Circumcision

[00Syd]

Oh hey, I hadn't seen you recent profile pic, kind of fitting after my comment. It just occurred to me the irony of a practice being accused of being torture as a negative statement.... on a BDSM forum. Can't we use a more hip insult like circumcision is so "vanilla".

ROFL

 

[Cattypuss]

Here's a vanilla slice:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fruitcakey/3551464414/

 

[HarlotMinx]

Here's a vanilla slice:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fruitcakey/3551464414/

The evil of Cattypuss is subtle thing indeed. She's able to work deep into your very soul and crush all will or opposition with false hopes of sweets.

 

[nh23]

Having read all the arguments here - and via many other platforms over the years - I am still yet to hear a convincing reason to cut off part of a baby's penis. The hygiene arguments are very subtle - maybe it has slight advantages here and there, but not life-saving ones - nothing which justifies removing an important part of somone's body, without their permission.

I've occasionally known women make the facile remark that circumcised penises look nicer - as if it were justified to hack off an ultra-sensitive piece of the male anatomy for female aesthetic pleasure.

That's not really true. There is research that proves that uncut cocks are more likely to get STD's , AIDS, and more likely to pass them on to their partner. AIDS can be deadly. So it can be argued that it can be life saving.

My son is cut. I watched them do the procedure and he didn't move an inch. No crying, no screaming. As a parent you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't. If you do and they later decide they don't want it they are going to be pissed. If you don't and at age 30 they have to go get cut they are going to be pissed.

 

[FurryFury]

I'm a parent, and I don't feel fucked because I did not get my son cut, at all. I think the studies are highly flawed and do not represent a true significant lessening of the chance of disease due to circumcision.

Also, I think it's highly unlikely that all babies are given anesthesia but even if they are, and even if "they don't know they have bodies", they can still experience pain later after the anethesia wears off. I've seen plenty of babies cry due to pain of all kinds so I don't buy the, "babies can't feel pain" argument at all.

Frankly I find it quite shocking that anyone would begin this practice much less that it become the prevailing practice in the U.S.

 

[Etoile]

Also, I think it's highly unlikely that all babies are given anesthesia but even if they are, and even if "they don't know they have bodies", they can still experience pain later after the anethesia wears off. I've seen plenty of babies cry due to pain of all kinds so I don't buy the, "babies can't feel pain" argument at all.

Use of anesthetics in infant circumcision is well-documented:
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,23689,00.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/masciello/

Links about pain and pain control during circumcision:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

No further comment on the matter at the present time, just links.

 

[00Syd]

eh, we do lots of things for medical/health and cleanliness reasons (not to mention aesthetic reasons) that if you didn't know (or understand) its purpose would seem an awful lot like torture or mutilation. There are tons of things that squick me out much more than circumcision.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Is circumcision torture? A lifestyle/culture? A medically preventative precaution? Sexually, sensuously superior?

By the way, I'm neither circumcised nor a member of a group that practices circumcision. To my astonishment, I recently discovered I'm part of the 25% minority of adult, U.S. males who ARE NOT.

Despite my best efforts, I simply cannot remain objective about this subject; I'm appalled by the concept. However, I'm admittedly ignorant about the subject.

What is it: Culturally acceptable sadism? A test of faith? Necessary for a healthy life?

Human's evolved along with every other life-form on this planet; are there any other examples where a species ritually mutilates sexual organs of their young?

When you said this I thought you were referring to female circumcision which I do regard as torture.
Ladies, tell me if I'm wrong.
The clitoris is snipped so it can't be used or taken out altogether.
Then the fallopian tubes are sown up, and in extreme cases, the vagina itself is sealed leaving a barbie effect in adulthood.

A male circumcision is how to get the best sexual experience, exposing touch sensitive (air will do it) nerve endings in the foreskin (the earlobe of the penis).
I suggest if you are going to shave your scrotum, leave the foreskin alone.

 

[HarlotMinx]

eh, we do lots of things for medical/health and cleanliness reasons (not to mention aesthetic reasons) that if you didn't know (or understand) its purpose would seem an awful lot like torture or mutilation. There are tons of things that squick me out much more than circumcision.

*Snickers* most men consider colonoscopies to fit in that category. The horrors they get subjected to.

 

[gregor2001us]

Nope, sorry. Infants do not retain memory of the pain. Suggesting that an infant suffers because of the circumcision doesn't fly with me. The newborn brain is not sufficiently developed to retain or process the circumcision. That may not justify the circumcision itself, but you cannot say that "infant suffering is worse" for an aesthetically pleasing result than adults are. (And that is what you said - choosing to suffer is better than making an infant suffer.)

As for the rest of it, you want me to bust out the cochlear implant argument? Because I'm happy to do so, but it might make you contradict your current feelings.

Feel free to bust out the cochlear implant argument, I am not familiar with it.

You are selecting one facet and using that as your argument. There is debate, but not consensus on whether babies feel pain and/or whether they remember it. So that is a stalemate. Arguments on both sides for that, but I would go with the risk averse stance and argue to avoid the potential pain and suffering myself.

But you misunderstood the point I was making, sorry, I guess I could have made it more clear. It is far better for an adult of sound mind to make a decison on whether to be circumcised or not.

It is far worse to impose your values and feelings on an infant. Our laws and morales strongly support that parents and doctors should act in the childs best interests. This should include protecting their genital integrity and leaving them with options, not removing options, unless there are overiding and compelling benefits.

The decision should be based on the advantages and disadvantages that RIC vs leaving his foreskin alone have. Leave it alone and he can choose later. Take it away and he loses that choice.

So if you leave him intact you avoid possible pain, avoid possible traumatioc memories, avoid the risks of infection, complications, dissatisfaction he could have later in life, and you preserve the sexual feelings and fucntions that a foreskin provides to both himself and his future partners. The benefits are a minor reduction in the chance he may get UTIs, STDs, and that some people may prefer him to be circ'd.

If you choose RIC you will potentially cause him unbearable pain, enough to make him go into shock, potentially traumatize him resutling in possible long lasting impacts in ways we do not understand, put him at risk of infection and complications that will have negative affects on his sex life, reduce sexual feelings and fucntioning for both him and his partners. He will still have to use condoms and other safe sex practices. And some people may prefer that he had been left intact.

Easy for me to decide. His body, his choice.

Regards

 

[gregor2001us]

That's not really true. There is research that proves that uncut cocks are more likely to get STD's , AIDS, and more likely to pass them on to their partner. AIDS can be deadly. So it can be argued that it can be life saving.

My son is cut. I watched them do the procedure and he didn't move an inch. No crying, no screaming. As a parent you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't. If you do and they later decide they don't want it they are going to be pissed. If you don't and at age 30 they have to go get cut they are going to be pissed.

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

 

[Cattypuss]

So if you leave him intact you avoid possible pain, avoid possible traumatic memories, avoid the risks of infection, complications

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

 

[gregor2001us]

When you said this I thought you were referring to female circumcision which I do regard as torture.
Ladies, tell me if I'm wrong.
The clitoris is snipped so it can't be used or taken out altogether.
Then the fallopian tubes are sown up, and in extreme cases, the vagina itself is sealed leaving a barbie effect in adulthood.

A male circumcision is how to get the best sexual experience, exposing touch sensitive (air will do it) nerve endings in the foreskin (the earlobe of the penis).
I suggest if you are going to shave your scrotum, leave the foreskin alone.

I disagree. Male circ is as bad as female circ. Cutting an infants gentials violates the right to genital integrity. Doesn't matter which is worse.

And there is a growing body of evidence that circ reduces sexual function and pleasure for both the guy and his partners. If an adult feels that is what he wants, no worries. But each person should get to make that decision for themselves.

His body, his choice.

Regards

 

[Etoile]

You are selecting one facet and using that as your argument.

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.

Feel free to bust out the cochlear implant argument, I am not familiar with it.

Running late for work but I'll get to this later.

 

[00Syd]

I disagree. Male circ is as bad as female circ. Cutting an infants gentials violates the right to genital integrity. Doesn't matter which is worse.

And there is a growing body of evidence that circ reduces sexual function and pleasure for both the guy and his partners. If an adult feels that is what he wants, no worries. But each person should get to make that decision for themselves.

His body, his choice.

Regards

Female circumcision removes any chance for sexual pleasure whatsoever, and in some cases it removes the chance for conception. Female circumcision is also most often done in unclean and primitive environments for the purpose of disadvantaging females. Male circumcision does not tamper with either sexual function or ability to conceive and is most often performed in a disinfected hospital with clean tools with the purpose of preventing infections.

In my mind, there is a clear difference, and one is clearly much, much more horrible than the other. If you think that both male and female circumcision are equally bad, it says to me that you are sadly misinformed.

Also, if your so adamant about leaving the child with the choice, I sure hope you raise your kids without religion or any sort of political leadership so that they can choose for themselves.

 

[HarlotMinx]

Female circumcision removes any chance for sexual pleasure whatsoever, and in some cases it removes the chance for conception. Female circumcision is also most often done in unclean and primitive environments for the purpose of disadvantaging females. Male circumcision does not tamper with either sexual function or ability to conceive and is most often performed in a disinfected hospital with clean tools with the purpose of preventing infections.

In my mind, there is a clear difference, and one is clearly much, much more horrible than the other. If you think that both male and female circumcision are equally bad, it says to me that you are sadly misinformed.

Also, if your so adamant about leaving the child with the choice, I sure hope you raise your kids without religion or any sort of political leadership so that they can choose for themselves.

I think the more appropriate analogy would be the circumcision of the clitoral hood (clitoridotomy).... though considering the entire vagina is a damp moist environment I'm not sure how the lack of hood would help but that would be a closer analogy.

 

[00Syd]

I think the more appropriate analogy would be the circumcision of the clitoral hood (clitoridotomy).... though considering the entire vagina is a damp moist environment I'm not sure how the lack of hood would help but that would be a closer analogy.

I've never heard of that. What are its purported benefits? The only type of female circumcision that I was aware of was the cutting off of the clitoris.

(*google AWAY!!*)

 

[Fantasies_only]

I disagree. Male circ is as bad as female circ. Cutting an infants gentials violates the right to genital integrity. Doesn't matter which is worse.

And there is a growing body of evidence that circ reduces sexual function and pleasure for both the guy and his partners. If an adult feels that is what he wants, no worries. But each person should get to make that decision for themselves.

His body, his choice.

Regards

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.

 

[00Syd]

ACH! The top defenition in the Medical Dictionary for Clitoridotomy is "an incision into the clitoris." Which is basically the type of female circumcision that I was aware of. The second defenition, however, is: "removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, comparable to male circumcision, with associated risks of infection and scarring. It is done culturally by lay providers." That, I had not heard of. Interesting.

 

[Etoile]

The analogy to male circumcision would be removal of the clitoral hood.

In practice, however, FGM - Female Genital Mutilation, sometimes called female circumcision - typically involves full or partial removal of the clitoris (equivalent to cutting off the glans of the penis) and/or full/partial removal of labia, or infibulation.

 

[Fantasies_only]

The analogy to male circumcision would be removal of the clitoral hood.

In practice, however, FGM - Female Genital Mutilation, sometimes called female circumcision - typically involves full or partial removal of the clitoris (equivalent to cutting off the glans of the penis) and/or full/partial removal of labia, or infibulation.

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.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I've never heard of that. What are its purported benefits? The only type of female circumcision that I was aware of was the cutting off of the clitoris.

(*google AWAY!!*)

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.

 

[HarlotMinx]

Hmmm I do find the fact that what was predominantly a Jewish practice came to popularity in the US around World War II. I mean, US culture has been heavily influenced by the Jewish culture (among many many others). Just a interesting thought.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Hmmm I do find the fact that what was predominantly a Jewish practice came to popularity in the US around World War II. I mean, US culture has been heavily influenced by the Jewish culture (among many many others). Just a interesting thought.

By the way, Mohel is pronounced Moyal.
Aside from arm bands that bare the "Star Of David", what other kind of things have the Jews influenced from the war?

 

[HarlotMinx]

By the way, Mohel is pronounced Moyal.
Aside from arm bands that bare the "Star Of David", what other kind of things have the Jews influenced from the war?

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