Circumcision - An expectant father's decision

[LoneWolf]

We had an ultrasound done today and the doc says he is very confident that it is boy! Honestly I was just relieved that everything is going well with the pregnancy.

On the ride back I got to thinking about circumcision. I know my wife is going to leave that decision up to me. My 3 1/2 year old step-son is not circumcised (most Cambodians aren't).

I am circumcised as is my brother. My grandfather, who died a few years ago, was also our family physician and he was of the school that circumcision had hygiene benefits. So I am sure that is still what my mother thinks.

But what is the most current medical information we have on it? What are they teaching in med schools today? I will tell you right now I am strongly leaning against circumcision unless the evidence shows otherwise.

[DMB]

There is evidence that circumcision helps to protect against sexually transmitted diseases. See this (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/). But there is nothing to stop an adult from making the decision to have himself circumcised, whereas by doing it to a baby you remove all choice.

[LoneWolf]

There is evidence that circumcision helps to protect against sexually transmitted diseases. See this (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/). But there is nothing to stop an adult from making the decision to have himself circumcised, whereas by doing it to a baby you remove all choice.

Interesting. My guess is any such difference probably disappears when a condom is used. My son will definitely not be getting abstinence ONLY education. My mom bought me my first box of condoms and I would likely follow her example there.

Still, a 60% difference is significant.

[LoneWolf]

But there is nothing to stop an adult from making the decision to have himself circumcised

Speaking as an adult male there is one thing stopping him:

FEAR :eek:

I have no memory of being circumcised as an infant, but if I had it done as an adult I can't help but wonder if that is a pain that would haunt me.

[DMB]

Since the WHO came out with that stuff there has been a campaign in parts of Africa to get adult men circumcised and they seem to manage OK.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Hell no. Don't do it. Just don't.

I'm intact, and I can honestly say I'd rather a couple of fingers than my foreskin.

Where to start?

The hygiene thing is rubbish. If you have access to running water, there's zero issue. It takes three seconds in the shower. You don't amputate to avoid washing, and if someone suggested slicing off your daughter's genitals because labia are dirty, you'd punch them in the face.

Even if the STD thing has anything to it, you don't amputate as a prophylactic. The same cell types that reputed to be slightly more vulnerable to infection are present in the vulva, too - and again with the punching if someone suggested it for your daughter. What little protection it might afford is no substitute for safe sex, which would completely blanket any possible benefit anyway.

The majority of the nerve endings in the penis reside in the foreskin - more, in fact, than are present in the clitoris. Removing it thus removes more sensation in total than a total clitoridectomy. Don't do that to your own son.

As well as sheer volume of sensation, there's qualitative differences. The foreskin is full of stretch receptors, granting proprioception (the sense that tells you where your limbs/etc) are, with every movement as it rolls over the glans. That's a whole kind of sensation that circumcised men lose.

The covering of the glans is not skin, and it's not designed for daily wear and tear. It's an internal organ, and needs to be protected. Without that protection, it gradually keratinizes, growing a tough, insensitive callus instead of the supple, sensitive covering it has by default.

Then there's the frictionless gliding mechanism, which isn't well-understood in cultures that commonly circumcise. Executive summary, it's not just a flap of skin. The easiest way to explain it is by analogy. Put on a long stretchy satin shirt with sleeves a hand-length past your fingertips. Turn the cuffs in on themselves, and glue them to your watch strap. You are now wearing a foreskin simulator - your hand is the glans, your sleeve is the foreskin. You can 'shoot your cuffs' to look at your watch, and the sleeve will roll over your hand, with zero friction. For a demo of just how frictionless, take a pinch of eyelid or elbow skin, and rub it between thumb and finger. No skin slides over your fingertips - even if you had glue on them, it'd still slip completely freely. No amount of lubrication can ever match that.

Plus there's the frenulum - often known as the 'male clitoris'. It's the exquisitely sensitive tie connecting foreskin to glans, like the thing under your top lip. It's particularly sensitive to stretching, as each thrust pulls the foreskin back. Even if the circumcision operation preserves the frenulum (many don't), it no longer gets tugged during sex - once again reducing pleasure.

Even without all the nerve endings, gliding mechanism, etc - just the amount the the foreskin protects the glans from drying makes a huge difference. A friend of a friend is in the early stages of restoring - just keeping the glans covered 24/7 - and reports an improvement in sex equivalent to the difference between wearing a condom and not.

Then you have gender-identity stuff (we're hairy, wrinkly and proud, not these pink epicene static barbie dildoes), and the basic human right to at least start out the game with all your body parts. Cosmetic surgery on minors is one hell of an ethical issue, especially when it involves an irreversible loss of genital tissue.

There's absolutely no medical justification - and even if there were, there's nothing that can't wait for informed adult consent.

Sorry to bash you with a wall of text, but this is a major hot-button issue for me - and I've really only scratched the surface.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Oh, and of course, adults have recourse to adequate anaesthesia and pain relief, which infants do not. They suffer just as much - cortisol levels prove it... they just lack the ability to complain. There's studies showing that circumcision-induced trauma in infancy affects neural development, lowering pain thresholds and tolerance for life.

And we haven't even started on the things that can go wrong.

[JamesBannon]

You've got Noodly all hot and bothered, LoneWolf :D Seriously though, he is quite right. It's not a huge hygiene issue, nothing that a little water won't cure, and a lot of risks just for that.

[DMB]

Being circumcised yourself, you may not be aware that if he remains intact one of the things you will have to teach him is how to keep himself clean.

A small minority of boys do suffer from foreskin problems that require some sort of surgery, so you need to make sure that the foreskin remains retractable.

[LoneWolf]

Now I remember HNA, you were very active in similar threads at IIDB. You make some very good points.

[LoneWolf]

Being circumcised yourself, you may not be aware that if he remains intact one of the things you will have to teach him is how to keep himself clean.

A small minority of boys do suffer from foreskin problems that require some sort of surgery, so you need to make sure that the foreskin remains retractable.

I'm not sure if this is related but my 23 year old step-brother was intact and recently had to get circumcised due to some infection problems. His father was not intact, however. I'm not sure of the details of his medical issue as it is a bit personal.

[DMB]

Generally speaking, it's no big deal. I'm a woman, so I sure as hell don't have a foreskin, but I taught my small son to wash his penis carefully.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Okay. Hygiene of the intact penis takes close to zero effort. Retracting the thing is exactly like shooting your cuffs to look at your watch. Retract, rinse, replace, done. It's no harder or more extraordinary than washing between your butt cheeks.

Also, foreskin problems affect just a few percent of boys, and only one or two percent of those need surgical intervention. The vast, vast majority are treated perfectly well with a simple routine of stretching, and the really bad cases may need a little cortisone cream to help it along.

Note that the foreskin does not start out retractable in the majority of boys - it's fused to the glans, like the nail to the nail bed. This is perfectly normal, and requires no action whatsoever. It will gradually de-adhere in its own time - most by age 4 or so, sometimes as late as puberty. Until it is retractable, hygiene is not an issue. as there's no space between glans and foreskin for anything to need washing. Just wash the whole penis like you would an elbow.

[Brother Daniel]

Note that the foreskin does not start out retractable in the majority of boys - it's fused to the glans, like the nail to the nail bed.
Which, among other things, probably means that the circumcision of a baby boy is considerably more painful than the circumcision of a man. You're not just cutting along the rim of the glans; you're carving something off the whole surface.

*shudder*

The fact that this is done at all is disturbing. The fact that it is typically done without anaesthetic is just sickening.

[epepke]

Cutting off the entire penis can provide excellent protection against STDs. For that matter, an abortion can make all disease impossible.

[Matty]

100% what Noodles said. Dont.

Pretty much all of the studies that showed some effect with HIV transmission did so in rural parts of africa where hygiene was less than idea and thank to the RCC condoms are taboo. there have been no studies showing any effect in more modernised countries with easy access to running water etc.

All of the original reasons for circ were religio-cultural norms, its only more recently that they've had to try and post hoc justify it from a health perspective. So if you are considering an unwashed non safe sex tour of Sierra Leonne, there could be some benefits (although its still better to take a bottle of shower gel and some condoms :))

Otherwise just dont, there are NO benefits assuming you teach proper hygiene. Its basically another easy but uneccesary op for the surgeon to charge for and a lot of unnecessary pain for Jr.

[DMB]

Originally, I think foreskins were sacrificed.

[Spherical Time]

I'm with HNA also, but I just want to say how weird it is to see a circumcision thread without massive fighting. This is usually so contentious.

[Lugubert]

100% what Noodles said. Dont.
Seconded.

In Sweden, circumcision is legal (although conditions apply). Docking of puppy dogs' tails isn't. So, genital mutilation of boys may be performed. I think a very vocal lobby including some Jewish celebrities played the religious intolerance card.

From Googling, I get the impression that many surgeons and hospitals in Sweden refuse to remove healthy foreskins, in the same way they would refuse to remove any other healthy organ from a patient unable to give informed consent.

[LoneWolf]

I just want to say how weird it is to see a circumcision thread without massive fighting. This is usually so contentious.

Sorry about that. Let's see....

How DARE you bastards try to tell ME what to do with my own son! If I want to cut his foreskin off I will damn well do it! Hell, I'll do it myself just to show you bastards who you are dealing with!!!!

Hopefully that will help the thread along.

[rlogan]

I tried to start a thread on the history of why this was done in the first place on the BC&H page. I took so much shit over it I was sorry I brought it up. But I did not get any good information on why.

We do it now out of historical inertia. I don't think I'd do it to my son.

[LoneWolf]

I think I can understand some of the sore feelings. If you had your son circumcised because you thought it was the right thing to do at the time and then later get told what a barbaric thing it is to have done it might make you feel guilty and/or defensive. I have what I believe to be the best mother a guy could ever ask for but she did have me circumcised. She was 17 at the time and was just doing what everyone around her did. Something tells me she would become defensive if people began telling her how her choice likely reduced the quality of my sex life and caused me an undue amount of pain as a child.

Anytime we question parenting choices feelings are going to get riled.

[David B]

Being circumcised yourself, you may not be aware that if he remains intact one of the things you will have to teach him is how to keep himself clean.

A small minority of boys do suffer from foreskin problems that require some sort of surgery, so you need to make sure that the foreskin remains retractable.

Remains retractable? The foreskin doesn't get retractable for years! Damage and pain is done by assiduous parents trying to retract what is not designed to be.

And don't!

David

[Spherical Time]

Sorry about that. Let's see....

How DARE you bastards try to tell ME what to do with my own son! If I want to cut his foreskin off I will damn well do it! Hell, I'll do it myself just to show you bastards who you are dealing with!!!!

Hopefully that will help the thread along.That sounds a lot more like what I'm used to.

[DMB]

Being circumcised yourself, you may not be aware that if he remains intact one of the things you will have to teach him is how to keep himself clean.

A small minority of boys do suffer from foreskin problems that require some sort of surgery, so you need to make sure that the foreskin remains retractable.

Remains retractable? The foreskin doesn't get retractable for years! Damage and pain is done by assiduous parents trying to retract what is not designed to be.

And don't!

David

It's extremely variable, David. :)

[nygreenguy]

Even if the STD thing has anything to it, you don't amputate as a prophylactic. The same cell types that reputed to be slightly more vulnerable to infection are present in the vulva, too - and again with the punching if someone suggested it for your daughter. What little protection it might afford is no substitute for safe sex, which would completely blanket any possible benefit anyway. Ok, so what about when he becomes monogamous and doesnt want to deal with condoms? And what about the womans health? Uncircumcised men are far more likely to transmit HPV. Not just "slightly" (p=0.009). But then again, this is sort of a small issue.

The majority of the nerve endings in the penis reside in the foreskin - more, in fact, than are present in the clitoris. Removing it thus removes more sensation in total than a total clitoridectomy. Don't do that to your own son. Bullshit. There is no evidence to support this.


Then you have gender-identity stuff (we're hairy, wrinkly and proud, not these pink epicene static barbie dildoes), and the basic human right to at least start out the game with all your body parts. Cosmetic surgery on minors is one hell of an ethical issue, especially when it involves an irreversible loss of genital tissue. But also restricting ones right to practice their religion by such a minor procedure is an even bigger ethical issue.

There's absolutely no medical justification - and even if there were, there's nothing that can't wait for informed adult consent. So what. Theres no medical justification for lots of stuff parents do, but that doesnt mean their right to do it should be restricted. There is simply nothing that shows that the infant actually suffers to the point it shouldnt be allowed.

If you have issues with it, then dont get it done and dont do it to your kids, but you can keep your opinion to yourself and let others do what THEY think is right.

[DMB]

But also restricting ones right to practice their religion by such a minor procedure is an even bigger ethical issue.

I'm not sure that stopping A from circumcising B (his son) is restricting him from practising his religion in any important way. A and B are separate individuals, each with individual human rights. If circumcision is important to A's religious practice, then he can make sure that he is circumcised himself. That doesn't give him the automatic right to mutilate his son. The son is not the property of the father.

[Notta]

There is evidence that circumcision helps to protect against sexually transmitted diseases. See this (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/). But there is nothing to stop an adult from making the decision to have himself circumcised, whereas by doing it to a baby you remove all choice.

Interesting. My guess is any such difference probably disappears when a condom is used. My son will definitely not be getting abstinence ONLY education. My mom bought me my first box of condoms and I would likely follow her example there.

Still, a 60% difference is significant.
Women who have sex with circumcised men have a lower risk of getting STDs, including HIV.

Men who are circumcised have a lower risk of penile cancer.

It's both a hygiene issue and a disease issue. My sons and husband are circumcised, but my father-in-law is not. My brothers, uncles, and all males on my mother's side from WWI era were. It's not just about using or not using condoms; it lowers the risk of passing along STDs to the female partners. Do you suppose your son would ALWAYS use a condom? What if he were sure his partner was on the pill and HIV-free?

And, if I were a male, I think the words "penile cancer" would scare the bejeezus outta me.

[Notta]

Note that the foreskin does not start out retractable in the majority of boys - it's fused to the glans, like the nail to the nail bed.
Which, among other things, probably means that the circumcision of a baby boy is considerably more painful than the circumcision of a man. You're not just cutting along the rim of the glans; you're carving something off the whole surface.

*shudder*

The fact that this is done at all is disturbing. The fact that it is typically done without anaesthetic is just sickening.US doctors now typically use a local anesthetic for this. However, I'll remember the screams of my newborn baby boy for the rest of my life; his doctor didn't use anything, as was normal in the early 1980s.

[Puck]

Count me as a voice for not having it done. I've had sex with circumcised and uncircumcised men. I much prefer the uncircumcised men.

From what I understand there is also a higher risk in women for cancer who have sex with uncircumcised men. I know a woman who's husband wasn't circumcised and died of cervical cancer. I will always wonder if it was a matter of him not keeping himself clean enough. I made sure Bobby understood that risk when we got together, and that keeping himself clean was important to my health.

[Anne]

IIRC, the studies about women and stds and circed men were comparing Hispanic populations in NYC with white protestants in the burbs. Not exactly 'only one variable', y'know?

The groups of men to study in the US are fairly small, albeit growing. There are too many variables for all of the groups to be able to say anything about cause and effect.

IMO, there is no legitimate reason to hack off a perfectly useful part of a man's body. And, DMB, you do have one--- it's part of the whole female circ bit as well.

I will not do my personal rant, but please note, I would froth at the mouth worse than HNA if I did. I TOTALLY agree with EVERYTHING he says about this subject.

(please note: I have been rabidly anti circ since I was like 14 years old. When I was about 5 months pregnant, I began to waffle about if it was a good idea. Hormones SUCK.)

[His Noodly Appendage]

Notta: if I were a woman, the words 'breast cancer' would scare the bejesus out of me. Double mastectomies at birth, anyone?

I thought not.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Notta: as I've said, the same cell types that are thought to be a vulnerability in men are also present in women. Would you advocate infant infibulation as a precautionary measure, so that girls don't have to use barrier methods or get vaccinated?

[4321lynx]

Hell no. Don't do it. Just don't.

I'm intact, and I can honestly say I'd rather a couple of fingers than my foreskin.

Where to start?

The hygiene thing is rubbish. If you have access to running water, there's zero issue. It takes three seconds in the shower. You don't amputate to avoid washing, and if someone suggested slicing off your daughter's genitals because labia are dirty, you'd punch them in the face.

Even if the STD thing has anything to it, you don't amputate as a prophylactic. The same cell types that reputed to be slightly more vulnerable to infection are present in the vulva, too - and again with the punching if someone suggested it for your daughter. What little protection it might afford is no substitute for safe sex, which would completely blanket any possible benefit anyway.

The majority of the nerve endings in the penis reside in the foreskin - more, in fact, than are present in the clitoris. Removing it thus removes more sensation in total than a total clitoridectomy. Don't do that to your own son.

As well as sheer volume of sensation, there's qualitative differences. The foreskin is full of stretch receptors, granting proprioception (the sense that tells you where your limbs/etc) are, with every movement as it rolls over the glans. That's a whole kind of sensation that circumcised men lose.

The covering of the glans is not skin, and it's not designed for daily wear and tear. It's an internal organ, and needs to be protected. Without that protection, it gradually keratinizes, growing a tough, insensitive callus instead of the supple, sensitive covering it has by default.

Then there's the frictionless gliding mechanism, which isn't well-understood in cultures that commonly circumcise. Executive summary, it's not just a flap of skin. The easiest way to explain it is by analogy. Put on a long stretchy satin shirt with sleeves a hand-length past your fingertips. Turn the cuffs in on themselves, and glue them to your watch strap. You are now wearing a foreskin simulator - your hand is the glans, your sleeve is the foreskin. You can 'shoot your cuffs' to look at your watch, and the sleeve will roll over your hand, with zero friction. For a demo of just how frictionless, take a pinch of eyelid or elbow skin, and rub it between thumb and finger. No skin slides over your fingertips - even if you had glue on them, it'd still slip completely freely. No amount of lubrication can ever match that.

Plus there's the frenulum - often known as the 'male clitoris'. It's the exquisitely sensitive tie connecting foreskin to glans, like the thing under your top lip. It's particularly sensitive to stretching, as each thrust pulls the foreskin back. Even if the circumcision operation preserves the frenulum (many don't), it no longer gets tugged during sex - once again reducing pleasure.

Even without all the nerve endings, gliding mechanism, etc - just the amount the the foreskin protects the glans from drying makes a huge difference. A friend of a friend is in the early stages of restoring - just keeping the glans covered 24/7 - and reports an improvement in sex equivalent to the difference between wearing a condom and not.

Then you have gender-identity stuff (we're hairy, wrinkly and proud, not these pink epicene static barbie dildoes), and the basic human right to at least start out the game with all your body parts. Cosmetic surgery on minors is one hell of an ethical issue, especially when it involves an irreversible loss of genital tissue.

There's absolutely no medical justification - and even if there were, there's nothing that can't wait for informed adult consent.

Sorry to bash you with a wall of text, but this is a major hot-button issue for me - and I've really only scratched the surface.

Good for you. Even if your appendage is noodly!!

Those Roundheads have no idea what they're missing, only we Cavaliers know....

[His Noodly Appendage]

The majority of the nerve endings in the penis reside in the foreskin - more, in fact, than are present in the clitoris. Removing it thus removes more sensation in total than a total clitoridectomy. Don't do that to your own son. Bullshit. There is no evidence to support this.

7. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44.

8. Bazett, H. C. et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.

9. Dogiel, A. S., "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der äusseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," [Nerve endings in human genital mucosa] Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612.

10. Winkelmann, R. K. "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.

11. Winkelmann, R. K. "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, 1959.

[nygreenguy]

I'm not sure that stopping A from circumcising B (his son) is restricting him from practising his religion in any important way. A and B are separate individuals, each with individual human rights. If circumcision is important to A's religious practice, then he can make sure that he is circumcised himself. That doesn't give him the automatic right to mutilate his son. The son is not the property of the father.

No one ever said they are property. Does requiring parents consent to get ear piercing mean that the parent own the child? No. This is also a form of "mutilation" (more loaded language which many of you seem to like). And what about surgeries and such? Should the parent not be able to make the decision because the child doesnt have a say? The parent is the prime decision maker for the child. Now, just because you might bring up the "necessity" argument, thats simply a ridiculous argument. There are many things that parents are allowed to do that no one bats an eye at that are "unnecessary". Unless there is solid evidence that it actually negatively affects the child, it is no business of mine, yours or the governments.

[Anne]

hurm... if all the benefits are reaped as a sexually mature person, then it sounds like a place to not have parents make the decision...

[nygreenguy]

The majority of the nerve endings in the penis reside in the foreskin - more, in fact, than are present in the clitoris. Removing it thus removes more sensation in total than a total clitoridectomy. Don't do that to your own son. Bullshit. There is no evidence to support this.

7. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44.

8. Bazett, H. C. et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.

9. Dogiel, A. S., "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der äusseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," [Nerve endings in human genital mucosa] Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612.

10. Winkelmann, R. K. "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.

11. Winkelmann, R. K. "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, 1959.

Seriously dude? You pull citations from some biased uncredible source and expect them to be taken seriously? FFS, there's one from 1893! So please only use sources that you have actually read, not just what some website says.

[Free in Freeport]

Um...my experience with uncircumsized penises is very limited, so there's great danger in over-generalizing. I'd rather not get specific about what the issues I encountered were in an open thread, but pm me if you want to know.

[nygreenguy]

hurm... if all the benefits are reaped as a sexually mature person, then it sounds like a place to not have parents make the decision...
So then one could argue that the child should only watch movies with ugly people so their self esteem with be high and they can have an enjoyable sex life....

Once again, our parents do all sorts of things that can totally fuck us up as adults, that doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed.

[Free in Freeport]

hurm... if all the benefits are reaped as a sexually mature person, then it sounds like a place to not have parents make the decision...
So then one could argue that the child should only watch movies with ugly people so their self esteem with be high and they can have an enjoyable sex life....

Once again, our parents do all sorts of things that can totally fuck us up as adults, that doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed.

Huh?

I'm seriously confused here. Who thinks uncircumsized penises are ugly?

[David B]

I simply fail to see how anyone can fail to see lopping bits off kiddies genitals as anything other than mutilation, and as anything other than child abuse.

In both female and male cases, it looks to me like people who come from cultures where they are prevalent, and don't challenge it, are just....not able to think outside their culture.

HNA has started on explaining why it is the evil that it is. But there is more.

David

[Anne]

hurm... if all the benefits are reaped as a sexually mature person, then it sounds like a place to not have parents make the decision...
So then one could argue that the child should only watch movies with ugly people so their self esteem with be high and they can have an enjoyable sex life....

Once again, our parents do all sorts of things that can totally fuck us up as adults, that doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed.

no, I'm saying the 'health benefits' do not come into play until the boy is sexually active.

That takes it out of the 'parent's decide' category to me.

Since, in a decent culture, sexually active= adult able to make decisions.

[nygreenguy]

I simply fail to see how anyone can fail to see lopping bits off kiddies genitals as anything other than mutilation, and as anything other than child abuse.

In both female and male cases, it looks to me like people who come from cultures where they are prevalent, and don't challenge it, are just....not able to think outside their culture.

HNA has started on explaining why it is the evil that it is. But there is more.

David
So because you fail to see it, that makes everyone else wrong. How are you so sure you are not the one who cant think outside their culture? Argument from incredulity?

And female cases are FAR from even comparable to men.

[nygreenguy]

Huh?

I'm seriously confused here. Who thinks uncircumsized penises are ugly?

Who ever said they were?

[nygreenguy]

no, I'm saying the 'health benefits' do not come into play until the boy is sexually active.

That takes it out of the 'parent's decide' category to me.

Since, in a decent culture, sexually active= adult able to make decisions.

Ok, so children shouldnt be fed mcdonalds because the "health benefits" dont really come into play until the child is an adult.

Whats the difference? Dont you see the awful slippery slope argument you keep proposing?

[Matty]

hurm... if all the benefits are reaped as a sexually mature person, then it sounds like a place to not have parents make the decision...
So then one could argue that the child should only watch movies with ugly people so their self esteem with be high and they can have an enjoyable sex life....

Once again, our parents do all sorts of things that can totally fuck us up as adults, that doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed.

Huh?

I'm seriously confused here. Who thinks uncircumsized penises are ugly?
i've seen the argument (from a woman) before that they should have their son cut becasue if not then he will cop locker room jibes from hte guys and be seen as weird or deformed by women in US society where circ is the norm.

I've also seen the argument that the resultant loss of penile sensation would be no bad thing as when he was sexually mature he would last longer. I threw back the obvious "yeah well maybe those women in sudan etc who have been genitally mutilated present a nice tight fit for their husbands so that was alright then?. "

they got the message.

[David B]

I simply fail to see how anyone can fail to see lopping bits off kiddies genitals as anything other than mutilation, and as anything other than child abuse.

In both female and male cases, it looks to me like people who come from cultures where they are prevalent, and don't challenge it, are just....not able to think outside their culture.


HNA has started on explaining why it is the evil that it is. But there is more.

David
So because you fail to see it, that makes everyone else wrong. How are you so sure you are not the one who cant think outside their culture? Argument from incredulity?

And female cases are FAR from even comparable to men.


So explain to me how lopping bits off kiddies is not mutilating them:dunno:

David

[nygreenguy]

So explain to me how lopping bits off kiddies is not mutilating them:dunno:

David

Because, by any definition of the word, it is not:

# an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

# The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation

# mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work"
# mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# mutilated - maimed: having a part of the body crippled or disabled
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# mutilator - a person who mutilates or destroys or disfigures or cripples
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# The Mutilated - One act plays by Tennessee Williams is a list of the one act plays written by American playwright Tennessee Williams.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mutilated

# The Mutilator is a 1985 horror film. It was directed by Buddy Cooper, and stars Matt Mitler,Ruth Martinez,Jack Chatham,Frances Raines,Bennie Moore,and Bill Hitchcock.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mutilator

# mutilate - To physically harm as to impair use, notably by cutting off or otherwise disabling a vital part, such as a limb; To destroy beyond recognition; To render imperfect
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilate

# mutilated - to cut up, destroy, or alter radically.
library.thinkquest.org/J003358F/terms.html

[David B]

Yes it is.

A foreskin is an important body part. See HNA's evidence.

And removing it does degrade function, ditto.

David

[Christina]

i've seen the argument (from a woman) before that they should have their son cut becasue if not then he will cop locker room jibes from hte guys and be seen as weird or deformed by women in US society where circ is the norm.

In the heavily Irish and Italian Catholic neighborhoods where I grew up it was a given that male babies would be circumcised. There wasn't even any discussion about it unless you asked and the only response was that it was an important and necessary health procedure and that Jewish people didn't do it for other religious reasons. Unless this is unique, we were woefully unprepared to even know what an uncircumcised penis looked like. I remember the first time that I saw one and my reaction wasn't at all that it was weird or ugly, just that it was kind of cool and different and interesting. I would be willing to bet that many American women have never even seen one.

[4321lynx]

And about that noodly thing, there is Viagara et al. you know :D & if those fail and if you're ever coming to Toronto, I can give you the phone number of a girl who... :D

Aw, never mind. I guess pimping is illegal...

[nygreenguy]

Yes it is.

A foreskin is an important body part. See HNA's evidence.

And removing it does degrade function, ditto.

David

Double bullshit. He hasnt provided any evidence that it degrades much of anything. At best, it reduces some sensitivity, that FAR from mutilation. I burn my finger and it looses some sensitivity, that doesnt mean I mutilated it.

[nygreenguy]

I would be willing to bet that many American women have never even seen one.

I wouldnt. It seems at out peak, 60-70% were actually circumcised. It seems to hover about 50-60%. I always thought it was much, much higher.

[David B]

Yes it is.

A foreskin is an important body part. See HNA's evidence.

And removing it does degrade function, ditto.

David


Double bullshit. He hasnt provided any evidence that it degrades much of anything. At best, it reduces some sensitivity, that FAR from mutilation. I burn my finger and it looses some sensitivity, that doesnt mean I mutilated it.


You can burn your finger by accident, but you can't lop off bits of genitals by accident.

And all the nerve endings in the foreskin are gone, apart from the loss of sensitivity that is caused by not having it there to protect and keep moist.

It degrades function to lop it, which is what you required to count as mutilation.

David

[nygreenguy]

You can burn your finger by accident, but you can't lop off bits of genitals by accident.

And all the nerve endings in the foreskin are gone, apart from the loss of sensitivity that is caused by not having it there to protect and keep moist.

It degrades function to lop it, which is what you required to count as mutilation.

David

Every uncircumcised man will tell you he still enjoys sex, so its hard to argue that there was any real "loss of function".

Also, I dont have any requirements to what counts as mutilation, I only posted a list of definition as to what the general public accepts as "mutilation". It is clear from reading the definition that its speaking of the loss of items which really have a detrimental affect on a person. There is zero evidence to support the fact that circumcision does this.

[David B]

You can burn your finger by accident, but you can't lop off bits of genitals by accident.

And all the nerve endings in the foreskin are gone, apart from the loss of sensitivity that is caused by not having it there to protect and keep moist.

It degrades function to lop it, which is what you required to count as mutilation.

David

Every uncircumcised man will tell you he still enjoys sex, so its hard to argue that there was any real "loss of function".

Also, I dont have any requirements to what counts as mutilation, I only posted a list of definition as to what the general public accepts as "mutilation". It is clear from reading the definition that its speaking of the loss of items which really have a detrimental affect on a person. There is zero evidence to support the fact that circumcision does this.

If a foreskin is so useless, why do they remain in the human, and AFAIK, mammalian genomes, do you think?

David

[4321lynx]

To be serious for a change. HNA & David B have got it absolutely right IMH& ProfessionalO.

It is an old tribal custom, like filing teeth in some tribes in Angola. The Jews made a deal with their god & carried their circumcised penises for 4000 years as a sign of it. After the Reformation the English got it into their heads that they were the chosen people & circumcision became routine as a sign of their deal with their god, because thebiblesaidso.

Most of Europe, even Protestant Germany, does not do it. Don't know about Scandinavia.
There may be some advantages, in the absence of proper hygeine, that have been outlined above. As far as STD's are concerned 1. Take precautions. 2. Get the STD treated before you screw again. Jesus christ, how difficult is that? Anyway in these days, either sex is as likely to get pharyngeal gonorrhoea, or syphilitic chancre, or other lesions, as genital. Are you going to cut their lips away to discourage them from giving head?

Most procircumcision arguments, I find, are heavily, albeit often unconciously, biased apologetics for the procedure.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Chinese women with bound feet could still walk.

Was that not mutilation?

[David B]

Sub optimal sex is still nice, so the argument that because cut men still like sex seems to me to fail.

No-one who is cut in infancy can really understand the uncut man.

On the other hand, uncut men can get a glimmer, or rather more than that, if they have ever fallen asleep with the foreskin retracted, and woken in the morning to find the glans all dry and horrible.

I have, not a lot of times, but more than once,

After just a few hours without the protection of the sensitive skin that nature has provided, the difference is obvious.

After many years of desensitivation, then of course it wouldn't be so obvious, even if it was of the greater degree that I suspect.

David

David

[4321lynx]

Ok, so what about when he becomes monogamous and doesnt want to deal with condoms? And what about the womans health? Uncircumcised men are far more likely to transmit HPV. Not just "slightly" (p=0.009). But then again, this is sort of a small issue.

There is now a vaccine for this. In Ontario it is available free. It is hoped that it will do away with most cases of cancer of the cervix.


But also restricting ones right to practice their religion by such a minor procedure is an even bigger ethical issue.

Restricting it how? No one I hope is going to compel Jews or Muslims not to circumcise. This is advice not dictation.

[David B]

Ok, so what about when he becomes monogamous and doesnt want to deal with condoms? And what about the womans health? Uncircumcised men are far more likely to transmit HPV. Not just "slightly" (p=0.009). But then again, this is sort of a small issue.

There is now a vaccine for this. In Ontario it is available free. It is hoped that it will do away with most cases of cancer of the cervix.


But also restricting ones right to practice their religion by such a minor procedure is an even bigger ethical issue.

Restricting it how? No one I hope is going to compel Jews or Muslims not to circumcise. This is advice not dictation.

I would, if I could, just as I would legislate against female circumcision, child marriage, foot binding, human sacrifice suttee...

But I can't.

I don't see religion getting a free ride, though.

David

[4321lynx]

Sub optimal sex is still nice, so the argument that because cut men still like sex seems to me to fail.

No-one who is cut in infancy can really understand the uncut man.

On the other hand, uncut men can get a glimmer, or rather more than that, if they have ever fallen asleep with the foreskin retracted, and woken in the morning to find the glans all dry and horrible.

I have, not a lot of times, but more than once,

After just a few hours without the protection of the sensitive skin that nature has provided, the difference is obvious.

After many years of desensitivation, then of course it wouldn't be so obvious, even if it was of the greater degree that I suspect.

David

David

Not only that, David, the skin of the glans is thin & more like a mucus membrane in the uncut, after circumcision it thickens & becomes a squamous epithelium, like "normal" skin.

[4321lynx]

I would, if I could, just as I would legislate against female circumcision, child marriage, foot binding, human sacrifice suttee...

But I can't.

I don't see religion getting a free ride, though.

David

Agree with you on all the ones above. All have legistlation against them, in civilised countries.

In principle, you are completely right about male circumcision. As practical politics it would not work.

[David B]

I would, if I could, just as I would legislate against female circumcision, child marriage, foot binding, human sacrifice suttee...

But I can't.

I don't see religion getting a free ride, though.

David

Agree with you on all the ones above. All have legistlation against them, in civilised countries.

In principle, you are completely right. As practical politics it would not work.

Didn't people used to argue like that about slavery, or getting a black person in America to be a candidate for President?

It won't happen overnight, sure.

David

[His Noodly Appendage]

No, but a vigilante campaign to remove the scrota and eyelids of the surgeons and mohels responsible, on the other hand... ah, I dream.

[His Noodly Appendage]

nygreenguy: If you believe that the number of nerve endings naturally present in the human foreskin has decreased in recent years, rendering the peer-reviewed papers I cited obsolete, then please present your evidence.

If you have evidence that the human foreskin always contained a lower number of nerve endings than claimed in said peer-reviewed papers - then again, present your evidence.

[nygreenguy]

There is now a vaccine for this. In Ontario it is available free. It is hoped that it will do away with most cases of cancer of the cervix. A vaccine whose safety is still called into question.




Restricting it how? No one I hope is going to compel Jews or Muslims not to circumcise. This is advice not dictation. Thats my argument, it seems like many here want to ban it.

[Magdlyn]

And female cases are FAR from even comparable to men.

nygg, I love you to death, but support or retract! (heh)

Of course foreskins are the norm. In men and women they cover a mucus membrane. The so-called health benefits of supposed cancer prevention in studies (while minimal hygeine practices do the same thing)... are underwhelming to me, considering the positive health benefits of a foreskin's function.

[Magdlyn]

So explain to me how lopping bits off kiddies is not mutilating them:dunno:

David

Because, by any definition of the word, it is not:

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




But it is. You've self pwned. The foreskin is an important body part.

[Anne]

I for one would be happy with it banned.

Much like child brides are banned, and slavery, and stoning, and all sorts of religiously based laws.

But no one here is going to track LW down and force him to not circ his son. No one is going to follow him around and tell him No Circ! in every thread he posts.

He asked for advice. It's not even unsolicited.

It's our opinion that it's disgusting and barbaric and criminal, but the laws and cultures have not caught up yet. He asked our opinion, he got it.

In spades.

[Magdlyn]

Every uncircumcised man will tell you he still enjoys sex, so its hard to argue that there was any real "loss of function".

Actually, you've not spoken to "every uncirced man." And I think you meant circed? No, there are cut men out there who are in major shit. Some male babies' circs go so badly the babies lose their penises.

But more commonly, males can be so tightly circed, their penises can become crooked when erect and so tight feeling, they actually experience pain. Sometimes these men cant maintain an erection for more than a minute or two, barely enough time to have intercourse. Ask their partners how they like that. Also, this condition prevents condom use, b/c the pain will cause loss of erection before the condom can be applied.



Also, I dont have any requirements to what counts as mutilation, I only posted a list of definition as to what the general public accepts as "mutilation". It is clear from reading the definition that its speaking of the loss of items which really have a detrimental affect on a person. There is zero evidence to support the fact that circumcision does this.

Oh dear...

A circed penis can also act as a squeegee in the vagina, scraping out the woman's lubrication. This causes a need for store bought lube. Circed men are more likely to exp erectile disfunction.

Let's just put it this way. A biologically normal penis is the intact penis. We show our cultural bias by calling an intact penis "uncircumcised," as if the uncirced organ is the norm! Think about that.

[Magdlyn]

I would be willing to bet that many American women have never even seen one.

I wouldnt. It seems at out peak, 60-70% were actually circumcised. It seems to hover about 50-60%. I always thought it was much, much higher.

Currently in the US, the circ rate is about 50%. This varies by region. On the coasts where ppl are educated and sophisticated, circing has gone completely out of fashion. In conservative, poor regions (cough fundie cough) circing is still common. Insurance cos are gradually refusing to pay for this unnecessary/elective cosmetic surgery.

And, btw, lots of drs who do still perform it, do not use anesthesia. The stress levels (the hormone cortisol) in male babies who undergo this surgery have been measured. They go sky high. The babies pass out from the pain, even if they dont scream bloody murder. Even after the local anesthesia wears off, there is pain for days. Have you ever seen a freshly chopped newborn dick??? *puke* What a terrible thing to do to a baby. And he will sleep or fuss more for days, which can and does interfere with establishing breastfeeding. This can cause excess weight loss, just when they are trying to regain their birthweight.

[Magdlyn]

[
If you have issues with it, then dont get it done and dont do it to your kids, but you can keep your opinion to yourself and let others do what THEY think is right.


Number one, LW asked for information.

Number two, this is a discussion board, and no one's gonna keep their opinions to themselves!

Number three, even if opinions are unsolicited, others can still do what they think is right, with more evidence and information to make an informed choice. Not just a glance at some trumped up headline about supposed cancer prevention.

Honestly, it's just cultural bias.

There is a tiny percentage of the human population that is extra prone to breast cancer. I have heard of women (and a few men) going for mastectomies in the prime of their life, since their mothers and aunts and grandmothers have died young from breast cancer. But this should be the exception (and a drastic horrible one), not the rule!

[Magdlyn]

There is now a vaccine for this. In Ontario it is available free. It is hoped that it will do away with most cases of cancer of the cervix. A vaccine whose safety is still called into question.


The irony, it burns.

Lone Wolf, please read this article

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

[Christina]

Currently in the US, the circ rate is about 50%. This varies by region. On the coasts where ppl are educated and sophisticated, circing has gone completely out of fashion. In conservative, poor regions (cough fundie cough) circing is still common.

I was responding to Matty's comment that American women see them as weird or deformed. That's why I tried to be careful to specify that I was referring to heavily religious areas several decades ago, and used the word 'many' instead of most. Many women spent all of their lives in homogeneous communities where it almost unheard of not to be circumcised and never had a lover outside of that circle to see one first hand. It wasn't like women had easy, confidential access to information back then. I'm glad that the rate has dropped so much since I was young. I'm not a scientist or parent but I've yet to read anything that convinced me that it's necessary.

[LoneWolf]

But no one here is going to track LW down and force him to not circ his son. No one is going to follow him around and tell him No Circ! in every thread he posts.

Please, Anne, don't give them any ideas. ;)

[nygreenguy]

But it is. You've self pwned. The foreskin is an important body part.

How is it so important that billions of men get along more than perfectly well without it. If it is really THAT important, why dont we have massive movements of men to outright ban it? Sine we live in a man run world, I think, and you know, if foreskin was THAT important, it would have been banned a LONG time ago. FFS, hair is more important to men than fucking foreskin.

Also, if you seriously think I need to show how male circumcision is different than female genital cutting, then I somehow doubt explaining it to you would make any difference. However, heres something interesting from wiki:

Several dictionaries, including medical dictionaries, define the word circumcision as applicable to some procedures performed on females.[10][11][12] Cook states that historically, the term female circumcision was used, but that "this procedure in whatever form it is practiced is not at all analogous to male circumcision and so the term 'female circumcision' gave way to the term 'female genital mutilation'"[13] Shell-Duncan states that the term female circumcision is a euphemism for a variety of procedures for altering the female genitalia.[14] Toubia argued, in 1995, that the term female circumcision "implies a fallacious analogy to nonmutilating male circumcision, in which the foreskin is cut off from the tip of the penis without damaging the organ itself."[15] However, in the 1999 book Male and Female Circumcision, Toubia states that she agrees that "circumcision -- that is, the genital mutilation of girls and boys -- is wrong despite its widespread practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

[Stout Drinker]

100% what Noodles said. Dont.
Seconded.

In Sweden, circumcision is legal (although conditions apply). Docking of puppy dogs' tails isn't. So, genital mutilation of boys may be performed. I think a very vocal lobby including some Jewish celebrities played the religious intolerance card.

From Googling, I get the impression that many surgeons and hospitals in Sweden refuse to remove healthy foreskins, in the same way they would refuse to remove any other healthy organ from a patient unable to give informed consent.

A former coworker of mine was Muslim and his son was born in Sweden. He told me that he was unable to have his son circumsized in Sweden. I wonder if the laws have changed.

His son would have been born in the late 80's so the laws may well have changed.

[Brianna]

Count me as a voice for not having it done. I've had sex with circumcised and uncircumcised men. I much prefer the uncircumcised men.

From what I understand there is also a higher risk in women for cancer who have sex with uncircumcised men. I know a woman who's husband wasn't circumcised and died of cervical cancer. I will always wonder if it was a matter of him not keeping himself clean enough. I made sure Bobby understood that risk when we got together, and that keeping himself clean was important to my health.

I have heard there is more risk for cervical cancer in women if the woman starts to have sex before the age of 18.

I have not heard that it has anything to do with the type of penis inserted.

That being said, as long as it doesn't smell funky a condom will go on the same way.

P.s. For those of you didn't know one of the people posting is a very published medical doctor who has practiced in more then one country.

[dancer_rnb]

How is it so important that billions of men get along more than perfectly well without it.


Do you have proof that billions of men have been circumcized?

Add: Should probably have asked why you say "billions." that seems awfully high.

[LoneWolf]

Well this thread has delivered. Both sides have made some compelling points but I have also seen a couple logical fallacies pop up from both sides as well, which seems to happen when discussions get emotionally heated.

I was initially concerned about some of the studies discussed in which women with uncirced men had higher cancer rates than with circed men but further investigation revealed that circumcision wasn’t the only variable. To be honest I haven’t found much in the way of well designed strong studies supporting either camp with regards to couples in a 1st world hygienic environment.

Yes, I was circed and I enjoy sex very much. Of course I wouldn’t know what I was missing now would I? And maybe I’m not missing anything. Studies aside, my common sense tells me that circumcision would result in reduced sensation but of course in matters of science common sense is not always accurate.

There are certainly medical decisions a parent needs to make for his child. The questions remains: is this one of those decisions that needs to be made by the parent or should it be differed until the child is of age to make his own decision?

The fact that it is something that could affect his sex life leads me to believe that it is a decision he should make when he is sexually mature. As I said, my step-brother had it done around the age of 23 and despite the cringe inducing thought of having it done as an adult, it was in reality no big deal. He had all the appropriate pain killers. He was able to talk to the doctor, read the appropriate literature, and discuss it with his significant other before going through with it. He made his own informed decision.

Why should I take this choice away from my son?


Disclaimer: I do not cast judgment on those who have come to a different conclusion than I have on this subject.

[Anne]

But it is. You've self pwned. The foreskin is an important body part.

How is it so important that billions of men get along more than perfectly well without it. If it is really THAT important, why dont we have massive movements of men to outright ban it? Sine we live in a man run world, I think, and you know, if foreskin was THAT important, it would have been banned a LONG time ago. FFS, hair is more important to men than fucking foreskin.



If it's that unimportant, why cut it off?

It's as important as your eyelid. What can you show that proves it's not important?

Just for the info--- racehorses aren't circed. Considering millions of dollars ride on their penii, that's saying a lot... ;)

[Magdlyn]

But it is. You've self pwned. The foreskin is an important body part.

How is it so important that billions of men get along more than perfectly well without it.


nygg, there is no such thing as more than perfectly.

And they dont get along perfectly. I gave you cases of men who are unable to sustain erections. Also, many/most men that are cut need to pump hard and fast to have sensation enough for orgasm. This is not normal or perfect.

I have read stories of cut men who report their orgasms to be just a little pop feeling, hardly worth the effort.



If it is really THAT important, why dont we have massive movements of men to outright ban it? Sine we live in a man run world, I think, and you know, if foreskin was THAT important, it would have been banned a LONG time ago.

Actually, there is a massive movement of men and women to get info out about the importance of the foreskin and the hazards of circing. That is why circing has gone from 90% to a 50% rate in the US. And still falling.



FFS, hair is more important to men than fucking foreskin.

???



Also, if you seriously think I need to show how male circumcision is different than female genital cutting, then I somehow doubt explaining it to you would make any difference. However, heres something interesting from wiki:

... in the 1999 book Male and Female Circumcision, Toubia states that she agrees that "circumcision -- that is, the genital mutilation of girls and boys -- is wrong despite its widespread practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

self pwned again?

[Magdlyn]

Please read this article for facts.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html


Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands -- glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health the surface of the glans.
Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14 ...

Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

[LoneWolf]

I gave you cases of men who are unable to sustain erections. Also, many/most men that are cut need to pump hard and fast to have sensation enough for orgasm. This is not normal or perfect.

I have read stories of cut men who report their orgasms to be just a little pop feeling, hardly worth the effort.


In fairness, Magdlyn, these are anecdotes and I am sure we could find similar anecdotes of uncut men with similar problems.

But at the same time we also don't know if these billions of men would have been even better off if they were left intact.

[Anne]

more than you asked for, eh?

[LoneWolf]

Please read this article for facts.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html


Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands -- glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health the surface of the glans.
Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14 ...

Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

Good info but they also step on their own point a little bit in one place. A cut penis does not have the mucus membrane at the head that an uncut penis would have. And despite what is said about the immunological defense properties of the mucus membrane, a mucus membrane is also a primary point for the transfer of disease to take place. While removing it removes that first line of defense, it is also removing the battle ground so it is less likely the battle would even take place.

The point about removing nerve endings, however, is a strong point in the anti-circumcision camp.

[LoneWolf]

more than you asked for, eh?

Well, it is an important topic. I just hope people stick to attacking the argument and not the individuals.

[Magdlyn]

I gave you cases of men who are unable to sustain erections. Also, many/most men that are cut need to pump hard and fast to have sensation enough for orgasm. This is not normal or perfect.

I have read stories of cut men who report their orgasms to be just a little pop feeling, hardly worth the effort.


In fairness, Magdlyn, these are anecdotes and I am sure we could find similar anecdotes of uncut men with similar problems.

There you go calling them uncut instead of intact!

Yes, they are anecdotes! Intact men oh so rarely have issues with their penii. Havent we tho, had an anecdote here about one man who "needed" to be circed at age 23? Let's scold the poster who cited that.



But at the same time we also don't know if these billions of men would have been even better off if they were left intact.

With their full complement of immune defense and nerve endings?

Would I be better off if I cut off my breasts right now? Just in case of cancer? Would I be even better than perfect?

[LoneWolf]

I gave you cases of men who are unable to sustain erections. Also, many/most men that are cut need to pump hard and fast to have sensation enough for orgasm. This is not normal or perfect.

I have read stories of cut men who report their orgasms to be just a little pop feeling, hardly worth the effort.


In fairness, Magdlyn, these are anecdotes and I am sure we could find similar anecdotes of uncut men with similar problems.

There you go calling them uncut instead of intact!

Crap. I shall go flail myself.

Yes, they are anecdotes! Intact men oh so rarely have issues with their penii. Havent we tho, had an anecdote here about one man who "needed" to be circed at age 23? Let's scold the poster who cited that.

Good point. Anecdotes can lend flavor to a discussion and can be used to make a point, but I don't think they are very effective in convincing an audience hostile to one's opinion. I was the one who mentioned my 23 year-old step-brother and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in this thread. I am just explaining my own thought process as I strive to come to the right decision for my own son.



But at the same time we also don't know if these billions of men would have been even better off if they were left intact.

With their full complement of immune defense and nerve endings?

OK, what gives? I said intact that time! I want a cookie or something. ;)

I'm sold on the nerve ending argument but I'm not sold on the immune defense argument yet.

Would I be better off if I cut off my breasts right now? Just in case of cancer? Would I be even better than perfect?

Nope.

[His Noodly Appendage]

*wonders if nygg wants some sugar for his grapes*

[His Noodly Appendage]

Lonewolf: I think it's a burden of proof thing - the pro side needs to present arguments that you do need to, before adulthood.

Otherwise, it ain't broke.

ETA: the 'FEAR" argument bears thinking about. If most adults would refuse point-blank, even knowing the putative advantages, that suggests that said putative advantages aren't worth it.

[LoneWolf]

Lonewolf: I think it's a burden of proof thing - the pro side needs to present arguments that you do need to, before adulthood.

Otherwise, it ain't broke.

Yeah, that is my current view. That is why I stated “Why should I take this choice away from my son?”

There are certainly reasons for making medical choices for our children, usually because action has to be taken now and cannot be deferred until the child is old enough to make their own decision. Vaccinations are a good example of that.

But I haven't yet seen a good argument for why this needs to be done to a baby rather than waiting for him to be old enough to make his own decision in the matter. I really will listen to both sides. I just haven't heard a good case for infant circumcision yet.

[Brianna]

I agree.

All the men should post pictures of their penii so that we can judge for ourselves.

[Danhalen]

I agree.

All the men should post pictures of their penii so that we can judge for ourselves.I would never do such a thing.

By the way, I have two boys. I had the first circumcised because I was 19 when we had him and didn't really think about it. Our second boy is uncut because of the pain I thought I might have caused my older son and because it's really not my choice to make if I'm not a religious man.

[Lugubert]

100% what Noodles said. Dont.
Seconded.

In Sweden, circumcision is legal (although conditions apply). Docking of puppy dogs' tails isn't. So, genital mutilation of boys may be performed. I think a very vocal lobby including some Jewish celebrities played the religious intolerance card.

From Googling, I get the impression that many surgeons and hospitals in Sweden refuse to remove healthy foreskins, in the same way they would refuse to remove any other healthy organ from a patient unable to give informed consent.

A former coworker of mine was Muslim and his son was born in Sweden. He told me that he was unable to have his son circumsized in Sweden. I wonder if the laws have changed.

His son would have been born in the late 80's so the laws may well have changed.
The process being legal is one thing, finding a doctor who is willing to break his Hippocratic oath by uneccessarily mutilating a child is another thing.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't think the evidence for its potential benefits justifies it, so I'd say "no" to circumcision for any boy.

[Preno]

Well, I don't know the first thing circumcision, but the relevant question seems to be, would you even seriously consider doing it if it weren't the cultural norm in the U.S.? If the answer is no (and I think it quite obviously is), then I don't see how it actually being a cultural norm in the U.S. (and a significant part of the Third World) should change your opinion (because it sure as hell didn't become a cultural norm for health-related reasons).

[DMB]

I had no idea it was so common in the States. I'm not sure I've even seen a circumcised penis. But then I never made a habit of gawking at penes in my pre-marital days anyway.

[Magdlyn]

Good point. Anecdotes can lend flavor to a discussion and can be used to make a point, but I don't think they are very effective in convincing an audience hostile to one's opinion.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. HNA and I are sharing information. Of course it is up to each individual to make their own parenting choices. However, yes, there is emotion involved. Since we are parents, we hate to think of a one day old newborn going thru this kind of unnecessary agony on his most sensitive part.



OK, what gives? I said intact that time! I want a cookie or something. ;)

*cookie* :)

I'd just like to add that the ear piercing argument (from upthread) doesn't work either. The earlobe is not as sensitive as the penis. Also, the earlobe is not ripped off and cut away, merely has a hole punched in it. The earlobe does not cover a mucus membrane, nor does it contain immune defense properties. And when that child becomes sexually active, her ear piercings will not interfere with normal sexual function. Plus, she can take the earrings out and be left with a tiny scar/hole, no big whoop.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Hey, speak for yourself. I don't think it's anyone's choice to make.

[Brother Daniel]

but you can keep your opinion to yourself and let others do what THEY think is right.
Hard to overstate how fucking offensive this is.

[Brother Daniel]

The stress levels (the hormone cortisol) in male babies who undergo this surgery have been measured. They go sky high. The babies pass out from the pain, even if they dont scream bloody murder.
But those babies do not describe the pain in fluent English, so there is therefore no real evidence that they feel any pain at all. :rolleyes:
Even after the local anesthesia wears off, there is pain for days.
Probably stings like hell every time they pee.

[Brianna]

but you can keep your opinion to yourself and let others do what THEY think is right.
Hard to overstate how fucking offensive this is.

Well how dare he tell you to mind your own business! :)

[Christina]

If everyone kept their opinion to themselves it would be an awfully quiet internet. The OP asked for opinions.

[dancer_rnb]

but you can keep your opinion to yourself and let others do what THEY think is right.
Hard to overstate how fucking offensive this is.

Well how dare he tell you to mind your own business! :)

Well, seeing how the OP asked for opinions, maybe he should take his own advice!:D

[Brother Daniel]

Well how dare he tell you to mind your own business! :)
Sorry, but "mind your own business" doesn't carry much weight when the topic is the pointless mutilation of small children.

Evil prevails when good people fail to speak up.

[Brianna]

Well how dare he tell you to mind your own business! :)
Sorry, but "mind your own business" doesn't carry much weight when the topic is the pointless mutilation of small children.

Evil prevails when good people fail to speak up.

BD, Peace to you. I was stating it tongue and cheek. Please discuss the topic, not the posters.

[Pendaric]

Calm it down a bit guys please.

[Anne]

The stress levels (the hormone cortisol) in male babies who undergo this surgery have been measured. They go sky high. The babies pass out from the pain, even if they dont scream bloody murder.
But those babies do not describe the pain in fluent English, so there is therefore no real evidence that they feel any pain at all. :rolleyes:
Even after the local anesthesia wears off, there is pain for days.
Probably stings like hell every time they pee.

I've been told by urologists to whatever you decide, do it after they are done in dipes. The infection rate is too high, and he'd prefer to stop treating them.

I had forgotten that tidbit.

[Notta]

I agree.

All the men should post pictures of their penii so that we can judge for ourselves.Yep!

Plus, I'm bowing out of the conversation because I think men should have the final say on this, just like I believe women should make decisions about abortion and breast-feeding.

[premjan]

Circumcision of an infant only involves a father indirectly, abortion and breast-feeding involve a mother directly.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Notta: the majority of fgm is perpetuated by women. I don't think that's a good heuristic.

[nygreenguy]

How is it so important that billions of men get along more than perfectly well without it.


Do you have proof that billions of men have been circumcized?

Add: Should probably have asked why you say "billions." that seems awfully high.

Just going by the statistics. In africa and the middle east, its an almost 100% rate, and many other countries hover around 50%. So, its not a hard number, just a guesstimation!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Coun try_Level.png

[Notta]

Notta: the majority of fgm is perpetuated by women. I don't think that's a good heuristic.But I wasn't using that analogy, I was just saying that men, themselves, are the best arbiters of whether or not to have a male baby circumcised, not women. And whether or not abortion affects a man directly or indirectly, it's my opinion that men should have no say in the final decision. You can agree or disagree, but that's why I'm not going to interject my opinion here about THIS topic.

[dancer_rnb]

Circumcision of an infant only involves a father indirectly, abortion and breast-feeding involve a mother directly.

Someone who is a father now and is circumcized certainly was involved as an infant.

[nygreenguy]

If it's that unimportant, why cut it off? Some people think they need to

It's as important as your eyelid. What can you show that proves it's not important? This is simply ridiclious. Your eyelid clearly has an important function. Your health would suffer greatly if it was removed. There is nothing even close to this when it comes to circumcision.

[nygreenguy]

If everyone kept their opinion to themselves it would be an awfully quiet internet. The OP asked for opinions.

Sorry, my point was meant towards those who want to legislate their opinions. "I dont like 'x' so no one should be able to do 'x'."

[Brianna]

I agree.

All the men should post pictures of their penii so that we can judge for ourselves.Yep!

Plus, I'm bowing out of the conversation because I think men should have the final say on this, just like I believe women should make decisions about abortion and breast-feeding.

Mostly I don't have kids and I don't want them. So it doesn't matter to me.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Notta: sorry, your reasoning fails.

There are plenty of men in the pro-choice movement, from activists to legislators. Does their personal plumbing disqualify them? Is it not their place to say "Yes, you do have the right to an abortion"?

And again - FGM is largely perpetuated by women, often in spite of resistance by men. It follows that simply having matching plumbing does nothing to ensure pursuit of the child's best interests.

What matters in the case of reproductive rights is not that women have the right to dictate policy, but that the individuals concerned do. It happens that the individuals concerned are women, but that's a red herring. You don't want other women making decisions about your own body, any more than you want other men doing it. The point is that you get to make the decision for yourself.

And that's exactly what I stand for: men should get to choose for themselves what happens to their genitals; nothing irreversible should be foisted on them before they can make that choice, except in cases of medical emergency.

[Brother Daniel]

Sorry, my point was meant towards those who want to legislate their opinions. "I dont like 'x' so no one should be able to do 'x'."
I don't like the idea of anyone in this thread punching you in the face. So I support the legislation that makes such assault illegal. Even if you think I shouldn't support it.

[nygreenguy]

I don't like the idea of anyone in this thread punching you in the face. So I support the legislation that makes such assault illegal. Even if you think I shouldn't support it.

Total strawman.

Nice try though.

[nygreenguy]

What matters in the case of reproductive rights is not that women have the right to dictate policy, but that the individuals concerned do. It happens that the individuals concerned are women, but that's a red herring. You don't want other women making decisions about your own body, any more than you want other men doing it. The point is that you get to make the decision for yourself.

And that's exactly what I stand for: men should get to choose for themselves what happens to their genitals; nothing irreversible should be foisted on them before they can make that choice, except in cases of medical emergency.

But where do you draw the line at what the parent have the right to do and not? Children can get tattoos and piercings before the age of 18, and although you can say they may be making the "decision" it is essentially almost never inherently a rational one. (which is why we have juvinile crimes and adult crimes)

The parents have the ability to totally alter a childs life in many ways as they grow up, and Im wondering how we draw the line at what is right, and not right. As I see it, circumcision causes no damage/distress to any child, and therefore it should totally be the parents choice.

But at the same time we allow parents to smoke at home which causes irreversible actual damage to the child (my lungs are scarred from getting bronchitis every year and my ears are consistently infected) and I dont see a whole lot of action on that front.

I guess Im just frustrated that we let go, as I see, real big issues for these more (as I see it) minor issues.

[LoneWolf]

Well thank you all for contributing to this thread, and that is to people from both sides of the fence.

I do ask that people not get told to mind their own business in this thread though, regardless of your opinion I want to hear it, that is why I started this thread. Also, even if you are lacking a Y chromosome you are just as entitled to an opinion and I for one would like to hear it.

[Brianna]

Well thank you all for contributing to this thread, and that is to people from both sides of the fence.

I do ask that people not get told to mind their own business in this thread though, regardless of your opinion I want to hear it, that is why I started this thread. Also, even if you are lacking a Y chromosome you are just as entitled to an opinion and I for one would like to hear it.

Don't tell us what you decided. I don't think some of us could handle it!

[LoneWolf]

I guess Im just frustrated that we let go, as I see, real big issues for these more (as I see it) minor issues.

I think you make a good point there, nygreenguy. To me it doesn’t so much seem that you are advocating circumcision as much as you are against, say, criminalizing it.

I’m sure there are plenty of people in this thread who are against circumcision who wouldn’t necessarily be for outlawing it. My guess is HNA would be for criminalizing it, but I could be wrong.

There absolutely ARE worse things that we allow parents to do to their children. As someone who was circumcised AND grew up in a household where the parents were smoking I will attest on my own behalf that growing up in the smoke hurt me more. But my guess is there are groups out there who are fighting that battle. I don’t think we need to withhold judgment on one issue just because an even more serious issue is still unresolved. We can multi-task our indignation :)

[LoneWolf]

Don't tell us what you decided. I don't think some of us could handle it!

HA!

I’m fairly certain of the choice I will make when my son arrives in early October. But I subscribe to a world view of scientific skepticism and as such will continue to review the evidence. My mind can be changed, and often is, with the appropriate evidence.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Bollocks, nygg.

Circumcision is damage - it's the wholesale destruction of the gliding mechanism, the removal of a large amount of genital tissue, thousands of nerve endings, the super-sensitive frenulum and the protective/emolient covering of the glans. It's hacking the end off your child's dick, for fuck's sake. How the hell is that not damage?

All with zero requirement to do it without adult consent.

And watch some youtube videos of circumcision if you want to argue that no distress is incurred.

Why are you so invested in it not being a big deal?

[JamesBannon]

My second nephew was circumcised, in his case for medical reasons as he had strangulation. He is also autistic, and, at that time, could barely speak, so asking him what pain was like was a completely useless exercise. I don't think he even understands what "pain" actually is to this day. However, it is easy to tell when he is feeling pain, even though he can't articulate it verbally. Believe me, babies feel pain!

[Christina]

Also, even if you are lacking a Y chromosome you are just as entitled to an opinion and I for one would like to hear it.

I don't feel like I'm in any way qualified to know to what extent it reduces sensitivity, increases/decreases pleasure for a man or what emotional effects it might have. It would be interesting to hear from a man that had it done as an adult and has experienced it from both perspectives. I'm also not qualified to judge medical evidence about health risks but I find it hard to accept that it isn't extremely painful for the child. I'm not a parent and may be clueless about some seemingly obvious parental rights issues but this doesn't sound like it can't wait until they're old enough to make their own choice. I'd err on the side of letting the child decide for himself.

I think that HNA's point is well taken that participation in activism against gender-based issues shouldn't be limited only to the gender affected. I think I stop short of diving in because I feel a bit squishy and uncertain about the parental rights thing.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Well, the parental rights thing is easy:

plz to provide a list of all healthy body parts that parents have a right to amputate, kthx.

And that's a good word to keep in your mind: amputee.

[Christina]

Well, the parental rights thing is easy:

plz to provide a list of all healthy body parts that parents have a right to amputate, kthx.


You're right - I wouldn't have the slightest bit of hesitation if we were talking about FGM. I'm just desensitized to circumcision because it's been the unquestioned norm for most of my life and no one thinks of it in terms of a loss of function.

People freak out so much if someone tries to tell them what to do with their kids that I usually avoid the conversations.

[LoneWolf]

plz to provide a list of all healthy body parts that parents have a right to amputate, kthx.

HNA, you have a knack for making me laugh while at the same time making a point.

[rlogan]

I also think it is invalid to exclude women's opinion based directly and strictly on gender.

It may be valid indirectly from the loss of cranial capacity commonly associated with the Y chromosome. But if we base exclusion on that basis directly then we'd have to also exclude some fraction of men too.

Just a helpful suggestion. Always mindful to watch against gender discrimination.

I am surprised this has not been the subject of a medical journal article - circumcision amongst makes who were adults - and whether they reported loss of sensation

[His Noodly Appendage]

rlogan: There's a temporary increase in intensity, inbetween the glans being freshly permanently-exposed and it keratinising over. There's far less bandwidth, but the gain is turned up.

However, give it 15 years, and both are long gone. That's where circed-in-infancy males start out with their sex lives...

[Hevvin Machine]

I'm probably repeating things other people have already said. But why amputate part of your kid without a darned good reason? Assuming you will teach him to wash and avoid unsafe sex I just don't see any real reason for circumcision.
Not that it's any of my business.
Hev

[nygreenguy]

Bollocks, nygg.

Circumcision is damage - it's the wholesale destruction of the gliding mechanism, the removal of a large amount of genital tissue, thousands of nerve endings, the super-sensitive frenulum and the protective/emolient covering of the glans. It's hacking the end off your child's dick, for fuck's sake. How the hell is that not damage?

All with zero requirement to do it without adult consent.

And watch some youtube videos of circumcision if you want to argue that no distress is incurred.

Why are you so invested in it not being a big deal?


Because I, along with many many other have had it done with no life changing effects like you seem to presume.

As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!

[Tawny]

I had no idea it was so common in the States. I'm not sure I've even seen a circumcised penis. But then I never made a habit of gawking at penes in my pre-marital days anyway. DMB it must be an English thing I have never seen a circumcised one either.

[sohy]

My son was born in 1970. Back then in the US, it was expected that all male children would be circumcised. I read everything I could find on the subject and decided to leave him intact. He's never complained. The pro circumcision argument was primarily bullshit then and it's bullshit now. I'm also married to an intact man and we both like it that way. That's all I'm sayin'. :D

[Ray Moscow]

For some reason, most US men around my age were circumcised. It's still widely practised.

But since the evidence for its benefits is so meager, and its risks significant, it does seem like unnecessary surgery.

[nygreenguy]

Well, the parental rights thing is easy:

plz to provide a list of all healthy body parts that parents have a right to amputate, kthx.

And that's a good word to keep in your mind: amputee.

The whole strawman/emotional appeal thing is awfully old. Actually, I think its pretty offensive to people who really have been mutilated and amputated to somehow compare circumcision to their real problems.

[nygreenguy]

I think you make a good point there, nygreenguy. To me it doesn’t so much seem that you are advocating circumcision as much as you are against, say, criminalizing it. Pretty much. I could care less either way, however I dont like these fear mongering arguments. These people are essentially saying I am an amputee or I have been mutilated. Trust me, my junk works just fine. :D

I’m sure there are plenty of people in this thread who are against circumcision who wouldn’t necessarily be for outlawing it. My guess is HNA would be for criminalizing it, but I could be wrong. Yeah, Im not really sure who is for it or against, but based on their arguments I would say many are for criminalization.

There absolutely ARE worse things that we allow parents to do to their children. As someone who was circumcised AND grew up in a household where the parents were smoking I will attest on my own behalf that growing up in the smoke hurt me more. But my guess is there are groups out there who are fighting that battle. I don’t think we need to withhold judgment on one issue just because an even more serious issue is still unresolved. We can multi-task our indignation :) My ADHD is too bad. Im lucky if I can do ONE thing at a time!!! :D

[Christina]

It may be valid indirectly from the loss of cranial capacity commonly associated with the Y chromosome. But if we base exclusion on that basis directly then we'd have to also exclude some fraction of men too.

Just a helpful suggestion. Always mindful to watch against gender discrimination.


<admins, please look away for a moment>

Troll :p

<OK, you can look again>

[Brother Daniel]

As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!
So by your reasoning, babies can't feel pain at all, no matter what you do to them.

Your lack of empathy is nothing less than appalling.
The stress levels (the hormone cortisol) in male babies who undergo this surgery have been measured. They go sky high. The babies pass out from the pain, even if they dont scream bloody murder.
But those babies do not describe the pain in fluent English, so there is therefore no real evidence that they feel any pain at all. :rolleyes:

[Christina]

As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!

You're kidding, right? You can't possibly mean that because an infant can only communicate by crying instead of using words to tell you that they're in pain that it's OK to inflict pain on them. That is very, very disturbing to me.

[Brother Daniel]

I don't like the idea of anyone in this thread punching you in the face. So I support the legislation that makes such assault illegal. Even if you think I shouldn't support it.
Total strawman.
You misspelled "hammer, meet nail".

[Brother Daniel]

As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!
You're kidding, right? You can't possibly mean that because an infant can only communicate by crying instead of using words to tell you that they're in pain that it's OK to inflict pain on them. That is very. very disturbing to me.
Not to mention the fact that it isn't even true. Babies DO NOT cry and whine at EVERYTHING.

[Brother Daniel]

Trust me, my junk works just fine. :D
That's very nice. Now because your junk, in particular, works just fine, you're denying that anyone's sex life has been diminished due to circumcision?

[nygreenguy]

Since there is no evidence to show it does then it's irration to assume otherwise. As I said before , we love is a male dominated world and if circumcision caused sexual disfunction it would have been abandoned long ago.


Trust me, my junk works just fine. :D
That's very nice. Now because your junk, in particular, works just fine, you're denying that anyone's sex life has been diminished due to circumcision?


Since

[nygreenguy]

Another strawman. My point was you can't attribute all baby crying to pain. Babies cry for all sorts of reasons.

It's hard for me to believe the infant is necessairly conscious of anything that's happening and any response is simply instinctual. I have zero recollection of the even or of any pain involved and to me, that's what would be required for me to be against it. It simply had no measureable effect on me (that I'm aware of). Without some sort of effect, it's ridiclious to think about legislating it.



As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!
So by your reasoning, babies can't feel pain at all, no matter what you do to them.

Your lack of empathy is nothing less than appalling.
The stress levels (the hormone cortisol) in male babies who undergo this surgery have been measured. They go sky high. The babies pass out from the pain, even if they dont scream bloody murder.
But those babies do not describe the pain in fluent English, so there is therefore no real evidence that they feel any pain at all. :rolleyes:

[His Noodly Appendage]

None of the effects I describe, nygreenguy?

None? Really?

So, you still have your foreskin? No? Whoops, damn, that must be 'all but one'.

You still somehow have all the nerve endings that were in it? No? Oopsie. All but two. Never mind.

So, I guess you still have a frictionless gliding mechanism that would allow you to wank with a hand covered in superglue?, and to vary the stimulation from pure friction to pure peristalsis? No? Anyone? Bueller?

Then you must surely still have your frenulum intact, and connected so that it stretches with every movement... well, never mind. We'll call that one a mulligan.

And you have proprioception, of course, giving a highly detailed sense of movement with the slightest touch... damn. We're not looking good on this 'none' thing, here.

The surface of your glans is as soft, smooth and supple as the inside of your cheek, and as sensitive as your tongue? No?

You gotta help me out, here. Which effects, exactly, are the ones that don't apply to you?

[4321lynx]

delete double post

[His Noodly Appendage]

You know, a man blinded at birth would also be able to claim that it had no measurable effect on him (that he's aware of). See, if you have no experience of the 'before', it's pretty much a given that you haven't experienced a change.

That doesn't mean that one hasn't taken place.

[4321lynx]

[QUOTE=nygreenguy;20492]

It simply had no measureable effect on me (that I'm aware of). Without some sort of effect, it's ridiclious to think about legislating it.


Agree with your last sentence here, it would give the Muslims another reason to hate the infidels, and most Jews another reason to hold the goyim in contempt. (not all Jews are pro-circumcision).

We're flogging a dead horse here. Everyone sticks to his/her opinion. Hope everyone's read Wiki on this

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

It deals with it quite fully & will give you the links to Islam's Khitan and Judaism's full Brit milah, including the cock-sucking in the Brit milah.

Oh, and it's never too late. Abraham was 99 when he (presumably) got chopped. Bad time to be a slave in a Jewish household, THEY all got chopped too.

[Anne]

Because I, along with many many other have had it done with no life changing effects like you seem to presume.

As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!

Don't go there.

That's the excuse child abusers ues. And surgeons who believed you didn't need to use anastheisa on infants.

That is so wrong.

I have several female friends who have their first/only son circ'd who have declared they would never do it again because of the trauma to their babies.

I have never met a woman who would circ her second son yet.

Trust me, my junk works just fine. :D
That's very nice. Now because your junk, in particular, works just fine, you're denying that anyone's sex life has been diminished due to circumcision?

one of my ex's found blow jobs painful because of his circ. Nothing like cringing when a woman licks her lips.

I'm sure there are stats out there.

Since there is no evidence to show it does then it's irration to assume otherwise. As I said before , we love is a male dominated world and if circumcision caused sexual disfunction it would have been abandoned long ago.


can I come live in your world? It's so logical!

Seriously--- look where the high rates of circ are on your map. In Victorian/Puritan based countries and Muslim contries.

Did you know that one of the main reasons circing was originally done in the US was to stop boys from masturbating?

Another strawman. My point was you can't attribute all baby crying to pain. Babies cry for all sorts of reasons.

They can train machines to distinguish between babies cries. If what you just said here were true, parents would have to try everything to stop the crying. They don't. Babies are quite clear with the differences between hungry, annoyed, wet, and PAIN cries.

It's hard for me to believe the infant is necessairly conscious of anything that's happening and any response is simply instinctual. I have zero recollection of the even or of any pain involved and to me, that's what would be required for me to be against it. It simply had no measureable effect on me (that I'm aware of). Without some sort of effect, it's ridiclious to think about legislating it.



rather than going off your personal experience, why not do some research? Because what you just said has been outdated for decades.

oh, and another tidbit--- there is a Jewish law that if a family loses two sons to circ complications (aka: the baby dies as a result of the procedure) no other sons need to be circ'd.

:eek:

[Christina]

NYGG, your child wouldn't necessarily remember that you purposely stuck pins in them for the first year or so of their lives. They might not remember a punch in the face either. Does that make it OK? I don't even feel as strongly as some people here do about it and this is appalling beyond words to me. It sounds like you're essentially condoning child abuse based on their ability to recall the details.

[His Noodly Appendage]

These people are essentially saying I am an amputee or I have been mutilated. Trust me, my junk works just fine. :D


This is, of course, the crux of the issue here. Nobody wants to be a victim, so there can't be anything wrong with it. Under any circumstances.

[Anne]

Another reason men have their sons circ'd.

To not do it implies there is something wrong with their own genetalia.

Denial is a powerful thing.

[Anne]

If it's that unimportant, why cut it off? Some people think they need to

It's as important as your eyelid. What can you show that proves it's not important? This is simply ridiclious. Your eyelid clearly has an important function. Your health would suffer greatly if it was removed. There is nothing even close to this when it comes to circumcision.

I missed this.

In many ways, the foreskin is just like the eyelid. It covers, cleans, and protects the glans just as the eyelid covers, cleans, and protects the eye. Also, just as the eyelid can open and close to uncover the eye, so the foreskin can open to reveal the delicate glans. The foreskin's inside fold is lined with a smooth red tissue called mucous membrane. This type of tissue is also found lining the lips, the inside of the mouth, and the inner fold of the eyelid. The foreskin's soothing inner fold gently keeps the surface of the glans healthy, clean, shiny, warm, soft, moist, and sensitive.
---Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., Frederick M. Hodges

[Brother Daniel]

NYGG, your child wouldn't necessarily remember that you purposely stuck pins in them for the first year or so of their lives. They might not remember a punch in the face either.
They almost certainly wouldn't. The brain-wiring for remembering details isn't all connected yet.
Does that make it OK?
Following nygreenguy's logic, YES!
It sounds like you're essentially condoning child abuse based on their ability to recall the details.
(my emphasis)

Yes, exactly.

[Christina]

I think that I have to be misunderstanding his point somehow. He can't mean that.

[dancer_rnb]

Well, the parental rights thing is easy:

plz to provide a list of all healthy body parts that parents have a right to amputate, kthx.

And that's a good word to keep in your mind: amputee.

The whole strawman/emotional appeal thing is awfully old. Actually, I think its pretty offensive to people who really have been mutilated and amputated to somehow compare circumcision to their real problems.

Emotional appeal spotted.

It's all a matter of degree. Someone losing part of two fingers in no way compares to say, having a leg amputated below the knee.

[Brother Daniel]

My point was you can't attribute all baby crying to pain.
No one said you could.
Babies cry for all sorts of reasons.
Actually, there are very few reasons why babies cry.

1. If you leave them hungry or thirsty for long enough, eventually they'll cry. But they don't cry right away.

2. They may cry when they're too hot or too cold. (I think this one covers the fact that some babies cry when they're wet. The evaporation of water from your skin tends to cool you down, and babies' small size make them more sensitive to cooling.)

3. They cry when they're in pain.

4. They cry if you scare them. (There are three or four things (such as the feeling of falling, or sudden loud noises) that scare babies instinctively. Other fears are learned.)

5. They cry if they need to sleep.

For the vast majority of babies, that's about it.

Now if you carve off the end of a baby boy's dick, where there's a very high density of nerve endings -- comparable to corneas or fingertips -- it's natural to infer that you're dealing out unbearable agony.

The claim that circumcision does not cause severe pain is an extraordinary claim, for which not a speck of evidence has been provided.

So now you attach importance to the fact that you can't remember the event. Well, that's nice. You wouldn't remember any pain if you were dead, but I'm not advocating that.
Without some sort of effect, it's ridiclious to think about legislating it.
We've barely even mentioned the fact that there are sometimes complications where something goes wrong. Some boys have lost their "junk" entirely. No one disputes that there's some risk of serious complications. So without some significant medical benefit, it's ridiculous to allow the procedure at all.

We only allow it because of religion.

[Brother Daniel]

I think that I have to be misunderstanding his point somehow. He can't mean that.
Indeed, he'll accuse you of setting up a straw man, without explaining why it's a straw man. And then he'll say exactly the same outrageous stuff again.

[Brother Daniel]

As I said before , we love is a male dominated world and if circumcision caused sexual disfunction it would have been abandoned long ago.
Noodles and Anne have already refuted this amazingly lame argument, without even bringing up the considerable effects of religion. Not to mention the fact that people with sexual problems tend to keep that information to themselves, thus making it very easy for people to remain unaware (or in denial) of any link between circumcision and sexual dysfunction.

[Brianna]

As I said before , we love is a male dominated world and if circumcision caused sexual disfunction it would have been abandoned long ago.
Noodles and Anne have already refuted this amazingly lame argument, without even bringing up the considerable effects of religion. Not to mention the fact that people with sexual problems tend to keep that information to themselves, thus making it very easy for people to remain unaware (or in denial) of any link between circumcision and sexual dysfunction.

I love how you call him Noodles. That is so cute.

Otherwise, the only thing I have to say "people please learn how to use the quote button properly"

carry on.

[Matty]

what i dont actually get is how the fucking parents can ever opt for it in the first place without a medical reason.
When my son was newborn, totally non squeamish me couldnt even bear watch as they took blood from him for the usual tests and teared up immediately when he started wailing.

How the fuck people put that aside and opt for elective cosmetic surgery of their new born i have no idea.

[Anne]

That's it. ITT we've been called fear mongerers etc when all we're advocating is the status quo: leave the penis alone!

the burden of proof should be on those advocating irreversably changing someone else's genitals without their permission for no valid medical reason.

[rlogan]

The tip of my dick gets cold when I am snowmachining.


And no, I don't have it hanging out of my pants.

[Brother Daniel]

This post:
I also abhor violence.
...ought to be the end of it.

I'm just calling for consistency here! Surely, carving off the end of someone's dick, for non-medical purposes, counts as violence.

What is keeping you from seeing the obvious, here?

[His Noodly Appendage]

What is keeping you from seeing the obvious, here?

http://k53.pbase.com/g6/49/732749/2/71404964.g7H3t8Lw.jpg

[JamesBannon]

Bollocks, nygg.

Circumcision is damage - it's the wholesale destruction of the gliding mechanism, the removal of a large amount of genital tissue, thousands of nerve endings, the super-sensitive frenulum and the protective/emolient covering of the glans. It's hacking the end off your child's dick, for fuck's sake. How the hell is that not damage?

All with zero requirement to do it without adult consent.

And watch some youtube videos of circumcision if you want to argue that no distress is incurred.

Why are you so invested in it not being a big deal?


Because I, along with many many other have had it done with no life changing effects like you seem to presume.

As for watching a video, its a fucking infant! They cry and whine at EVERYTHING!
See my note about by nephew. Just because one can't articulate what pain is, does not mean that one is incapable of feeling pain.

[nygreenguy]

This post:
I also abhor violence.
...ought to be the end of it.

I'm just calling for consistency here! Surely, carving off the end of someone's dick, for non-medical purposes, counts as violence.

What is keeping you from seeing the obvious, here?

sort of like sticking a needle through your ear?

Or through your nipple?

Or how about stabbing you 25 million times in order to deposit ink in your skin?

Yeah, were pretty "violent" when it comes to our bodies.

[nygreenguy]

None of the effects I describe, nygreenguy?

None? Really?

So, you still have your foreskin? No? Whoops, damn, that must be 'all but one'.

You still somehow have all the nerve endings that were in it? No? Oopsie. All but two. Never mind.

So, I guess you still have a frictionless gliding mechanism that would allow you to wank with a hand covered in superglue?, and to vary the stimulation from pure friction to pure peristalsis? No? Anyone? Bueller?

Then you must surely still have your frenulum intact, and connected so that it stretches with every movement... well, never mind. We'll call that one a mulligan.

And you have proprioception, of course, giving a highly detailed sense of movement with the slightest touch... damn. We're not looking good on this 'none' thing, here.

The surface of your glans is as soft, smooth and supple as the inside of your cheek, and as sensitive as your tongue? No?

You gotta help me out, here. Which effects, exactly, are the ones that don't apply to you?

A change in sensation doesnt necessarily mean it is a measurable decrease in sensation. BD somehow said you "refuted" my argument but not a single person here has shown how circumcision can have a negative impact on a persons health or sex life.

You can talk about how it alters the penis all you want, but until you can prove the point that it actually negatively affects the person then your entire point is moot.

[nygreenguy]

NYGG, your child wouldn't necessarily remember that you purposely stuck pins in them for the first year or so of their lives. They might not remember a punch in the face either. Does that make it OK? I don't even feel as strongly as some people here do about it and this is appalling beyond words to me. It sounds like you're essentially condoning child abuse based on their ability to recall the details.

My point was that people were whining about "trauma" and I figured this was referring to psychological trauma. I dont think babies, at circumcision age, can experience pt.

Now, physical abuse can lead to long lasting real physical damage. Simply shaking can kill an infant. I'm against any act which can cause real damage. No one here cares that infants get their ears pierced and that shit hurts! And it takes almost just as much post care as a circumcision (according to my mom).

[Brother Daniel]

sort of like sticking a needle through your ear?

Or through your nipple?

Or how about stabbing you 25 million times in order to deposit ink in your skin?

Yeah, were pretty "violent" when it comes to our bodies.
Somewhat worse than those.

Anyway, go ahead and do those things to yourself, if that's what you want.

But deliberately injuring babies for the sake of some silly parental sense of aesthetics is abominable.

[Brother Daniel]

BD somehow said you "refuted" my argument but not a single person here has shown how circumcision can have a negative impact on a persons health or sex life.
The argument that was refuted was your "since men rule the world, circumcision wouldn't be allowed if it were harmful" argument. (To add to everything else, the fact that men can (and do) behave the way you're behaving ITT is enough to refute it.)

As for having a negative impact on one's health or sex life, you're simply saying (in effect) "nyah nyah nyah I can't HEEEEEEAAARR you!" to everything Noodles is saying (among others).

But even if you're right (which you're not, but let's pretend): There's still the risk of serious complications from botched circumcisions -- and no one seriously questions the fact that those can happen. That risk is enough reason to ban a stupid, invasive, painful procedure that has no significant medical benefit.

But go ahead, keep trying to defend the indefensible.

[dancer_rnb]

I really wish the choice had been left to me, though I realize my parents didn't know any better. What would have been the harm in waiting for me to make my own decision?

[Brother Daniel]

My point was that people were whining about "trauma" and I figured this was referring to psychological trauma. I dont think babies, at circumcision age, can experience pt.
So it doesn't matter how much physical pain you inflict on them? Seriously, dude, that is a horrible attitude. How can you sleep at night?
I'm against any act which can cause real damage.
By the standards of your arguments ITT, lopping off a finger wouldn't cause real damage. After all, I know of one top-notch world-class guitarist who's missing the middle finger on his right hand. Would you be happy with people doing that to babies for aesthetic or religious reasons?
No one here cares that infants get their ears pierced and that shit hurts!
FFS, do you really think that hurts as much as circ? You've got to be kidding.

Anyway, you're wrong about no one caring. I'm against stabbing babies' earlobes as well. Circumcision is just far, far worse.

Have your own body parts mangled, punctured, or amputated. Don't inflict that on a helpless baby. That's despicable.

[Christina]

My point was that people were whining about "trauma" and I figured this was referring to psychological trauma. I dont think babies, at circumcision age, can experience pt.
Bolding mine.

Why do you consider counterarguments to be "whining" while yours are somehow not whining?

Now, physical abuse can lead to long lasting real physical damage. Simply shaking can kill an infant. I'm against any act which can cause real damage. No one here cares that infants get their ears pierced and that shit hurts! And it takes almost just as much post care as a circumcision (according to my mom).

At this point I'll just say "what Brother Daniel and HNA said". They've already articulated the response to this several times. I hardly think you can compare ear piercing (which teenage girls do in 2 seconds with a sewing needle and it only pinches for a moment) with removing a part of a man's penis. It's more like trimming your nails.

[His Noodly Appendage]

nygreenguy: As an intact man, I know exactly what sensation is provided by the foreskin and frenulum. As such, I can subtract that from the total experience and know intimately just how much less circumcised men can feel.

As an intact man, I can disable the gliding mechanism, keeping the foreskin retracted by pulling from the base of the shaft - and I can tell you that friction is a sucky, pathetic ninth-rate substitute for the 'peristaltic' massaging stimulation that a foreskin can provide.

As an intact man, I can keep the foreskin retracted for a day, and the difference in sensation after only that time is akin to the difference in sensation in your tongue if you keep it stuck out and dry for an hour.

Now, I can't demonstrate the effect of the extra nerve endings to you, because as an amputee, you've been permanently fucked over in that regard.

But the extra sensitivity from keeping the glans protected - you can actually discover that for yourself, if you're interested. If you keep the glans covered for a week or so with something semi-breathable (a dressing, perhaps? I'll get details if you want), the difference will amaze you.

[JamesBannon]

As an intact man, I can keep the foreskin retracted for a day, and the difference in sensation after only that time is akin to the difference in sensation in your tongue if you keep it stuck out and dry for an hour.
That plus the fact it bloody hurts when you do that. The foreskin folds under itself & get caught. Ouch!

[sohy]

I had no idea it was so common in the States. I'm not sure I've even seen a circumcised penis. But then I never made a habit of gawking at penes in my pre-marital days anyway.

It may be less common these days but I don't remember ever catheterizing a single intact penis during the years I was a home health nurse. I'm sure there must have been a few, but I sure don't remember them.

In my personal life, my husband is the only intact one I've known personally. :)

I don't have strong convictions about this since I've known many perfectly normally functioning cut men. It just seems stupid to get rid of the original equipment, before the model's been test driven.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Define 'normally functioning'?

[Magdlyn]

yeah and there's that "perfect" word again

[LoneWolf]

Well, my wife says mine is perfect and I know for a fact women would never lie to their husbands about such a thing.

;)

[His Noodly Appendage]

hehe

But yeah - it's one of those circular definitions. Circumcised penises work just like all the other penises around, which are also circumcised, ergo they are normal, ergo no harm has resulted.

Cultural norms are an insidious thing, aren't they?

[Brianna]

Well, my wife says mine is perfect and I know for a fact women would never lie to their husbands about such a thing.

;)

Right. <cough cough cough>

[Magdlyn]

i think we need a 2nd opinion, jess, dont you?

[LoneWolf]

i think we need a 2nd opinion, jess, dont you?

I'd be happy to oblige...

...once you get authorization from my wife, that is. ;)

[Magdlyn]

That's your job. :D Tell her it's for science.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What is keeping you from seeing the obvious, here?

http://k53.pbase.com/g6/49/732749/2/71404964.g7H3t8Lw.jpg

*snif*

Nobody appreciates me.

[Christina]

I laughed when I saw it : ). Besides, it's a beautiful shot.

[4321lynx]

Oookaaay... I give up.
Did not get it before, don't get it now.
Explain please.


It IS a beautiful shot.

[Garnet]

De Nile, it ain't just a river in Egypt. :)

[Puck]

*slinks away*

*did not get the pic reference, either*

doh

[4321lynx]

De Nile, it ain't just a river in Egypt. :)

Yes yes yes... :D:D

Thank you.

[LoneWolf]

De Nile, it ain't just a river in Egypt. :)

Man, I was reading WAY too far into it. I was thinking maybe he was comparing the boat with a sail to an intact penis and the ones without to circumcised ones. :bang:

[Anne]

sometimes a snarky reply is just that...

I have to admit, I sat there and thought, wtf, is noodly mad (aka insane)? before I saw the pyramids...

[Notta]

I think the women in this thread ought to be part of any experiment to determine the difference in pleasure from a woman's perspective vis a vis an intact vs. circumcised penis.

Everyone who's interested in participating form a line to the immediate left, please. Right behind me. Thank you!

[Christina]

Can we still get on line if we already know what our opinion is?

[Anne]

There's no comparison.

Take away a moving part from a toy and it's less fun.

[Notta]

Can we still get on line if we already know what our opinion is?Isn't science all about replicable results? Ya gotta TEST your knowledge!

[Christina]

How many times do I have to already have tested it to get thrown off the line?

[Puck]

I finished that trial a long time ago. I prefer intact. Much prefer.

Intact is the way that we evolved to fit each other. Cut works, and is nice, but to me anyway, we are talking '65 Volkswagen or a Cadillac. I know which one I want to take a road trip in. ;)

[Christina]

My reasonably experienced opinion is that intact men are far more sensitive and appear to get far more pleasure out of subtle or light touches than circumcised men do. They get off more easily from oral sex but not to the point where it affects their endurance. In terms of my own pleasure it's pretty far down the line in terms of what matters to me, probably since so few men in the US are intact. I certainly wouldn't make a blanket judgment about it though, especially since I can't feel what men are feeling and most of them have nothing to compare their experience to. I know that there are cut men that I've enjoyed sex with far more than some uncut men I can think of.

[4321lynx]

It ain't what you do it with, it's the way that you do it?

[His Noodly Appendage]

You know, a discussion about the pleasure to be gained from mutilated vs intact women (and an offer to road-test all those present) would be... well, a tad distasteful.

[Anne]

How much more so than our rants from the guy's end?

We talked about how much less pleasure men get from being cut. It strengthens the arguement that women get less as well.

[Christina]

It ain't what you do it with, it's the way that you do it?

For the most part.

HNA probably has a point in that maybe this little derail isn't so funny to men so maybe we should stop. The fact that we're often the subject of those offensive kinds of discussions doesn't make it any different I guess.

[Anne]

IMO, it's the next step. its a cold hard fact, but men keep getting told women like cut better.

Let's take that additional myth out of the mix.

Maybe the jokes were too much, but it was IMO lighthearted, not mean.

But then, I'm a woman.

[Christina]

I know - I wasn't trying to lecture you as much as myself. I know that when the discussions about how crazy women are so great in bed but you better not let them know where you live start then I want to start clawing some eyes out and it takes everything I have not to get vicious about it. Circumcised men might feel the same way.

[Matty]

hehehh. funny thread title juxtaposition.


Circumcision - An expectant father's decision
Which Skins Do You Prefer To Use.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Um, because people aren't sex toys?

Think of the obstetrician tipping the father the wink and saying "and don't worry, I'll put an extra couple of stitches in for you..."

Or indeed, imagine parents getting labiaplasty for their daughters to make them more popular with their future boyfriends and thus a social success.

I'm sorry, but fuck off. It's not for her boyfriends, it's for her. What the menfolk prefer really isn't the question we want to be asking, here. For it even to be a consideration reduces her to chattel.

I'm going to burn my jockstrap next.

[Anne]

I do think knowing that women prefer cut men is a myth is important in this discussion.

I know there are women who do, but not all of us do.

That's far from the only or a main or any reason at all to or not to circ, but it is there.

[4321lynx]

You all are familiar with this?

There was a policeman of Trent Junction,
Whose penis refused to function.
Throughout his long life
He deceived his poor wife
By the intelligent use of his truncheon.

Truncheon = nightstick.:evil:

Anyone for a Limerick thread?

[Christina]

I do think knowing that women prefer cut men is a myth is important in this discussion.

I know there are women who do, but not all of us do.

That's far from the only or a main or any reason at all to or not to circ, but it is there.

I think that the point that HNA is trying to make is that even discussing it from the point of view of our pleasure is trivializing what the act and the decision mean or do to a man. It has (or should have) nothing at all to do with what appeals to us. If men decided that FGM appealed to them it would be completely irrelevant to the fact that it's mutilation.

Did I get that?

[court and spark]

I do think knowing that women prefer cut men is a myth is important in this discussion.

I know there are women who do, but not all of us do.

That's far from the only or a main or any reason at all to or not to circ, but it is there.

It's no myth. Plenty of women do prefer "cut," myself and my female friends, and my one gay guy friend, included. So you like extra loose skin in your mouth, that's your preference, some of us don't! We aren't myths.

It would be more accurate to say that different women (and men) have different preferences, and leave it at that, instead of trying to portray an opposing opinion as "myth."

"Whatever floats your boat" is fine... "you're a myth" is not.

[JamesBannon]

Um, because people aren't sex toys?

Think of the obstetrician tipping the father the wink and saying "and don't worry, I'll put an extra couple of stitches in for you..."

Or indeed, imagine parents getting labiaplasty for their daughters to make them more popular with their future boyfriends and thus a social success.

I'm sorry, but fuck off. It's not for her boyfriends, it's for her. What the menfolk prefer really isn't the question we want to be asking, here. For it even to be a consideration reduces her to chattel.

I'm going to burn my jockstrap next.
Precisely. Genital mutilation shouldn't be contemplated in either gender.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I think that the point that HNA is trying to make is that even discussing it from the point of view of our pleasure is trivializing what the act and the decision mean or do to a man. It has (or should have) nothing at all to do with what appeals to us. If men decided that FGM appealed to them it would be completely irrelevant to the fact that it's mutilation.

Did I get that?

Yep. And even the fact that it didn't would still be the completely wrong reason for not doing it.

"Actually, honey, studies show that men in higher socioeconomic classes are starting to prefer natural labia. If we leave it as is, she'll have her pick of the doctors and lawyers..."

Right thing, very wrong reason - and helping to perpetuate the line of thinking that justifies the other decision.

[Christina]

Right thing, very wrong reason - and helping to perpetuate the line of thinking that justifies the other decision.

Yeah, I get it.

[Anne]

Sorry, c&s, I was trying to make the point that women as a whole do not like intact is wrong.

And if you are getting a lot of 'extra' skin, something is wrong...

And, ok, I won't joke. I don't get the problem, but I get there is one. that's enough.

[His Noodly Appendage]

You know, the world needs a gender-ambivalent version of feminism.

[Christina]

You know, the world needs a gender-ambivalent version of feminism.

The first time I saw you arguing that position on IIDB I didn't know you at all and I have to admit I skimmed it and dismissed it out of hand as another cranky right-wing white guy whining about how the feminazi's were ruining his privileged life. The next time was in a very heated thread about rape and I paid a lot more attention and started to understand what you were saying. At first reading it sounded like you were pointing out the obvious in that it's hypocritical to stereotype men in the way that we complain that they stereotype women. After thinking about it and reading it again I got that you were saying that the entire mindset and tolerance of misandry, in addition to being grossly unfair, was reinforcing the mindset that makes misogyny acceptable.

[Anne]

I get that. I'm not that kind of feminist.

I hate that men are portrayed as stupid, incompetent or inadequate in the media constantly.

I'm on your side on this one. I didn't see what was wrong about the above, but then, my skin is pretty thick, and I can be blind to that sort of issue.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Anne: It's not a huge deal - I'm not quite Germaine Greer - but it's mildly ranklesome. I don't want to harp on about it, but if you want an explanation, read on.

Not all misogyny is directly derogatory. Yes, there's a lot of 'Ha ha, women are stupid / weak / dirty / emotional / shallow / etc and belong in the kitchen making me some pie' derogatory sentiments out there, and they all suck.

But there's other forms, too. You can damn just as strongly with faint or shallow praise.

That new paralegal is great! Kudos to the HR guys, seriously. She's got the best rack we've seen round here in years.

Even if meant utterly sincerely, it can still undermine. I remember facepalming when my grandfather happily remarked of an Indian newsreader: "She talks well for a darkie, don't she?"

That'd be bad enough on its own. But in a discussion of the human-rights and ethical issue of giving women boob jobs at birth, it'd be an issue. Even "orright, natural floppy ones for a change, I can't stand those round vinyl things!" would be pretty inappropriate.

It's the underlying assumption that 'your bits are toys for us to play with, and should be shaped to suit our preferences' that's the cause of the problem in the first place.

[Anne]

ok, I think the crux is this:

'your bits are toys for us to play with, and should be shaped to suit our preferences'

I firmly believe the first half (with a consenting partner, and only in a sexual situation (not a boardroom)) and the second half makes me ill.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those joyless twerps who's looped around all the way back to purdah, and can't even see cleavage without crying exploitation. I'm not. I think that's a natural trap, but far too far in the opposite direction.

Prescriptive feminism (for want of a neutral word) is just as bad, imho, as the evils it claims to address. If women want to be housewives or porn stars, then more power to them, I say. I have no problem with people using what they've got in any manner that suits them, and consequently, I have no problem with others enabling and benefiting from that themselves.

You love fucking pretty young things with killer bodies? Great! Revel in it! You like watching porn? Who doesn't? You like having or being a homemaker/breeder who puts dinner on the table while the other's out earning the cash to make it possible? Absodamnlutely, you go for your life, enjoy it to the fullest, and don't let anyone naysay you.

It's just that there's a subtle (from some viewpoints) but important distinction: That may be what you like doing with them, and no worries.

But it's not what they're for.

That last subtle shift brings in all kinds of entitlements and imperatives, and degrades the person on the other end to a bimbo/himbo/commodity.

It sounds like such a nagging whine, and it's easy to take way too far - I can see how both the myth and the reality of feminazis get started. But exactly on that level, and exactly as far as it goes, I think it's an important point.

[darjeeling]

At the same time, if I were a cut male, I wouldn't exactly take well to people saying, "Your bits are deformed and your sex life will always be inferior no matter what because you can't feel anything because your parents mutilated you and made you into an amputee when you were a helpless baby so now you're disfigured and will be disfigured forever and you don't know what you're missing!" Wouldn't that make you feel like shit even more than you already might?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Doubtless.

But consider the alternative: "It's ok, you haven't lost anything, it's perfectly OK to do it to other children".

Tact is fine, but not at the expense of others.

[darjeeling]

That's not the only alternative.

I just mean that putting people on the defensive and making them feel like freaks might not be all that effective. Did nygg change his mind? /shrug

[His Noodly Appendage]

Yes, but imho cognitive dissonance forces the dichotomy.

Nygg will admit to no downsides whatsoever - and so anything short of a tac nuke is taken as support for his position. It's like fundies who dare not believe that atheists aren't evil.

And besides, I don't think activism and comfort zones really mix.

[premjan]

I think the thing started because Moses killed slaughtered his wife's tribe. His wife then went apeshit and demanded that he circumcize his son (himself too?). But it is a common coming of age ritual here and there in many countries. But doing it to infants seems to have less of a point.

[Puck]

When I made the post comparing intact and cut to a caddy and a VW, I hovered over the Submit button for ages. I knew what it was saying in it's raw form, and there was so much more that needed to go with it to express myself. But sometimes, blunt is better.

So here's the details. All other things being equal, yes, I prefer an intact man. But if the one I loved was cut, it wouldn't matter to me. As the old saying goes, it ain't the meat, it's the motion. And the whole human being is the most important part. A fantasy penis means nothing if it's attached to a jerk. Nothing. But I believe we evolved our bits for good reason, and in their natural form, are 'made for each other'. The mechanics are perfect.

And let's be real. There's magazines like playboy out there that idealize (another kettle of worms, there) the female form, but most men marry women with bodies that don't fit within that range, and wouldn't have it any other way. Women may fantasize about a larger than average penis, but they pick lifetime partners with less than that, and are perfectly happy. Just because we like the idea of something, doesn't mean we insist on it in real life. A cut or uncut penis isn't the criteria, it's a preference to an individual.

The thing is, this is something that should be an adult decision, not forced on a person when they cannot make such a personal decision. As an adult, one can choose what they prefer, but once you cut that baby boy, you've taken his choice away from him forever. It's his penis, he should decide. No one else. I know I'd not appreciated my parents having altered the state of something so personal as my vagina. It's mine, dammit. I get to decide.

[Matty]

i think most of the argument is moot tbh. The simple fact is that non needed medical procedures carried out for cultural or cosmetic reasons should no be allowed untill said kid is legally able to ask for it themselves.

Hygg likens it to earpiercing - wrong. There is no loss of tissue with an ear-piercing, certainly none of a specifically useful nature (and i dont agree with piercing kids either) Think of it more as a lobectomy, that would certainly prevent earlobe cancer in that lobe down the line, and whilst not massively changing the function, y'know theres something missing.

Mostly though, doing it for anything other than a medical reason, to a non consenting person. With little to no basis in any medical sense unless you slef elect for one on the basis of your plans to sleep your way round the Yamoussoukro whorehouses, its fucking inflicting a totally non necessary, painful, and function implicated medical procedure on an infant. One that has its entire basis in religiocultural history and has been "bolstered" by some weak sauce post hoc justifications that work only in very proscribed contexts.

Tact is fine, but not at the expense of others. Agreed.


At the same time, if I were a cut male, I wouldn't exactly take well to people saying, "Your bits are deformed and your sex life will always be inferior no matter what because you can't feel anything because your parents mutilated you and made you into an amputee when you were a helpless baby so now you're disfigured and will be disfigured forever and you don't know what you're missing!" Wouldn't that make you feel like shit even more than you already might?I do agree though it needs pointing out that we uncut guys have exactly the same basis for comparison. I dont know what a cut guy feels when hes going at it any more than he knows what a lube free gliding foreskin wank feels like. I am a however a member of the "control" set, uncut is how it is meant to be. And there is NO reason for it to be otherwise.

The fact that so many cut guys need lube to get off says it all to me, to need lube for a comfy wank is even funnier. I mean how can you surreptitiousy crack one off in the font if you need a variety of oils and unguents to get off? :)

Thing is though whilst I have no desire to actively piss people off, i think Nygg can handle it, and i do agree with HNA. It IS seen as culturally acceptable, (not a BFD, whats the fuss, its just a little bit of skin, they never really feel it, etc etc,) particularly in N America, and sore point (yes, that was on purpose) or not, that should be discouraged. The only way to do that is to make people at times uncomfortable. I bet they arent as uncomfortable as the infant with an unnecessary chunk of dick cut off to make God happy and the surgeon a few quid better off though.

[dancer_rnb]

At the same time, if I were a cut male, I wouldn't exactly take well to people saying, "Your bits are deformed and your sex life will always be inferior no matter what because you can't feel anything because your parents mutilated you and made you into an amputee when you were a helpless baby so now you're disfigured and will be disfigured forever and you don't know what you're missing!" Wouldn't that make you feel like shit even more than you already might?

No.

[Anne]

so here's the details. All other things being equal, yes, i prefer an intact man. But if the one i loved was cut, it wouldn't matter to me.

qft.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I expect that would apply to FGM as well, no?

[premjan]

I don't hear women who are mutilated sticking up for it but I suppose they do, else why would they do it to their daughters.

[darjeeling]

I expect that would apply to FGM as well, no?

I expect that would apply if he were missing a finger or a leg or anything else. Is there something wrong with loving someone and accepting their body regardless of what happened to it? Are women who find out the man they're dating is cut supposed to say, "Ew, I find male circumcision wrong so I'm not going to stay with you because the presence or absence of your foreskin matters to me more than you do"?

I don't get what your objection is to what Puck said.

[premjan]

Well, FGM that involves cutting off the clitoris is a more serious modification than male circumcision, which is equivalent to cutting of the clitoral hood.

[Anne]

I expect that would apply to FGM as well, no?

Would you love your wife less if she had been?

[His Noodly Appendage]

darjeeling: that was exactly my point. I don't understand why it's being singled out.

[TySixtus]

Have to make a few points.

1) I'm circumcised. It doesn't really bother me. My dick works fine.

2) HNA is obviously a very vocal supporter of other guys not getting their dicks chopped up. That's cool. Just keep in mind (as someone has already mentioned) that you running around telling all of us cut guys how fucked up we are isn't likely to win any converts. If there is something that men are more insecure about than their dicks, please let me know. I can't imagine what it would be.

3) My dick is my dick. If my girlfriend doesn't like my dick, she can fuck right off and I'll get another one*. The "Women find your dick less pleasurable" argument is one of the most misandrist fucking things I've ever heard, or read. Especially when we're bombarded with ads for dick pills and told how our dicks should be bigger or longer or whatever the hell. Attacking a guy for his dick is right up there with attacking a woman for her looks. It's crude and mean-spirited. Find some other way to make your argument.

4) Men should have the choice to be circumcised. Circumcising babies is a stupid idea.

Ty

[TySixtus]

Man I said "dick" a whole bunch of times.

[darjeeling]

darjeeling: that was exactly my point. I don't understand why it's being singled out.

What? What do you mean you don't understand? The thread's about male circumcision, and the conversation drifted to what women think about cut vs. intact men. Of course it's being singled out -- it's the topic of conversation.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ty:

First up, I really don't care what people do to their own dicks. Body modification is weird but occasionally cool. Whatever floats your boat. I only care about children getting their dicks chopped up.

But the thing is, so many people (whether out of ignorance, cognitive dissonance, or other factors) don't consider it a problem because they don't see that anything of value was lost. To them, it's some 'useless extra skin', such as you might see hanging off a previously-morbidly-obese person. Cutting it off, to them, is beyond trivial. As far as they can understand (or believe), it doesn't do anything, it doesn't provide anything, it just sits there - and making a fuss about it is like demanding the preservation of batwings.

Explain to me, if you will, how you can convey the point "it's like a nipple and an eyelid all rolled into one, and cutting it off without someone's consent is a fucking atrocity", without making people without one feel that they've lost something?

Especially when they justify their trivialisation of the act with "my dick works fine, so obviously it can't be important, QED". The meme holds them quite literally hostage to their biggest insecurity.

[TySixtus]

HNA it's quite possible to be completely satisfied with your own dick and want to spare other people the ordeal of circumcision.

As far as explaining it without hurting people's feelings is concerned, explain it. And that's all. Don't throw around the "Women find your dick less pleasurable" argument. For one, it's pretty misandrist. Second, is it even true? Is there a study somewhere that says women prefer uncut johnsons? Mechanically, how does a foreskin give a woman more pleasure when it doesn't really come in contact with the clitoris?

But the bottom line is to approach the situation with a little empathy and less howling of "For the Children!". Circumcision is going down and will likely be a rare phenomenon soon. Like many harmful cultural practices, the only antidote is time and changing societal attitudes.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ty,

Lots of people with bits of them broken/missing/etc, whether congenitally or acquired, are content enough with their lot. However, most of them readily admit that it'd be a shitty thing to deliberately impose on someone else.

About the only exception I can think of, apart from the pro-circers, are the subset of the deaf community that try to ensure that their children will be born deaf too, because they insist on seeing it as a cultural identity rather than a disability.

And if you'll notice, I'm the one that's been bitching about implied misandry regarding women's pleasure already itt :p

But as for the mechanics: there's far less friction on the walls of the vagina, less plungering all the (far more relied-upon) lubrication out of the vagina, and the guy doesn't need to pound like a jackhammer to get off, which a goodly percentage of women don't actually enjoy - there's a lot more scope for quality over quantity.

Not counting the 'moving parts = more fun to play with' argument - I'd certainly have far less fun with a labia-less vagina, that's for sure. But again, considering that to be the reason for not doing it would be shitty.