Hard top or convertible...

[Guest]

Never having had a son and obviously being female, i can only say how i feel about circumcision. I read this article Circumcision Battle , and thought...Wow, how is this kid going to deal with the battle over his penis? i also had to wonder about the circumstances behind having circumcision at 8yo. my nephew had to have the procedure done when he was 8 because of problems that arose with tightening of the foreskin...
can male circumcision really be compared to female circumcision? i really don't believe it can be because female circumcision is more mutilation, isnt it? deliberately taking away sensation..."incase" ...
Thoughts?
Feeling?
Thread Jacks?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Never having had a son and obviously being female, i can only say how i feel about circumcision. I read this article Circumcision Battle , and thought...Wow, how is this kid going to deal with the battle over his penis? i also had to wonder about the circumstances behind having circumcision at 8yo. my nephew had to have the procedure done when he was 8 because of problems that arose with tightening of the foreskin...
can male circumcision really be compared to female circumcision? i really don't believe it can be because female circumcision is more mutilation, isnt it? deliberately taking away sensation..."incase" ...
Thoughts?
Feeling?
Thread Jacks?

They aren't comparable, beacuse they aren't the same thing. Female circumcision would be comperable to removing the penis.

I have read that circumcision in boys is basically a way for doctors to pick up some extra cash. It isn't neccessary. I would think the main advanage is aesthtic. If a penis can be said to look less rediculous one way or the other

 

[entitled]

i didn't have my son circumcized because there's really no reason for it. In fact, there's plenty of arguement AGAINST it.

i'm not going to argue the point, but i have my reasons for not letting them near the poor guy's little guy.

As a comparison to female circumcision - it would be comparable to leaving the clitoris intact but removing the clitoral hood. It doesn't leave a whole lot of protection there.

 

[impressive]

What'd logo call herself? Oh, an "intactivist" -- yeah, that fits.

Colly's (as usual) correct.

 

[Guest]

There have been several threads on this. Lots of arguments pro and con and lots of tempers flaring.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has decided there is no medical reason for this procedure. That doesn't take into account religious factors or family sensitivities (dad and lad looking the same).

They can spout cleanliness issues (can't we just teach 'em how to clean?) and a higher incidence of cancer (very negligible - breast cancer rates are much, much higher yet we don't lop off breasts of infant girls) but for many it comes down to aesthetics.

But once the foreskin retracts it looks the same, yes? A penis is a penis, whether or not it looks like Mr. Snuffalupagus before the erection?


Female circumcision, however, is strictly cultural, and is designed to remove sexual sensation. To remove the enjoyment from sex.

It goes with the veil.

 

[entitled]

Female circumcision, however, is strictly cultural...

So, for the most part, is male circumsicion.

Careful about generalizations, please.

 

[Guest]

So, for the most part, is male circumsicion.

Careful about generalizations, please.

But it wasn't, at one time. At one time it was recommended by pediatricians.

 

[entitled]

But it wasn't, at one time. At one time it was recommended by pediatricians.

Only in certain parts of the world, where the culture deemed it to be normal because of religious prevalence. The doctors decided to determine it to be a good, healthy thing to do because their religion said so. Just like what's happened a number of times in history.

 

[Guest]

Only in certain parts of the world, where the culture deemed it to be normal because of religious prevalence. The doctors decided to determine it to be a good, healthy thing to do because their religion said so. Just like what's happened a number of times in history.

Yes. And I'm speaking of the United States, of course.

 

[Aurora Black]

Not sure what I can contribute to this, but I've read somewhere that a man has increased sensitivity and pleasure during sex if he's uncut.

 

[entitled]

Yes. And I'm speaking of the United States, of course.

i'm talking about the US as well. It was a tradition brought over by the white settlers from England - all Christian and circumsized.

Of course, this same type of thing is the cause of female circumcision. It was deemed normal and healthy.

 

[Aurora Black]

i'm talking about the US as well. It was a tradition brought over by the white settlers from England - all Christian and circumsized.

Of course, this same type of thing is the cause of female circumcision. It was deemed normal and healthy.

Fucking yuck. There's nothing normal or healthy about slicing up little girls.

 

[impressive]

But once the foreskin retracts it looks the same, yes? A penis is a penis, whether or not it looks like Mr. Snuffalupagus before the erection?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *snort* Mr. Snuffalupagus *snort*

 

[entitled]

Fucking yuck. There's nothing normal or healthy about slicing up little girls.

Not in our cultures. Then again, to many cultures, there's nothing normal or healthey about slicing up little boys.

 

[logophile]

i'm talking about the US as well. It was a tradition brought over by the white settlers from England - all Christian and circumsized.

Of course, this same type of thing is the cause of female circumcision. It was deemed normal and healthy.

The intactavist speaks up.
Sorry Ent, but this isn't true. It was not the norm in our country until the turn of the 20th century. Before that it wasn't particularly desirable to circumcize your son because it would mark him as a jew or muslim. Unfortunately icky cultural "norms" take many shapes and racism is often one.

At the turn of the century, right about the same time we started moving birth from the home to the hospital, and towards the end of the Victorian era, we became obsessed with physical, sexual and spiritual cleanliness. Mr. John Kellogg (of Kellogg Cornflakes fame) funded a large campaign to teach doctors how to perform the routine circumcision of young boys. Initially, it wasn't babies, though. It was boys ages 4 to 7, and he was tough about it. He said that it should be done in a manner that communicated discipline and punishment and this would teach young boys not to masturbate. He claimed that routine circ would prevent madness, impotency, hert problems, epilepsy and the list goes on.

The trend started to spread and then the doctors really jumped on board. Instead of making it about "proper sexual behavior" they made it about cleanliness, even though it was never about that. They quickly moved the age back and back until they were performing this cosmetic operation on infants. Much easier to do if that baby had been born in the hospital - this became a selling point for hospital birth. But even babies who were being born at home were being taken in to see a doctor in the first month to be circ'd.

We now know without a doubt that there is absolutely no reason to circ a boy, unless it plays a large part in your religion. It is nothing more than body modification and it's interesting how we don't surgically alter a boy's face to match his father's, but we will alter his penis.

LEAVE THOSE FORSKINS ALONE!!

Now - if you want to talk about the worldwide beginings of circumcision, we can do that too. There's some fairly practical history involved in that.

Oh, and to echo what other's have said... as bad as routine circumcision of the infant male is, it is not even comparable to the mutilation subjected on some women in the world and neatly labelled female circumcision. That is a horror which no one should ever have to undergo.

 

[entitled]

i stand corrected.

And, to be a little clearer about one of my earlier comments, i compared male circumcision to the removal of the clitoral hood because it -would- be similar. Not the same, not by a long shot, but similar.

It's the removal of a protective covering of the sexual organs in either case.

 

[Aurora Black]

That's exactly why I stopped buying Corn Flakes. Seriously.

 

[Liar]

Not sure what I can contribute to this, but I've read somewhere that a man has increased sensitivity and pleasure during sex if he's uncut.

Sounds reasonable. I can imagine that having the buddy hatless and rubbing against the inside of the pants all day long would numb it down a bit.

Thing is, unless I cut mine off and compare, I'll never know. And I think I'll have to pass on that. I like Mr. Snuffalupagus the way he is.

The difference betwenn male and female circumcision is, when it comes down to it, intent. Female circumcision is intended to control female sexuality. The male variety is intended to...uh, I have no idea. Seems utterly pointless.

 

[logophile]

Warning! Graphic Post About Female Circ

i stand corrected.

And, to be a little clearer about one of my earlier comments, i compared male circumcision to the removal of the clitoral hood because it -would- be similar. Not the same, not by a long shot, but similar.

It's the removal of a protective covering of the sexual organs in either case.

Yes, what we do to our boys is the equivilent of removing the clitoral hood. That's absolutely the truth (and the argument that most commonly sways my clients to NOT circ their baby boys). The clitoral hood and the forskin perform almost identical functions, to protect the delicate tissue below, both by providing a barrier and by emitting an bacteriostatic substance that helps keep things clean between baths.

The difference between removing the clitoral hood and FGM (female genital mutilation) is extensive, though. There are three basic levels of FGM -

1. Clitoridotomy - This is the closest to routine male circ. It removes the clitoral hood and often part of the clitoris as well. It is performed on adult women as opposed to babies or small children.
2.Clitorodectomy - This type removes the clitoral hood, the clitoris and usually the labia minora, as well.
3. Infibulation - This is the removal of the hood, the clitoris, the labia minora and most of the labia majora. The remaining labia majora is then stitched together so that the vulva (once healed) appears completely smooth. A small hole is left (by placing a thick reed or drinking straw where available) at the vaginal introitus for urine and menstrual blood to evacuate by. After the mutilation, her legs are tied together for a couple of weeks to keep her from opening the wound. Sexual intercourse is (quite obviously) excruciating for these women. When she is married, either her new husband or his female relatives must open it slightly (by either tearing or cutting) to allow him to enter her. Childbirth will often kill them if the scarring is not cut open during labor. After the baby is born, the woman is sewn back up the way she was before.The death rates from other urinary tract infections and vaginal infections is also extremely high.

It is hard to say how many women undergo FGM each year because there are laws against it in many places, but it still being done in secrecy. Amnesty International estimates about 2 million women and young girls have been mutilated.

 

[Aurora Black]

*gags, retches*

 

[sweetnpetite]

The intactavist speaks up.
Sorry Ent, but this isn't true. It was not the norm in our country until the turn of the 20th century. Before that it wasn't particularly desirable to circumcize your son because it would mark him as a jew or muslim. Unfortunately icky cultural "norms" take many shapes and racism is often one.

At the turn of the century, right about the same time we started moving birth from the home to the hospital, and towards the end of the Victorian era, we became obsessed with physical, sexual and spiritual cleanliness. Mr. John Kellogg (of Kellogg Cornflakes fame) funded a large campaign to teach doctors how to perform the routine circumcision of young boys. Initially, it wasn't babies, though. It was boys ages 4 to 7, and he was tough about it. He said that it should be done in a manner that communicated discipline and punishment and this would teach young boys not to masturbate. He claimed that routine circ would prevent madness, impotency, hert problems, epilepsy and the list goes on.

The trend started to spread and then the doctors really jumped on board. Instead of making it about "proper sexual behavior" they made it about cleanliness, even though it was never about that. They quickly moved the age back and back until they were performing this cosmetic operation on infants. Much easier to do if that baby had been born in the hospital - this became a selling point for hospital birth. But even babies who were being born at home were being taken in to see a doctor in the first month to be circ'd.

We now know without a doubt that there is absolutely no reason to circ a boy, unless it plays a large part in your religion. It is nothing more than body modification and it's interesting how we don't surgically alter a boy's face to match his father's, but we will alter his penis.

LEAVE THOSE FORSKINS ALONE!!

Now - if you want to talk about the worldwide beginings of circumcision, we can do that too. There's some fairly practical history involved in that.

Oh, and to echo what other's have said... as bad as routine circumcision of the infant male is, it is not even comparable to the mutilation subjected on some women in the world and neatly labelled female circumcision. That is a horror which no one should ever have to undergo.

Wow, thanks for the info- I was already against circumscision before i read that. Of course it just confirmed it for me a little more.

My youngest son is uncircumsized. He's the only one in the family! At first his dad felt it was important that he be circumsized because *he* was, but I just refused to have it done and now it's really a non-issue.

I'm not sure if it's comparable or not, but IMO, male circumsicion is a horror no one should have to endure either. From what I've learned about the actual proceedure it is quite barbaric. (to be politically incorrect). When my first son was born and i knew little about it and had him 'done' the doctor didn't even use anethsetic. He gave me the option, but at the time the anethsetic they used was only available as a shot in the base of the penis which my pediatrician warned me was more painful than the procedure! Now, they do have other methods, but it still gives me chills.

That little foreskin isn't like the end of your fingernail. They have to push a tool undernieth it to seperate it from the rest of the penis and then cut it off.
If my son decides as an adult that he hates the way it looks, he can make that decision for himself. As for sanitation, it's kind of silly to think that an "uncircumsized" penis (natural form) should require 'special care'- an idea that I never questioned the first time around.

My sister had her son circomsized and they did such an awful job, you can't even tell! (I wonder if they just charged her and spared the poor boy the pain or if they just clipped the tip or what.) That's not really an arguement either way, just an extra piece of info.

 

[logophile]

*gags, retches*

Sorry Aurora. Are you OK?

 

[logophile]

I'm not sure if it's comparable or not, but IMO, male circumsicion is a horror no one should have to endure either. From what I've learned about the actual proceedure it is quite barbaric. (to be politically incorrect). When my first son was born and i knew little about it and had him 'done' the doctor didn't even use anethsetic. He gave me the option, but at the time the anethsetic they used was only available as a shot in the base of the penis which my pediatrician warned me was more painful than the procedure! Now, they do have other methods, but it still gives me chills.

Even if they use anesthetic for the actual removal, you have still about 2 weeks of healing time. That numbing stuff wears off in about an hour, leaving a completely raw little penis with no protection, wrapped in a diaper and getting peed on evry 30 minutes or so until it heals some. There is post-operative pain, as well. I agree with you SandP, if my son wants it done when he's older and can make a choice about it, I'll take him. By then he'll be big enough to get good drugs and use the toilet so he's not sitting in an astrigent with an open wound.

 

[Aurora Black]

Sorry Aurora. Are you OK?

Why does this practice even exist? Not only is it completely unnecessary, it's inhumane.

 

[logophile]

Why does this practice even exist? Not only is it completely unnecessary, it's inhumane.

I'm assuming you're asking about FGM.
It exists to decrease women's sexual pleasure.
Infibulation completely eliminates pleasure, obviously. Although a lot of those couples end up taking their pleasure through anal sex, because it's better for both the woman and her husband. It will often be years before a husband can enter his wife's vagina after she's been infibulated.
The other two forms reduce but don't eliminate pleasure. The goal was to reduce or eliminate masturbation and extramarital sex. If it don't feel good, she's less likely to do it.