Is it unethical to circumcise babies in our present day?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Is it unethical to circumcise babies in our present day?

[Kittycat]

1. Is there a medical reason to do that in the US?

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

4. No, I don't believe that their is.

Some recent studies are showing that circumcision for males may slightly decrease the chances of getting some STD's, such as HIV.

[Kittycat]

44. And proper education is a better option - much like the abstenence only education vs.

proper sex ed. argument. Where education is lacking - sure there could be an issue. But if we do our jobs as parents and educators - then the risk just isn't there.

I've read that there is actually a greater risk in circing due to infections during healing, slips by the dr, and improper healing, in comparison to not circing. It really is becoming an outdated practice in the states, and isn't even a common practice in other developed nations like Europs, Canada, etc.

With my first son, our insurance wouldn't have covered the circ to begin with - and most drs require payment up front in that case. But regardless, in our area the odds are better than 50% not circ'd.

[SCantiGOP]

5. yes

AIDS and other STD's are easier to transmit to uncircumcised males, so there is a medical advantage.

[DarkTirade]

14. I don't think our babies should be getting STDs

:shrug:

[Deja Q]

19. How do you know?

http://www.celebitchy.com/category/slutty/



If they're getting 8 year olds to look like hookers, they'll go for infants next.

[DarkTirade]

24. ... I ain't touchin' that one.

:\ Yeesh.

[Withywindle]

31. If you see those costumes as "slutty" you're the one with the dirty mind.

They cover up more than what the kids wear in gym class. :shrug:

Maybe the pirate and the goth cheerleader have too much eyeliner on, but that's what Halloween is FOR!

[Deja Q]

37. Oi, the blog and picture are the ones saying it!

:shrug:

[NikolaC]

39. OMG ...

They are just babies! This is a problem that I have with Disney, Nick and other companies like them as well. They portray kids as little adults with an attitude, it's sickening.

As far as the circumcision argument, I lost that argument with my first husband. He was emphatic about our son not being circumcised and he was not in the end. Now, it is no big deal, but when I was pregnant we must have had that argument almost daily in the last month of my pregnancy.

[ZombieHorde]

104. If your son wants a circumcision, he can choose for himself.

There is nothing wrong about adults choosing to be circumcised.

[Chan790]

135. Or choosing not to be.

as I would have if the choice wasn't made for me.

[Occulus]

321. Thank you

There are ways to "grow it back" that involve weights or otherwise applying tension to the skin (:scared:), but those methods cannot restore the tissues involved, one of which acts as an elastic band to, uh, 'keep it closed'.

Ladies, uncircumcised men experience greater sensation during intercourse than circumcised men. It's very similar to the difference in sensitivity one experiences when one wears a band-aid in a single location for a long period of time, takes it off, and touches the previously covered skin.

I don't know why this keeps making the DU rounds. We should have settled this a loooooonnnnng time ago.

[uppityperson]

122. None of those look like a hooker to me. Maybe I'm just too narrow minded.

off to check the link. Still don't see the sluttiness except I don't like the makeup look.

[tom_paine]

164. Good God, what the fuck is wrong with us, collectively.

Reality is now as absurd or more absurd than fiction.

Remember the Paris Hilton South park Episode? The new store called "Stupid Spoiled Whore" that all the little South Park girls were dying to shop at? The soccer moms explaining to randy why it was OK, and making it like this grotesquerie was a feminsit statement?

And, I have to :rofl: here, the VERY fitting end of the episode which had Paris Hilton shoved up Mr. Slave's ass?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sGiZmmGD04o&feature=related

If you haven't seen it, do so. (the YouTube is just a clip ofthe lst part of the show, so if you haven't yet seen the show, the YouTube clip is a spoiler) Sometimes it's best to just laugh at the insanity.

[Poll_Blind]

217. Ahhh, the Lemmiwinks ending! n/t

PB

[Deja Q]

17. And bacteria can build up in the folds of the skin down there too...

There are multiple reasons why putting the proverbial head on the chopping block is the sensible thing to do.

Just don't sneeze at the critical moment...

[Crunchy Frog]

181. I've got folds of skin down there too. You saying I should get chopped as well?

[cloudythescribbler]

25. Indeed, that's one reason for the CHORUSES of OPPOSITION to circumcision, like HIV denialism ...

"the more who die, the most we live" -- e e cummings

[ZombieHorde]

150. Check it out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[awoke_in_2003]

202. Oh my god

that was absolutely horrible. Quite cruel.

[Caretha]

235. That was one of the most disturbing

things I've ever seen in my life. A mother could never listen to those type of cries from her child and not know the devastating pain that infant was going through. Part way through the vid, when the sobs of the infant become gasping for breath and shuddering, you just know the agony the helpless infant felt. Not once through the whole procedure do you not hear or feel anything but incredible pain on the part of an unsuspecting innocent babe. I only had female children, but I know in my heart of hearts that I would never have allowed someone to subject her to that kind of pain for any reason what-so-ever, unless it would have been to save her life at that very moment.

Please, you young vibrant women about to birth a male child, don't allow them to do this. And you fathers....teach your boys good hygiene and how to care for their genital. All of this pain is so unnecessary and barbaric. We must learn to love our children better than that.

[nickinSTL]

185. do you have links to the medical studies?

the only ones I've heard of have been shoddily done on populations that did not well reflect the general population.

Until there is solid scientific evidence based on well-done, well-refereed studies that show a significant benefit in industrialized populations, I'm going to maintain my opposition.

Now, if an adult wants to be circumcised for whatever reason, or if there is a legitimate medical reason for it, that's different.

[Electric Flag]

255. If there was an advantage to being circumcised, males would be born so by nature

If you decide after you grow up that you'd rather mutilate your own genitals than wear a condom, then by all means go ahead and be that stupid. But doing it to babies should be a criminal offense, regardless of gender.

[originalpckelly]

274. The process of physical evolution is a relatively long one.

Why change our genetics, when we can simply change our behavior and alter our bodies?

Human behavior is a part of evolution, and circumcision is just as much an evolved behavior as the use of tools or fire.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

279. Criminalizing circumcision would be a giant step forward but...

not a replacement for an absence of intelligence. Litigation might
one day halt circumcision as not cost effective thus allowing the naked ape
to continue pissing into the wind, albeit, genitals intact.
In the meantime, if this tortuous thread results in just one child not
having their sex life forever crippled it will have been well worth it.

Kudos to DU for making possible this vitally important discussion..

--------------------------------------------------

If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst.
--Thomas Hardy

[Crunchy Frog]

178. Americans are dirtier than people in the rest of the world.

[pitohui]

219. it's linked to our lower rates of heterosexual transmission of HIV

another poster says that it is a "slight" thing, that person needs to go to kenya and see the markets spread with the empty shoes of the dead

[Mz Pip]

2. Not unethical

but certainly unnecessary. My two boys weren't and that was 30 years ago. Seemed sort of cruel to me, snipping off parts of their genitals.

[Richardo]

3. Here we go...

:eyes:

I would just ask all the pro-choicers to think long and hard about their answer.

[gollygee]

8. Which way would you think pro-choicers should go?

No, it isn't unethical, because people ought to make these decisions themselves?

or, Yes, it is unethical, because only the specific person whose body is effected should be have the choice to make permanent changes to his body?

[Richardo]

13. It's a family choice

...and adults make decisions for their infants. Either cut or uncut, it's up to Mom and Dad.

[ZombieHorde]

80. I believe that it should be up to the person getting their genitals cut.

[Richardo]

129. Of course you do. Why else would you start the thread?

[ZombieHorde]

131. Something to do while I wait for my wife to stop playing video games

and then I will go play video games.

[Deja Q]

32. Go? Where? The bedroom? Back seat of a car? Abattoir?

[Book Lover]

6. Because Level 2 is not enough for some DUers...

we now have a circ thread. Yippie!

[ZombieHorde]

7. I don't understand your post.

[Book Lover]

15. I predict this will be a heavily-trafficked thread

That's all.

[spoony]

249. Circ threads make GDP look genteel

War? Election? Pfft, we need to figure this dick thing out first! :P

[asteroid2003QQ47]

280. First we STOP excising genitalia...

then we START excising warriors and politicians!

As a mantra it has appeal, thanks spoony.

[spoony]

281. Always glad to help :-)

[MikeE]

9. There's no such thing as "female circumcision"

What "female circumcision" is is cutting off the clitoris so that the woman cannot enjoy sex and is illegal in the US and most European countries. You see it a lot in Africa and the Middle East as a way to control women. As for male circumcision, it has been shown that circumcised males have a lower rate of contracting HIV. But, safer sex practices should make that a moot point. Of course, not everyone practices safer sex.

[KitchenWitch]

Although illegal in the US, there is still female circumcision that occurs in other countries

So to say there is no such thing is a bold faced lie.

[MikeE]

29. My only point is

that circumcision technically is the removal of the foreskin, which females don't have. Removing the clitoris is the equivalent of cutting the head of the penis off, and is done for very different reasons: for males it is for hygiene, whereas for females, it actually causes problems because not only is the clitoris cut off, but the vagina sewn shut, leaving only enough room for urine to pass through and causing a host of health problems.

[KitchenWitch]

34. And my point was that female are still mutilated so your "no such thing" comment was dead wrong.

[MikeE]

41. I didn't mean to say it didn't exist

What I was trying to avoid was giving the practice the same level of credibility as male circumcision. I understand what you are saying and I think we are getting hung up on semantics. I just don't think for females it should be called circumcision, I think it should be called genital mutilation. It is a horrible thing for women. I have a friend who had that done to her as a little girl with a razor blade and no anesthesia and she is still dealing with the trauma. It breaks my heart to see what she has gone through.

[LynneSin]

52. Kitch I think I understand what the poster is suggesting....

Technically what these beasts cruelly do to women has very little in common with the Male Circumcision. I would think the better term to call what these people do to females is Female Gentalia Mutilation. When a man is circumcised, he is still functional. When a woman in these countries are 'circumcised' they pretty much lose most ability not only to have normal sex but even other things such as go to the bathroom.

In fact Wikipedia calls it 'female genital cutting'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

[MikeE]

56. Thanks for clarifying

That's exactly what I was trying to say. :hug:

[Lorien]

184. I agree. Calling it "female circumcision" is a way to spin genital mutilation

to make it sound more acceptable. It's not the same thing at all, just as circumcision and castration are not the same thing.

[David Zephyr]

243. Thanks for a voice of reason. Conflating the two is intellectually dishonest.

A rationale voice.

[orleans]

209. newsflash, mike

re: "the vagina sewn shut, leaving only enough room for urine to pass through"

we don't pee out of our vaginas. (i know, we're such a mystery, right? and maybe there are a lot of people who didn't/don't know this) we pee out of the urethra. it's a tiny hole (to pee from) located between the vagina and the clitoris.

check out the diagram on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urethra
"In anatomy, the urethra (from Greek ουρήθρα - ourethra) is a tube which connects the urinary bladder to the outside of the body. The urethra has an excretory function in both sexes to pass urine to the outside, and also a reproductive function in the male, as a passage for semen."

(most importantly--always check out the "g spot")



}(

[ZombieHorde]

16. There's no such thing as "female circumcision"

Except for the procedure you described, which is called female circumcision by the vast majority of English speaking folks and semantical references, such as dictionaries.

female circumcision
n. Partial or complete removal of the clitoris, prepuce, or labia of a girl or young woman, as practiced among certain cultures, especially in parts of Africa and western Asia. Also called clitoridectomy. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/female%20circumcision

[LynneSin]

214. Actually it's NOT called Female Circumcism though....

female circumcision is the nice pretty term used to downgrade the absolute brutality of what is done to these women. Humane Organizations across the globe have recognized this and now call it by what it really is - Female Genital Mutilation. What is done to men and what are done to women are two completely different things, but female circumcision just made it sound 'prettier'. Please read this excerpt from Wikipedia.....


_________________________


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Female_genital_mutilation

Female genital mutilation

The term female genital mutilation gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word "mutilation" not only established clear linguistic distinction from male circumcision, but it also emphasized the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN), recommended that the UN adopt this terminology; subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents.<15>

In this context, the term female circumcision was thus predominantly replaced by the term female genital mutilation:

The extensive literature on the subject, the support of international organizations, and the emergence of local groups working against the continuation practices appear to suggest that an international consensus has been reached. The terminology used to refer to these surgeries has changed, and the clearly disapproving and powerfully evocative expression of "female genital mutilation" has now all but replaced the possibly inaccurate, but relatively less value laden-term of "female circumcision".<16>

[KitchenWitch]

10. Mind if I sit in the bleachers and watch this?

:popcorn:

[Deja Q]

23. Please do! And keep your eye out for the peanut gallery...

:D

[KitchenWitch]

30. OOOH I like peanuts with my popcorn

[Bake]

57. I like Cracker Jacks!

Candy coated :popcorn: peanuts and a prize ...

Bake

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Circumcision Is Important

Cuts the risk of STDs dramatically - cuts AIDS by 50%.

Why would I not want my son to have a lower risk of these diseases?

[ZombieHorde]

18. Do you have a link?

edit to add: Check out this link -

Studies about the benefits of circumcision have provided conflicting results. Some studies show certain benefits, while other studies do not. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary. The American Academy of Family Physicians believes parents should discuss with their son's doctor the potential benefits and the risks involved when making their decision.

A recent AAP report stated that circumcision does offer some benefit in preventing urinary tract infections in infants. Circumcision also offers some benefit in preventing penile cancer in adult men. However, this disease is very rare in all men, whether or not they have been circumcised. Circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. A man's sexual practices (e.g., if he uses condoms, if he has more than one partner, etc.) has more to do with STD prevention than whether or not he is circumcised.

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/men/reproductive/042.html

[Deja Q]

20. Well, I don't know about the link, but if he has a willy it might have been given the axe...

:hide:

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3570223.stm
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=80193

WHO and UNAIDS are even recommending *adult* circumcision in Africa to reduce the spread of AIDS.

It's true that a condom is better. But condoms can break, people can get drunk and do stupid things, etc.

[Chan790]

137. Both oppose infant circumcision.

Both support the Montagu Resolution brought before the UN in 1989 which would outlaw it, even on religious grounds. That alone is rather impressive as religious freedom is one of the highest ideals of the UN.

Thanks for the strawman though.

[MannyGoldstein]

138. Link?

Indicating their active opposition to infant circumcision?

[BalancedGoat]

108. A new paper out that you might be interested in.

I don't have time to stick around and back you up in this debate, but I felt this link was worth interjecting into the conversation.

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

[depakid]

73. "Why would I not want my son to have a lower risk of these diseases?"

Similar reasons to why some Americans refuse to vaccinate their children- though compounded in this case by emotional short circuiting of the reasoning process.

[ZombieHorde]

151. Here it is!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[Irreverend IX]

254. Double mastectomy at puberty cuts breast cancer rates by 100%...

And for some reason, women who've had the procedure have a much lower rate of STDs than ones who haven't. Does that mean that all girls should have it done?

[guitar man]

12. uh oh

duck!!

:popcorn:


http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm



:hide: :D

[Deja Q]

22. Not down my pants, you don't!

:wow:



:rofl:

[guitar man]

33. someone needs to

come in here and throw theirself on it...quick!!
:rofl:

[TZ]

26. ...

a better show than GDP tonight ya think?

[Deja Q]

35. ....

With everybody shooting their mouths off, this is more fun a show than GD-Paltry. :D

[guitar man]

36. I don't know if GDP is a show

or just a disaster, like a really bad pileup or train wreck you can't stop staring at :D

[Fox Mulder]

21. I wouldn't put my son through it if I had one.

If he wants to get one when he gets older, then he can choose to do so. But I wouldn't make him go through it when he's a newborn.

[Parche]

27. Circ

Is the only way to go, and its better looking then UN....:woohoo: :hi:

[Hydra]

28. "Well, since I think people look better without ears..."

I don't like scalpels to begin with, so mark me down for non-support of cosmetic surgery for babies.

[depakid]

38. Given the scientific knowledge about STD transmission

It's STUPID not to circumcise your male child.

Then again, Americans prefer emotional argument to scientific logic- so results like these hardly surprise me.

[ZombieHorde]

40. Yet another claim that goes against the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are there any benefits from circumcision?

Studies about the benefits of circumcision have provided conflicting results. Some studies show certain benefits, while other studies do not. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary. The American Academy of Family Physicians believes parents should discuss with their son's doctor the potential benefits and the risks involved when making their decision.

A recent AAP report stated that circumcision does offer some benefit in preventing urinary tract infections in infants. Circumcision also offers some benefit in preventing penile cancer in adult men. However, this disease is very rare in all men, whether or not they have been circumcised. Circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. A man's sexual practices (e.g., if he uses condoms, if he has more than one partner, etc.) has more to do with STD prevention than whether or not he is circumcised.

Study results are mixed about whether circumcision may help reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners, and whether it helps prevent certain problems with the penis, such as infections and unwanted swelling. Some studies show that keeping the penis clean can help prevent these problems just as well as circumcision. Infections and unwanted swelling are not serious and can usually be easily treated if they do occur.

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/men/reproductive/042.html

[Lyric]

50. Which is basically the APA's version of saying "We don't know"

The latest evidence points to circumcision cutting HIV risk nearly in half.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14hiv.html

Of course it makes sense for the APA to maintain a cautious stance; more studies need to be done to verify the results, and more importantly, if American medical institutions come out and SAY that circumcision cuts HIV risk, some stupid Americans will decide that being circumcised can replace condom usage. Nobody wants that to happen. Therefore, when the study results are finally confirmed, there will likely be an enormous push to make sure that everyone understands that circumcision alone is not enough.

Things like this take time. That doesn't change the reality of the study results.

[ZombieHorde]

70. It would be cool if that study is right.

There has been a lot of Religious Right funded studies on circumcision which are questionable at best.

Even if it does prevent STD's, circumcision, and other forms of genital mutilation, should be done when a person can give consent.

[depakid]

77. There have been multiple studies and analyses

I never really thought about it much until someone gave a presentation of the data in a graduate public health course that I took in 2006.

As to the issue of "consent," one could make the same claim about vaccination.

[ZombieHorde]

86. same claim about vaccination - except babies get sick, they don't fuck.

[depakid]

92. I guess you haven't heard the "controversy" about the HPV vaccination

for young girls....

[ZombieHorde]

97. I have.

That controversy does not convince me that it is ethical to amputate part of a persons genitals without their consent.

[depakid]

100. Emotion trumps reason, I guess

As I said, it's an all too common malady in 21st Century America.

[ZombieHorde]

103. To me, it is much more reasonable to let people decide for themselves.

It is unreasonable to assume that you would not be upset if someone else had final say over the fate of your genitals.

[depakid]

67. OLD data and outdated recomendations

Try running a pub med search using the keywords "HIV" and "circumcision"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

486 hits on recent studies and findings -the results of which are startling. Circumcision seems to have a very pronounced protective effect.

So pronounced, in fact that it was UNETHICAL to continue two of the studies using untreated (uncircumcised) men as the control group.

The CDC has this to say:

International Clinical Trials

Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa <9> was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya <10> and Uganda <11> were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants’ risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.

Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men <1>. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance <4>.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

[ZombieHorde]

84. OK then, why not let people choose for themselves?

Why subject babies to forced genital mutilation?

[originalpckelly]

89. Most men would not choose that, even though it's in our best interests.

I don't think I would make that decision today, but due to the various health benefits, I'm glad it was done. I wouldn't do it, mainly because it's really a very unsavory thought, especially the healing part of it, for a person my age. On the other hand, who gives a fuck when you're a baby?

It should always be done with some type of anesthetic if possible, but aside from that it's perfectly ethical.

[ZombieHorde]

93. The fate of a persons genitals should be a choice in my opinion.

My wife has watched male circumcisions in nursing school. She said that the babies screamed in pain and then shook for a long time afterwards. This was about three months ago.

[originalpckelly]

95. Well, all I can say...

I don't remember it happening, so I don't give a damn. Give them a sedative if they have to, or a local anesthetic. That's it.

[ZombieHorde]

160. They do, but it does not help much.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[pitohui]

223. and you know your baby son is going to have only one partner w. whom he uses rubbers HOW exactly?

this AAP paper is just terrible, everyone who has a child wishes for that child to find the first love the first time but how often does that happen? and the reality is that married people don't use rubbers anyway, so all the education in the world flies out the window once romance flies in -- and yet people still screw up and cheat, "stuff" still happens, the rate of cheating on married partners is sooo high in the u.s.

and yet our heterosexual HIV transmission rate is miles lower than in africa, i can see only one real easy to point to reason why this could be (male circumcision) -- it isn't because everyone in america is keeping their pants on, that's for sure

all the education in the world can't stop americans from being human, and if the AAP thinks it does, they're just delusional in my view


as i said upthread, go to kenya, look at all the empty shoes being sold in the marketplace, they are the great symbol of AIDS in kenya

to me the evidence is convincing and i wouldn't want my child to wait for 20 more years of studies

[JackRiddler]

220. Bullshit.

I took the time to examine one widely cited study making such claims, the Auvert study in South Africa and it turns out to be bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if this generally turned out to be true, since it is the current status quo belief that circumcision must be very good since it's so widespread in the West.

Two relevant links on the Auvert study (both from same thread):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2764867&mesg_id=2768506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2764867&mesg_id=2770383

[Cerridwen]

42. As a woman...

I have no skin in this game.

*snort*

So I just came over here so I could say that...and to watch the inevitable train wreck this thread will become.

[ZombieHorde]

46. As a man, I feel that woman do have a skin in this game.

It is called your clit, which is removed during female circumcision.

[cbc5g]

49. DAMN I'm so glad I wasn't born a woman in an islamic country

Painful misogynist cultures over there. Those poor poor women. This is another reason I abhor religion.

[ZombieHorde]

55. My wife recently graduated from nursing school.

She watched male babies get circumcised. She said the babies were screaming in agony and then laid in their cribs shaking. She came home very upset that day.

[pitohui]

224. they scream in agony when they're born also

for that matter some of them scream like they're being crucified over a wet diaper

the great thing about being a baby is you don't remember it and you heal quickly

[ZombieHorde]

227. They don't scream like that.

[Cerridwen]

59. Which rarely, when it is performed, is performed in infancy.

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear; as a woman, born in the US, not of a religion or ethnicity who practices female circumcision and who has no male children, I have no skin in this game.

I have read and heard arguments for and against. I have read contradictory scientific studies. I have watched as people on this board have become outraged and hurt by this topic; yet there is not, nor could there be, a decisive consensus built by posting about it here. If anything, many of the threads I've read on this board create more division and contention than anything else.

[anigbrowl]

231. Since I'm circumcised, I don't have any skin in this game either. Any more.

Actually, I'm in favor of it. My mom tells me I howled fit to bring the roof down but I don't remember a darn thing. Meantime, I prefer the low maintenance. Yeah, I'd do be OK with it if I had a son. Mind you, I've had surgery a bunch of times so I don't really have hangups about needle and knives.

[Lorien]

189. That's genital mutilation, "female circumcision" is an innaccurate phrase

used to spin the act in to something that might be viewed more favorably by other cultures. It isn't done for "hygienic purposes", it's done to control women by causing them severe pain during sexual intercourse. The procedure often leads to a lifetime of infections and sometimes death. The two should never be compared. It's like saying that circumcision and castration are the same thing because they both involve cutting sex organs.

[alwysdrunk]

45. Are you serious?

I mean the girl thing is fucked up as hell, but that shit is so rare it shouldn't really count. For boys? Unethincalk?! no way! It's the only RIGHT thing to do!

[seemslikeadream]

85. WHY?

[cbc5g]

47. I was circumcised and im perfectly normal and don't remember being cut

According to most scientific evidence, it does reduce STD infection. Female "circumcision" is wrong, however and thats why it's only done in backwards islamic theocracies. But it's their culture, so not much you can really say about their bullshit lifestyle unless they try to influence ours.

[Lyric]

48. Frankly I think we have bigger problems.

I circumcised my son because as a lesbian, I've watched too many male friends die of AIDS. It's a horrific way to die. If I can give him even a *slight* advantage to not catching HIV, then a small piece of skin and a small amount of lost sensation are more than worth it. So long as the procedure is done correctly, he'll retain plenty of sexual function and sensation. Condoms break. I think of it as a second line of defense, and if he has a problem with it someday, I'm more than willing to bear the responsibility for making that decision. His life means more to me than his ability to have a more intense orgasm. I'll gladly explain to him why I chose what I did, and if that isn't good enough, then I'll accept his anger knowing damned well that I had his best interests at heart.

I also don't think it's anyone else's business. I don't accept or pay attention to anyone else's judgment, and I personally think that people who spend their time fighting circumcision when they *could* be using that time to fight issues like hunger, disease, poverty, and environmental collapse are misguided at best, and contemptuous at worst. It's no different than these wealthy churches who pour millions into fighting "moral" issues while mostly ignoring the REAL issues that hurt billions of human beings of both sexes every single day. Meat-eating has the potential for destroying more human lives than circumcision ever could--and yet, there aren't many "progressives" throwing their angry words behind a movement to get rid of the consumption of meat.

It's awfully easy to pass judgment on other people, and awfully hard to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good. I'm no vegetarian, and certainly no saint. I'm willing to give my fellow parents the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they too have their sons' best interests at heart, regardless of which choice they make. Show me objective evidence that circumcision *doesn't* offer any protection against HIV/STDs, and show me that we're making progress on the issues that take peoples *lives* rather than just their potential orgasmic intensity, and then I'll be prepared to focus on circumcision as an "issue".

/flame on

[ZombieHorde]

51. "Show me objective evidence that circumcision *doesn't* offer any protection against HIV/STDs"

According to the AAP, the torture your infant son endured may or may not prevent STD's in some tiny tiny way.

Circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. A man's sexual practices (e.g., if he uses condoms, if he has more than one partner, etc.) has more to do with STD prevention than whether or not he is circumcised.

Female circumcision may have benefits too.

Study results are mixed about whether circumcision may help reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners


I bet that you would not have your daughters clit removed, even though there is a tiny tiny chance it could save her life.

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/men/reproductive/042.html

[originalpckelly]

58. You're comparing apples and oranges, the foreskin is not homologous to the clitoris.

Maybe the clitoral hood, but not the clitoris.

[Lyric]

62. Sorry, not good enough. A medical institution being cautious

and slow is expected. I addressed the APA's position in a post above.

There has never been a study that showed medical benefit to removing a female's clitoris. Also, the comparison between the foreskin and the clitoris is ridiculous. A more intelligent comparison to removing the clitoris would be the removal of the entire glans of the penis--something that *nobody* is advocating.

If you have nothing better to offer than this, you're wasting your time. As for your judgment about "torture"--I could care what you think, truly. I recognize inflammatory language when I hear it. I also point and laugh at the anti-abortion idiots who claim that we "torture" fetuses during abortions, too.

[ZombieHorde]

75. Would it not be better to wait

and let the individual decided if they wanted their genitals to be mutilated?

Why force a baby into it?

[PeaceNikki]

81. As the poster above said, you're using intentionally inflammatory language.

"Mutilated"? Come on...

[ZombieHorde]

90. If some one cuts off the tip of your nose, you have been mutilated.

How about; Forced partial genital amputation usually performed on babies because the procedure makes grown people shudder?

[PeaceNikki]

101. bullshit

Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: \ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): mu·ti·lat·ed; mu·ti·lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
Date: 1534
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of :

[ZombieHorde]

107. Hey look, I can look up words too! (except I give links to show I am being honest)

mu·ti·late
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

mu·ti·late
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

mutilation
noun
an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

(you may not think that it is an important body part, but I do.

Link (all on same page): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilation

[PeaceNikki]

110. yeah, that's me... I don't think it an "important body part"

You're right and everyone else is wrong. I am an unethical, mutilating, torturing, disfiguring animal because my son was circumcised when he was a few hours old.

The anti-choice crowd hates me, too and they use a lot of the same arguments you do. :eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

112. The anti-choice crowd hates me - Though on this subject, you are anti-choice.

The pro choice option would be to let your son decide for themselves.

my son was circumcised

Every parent has made poor decisions. It does not make you evil, it makes you human.

You're right and everyone else is wrong

I am glad that you finally see the light.

[defendandprotect]

258. "Mutilated" seems inflammatory to you, perhaps, but it is reality . . .

except to those who have been brainwashed by propaganda in regard to this horrific procedure . . .

which by the way --- and watch out here comes more inflammatory language ---

is often done without anesthesia for the baby -- !!!

I generally thought of this as a male decision and left it to my husband --

big mistake ---

It is the female role, in fact, to protect the child ---

[Lyric]

94. More inflammatory language? "Mutilated"?

"Mutilated" implies that the penis has been shredded to bits. No intelligent discussion is possible so long as one party insists upon using emotionally-charged and deliberately inflammatory words.

As for why I didn't wait--babies don't remember the procedure or the pain, and since babies don't have sex, there's no frustrating loss of sexual function during the healing process. Also, I realize that my son could easily grow up to be frightened of having it done because he fears the pain. My choice allows him the benefit of a decreased risk of HIV and other STDs without the fear and trauma of a painful medical procedure that he'll remember. My son's doctor made it a point to reassure me that he used a local anesthetic. There was little, if any, pain, and the small wound healed cleanly within a few days.

I am 100% in favor of legislation that requires local anesthetic for all circumcision procedures, although I believe that there is some risk of an allergic reaction to the medication. In that case, pediatricians should always have epinephrine shots and antihistamines ready in the room, just in case. But I cannot in good conscience support the idea of banning circumcision when the study results in Africa were so dramatic. As I said before, I've watched people that I love die of AIDS in horrific pain that is FAR beyond the pain of a circumcision procedure. If circumcision provides my child with a secondary line of defense against a virus with no cure in sight, I'm all for keeping it available as an option.

[ZombieHorde]

154. See for yourself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[defendandprotect]

259. Holy Christ ...!!! THAT's what I permitted to be done to my son .. .!!!!

[PeaceNikki]

63. It's still a personal family decision. The risks are still low and there are benefits.

And it's NOT comperable to having "your daughters clit removed". Not even close.

[defendandprotect]

260. There are no benefits to this -- there are presumed benefits which do not

measure up to the too often not discussed benefits of keeping the foreskin ---

sexual benefits --- for one which should be of interest to both males and females ---

and avoiding the psychological and physical damage which the procedure does.

[emmadoggy]

125. Umm,

I believe they are referring to MALE circumcision possibly reducing the risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. They are NOT referring to female circumcision having that benefit.

[Nikia]

239. That statement about female sex partners doesn't mean her circumcision

It means her partner's circumcision.
The theory is based on some study results is that a man is more likely to transmit diseases that could cause cervical cancer if he is not circumcised.
Female circumcision does not benefit a woman and it is usually harmful.

[Dorian Gray]

215. Best post

in this thread! I totally agree! Nobody's business what choices we make re: circumcision. I don't lean either way, but my husband has stronger feelings regarding it than I do. So, I will allow him to make the decision for our male children when the time comes.

[matt007]

53. I'm uncircumcised

My parents thought it was not ethical and i'm not Jewish so whats the point.

[ZombieHorde]

159. This is what you missed...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[racaulk]

54. Is it too late to order popcorn at the concession counter?

:popcorn:

[flvegan]

99. In a thread like this, it's never too late.

Can I have some?

[racaulk]

116. Sure thing, man. Pull up a seat!

I just ordered two bags, so we can share. :popcorn:

[seemslikeadream]

60. 2 boys 30 and 18

no circumcisions no problems EVER

[PeaceNikki]

64. 1 boy 17 circumcised, also no problems ever.

:shrug:

[seemslikeadream]

82. why did you have it done?

[PeaceNikki]

87. Well, to be 100% honest...

I was an 18 year-old mother. And, 17.5 years ago, at the hospital I delivered, it was still "standard"... not even a decision that was discussed as much as an assumption that it would happen. My sister's baby is only a few months old and they opted not to. In addition to it not being as "standard" as it was in 1991, she was twice the age I was when I gave birth and she's a medical professional. She had a lot more information than I did. If I gave birth today I might make a different decision, but I don't think I've harmed, mutilated, tortured or disfigured my son. And I would certainly never place those labels on anyone else who made the decision to circumcise.

[defendandprotect]

262. How do you know what may have been lost . . . sexually, for instance . . . ???

And what harm the psychological damage of this "surgery" does to the unprotected child?

[KamaAina]

61. Is there a FAQ or something where I could get some tips on this issue?

:spank:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

65. Foreskins are there for a reason.

To protect the penis from friction during sex, and to make intercourse easier.

The damn Victorian moralists started circing because they thought it would stop masturbation. And they wanted to make sex less pleasurable. They succeeded, at least from a female standpoint.

Sex is a lot less pleasurable with a circ'ed man than with an uncirc'ed man.

I assume that the man who was circ'ed as an infant doesn't know what he's missing.

Circ'ed penises can cause a lot of soreness and friction during sex.

[Lyric]

78. Anecdotally, I disagree.

I've been committed to my same-sex partner for nine years, but I was with men before her. I've experienced both circ'd and un-circ'd, and I vastly prefer a circumcised penis; they seem thicker and provide greater "inside" stimulation. I never had a problem with friction and soreness on my end, and I've never had to use a lubricant. I suppose different people have different tastes in such things.

[TZ]

79. Umm

Jews have been doing circs for far longer than the Victorian era.
Oh plus there is scientific data which shows there really isn't that much difference in sensation between circ and uncirc
And we have plenty of stuff that biology we don't REALLY need...appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth..all commonly removed

[anigbrowl]

232. That seems to depend who you ask, though

(in terms of whether sex is pleasurable for the recipient). Obviously as a guy who had it done when I was tiny, I don't know what I'm missing, but there isn't all that much difference during sexual arousal - the skin is rolled back from the top of the penis anyhow. Conversations with various friends over the years haven't led me to feel I'm missing out in any significant way.

I don't really feel like intimately detailing my sex life on DU, but I decided years ago that adamant opponents of circumcision were vastly overstating the differences and the negative effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision (slightly NSFW)

[defendandprotect]

263. True . . . and I think females are more aware of this, especially when you

have experienced both ---

Agree with the reasons ---

The damn Victorian moralists started circing because they thought it would stop masturbation. And they wanted to make sex less pleasurable. They succeeded, at least from a female standpoint.

Now we need males to stop mutilating their sons . . .

[Guava Jelly]

66. Untrimmed dogs are nasty

eom

[DaveJ]

68. No. I thought yes for awhile though.

I went through a 'stage' when I thought I'd been violated and bought into all the anti-circumcision hype. I'm not sure what made me so sensitive about it. I really don't care, now. What's the difference... Less sexual pleasure? The penis 'looks' bigger in the locker room?? Please....

It's done for legitimate reasons, whether you agree or not. I don't judge anyone.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, it's the parents' choice.

If someone wants to look at me like I'm mutilated and MY parents are morons, then that's their problem.

[Evoman]

69. I don't know....all I know is that 50 years after we cure aids, people will still be circumicizing.

At this point, it's less about aids prevention, and more about aesthetics. Some people may have aids in mind when they do it, but like most things done in our society, only about 10% consider things rationally.

[TreasonousBastard]

71. I think we should poll the women to...

see which they prefer, if either.

[defendandprotect]

264. UN --

[Mojambo]

72. Can we please cut this discussion off? n/t

[quip]

74. Cut me, Dick!

[TZ]

96. Thats all you got?

I think that you are just touching the "tip" of the iceburg here.....:evilgrin:

[quip]

117. Tell me about brit! However, your analysis is circumscribed.

[JVS]

76. Let the foreskin grow wild and free.

[Deja Q]

83. And whip it good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxH39QlRuhg

[seemslikeadream]

88. AND ADD SOME SALT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6BzNEZxbiw

[DarkTirade]

91. Now look what you've done...

http://xkcd.com/431/">

[Breeze54]

98. I didn't know it was an option in 1977, so

my 2 oldest were circumcised and I regretted it with the second. The Dr. screwed it up and almost removed his penis. :( He was in the ER at 4 days old, due to infection, was put on Amoxacillan and as a result developed an allergy to Penicillin. Argh! Needless to say, I never paid for the operation for the 2nd and the Dr. was happy I didn't sue! My 3rd son was born with (Dr.'s words) "a natural circumcision" and "pee'd left" but the Dr. said that wouldn't be a problem, :P so he was not circumcised. If I had known it WAS an option in '77 & '79, I'd have probably opted not to have it done at all.

[KG]

102. as a circumcised male, i'm glad my folks had me circumcised,

and i would want any male child of mine circumcised.

[ZombieHorde]

109. Why not let them choose for themselves when they are older?

[NickB79]

241. Large numbers of men would never choose to be circ'ed, even if it had HUGE health benefits

If a study appeared tomorrow that said circumcision up to the age of 25 would prevent 50% of all cancers, do you think young uncirc'ed men would be lining up to get cut?

No.

Even offered a large health incentive to have the procedure, many would still not go in due to the irrational fear that anything involving sharp objects and genitals generates. Does that mean that circumcision would be wrong because large numbers of people refused it? No; it just shows logic being over-riden by emotion. If you believe that circumcision has health benefits to preventing STD's, it is in the child's best interest to have the operation done for their own good.

Would you let children choose for themselves when to go to the doctor for a shot, or when to have a cavity drilled and filled?

[BalancedGoat]

245. ...

So we can't trust them to make the "right" choice when they grow up, so we make it for them then?

:wow:

[ZombieHorde]

251. Large numbers of men would never choose to be circ'ed

Should that not be their choice?

Babies don't fuck or get cavities (no teeth), but they do get diseases.

Aren't shots and amputations apples and oranges anyway?

[defendandprotect]

265. Why . . . have you seen the video or considered any of the benefits of NOT doing it?

[uppityperson]

105. New poll: Has zombie been taking poll question lessons from

boojatta?

[ZombieHorde]

113. It's true, I joined boojatta's internet course on fucked up DU polls.

[uppityperson]

114. !

:toast: :rofl:

[last_texas_dem]

106. Yay! a circumcision thread!

:popcorn:

In all seriousness, I don't see circumcision of males as an ethical/unethical question. There is some evidence that it is a useful procedure for health reasons and, outside of DU, I'v yet to meet a circumcised male claiming long-standing emotional scarring from the procedure. (Of course, I don't go around discussing opinions of circumcision with men IRL so perhaps that's a moot point...)

FWIW, I recall a DUer who had to have the procedure later in life and said that sex was at least as pleasurable (maybe more pleasurable; I can't recall...) after being "mutilated." I felt that that was a nice refutation of those claiming that sex is soooo much less pleasurable for the circumcised; unless one has had sex both cut and uncut they wouldn't really know how it feels...

[LeftyMom]

111. Infant circumsision is superstitious child abuse.

No child should suffer genital mutilation.

[depakid]

115. Sounds to me like you're the one who's superstitious

or emotionally involved for one reason or another.

The science on the matter is as clear and convincing as anything I've come across in recent years.

[LeftyMom]

124. The studies that suggest benefits to circumsicion are poorly designed.

There's a reason no mainstream pediatric group suggests routine circumcision- if it did even a fraction of what you claim, they'd be all over it.

[PeaceNikki]

126. And conversely, if studies proved it were merely "superstitious child abuse"

offering great risk and no benefit, it just wouldn't be an option.

My son was circumcised. Like I said upthread, I was a very young mother without information or really discussion, it was assumed. Put in the position today, I would maybe make a different decision. However, I still refuse to judge others or subscribe to the idea that it's mutilation, abuse, unethical or any other emotionally charged word.

[LeftyMom]

127. It's hard to create change when so many people involved are emotionally invested.

Criticize it and they think you're insulting their parenting, or worse yet, their penis. That doesn't change the facts, but it does explain why change is so slow in coming.

Also, I'd like to point out that many insurers and public medical providers no longer cover infant circumcision. Other countries mostly quit ages ago, having realized it's stupid and wasteful, but of course Americans lag a few decades behind on that one because so many people in this country are fucking puritans.

Cutting off part of another person's sexual organs is abusive.

[PeaceNikki]

136. I'd like to point out that, like a lot of causes

one can do much better in effecting change when they don't use the emotionally charged judgemental terms used throughout this thread, including you.

If insurers are no longer paying, that means fewer people will make this choice and that advances your "cause". People are becoming more educated about it. Doctors and hospitals aren't assuming it's an automatic on newborn babies anymore. Parents are being educated, educating themselves and making informed decisions. That's all good stuff.

However, saying that that those who make a decision that is in opposition to your beliefs are abusers is just emotional knee-jerk shit. Exactly the same thing as the anti-choice crowd tactics of calling women and doctors "murderers". They are dead set in their belief that abortion is murder. And they use the emotional "bomb" every chance they get. And they do nothing to try to reduce the number of abortions. They offer no prevention, no support systems, no real "solution" to the cause they claim to hold so dear to their hearts. They scream "murderer" and expect you to be emotionally jarred enough to see things their way. It's not effective. And neither is your calling parents abusers.

[LeftyMom]

139. Yes, the circ rate is dropping, it's less than half in civilized parts of the country.

Still, some abuse is still too much, and there's no point in pussyfooting around the issue of genital mutilation. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but honesty is worthwhile.

[PeaceNikki]

140. My "feelings" are fine, thanks.

I, and many, just immediately put up a wall and dismiss what people say when they throw the freeper-like emotional "bombs". I am always open to discussion and open-minded about topics. However, I can't take a discussion seriously when one is coming from a place of emotion and not reason, throwing around judgemental "digs" as often as they can. Honesty can and is often done well without the weapons of mass emotion.

[LeftyMom]

141. Cutting off a third of an infant's penis for no good reason is abusive.

There's really no other way to look at it, provided any intellectual honesty is involved.

[PeaceNikki]

144. Well, despite your beliefs, the "for no good reason" is still rather debatable.

Just like the question with the anti-choice crowd of when "life" begins.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[LeftyMom]

148. If there was a good reason, insurers would cover it and the APA would recommend it.

The trend is actually in the opposite direction, because it's a cure in search of a disease, and has been since they figured out that it didn't stop men from wanking.

[TZ]

149. insurers don't cover birth control either.

Does that mean it doesn't work?

[LeftyMom]

157. Where on earth is that? Here they have to, legally.

Even religious organizations like Catholic Charities.

I'm enormously glad not to live in some kiddie mutilating, woman suppressing backwater. Yay California. :D

[PeaceNikki]

161. They don't cover them here in WI.

Nope. Nada. Nothing. Didn't in IL, either.

[PeaceNikki]

156. While we're being intellectually honest and all, insurers deny coverage on a LOT of procedures that

are not only done for good reason, but also a lot that are lifesaving and very necessary. Those fuckers bail on ANYTHING that they can. Again, while I tend to lean in the direction of the trend, their decision not to cover is a far cry from a valid argument on its benefits.

[LeftyMom]

173. Like I said, no mainstream medical organization recommends the procedure, either.

If it was beneficial, the AAP would encourage it.

[BalancedGoat]

153. What would you consider a good reason then?

I know of none.

[PeaceNikki]

158. Look, I am not on this thread to tout the merits of circumcision.

So I won't. But I also don't find throwing around the terms used here useful in any way. Nor do I think it's OK to so harshly judge people who can argue the merits and make an educated decision.

[BalancedGoat]

165. Fair enough.

I agree with you that emotionally charged language brings little to an intellectual discussion. However, I disagree with your assertion that it's debatable. The only decent argument for circumcision, in my opinion, is about HIV; however that argument holds no water when the debate is whether parents should arbitrarily make the decision rather than wait until the male is old enough to make an informed decision on their own.

[swimboy]

200. Props!

:thumbsup:

It's hard to put it any more succinctly than that. Thanks!

[anigbrowl]

234. What?! Nobody's getting a third of their penis cut off.

What a concept. There's isolated cases of it going horribly wrong due to incompetence, but I can tell you for a fact I'm not missing a third of mine, and neither are most circumcised men. You're not being very intellectually honest yourself.

[David Zephyr]

247. Hyperbole discredits the argument, doesn't it?

Why claim it's one third? Why stop there? They might as well extend the dishonest exaggeration to 1/2 or 3/4.

This thread comes from a culturally biased point of view and accusatory at that.

Either choice is fine. Conflating what is done to young female infants to male circumcision is simply silly.

Usually these threads are started so someone can talk about his dick in public. That's disturbing.

[ZombieHorde]

277. I have not made a single comment about my genitals.

[David Zephyr]

246. You are a good mom. Period.

You did not "mutilate" your son. This thread is offensive and culturally biased.

The scientific and medical studies redundantly now show that circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV. It has other benefits, too. Do I recommend it? No and I don't discourage it. It's a personal choice and it does not mutilate or scar the child's psyche. At all. They don't lose sensation either. This is just cultural bias.

Conflating it with truly sadistic female mutilation is not only over the top, it diminishes the credibility of those who make such statements.

Some of this is just anti-semitic and some is just guys wanting to start a thread to talk about the "superiority" of their dicks in a public forum. That's what is disturbing.

As a mother, you have nothing to be concerned about. Parents that choose either way should not be judged. Period.

These circumcision threads pop up here about every three months or so. I wish Skinner would ban them because they have a sordid drift to them.

[depakid]

128. Hogwash

They've been analyzed replicated and commented on for over 2 years now and the findings represent the current scientific consensus.

Run a pub med search and see for yourself.

That some professional organizations haven't updated their recommendations yet is a more matter of institutional inertia than any bona fide criticism of the results of the studies.

[LeftyMom]

133. I'm well read on the subject, and stand by what I said.

Have a lovely day. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

266. There is no provable "science" on this vs the harm that is done physically

emotionally, psychologically for the child ---

The "science" is like suggesting that ear infections are likely so let's cut off the child's ear!!

[Danger Mouse]

118. Mandatory circumcisions for ALL. Signed into LAW. On pain of DEATH.

That is my position.

[DarkTirade]

119. No! No circumcisions allowed! On pain of public flogging!

That is the correct position! :P

[ZombieHorde]

120. Circumcision for those who wish to be cirmcumcised is my position.

[DarkTirade]

121. So... circumcisions for some, tiny american flags for others?

[ZombieHorde]

123. That is one of my favorite Simpons line.

[DarkTirade]

130. In all seriousness, I voted the first.

I'm not going to claim that male circumcision is a 'mutilation', however it is a permanent body modification. And there really isn't a good reason to do it at that age, IMO. And I don't see how performing a medically unnecessary permanent body modification can be acceptable when the person its being done to isn't capable of deciding for himself can ever be the right decision unless it is medically necessary at the time. (Which does happen sometimes. Not all foreskins come out perfectly.)

To those who grow up one way or another, that way seems natural. All in all it's not a huge body modification. However just because one way is what you're used to doesn't make it right, nor does the fact that it's not a big deal make it right either. However I cannot in good conscience condone such a thing for someone incapable of deciding for himself.

However, on my personal 1-10 level scale of wrongness, piercing a baby's ears is a .5, male circumcision is a 1, and female circumcision is a 247.3. (Give or take about a .25 in either direction) So while I may disagree with it, I'm not gonna start condemning people who do it as horrible people. I just think that they need to stop and think about it from another perspective and not just go with the flow. Male circumcision itself is not a good or bad thing... however lack of choice IS.

[Writer]

132. YES! Another opportunity to post...

The GENERAL ACCEPTANCE PENIS SONG

((cue acoustical guitar))

Gather 'round, every man
Every man of every land.
Bring along nature's bounty
Bring it on - from every county!

The wind blows, but we don't care
Sitting bare on our derrières!
Brothers all, let's stand and sing
Our hands entwined but not coup-ling!

I look at you, you look at me
We're nature's brothers, can't you see?
You have a hood, and yours is free
And together now, we will sing:

No skin should stand between us!
No Bris Milah separates us!
We're brothers all, can't you see?
We're all one penis - you and me!

The fighting has brought ill-repute
To decisions made without dispute,
By boys and men, every day,
To keep the hood or let it free!

We handle every one the same,
We handle it - it's not a game!
We handle it, and handle it some more,
(I think I've lost track of the score...)

But we're together, our hands entwined,
It's time to let our hate unwind.
Your dick is capped, and his is bare
And together now, we will sing:

No skin should stand between us!
No Bris Milah separates us!
We're brothers all, can't you see?
We're all one penis - you and me!

Listen close, hear that sound?
It's the rush of something profound.
It's not a fart, but our resound.
Brothers, let's not goof around!

We came together for a cause.
What other reason would give us pause?
But our manly bits, proud and bare
Would there be a greater care?

So brothers all, look around!
We're together here, gender bound!
You are hooded, his is free,
And together now, we will sing:

No skin should stand between us!
No Bris Milah separates us!
We're brothers all, can't you see?
We're all one penis - you and me!

((music slows))

We're brothers all... can't you see?
We're all one penis...

JUST YOU AND ME!

[Bluebear]

134. Female "circumcision" is now more commonly called "mutilation" or "female genital cutting"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

[ZombieHorde]

143. Mutilation and genital cutting describe male circumcision just as well.

[Bluebear]

146. But the male is still left with a functional organ.

Your statement may be true, but it is in fact not commonly called mutilation and genital cutting.

[Chan790]

166. Except by the WHO who don't differentiate by gender on the issue.

They categorize any genital modification performed outside of "informed consent and free of imposition or coercion" as mutilation regardless of gender. It's why they only fund and support (as part of ongoing HIV prevention programs) male-circumcision efforts in Africa performed on adults.

[defendandprotect]

267. How functional . . .. what is lost . . . ???

"Mutilation" doesn't have to result in total loss --- look at Chinese foot binding ---

and other ridiculous mutilations -- like neck rings --- ??? And many other stupidities we could

recite!!!

[Lorien]

192. Which is accurate, because it's NOTHING like male circumcision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Avwuf3hr5Q&feature=related

[debbierlus]

142. I had my son circumcised. He doesn't appear to have been harmed by it.

This was 21 years ago, and I didn't give it much thought. I was really young, and it was just what my family did. Many men I have talked to about this since stated they were glad they were circumcised (reasons being everything to do with the 'look' of it, to reduced incidence of STD's, and conforming to a societal norm).

The comparisons between female genital mutilation and circumcision are apples and oranges. Males who are circumcised do NOT lose their ability to experience sexual pleasure, and it isn'a a means instituted to control their sexuality. Women in cultures that genitally mutilate their females are experiencing a severe form of abuse. I know many men who are circumcised and none report it to have effected them in the least, in any negative way.

[ZombieHorde]

145. Did you watch the procedure?

My wife watched some a few months ago. She told me that the babies screamed during the procedure and then shook in their cribs afterwards.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[debbierlus]

176. Yes, it was quick, he cried for about two minutes

They didn't put him in a crib afterwards, I held him right away and then he fell asleep breastfeeding. It healed up quick and he didn't seem uncomfortable after it. It just didn't seem that huge of a deal.

[ZombieHorde]

177. That is a much better story than the ones my wife told me.

Or that horrible video.

[defendandprotect]

268. You watched it being done --- ???

[jakem]

290. i not only watched, but held my son in my arms while it was done.

he cried for about 30 seconds, and was over it completely.

necessary, no. cruel? hardly.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

292. Nope, no cruelty here, move along.

You deal your son the cruelest of blows and feel no remorse, could it be manifestation of The Boot Camp Mentality?
------------------------------------
Human beings are so made that the ones who do the crushing feel nothing; it is the person crushed who feels what is happening. Unless one has placed oneself on the side of the oppressed, to feel with them, one cannot understand.
--Simone Weil

[jakem]

304. overreaction much?

look. my son was circumsized. he is jewish. it was not done lightly, not without extensive discussion.

it was done in a hospital setting, taking all of 5 seconds, and with literally 15-30 seconds of apparent discomfort.


i completely understand the argument against doing the procedure. it is not a medical necessity by any means.

but calling it this terrible cruel thing is just not my experience.


i work in healthcare, and have talked with people who have spent much of their adult lives trying to recapture their lost foreskin.


get over it. it is just a penis.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

307. You take a meat axe to a boy's penis in the name of

"childish superstition" and charge ME with overreaction!
------------------------
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

In the letter, dated January 3 1954, Albert Einstein wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
-----------------------
"Get over it"? Get over WHAT exactly? My penis was/is not mutiliated, nor was my father's, my son's or his son's. I do what I can to prevent children having their sex lives fucked up by ignorant adults. Shoot me!

[jakem]

310. lol.

[DarkTirade]

186. I don't see the issue of male circumcision as one of harm

since it's a body modification that people live with just fine.

It's a matter of choice. Once it's done it can't be undone. And an infant isn't capable of choosing. It can always be done when the child is old enough to choose for himself. It can't be undone when the child is old enough to choose.

[defendandprotect]

269. But how do you know what is lost? Physically and psychologically???

Like chosing a religion or not --- this is not something that should be imposed upon a child.
It is a decision for a mature adult ---

[depakid]

295. Well, it certainly sounds like you're traumatized

Otherwise you wouldn't be sounding off like a scientifically illiterate fundie.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

296. It's a perfectly reasonable question, try answering it. n/t

[depakid]

297. It's an absurd question and proposition

that I have NEVER ONCE heard anyone mention in public health circles or anywhere else -except for a few zealots on DU.

Anti-vaccination folks I've heard, but circumcision obsession (particularly in the face of what's now overwhelming evidence of a strong protective effect against disease) is a strange phenomenon that seems to me to have a more to do with "the psychology of prior investment" and "buyers remorse," than with any rational weighing of benefits or drawbacks.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

300. Given the scientific knowledge about prostate cancer...

Your raison d'etre for circumcision, depakid, is evidently focused on disease prevention. Since, if they live long enough, nearly all men eventually get prostate cancer, you would also vigorously champion prostate gland removal simultaneously with circumcision thus totally eradicating cancer of the prostate in one fell swoop?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life.
--Bertolt Brecht

[depakid]

306. WTF?

Never heard that before (though I have heard that wankers are less likely to get prostate cancer).

LOL.

Seriously.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942

[asteroid2003QQ47]

308. "I have heard that wankers are less likely to get prostate cancer)."

That knowledge must be quite comforting to you.

[depakid]

309. LOL.

Use it or lose it.

There's also a genetic component for prostate cancer that's also linked to a family history of breast cancer:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208131722.htm

[ZombieHorde]

147. Here is a video of male circumcision.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-996933161812115219&q=circumcision&ei=EtlFSJbhEYjkqgP39sSzDA&hl=en

[TZ]

152. Oh good

Why don't you post a picture of an abortion while you are at it?

[ZombieHorde]

155. Because this thread is about circumcision.

Edit to add: Woman choose to get abortions, babies do not choose to get circumcised.

[TZ]

168. babies don't get to choose anything btw

And I'm jewish so all my male relatives have been circumcised. No issues.
I object strongly to your fundie scare tactics here.
Just like the vegans who try to "persuade" meat eaters to change their ways by posting slaughterhouse videos. emotional manipulation is truly a slimy tactic.
Edit: pro-lifers argue that a baby doesn't get to choose its abortion. How is that different?

[ZombieHorde]

172. What is wrong about waiting to get circumcised?

What is so horrible about letting everyone choose for themselves whether or not their genitals are altered?

[ZombieHorde]

252. pro-lifers argue that a baby doesn't get to choose its abortion. How is that different?

Babies don't get aborted, didn't you know that?

[defendandprotect]

270. How do you know there are "no issues" . . . ???

How do you know what benefits may have been lost?
Obviously done to you for religious reasons . . . yeet look at the David ---'
he has his foreskin --- only a slight clip in in ---

Maybe it's time to begin to listen to what is being said to you rather than labeling what
you don't understand as "scare tactics" ---

I'm also a VEGAN and wonder how much common sense it takes to understand that running vegetation
thru a cow and eating it is the hard way around getting nutrition?
And that it's harmful to the planet?
You know that thing we supposedly religiously believe we have "dominion over." More nonsense!

Are you suggesting that the video of the circumcision or the video of the slaughterhouses
aren't real. Or that there aren't worse videos?

Children should not have circumcision nor religion forced upon them ---

How is abortion different from circumcision . . . ?

Usually parents make this decision for the child due to being indoctrinated in organized patriarchal religious beliefs.

Abortion is often about a woman acting in self-defense to protect her own life from a dangerous
pregnancy --- in later term abortions.

Earlier abortions are based on women deciding whether they can or cannot physically and emotionally carry forth a pregnancy and ultimately take on the long-term/lifelong responsibilities of a child.
Can a fertilized egg or a fetus make those decisions effectively?
Does a fertilized egg or a fetus have sway over the established life of a female?






And I'm jewish so all my male relatives have been circumcised. No issues.
I object strongly to your fundie scare tactics here.
Just like the vegans who try to "persuade" meat eaters to change their ways by posting slaughterhouse videos. emotional manipulation is truly a slimy tactic.
Edit: pro-lifers argue that a baby doesn't get to choose its abortion. How is that different?

[Fox Mulder]

163. Anyone who supports this is a monster.

It's awful. I would never do this to my kid if I had one.

:scared:

[TZ]

167. What about people who support abortions?

Abortion is a NASTY procedure. And its interesting that ZombieHorde is now using Pro-life tactics.
BTW, most medical procedures are unpleasant. I've been through some unpleasant stuff that would bother people if they saw a video of it, but was needed.

[Fox Mulder]

169. They're two completely different things.

And boys don't need circumcisions.

[TZ]

170. Most scientists I know (and I'm a biologist)

Do think circumcision is a STD reducer.
And no, the issues raised here are not. I think anyone so anti-circumcison should also be anti-abortion. Babies can't choose a simple procedure that they WILL NOT REMEMBER nor can they choose not to be aborted.

[Fox Mulder]

174. You know what else reduces STDs?

Wearing protection.

As I said before, abortion and circumcision are two completely different topics.

[cbc5g]

179. I'm not a monster when the evidence points to many benefits

The only reason the foreskin is there is to protect against brush and sharp flora when running around naked as animals. We've come a long way since then.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

[Chan790]

197. These are all legitimate reasons for one to decide to get circumcised as an adult.

Not one of them justifies mutilating a child.

#2 doesn't mention that penile cancer, a late developer, like late (after age 70) prostate cancers are almost never fatal. You typically die of something else first and often they decline to treat them because treatment is worse than the disease.

#3 is misandrous. No disease reduction justifies mutilation. Gardasil reduces HPV and cervical cancer by far more than circumcision. (Some estimates say the HPV reduction may exceed 50%) If one wishes to suggest that circumcision be mandated, let's mandate HPV vaccination first as it will have a larger effect.

#8 is the only one geared specifically towards infants and it ignores that infected circumcisions are rather common in their own right.

[cbc5g]

203. Is otoplasty or other surgical operations that dont harm the patient mutilation? No they aren't.

So stop with the scare words. It's a choice and it isn't mutilation and the benefits are there for those who choose to have it.

There is no benefit for doing it to females and it destroys their sexuality. That IMO is mutilation because it harms the females for life. I am not harmed by circumcision and I don't even remember the operation at all.

[defendandprotect]

275. Of course this is mutilation and it's embedded in sexual fears of masturbation . . .

and desires to control human sexuality ---

If you don't have your foreskin there is no way for you to know the sexual benefits of having it!!!

How do you know that you are not "harmed" by circumcision ---

A newborn, strapped to a board, with no anesthesia will surely have some memory even if only
of being abandoned to pain and torture by parents ---

[defendandprotect]

273. Aren't the Academy of Pediatricians still avowedly AGAINST circumcision . . .???

Yet on and on it goes based on this B.S. ---

Women get urinary infections --- how can that be when they have no foreskin????

[pitohui]

225. real people don't/can't use protection all the time

i can't even imagine living such a life that you always used protection, real world, it doesn't work that way, especially if you're married

bottom line -- heterosexual rate of HIV transmission in america versus in africa -- and if you try to tell me it's because north americans keep their pants on, please, tell me another

sometimes you can't wait 20 years for all the final studies to be made, when you have to make a decision "now" you have to make a decision "now" -- the operation will be a lot riskier and more trouble when baby is 20

[defendandprotect]

276. Betrayal and bisexuality, not to mention homosexuality in marriages . . .

is one reason why so many females get infected ---

This was also true in Latin America/Brazil --- much to the shock of the doctors there who didn't
realize how many Brazilian males were bisexual or homosexual . . . and married.

However, you're also not coming to the point of understanding the lost benefits --- ???

[BalancedGoat]

193. So?

That's not a good argument when it comes to why parents should arbitrarily make the decision rather than wait until the male can give informed consent.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

282. IF circumcision REDUCES...

STD's, then logic dictates that penisectomy
would eliminate STD's entirely! Hey,
it's only a little piece of skin,
why not?

[readmoreoften]

301. That's idiotic. One is a fetus. One is a baby.

One is inside a woman's body, one is it's own being.

A baby also theoretically won't "remember" that it's been molested or slapped in the face, but it doesn't mean it's okay. There are almost no circumcisions in New Zealand whatsoever: 0.35% of the population. I suppose STDs must be rampant there. :eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

182. "Pro-life tactics" is an ad hominem attack.

So far, no one will answer this, let's see if you are different.

Is it not better to wait until the person can make an informed decision about altering their genitals?

Why is the procedure so urgent that it trumps choice?

[Caretha]

236. Apples & oranges

strawmen usually sink like the Titanic her on DU.

[defendandprotect]

271. Circumcision is not something that is "needed" . . .

If you had a wife or daughter whose life was seriously threatened by a pregnancy gone wrong, you would likely conclude that abortion was "needed" ---

[Taverner]

162. Sigh - do what you want to do

There is an argument that you are mutilating ones genitals. Circumcision does just that.

There is an argument that by mutilating said genitals, the child is less susceptible to HIV. There is truth in that too.

I didn't circumcise my boy, and I'm Jewish.

I don't judge those who do though...

[ZombieHorde]

183. That is my point, but with your own genitals.

[Taverner]

190. Yes, I do wish I still had my foreskin

I really do

But should there be a law against it?

[ZombieHorde]

196. "But should there be a law against it?"

I don't think so. I think that the decision should be delayed until later in life.

[mainegreen]

171. PENIS!!!

[ZombieHorde]

175. lol

[Crunchy Frog]

180. It's nice to see that the consensus is shifting in a more civilized direction.

[otherlander]

187. Yes. It's cruel and unnecessary.

[aquart]

199. Then do NOT circumcise your sons.

But what flaming brass balls you have to dictate to the rest of us.

Amazing how many ways anti-semitism is sent forth into the world. I wonder who circumcises, oh, let me think.

[BalancedGoat]

201. If you think it's only people of the Jewish faith who circumcise, you are out of touch.

I would be surprised if Jews even made up the majority of circumcised males in the US.

[otherlander]

216. WTF?

You're calling me an anti-semitist now?
:wtf:

[David Zephyr]

244. I think you are on to something, aquart.

These threads always bring out cultural biases. I agree.

[cbc5g]

188. Perhaps some evidence?

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html



1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

[BalancedGoat]

195. If a man wants to get a circumcision, that's fine.

It seems to me that #8 is the only point that directly relates to the argument as to why parents should arbirtarily make the choice rather than wait until the male is old enough to give informed consent.

[Midwest_Doc]

226. Wrong!!

The data touting "disease protection" reach an erroneous conclusion. It can be argued that the demographics of the circumcised population mitigate in favor of better health (eg. circumcised men enjoy generally better health because of socioeconomic issues, not circumcision.)

Do these same pro-genital-mutilation people advocate bilateral mastectomies for women at birth as 100% protection against developing breast cancer later in life?

[readmoreoften]

302. Sorry I won't take serious any medical advice that uses the term "knob" with an exclamation point.

How about proper health care in the United States so we don't have to chop off the body parts of infants for "health" reasons. That's why they're all dropping dead of AIDS in New Zealand where no one gets it done.

[cynatnite]

191. Yay! Another circ thread!

:popcorn:

[SarahB]

194. The case against circumcision

The Case Against Circumcision
By Paul M. Fleiss

In one of our most-requested articles, Mothering explores why circumcision is hardly ever necessary, and how parents can empower themselves to avoid ceding to the "claims" of the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry.

Western countries have no tradition of circumcision. In antiquity, the expansion of the Greek and Roman Empires brought westerners into contact with the peoples of the Middle East, some of whom marked their children with circumcision and other sexual mutilations. To protect these children, the Greeks and Romans passed laws forbidding circumcision.1 Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has passed many similar laws.2,3 The traditional Western response to circumcision has been revulsion and indignation.

Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.4

In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.5 The antisexual motivations behind an operation that entails cutting off part of the penis are obvious.

The radical practice of routinely circumcising babies did not begin until the Cold War era. This institutionalization of what amounted to compulsory circumcision was part of the same movement that pathologized and medicalized birth and actively discouraged breastfeeding. Private-sector, corporate-run hospitals institutionalized routine circumcision without ever consulting the American people. There was no public debate or referendum. It was only in the 1970s that a series of lawsuits forced hospitals to obtain parental consent to perform this contraindicated but highly profitable surgery. Circumcisers responded by inventing new "medical" reasons for circumcision in an attempt to scare parents into consenting.

Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the "reasons," later.

Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human body into a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a function and purpose. Evolution has determined that mammals' genitals should be sheathed in a protective, responsive, multipurpose foreskin. Every normal human being is born with a foreskin. In females, it protects the glans of the clitoris; in males, it protects the glans of the penis. Thus, the foreskin is an essential part of human sexual anatomy

snip

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html (with actual STUDIES to support data)

For the record, I have 4 boys (three bio, one step). All but my youngest bio son was circumcised. He is almost 7 and I am very glad he's intact. Importantly, so is he.

[depakid]

298. You do realize this guy's a quack, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_M._Fleiss

[asteroid2003QQ47]

305. "He was sentenced to one day in prison"

Wow, one whole day in prison makes him Public Enemy Number One AND a Quack;
only in the eyes of a fucking Puritan!

[BalancedGoat]

312. He's also been accused of "gross negligence" in his care of several patients.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

314. Hang him now, trial later?

Anyone can be "accused" of anything, what is the outcome?

[defendandprotect]

198. Yes . . . it's a physical and moral outrage ...

I asked my husband to look into the issue and to be sure that this was the right thing for my
son ---

Unfortunately, I didn't look into it --- !!!

[Mind_your_head]

204. Yes

I'm so glad that I had only daughters, b/c I would have surely circumcised/mutilated my sons back in the day.

(and I'm sorry for those boyz/men who were circumcised before they could give consent)

As a woman, who's had sex a few times with different 'loving' partners :eyes: ...... uncircumsized is better. Personal opinion......anecdotal evidence.......but don't slice your boyz! is what I say! RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............

[cbc5g]

205. A surgical operation that benefits the individual isn't mutilation

Mutilation seems to me to requires scars, emotional and physical. I dont have any, other circumcised men dont have it.

I see no evidence that says it harms the individual and i see plenty of evidence that it helps. I'm circumcised and I have crazy good sex. Most of the porns have circumcised men. Coincidence?


If you want to call a minor surgical operation mutilation then maybe you should speak out against hair transplantation or otoplasty or face lifts or breast augmentation? And these only help the persons self image, not give scientifically proven benefits. Most of the women I know don't want to be with an uncircumcised man because it can be nasty and smelly with all the bacteria that builds up under the skin. As a male, it is sooo much easier to be circumcised and I'm glad it was done when I couldn't make memories.

[Mind_your_head]

206. Oh bauuush1

Nice try.....thanks for "playing" AND 'welcome to DU!

[cbc5g]

207. Nice response but.,..

Dont DARE try and say that the majority of American men have been "mutilated" when there are females around the world that actually ARE mutilated and actually have their sexual feelings erased. Circumcised men are able to perform and feel during sex the same as those who aren't but females who are ACTUALLY mutilated can't feel anything. Don't even dare compare the two, it's a slap in the face to those women in Islamic countries who suffer for life.

Oh, thanks for the welcome, I've been lurking for years, dem for life =)

[Mind_your_head]

240. Good point! Thanks. (seriously)

Mutilated women are in even worse shape than mutilated men. Tis true.

I'm obviously not "deprogrammed" enough right now.....but I'm "working on it"....thanks for the clarity! (Please keep it coming!) :hi:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

208. Male or female, "good" or "bad," it's genital mutilation,

get over it!
Not cut at birth means I have 36 square inches (3"X6"X2) of
very specialized nerve cells. Anyone who thinks that is
vestigial is in serious need of an education.

[Vickers]

210. I not only had my son circumsized...

...I had a full-color tattoo of ME inked on his back.

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

[girl gone mad]

238. Touche. n/t

[New Dawn]

211. Unethical for any non-adult.

Even if the parents are religious. It is a serious choice affecting one's body and should only be made by a consenting adult. I oppose circumcision of infants for the same reason that I am also pro-choice regarding abortion. People should decide what to do with their own bodies.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

212. Question for those here who advocate mutilation by degree.

As a result of the tragic accident described below, Destiny, 13, lost a leg and Rachel, 14, lost a foot, both life changing events.
Did Destiny but not Rachel suffer mutilating trauma?
What if the 14 year old was a boy who lost "only" a foot, would he have suffered
a life changing mutilation?
---------------------------
Girls, 13 and 14, hit by train, lose limbs after sunbathing on trestle

By Associated Press

May 28, 2008 7:19 PM

LEBANON, Maine — Two teenage girls sunbathing on a railroad trestle lost limbs when a train came upon them unexpectedly in this New Hampshire border town, police said Wednesday.
<>
Destiny Phaneuf, 13, of Lebanon, lost her leg just below the knee; Rachel Brown 14, also of Lebanon, lost a foot,...

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080528/NEWS/80528027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more question:
Do I expect a rational answer? Given much of the dialog above, no, not really.

[anigbrowl]

233. Sunbathing on a railroad trestle? OMG, that's stupid

I'm sorry for these kids, but it's still idiotic.

As this relates to circumcision, I really don't feel mutilated...not any more than by having my ears pierced. It's a bit of spare skin, it's not as if I lost feeling in the rest of genitalia. Having just had some surgery to correct a testicular torsion (twisting around, cuts off blood flow) I've had plenty of time to think about this issue over the last few weeks.

[Athelwulf]

213. My right to choose what to do with my foreskin was denied to me.

You bet your ass it's unethical.

[Fireweed247]

218. If it weren't so traumatic, they wouldn't need to do it to a helpless infant

You don't see too many grown men choosing to do it, because it would be insanely painful and unnecessary.

I think it is funny that people don't think it harms an infant because they don't have the ability to say "what the hell are you doing to me!!!" But then men go through life with this horrible fear of someone harming them in that area, just watch a guy cringe and squirm if he sees someone get kicked there. I guess it helps with compassion though.

[Midlodemocrat]

222. My dad was circumcized as an adult during WWII.

He kept getting infection after infection, and hygiene was not the problem, he was a very clean man.

He said it was excruiating and didn't want his sons to ever have to go through that, so all four of my brothers are circumcized.

Based on the information he had at the time, I don't see that as mutilation. He was trying to have his sons avoid what he went through.

[GaYellowDawg]

242. Only a female poster would make that reply

But then men go through life with this horrible fear of someone harming them in that area

Well, DUH - if you had balls, it would only take one shot to them for you to react exactly the same way. Men don't react like that because of some unremembered trauma of circumcision. We react like that because any kind of blow to that area hurts like nothing else. It has nothing to do with being circumcised.

Only a female poster would attribute the testicle-shot cringe to circumcision. And it's a really stupid attribution at that. Confine your arguments to what you have the ability to understand.

[Fireweed247]

250. you are probably right

I guess when one of your first experiences as a baby is to have your penis cut with excruciating pain, that wouldn't affect you at all. Just my stupid psychology mindset getting in the way again...

[Indenturedebtor]

221. Seriously how many guys can honestly say that they have a hard time getting off?

In all honesty and when on drugs or drinking doesn't count. "Oh my wife complains all the time that she doesn't have 3 hours to have sex with me..." Riiiight :eyes:

Circumcision provides real medical and hygiene benefits. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

[LiberalPersona]

228. I feel

that it's an unfair practice, I would have preferred to make my own decision on whether to do it or not when I became an adult. Both ways have their pros and cons which should be compared by each individual alone.

[last_texas_dem]

229. Damn, some of the comments on this thread really cut to the bone...

(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

[asteroid2003QQ47]

230. Circumcision? Why settle for half a loaf?

Karla: ''Duane, why are poking that gun in the water?''

Duane: ''I was thinking of shooting my dick off .
It''s caused nothing but trouble my whole life .''

--Texasville (1990)

[RedCappedBandit]

237. If you think its so necessary, why not just wait till your kid is of age?

Whats the rush

[asteroid2003QQ47]

248. Lo the awesome power of ignorance and emotional investment!

Gotta preempt STD's; no time to waste.
Begone ALL vestigial body parts, BEGONE!
:sarcasm:

[rucky]

253. I have a very strong opinion about this.

and that is...















CIRCUMCISION THREADS RAWK!!!!

[Mind_your_head]

291. I feel your pain ......

even though I don't have a penis.....but I could if I did.

Do you understand about my vagina? Yeast?.....you know, YEAST?

mebbe we should just all have a healthy 'respect' (and a healthy 'conversation', instead of hiding all of our 'body parts' and their inherent 'problems' in the closet!

That's what *I say* 'gumpf',

M_Y_H

[defendandprotect]

256. This is another whacko tradiiton embedded in "religious" teachings ---

what does it take for us to realize how much harm religion has done in the world ???

[pnwmom]

261. Do you know that the United Nations and the World Health Organization,

after carrying out extensive long term research in Africa involving thousands of subjects over a period of several years, found a 60% decrease in AIDS transmission, above and beyond that from condom use alone?

The top AIDS specialists in the world met at the annual AIDS conference in Brazil last year, where the recommendation was announced. None of them are promoting this for religious reasons.

[BalancedGoat]

272. If I'm not mistaken...

... the WHO is advocating for adult circumcision. If one accepts those conclusions 100% (I've read questions regarding the validity of those studies), it still isn't a good argument for circumcising infants rather that waiting until they are old enough to give informed consent.

[defendandprotect]

286. Wow . . . !!

[defendandprotect]

285. The original purpose was religious . . . are you denying that?

Now . . . check the David and you will find a small notch --- not removal of his foreskin.

This is a money maker for many in the medical field --- for one thing.

Additionally, we have a lot of religous influence on the UN -- it holds the Vatican as a
soverign nation!!!

How long have we been working on HIV/AIDS and we're really not even sure what the hell it is!!!???

Brazil? Brazil's doctors weren't even aware until the epidemic was full blown that MARRIED Brazilian
males were often homosexual and/or bisexual---!!! At a rate of about 30%. How much transmission
could we knock out if we were honest about sexuality?

There is a lot entangled in issue --- and it's not always what it seems.

Rather like much else of our "health care" which is so much based on slash and burn medicine --
and "cures" --- !!!

[asteroid2003QQ47]

293. Humanity will probably die a "crib death" long before...

evolutionary advancement frees it from the scourge that is religion.

---------------------------------------------
"I suggest that the anthropomorphic god-idea is not a harmless infirmity of human thought, but a very noxious fallacy, which is largely responsible for the calamities the world is at present enduring."
--William Archer, 1667--1735

[pnwmom]

257. There are medical reasons that could justify circumcising boys, based on

World Health Organization large-scale studies that definitively showed a 60% decrease in the transmission of AIDS associated with circumcision, above and beyond that from using condoms alone. That is why the official U.N. position supports male circumcision in the fight against AIDS. There is also a reduction of urinary tract infections in baby boys, which can sometimes occur without symptoms and result in kidney damage.

There are no health benefits to female genital mutilation.

[defendandprotect]

287. There are evidently questions about the study --

As one of the posts above suggests, they are advocating circumcizing adults males, as well.

We still have no real understanding of HIV/AIDS and how this all began -- and what it actually is.

It is transmitted sexually -- but we are still dishonest about sexuality!!!

FEMALES also suffer urinary tract infections . . . !!!
Is there some part of their bodies you'd like to cut off to deal with that???

Urinary tract infections in America have usually been handled with much "to do" about them . . .
finally resorting to antibiotics after it goes on long enough. They are still doing that with less
"to do" -- because women are working and don't have time to deal with doctors as much. Prescriptions
for anti-biotics are coming faster and more furiously. HOWEVER . . . there is a great natural remedy which is D-Mannose . . . it's simply a sugar which coats the organs and prevents bacteria
from adhering. It works immediately!!!

So much for our medicine!!!

[depakid]

299. No, there aren't credible questions about the studies-

Any more than there are questions about the validity of global warming or the benefits of vaccination.

In fact, the studies had to be discontinued because it was no longer ethical to NOT treat (circumsize) the control groups -the protective effect was that strong.

That's a very rare occurence in scientific studies.

[BalancedGoat]

311. The authors of this paper would disagree.

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

If the questions raised are accurate, I'd say it's enough to at least throw some doubt on the conclusions of the prior studies.

At least two of the authors seem to have a pretty good reputation in the medical community.

[defendandprotect]

289. # No national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision.

# No national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision.

[papapi]

278. No to circumcision - but if you do be sure you get reimbursed.

How much is your foreskin worth?

What you need to know...

# No national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision.

# Only the USA circumcises the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason.

# Medicalized circumcision began during the 1800s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease.

# Today's parents are learning that the foreskin is a normal, protective, functioning organ.

# Today's parents realize circumcision harms and has unneccesary risks.

# Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and choice for his own body.

http://www.nocirc.org/

http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/circ.html

[asteroid2003QQ47]

283. How much is your foreskin worth?

Don't know about yours but for a paper I did on circumcision while in college, I devised a method for measuring mine. The outside surface (3X6) equals
eighteen square inches. Doubled for the equivalent inside surface my foreskin
represents thirty six square inches of highly specialized and concentrated nerve cells.
----------------
"Dr. Paul M. Fleiss is a leading expert in the function of the foreskin. He has conclusively demonstrated that male circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis.

The foreskin possesses a rich concentration of blood vessels and nerve endings. Yet circumcision severs 80 percent or more of it. Thus, circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings. The foreskin's muscles, glands, and mucous membrane are mutilated.

This is not to mention that circumcision makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. The skin that is left in an unnatural state tugs the penis into the abdomen.

Circumcision radically desensitizes the penis. The rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin are severed.

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B2E1AA1E-B3F5-452C-8A19-8D8BC29AD365
-------------------------------------------------
Had I suffered penile mutilation at birth, in seeking monetary compensation I would demand that a dollar value be placed on every nerve cell lost just for starters.
The amount of money needed to compensate me for loss of my foreskin does not exist thus I am very thankful the point is moot.

[defendandprotect]

288. Wonderful . . . !!! Keep spreading the intelligent, enlightened word . . . !!!

:)

[papapi]

284. Foreskins for Sale! Prepuce Prices! $130,680,000 - for your baby's foreskin.....

How much for that baby's foreskin? $130,680,000

http://www.webmagician.com/pubservice/fore_sale.html

[asteroid2003QQ47]

294. Amputating infant foreskins for profit is Free Market Capitalism. . .

in all its glory! It's good for business,
how bad can it be?

[readmoreoften]

303. Yeah! It all "works out."

It's like the labor market. It's not so good for the worker, but it's great for the owner. It all works out! Bingo: a "balanced" society. Can I buy "babies foreskins" on the commodity exchange? Sounds lucrative. How about "teenage girl's self-respect"? That shit is RARE. You got some of that hold on to it.

[krabigirl]

313. I'm pregnant with (I think!) a boy and I am NOT circ'ing him. I can't imagine doing it.

[Lifetimedem]

315. Circumsized males , female sex partners

have a lower risk of cervical cancer.. the men have a lower rate of penile cancer , also men that are circumcised have a lower rate of STDs and possibly have some protection against HIV (still being studied)

.There is no evidence that it affects the quality of organism in men

[asteroid2003QQ47]

319. "There is no evidence that it affects the quality of organism in men" WTF?

Loss of erogenous tissue and sensation

Men also experience many detrimental physical and sexual changes because of circumcision. The most serious change for men is a significant reduction in sexual pleasure. The foreskin, which is removed during circumcision, contains many thousands of erogenous nerve endings. Approximately half of a man's capacity for pleasure is cut away by circumcision. These nerves are cut away by both infant and adult circumcision.

Men who were circumcised at birth are never able to experience the sensations these nerves provide, and so don't know that they are only feeling about half of the pleasure that an intact penis provides. Some circumcised men claim that they have all the sensation they could want, but that is like a color-blind man convincing himself that there is no such thing as color vision and that he can see perfectly with his eyes just as they are.
<snip>
Circumcised men normally only have the glans remaining, and therefore never experience the very pleasurable sensations provided by the foreskin.
A change to a man's sexual response

Physiologically, a man's brain expects stimulation from both the foreskin and the glans to achieve a healthy sexual response. Circumcised men lack the nerve inputs from the foreskin, and additionally, the stimulation from the glans is unnatural, because the glans of the circumcised penis is exposed and therefore stimulated directly (the glans of an intact man is stimulated indirectly). These physical and sensory changes caused by circumcision often result in problems with the male sexual response. Studies show that circumcised men have a much higher likelihood of experiencing problems such as premature ejaculation and delayed ejaculation.

While circumcision is often responsible for vaginal discomfort and male sexual response problems, such as premature ejaculation, few people realize this because circumcision is so common in America.
<snip...
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/sexual.php

WTF? There is a plethora of evidence!

[ray of light]

316. no. I actually know people who didn't get circumcised who later got infected ...private parts

and they ended up losing more than the tip then.

[Skittles]

317. yes

it is mutilation

[Zhade]

318. Yes. Mutilating babies is never justified.

NT!

[Fearless]

320. There are studies...

Saying that circumcised boys have a lower chance of contracting STD's. But in actuality, a condom does a great deal more. As for circumcision, only a girls I believe is unethical. Boys are unnecessary, and personally I would rather keep myself intact if I had that option, but it isn't unethical. Girl circumcision is unethical as it robs them of much of sexual pleasure.