Circumcision

[gregor2001us]

you have never been to a bris, have you?

nope.

 

[Cattypuss]

[deleted]

 

[gregor2001us]

Considering I'm a transsexual, I sincerely doubt he's interested in defending my manliness nor under the illusion that i would want it defended. I trust the man but if you really want I can see if I can't get a hold of someone who could have been on nursing staff though I think that's a bit extreme..

OK, I will take back the idea he was protecting your manhood and self image. However, I still do not consider a doctor unbiased. I have seen too much that hints at strong, though hidden, bias. In fact, our first obstetrician was extremely biased and unprofessional in trying to convince us to RIC our first son....

Note both of these are from the same group though I question some of it it lists a series of possible benefits. I'm going to look into specifics of them to confirm them so feel free to take them with a gain of salt.
intersting benefits not just from the male standpoint but the female.
another pamphlet on the risks

Wow, I'll take the first one with a big grain of salt, thanks. If you are interested in the opposite argument from the womens point of view you may wish to check this one out:

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

Easily argued to be biased, but there it is.

I see the second is basically restating the same things, but without the women's perspective. Rather than simply match link for link, I will at the end provide a good link to a pretty comprehensive report/statement you may find interesting.

I would like to note that this site has articles both in support and in opposition to the procedure.
a reference
another reference.

Circumcising has always seemed to be a solution in search of problem. Both of these "pile on everything under the sun" as a benefit, but fail to give any context that allows one to meaningfully weigh the trade offs. Again, take a look at my link at the end.

This site is mildly biased but has plenty of info on possible reasons to perform the operation.
turns out you're right, neonatal children do feel pain though I think it agrees with my assessment that they experience it differently. I freely admit that some of the content in previous posts are wrong.
info on penile cancer
info on possible psychological damage

A more unbiased source than the others
another example of a unbiased source
example of a extremely biased supporting site.

Well, here is what the American Cancer Society says about penile cancer and circumcision:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/c...are_the_risk_factors_for_penile_cancer_35.asp

Not so compelling an argument.

Here is a counter to the pain and trauma link:

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/

Sorry, but your relatively unbiased links, to me, show a highly biased slant. They talk about the possible benefits, but do not give information about the possible negative consequences other than surgical complications. No word of the potential loss of sexual function and feelings, more importantly, no discussion of human rights to bodily integrity. Omitting important information like this gives parents and incomplete picture for decision making.

The issue I have with your argument is that you've said that it's their moral obligation to look out for their child's best interest but then you go to the point of saying that moral obligation is to not get circumcision. Many parents get circumcisions for their child out of the desire to protect their child's health because they have numerous sources that recommend it. And the reason doctors wash their hands of it is because their simply isn't any conclusive evidence to one direction or the other. I don't think that we have the right to tell those parents that they can't perform a relatively minor procedure that could help their children live a healthier life because we morally disagree. If it comes to light that their is no benefit, then by all means, make that decision but until then.....

I guess I am not making myself clear. I am not saying that the only correct decision is to not circ, though that is indeed my stand. I am saying that parents have the obligation to act in the best interest of their child. This means making an informed decision. If they are given biased information by the medical community they cannot do so. If they do not weigh trade offs and consider consequences, they cannot do so. Just because parents hear from many biased sources and do not get all the information needed to make a thoughtful decision, does not mean that the principle of acting in the best interest of their child is wrong, it simply means they did their best with the incomplete information they had. So far, I have not yet seen a compelling reason to RIC, but my point is that parents need complete information, so that is what I am attemting to do in this discussion.

Actually not simplistic at all. Laws are comprised upon a generally agreed upon morality or course of action. You deciding that something is against other peoples morals for example does not make it law. The statement holds true though it begs it's counterpart "who are we to decide our morals" well depending on how big we are we very well might be able to fairly decide social morals even if certain members disagree. I simply don't feel that there are enough people who believe it's a violation of body to consider circumcision to be morally reprehensible for anyone other than yourself. And actually to say that law is in any way based on morality is more than a bit simplistic because often law has no correlation to morality or at least not to the general public's version. However do you feel that there is some law that prohibits circumcision? I've heard of none to date and would be curious to look at some..

I am not deciding this, our society has plenty of case law and guidelines that cover this. And I never said that there was a law prohibiting circumcision. It happens that there is, but for females only, curiously boys are not afforded the same protection.

Having seen quite a number of men who are happy circumcised and stories about men having been circumcised later in life with positive results I think that sentence is inconclusive at best. There just hasn't been any proof for or against that statement so it's more of a personal opinion at this point than a fact..

And I have heard from many men disappointed with being circumcised, that found that it dramatically reduced their pleasure. And those that restored have unanimously said that it increased their pleasure and their partner's comfort and pleasure.

I think that last comment is a bit uncalled for. I am quite open to looking at your comments fairly. I think just taking a page from a site that admits to being a dedicated opponent of circumcisions that says circumcisions are bad makes it a liiiitle questionable. If you were to say pull papers directly from a medical journal, or maybe a circumcision health site that didn't flat out state in it's mission statement that circumcisions are trauma I might be more open. There is such thing as plainly biased and reasonably biased and yours doesn't fall into the latter.

Sorry, I meant no offense. I simply have had this discussion before and it generally goes no where because of perceived bias. I should not jump ahead like that, but unless you are truly interested, it is easier to simply agree to disagree on this point perhaps.

Here is the reference I referred to earlier. It is rather long, but worth reading as it is pretty comprehensive. Two things that make it particularly worthwhile is that it is one of the few that spends some time on the human rights issue, and second it includes references at the end of each chapter for those wishing to see the source material:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

Regards

 

[radepor]

Am I detecting a gender bias on this subject?

Based on a very cursory, most unscientific observation of the perceived sex of most respondents to my thread, I seem to be detecting a trend; I would swear that most of the proponents of circumcision seem to be female.

I was expecting some trends, but I'm astounded, assuming I'm correct; I didn't expect that.

Circumcision is not a ritual it is a medical procedure. Those words have very different meanings so don't confuse them like that.

Mutilates you say? The definition of mutilation does not fit with the act of circumcision at all. It does not deprive the male of an essential part, does not disfigure or damage and does not make a penis imperfect. By throwing those kinds of words out, you sound ignorant and you invalidate your point.

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts

Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body.

 

[Sayyid]

I am not deciding this, our society has plenty of case law and guidelines that cover this. And I never said that there was a law prohibiting circumcision. It happens that there is, but for females only, curiously boys are not afforded the same protection.

Female "circumcision" doesn't deserve that name. It is a complete mutilation of the genitals for the purpose of diminishing sexual pleasure; it is not at all comparable to the male procedure of removing the foreskin for primarily aesthetic reasons.

 

[gregor2001us]

Female "circumcision" doesn't deserve that name. It is a complete mutilation of the genitals for the purpose of diminishing sexual pleasure; it is not at all comparable to the male procedure of removing the foreskin for primarily aesthetic reasons.

There are different types of female circumcision. Which do you refer to?

I think it is better to join together and stop both, rather than minimize the one top try and gain support for stopping the other. The issue of human rights still is the same in my mind, no matter how severe the circumcision.

You may wish to look at these:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/intact/fgm.html

His/her body, his/her choice.

 

[Sayyid]

I wasn't disputing the issue of bodily integrity, but the comparison between male circumcision and the comparatively extreme female genital mutilation.

 

[FurryFury]

Based on a very cursory, most unscientific observation of the perceived sex of most respondents to my thread, I seem to be detecting a trend; I would swear that most of the proponents of circumcision seem to be female.

I was expecting some trends, but I'm astounded, assuming I'm correct; I didn't expect that.

I'm female and also totally against circumcision.

I'm against any mutilation of the body, in babies our other non-consent aged people that is not medically needed.

For instance, when I see a baby or young child with pierced ears that also bothers me.

 

[radepor]

Maybe I'm anti-semi?

I always assumed circumcision was strictly a Jewish ritual; one I didn't understand but, then, there's a lot of rituals I don't understand.

I was almost literally floored when I recently discovered 3/4 of U.S. males are circumcised (obviously not restricted to one religion). I had to do a quick realignment of my persecution targets -- (Ok, Ok not funny).

I'm sorry, but I have trouble accepting results of "scientific" studies that show ritually cutting off part of boys genitals is beneficial. I've examined enough "scientific" studies to become a little suspicious of these "objective" studies. I will go even farther; I don't believe I will ever be able to accept any such studies. [I suppose it's a matter of distrust of the persons and/or motives of the persons conducting them {i.e. lots of religion/culture, lots of custom and LOTs of money in circumcision}.

I have a closed mind on this topic; I can't believe I have to admit that to myself. I'm going off-line and having a stern discussion with myself.

<--- jewish

its just part of life for anyone who is jewish. we even have a little ceremony for it

i kinda just assumed most people were, and didnt see one uncircumcised until i was changing a diaper a few years ago. the vast majority of people where i am just are.

 

[yourmissl]

I always assumed circumcision was strictly a Jewish ritual; one I didn't understand but, then, there's a lot of rituals I don't understand.

I was almost literally floored when I recently discovered 3/4 of U.S. males are circumcised (obviously not restricted to one religion). I had to do a quick realignment of my persecution targets -- (Ok, Ok not funny).

Yeah... not so much.

My children's father is Jewish, and although they were raised Christian, it was important to him that the boys be circumcised.

My OB with my oldest was Jewish, and offered to say a prayer as he performed the operation. I wasn't exactly sure when it was happening, but I heard my son crying and insisted on going to him, (I wasn't supposed to get up) all the while being patronizingly admonished by the nurses - down two hallways I trudged like gargantuan homing bird.... and there he was, not screaming, but crying... it is pure bullshit that they are too young too feel pain.

His cousin had a bris, and they gave him a little wine on a pacifier... his mother and I needed it just as much, I think.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done when it is for religious reasons, but it would have been harder to give the go-ahead on my second son... God bless him - he had a minor irregularity that required the circumcision anyway. I was present for that one, (Dad had to flee the room in terror ) and again... it hurts! I really don't understand why it is such an automatic procedure in much of the gentile world.

 

[yourmissl]

you have never been to a bris, have you?

I'm curious, myinnerslut - what do you think of the ceremony?

The reason I ask is that I love so many of the Jewish rituals: weddings, sabat, etc., but the bris is tough for me.

 

[fireplugm]

Female "circumcision" doesn't deserve that name. It is a complete mutilation of the genitals for the purpose of diminishing sexual pleasure; it is not at all comparable to the male procedure of removing the foreskin for primarily aesthetic reasons.

It seems to me that female "circumcision" does deserve the name - if you can allow yourself to accept that all circumcision IS mutilation - "complete" or otherwise. I was circumcised at birth and resent I had no choice - even though I know that some may attempt to diminish my experience as less than "complete". Certainly our society accepts certain forms of alteration of the body - tatoos and piercings. But I know of no other form of mutilation or "alteration" that is accepted (as male circumcision is) when it is not a personal choice. And sure, I have heard the excuses - aesthetics, and health. For crying out loud, I can think of a 100% effective way of preventing breast cancer in women - but I'm not going to go there . . .

 

[Etoile]

It seems to me that female "circumcision" does deserve the name - if you can allow yourself to accept that all circumcision IS mutilation - "complete" or otherwise. I was circumcised at birth and resent I had no choice - even though I know that some may attempt to diminish my experience as less than "complete". Certainly our society accepts certain forms of alteration of the body - tatoos and piercings. But I know of no other form of mutilation or "alteration" that is accepted (as male circumcision is) when it is not a personal choice. And sure, I have heard the excuses - aesthetics, and health. For crying out loud, I can think of a 100% effective way of preventing breast cancer in women - but I'm not going to go there . . .

I'll give you that male circumcision is mutilation, but you cannot compare it to female genital mutilation. FGM is more like the equivalent of cutting off the glans, or in some types of FGM, the whole penis. FGM should not be called circumcision.

 

[fireplugm]

I'll give you that male circumcision is mutilation, but you cannot compare it to female genital mutilation. FGM is more like the equivalent of cutting off the glans, or in some types of FGM, the whole penis. FGM should not be called circumcision.

I'll take what I can get . . . !

 

[missy_me]

.....

 

[gregor2001us]

I'll give you that male circumcision is mutilation, but you cannot compare it to female genital mutilation. FGM is more like the equivalent of cutting off the glans, or in some types of FGM, the whole penis. FGM should not be called circumcision.

Hmmm, this site does:

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

 

[Etoile]

We've been having this debate for months. I'm not going through it again. You can read back in the thread for my thoughts.

 

[popcorn2721]

... never heard any of them complain!

I know of one person who was circumcised after adult hood, and that shit hurt him very much. The rest who never complain, its just because they are newborn and without the ability to protest. Lord knows I love mine (it looks great and is nice and tight) but I would not have undergone the surgery of my own free will.

 

[pinkflames]

I am neither passing judgment nor stating an opinion. All I'm saying is that I've never seen a dildo resembling an uncut dick, and from that I infer what people prefer in a penis.

My rabbit vibrator has ridges resembling a retracted foreskin. Maybe this is just for the Australian market?

 

[pinkflames]

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.

Anyone who has included a gentleman's foreskin in a half decent blowjob would learn that the foreskin is a lot more than unnecessary fatty tissue. It is also very much part of his genitals.

 

[radepor]

Etoile seems to have had enough

Don't blame 'er,

this is an awful topic. Can't believe it's not 1400-1800 instead of 2009 that we are discussing the subject.

I, as a male, have no idea what a female "circumcision" (or whatever term you want to apply) is like compared to male circumcision. I don't even know what a male circumcision is like, since I seem to be in the minority of those who aren't circumcised. I can't believe, however, that female circumcision is any less horrific or painful. I could easily be convinced it's worse.

We've been having this debate for months. I'm not going through it again. You can read back in the thread for my thoughts.

 

[Etoile]

I can't believe, however, that female circumcision is any less horrific or painful. I could easily be convinced it's worse.

The typical definition of "female circumcision" involves cutting off the clitoris completely and sewing the labia together. Yeah, I'd say it's worse.

 

[bisexualsmoker]

Circumcision? Who really gives a fuck. A dick is a dick!

 

[radepor]

No, it ain't.

 

[gregor2001us]

"Circumcised guys are only playing with half a dick."