contract them IF he fails to use safe sex practices or his condom breaks. He simply may have to do it a few more times than a circ'd guy might.

Regards

What makes you so sure I wasn't fully informed. Remember what happens when we assume? I've been a Nurse for almost ten years. About four of those years in pediatrics. I made the best choice for my son.

 

[Fantasies_only]

What makes you so sure I wasn't fully informed. Remember what happens when we assume? I've been a Nurse for almost ten years. About four of those years in pediatrics. I made the best choice for my son.

Well then I have a question about genital warts:
Would a circumcised man of say 34 who masturbated more times than usual (at least twice daily) be more or less subject to get this?
I've heard semen + skin + rubbing = genital warts, is this true?

 

[nh23]

Well then I have a question about genital warts:
Would a circumcised man of say 34 who masturbated more times than usual (at least twice daily) be more or less subject to get this?
I've heard semen + skin + rubbing = genital warts, is this true?

No genital warts are caused by the HPV virus. Not by masterbation.

 

[Samuelx]

Hey, there. I'm an uncircumcised, openly bisexual black policeman in Boston. I'm the future father of an uncut son. My lady and I agree on this. Circumcision is torture. In the Caribbean, we don't mindlessly butcher our men in the name of religion or outdated social norms. The old days are over. Get used to it.

Hell, I have a Jewish friend who's proudly uncut, what does that tell you ?

 

[HarlotMinx]

Hey, there. I'm an uncircumcised, openly bisexual black policeman in Boston. I'm the future father of an uncut son. My lady and I agree on this. Circumcision is torture. In the Caribbean, we don't mindlessly butcher our men in the name of religion or outdated social norms. The old days are over. Get used to it.

Hell, I have a Jewish friend who's proudly uncut, what does that tell you ?

Your statement seems to have changed little and while I admit both are very emotional statements from someone of clear conviction... they both lack an argument.

What are you trying to get at? Why is it torture? And how does being a openly bisexual black police officer connect to circumcisions? Is it that most openly bisexual black policemen support circumcision and you're a example example that openly bisexual black policemen can in fact prefer being uncircumcised? How did you come to the decision they were outdated? Why?

The one thing I've noticed is that I've not seen any circumcised men here who are against circumcision (was their one I missed?). I mean... every post so far about why circumcision is evil has come from a man who have never undergone the procedure. So since as noted by a few people, circumcision is torture, why do circumcised men speak out in defense of it? Have they developed Stockholm syndrome? Become attracted to their foreskin abductors?

I don't mean to be completely sarcastic here (just a tiny bit) but I'm confused as to why it's so traumatic or what evidence there is to that end? I mean, if you don't want your child circumcised then good for you, I'm sure your child will grow up perfectly happy but how does that make the parents who do decide into villains?

 

[Etoile]

I think most of that has to do with immigration to places like Philadelphia (work place of Ben Franklin) and Eilis Island (placement of statue of liberty).

Actually, the Statue of Liberty is on Liberty Island, not Ellis Island.

Incidentally, at the time of Ben Franklin (sex addict turned porn addict turned pedophile), Queen Victoria ruled just across from Canada, which was nearer Pennsylvania than it is now.

What does this have to do with anything?

I think you mean designer vagina surgery.Female circumcision has been outlawed in most US states and some countries.

Wrong in every way. First of all, osg is right about removal/reduction of the clitoral hood being adopted as a cosmetic practice. It is usually done for the same reasons as a labiaplasty, which is what I assume you meant by "designer vagina" surgery. Furthermore, "female circumcusion" is an invalid term in this discussion. In the popular sense - removal of the clitoris - this is completely banned in the USA and most countries, even where it is still commonly practiced. But your statement that removal of the clitoral hood is illegal is incorrect. Basically, what osg was describing is the closest clinical equivalent women have to male circumcision, and it is not illegal. What you are referring to - FGM aka FGC - is illegal but it's not what osg was talking about anyway.

 

[EmpressFi]

Yes but males get a break on that, since all parts of the penis are kept in tact.
It's only the tissue around the penis (AKA: the "sock" on the uncut) that is split and folded over, creating a seam that ends at one testicle.
I never realized how important a Mohel really is.

my son's circ didnt split thw skin anywhere near the testicle. he was given tylenol 30 min before, local anesthesia during, sugar water after, he was brought to me 30 min later, sleeping, and we went home that day. he was given tylenol every 6 hours for 1 day. He had no signs of discomfort

 

[gregor2001us]

Actually, you jumped in and started quoting me when I was only focusing on one facet. I'm not an idiot, I know there's more to it than that. I was trying to maintain the discussion I was already having.
.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

Regards

 

[gregor2001us]

Try telling that to any man who has had to be circumcised as an adult

I have heard men describe being circ'd as an adult. They do not make it sound like that big a deal actually. More importantly they at least understand why it is happening.

Regards

 

[Fantasies_only]

my son's circ didnt split thw skin anywhere near the testicle. he was given tylenol 30 min before, local anesthesia during, sugar water after, he was brought to me 30 min later, sleeping, and we went home that day. he was given tylenol every 6 hours for 1 day. He had no signs of discomfort

I suppose Tylenol (recommendation by OBGYN) could be taken afterwords, but the generic pain killer Aspirin is usually what is given, but even then, every 6 hours is a bit much, teetering on unhealthy, and sugar water is not really needed healthwise (strictly for religious reasons).

The seam I refer to is a leftover convex scar from the procedure, and can be seen if examined closely.
It can be seen better when he is a teenager.

I recommend the next child not be given pain killers every 6 hours.
6 - 12 - 6 - 12
Every 8 hours is enough.
6 - 2 - 10 - 6
In the two extra hours, the infant is to sit in a washtub of unsalted tap water.
DON'T USE SOAP!
Plain water will bring down any swelling if there is any and temporarily relieve the child.

Babies are born as sexual as teenagers, they just can't express it.
Try not to have anything that could possible arouse him around, this includes other women or girls who may bend over to talk or play with the child (including sister and aunt).

 

[nh23]

Babies are born as sexual as teenagers, they just can't express it.
Try not to have anything that could possible arouse him around, this includes other women or girls who may bend over to talk or play with the child (including sister and aunt).

You're full of shit.

 

[gregor2001us]

What evidence?
The genital is not cut.
Fatty tissue that is unneeded for use of the penis is cut and folded in on itself, so the inside is on the outside.
This does not harm the infant or preteen, nor is it traumatic in any manner.
It's as much a violent act as cutting the placenta cord.

Well, maybe we need to have some common defintitons and terms. When a man is circumcised his gentials are cut. His foreskin is removed. Foreskin is not fatty tissue. It does harm the infant and is traumatic. It does not compare with cutting the umbilical cord.

Regards

 

[gregor2001us]

What makes you so sure I wasn't fully informed. Remember what happens when we assume? I've been a Nurse for almost ten years. About four of those years in pediatrics. I made the best choice for my son.

Sorry if I misunderstood. You comment "...fucked if you do and fucked if you don't..." didn't make it sound like you were confident you had made the right decision. I am glad you are at peace with your decision.

 

[ecstaticsub]

I suppose Tylenol (recommendation by OBGYN) could be taken afterwords, but the generic pain killer Aspirin is usually what is given, but even then, every 6 hours is a bit much, teetering on unhealthy, and sugar water is not really needed healthwise (strictly for religious reasons).

The seam I refer to is a leftover convex scar from the procedure, and can be seen if examined closely.
It can be seen better when he is a teenager.

I recommend the next child not be given pain killers every 6 hours.
6 - 12 - 6 - 12
Every 8 hours is enough.
6 - 2 - 10 - 6
In the two extra hours, the infant is to sit in a washtub of unsalted tap water.
DON'T USE SOAP!
Plain water will bring down any swelling if there is any and temporarily relieve the child.

Babies are born as sexual as teenagers, they just can't express it.
Try not to have anything that could possible arouse him around, this includes other women or girls who may bend over to talk or play with the child (including sister and aunt).

Aspirin is NEVER given to babies or children. Tylenol or ibuprofen are the preferred mild pain relievers for children.

I hope you don't have a medical background, then you would really be dangerous.

 

[gregor2001us]

The one thing I've noticed is that I've not seen any circumcised men here who are against circumcision (was their one I missed?). I mean... every post so far about why circumcision is evil has come from a man who have never undergone the procedure. So since as noted by a few people, circumcision is torture, why do circumcised men speak out in defense of it? Have they developed Stockholm syndrome? Become attracted to their foreskin abductors?

I don't mean to be completely sarcastic here (just a tiny bit) but I'm confused as to why it's so traumatic or what evidence there is to that end? I mean, if you don't want your child circumcised then good for you, I'm sure your child will grow up perfectly happy but how does that make the parents who do decide into villains?

I am circumcised.

There is plenty of evidence it is traumatic. I find it particularly telling that people seem to think it is very painful for a grown man, so they say it is better to do to a baby. If this is not traumatic, why the big deal about having it done as an adult? Curious.

But here is a reference for you to read:

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

Regards

 

[Fantasies_only]

Aspirin is NEVER given to babies or children. Tylenol or ibuprofen are the preferred mild pain relievers for children.

I hope you don't have a medical background, then you would really be dangerous.

I didn't say medically Aspirin is better, I just meant that is what is usually used.
It's like how most people eat pork hotdogs, while Jews eat kosher beef.
It's a matter of religion, not preference, and certainly not medicine.

I do know for sure that soaking in tap water can be used as an infant pain killer supplement.

I am circumcised.

There is plenty of evidence it is traumatic. I find it particularly telling that people seem to think it is very painful for a grown man, so they say it is better to do to a baby. If this is not traumatic, why the big deal about having it done as an adult? Curious.

But here is a reference for you to read:

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

Regards

The reactions described are all normal for ones who aren't fully mature.

According to unorthodox Synagogues, you are required to be circumcised by 12 years old before studying for your Barmitsfa and declared a man at 13.
These preteens are not traumatized in any way, in fact they look forward to it thinking it will be more attractive to women.

Well, maybe we need to have some common defintitons and terms. When a man is circumcised his gentials are cut. His foreskin is removed. Foreskin is not fatty tissue. It does harm the infant and is traumatic. It does not compare with cutting the umbilical cord.

Regards

What is a genital to you?
To my understanding, the head of the penis where the urine comes out is a genital, however the tissue covering the head is not the genital.
Most of the tissue isn't even removed.
When you get offline, get an old sock you don't use anymore, put it on your arm, snip off the tip, and roll it down so it becomes a sort of glove.
Your fingers are still there aren't they?

 

[nh23]

I didn't say medically Aspirin is better, I just meant that is what is usually used.
It's like how most people eat pork hotdogs, while Jews eat kosher beef.
It's a matter of religion, not preference, and certainly not medicine.

I do know for sure that soaking in tap water can be used as an infant pain killer supplement.

When is Aspirin usually used? You can't give it to babies because of Reye's syndrome.

 

[Etoile]

So, in as simple terms as I can put it, the cochlear implant debate - as relevant to this discussion.

First of all, a cochlear implant is a medical device that is surgically implanted in the ear. The device translates external audio input into electrical signals which are directly communicated to the brain. The well-trained brain interprets these signals into audio terms, giving the person a form of hearing - that is, 001101 00110 1100001 translates into water dripping from a faucet, for example. The external input is a device held onto the head by a magnet, communicating with the inside part through the skin.

When a baby is discovered to be deaf, there is a rush to get the child implanted as soon as possible. This involves major surgery, opening up the head to put the internal part of the device inside. If all goes well, the implant lets the child "hear" as early as possible, so it absorbs as much linguistic information as a hearing baby does, picking up sound the same way as a hearing baby, learning to speak the same way, knowing what is going on in the world, interacting with other children, being seen as normal, no difficulties learning to speak (sounding just like its friends), and so on.

But where is the infant's right to bodily integrity? What if that baby didn't want its head pylled open, its life changed, its process of living disrupted? Why is it so much better for the baby to hear than to not have a scar on its head? Why is the baby deformed the way it is, and better with this device attached to it? What's wrong with the baby the way it was born! Why does it need surgery just so it learns English the same way as everybody else, gets the same education as everybody else, and can listen to music just like everybody else! Why?

This is just a small portion of the debate; I'm trying to frame it in appropriate terms for the thread. Feel free to ask me other questions in a PM if you are curious about cochlear implants.

 

[Fantasies_only]

But where is the infant's right to bodily integrity? What if that baby didn't want its head pylled open, its life changed, its process of living disrupted? Why is it so much better for the baby to hear than to not have a scar on its head? Why is the baby deformed the way it is, and better with this device attached to it? What's wrong with the baby the way it was born! Why does it need surgery just so it learns English the same way as everybody else, gets the same education as everybody else, and can listen to music just like everybody else! Why?

This is just a small portion of the debate; I'm trying to frame it in appropriate terms for the thread. Feel free to ask me other questions in a PM if you are curious about cochlear implants.

I'll tell you why:
In these times, doctors can learn from the past the trauma of being born without hearing, then (in the so called best interest of the adult) suddenly being able to hear.
Now we anticipate this reaction and modern medicine can do something about it.

We've learned how to make amputees walk again, now we are using modern technology on paraplegics who were born without limbs (moving objects with the mind).

 

[Etoile]

I'll tell you why:In these times, doctors can learn from the past the trauma of being born without hearing, then (in the so called best interest of the adult) suddenly being able to hear.Now we anticipate this reaction and modern medicine can do something about it.We've learned how to make amputees walk again, now we are using modern technology on paraplegics who were born without limbs (moving objects with the mind).

The more you post, the more impressed I am at your ability to completely miss the point, answer a completely different question, and generally make no sense at all.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm not sure how to word this so it makes sense, but I'm going to try, anyway. Etoile, am I right in thinking that inserting a cochlear implant is very destructive to the inner workings of the ear? That if a baby gets a cochlear implant now, and better technology develops in the future, he or she probably won't be able to benefit from it because of the alterations to the ear from the implant?

I may have that completely wrong.

 

[EmpressFi]

I suppose Tylenol (recommendation by OBGYN) could be taken afterwords, but the generic pain killer Aspirin is usually what is given, but even then, every 6 hours is a bit much, teetering on unhealthy, and sugar water is not really needed healthwise (strictly for religious reasons).

The seam I refer to is a leftover convex scar from the procedure, and can be seen if examined closely.
It can be seen better when he is a teenager.

I recommend the next child not be given pain killers every 6 hours.
6 - 12 - 6 - 12
Every 8 hours is enough.
6 - 2 - 10 - 6
In the two extra hours, the infant is to sit in a washtub of unsalted tap water.
DON'T USE SOAP!
Plain water will bring down any swelling if there is any and temporarily relieve the child.

Babies are born as sexual as teenagers, they just can't express it.
Try not to have anything that could possible arouse him around, this includes other women or girls who may bend over to talk or play with the child (including sister and aunt).

you NEVER give aspirin to babies or post-op. Babies dont get it because of the risk of Reye's syndrome, post-op because of its anti-coagulation effects and sugar water in newborns is usually given for limited pain control

 

[Etoile]

I'm not sure how to word this so it makes sense, but I'm going to try, anyway. Etoile, am I right in thinking that inserting a cochlear implant is very destructive to the inner workings of the ear? That if a baby gets a cochlear implant now, and better technology develops in the future, he or she probably won't be able to benefit from it because of the alterations to the ear from the implant?

I may have that completely wrong.

You're quite right. Current technology destroys any hearing in the implanted ear. There is technology on the horizon that MIGHT improve this, but it's not guaranteed and it's still in development. Currently, if you implant an ear that was not already 100% deaf, it will be so after the operation.

 

[BiBunny]

You're quite right. Current technology destroys any hearing in the implanted ear. There is technology on the horizon that MIGHT improve this, but it's not guaranteed and it's still in development. Currently, if you implant an ear that was not already 100% deaf, it will be so after the operation.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Thanks!