circumcision part 2 - warning...graphic material.

[ourbluenation]

Babies are strapped into a restraint, keeping their legs apart, and their arms and abdomen down, because when they have their penises sliced open, they scream and struggle. And this:

Because a baby's prepuce is usually naturally adherent to the glans (this is true of both males and females), it must first be torn away in order to perform the circumcision. The doctor applies clamps and inserts the nose of a pliers-like instrument to tear away the foreskin from the glans.

If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they'd be arrested for abuse. The great unmentionable, of course, is that religion, not medicine, is behind this practice - Judaism and Islam, to be precise. Many secular men, in other words, bear the scars of someone else's religion on their own bodies for life.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/scarred-for-lif.html

here's a video from 20006 of a circumcision done in a hospital. I think every parent should have to watch it before making the decision to have the procedure done.

WARNING - it is graphic and it is tough to watch. I couldn't finish it. But yeah, it reaffirms our decision to not have this done to our son 19 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk

[Horse with no Name]

1. .....

:popcorn:

[texastoast]

2. Barbaric

Our Bradley Method coach showed all the couples a circumcision video. All the parents decided not to circumcise. It is truly amazing to me that anyone calling themselves "civil" and "nonabusive" could do this to a child.

[helderheid]

3. I wouldn't do this to my son and it wasn't done to my husband. Barbaric.

[babylonsister]

4. Not 'touching' this...

:popcorn: :hide:

[helderheid]

5. Oh 'cut' it out, will ya?

:rofl:

[ourbluenation]

6. Why so 'snippy'????

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

10. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1133780

[Deja Q]

12. Are doctors a different form of police?

As they say, "He dropped his gun and put up his hands, but the cop chopped him anyway."

[Warren DeMontague]

154. I got a 'tip' for ya:

Keep it up...

and you will face severe pun-ishment.

[texastoast]

9. By any "stroke" of luck

You won't have to.

:7

[Horse with no Name]

24. We've got a "long" way to go

:hide:

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Reminds me of a Railroad Earth song. nt

[Bonobo]

7. Wow, just like the "Pro=Lifers" showing dead fetuses. Admirable.

Circumcision is a medical procedure that has saved lives.

Circumcision is a tradition.

Circumcision is a religious rite.

Circumcision is a personal choice that parents make.

Also, if you are a woman, you don't have enough experience to talk on this issue.

[ourbluenation]

16. Mothers of sons make this decision for them everyday so hang the "women have no say" thing.

Besides, Mr Ourblue is sitting right here with me and he agrees. He, like myself, believe that if men want ot have it done they can choose that for themselves when they're adults. what's wrong with that view?

[Bonobo]

20. Nothing. That decision is fine FOR YOU. Doesn't mean you should be

posting grainy black and white pictures of crying babies in order to make transparent comparisons between torture in order to convince those who are easily convinced.

How is it any different than showing dead aborted fetuses?

[ourbluenation]

23. By all means, post a picture of a pleasant circumcision. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

In the last year I have personally observed an average of 5-10 per week

that all reflect the picture I posted.
I have observed NONE that reflect the picture YOU posted.

[ourbluenation]

29. glad to hear it.

[uppityperson]

132. I've participated in both kinds. Depends on who does it and how.

Some have been strapped down babies screaming with no anesthetic. Some have been quiet babies with anesthetic. Check with your circumcisionist for details to make sure you get the anesthetised one (local anesthesia)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. By all means, post a picture of a pleasant abortion/nt

SARCASM

[Kingshakabobo]

57. By all means, post a picture of a pleasant abortion.

Since you are using anti-choice zealot tactics.

[Catch22Dem]

34. RIGHT ON

I like the way you think!

[Horse with no Name]

22. Your photo comes from an anti-circumcision website

If you notice in YOUR photo the baby isn't even being cut on....and he is screaming.
That's because it is a propaganda photo of a child that hasn't been prepared.
Notice in MY photo that the actual circumcision of an infant is being performed on a sleeping baby.

[ourbluenation]

26. I'm glad the child slept thru it. It's still genital mutilation, imo.

[pnwmom]

30. Are you familiar with the March 2007 recommendation by the WHO?

New definitive studies show circumcision to result in a reduction in HIV transmission (after controlling for condom use) of about 60%.

[ourbluenation]

31. yes

[FloridaJudy]

35. The pediatrician who did infant circumcisions

in the clinic I used to work in did a "penile block" before she started. She injected local anesthetic first: most kids weren't too happy about that! But the circumcisions themselves seemed fairly untraumatic.

[StarryNite]

120. Yeah, the top picture and post

reminds me of the type of pictures and posts that are on anti-abortion websites. Propaganda.

[DemExpat]

159. Still looks barbaric to me.

DemEx

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Ditto. nt

[Touchdown]

171. It's hard to tell the difference between sleep and shock

in most photos, much less a photo of a 3 day old.

[pnwmom]

28. My father knew several men who had to have it done as adults

and he said that, knowing what they went through, he'd much rather have it done as an infant.

[Jonathan50]

49. Circumcision sometimes goes horribly wrong..

Rare true, but so are the instances when circumcision saves someone's life.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. A fetus isn't a person. The person strapped to the gurney is.

I'm a dad and I've been present to help restrain my child when I was ignorant of the pain involved in the procedure.

It hurts like a son of a bitch. It would be considered a crime if it were performed on a person who could later remember it.

[pnwmom]

8. Nineteen years ago they generally weren't using anesthesia. But most doctors

do now, and parents should request it.

Also, nineteen years ago we didn't have the research we do now about the significantly reduced rate of HIV transmission. The World Health Organization studies that were completed in the last two years have resulted in a UN recommendation for the use of condoms PLUS circumcision to reduce AIDS.

Based on what we know now, I think the case can be made either way, and parents have to use their own best judgement.

[texastoast]

14. Har!

Should children request anesthesia when parents are beating them?

[pnwmom]

21. HIV transmission reduced 60%, according to definitive studies.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention

28 MARCH 2007 | PARIS/GENEVA -- In response to the urgent need to reduce the number of new HIV infections globally, WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat convened an international expert consultation to determine whether male circumcision should be recommended for the prevention of HIV infection.

Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.

"The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention," said Dr Kevin De Cock, Director, HIV/AIDS Department in WHO. "Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. Scaling up male circumcision in such countries will result in immediate benefit to individuals. However, it will be a number of years before we can expect to see an impact on the epidemic from such investment."

There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya; Rakai District, Uganda (funded by the US National Institutes of Health); and Orange Farm, South Africa (funded by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS) that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association. Currently, 665 million men, or 30 % of men worldwide, are estimated to be circumcised.

More at link. . . .

[Coexist]

33. not to insult your logic, because the HIV/AIDS in Africa is frightening

but do you have links to any studies done in US/Europe?

I do recall one study, but that was discontinued due to trauma:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

That is what began to make anesthesia a more common option.

I am just wondering if there is a third world/first world differential.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has not changed their position on this yet:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

[Horse with no Name]

42. Here is another study that was cut short (pun intended) just a few months ago

(Your link is 10 years old)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm
>>>snip (pun not intended)
The findings are so striking, the US National Institutes of Health decided it would be unethical to continue and stopped the trials early.

It supports a previous South African study which reported similar results.

>>>snip
The two trials of around 8,000 men took place in Uganda and Kenya were due to finish in July and September 2007 respectively.

But after an interim review of the data by the NIH Data and Safety Monitoring Board, it was decided to halt the trials as it was unethical not to offer circumcision in the men who were acting as controls.

[Coexist]

73. but again, that was in Africa.

I am looking for American/European

[pnwmom]

84. It was conducted in Africa because there is a large HIV population there

and a large group of uncircumcised men.

But it was an extremely carefully designed study conducted by top AIDS researchers from around the world, including from the United States and Canada. I don't understand why you seem so convinced that the results would not be applicable here.

[Coexist]

89. our cultures are very different

thats why. European countries don't generally circumcise, and their rates are as low as ours. It doesn't make sense to me - why the difference?

http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/20061121_EPI_FS_GlobalFacts_en.pdf

(on edit: Oh, so THAT'S how spell check works.)

[marshall]

158. What about the culture in Africa?

I have heard a lot about the studies by the UN that show greater risk for HIV and AIDS in uncircumcised African men. What I would like to know is more about the lifestyle and background of these men. Is it more likely that a circumcised man in Africa is going to live in a community that stresses monogamy and also affords a greater degree of education? Because we might be dealing with apples and oranges here, and there could be other factors besides just having the penis altered that are affecting infection rates.

[pnwmom]

43. Part of the reason our rate of AIDS is lower than in Africa

is because our rate of circumcision is so much higher.

These large scale studies were conducted by top AIDS researchers and were designed to overcome the flaws of earlier studies.

I'm not surprised the AAP hasn't changed its recommendation yet, since the WHO only came out with its recommendation this March.

[Jonathan50]

51. What is the AIDS rate in Europe?

Where circumcision is relatively rare.

[Coexist]

74. do you have studies to support that?

I am of the mind that HIV/AIDS rates here may also be lower due to the education and widespread condom use more than our circumcision rate - but I am happy to see proof to change my mind.

[pnwmom]

83. The WHO studies cited above control for both

sexual behavior and condom use.

Previous studies were thought to be flawed because the groups of men in Africa that were already circumcised (largely Muslim) also had different sexual practices than other African men. The circumcised men were known to have lower rates of HIV, but no one could be sure whether that was due to the circumcision or their behaviors.

The new studies were designed to control for these factors, and all men in the study were educated in safe sex practices and supplied with condoms.

[Hamlette]

39. there are some arguments and some evidence circumcision does not slow the AIDS epidemic

This paper provides strong evidence that when conducted properly, cross country regression data does not support the theory that male circumcision is the key to slowing the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is highly significant and robust in explaining HIV prevalence levels across countries. An explanation is offered for why Africa has been hit the hardest by the AIDS pandemic and why there appears to be very little correlation between HIV/AIDS infection rates and country wealth.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000543

[pnwmom]

44. The WHO studies controlled for factors involving

sexual behavior. It would be interesting to know what those researchers would have to say about this paper.

[dropkickpa]

88. Where is the correlation to condom use?

Western countries are MUCH more likely and able to obtain/use condoms in comparison to the study areas. I've yet to see this facet addressed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

174. If Condom

If condoms are a panacea why are there 3,000,000,000 new cases of STDS, 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS, and 1,300,000 abortions in the United States every year when condoms are readily available?

Because a lot of people aren't wearing them...

[Horse with no Name]

18. Anesthesia is always used now

And you are correct--there was a school of thought that existed for a long time that said infants don't feel pain.
Funny thing about that picture above is that the operative area isn't draped (highly unusual--or maybe it is just being used for shock purposes, who knows).

[LeftyMom]

103. Most anesthesia used for neonatal circumcision is ineffective.

Most common is use of an EMLA cream, which only offers surface numbing and is dangerous in infants at high enough doses to be even moderately effective. Dorsal ring blocks are done as well, but again are only moderately effective and are themselves painful to administer. In both cases they are often administered too soon to take full effect before the foreskin is torn from the glans. Neither is used in circumcision of older children and adults, as the pain control results are highly inadequate, and general anesthesia is used instead. Neonates have a much lower pain threshold and no coping mechanisms or ability to understand why they are in pain. Some doctors prefer to delay unavoidable circumcisions until the child is old enough to safely get general anesthesia for this reason.

Circumcision is also associated with both lower condom use rates and higher rates of some STDs, notably chlamydia.

[seemslikeadream]

11. I would not allow this to be done to my sons

one is 29 the other is 16

[thereismore]

13. Won't watch the video, but bookmarked all the same. No sexual mutilation in

our family!

[Horse with no Name]

15. Do you object to giving them baths too?

[ourbluenation]

17. omg - who's that lil fella? He looks good and pissed!

who doesn't love a warm sudsy bath????


:)

[pnwmom]

25. I had exactly the same thought

when I saw that first baby's picture. My daughter looked like that every single night for a couple months, and it was all from gas.

[karlrschneider]

19. The bastard who did me used pinking shears. Now I've got a frilly dilly.

;-)

I am KIDDING! I got nipped at age 7. My pediatrician said it should be done for medical/sanitary reasons...my parents took his advice. I had no say-so. There wasn't any evil-doing involved, it just happened. Now, I'm not claiming any scientific data from this, but from my very numerous observations of penises, the percentage of peckers I've seen is around 90 percent circumcised. I didn't ask about their religion. ;-)
edit fixed some inadvertant html...

[babylonsister]

27. At that 'advanced' age, do you remember any pain? nt

[karlrschneider]

32. HAHA...actually I never did really remember any pain, but

I got an earful from my mom who told me I cussed out everyone within earshot as I was being anesthetized. :D

Explaining the bandages to my kid friends was the toughest part....hahaha

edit: Now that I think about it, what I do remember most (skip this if you have any ick-aversions)




having to change the dressing. Twice a day. And put on some gunk with the new bandage. And I haven't thought about that in 50 years...it's just lovely. :silly:

[Eurobabe]

65. what an awful thing for a child to go through, my ex-hubby

was premature and they waited until he was 4 to do his (no religious reason), he got pretty hacked too, but doesn't remember any of it.

[Catch22Dem]

37. "percentage of peckers"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The non-circumcised children often get ridiculed by the locker room majority who are seeing multiple peckers for the first time (say middle school gym class for example.) So, is that more or less painful? Is it more or less harmful? What the fuck am I doing here, this is a stupid topic. Me and my cut pecker are going to read something else.

[karlrschneider]

40. In high school we all swam naked in gym class. (Junior high too)

I guess they don't do that these days. I mostly liked it, my friend Tex could actually tie his pecker in a knot, a talent he often demonstrated. The time I had to do 50 situps on the cold floor, naked, for flipping a towel at Johnny Rubin in the locker room was a somewhat less enjoyable experience. :D

[Catch22Dem]

76. Karl! Long time no see!

Much different times. Most schools don't even have pools any more. My Jr. High did.

[karlrschneider]

133. Yeah, my Jr high did too and it was -ancient- even when I went there!

So did my HS, Edison. I wonder if they still have it...

[Jonathan50]

50. It's the other way around in Europe..

The circumcised minority get ridiculed by the unmutilated majority.

Just as good an argument against circumcision as your's is for it.

[Catch22Dem]

77. Yes, it would be a worthy argument if we all lived in Europe.

:eyes:

[last_texas_dem]

130. What's the deal with the "mutilation" talking point?

I've seen so many anti-circumsion posters on here throw out this term. To me, "mutilation" would imply that a penis is being destroyed and would no longer be able to function correctly. Don't the millions of circumcised men with fully functioning penises, with healthy sex lives, who have fathered children, etc., prove that throwing this term around regarding an everyday medical procedure is extreme hyperbole.

[barb162]

36. Don't they give these kids anesthetic when they do it?

Geez

OHMYGOD

Yikes

Ouch

[Codeine]

41. Yes.

Anesthesia is the norm nowadays when performing a circumcision. This is propagandistic flamebait.

[madmom]

38. so does this mean god made a mistake???

[pnwmom]

45. Yeah, like with gallbladders.

[last_texas_dem]

131. Of course

Nothing should ever be done to alter a human body from the way it was made because that would go against God's way. :sarcasm:

[B3Nut]

134. Divine Engineering screwed up

and sent the wrong prints to Manufacturing. When QC found out they mandated an in-the-field design change, figuring priests and later doctors would make dandy field techs.

Can't get good quality control anywhere, seems like...

;)

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Maru Kitteh]

46. I have seen it done hundreds of times and it sickens me EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Only once out of the two to three hundred circs I've seen have the parents had the stones to show up and actually WATCH what was being done to their son at their request. That couple shot a look of almost electric guilt at each other, the mom didn't stop weeping for hours.

This 'operation' is performed on a counter-top, in a cold hard molded plastic device from hell shared by several infants on the same day with no more than a cursory wipe-down in between. The nurses commonly refer to the poor kids who endure this torture with loud protest as "naughty".

No child of mine will endure this outrage. My children will live as God made them, unless and until they make the decision to alter their anatomy when they are able to make those decisions for themselves.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. It has permanent consequences that the child didn't ask for.

With circumcision, the glans penis is keratinized (made tougher, like the soles of the feet). It reduces sexual pleasure in the male and also in the female. There is far less friction in the vagina because the male organ is sliding around inside its own skin. Therefore sex is a lot more pleasurable for the woman (I am saying this thru experience).

The foreskin has definite functions for being there. There is no reason to remove it for peer pressure. The child should be taught proper hygiene.

[marshall]

48. My uncle blamed his being gay on having been circumcised

I'm not sure how he made the connection but he told my grandparents that part of the reason he was gay was the trauma of being circumcised. He also connected it to having grown up on a farm and watching young male animals be castrated.

I know there is no sense in his argument, I'm just relating a personal observation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. You Do Know Circimcision Is An Islamic Right Of Passage

Since the population is growing exponentially in predominately Muslim nations one can safely assume circumcision doesn't make you gay, even allowing for the fact some gay men may choose to mate with a female anyway...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. H.I.V. RISK HALVED BY CIRCUMCISION, U.S. AGENCY FINDS

Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

And an uncircumcised man is three time as likely to infect his partner withe the human pappilomavirus, the virus that causes cervical cancer as a circumcised man:


Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.

[Cronus Protagonist]

166. Staph, strep, bacterial infection risk increased 1000% by circumcision!

It's probably higher, but despite the estimate, you get the point, right?

[Prophet 451]

168. I gotta question that

I'm a Brit. Here, virtually no-one is circumcised and our sexual health is almost identical to (and in some cases, better than) yours. So I have to question the idea that circumcision has "proven health benefits". Levels of sexual health in Europe, where again circumcision is by no means universal, are generally far better than the USA.

[Jonathan50]

54. Anyone ever wonder why circumcision is so popular in the US

And not in Europe?

Because circumcision was originally touted in the US as being a means of reducing masturbation in boys and men.

It was thought that circumcised males are less likely to indulge in self pleasure.

Pretty stupid reason to mutilate someone, IMO.

Since boys and men rarely wear earrings, should we then allow the parents to decide whether or not to have their earlobes cut off at birth?

After all, earlobes serve no more, and probably less, purpose than does the foreskin.

I suspect that many of the pro circumcision crowd would recoil in horror at the idea of cutting off an infant's earlobes.

But what is the difference, really and truly?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Because Circumcision Has Proven Health Benefits

eom

[Jonathan50]

58. And of course this was known at the time circumcision became popular in the US?

Yeah, right..


If the "proven health benefits" are so obvious, then why is circumcision not also popular in Europe?

Are they just stupid over there?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Circumcision Has Always Been Touted For Its Health Benefits

It's just that there is always new evidence being discovered...


Aspirin was discovered in 1899... It's only in the past forty years or so that's it role in preventing heart attacks been revealed...

[Jonathan50]

67. Yep, with the original "health benefit" being

A reduction in self pollution..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. That's A Non Sequitur

Because some "puritans" touted circumcision as an antidote to masturbation doesn't obviate the many therapeutic benefits of the procedure...

[pnwmom]

85. I understood that it came into wide use after World War II,

when a number of soldiers had needed circumcisions because of infections that developed due to unsanitary conditions.

Daily hygiene can be more difficult in the trenches.

[Jonathan50]

59. Should parents be allowed to decide to have their children's earlobes removed at birth?

Yes or no.

It's a very simple question.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. You're Comparing A Therapeutic Procedure With A Superfluous One

Try again...

[Jonathan50]

68. So Jews perform circumcision

For "therapeutic" reasons?

And besides, the original "therapeutic" reason in the US was a supposed reduction in self pollution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Who Cares Why Jews (And) 1.7 Billion Muslims Circumcise Their Children?

The did it for cleanliness...

[pink-o]

112. Okay, Gentiles...here's your history lesson...

...5,000 years ago, Jews put a bunch of laws into place to help the survival rate of their people. Not eating pork was one of them--pig meat and bottom-feeding shellfish might not be cooked properly and there was a risk of illness and death. Also, without hot running water, it was a lot harder to stay clean and uninfected, so circumcision (supposedly decreed by Yaweh or whatever) became the norm. After all, reproduction was the ONLY thing that mattered--hence, as well as insuring your people have clean food and clean penises, there are taboos against homosexuality and masturbation. I mean--how dare you waste sperm that could be used to impregnate women and make more little Jews? (Outdated and prejudicial now, but I might not be here if not for that attitude!)

But check it out: when the Moyel performs a bris, he takes off a lot less of the foreskin than a doctor in the hospital. The kid usually gets a shot of Manischewitz and never makes a sound. And I've never met a Jewish man who has any remembered trauma or issues with circumcision--c'mon, if there was any culture around who got all neurotic about it, it would be us, doncha think?

That said, I think it's completely unnecessary and somewhat of a barbaric throwback to do that to little boys. But I guess as a woman, as one poster said I have no right to weigh in on it. Never mind that we have to deal with your penises as well, guys! It's telling that no one on this board has asked us whether we prefer sex with circumcised or uncircumcised ones!

Just sayin'...

[Jonathan50]

117. I'm a Gentile

But I was aware of the origin of Judaic customs..

One thing you wrote that I disagree with though..

You claimed that under primitive conditions a circumcised penis is less likely to become diseased than a circumcised one.

Yet the ancestors of the Jews lived under even more primitive conditions and had not lost the foreskin through evolutionary action.

That would argue that the foreskin has some evolutionary advantage under primitive conditions.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

135. See my comment above yours.

As a woman, in my experience, sex is far more pleasurable and there is much less friction with an uncircumcised man. I've never had to sit in a hot bath because I was sore from a wild weekend with an uncut man.

Unfortunately, in America in the baby boomer generation, uncut white men are pretty rare.

[Cronus Protagonist]

167. You know, the lips also harbor a lot of germs...hmmmm

I wonder if a lipectomy would help reduce cancer of the gum and tooth decay. It might even have a contraceptive effect since it would be hard to even get to first base... we need a study in Africa NOW!!





:sarcasm:

[Matsubara]

62. You mean its subtle preventative effect on extremely rare illnesses like penile cancer?

Or its effectiveness in the prevention of HIV, which is insignificant compared to the protection provided by condoms?



Amputating a functioning, healthy part of a person's anatomy before they are old enough to consent is not ethical, even if the amputation might mean a small reduction in the already low risk of penile cancer or other disease. The majority of the world is not circumcised, and the vast majority of uncircumcised men have no health problems whatsoever from being intact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Condoms are only effective when they are worn...

Condoms are only effective when they are worn...

The fact that in the United States there are three million cases of sexually transmitted disease, forty thousand cases of HIV/AIDS and , 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies each year suggest a lot of people aren't wearing condoms...

[Jonathan50]

110. Condoms are far from perfect..

I've broken several of them, despite the doctor's showing me one blown up like a balloon full of water.

[pnwmom]

86. The definitive WHO studies, announced in March 2007,

show a 60% reduction in HIV transmission, even after accounting for condom use. This is an extremely SIGNIFICANT effect.

Previous studies have also shown a decrease in urinary tract infections among infants and toddlers.

[gollygee]

66. Male Circumcision Overstated As Prevention Tool Against AIDS, According To Study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070620085239.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. This Is From The Artice You Cited...

"The study has important policy implications. Several international AIDS organizations have begun to provide funding for male circumcisions as a deterrent to AIDS. While male circumcision may indeed reduce the risk of transmission by some 50% to 60% in each sexual encounter, reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic. The reason is that individuals in highly infected countries have multiple contacts with the infected so reducing transmission rates only defers the inevitable"

I'm not a scientist, physician, or health official but a 50% to 60% reduction in risk seems substantial...

[pnwmom]

104. I agree. The study cited doesn't take anything away from the WHO studies.

It just adds another risk factor that should be dealt with.

[gollygee]

124. The rate of HIV infection in the US is 19.5 per 100,000

that's 0.000195%

Doubling that risk, if the info from the African study can be extrapolated to the US and not circumcising would indeed double the risk here, would give someone still a very small chance of contracting HIV. Use of condoms is a much better way of handing that risk, in my opinion, than surgery.

In order to know if circumcision would be "worth it" we'd have to be able to compare HIV rates to the rate of complications of circumcision. I have no idea if those numbers are even available because some circumcision complications wouldn't be found until sexual maturity and people would have to self-report some of them. But any surgical procedure has risk.

Anyway, we all have to make our best risk assessment.

[CTyankee]

136. When I see this kind of discussion I often think to myself

that Jews are not stupid, and would not continue to do something if it became an unhealthy practice, either physically or psychologically. And no, I am not Jewish myself.

[Matsubara]

60. Wow. I'm even more glad I didn't have this done to my boys than I was before.

:cry:

[JANdad]

70. God was talking with Moses

one day and explaining his plan...

After a while Moses stopped and said to God...

Let me get this straight...

They get to keep the oil and we have to cut the what???!!! Off of our what???!!!

[DaveJ]

75. I'm happy I'm circumcised

That is, until women are told they no longer need to shave their bodies, wear makeup, pierce their ears, wear bras, high heels, etc. Being circumcised is just a slight taste of what they have to experience.

[drmom]

78. As a pediatrician I've done many circumcisions...

...and the first thing you do is a nerve block. This is usually tolerated better than the hepatitis injection that newborns receive, because the hepB vaccine is intramuscular so it causes more pain. With a nerve block in place, most infants are quite calm. I don't think parents who are considering circumcision are well-served to just see the procedure when done at it's worst.

Personally, I only have girls, so never had this decision...but there are benefits and risks to almost any medical procedure. Besides decreases in HIV, urinary tract infections and other STD's, circumcision likely served an evolutionary purpose in that it slightly decreases the sexual sensation men feel. This is beneficial to a society in that it encourages monogamy which lends itself to a more stable community.

The great thing is that we still live in a free country, and all those who are so anti-circumcision are free to refuse the procedure for their sons. Yes, some babies may have had a traumatic experience with circumcision, but far more long-lasting trauma is given to children everyday by yelling at them, belittling them and endless other forms of emotional (and physical) abuse that closed-minded parents subject on their kids. This is an issue, like many others discussed here, where there is no right or wrong, and those who think it is black and white need to look inside themselves to examine their own level of tolerance toward other cultures and attitudes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Is The Debate As Polarized In The Medical Community?

eom

[drmom]

80. No, it really isn't...

...good physicians are not ones to believe any absolutes. Again, it's about open minds. You go with the best available information you have at the time, knowing that a new study could come out down the road that changes the way you practice. The best question a patient can ask their doctor is "what would they do for their own family member in this situation".

Also remember that most medical procedures are not something that the average lay person can observe comfortably, so showing such images is not very helpful in a debate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. My Cousin Is An Internist So It's Not A Big Issue To Him, Obviously...

I find your evolutionary explanation interesting ...

[pnwmom]

94. And most parents of sensitive infants have observed that look

on their babies faces' all too frequently.

One of my babies could scream like that just because he didn't like being undressed.

[calteacherguy]

82. How can you possibly still not condemn this procedure?

Circumcision rates are down to 21% in California, and there is the most recent studies show no correlation to HIV, other STDs, or urinary tract infections. You are promoting bogus information. Get out of the dark ages, Doc!

Your job as a scientist and physician is to look at the data before you, and then make the best decision. It isn't about keeping an "open mind" (as you misuse the term) in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[pnwmom]

91. She's responding to the most up-to-date research, the large scale studies

released by the World Health Organization in March 2007, which show a 60% decrease in HIV transmission, even among condom users. That is why the United Nations is now recommending both circumcision AND condom use to fight the world-wide AIDS crisis.

Those who rely on old studies to claim that there are no benefits to circumcision are the ones in the dark ages.

[calteacherguy]

92. That study has been debunked.

new academic research published today in the online, open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS ONE, male circumcision is found to be much less important as a deterrent to the global AIDS pandemic than previously thought. The author, John R. Talbott, has conducted statistical empirical research across 77 countries of the world and has uncovered some surprising results.

The new study finds that the number of infected prostitutes in a country is the key to explaining the degree to which AIDS has infected the general population. Prostitute communities are typically very highly infected with the virus themselves, and because of the large number of sex partners they have each year, can act as an engine driving infection rates to unusually high levels in the general population. The new study is entitled “Size Matters: The Number of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic” and is freely available online at the PLoS ONE publication website at http://plosone.org/doi/pone.0000543.

The study has a number of important findings that should impact policy decisions in the future. First, male circumcision, which in previous studies had been found to be important in controlling AIDS, becomes statistically irrelevant once the study controls for the number of prostitutes in a country. The study finds that the more Muslim countries of North Africa do indeed suffer much less AIDS than southern and western Africa, but this lower prevalence is not due to higher numbers of circumscribed males in these Muslim communities, but rather results from the fact that there are significantly fewer prostitutes in northern Africa on a per capita basis. It appears that religious families in the north, specifically concerned fathers and brothers, do a much better job protecting their daughters from predatory males than do those in the south. A history of polygamy in these Muslim communities does not appear to contribute to hi gher AIDS prevalence as previously speculated. In a frequently cited academic paper, Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at the Harvard Center for Population and Development and one of the world’s leading advocates for male circumcision, weighted results from individual countries by their population. When this artificial weighting was removed Talbott found that circumcision was no longer statistically significant in explaining the variance in AIDS infection rates across the countries of the World.

Second, to date, there has not been an adequate explanation as to why Africa as a continent is experiencing an AIDS epidemic far in excess of any other region of the world with some African countries’ prevalence rates exceeding 25% of the adult population and tens of millions dying from the disease on the continent. Talbott’s new study suggests that the reason is that Africa as a whole has four times as many prostitutes as the rest of the word and they are more than four times as infected. Some southern Africa countries have as many as 7% of their adult females infected and working as prostitutes while in the developed world typically this percentage of infected prostitutes is less than .1%. If these 7% of infected prostitutes in Africa sleep with five men in a week that means they are subjecting 35% of the country’s male population to the virus weekly. The virus is not easy to transmit heterosexually, b ut over time with multiple exposures, infection is inevitable. These men then act as a conduit to bring the virus home to their villages, their other casual sex partners and to their wives.

The study has important policy implications. Several international AIDS organizations have begun to provide funding for male circumcisions as a deterrent to AIDS. While male circumcision may indeed reduce the risk of transmission by some 50% to 60% in each sexual encounter, reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic. The reason is that individuals in highly infected countries have multiple contacts with the infected so reducing transmission rates only defers the inevitable.

The real question is what can be done with the prostitute community. Outlawing the world’s oldest profession would most likely prove to be ineffective. If the profession can be legalized and treatment and care provided to the practitioners, there would be much more reason to be hopeful. But, and this is the key, programs of action can not just be voluntary. Too many innocent people are dying and there is too much disregard for human life among infected prostitutes to leave treatment decisions solely up to them. A program of testing and treatment for prostitutes must be mandatory and those that refuse treatment must be held liable.

Many international aid organizations are against such mandatory treatment programs for prostitutes as they find them to be discriminatory, violate the individual’s human rights and are perceived as an attack on female prostitutes who are viewed as victims of gender and income inequality. Such organizations do not properly weigh the loss of human rights and life itself that this virus, unleashed on a community, is causing. This virus, itself, is a violation of human rights and we must do everything in our power to stop it. To argue we should do nothing about infected prostitutes during an AIDS epidemic because of a fear of creating a stigma against the infected would be like an animal rights activist claiming that a rabid dog must be allowed to run free in a neighborhood regardless of how many men women and children he infected and killed.

It is not surprising that computer models rarely show the virus reaching epidemic proportions; it is very hard to transmit this illness heterosexually. Only when model building researchers introduce a highly sexually active infected subset of “prostitutes” to their mathematical models does the infection spread exponentially to the general population. Source : Public Library of Science

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2007/06/21/male_circumcision_overstated_as_prevention_tool_against_aids.html

[pnwmom]

96. The World Health Organization studies have NOT been debunked.

Because some older studies were thought to be flawed, the WHO studies were designed to definitively answer the question of whether circumcision reduces HIV transmission. And the result -- obtained in two separate large scale studies -- is that even after accounting for condom use, circumcision reduces HIV transmission by about 60%.

[calteacherguy]

97. Debunked.

June 21, 2007 04:50 PM

In new academic research published today in the online, open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS ONE, male circumcision is found to be much less important as a deterrent to the global AIDS pandemic than previously thought. The author, John R. Talbott, has conducted statistical empirical research across 77 countries of the world and has uncovered some surprising results.

The new study finds that the number of infected prostitutes in a country is the key to explaining the degree to which AIDS has infected the general population. Prostitute communities are typically very highly infected with the virus themselves, and because of the large number of sex partners they have each year, can act as an engine driving infection rates to unusually high levels in the general population. The new study is entitled “Size Matters: The Number of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic” and is freely available online at the PLoS ONE publication website at http://plosone.org/doi/pone.0000543.

The study has a number of important findings that should impact policy decisions in the future. First, male circumcision, which in previous studies had been found to be important in controlling AIDS, becomes statistically irrelevant once the study controls for the number of prostitutes in a country. The study finds that the more Muslim countries of North Africa do indeed suffer much less AIDS than southern and western Africa, but this lower prevalence is not due to higher numbers of circumscribed males in these Muslim communities, but rather results from the fact that there are significantly fewer prostitutes in northern Africa on a per capita basis. It appears that religious families in the north, specifically concerned fathers and brothers, do a much better job protecting their daughters from predatory males than do those in the south. A history of polygamy in these Muslim communities does not appear to contribute to hi gher AIDS prevalence as previously speculated. In a frequently cited academic paper, Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at the Harvard Center for Population and Development and one of the world’s leading advocates for male circumcision, weighted results from individual countries by their population. When this artificial weighting was removed Talbott found that circumcision was no longer statistically significant in explaining the variance in AIDS infection rates across the countries of the World.

Second, to date, there has not been an adequate explanation as to why Africa as a continent is experiencing an AIDS epidemic far in excess of any other region of the world with some African countries’ prevalence rates exceeding 25% of the adult population and tens of millions dying from the disease on the continent. Talbott’s new study suggests that the reason is that Africa as a whole has four times as many prostitutes as the rest of the word and they are more than four times as infected. Some southern Africa countries have as many as 7% of their adult females infected and working as prostitutes while in the developed world typically this percentage of infected prostitutes is less than .1%. If these 7% of infected prostitutes in Africa sleep with five men in a week that means they are subjecting 35% of the country’s male population to the virus weekly. The virus is not easy to transmit heterosexually, b ut over time with multiple exposures, infection is inevitable. These men then act as a conduit to bring the virus home to their villages, their other casual sex partners and to their wives.

The study has important policy implications. Several international AIDS organizations have begun to provide funding for male circumcisions as a deterrent to AIDS. While male circumcision may indeed reduce the risk of transmission by some 50% to 60% in each sexual encounter, reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic. The reason is that individuals in highly infected countries have multiple contacts with the infected so reducing transmission rates only defers the inevitable.

The real question is what can be done with the prostitute community. Outlawing the world’s oldest profession would most likely prove to be ineffective. If the profession can be legalized and treatment and care provided to the practitioners, there would be much more reason to be hopeful. But, and this is the key, programs of action can not just be voluntary. Too many innocent people are dying and there is too much disregard for human life among infected prostitutes to leave treatment decisions solely up to them. A program of testing and treatment for prostitutes must be mandatory and those that refuse treatment must be held liable.

Many international aid organizations are against such mandatory treatment programs for prostitutes as they find them to be discriminatory, violate the individual’s human rights and are perceived as an attack on female prostitutes who are viewed as victims of gender and income inequality. Such organizations do not properly weigh the loss of human rights and life itself that this virus, unleashed on a community, is causing. This virus, itself, is a violation of human rights and we must do everything in our power to stop it. To argue we should do nothing about infected prostitutes during an AIDS epidemic because of a fear of creating a stigma against the infected would be like an animal rights activist claiming that a rabid dog must be allowed to run free in a neighborhood regardless of how many men women and children he infected and killed.

It is not surprising that computer models rarely show the virus reaching epidemic proportions; it is very hard to transmit this illness heterosexually. Only when model building researchers introduce a highly sexually active infected subset of “prostitutes” to their mathematical models does the infection spread exponentially to the general population. Source : Public Library of Science

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2007/06/21/male_circumcision_overstated_as_prevention_tool_against_aids.html

[pnwmom]

106. You need to read that more carefully, teacherguy.

"The study has important policy implications. Several international AIDS organizations have begun to provide funding for male circumcisions as a deterrent to AIDS. While male circumcision may indeed reduce the risk of transmission by some 50% to 60% in each sexual encounter, reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic. The reason is that individuals in highly infected countries have multiple contacts with the infected so reducing transmission rates only defers the inevitable."

The author is not saying that a 50-60% reduction in transmission per encounter is insignificant -- just that the problem of prostitutes must be dealt with AS WELL -- that "reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic."

The WHO researchers would not disagree with that. They ALSO advise that sexual practices and condom use are important factors in HIV transmission, not just circumcision use.

[calteacherguy]

109. Says "may," not "does."

An asteroid may hit the Earth in 2134.

And in any case:

"First, male circumcision, which in previous studies had been found to be important in controlling AIDS, becomes statistically irrelevant once the study controls for the number of prostitutes in a country."

I read it carefully.

Not statistically insignificant:
Ontario boy dies after complications from circumcision
Mark Brennae, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, June 14, 2007
OTTAWA -- A one-week-old Ontario infant died from complications after undergoing a circumcision in a provincial hospital.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=dda49970-0a29-4c35-9f3b-f104530af4d3&k=5644

[pnwmom]

122. And cigarettes "may" cause cancer.

The WHO studies controlled for sexual practices, which includes use of prostitutes. The researchers were well aware that PREVIOUS studies were flawed by the fact that the cultures which practiced circumcision also tended to practice more conservative sexual behaviors.

[calteacherguy]

127. Wrong...cigarettes DO cause cancer.

False analogy.

[pnwmom]

129. And, according to the WHO studies, circumcision reduces

HIV transmission.

[dysfunctional press]

148. no- they MAY cause cancer...

not everyone who smokes develops cancer.

[DaveJ]

93. I just think you're over-reacting a bit

Do you have the same outrage against ear piercing? Granted, it's not an exact comparison, but it's somewhat similar. Females are culturally semi-obligated to do it. What about all the men who are outraged against this, yet STILL expect their wifes to shave their bodies on a regular basis? Isn't that sort of a double standard?

Even if this were purely an aesthetic or just a dumb procedure like tattooing or body piercing (which I doubt), I really think that it's not as big an issue as it's being made out to be.

As I said earlier, if you state that you are attracted to women with no makeup, who don't shave, don't douche, no earrings, etc., then I can better accept your ideal that men should always be all natural.

[calteacherguy]

95. It reduces sexual sensitivity.

Also, since most boys nowadays are NOT circumsized, there is bound to be a lot of "locker room" teasing from intact males.

[pnwmom]

99. In some parts of the country that may be true,

but I haven't seen any figures showing that MOST boys in the U.S. are not circumcised. Do you have a link for that?

[calteacherguy]

100. Well, rates are down to 21% in California and other progressive states.

and continue to drop.

The point isn't really where the percentage is now, fact is it's going to continue dropping, and that's a good thing.

There is no benefit from circumcision whatsoever.

[DaveJ]

101. In my case that's never been a problem

I am aware of the sexual sensitivity issue, but it's a small sacrifice to make in consideration of what's expected from women. And if some guy wants a couple milimeters of skin in order to make him feel better naked and simply 'look' bigger then more power to his optical illusion. I just hope he doesn't expect his girlfriend to shave or douche either.

[calteacherguy]

102. "small sacrifice to make?"

What? Sacrifice for what and for whom? How can you compare this so shaving or douching? I'm uncut, clean, and attractive!

Of course, you wouldn't know, because it's what you've always experienced. Circumcision is a completely barbaric, painful medical procedure that serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

It's stupid!

[DaveJ]

107. You still haven't responded

Are you as outraged against ear piercing? It is the cultural norm for women. Are you attracted to women who are all natural -- who do not shave their legs, or wear bras or high heals? Why is it such an outrage when a man isn't all natural yet it's not the cultural norm for women.

I'm not saying all men should be circumcised -- natural is beautiful -- but I'm just not as outraged against it.

[calteacherguy]

108. Women have a choice whether or not to pierce their ears.

I'm not outraged against circumsized men, or men who chose to have the procedure. It's a free country...just don't subject innocent children to it.

[DaveJ]

113. It's their choice -- but who are you attracted to?

Are you attracted to the women who modify themselves on a daily basis, or the ones who are all natural with hairy legs and no makeup? If you are attracted to all natural women then there is no double standard. While we're at it why not just do away with the nudity laws. Clothes are unnecessary too. Lots of things are unnecessary. That doesn't make them harmful.

[Jonathan50]

118. I don't care if a woman is hirsute..

And I think an overabundance of makeup looks tawdry at best and more likely desperate.

Think Catherine Harris and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Those who focus on the external characteristics of their partner are shallow, IMO.

Wait, didn't they make a movie about that?

Shallow Cal?

Shallow Sal?

Well, something like that anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. Yeah, hair on some women can be quite attractive.

'Course, I spent a lot of time at Dead shows, I like the unshaven look. :hippie:

[Jonathan50]

123. The Caucasian penis is generally quite small when flaccid.

But grows considerably when erect.

What on earth leads you to think that uncircumcised men think it makes their penis look bigger?

[TankLV]

105. No it doesn't at all...

That's just your ASSUMPTION...

[Jonathan50]

119. And you know this how?

It's perfectly obvious to anyone with a foreskin.

Leaving the glans exposed even inside soft cotton underwear causes painful irritation in a surprisingly short time.

The glans has to toughen up to handle constant exposure for which it is not evolutionarily equipped to handle.

That toughening process reduces sensitivity.

If you have callused feet it is less painful to walk barefoot than it is if your feet are totally lacking calluses.

I used to go all summer without shoes as a child, by about July I could walk over sun baked asphalt with only minor discomfort. The bottom of my feet felt like they had a resilient plastic shell under them.

[ForrestGump]

160. Decreasing sensitivy a little (allegedly)

could be a good thing.

Especially for a man's partner, if you know what I mean.


Sometimes there're only so many wizened old nuns and hydroelectric dams that a man can think of before it all just takes its own course (the fact that certain DUers may be aroused by wizened old nuns notwithstanding, of course).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. "It reduces sexual sensitivity"

It's actually a tad bit more complex:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."<64> In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."<75>

[pnwmom]

87. Thanks for putting it into perspective, drmom. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. "Evolutionary purpose?"

Could you please elaborate?

The implication from the rest of the paragraph implies that a primary objective of the surgery is that it improves the quality of sex for the person's future partners. Would you be supportive of a operation performed on female infants for the purpose of improving the quality of sex for the girl's future partners?

[Midlodemocrat]

114. Hmm. I thought OB's did the circumcisions because they are surgeons.

[Horse with no Name]

140. Pediatricians do it

Sometimes a urologist after the child gets older.
OB's don't touch the little ones after they hand them off to the nurses.

[Jonathan50]

116. I think you have that exactly backward.

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

In biology and psychology, the term Coolidge effect describes phenomonena seen in nearly every species that it has been tested in whereby males show continuously high sexual performance given the introduction of new receptive females<1> (e.g. Brown, 1974 <2>). The sex difference that the effect refers to is explained by Bateman's principle.

The term comes from an old joke according to which President Calvin Coolidge and his wife allegedly visited a government farm one day and were taken around on separate tours. Mrs. Coolidge, passing the chicken pens, inquired of a supervisor whether the lone rooster was sufficient, given the many hens in the chicken flock.

"Yes", the man said, "the rooster works very hard."

Mrs. Coolidge then asked, "Really? The rooster works very hard? Every day?"

"Oh, yes," the man said. "Dozens of times a day."

"Interesting!" Mrs. Coolidge replied, "Be sure to tell that to the President!"

Some time later the President, passing the same pens, was told about the rooster — and about his wife's remark. "Same hen every time?", he asked.

"Oh, no, a different one each time," the supervisor replied.

"Tell that," Coolidge said with a sly nod, "to Mrs. Coolidge."

*************************************************************************************************

Slightly decreased sensation is going to lead to *increased* sexual activity rather than decreased.

The reason being that the urge to reach orgasm will be the same, yet the ability to do so decreased.

It is easier for a male to reach orgasm with an unfamiliar female than a familiar one.

Therefore circumcision is likely to increase sexual promiscuity among males.


Oh, by the way.. If a parent were to ask you to amputate their infant's earlobes, would you do it?

If not, why not?

[yurbud]

128. sexual response and tight circ?

I remember reading that in some cases when a bit too much is taken, the skin is so tight that men's sexual response time is decreased, so it can cause premature ejaculation.

Also, you can't decrease male sexual sensation enough to reduce the amount we want sex unless you take a testicle or something.

[Touchdown]

172. How convenient. "Free country"

"The great thing is that we still live in a free country, and all those who are so anti-circumcision are free to refuse the procedure for their sons. "

What about this son who had his chopped off as an infant without his consent and wants it back? What about his parents who only heard about the "benefits" and none of the negatives of circumcision to come to such a manipulated conclusion? How about I get re-imbursed for the $800 (1965 dollars) my Quack made off of my parents for this "procedure"? How about I get re-imbursed by the hospital who made money selling my foreskin to the consmetics industry?

How about sewing a new foreskin on me without payment for what your "free country" tookk from me? Your industry's made plenty of money off of me.

Oh, yeah. I still had a UTI at 6 years old.

[Dora]

111. That picture is not at all representative of my son's circ experience.

Important and rightfully controversial topic. Bad circumcisions are indeed a mutiilation. How about educating more doctors on proper procedure? How about educating parents with information instead of out-of-context photos?


Shamefully inflammatory and disgusting post. Appalling tactic. No better than the militant right-to-lifers - present a picture out of context and limit the discussion to My Way Or You're Just Wrong.

How immature.

[yurbud]

126. What's a "good" circumcision?

[Dora]

141. Have you stopped beating your wife?

[yurbud]

142. at the youtube video in OP, there was link to Egyptian debate on practice of female circ

A woman in the full head covering and all was saying it was a barbaric practice that should never be done, and a male Muslim scholar was there offering the sensible middle ground--it should only be done to SOME women. Then he told a story about a woman who wrote him about tight jeans arousing her when she walked, so he recommended a clitoral removal.

[aikoaiko]

115. I was going to opt out for my son, but my wife thought it would be important to "look like daddy"

And she felt pretty strongly about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. I'm not worried about my son not "looking like daddy". He seems perfectly happy with his penis

the way it is. When he's old enough, we'll explain to him that this was something that was done to daddy that daddy didn't have a say in, and we decided not to do it to him.

[yurbud]

143. I don't look at my dad's dick that often. Do you?

[Warren DeMontague]

161. I think I probably saw the thing a grand total of once when he was alive.

I think I was more interested in my legos.

[yurbud]

144. that's why some people put plates in their kids lips or rings around women's necks until they look

like giraffes.

[yurbud]

125. I thought Americans started to do it out of a Victorian desire to prevent masturbation

which would only work if they cut a couple inches more off.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Don't give anyone any more ideas. The loony anti-sex puritanism of this country is

is still strong.

[Jonathan50]

145. You are correct..

http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

"By about 1880 the individual... might wish... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession."

(B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)

<much more>

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. From An Anti-Circumcision Website...

BAWAWAWAWAWAWA

I hope when you discuss abortion you don't cite Operation Rescue...

[Warren DeMontague]

149. So you think Democratic Underground isn't a reliable source for factual information on George Bush?

After all, this could be considered an "Anti-Bush Website".

Most websites have a point of view. People are entitled to their own point of view, but not their own facts. Pro-evolution websites that say humans evolved from other mammals and say that the Earth is 4.7 billion years old are probably referencing accurate material even "though" they are "pro-evolution websites". Anti-evolution websites that say the Earth is 6,000 years old and Dinosaurs were on Noah's ark are full of shit.

In short, proven facts are proven facts, no matter where they originate.

Are you suggesting that there WASN'T a widespread, hysterical campaign to "stamp out" masturbation by any means necessary in our still-Puritanical United States in those years? You should do some research on where Graham Crackers came from.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. DU Is One Source Of Information On George Bush

As Free Republic is one source of information on Bill Clinton... If I was doing a thesis on either gentleman I would use both as sources as how different groups react to certain leaders but I wouldn't use them as first hand sources...As someone who has done post graduate work in Political Science if I did I would have my research summarily rejected...


To your larger point I am aware of the hysteria that surrounds masturbation...My parents never discouraged me from masturbating or encouraged me to believe that masturbation was immoral.. They also had me circumcised...

I have read the literature on circumcision, apprised myself of the risks and benefits and am happy I am circumcised and would choose it for my son...

[Warren DeMontague]

151. I'm also willing to bet that you weren't alive in the 1890s.

Part of the quote in question:

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

Here is a quote from a really astoundingly pro-cicumcision article (I say astounding, because none of the alleged "benefits" of the procedure can really explain the rabidity with which some seem to feel the need to defend and/or promote it) which grudgingly says the same thing:

http://www.livescience.com/health/060822_bad_circumcision.html

Admittedly, the modern Western circumcision movement had its origins tangled with anti-masturbation organizations in the late 1800s.

Here's Answers.com on the subject:

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-male-circumcision

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,<20> Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' - the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"

Now, remember, your response to the previous poster's quote was something to the effect of "BWAWAWWAAWAWAWAWAWA.". So what is it? Was there puritanism in the United States and England between 1850 and the early 1900s which led to, among other things, anti-masturbation devices as well as the increased popularity of male circumcision? Or is that another "BWAWAWAWAWAWAWAAAA"-style assertion?

Do you have any evidence- from ANY source- to actually debunk that assertion and quote? Evidence, that is, besides "BWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA"?

Because, really, I have better things to do with a Saturday night than look up references to Victorian era anti-masturbation literature, practices, and devices, (not my bag, baby.. really) but if you're going to insist on responding to clearly factual assertions with retorts like "BWAWAWAWAWAWAWAA", I may be forced to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

152. From My Previous Post

"To your larger point I am aware of the hysteria that surrounds masturbation...My parents never discouraged me from masturbating or encouraged me to believe that masturbation was immoral.. They also had me circumcised..."


I conceded that there was a lot of hysteria surrounding masturbation... I then went on to say that I was circumcised but my parents decision to have me circumcised had nothing to do with a desire to prevent me from masturbating because they never had that desire...My parents were open about sex...They never discouraged me from masturbating and were open to discussions about sex...I was taught at an early age that sex or physical affection is a way of expressing one's love and pleasing one's partner...


You oppose circumcision... That's your right...And it's my right to support the procedure for myself and my offspring...

[Warren DeMontague]

153. I agree with all of that. But none of it has to do with the factual veracity of the quote in the

first post. The point isn't that ALL circumcisions were done for the purpose of preventing masturbation (it sure as hell didn't work for me!) the point is, that quote references a historical fact about the history of the practice in the United States and England- a provable historical fact backed up by the evidence- and whether or not it comes from an "anti-circumcision website" has absolutely zero bearing on whether it is factually true or not.

On the larger issue, if you read my other posts, you'll see that while my wife and I personally decided NOT to have it done to our kid, I still think it's a decision that needs to be made by individual parents.

[Jonathan50]

163. Do you deny the facts presented?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

170. I Already Conceded Some Folks Promoted Circumcision To Discourage Masturbation...

Speaking from personal experience they failed miserably...

[Warren DeMontague]

139. We didn't do it, and every day I'm glad we made that decision.

I'm not going to second guess anyone else, but I know for us, we made the right call.

[AtomicKitten]

155. there is another side of the argument.

Working in the medical field, I can state unequivocally I see many more instances of problems because of males not being circumcised (hygiene issues, adhesions, etc.) than I do because of it. In a career spanning now some 35 years, I have never transcribed a circumcision done without some type of anesthetic. Never.

Let's just say there is another side of the argument not represented here.

[yurbud]

162. how would the hygiene issues be different than for women whose genitals are ALL inside?

[AtomicKitten]

164. they present a different set of problems

The most frequently seen problem I've come across in uncircumcised men involves adhesions causing tethering and tethering in turn causing a myriad of symptoms similar to hypospadias. This condition makes hygiene difficult which frequently leads to recurrent infections.

I'm unclear as how the subject of female genitalia relates to male circumcision, so I hope my answer suffices.

[DemExpat]

169. My little son had painful flareups with his uncircumcised penis, so we learned

how to keep it very clean from then on.

Never any problems since.

I am not a fan of any pre-emptive surgery for possible hygiene problems.

DemEx

[blues90]

156. I was circumcised when born

I had no choice , I do have to wonder what this does to ones mind to go through this pain or what effect it has .

I would imagine in 1949 it was done without sedation . It hurts just to think about it .

[fenris67]

173. Hi there!

This is as good as place to start posting as any other.

I'm not sure how many people here believe that abortion should be a choice by the woman based upon the fact that it is her body. I believe it, though I don't think i would personally choose abortion. The baby is inside of her, therefore whatever happens to it should be by the decision of the mother.

However, in order to remain consistent with my opinion on abortion, I think I have to concede that once outside of the mother's body, the baby can no longer be considered as a form of property, and any form of mutilation to it should be done strictly at the choice of the baby. Now, obviously, the baby cannot choose whether or not to have a circumcision, but shouldn't that simply mean a possible circumcision should be delayed until the kid is old enough to make that choice? One can always circumcise, but one cannot reverse a circumcision, and like it or not, not everyone who has been circumcised has grown up thankful of their parents decicision.

There are certainly both pros and cons to a circumcision, dealing with hygiene and so forth. But there are also both pros and cons to having an abortion (the cons of which are the reasons for my personal choice never to abort). But simply because many people believe in the Pros of abortion such as saving the mother's life, not being ready for a baby and so forth, doesn't mean they have a right to force abortion or keep me from abortion, as it is my choice.

In similar fashion, just because there are pros to circumcision, doesn't mean the parents or anyone else should automatically gain the right to mutilate the body of the child.