Bill proposed in the USA to effectively ban infant male circumcision. Thoughts? [Archive]

Odessa

08-02-2006, 20:25

Would this bill prevent those few circumcisions that are necessary incase of extreme recurring infection? I'll post one of John C's educational posts for reference:

"Thought I might retrieve the figures for balanoposthitis (inflammation of foreskin and/or glans) for children to give some indication of incidence. The stats are for a principal diagnosis of balanoposthitis among boys aged 1-4 years nationwide and are from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

In 1998-99 there were 358 cases, falling to 306 in 2000-01 and 250 in 2003-04.

Note that this age group experiences peak incidence, with the 2004 figures for boys <1y being 13 cases, 5-9y being 173 cases, and 10-14y being 54 cases.

The circumcision rate and cohort size for 1-4yo boys did not significantly change in those periods, with an average of around 420,000 intact boys. So while infection deemed serious enough to warrant admission (and circumcision) certainly occurs the incidence is very low.

Even more importantly, it has been falling (quite dramatically) in all age groups. The likely explanation for this is that doctors are becoming more familiar with current medical practice guidelines and therefore are able to deal effectively with any problems at the level of primary care. "

Would making circumcision illegal prevent the treatment of these boys and men who require it for medical reasons? (Note: not as pre-emptive treatment, but as a final resort for those few males who actually require the procedure?)

xkwzit

08-02-2006, 20:42

Hi All

My two cents :D

I'm guessing that this bill (OK I fess up - I have NOT read it :D ) is about "routine" circumcision, not about kids with recurring problems where it might be recommended by a doc as treatment.

I'm interested to see if it given an "anti-semetic" spin in an effort to bring it undone.

It's very interesting though and I don't think it a bad thing, but as this is the third year in a row it has been submitted, I wouldn't hold my breath ... :rolleyes:

Cheers

draught

08-02-2006, 20:46

About time....Australia is bound to copy - YAY!!

Don't get your hopes up too much - we very rarely copy much in the way of American legislative initiatives. Which is not a bad thing given their approach to gun laws!:p

Barry

19-02-2006, 15:19

ohhhh, you are a brave girl queenie, starting this thread :)
needless to say, i am thrilled that this bill may be passed, and i hope it happens in Australia too :)

Problem is if/when it is banned people will still have the desire to circumcised their children. However instead of it being done in a sterile medical institution with set procedures however modern or ritualistic they may be, it will be done in an unsterile backyard garage or backroom of a GP where all the instrumentation may not be available. So in turn whilst circumcision may be cut off from the less determined parents, the rate of surgical failures will go through the roof.

I feel it's far better to educate people on the risks, benefits and drawbacks then let them make their own decisions. Like abortion or homosexuality the legislative body should not be directing people how to live their lives at this level.

WeThree

19-02-2006, 15:34

Hi Barry, do you really think that people will be that desperate to have their children circumcised, for non medical reasons ,that they will resort to such drastic measures? :confused:

the_queen

19-02-2006, 15:40

Problem is if/when it is banned people will still have the desire to circumcised their children.

True, Barry: so what is needed is not only a legislative ban, but also some kind of community education to teach people why routine infant circumcision is not necessary. Doctors and other health care providers (as well as parents) also need to be educated about caring for an intact penis. Premature foreskin retraction is not only unnecessary, but can actually do a lot of damage, including causing infections which can result in circumcision being required for authentic medical reasons.

Barry

19-02-2006, 15:42

Hi Barry, do you really think that people will be that desperate to have their children circumcised, for non medical reasons ,that they will resort to such drastic measures? :confused:

I believe that there will be some people out there who'll be that dedicated to either their family traditions, personal beliefs or religious beliefs that they will seek out an off-the-books doctor or backyard operator to do it, yes.

Whilst not entirely identical, the same thing occured when abortions weren't legal.

cosmic

19-02-2006, 15:46

Barry, I don't think that's a strong enough argument to prevent a bill like this one being passed. There are already plenty of parents who are of the mind that they will circumcise and decide not to once they realise it is difficult to find a doctor. I think many of those people would not bother should it be made totally illegal.

And if parents were still so determined that they would risk exposing their son to surgery in an unsterile environment, then so they should be charged with a criminal offence. To have thousands of boys unnecessarily circumcised in order to protect those few is not logical in my opinion.

WeThree

19-02-2006, 15:49

Still dont really agree with you Barry, I think people that committed to it for religious reasons, often dont use a doctor for the procedure in the first place, so I dont think the rates of problems occuring from this will be any higher.
Anyway, Baz (may I call you Baz? ;) ) this topic has been done to death around here, and it only ever leads to heated arguments, I can understand that it is interesting and lots of people feel passionate about it, but lots of us who have been here awhile groan whenever we see the topic pop up again, because we know where it will end up, if you check out all the other threads about it, you will see their really isnt anything left to be said that hasnt been said already.
I look forward to getting to know you better in some other threads around here rather than the circ ones! :)

Barry

19-02-2006, 15:51

To have thousands of boys unnecessarily circumcised in order to protect those few is not logical in my opinion.

Question; why is it so wrong to wish to have your child circumcised? I myself am circumcised as is my child. It wasn't painful for me, and going by the fact that my little boy wasn't upset like he was when he managed to jam his finger in his walker I gather it wasn't painful for him. (He had a penile block).

Should ear piercing also be banned? Stretching of earlobes? Tattoos?

If an adult wishes to do any of the above to themselves they should be legally allowed to - it's their body.

If a parent wishes to circumcise their child for whatever reason, medical or otherwise they should be legally allowed to.

WeThree

19-02-2006, 15:56

Question; why is it so wrong to wish to have your child circumcised? I myself am circumcised as is my child. It wasn't painful for me, and going by the fact that my little boy wasn't upset like he was when he managed to jam his finger in his walker I gather it wasn't painful for him. (He had a penile block).

Should ear piercing also be banned? Stretching of earlobes? Tattoos?

If an adult wishes to do any of the above to themselves they should be legally allowed to - it's their body.

If a parent wishes to circumcise their child for whatever reason, medical or otherwise they should be legally allowed to.

i think there lies the problem most of us have with it. You compare circumsicion to tattoing or ear piercing, yet surely you agree that these things should be done when someone is an adult and can decide for themselves? Im assuming you wouldnt get your young child a tattoo? but then you claim that a parent should have a right to circ their child if they wish, 'oh but it is different' you will say, well you were the one who just lumped them into the same basket, not I.
I dont think anyone has the right to inflict unnecessary pain on their child, simple as that, however, please dont think that anyone here is against circumsicion for genuine necessary reasons. :)

Barry

19-02-2006, 15:57

Still dont really agree with you Barry, I think people that committed to it for religious reasons, often dont use a doctor for the procedure in the first place, so I dont think the rates of problems occuring from this will be any higher.

The people who're silly enough not to use person who is medically trained are silly, however a lot of Rabbi's are medically trained and from my now rusty mind I think currently the rate of circumcision among the Jewish population is one of the majority stakes overall - I could be wrong however.

Anyway, Baz (may I call you Baz? ;) )

Sure, why not - it's fun, it's hip, it's happening. :)

this topic has been done to death around here, and it only ever leads to heated arguments, I can understand that it is interesting and lots of people feel passionate about it, but lots of us who have been here awhile groan whenever we see the topic pop up again, because we know where it will end up, if you check out all the other threads about it, you will see their really isnt anything left to be said that hasnt been said already.

I guess that's the problem with just joining today - I've missed out on all the prior conversations :)

I'm not one for heated arguments I much prefer a logical discussion of facts and opinions. Point and counter-point, you know? Either way I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions however I feel it wrong for the opinion of the one group to be forced onto other groups. Just as I feel it should be a womans choice whether she uses RU486 as opposed to Mr Abbotts. (Although I think the Senate & House have just taken that away from him and given it to the TGA).

the_queen

19-02-2006, 15:57

If an adult wishes to do any of the above to themselves they should be legally allowed to - it's their body.

If a parent wishes to circumcise their child for whatever reason, medical or otherwise they should be legally allowed to.

I have a tattoo. But I am not legally permitted to have my child tattooed (NB: hypothetical argument - I do not wish to tattoo my children!!) I have my nose pierced. But (I'm pretty sure) I'm not legally permitted to pierce my daughter's nose (as much as she'd like to have it done:rolleyes: and I wouldn't be allowing it anyway!!). My daughter does have her ears pierced, and personally after THAT experience I think it should probably be outlawed as well (but we'll save that can of worms for another thread;) )

My body, my choice for tattoing, piercing, body modification, plastic surgery.

HIS penis, HIS choice - if my son, when he comes of legal age, decides that he wishes to be circumcised then I cannot stop him from doing that.

WeThree

19-02-2006, 16:04

I'm not one for heated arguments I much prefer a logical discussion of facts and opinions. Point and counter-point, you know? Either way I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions however I feel it wrong for the opinion of the one group to be forced onto other groups.

Baz, I just personally believe that stopping the unneccesary harm of wee babies should be forced onto other people! (besides we are not forcing anything on you, YOU came in here;) :p )

Barry

19-02-2006, 16:12

i think there lies the problem most of us have with it. You compare circumsicion to tattoing or ear piercing, yet surely you agree that these things should be done when someone is an adult and can decide for themselves? Im assuming you wouldnt get your young child a tattoo? but then you claim that a parent should have a right to circ their child if they wish, 'oh but it is different' you will say, well you were the one who just lumped them into the same basket, not I.
I dont think anyone has the right to inflict unnecessary pain on their child, simple as that, however, please dont think that anyone here is against circumsicion for genuine necessary reasons. :)

I wouldn't tattoo my child, it's idiotic, however many people pierce the ears of their young children. (Note: not I).

I'm merely stating that people who wish to outlaw routine circumcision period would take that right away from adults who wish to do it for no other reason than having it done. I'm also aware the wording of the US proposed legislature in question is for infants however there is a small grassroots movement who wishes to have it blanket the entire population, taking away the rights of adults which would result in it being illegal for an adult to remove their foreskin yet legal for them to amputate their fingers or arm. Rather non-sensical if you ask me.

I also don't feel it's unnecessary pain. With a penile block there is no or little pain at the time of circumcision and some discomfort the following days, I'd hardly call it life altering. Having been circumcised myself I feel no resentment toward my guardians who arranged to have it performed and cannot remember any pain or anything about the procedure. I also am thankful for having it done for reasons which may not be appropriate to mention here.

WeThree

19-02-2006, 16:15

Barry

19-02-2006, 16:35

If an adult wants to get it done, more power to them, and if a child needs to have it done, then like i said, i dont have a problem with it either, i just dont get why you would do it otherwise!!??:confused:

I had my child circumcised because it's what I believe in. I myself am circumcised and I'd had no problems in life and possible benefits. I'm aware of all the arguments and research which states circumcision is unneccessary just as I'm aware of all the arguments and research which states circumcision can be beneficial, however at the end of the day I decided it would be best for my child to be circumcised.

From a cold mathematical point of view, discomfort which will not be remembered is a small price to pay for the benefit of lesser risk of infection et cetera. (I'm aware foreskin infections can be prevented with proper bathing and that 90 odd percent are caused by lack of cleanliness.)

the_queen

19-02-2006, 16:49

the_queen

19-02-2006, 16:50

Just realised how sarky my last post sounded. Unintentional, I can assure you. :)

reAllytee

19-02-2006, 17:05

Yes unintentional :rolleyes:
I hope this stays as a debate that understands everyone is entitled to their own opinions & beliefs but then when it comes to this topic who knows.

Barry

19-02-2006, 17:13

By your logic, Baz, a baby girl's breast tissue should be removed at birth, just in case she ever got breast cancer? 1 in 11 Australian women will get it, that's huge odds. Shouldn't we pro-actively protect our daughters against this horrible disease?

And what about ingrown toenails, now there's a painful infection that lots of people get at some point in their lives. Maybe our baby's toes should be partially amputated at birth to prevent toenails from becoming infected later on in life.

So following your logic then, why not just kill all babies? They're going to die anyway.

Being serious however, I do have other reasons than just foreskin infection, plus it is my decision as a parent whether or not I do wish to circumcise my children. I don't tell people whether they should or shouldn't circumcise their children - if they ask I'll tell them my life experience and the experience of circumcising my child, I won't however tell them what they should/shouldn't do - it's every parents individual choice, not that of any other individual, group or legislative body.

cosmic

19-02-2006, 17:38

Barry, just to go off topic for a minute.. can I ask what prompted you to sign up to a parenting forum and post about the topic of circumcision? Will you be joining in other conversations as well? (I'm sorry if you have and I've missed them).

And in response to your earlier comment, there are risks involved in any surgery so to take one risk (circumcision) in order to counteract another potential risk (a minimal one) is illogical in my opinion. And just because you don't remember pain doesn't mean you didn't experience it. If circumcision is something you would prefer not to experience as a 5yo or 15yo or 35yo, how is it appropriate to inflict it on a newborn?

Barry

19-02-2006, 18:03

Barry, just to go off topic for a minute.. can I ask what prompted you to sign up to a parenting forum and post about the topic of circumcision? Will you be joining in other conversations as well? (I'm sorry if you have and I've missed them).

I've posted in other threads/boards, actually moreso than here, I only made two posts (actually maybe 3 - I can't remember) and am now merely answering peoples questions/comments.

And in response to your earlier comment, there are risks involved in any surgery so to take one risk (circumcision) in order to counteract another potential risk (a minimal one) is illogical in my opinion. And just because you don't remember pain doesn't mean you didn't experience it. If circumcision is something you would prefer not to experience as a 5yo or 15yo or 35yo, how is it appropriate to inflict it on a newborn?

Pain that isn't remembered is a valid and worthwhile exchange for pain that would be horrific, much worse, and remembered.

If circumcision is something you would prefer not to experience as a 5/15/35 year old it is appropriate to "inflict" as you say to do the procedure at a young age because they will not be in the same degree of pain as an older person and they won't remember the discomfort they did experience. Being that they are also less mobile, the overall discomfort/pain is reduced my a sizable magnatude. Have you see adults after circumcision barely able to move due to the horrific pain and can barely submerge themselves in water to bathe let alone withstand the pain of the falling water in a shower, yet a baby with vasaline on the inside of their nappy as no problem with movement and loves baths. (Yes, I'm aware these may be one off cases however they are the only five experiences I have direct and first hand knowledge of).

Would you prefer someone to tap you on the shoulder now, or punch you in the face tomorrow? The logical choice is the former so why when the event in question circumcision does the choice become irrational?

C2H5OH

19-02-2006, 22:16

Barry is very commanding, isn't he? Like he is trying to lead the way for parents who may not know any better to get it done.

*tough man voice* Yeh! YEH! I agree with Barry. Yeh! I'm gonna get it done to my son! */tough man voice*

------

On the same topic.. it's bad enough when you see these people with misconceptions about circumcision saying this stuff online, (it anoys me enough when i read it online) but when i go out into public, and i actually see a baby, it hurts even more to think that people are saying it. Today in the restaurant, i saw this frail little baby boy, who would have been less then 4 months old. I was crying (but there were no tears in my eyes if you know what i mean) and i was just thinking "How could anyone do something like that to a baby? How?".

It's the same with racism. It's one thing to read a racial slur on an online forum, but actually seeing someone who is actually a part of the targetted minority group who is totally innocent, (like a little kid or something) it just makes it hit home.

Barry

19-02-2006, 22:20

Barry is very commanding, isn't he? Like he is trying to lead the way for parents who may not know any better to get it done.

You may wish to note I have stated everyone should make there own decisions, I'm merely stating my own opinion.

Like any decision a parent makes whether it be to circumcise their son or to change from breast milk to formula to decision needs to be made by them, not someone else, and no-one should try to force them to make one choice other another.

Refresh

19-02-2006, 22:33

ugh.....what to do? Some circumcise, some don't.....:D Some vaccinate, some don't....some believe in God, some don't.....

...sorry, in a weird mood tonight...better go to bed....:rolleyes:

Moving right along....

Ana Gram

19-02-2006, 22:40

Getting back on topic for just a moment, how would this bill affect the Jewish?

Barry

19-02-2006, 22:42

Getting back on topic for just a moment, how would this bill affect the Jewish?

Would cause them to do backyard circumcisions unless an exemption is added prior to it being passed. Which isn't incommon in the US system considering they tag election campaign funding laws onto troop funding bills!

Most likely however it'll hit the dust like the last two (I think) times it was introduced.

Refresh

19-02-2006, 22:49

Surely the Jews would be allowed to do it on religious grounds...? There would be some kind of exemption surely......

Barry

19-02-2006, 22:53

Surely the Jews would be allowed to do it on religious grounds...? There would be some kind of exemption surely......

That's the beauty of legislation, it's like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

Chances are if it does pass, there would be an exemption added. If not the circumcisions will continue, they'll just be non-advertised and done after hours, or worse people will go to backyard hoons to get it done.

Ana Gram

19-02-2006, 22:56

the article did make mention of religion and that it should be something the child should decided when 18

Refresh

19-02-2006, 22:59

That's the beauty of legislation, it's like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

Rofl!!....:D

Mumof2+1

20-02-2006, 00:55

I have been a member here for a while now and am amazed at what's going on in this topic. I realise it is a sensitive matter but realy come on!

I personaly don't see the need to have it done and my boy is not. That was just my choice. The risks of infection are very low if kept clean, as apposed to the risks having it done. In some respects I think it is a good idea to have the proceedure banned.
My SIL recently had her boy done and he was in terrible pain afterwards and cried all the time(SCREAMED):( . I don't think you can realy say that just because they don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't hurt at the time. I guess it's a bit like someone who has had an accident and is in a comma for a long time. They don't remember the pain but I can bet your life they don't want it to happen again.

But in Barry's deffence, I can see his piont about it going underground and being performed in back-yard offices. My SIL & brother went to great lengths to find a doctor to do it for no other reason than that my brother had it done.

Like I said before I don't like it and wouldn't do it to my child but that is just my opinion. But whatever your opinion is, please let us not degrade others and ourselves by being closed to other peoples opinions.

Trish
Taylah 8 1/2yrs
Jacob 6 1/2yrs
Ellah 8months

reAllytee

20-02-2006, 00:57

I
Like I said before I don't like it and wouldn't do it to my child but that is just my opinion. But whatever your opinion is, please let us not degrade others and ourselves by being closed to other peoples opinions.

:D :D :D :D

Barry

20-02-2006, 05:30

But whatever your opinion is, please let us not degrade others and ourselves by being closed to other peoples opinions.

Can't agree with you more.

WeThree

20-02-2006, 05:35

Sorry, but I think everyone here has been very polite and simply been sharing their opinions also, I dont think anyone has degraded anyone, but I personally am closed to the thought of having a child circumcised for no reason, however it is not my intention to make those that do so feel bad, i am simply sharing the way i feel about the matter, i would never purposely try to upset someone.

Barry

20-02-2006, 05:49

Sorry, but I think everyone here has been very polite and simply been sharing their opinions also, I dont think anyone has degraded anyone

You must have missed in the other thread where it was inferred I was just trying to cause trouble and was some sort of weirdo just because I'm knowledgeable on the topic.

WeThree

20-02-2006, 05:51

Barry

20-02-2006, 06:01

oh no Baz, I saw that ;) you have to understand that we have had some realllll weirdos come here and try to start trouble, whilst we now know that you are not one of those people, you have to understand why some people would be suspicious, please dont take it personally though. :)

See the thing is, I can understand a mistaken assumption once, but when I've already answered the person saying I'm not and they can check my post history and see that a) I'd only signed up that day and didn't know of all the other conversations that had taken place, and b) I'd posted in several other areas. I find it distasteful that they'd question my wanting to discuss the matter making out that because I'm knowledgeable on the matter I must have a secret agenda.

People complain those choose to circumcise their children support their argument with things such as the infection debate or 'just because I'm done, I got it done for my boy' et cetera, but when I do present some facts on the matter which contradicts their assertions, suddenly that's a bad thing? I'm just at a bit of a loss.

WeThree

20-02-2006, 06:13

andrewJ

20-02-2006, 06:16

i don't think that jews should be allowed to do it.
Your religion ends where somebody elses flesh begins.

Clearly the rights of the parents to practice their religion are at odds with the rights of the child to keep everything that is his, (and possible his right to freedom of religious choice). As a circumcised jew, I dont think that playing the religion card is enough justification.

I can't envisage a ban ever happening, so in this case, I would prefer that jews circumcise in the way in which they believe that Abraham was instructed to do.
A modern Jewish circumcision involves two parts. The second part was added much later and involves the peeling back of the skin and cutting a much greater amount off. This was to prevent Jews who did not like being circumcised from being able to look as if they were not, and to make restoration much more difficult.

In other words, because there were Jews who wanted to be intact, circumcision was made much more radical than what God, apparantely, had ordered.

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

Ana Gram

20-02-2006, 09:21

I have to disagree with you there. I certainly have no love of religion but I support the freedom to choose a religion and for the parents to choose a religion for their child. There is continual talk of the rights of a child and that parents should make no major decisions reguarding their lives until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Where does it end? Perhaps at birth the child should be locked away until it is old enough to think clearly. I am sure all our parents have made choices we as grown ups wouldn't have made for ourselves. Should those decisions have been taken off our parents too? Yes it may sound extreme but I feel as a parent I should be the one making the decisions in my child's life until she is old enough to understand and make the decision herself.

cosmic

20-02-2006, 09:41

It might just be best to just let it go and stick to the topic;) everyone makes mistakes, even when someone did question you about who you may be, they werent rude or nasty about it, please lets just keep it nice. :)
Thanks Erin. :) The fact that this has been brought up over and over again in several different threads has unfortunately made it appear to be a much bigger issue than it ever needed to be.

andrewJ

20-02-2006, 11:04

cosmic

20-02-2006, 11:45

the_queen

20-02-2006, 12:07

Interesting question Cosmic, I'd like to know the legalities of that as well.
I personally feel sad when I hear of children being denied medical treatment due to their parents beliefs. Having said that, I'm currently deciding whether or not to vaccinate my new baby, so maybe that fits in under the same category? :rolleyes:

Refresh

20-02-2006, 12:10

Thats a tough one.....
Hey Queenie! I did get your PM, just trying to find aitme to be on here for more than 2 minutes so I can reply properly! I'm not ignoring you!!!:o :)

the_queen

20-02-2006, 12:11

Thats a tough one.....
Hey Queenie! I did get your PM, just trying to find aitme to be on here for more than 2 minutes so I can reply properly! I'm not ignoring you!!!:o :)

:) oh phew.....I was starting to feel rejected.......:p

ThomasMum

20-02-2006, 14:10

Barry is very commanding, isn't he? Like he is trying to lead the way for parents who may not know any better to get it done.

*tough man voice* Yeh! YEH! I agree with Barry. Yeh! I'm gonna get it done to my son! */tough man voice*

.

LOL nah, I don't think thats his intention to do. I wouldnt let my DH to boss me around even if he's (my DH) got sexy tough man voice, let alone some total stranger!

I'm with draught, it will be long time waiting for Australia. And lets hope that by the time the bill arrives we'll have understanding about this topic. So keep reading and searching people! :D

FYI, DH and I are not going to circ our little man. We respect our little man�s rights. We give our Thomas the choice. If when he grows up he decides he wants to be circumcised, then we are not against it one little bit. But not when he's still a defenceless lil man. NO WAY!
And this is part of the privilege of living in a free society :D

Ana Gram

20-02-2006, 14:57

"I support the freedom.... for the parents to choose a religion for their child."

What if the parents accepted the hadith that it is in their daughters interests to be circumcised?

Fortunately for girls, the law (since 1997) takes no account of parental beliefs where female circumcision is concerned.
Even the forms of female circumcision that are much less drastic than the standard male circumcision are illegal.

"where does it end?"

good question. Where does the freedom of parents to practice their beliefs end?
I'd say it ends, where their own body does.

Then the only solution would be to ban all religion and religious practices that involve children. Children of religious parents should be taken away just in case. The brain is part of the body, who is to say that religion doesn't seriously damage a childs brain?
Please note my sarcasm.

Barry

20-02-2006, 18:34

On a similar, kind of related topic.. what does the law say about parents refusing medical treatment for their child on the grounds of religious beliefs? I ask because I don't know the answer and I'm genuinely curious.

Do we have a problem with children being denied medical intervention that could save their life? Are parents held accountable when children suffer on the grounds of their parent's beliefs?

All medical procedures require the consent of the guardian, if however a child turns up in the ER without any indication of their guardians wishes they will be treated as per normal practices until the parents are located/interfere.

Barry

20-02-2006, 18:44

Fortunately for girls, the law (since 1997) takes no account of parental beliefs where female circumcision is concerned.
Even the forms of female circumcision that are much less drastic than the standard male circumcision are illegal.

Which forms are they? The three main forms; Sunna Circumcision, Clitoridectomy and Infibulation, are all generally regarded as worse than modern male circumcision to varying degrees.

Frazzled

20-02-2006, 20:54

Which forms are they? The three main forms; Sunna Circumcision, Clitoridectomy and Infibulation, are all generally regarded as worse than modern male circumcision to varying degrees.

Yes, i'd really like to know what form of female circumcision could be regarded as 'better' than standard male circumcision??? And there are many countries where female circumcision is still rife...

andrewJ

21-02-2006, 04:02

"Female circumcision" is a misleading term that has obviously borrowed its name from the male version which literally "cuts around".
Sunna circumcision sometimes removes the tip of the clitoris as well as the clitoral hood, and sometimes it only removes the clitoral hood. This version is pretty much the same thing as male circumcision, although i think a case could be made to say that the male version does more damage.

The world health organisation also defines another type which is undoubtedly less severe than male circumcision. this is type 4, which actually refers to a wide range of practices, all of which are just as illegal as total infibulation (and so they should be).
Type iv circumcisions include rubbing, stretching and pricking the clitoris with a pin.

If you were to go near your daughter with a pin, you may find yourself in jail for 7 years. Approach your son with a knife, and that's fine.

Barry

21-02-2006, 08:27

The world health organisation also defines another type which is undoubtedly less severe than male circumcision. this is type 4,

If you were to go near your daughter with a pin, you may find yourself in jail for 7 years. Approach your son with a knife, and that's fine.

Type IV is a group catagory for everything that isn't Type I-III it also includes burning the female with a red hot rod/knife to sear off the clitoris and/or scar it horrifically to take all enjoyment out of sexual activity and make sexual activity painful. Some tribes believe in constant type IV actions to in sure women are kept "pure" they also then bind their legs together for 20-40 days to ensure the prodecure isn't touched. I'm quite certain everyone will agree this is far worse than a PlastiBell circumcision which only envolves one small incision on the top of the foreskin, the main part of th removal of the foreskin is done by the body itself as the foreskin necrotizes and falls off, providing a bloodless circumcision*, with no open wound to become irritated or infected. The only danger is if the doctor is poorly trained and forces the plastic "cup" down too tightly tightly then the front of it can dig into the glans and cause problems, including obstruction of the urethra - which is why it's a good idea if doing the procedure to have it done by someone who's well trained.

But I digress as that as moved a little off topic...

Now comparing the above procedure with nearly all the forms of female circumcision including most of the type IV's is ludacris, the majority of female circumcision result in the female lacking sensation during sexual activity or it being downright painful, whereas male circumcision often results in increased feeling during sexual activity and longer lasting power.

Now I know this is going to be thrown out as pro-circumcision propaganda or what not so I'll present some facts for everyone to digest:

From Urologia internationalis. 2005;75(1):62-6 (For those with access to medical journals for ease of location the pSSN is 0042-1138); we learn that it is accepted medical fact that currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin or the effect circumcision has on penile sensitivity and overall sexual satisfaction.

However, they (being Department of Urology, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK) conducted a study to assesses the effect of circumcision on sexually active men. The data was assessed using the abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function. Questions were also asked about libido, penile sensitivity, premature ejaculation, pain during intercourse and appearance before and after circumcision.

The result? Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision, (38% better, 44% couldn't tell if there was a difference, 18% worse). 26% had an increase in their libido levels with 74% having no change. 38% of the partners thought the penis appearance improved after circumcision with 62% having no preference to before or after.

From the Journal of Urology. 2004 Jan;63(1):155-8. (For those with access to medical journals for ease of location the pSSN is 0090-4295).

A study was conducted to valuate the effects of adult circumcision on sexual function in men circumcised only for religious or cosmetic reasons.

The study group consisted of 42 male patients (range 19 to 28) referred for circumcision from June 2002 to January 2003. Of the 42 men, 39 desired circumcision for religious reasons. Before circumcision, their sexual performance was evaluated using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory and ejaculatory latency time. The evaluation and ejaculatory latency time measurements were repeated after a postoperative interval of at least 12 weeks.

The result? Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.

Whilst yes I'm aware the above relates to adult circumcision, it becomes quite clear that the procedure is vastly different to that of female circumcision, which is often done as a 'coming of age' ritual.

Also, please don't fly off the handle like this is some pro-circumcision lets grab all the children and circumcise them post, it's not. I'm just trying to clear up a lot of the misconceptions that seem to be flying around about the two.

*ie there are no open wounds on the child as the small cut on the foreskin is sealed off from the childs circulatory system.

WeThree

21-02-2006, 09:10

Actually I have always been led to believe the circumsicion leads to less enjoyment sexually due to the disensitisation of that area of the penis.

Barry

21-02-2006, 09:35

Actually I have always been led to believe the circumsicion leads to less enjoyment sexually due to the disensitisation of that area of the penis.

Nope, it's a common misconception spread by anti-circumcision people (or "activists" if one wishes to use that word).

There was a more relevant study that comes to mind now done in April 2005 at Urology Specialty Care, Englewood Cliffs, US which evaluated a group of men who had been circumcised neonatally (ie first 28 days) looking from a purely neurologic point of view which was controlled to rule out factors such as age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension which can affect the results. (ie there's no point testing someone with diabetes as it will skew the results due to there existing & regarded as unrelated condition) so both sides of the fence were from a strict grouping, no one side consisted healthier or less healthy people, older or less old people.

The end result was that circumcision status doesn't significantly alter the somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. ie Mr Brain can't tell Mr Johnson lost his jacket.

If anyone wants I can go through my paperwork and see when the study was published for peer review?

the_queen

21-02-2006, 09:37

ie Mr Brian can't tell Mr Johnson lost his jacket.

:D All differences of opinion aside, that is very funny!!

Barry

21-02-2006, 09:59

:D All differences of opinion aside, that is very funny!!

Hehe shame I typo'ed brain as the little man was squirming about on my lap ;)

Barry

21-02-2006, 12:01

By the way, if people want rather than this thread going in a different direction I'd be quite happy to start a thread on female circumcision with information on the different types and the history/reasoning from a factual point of view for peoples pursual.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 12:50

Barry, if you go to the circumcision threads and change the default at the bottom of the page to view all threads for the last 12 months you will see that the conversation has been had many times before. I understand you weren't a member then, but if it is a topic that interests you (as it obviously is) you are welcome to go and see what information is there. In particular, you might want to do a search on all posts by JohnC as he is just as interested in the topic as you are and has posted lots of information and research that also covers the topic of Female Circumcision (he is away at the moment, otherwise I'm sure he'd be thrilled to have the discussion with you).

As for a new thread on female circumcision, I personally don't think it's relevant to anyone as most parents are making the decision about circumcising boys, not girls. But of course you are entitled to start a thread about anything you want so if you think we could all benefit from knowing about the different types of female circumcision, post away!

For me personally, it makes no difference if one is 'better' or 'worse' than another, taking a knife to the genitals of a child is something I'd never do without good reason and no-one has shown me one yet. :)

the_queen

21-02-2006, 12:57

Hehe shame I typo'ed brain as the little man was squirming about on my lap ;)

oh LOL I even read it as "brain" anyway :D

WeThree

21-02-2006, 15:28

pegasus

21-02-2006, 15:46

Just poking my nose in to say I didn't know Mr Brain was connected to Mr Johnson...I always thought Mr Brain was in Mr Johnson :laughing: (sorry -feminist moment - this is why I don't let my DH join up, I don't think he'd be impressed with some of my posts).

On the other side (does it alter sensation) there is only one guy I know who had a circumcision after first having sex, (think he was 27 at the time) and he said it made no difference. However, he was only a friend, so I don't know really how honest he was being with me. Guess those men are really the only ones that know - none of us females will ever know.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 16:27

ThomasMum

21-02-2006, 16:28

My brother (he's an OB/GYN and a heart specialist surgeon to be) told me that most of his male patients said that there's no difference in regards to sexual pleasure whether you are circ or not

(my brother was circ of course he was born long time ago hehe, but none of his kids are) :yelclap:

cosmic

21-02-2006, 16:33

Yay for TM's nephews. :yelclap: I just had to post that 'cause I love the new clappy smiley! :D

Barry

21-02-2006, 16:36

Then how does having it circumcised increase sexual pleasure? (not that it matters anyway, I would hope most parents wouldnt do this to their child on the off chance sex may feel slightly better for them when they are grown up:rolleyes: )

I'm assuming you're comment is in relation to Englewood Cliffs study I posted?

Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll give you the answer which matches your query :)

In regards to the Englewood Cliffs study perhaps I didn't correctly explain it with bubba squirming about. The test invovled quantitative somatosensory testing, including vibration, pressure, spatial perception and thermal thresholds of the penis; basically testing the neurological aspects of the penis testing to see if it functioned the same or abnormally after. (Note: abnormal doesn't imply worse)

Now, this is were it gets a bit confusing for some, this sort of sensation response differs from sexual activity it's like saying my legs walk as the doctor tested me and I can walk, but that doesn't mean you're going to be good/bad or otherwise in a marathon.

So, does it increase sexual pleasure? Some say yes, some say no. From a laymen's (or should I say layperson's here?! heheh) point of view the difference is rather than having the foreskin sliding up and down during coitus rubbing on the glans you've got a "nude" penis being stimulated in a different manner. Some say they feel 'cleaner' or what not being circumcised which would add to their sexual pleasure and senstivity. Is it better? Is it worse? Is the ability to last longer good or bad? It really depends on the individual (and their partner for the latter).

Really the point I was trying to make back there was there's alot of misconceptions about what is involved and what the actual result is, people say that people who get their children circumcised are nuts because of xyz then within an hour they're saying people who don't get their children circumcised are nuts because of xyz.

It just sort of annoys me when I see a whole bunch of unevidenced misconceptions posted as fact and used in arguments to shoot down other people or create a sense of validity to an argument that shouldn't really ever be taking place.

At the end of the day, numerous medical studies have shown there's basically no difference, but there's enough evidence to suggest that circumcision may be beneficial and may not be harmful, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and several other organisations withdrew there warning against circumcision and took a neutral position.

Wow I think I got a bit off track there, was talking to my insurer on the phone getting rilled up at their incompetence whilst I was typing away!

Uhm so yeah if you don't want to read all that the short answer is: the penis is more exposed and the person may feel more confident.

Damn it, now I feel like going off on a tangent. Feel free to stop reading here if you're not interested in a bizarre thing that popped up in circumcision comparision research...

In the Journal of Urology back in 2002, volume 167 if I'm not mistaken, there was a study conducted about the above by a bloke by the name of Fink from the US, he found that after circumcision the bloke was basically randy as, and interested in a wider range of sexual practices and postitions more often than before. It also showed the blokes where more likely to partake in homosexual activity overseas*. I found that rather hilarious, it's worthwhile to note however that the later is statistically insignificant.

Now I'm off to talk home loans over in the other thread! By the way, please no one take offence to the above, it's just information not a recruitment pitch, but if you do want a recruitment pitch I can tell you about my lovely photography ;)

*I wonder if they pre-book their overseas romp holidays before the operation??

ThomasMum

21-02-2006, 16:41

Yay for TM's nephews. :yelclap: I just had to post that 'cause I love the new clappy smiley! :D

LOL Cosmic, Thomas is NOT circ either! Hell no! :smiliedance:

Barry

21-02-2006, 16:42

Just poking my nose in to say I didn't know Mr Brain was connected to Mr Johnson...I always thought Mr Brain was in Mr Johnson :laughing:

No! sssh! Don't let the secret out!! Mr Brain is Mr Johnson!

On the other side (does it alter sensation) there is only one guy I know who had a circumcision after first having sex, (think he was 27 at the time) and he said it made no difference.

It's pretty common that it doesn't and that's the thing, alot of people run around saying that you're going to end up with a lump of useless flesh when it's just not a statisically correct statement, that was why I posted here when I first joined as I was reading through and someone quoted a rumour as fact, be it home loans, fish breeding or circumcision I correct such things.

the_queen

21-02-2006, 16:42

I'm not really that comfortable thinking about my son's future sexual enjoyment .... Maybe just the prude in me coming out...... I mean, it could be argued that certain genital piercings enhance sexual pleasure for both genders, but that doesn't mean I should consider piercing.. anything.... see, now I'm feeling icky even thinking about that kind of thing. I know all children will eventually be sexual beings etc etc, but I'll concern myself with that side of things in the distant future. And isn't it almost akin to cutting your nipples off - once it's gone it's gone?? So if he's intact but wants to get circ'd because he thinks sex will be more pleasurable - what if he's wrong? He'd have to go through restoration, which I haven't researched but I've heard is a long and arduous process.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't consider this a good enough reason to jusitfy circumcision.

But I accept that it probably is quite an important issue to a man ;)

andrewJ

21-02-2006, 17:01

"Now comparing the above procedure with nearly all the forms of female circumcision including most of the type IV's is ludacris, the majority of female circumcision result in the female lacking sensation during sexual activity"

i already admitted that most forms of female circumcision were far more damaging than the standard male form. I did not compare male circumcision with "nearly all" forms of female circumcision. i was specific for a reason.
The point was that there exists some types of female circumcision that are less damaging, yet are still illegal. I know type 4 includes other things too, but it was never the point.

i dont see how the study that you mentioned would prove that males circumcised at birth do not experience reduced sensation. You cannot prove a negative.

Even if it were logically possible to prove this, questionnaires would be pretty unreliable in my opinion. The same questionnaire given to circumcised African women will provide similar, if not more, pro circumcision bias. There are also Western women who are choosing to undergo some of the minor forms of circumcision, because they believe that it improves their sex life.
We can say then, that the relative effects of male or female circumcision on sexuality is a matter of opinion, and you agreed that there was no consensus (relating to male circumcision).
In this case, the results from questionnaires are of little use, and it is more reasonable to rely on medical science and common sense.

Studies do exist, that show that the foreskin has significant and unique roles to play in sexual activity.

It has been shown that the foreskin is dominated by fine touch receptors, and removing it, not only keratinizes and dries the glans, (which is dominated by pressure receptors and pain receptors), but means the loss of 20,000 of these fine touch receptors, which are unique in this density, to this part of the body. The nerve endings in the foreskin are closer to the surface than the rest of the shaft skin. Circumcision simply removes a way in which sex can be experienced. Fewer nerve endings means fewer sensations, coupled with a huge reduction in the amount of fine touch receptors mean that Women may find men to be too aggressive as a result of their circumcisions.

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:09

I read somewhere (here in a circ thread but I forget who posted it or what the study was) that there was quite a bit of evidence to show men lost sensation/sexual pleasure after being circumcised as adults.

Argh, it's a rumour perpetuated by poorly sampled research and in those that are used they're often tiny sample sizes such as Fink in 2002 and Denniston in 2004 which used 40 & 38 men respectively. But humorously when quoting Fink to say men lose sexual sensation you'll note the conclusions also list an increase in overall satisfaction.

This is the exact reason I post here, to spread facts.

Here's some reason studies, sample size (ie number of blokes) and their results in terms of overall satisfaction:

Fink (2002) - 40 - Favours circumcision
Collins (2002)- 15 - No difference
Senkul (2004) - 42 - No difference
Masood (2005) - 88 - Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction)
Shen (2004) - 95 - Favours circumcision

But please note I'm not trying to say circumcision is better, I'm trying to illustrate the facts.

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:10

Ana Gram

21-02-2006, 17:11

Fewer nerve endings means fewer sensations, coupled with a huge reduction in the amount of fine touch receptors mean that Women may find men to be too aggressive as a result of their circumcisions.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: I don't know where you got that from but that is the biggest load of bull. Is the next study going to come out with "the majority of rapists are circumcised"?
I have slept with my fair share of men and sexual agressiveness has nothing to do with the foreskin.

andrewJ

21-02-2006, 17:13

logic dictates otherwise

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:14

So if he's intact but wants to get circ'd because he thinks sex will be more pleasurable - what if he's wrong? He'd have to go through restoration, which I haven't researched but I've heard is a long and arduous process.

It's funny you mention that, studies have shown that foreskin restoration makes sex even more pleasurable. I don't even want to think about the possible idiots out there having a circumcision then restoration for such effect!

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't consider this a good enough reason to jusitfy circumcision.

It certainly isn't. But it should be known that it doesn't cause sexual problems as some people are trying to say.

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:24

The point was that there exists some types of female circumcision that are less damaging, yet are still illegal. I know type 4 includes other things too, but it was never the point.

FYI - Clitoral piercing is Type IV Female Circumcision/FGM yet legal.

i dont see how the study that you mentioned would prove that males circumcised at birth do not experience reduced sensation. You cannot prove a negative.

If you have two light bulbs one has had the label scratched off, one hasn't, can you test they both work? Yes.

You use the untouched lightbulb as the control subject and test the reactions of the scratched lightbulb to that off the control subject. If they react the same you have proven the lightbulb was not affected by scratching the label off.

Now swap lightbulb for penis and the scratch for circumcision and instead of electricity it's the nervous system.

Even if it were logically possible to prove this, questionnaires would be pretty unreliable in my opinion. The same questionnaire given to circumcised African women will provide similar, if not more, pro circumcision bias. There are also Western women who are choosing to undergo some of the minor forms of circumcision, because they believe that it improves their sex life.

No, the questionaires are specific and medically proven. Regardless of your views you still place a meaningful answer in the box that says: A) Do you have a penis ( Yes / No )

We can say then, that the relative effects of male or female circumcision on sexuality is a matter of opinion, and you agreed that there was no consensus (relating to male circumcision).
In this case, the results from questionnaires are of little use, and it is more reasonable to rely on medical science and common sense.

Studies do exist, that show that the foreskin has significant and unique roles to play in sexual activity.

It has been shown that the foreskin is dominated by fine touch receptors, and removing it, not only keratinizes and dries the glans, (which is dominated by pressure receptors and pain receptors), but means the loss of 20,000 of these fine touch receptors, which are unique in this density, to this part of the body. The nerve endings in the foreskin are closer to the surface than the rest of the shaft skin. Circumcision simply removes a way in which sex can be experienced. Fewer nerve endings means fewer sensations, coupled with a huge reduction in the amount of fine touch receptors mean that Women may find men to be too aggressive as a result of their circumcisions.

Sorry, but no, your argument is flawed. You forget the sensations that are added to the mix as a result of the circumcision. See my previous post to cosmic for a list of studies with the overall satisfaction rating after circumcision which shows no difference to beneficial difference.

Also, in my experience, without being crude, my partners have also enjoy more lenghty expressions of my feelings for them. Lasting ability does not equal aggressiveness, just as buying an axe doesn't make you a murderer. It's how you use the tool... literally it seems.

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:28

Is the next study going to come out with "the majority of rapists are circumcised"?

Awesome! Lets do a flawed study, pitch it to Today Tonight and become overnight celebrity doctors!!

You can be the nurse if you want! Reow.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 17:32

FYI - Clitoral piercing is Type IV Female Circumcision/FGM yet legal.

But only legal for adults. Parents, to my knowledge, can't get their newborn baby girl's clitoris pierced, right?

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:40

But only legal for adults. Parents, to my knowledge, can't get their newborn baby girl's clitoris pierced, right?

Being that we're talking about adult/mature female circumcision your comment isn't really relevant. I was merely illustrating a point - the rest of Type I-III and most of Type IV are illegal so... I'm not sure where you're going.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 17:44

WeThree

21-02-2006, 17:53

It just sort of annoys me when I see a whole bunch of unevidenced misconceptions posted as fact and used in arguments to shoot down other people or create a sense of validity to an argument that shouldn't really ever be taking place.

At the end of the day, numerous medical studies have shown there's basically no difference, but there's enough evidence to suggest that circumcision may be beneficial and may not be harmful, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and several other organisations withdrew there warning against circumcision and took a neutral position.

There is stacks of information posted in other circ threads that have come from genuine studies and are indeed fact. What misconceptions are you referring to? (besides the sexual one, which less face it isnt really relevant and not something normal parents would consider when deciding to circ or not) To be honest I still havnt seen you provide any information that shows that circumcising infant boys is beneficial to them in anyway, Im not sure what your point is? Do you want everyone to say 'oh yes, you are right, circumcision of small boys is great? At this point in time male circumcision in Australia is legal, and we all have to respect a parents rights if this is what they chose, but I would much prefer to hear someone just say 'i did it because i felt like it' rather than trying to justify it with dubious 'studies' etc. You are entitled to your opinion, but im curious as to were you are going with all this?
oh where oh where is JohnC??:confused:

cosmic

21-02-2006, 17:55

Coops, he is away and to be honest I thought he'd be back by now but hopefully he's not far away. ;)

Regardless, his studies are all still there in the circ threads and he, like the rest of us, is probably tired of posting the same stuff over and over for every newcomer who wants to resurrect the conversation. :)

Barry

21-02-2006, 17:56

I thought the whole debate was around making circumcision of infants illegal? And hence the comparison between female and male circumcision with female circumcision being illegal... and your point that clitoral piercing is legal. So in comparison to the legality of circumcision of baby boys, it's relevant because baby girls aren't allowed to have their clitoris pierced. Make sense or did I lose track of the conversation somewhere?

The conversation drifted to be female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision and the resulting differences ie female is disadvantaged, male is not.

I don't really wish to compare clitoral piercing to male circumcision because clitoral piercing in the majority of cases in this country is done by informed adults... and well it's just completely different to the dicussion, it's more like handbag shopping or something.

So uhm, yeah, in short the last five pages have basically been female circumcision isn't comparable to male circumcision, blokes are fine afterwards and not rapists with a deviation into standardised medical practices and foreskin rebuilding.

Barry

21-02-2006, 18:04

There is stacks of information posted in other circ threads that have come from genuine studies and are indeed fact. What misconceptions are you referring to? (besides the sexual one, which less face it isnt really relevant and not something normal parents would consider when deciding to circ or not) To be honest I still havnt seen you provide any information that shows that circumcising infant boys is beneficial to them in anyway, Im not sure what your point is? Do you want everyone to say 'oh yes, you are right, circumcision of small boys is great? At this point in time male circumcision in Australia is legal, and we all have to respect a parents rights if this is what they chose, but I would much prefer to hear someone just say 'i did it because i felt like it' rather than trying to justify it with dubious 'studies' etc. You are entitled to your opinion, but im curious as to were you are going with all this?
oh where oh where is JohnC??:confused:

I'm trying to say circumcision of small boys does not make the parent the devil incarnate and does not affect them later in life in a bad way, of which I've posted plenty of research supporting this.

Never have I tried to say circumcision is beneficial everyone go out and do it.

Misconceptions I'm referring too: It hurts them later in life, it's medically proven to be bad, it's bad sexually, they're sexually aggressive, they're going to be rapists.

See I don't see why a parent has to justify why they chose to circumcise their child. What right does the public have to make a parent justify their choice?

The western medical instition has stated there is no medical reason for a child to be circumcised and it is upto the parent to choose as they are neutral on the issue. Should I force you to justify your choices and hassle everyone whose made that decision? No, it's your right.

You may wish to note those exact same 'dubious' studies are used for anti-circumcision arguments too!

Barry

21-02-2006, 18:08

Regardless, his studies are all still there in the circ threads and he, like the rest of us, is probably tired of posting the same stuff over and over for every newcomer who wants to resurrect the conversation. :)

You better pull the plug on bubhub's servers then as someone might want to discuss breastfeeding, sleeping techniques or how their weekend was again.

Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed again... you do have the option of not reading it if you feel you've read it before and don't have anything you wish to add as opposed to whinging that it's been discussed before.

andrewJ

21-02-2006, 18:10

[QUOTE=Barry]FYI - Clitoral piercing is Type IV Female Circumcision/FGM yet legal.

When i bought up the topic of female circumcision, I was referring to circumcision performed on minors. I have no problem with women cutting whatever they like from their own bodies. good luck to them, but leave the kids alone.

"If you have two light bulbs one has had the label scratched off, one hasn't, can you test they both work? Yes. "

If two different men have a lightbulb each, one with the label scratched off and one hasnt, without ever seeing each others lightbulb, can they test that they both work to the same extent? No

" the questionaires are specific and medically proven. Regardless of your views you still place a meaningful answer in the box that says: A) Do you have a penis ( Yes / No )"

there is no such thing as a medically proven questionnaire. In your own words...
"So, does it increase sexual pleasure? Some say yes, some say no."

"Sorry, but no, your argument is flawed. You forget the sensations that are added to the mix as a result of the circumcision."..

You are removing thousands of specialised nerve endings. What exactly are you adding?

"See my previous post to cosmic for a list of studies with the overall satisfaction rating after circumcision which shows no difference to beneficial difference."

Asking men who choose to be circumcised (for whatever reason) whether or not they prefer being circumcised is like asking men who choose to ride motorbikes whether or not they prefer riding motobikes.

" Lasting ability does not equal aggressiveness"

a less sensitive penis requires greater stimulation. Its simple.

I find questionnaires completely unconvincing, as it is possible to find questionnaires that apparantely prove anything you want.
Can you suggest a physiological reason as to why a circumcised penis provides more pleasure than a natural one?

tickle

21-02-2006, 18:12

Barry, I guess people get very sick of the same conversation but can't help but respond when they see what they believe to be completely wrong information being posted.
So then, who has got something interesting to say about the proposed bill?

WeThree

21-02-2006, 18:13

I'm trying to say circumcision of small boys does not make the parent the devil incarnate and does not affect them later in life in a bad way, of which I've posted plenty of research supporting this.

Never have I tried to say circumcision is beneficial everyone go out and do it.

Misconceptions I'm referring too: It hurts them later in life, it's medically proven to be bad, it's bad sexually, they're sexually aggressive, they're going to be rapists.

See I don't see why a parent has to justify why they chose to circumcise their child. What right does the public have to make a parent justify their choice?

The western medical instition has stated there is no medical reason for a child to be circumcised and it is upto the parent to choose as they are neutral on the issue. Should I force you to justify your choices and hassle everyone whose made that decision? No, it's your right.

You may wish to note those exact same 'dubious' studies are used for anti-circumcision arguments too!

I dont think anyone here has said that parents who do this are awful people, and most of us accept that it doesnt have any bearing on a boy once he is grown. What I think most people DO have a problem with is the impact it has on the baby when it happens, it hurts alot and we just cant understand why you would do it when its not necessary?
As for hassling anyone who makes that decision, well if you come into a forum exercising your right to free speech, then expect others to do the same, i certainly havnt seen anyone be hassled, just be questioned on their decision, it seems obvious that people would want to know why? and if you feel its no ones business but your own, why post about it in a public forum?
anyway, that is it from me, i dont want to get into an argument, i hope you all continue to enjoy your debate. :)

Barry

21-02-2006, 18:29

When i bought up the topic of female circumcision, I was referring to circumcision performed on minors. I have no problem with women cutting whatever they like from their own bodies. good luck to them, but leave the kids alone.

There are a hell of a lot of female circumcisions that are done unwillingly. I find that disturbing kids or adults.

there is no such thing as a medically proven questionnaire. In your own words...
"So, does it increase sexual pleasure? Some say yes, some say no."

Here's a couple.

1. the International Index of Erectile Function Questions

2. Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory

Nearly all research studies use questionaires to select their control group and diagnose prior and former conditions, not all questionaires are filled out by the patient.

You are removing thousands of specialised nerve endings. What exactly are you adding?

You're exposing other nerves. But as neurology isn't my speciality I can't give you an exact answer, but studies have proven this to be the case.

Asking men who choose to be circumcised (for whatever reason) whether or not they prefer being circumcised is like asking men who choose to ride motorbikes whether or not they prefer riding motobikes.

A) Asking someone if they like being circumcised or not is a valid question, they answer yes I like it, or no I don't. Just as someone who bought a motorbike can say yes they like it or not they don't.

Also, when the questions/tests are done by the neurosurgeon and based on involuntary penile reactions opinions or beliefs are inconsequential.

" Lasting ability does not equal aggressiveness"

a less sensitive penis requires greater stimulation. Its simple.

Greater stimulation does not equal aggressiveness. I require greater stimulation mentally but I don't shoot my way into a library. Correlation does not imply causation my friend.

I find questionnaires completely unconvincing, as it is possible to find questionnaires that apparantely prove anything you want.

That's because you don't understand the basic principles of medical research.

Can you suggest a physiological reason as to why a circumcised penis provides more pleasure than a natural one?

No, because that's not my argument. But I can provide you with a near limitless supply of proven peer reviewed endorsed studies which show circumcision does not effect sensation, response, sexual activity or sexual sensation.

Barry

21-02-2006, 18:30

Barry, I guess people get very sick of the same conversation but can't help but respond when they see what they believe to be completely wrong information being posted.

So infact this conversation has been useful as studies have been provided illustrating the point they believed is null.

Barry

21-02-2006, 18:34

What I think most people DO have a problem with is the impact it has on the baby when it happens, it hurts alot and we just cant understand why you would do it when its not necessary?

I feel it worthwhile, and that the possible benefits outweight the possible negatives.

Modern plastibell circumcision as I've previously posted involves only one cut which is seperated from the circulatory system preventing infection and the actual foreskin removal is done by the bodies natural function. Utilising a penile block also removes -all- pain from the single cut from baby.

As for hassling anyone who makes that decision, well if you come into a forum exercising your right to free speech, then expect others to do the same, i certainly havnt seen anyone be hassled, just be questioned on their decision, it seems obvious that people would want to know why? and if you feel its no ones business but your own, why post about it in a public forum?
anyway, that is it from me, i dont want to get into an argument, i hope you all continue to enjoy your debate. :)

It's not a case of not wanting to be questioned, it's a case that people feel not circumcising is the best way and fine yet people who do circumcise should give the reason why when in reality both sides are unsupported by comprehensive endorsed medical research.

andrewJ

21-02-2006, 18:55

tickle

21-02-2006, 19:01

So infact this conversation has been useful as studies have been provided illustrating the point they believed is null.
From my personal beliefs (non moderating), I can't see that that has happened at all. I'm sorry but there is nothing that you have provided that would give me any reason to remove a part of my child's body.
I think it should be banned and hope it happens in Australia one day.:)

Barry

21-02-2006, 19:07

Nobody has denied that questionnaires exist. But if they proved anything, there would be a consensus, which you seem to be forgetting you have agreed does not exist. For every questionnaire you find that suggests one thing, I can find you one that suggests the opposite.

You disputed the usefulness of medical questionaires, I illustrated they are a valid and regularly used tool.

"A) Asking someone if they like being circumcised or not is a valid question,"

In that case, why should i take any notice of your surveys which ask men exactly that? I think you are confusing yourself.

Uhm, your statement is meaningless. If someone says they do not like being circumcised then quite obviously they are not overall satisfied with the procedure, I think you're missing the point.

If greater stimulation is needed, and much less light touch can be felt, greater friction or pressure will be required. I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

Uhm, because it's completely false? Circumcision does not make people less sensitive they don't hurt there partners during sex or become aggressive. Aggressive partners are so because of other factors, not circumcision. Going by your theory 90% of the people born in the 1950's in the US during the T&C era should be rapists/sexual deviants - they're not.

"No, because that's not my argument. But I can provide you with a near limitless supply of proven peer reviewed endorsed studies which show circumcision does not effect sensation, response, sexual activity or sexual sensation."

You cannot prove a negtive. This is a basic fact of logic. You simply cannot prove what you think.

Read up on neurology kiddo.

I can prove a car that's been in a car accident and only has a scratch functions the same as a car that hasn't been in a car accident if I have access to both subjects.

Just as you can prove 1 human is abnormally reacting compared to 1,000. How else would you know if you were sick? You know you're sick because your not the same as you were and not the same as the rest of the control group.

Barry

21-02-2006, 19:10

From my personal beliefs (non moderating), I can't see that that has happened at all. I'm sorry but there is nothing that you have provided that would give me any reason to remove a part of my child's body.
I think it should be banned and hope it happens in Australia one day.:)

HappyLady, I'm not trying to get you to remove a part of your childs body, I'm illustrating the point that if you did chose to then you would be no worse off, than the choice you have made. ie, if you did circumcise your child, you'd not be exposing them do anything negative, but circumcising your child is not exposing them to anything negative either.

This isn't about telling people to circumcise their children, its about providing the facts that modern medicine is neutral on the issue and it's prove to not be harmful later in life.

tickle

21-02-2006, 19:15

I am very confused by your last post and again we seem to be going in circles.
Circumcising an infant is exposing them to something negative, even with a penile block they feel the pain after. This is a negative. If they hadn't been circumcised they would not experience this.
You also don't know if your child actually wants to be circumcised. I know some men that wish they hadn't been done.
Yes, as a parent in Australia today, you do have the right to decide on whether you would like to circumcise your child. This is absolutely correct. But I don't think that this is how it should be.
Just my thoughts.:)

Barry

21-02-2006, 19:28

Circumcising an infant is exposing them to something negative, even with a penile block they feel the pain after. This is a negative. If they hadn't been circumcised they would not experience this.

I don't really think this is a valid arguement against, with a penile block as you've agreed there is no pain at the initial instant, but some discomfort afterwards. My child never cried or appeared upset throughout the process and only got a little grumpy at home if the nappy was too tight.

In a way by your reasoning we should be doing blood tests and immunisations on the child as they are painful and hurt the child.

Both circumcision and blood tests are a possible preventative measure for the future so why do one over the over? Why is one regarded as okay and the other not?

I know some men that wish they hadn't been done.

They're a statistically irrelevant group however. Just like the Free Drugs Australia political party. A vocal minority is no representative.

Yes, as a parent in Australia today, you do have the right to decide on whether you would like to circumcise your child. This is absolutely correct. But I don't think that this is how it should be.

Why force no circumcisions? It's not supported by medical evidence and recently some institions have backed down from their strict no circumcision policy to taking a neutral position as the latest studies and research have released their findings.

Ana Gram

21-02-2006, 19:40

"Greater stimulation does not equal aggressiveness. I require greater stimulation mentally but I don't shoot my way into a library. Correlation does not imply causation my friend."

Clearly, i was referring to sexual aggressiveness. If greater stimulation is needed, and much less light touch can be felt, greater friction or pressure will be required. I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

greater stimulation does not equal aggressiveness. (Sorry to repeat you Barry). By your logic, men with foreskins are going to reach orgasm quicker that those without. I don't think this should be part of the circumcision arguement at all. I am sure if we looked at studies of womens satisfaction with sex it would tell you that they want me to be able to go for longer. I personally think it is irresponsible and very damaging to put forward an arguement implying that men who have been circumcised are going to be aggressive sexually.

andrewJ

21-02-2006, 19:58

Uhm, your statement is meaningless. If someone says they do not like being circumcised then quite obviously they are not overall satisfied with the procedure, I think you're missing the point.

let me remind you of YOUR argument.

studies such as Masoods show that most men circumcised as adults prefer it this way.

My reply was that, of course they will because thats why they got circumcised in the first place.

You then said that asking men whether or not they like being circumcised is not a valid question.

I asked you, if that is the case, in what way is Masoods study, (which asked exactly that) valid.

Your response ----"Uhm, your statement is meaningless. If someone says they do not like being circumcised then quite obviously they are not overall satisfied with the procedure, I think you're missing the point."

It was not a statement, it was a question. One that was far from meaningless, and one which I am still awaiting an answer to. How can you think that you have formed a coherent argument.

Uhm, because it's completely false? Circumcision does not make people less sensitive

your own study (Fink) says otherwise.
"Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised." Fink attributes the improved satisfication to the respondee's aesthetic considerations and to a resolution of previous painful conditions."

38% is a huge percentage. Fink himself says that the reason so many men were satisfied was because they had "painful conditions" that required circumcision, and not because routine circumcision is beneficial.

"they don't hurt there partners during sex or become aggressive. Aggressive partners are so because of other factors, not circumcision."

They can hurt their partners. I did not say they have to, but they can. Circumcision is known to be a factor in reducing sensitivity, and therefore men compensate by thrusting more aggresively etc.
Why do i have to keep explaining this to you? I am talking about sexual forcefulness, not violence on the street.

"You really do not understand. Going by your theory 90% of the people born in the 1950's in the US during the T&C era should be rapists/sexual deviants - they're not."

um ..no. not at all. Please dont jump to absurd conclusions.

Read up on neurology kiddo.

I can prove a car that's been in a car accident and only has a scratch, functions the same as a car that hasn't been in a car accident if I have access to both subjects.

Only if you define function first. if your analogy is that a circumcised man is still able to climax, then yes this function is the same. pleasure from sex however, is simply not empirical. Cars do not feel subjective sensations. You simply cannot compare quality of feeling for two different men, any more than i can compare the colours that i see with my eyes with the colours that you see with yours.
There is no way for me to see what you see, and compare with what i see.

Just as you can prove 1 human is abnormally reacting compared to 1,000. How else would you know if you were sick? You know you're sick because your not the same as you were and not the same as the rest of the control group.[/QUOTE]

read up on logical arguments kiddo.
that is not what a negative means.
"circumcision does not effect sensation, response, sexual activity or sexual sensation." THIS is a negative, and cannot be proven

"I am sick." THIS is not, and can be proven

Besides, when you said... "after circumcision the bloke was basically randy as, and interested in a wider range of sexual practices and postitions more often than before", you had already proven that circumcision DOES affect sexual activity.

i have looked at the studies that you mention, and none of them prove what you think they do. I find that you are very selective with your reading, and ignore anything that you do not like, even in your own sources.
You draw your own conclusions from the articles and then claim that they prove that your opinion is correct.
You jump to wild and illogical conclusions about my arguments, which I have to repeatedly explain are simply not true.
You confuse yourself by constantly contradicting your previous arguments, and by heading off in irrelevant tangents.
You cannot form a rational argument and do not understand very many conventions of convincing logic.

For all of these reasons, I find you very frustrating to talk to. I am no longer going to reply to you here because we are not getting anywhere.

I am willing to talk to you about this. But this format is not working. You write very many words, but you say very little.

If you or anyone else wants to, my address is mooglebee@yahoo.com

i just need to get something straight. I did NOT say circumcised men are simply sexually aggressive. But it stands to reason that they will likely be MORE forceful in this area.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 20:08

I don't really think this is a valid arguement against, with a penile block as you've agreed there is no pain at the initial instant, but some discomfort afterwards. My child never cried or appeared upset throughout the process and only got a little grumpy at home if the nappy was too tight.

In a way by your reasoning we should be doing blood tests and immunisations on the child as they are painful and hurt the child.

Both circumcision and blood tests are a possible preventative measure for the future so why do one over the over? Why is one regarded as okay and the other not?

So Barry, what you have just said is that circumcision does cause some level of pain/discomfort. I'm glad we agree on that.
I think the fundamental point of disagreement therefore is that you believe removing a foreskin will prevent infection later on, just as a vaccination will prevent an illness, hence the end justifying the means. First of all, many parents are choosing not to vaccinate their child (but that's a whole different story) and even if they did, it would be because they believe there is a significant benefit to be gained by that decision.

The reality is that the chance of circumcision reducing any infection later is minimal, as found by the medical industry after reviewing all available literature (regardless of whatever recent change in position you are referring to).

To put it simply, we oppose circumcision because we do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that there is significant benefit to be gained by inflicting that pain and discomfort on a small child. And despite all your arguments, I don't think you have yet posted any evidence that there IS a significant benefit to be gained, unless I have missed it (which could be the case because I haven't followed the thread closely).

If there is a teeny tiny chance that circumcising will reduce the risk of infection later on, then that would have to be weighed up against not only the pain/discomfort factor, but also the risk of an infection caused by the actual circumcision. In short, we don't believe the risk is worth it.

xkwzit

21-02-2006, 20:19

Hi All
This has been very interesting. While I would personally not circ my son (if I had one) and I hope that all parents who do choose to are informed, I do think that it is and MUST remain a parent's decision. Imagine the outcry if it was made illegal to not immunising your kids?

Isn't it our right as a parent to make a decision that we can be passionate about? We all have differnt backgrounds and experiences, it is illogical for us all to share the same views on all topics. If people have done the research, become educated and then made an informed decision that they believe in - I think that is all we have a right to ask.

It is OK for us to disagree...just make sure we all remain civil about it (or this thread will get the chop ;) ).

Ana Gram

21-02-2006, 21:01

I find it incredibly interesting that Barry joins a few days ago and joins in the circ topic plus other topics unrelated and is questioned and suspected of being an internet troll. Where as AndrewJ joined in May 2005 has barely reached 50 posts all of which have been in the circ topics and no other.

Does anyone else find this a little unfair?

cosmic

21-02-2006, 21:11

Chelle if you go back through the circ threads (not that you'd want to :rolleyes: ) AndrewJ copped a bashing when he first joined for the same reason. Maybe it's not fair, but after the likes of J281090 (who finally resorted to telling a mother she deserved to die :eek: ), Dilly, some other circ freak who exited as soon as his identity was questioned, and more recently (and off the circ topic) our delightful menstrual cup girl to name a few, we are all a little more wary of people who join up and go straight for the guts of the controversial topics.

oh.. and the people who have been banned for stirring up the circ threads have been anti-circ so there's no bias!

Ana Gram

21-02-2006, 21:17

I did go back through them and was suprised to see he had nothing else to contribute to our wonderful forum. I am sure he has a lot of other things to say, I am just interested why he is soley focused on this topic.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 21:23

Some people are very passionate about the topic it seems :rolleyes:. And it is an interesting one, historically and socially I guess. When AndrewJ was questioned way back when he joined, the consensus was that as long as he was being respectful he was free to post where he wanted even if that was limited to that particular topic.

Ana Gram

21-02-2006, 21:27

perhaps as I haven't found him terribly respectful, it bothers me a bit.

Why is there no smiley to indicate "meh"??

WeThree

21-02-2006, 21:29

ok, i said i wouldnt come back in here, but i just wanted to mention one thing:)
chelle, i think the difference between AndrewJ and others is that he hasnt come in with a specific purpose, and started threads about the topic, abuse and harass people etc, like some of the other anti circs have done. My guess is he occassionally pops his head in here from time to time to see if there are any new posts on the subject and responds accordingly, for whatever reason he is interested in the topic and probably stumbled across one of our threads by accident and now likes to sometimes see what is going on, there is nothing wrong with that, i have gone to forums and only posted on the one topic before. :)

SugarBlossom

21-02-2006, 21:29

Great point chellegoth

xkwzit

21-02-2006, 21:37

Now back to the topic...

cosmic

21-02-2006, 21:37

perhaps as I haven't found him terribly respectful, it bothers me a bit.

Why is there no smiley to indicate "meh"??
Chelle, I think it's fair to say that Andrew and Barry have both got a little frustrated with each other this evening.. as tends to be par for the course in a circ debate.

I think the 'respectful' thing is probably subjective, since I personally found this little pearl
Read up on neurology kiddo. to be terribly patronising, but maybe that's just me. If someone called me 'kiddo' I'd be mightily offended.

cosmic

21-02-2006, 21:39

Now back to the topic...
YES!! I agree.. sorry Xkwzit. :o

Frazzled

21-02-2006, 21:41

:ecomcity:

Keep it nice, please. We are here to support each other, not nit pick :)

If you have an issue, PM the person or contact a moderator.

Donnelle

the_queen

21-02-2006, 22:01

Yes, back to the original topic:)

Here's a quote from the article (italics are mine, to emphasise the part I particularly agree with).

Matthew Hess, President of MGMbill.org, said that infant circumcision is sexual assault. "Male circumcision permanently damages male sexual function, and it is done forcefully, without the consent of the child. Just as cutting off any part of a baby girl's genital anatomy would be considered a criminal act, amputation of a boy's foreskin for medically unnecessary reasons should be treated as a crime of equal stature. If a fully informed adult wants to undergo circumcision for cosmetic, religious, or other personal reasons, then that is a decision he can make after he turns eighteen."

So the basic issue of the MGM bill is that circumcision, like tattooing and body modification, should be a personal choice of an adult. It should not be performed on a baby by request of the parents.

So I guess the question here is, should circumcision be something parents can choose?

Ana Gram

21-02-2006, 22:33

Y
[

So the basic issue of the MGM bill is that circumcision, like tattooing and body modification, should be a personal choice of an adult. It should not be performed on a baby by request of the parents.

Going slightly off topic again because I am annoying, why does "body modification" not cover piercing ears?

Barry

21-02-2006, 23:21

greater stimulation does not equal aggressiveness. (Sorry to repeat you Barry).

Doesn't worry me :)

Barry

21-02-2006, 23:55

Firstly, for the love of God please use the quote function, it's not evil and it makes reading a hell of a lot easier.

Uhm, your statement is meaningless. If someone says they do not like being circumcised then quite obviously they are not overall satisfied with the procedure, I think you're missing the point.

let me remind you of YOUR argument.

studies such as Masoods show that most men circumcised as adults prefer it this way.

My reply was that, of course they will because thats why they got circumcised in the first place.

You then said that asking men whether or not they like being circumcised is not a valid question.

I asked you, if that is the case, in what way is Masoods study, (which asked exactly that) valid.

It was not a statement, it was a question. One that was far from meaningless, and one which I am still awaiting an answer to. How can you think that you have formed a coherent argument.

Dude, make sense, seriously. This is crazy. By your line of there would never be malpractice lawsuits! It is possible for an adult to choose to have a circumcision and then later regret the result, or they may have an infection or medical reason for needing to be circumcised and as a result not be happy with the end product.

Uhm, because it's completely false? Circumcision does not make people less sensitive

your own study (Fink) says otherwise.
"Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised." Fink attributes the improved satisfication to the respondee's aesthetic considerations and to a resolution of previous painful conditions."

38% is a huge percentage. Fink himself says that the reason so many men were satisfied was because they had "painful conditions" that required circumcision, and not because routine circumcision is beneficial.

I've previously stated Fink & Denniston are weak sample sizes in another comment:

"Argh, it's a rumour perpetuated by poorly sampled research and in those that are used they're often tiny sample sizes such as Fink in 2002 and Denniston in 2004 which used 40 & 38 men respectively. But humorously when quoting Fink to say men lose sexual sensation you'll note the conclusions also list an increase in overall satisfaction.

This is the exact reason I post here, to spread facts.

Here's some reason studies, sample size (ie number of blokes) and their results in terms of overall satisfaction:

Fink (2002) - 40 - Favours circumcision
Collins (2002)- 15 - No difference
Senkul (2004) - 42 - No difference
Masood (2005) - 88 - Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction)
Shen (2004) - 95 - Favours circumcision"

"they don't hurt there partners during sex or become aggressive. Aggressive partners are so because of other factors, not circumcision."

They can hurt their partners. I did not say they have to, but they can. Circumcision is known to be a factor in reducing sensitivity, and therefore men compensate by thrusting more aggresively etc.
Why do i have to keep explaining this to you? I am talking about sexual forcefulness, not violence on the street.

You don't have to keep explaining it because it's not a valid point. An uncircumsized man can also be aggressive. An uncircumcised man can hurt his partner.

Also please note circumcision is not proven to be a factor in reducing sexual sensitivity!

"You really do not understand. Going by your theory 90% of the people born in the 1950's in the US during the T&C era should be rapists/sexual deviants - they're not."

um ..no. not at all. Please dont jump to absurd conclusions.

Why not? If you can jump to the absurd conclusion circumcised men hurt women I should be allowed to jump to one absurd conclusion also, it's only fair.

Only if you define function first. if your analogy is that a circumcised man is still able to climax, then yes this function is the same. pleasure from sex however, is simply not empirical. Cars do not feel subjective sensations. You simply cannot compare quality of feeling for two different men, any more than i can compare the colours that i see with my eyes with the colours that you see with yours.
There is no way for me to see what you see, and compare with what i see.

You can compare it as close as possible however.

Besides, when you said... "after circumcision the bloke was basically randy as, and interested in a wider range of sexual practices and postitions more often than before", you had already proven that circumcision DOES affect sexual activity.

Please read my comments in context, the paragraph included "I found that rather hilarious, it's worthwhile to note however that the later is statistically insignificant."

But it stands to reason that they will likely be MORE forceful in this area.

By that theory it stands to reason because you have a knife you will be more likely to be a murderer.

It's an invalid argument.

Barry

22-02-2006, 00:05

So Barry, what you have just said is that circumcision does cause some level of pain/discomfort. I'm glad we agree on that.

We agree on discomfort, not pain :)

I think the fundamental point of disagreement therefore is that you believe removing a foreskin will prevent infection later on, just as a vaccination will prevent an illness, hence the end justifying the means.

Well there is that, but there is also not having to worry about foreskin damage during sex, or any problems later in life (and yes I'm aware of the infection statistics et cetera).

To put it simply, we oppose circumcision because we do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that there is significant benefit to be gained by inflicting that pain and discomfort on a small child.

I have no problem that you make the choice, but I don't want legislation preventing me from making my choice. The discomfort is also minimal and passes in a few days and only pops up now and then.

And despite all your arguments, I don't think you have yet posted any evidence that there IS a significant benefit to be gained, unless I have missed it (which could be the case because I haven't followed the thread closely).

Well on the other side of the coin, no anti-circumcision person who has replied or posted here has posted any information that there is a significant benefit to be gained by not circumcising the child that I am aware of :)

If there is a teeny tiny chance that circumcising will reduce the risk of infection later on, then that would have to be weighed up against not only the pain/discomfort factor, but also the risk of an infection caused by the actual circumcision. In short, we don't believe the risk is worth it.

Modern PlastiBell circumcisions have equal risk of infection as a blood test. The small cut is not connected to the circulatory system thus nasties can't flow in. So therefore the scales are lightened as the risk of an infection is level with forms of basic medical procedures. (However, circumcision should never be treated as a basic medical procedure and should any go to a doctor who thinks it is, I'd find a new doctor).

Barry

22-02-2006, 00:11

Imagine the outcry if it was made illegal to not immunising your kids?

It's funny you mention that as it is of equal risk yet treated as a walk in the park in comparison and can depending upon the immunisation (oral polio) can put not only the child at risk, but those who attend to the child if they have poor hygiene.

There was actually an outbreak of a mutated strain of polio virus in the Dominican Republic and Haiti which was traced back to the oral polio vaccine.

Just so noone freaks out and thinks about not immunising their child against polio the risks for the oral sabin-1 are one in twevle million. The injected version is less.

Barry

22-02-2006, 00:15

Chelle, I think it's fair to say that Andrew and Barry have both got a little frustrated with each other this evening.. as tends to be par for the course in a circ debate.

I'm not frustrated, I was off watching Harry Potter with the missus.

I think the 'respectful' thing is probably subjective, since I personally found this little pearl to be terribly patronising, but maybe that's just me. If someone called me 'kiddo' I'd be mightily offended.

Kiddo isn't offensive. It's indicative that I find the argument unresearched and therefore childish, not to mention that I can't stand shoddy formatting. I also find it odd that someone pushes a neurological argument without an understanding of neurology.

Eitherway, it's not a drama. It's a conversation.

Barry

22-02-2006, 00:20

Barry

22-02-2006, 00:22

Going slightly off topic again because I am annoying, why does "body modification" not cover piercing ears?

Basically, because people believe in double standards. They wish to legislate against things they disagree with but don't want to disturb their own lives when they take little Jenny kicking and screaming into the piercing booth at the age of 4 so she can wear her diamond earrings and show off to the neighbours.

Barry

22-02-2006, 00:26

So I guess the question here is, should circumcision be something parents can choose?

Yes.

Unless you want to also legislate against ear piercing, immunisation, blood tests, throat swabs, et cetera.

Going by the statements made, the above all fit the convenient definition of child abuse!

Chickadee

22-02-2006, 01:09

no anti-circumcision person who has replied or posted here has posted any information that there is a significant benefit to be gained by not circumcising the child that I am aware of :)
And why should they? Why does there have to be a benefit from NOT carrying out a painful and unnecessary elective medical procedure on an infant? But I suggest that any discussion of why people do or do not choose to circumcise their children should be better left to the other thread you have started on that topic.

My main reason for posting here tonight (this morning! :eek:) was to provide a link to the actual text of the bill being considered in the USA. http://www.mgmbill.org/usmgmbill.htm This is from the website of the lobby group presenting the bill. In case anyone is actually interested in reading it :rolleyes: It's quite short, really, since it is just an amendment.

The rights of parents to make decisions on how their children are raised is a sticky subject and there is no hard line but rather lots of grey. Variously around the world there is legislation which tries to restrict spanking and smacking by parents, with a lot of backlash from parents about the restrictions. And spanking still goes on. I'm not trying to compare spanking and circumcision, but just to point out that any legislation is ultimately set down by a minority few in government. Often pushed and backed by advocacy groups. But unless the legislation reflects the moral majority of the community (village, state, nation, etc) it is never going to succeed. And if the issue is big enough then at the next election the gov't will change and it will be repealed or diluted.

I seriously doubt Australia will follow the USA on this one. Not anytime soon.

Rahmi'sMum

22-02-2006, 02:12

About time we outlawed such practises - we have done so with FGM or "female genital mutilation", about time male circumcision followed suit.

Comparing it with immunisation??? GROW UP PEOPLE.

And as for such a law imposing on YOUR rights... sorry to rain on your parade, but it isn't YOUR rights it has an effect on, it is your CHILDS' rights it would be PROTECTING. Who the hell are you or anyone to surgically remove anything unnecessarily from another persons body without their consent.

reAllytee

22-02-2006, 02:22

I think if we start restricting rights of parents for something like this then we are opening a can of worms for what else should be banned.
I mean what if they were to legislate vaccinations ? They are taking away the parents right to refuse to have this done due to THEIR beliefs.
This could also prompt the question well why are we immunising our kids if this is also messing with nature ?
You could also go as far to say why treat any childhood illness or infection if its messing with nature because we should allow the immune system to fight it off but then thats going a little overboard.
I just think we need to be careful about certain legislations as it may soon come down to us being told how to raise our children when sorry but IM raising my child not some politician.

reAllytee

22-02-2006, 02:28

Comparing it with immunisation??? GROW UP PEOPLE.
This has been used as a general statement to show that we also "hurt" our kids when immunising them as well as opening a doorway which could allow something to go wrong even as minimal as it is.

And as for such a law imposing on YOUR rights... sorry to rain on your parade, but it isn't YOUR rights it has an effect on, it is your CHILDS' rights it would be PROTECTING. Who the hell are you or anyone to surgically remove anything unnecessarily from another persons body without their consent.
Ok so that can then lead to the question that well my child at say 2yrs wont be able to consent to having it done for medical reasons so then it cant be done or say with appendicts or tonsils so do we leave these until they are say 10yrs ? Sorry im not trying to be rude or make light of this but its such a grey area that i feel its something we should worry about. Again i say because this could lead to other parental rights being questioned or the likes.

andrewJ

22-02-2006, 06:23

I know i said i was not going to respond anymore, but this thread is going nowehere. I am going to ignore all of the tangents and parts where you have confused yourself and get straight to the facts.

OK so you have given 5 studies, which you think support your view.. (That routine circumcision is at worst neutral)

1. Fink (2002) - 40 - (you think) Favours circumcision

Fink asked 123 men who were already circumcised as adults to compare their sexual functioning and pleasure from before and after the procedure.

Fink explained that the reason the men responded to the questionnaire relatively positively was that they had "painful problems" which required circumcision. They did not claim that sexual feeling had improved, only that it was a worthehile trade for "painful problems". Overall of course being circumcised is better than this. Just about most (62%) men were satisfied DESPITE experiencing less sensitivity, and not because it had increased.

"Fink added that both (his and the collins) studies are flawed in that they examine sexual functioning changes in adults undergoing circumcision who, in most cases, opt for the procedure to correct medical problems."

"Fink showed that adult men who underwent circumcision reported a decrease in both erectile functioning and penile sensitivity after the procedure."

When i mention the very large proportion of men who report worse sensitivity, you dismiss the study as a "weak sample size."
You cannot have it both ways, only accepting the study when it supports you.

2. Collins (2002)- 15 - No difference .
3. Senkul (2004) - 42 - No difference

All of these men chose to be circumcised, mostly for religious reasons. They found no difference.
You don't seem to understand that this does not prove anything. All it means is that, so far, these men (who WANTED to be cicrumcised) didnt think that they were worse off for it.
well...good for them. This does not prove that circumcision does not cause harm. YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. please understand. I hate having to repeat myself.

4. Masood (2005) - 88 - (you think) Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction)

Ahain, these men were circumcised "for penile problems"

"Questions were asked about libido, penile sensitivity, premature ejaculation, pain during intercourse and appearance before and after circumcision."

"CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."

AT BEST, this study suggests that, just about the majority men who have "penile problems" that can be solved by circumcision, were happy about being circumcised. IN NO WAY, would this study suggest that circumcision is beneficial for the average man (or baby) who has no "penile problems"

5. Shen (2004) - 95 - (you think) Favours circumcision"

"METHODS: Ninty-five patients were investigated on erectile function by questionnaire before and after circumcision, respectively. RESULTS: Eighteen patients suffered from mild erectile dysfunction before circumcision, and 28 suffered from mild or moderate erectile dysfunction after circumcision

CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached."

In summary, I dont believe that you have read the studies that you cited.
Even if we were to accept these studies, and ignore the ones that show the opposite. At best you have shown that men who WANT or HAVE to be circumcised, show decreased sensitivity or increased erectile problems, but that they consider this a worthwhile trade for no longer having "penile problems".

cosmic

22-02-2006, 06:26

Ally, I think it's been said repeatedly that no-one objects to circumcision that needs to be performed for valid medical reasons. I certainly would do that if it was necessary and it was the only solution. So to argue that treating illness would be in the same boat isn't relevant.

We are opposing 'routine' infant circumcision, that is, circumcision done to prevent possible future infections (or to look like dad or whatever) ie NOT for a medical reason. Just like we would oppose a baby having its tonsils removed to prevent future infection.

Barry

22-02-2006, 07:00

And why should they? Why does there have to be a benefit from NOT carrying out a painful and unnecessary elective medical procedure on an infant?

Because it's medically unproven to be any better to not circumcise your child, so in effect depending what group of studies you wish to quote it's arguable you put your child at risk (note: I'm not saying you are, just saying one could make that arguement).

It's also, as previously explained, not overly painful, when done in the modern fashion.

Barry

22-02-2006, 07:06

About time we outlawed such practices - we have done so with FGM or "female genital mutilation", about time male circumcision followed suit.

Why? they're completely different.

Comparing it with immunisation???

Both are elective, performed routinely, painful and potentially unnecessary and put your child at risk.

And as for such a law imposing on YOUR rights... sorry to rain on your parade, but it isn't YOUR rights it has an effect on, it is your CHILDS' rights it would be PROTECTING. Who the hell are you or anyone to surgically remove anything unnecessarily from another persons body without their consent.

We better start letting people die in the emergency room when they come in unconscious then. Oh, sorry that's an inconvenient mistake in your line of argument.

What about their right to be neonatally circumcised so they don't have to have the painful adult version?

Barry

22-02-2006, 07:42

OK so you have given 5 studies, which you think support your view.. (That routine circumcision is at worst neutral)

1. Fink (2002) - 40 - (you think) Favours circumcision

being circumcised is better than this. Just about most (62%) men were satisfied DESPITE experiencing less sensitivity

So me stating overall statisfaction favoured circumcision would be wrong exactly how? You've just agreed I'm right while trying to agrue I'm wrong!

When i mention the very large proportion of men who report worse sensitivity, you dismiss the study as a "weak sample size."
You cannot have it both ways, only accepting the study when it supports you.

I'm not having it both ways I have quoted I don't rely on Fink or Denniston due to their small sample size and have twice mocked the subfindings of Fink!

Here's a question for you, up until recent times (last 40 odd years) routine male circumcision was prevelant (I'm aware it started declining from the 50's) so why then do the anti-circumcision-I've-been-wronged-by-my-parents-circumcising-me groups aways struggle for members & funding? Why are they in the minority?

Using your logical arguments if neonatal circumcision was the biggest evil since the meteor hitting the earth that wiped out the dinosaurs (Yes, I'm aware this is only a theory) then these groups would infact be brimming with members but instead, they're not.

2. Collins (2002)- 15 - No difference .
3. Senkul (2004) - 42 - No difference

All of these men chose to be circumcised, mostly for religious reasons. They found no difference.
You don't seem to understand that this does not prove anything. All it means is that, so far, these men (who WANTED to be cicrumcised) didnt think that they were worse off for it.
well...good for them. This does not prove that circumcision does not cause harm. YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. please understand. I hate having to repeat myself.

If I had a circumcision and I was no longer able to gain an erection, enjoy sex, climax, lost senstivity and had painful side effects - I'm would not be answering questions and completing tests in a manner that showed I was satisfied with the procedure.

This is adult circumcision, when the result is worse than the start point a negative has been proven, how else do you think studies that don't favour circumcision exist.

4. Masood (2005) - 88 - (you think) Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction)

AT BEST, this study suggests that, just about the majority men who have "penile problems" that can be solved by circumcision, were happy about being circumcised. IN NO WAY, would this study suggest that circumcision is beneficial for the average man (or baby) who has no "penile problems"

Again, when the result is worse than the start point a negative has been proven, how else do you think studies that don't favour circumcision exist.

69% noticed less pain during intercourse
38% of the partners thought the penis appearance improved after circumcision
44% of the patients thought the penis appearance improved after circumcision
Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change.
Overall satisfaction was 61%.

I'm sorry what was the problem? Does this or does this not state that there is not a sizeble danger in circumcision? Had you read more than the abstract you'd note the objective of the study was relative to informed consent hence why they state 61% is poor, as it is in a region where the patient needs to be made aware of what the procedure involves and possible side effects, as any good doctor should, rather than it being treated as routine.

Furthermore it is not a neonatal research paper so quite obviously it doesn't apply to neonatal circumcision.

5. Shen (2004) - 95 - (you think) Favours circumcision"

CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached."

Try not just reading the abstract.

It's generally regarded that the Shen study in 2004 favours overall statisfaction, anti-circumcision doctors even agree on this.

In summary, I dont believe that you have read the studies that you cited.

It's quite clear you haven't actually because you're quoting abstract pieces!

Even if we were to accept these studies, and ignore the ones that show the opposite. At best you have shown that men who WANT or HAVE to be circumcised, show decreased sensitivity or increased erectile problems, but that they consider this a worthwhile trade for no longer having "penile problems".

Had you read more than the article abstract you'd be aware that not all those research papers envolved solely adult circumcision for medical reasons, some did include routine circumcision.

So I'm interested to know, being that you've quoted no research to back up your argument, what research papers have illustrated that circumcised men are more aggressive than non circumcised men? I'd like to see a peer-reviewed and endorsed reputable paper on this.

Barry

22-02-2006, 07:57

We are opposing 'routine' infant circumcision, that is, circumcision done to prevent possible future infections (or to look like dad or whatever) ie NOT for a medical reason. Just like we would oppose a baby having its tonsils removed to prevent future infection.

If you were living in New Zealand would you considering circumcision to be useless to prevent future possible infections considering:

In a study of 500 children at 8 years of age for circumcised children there was 11.1 problems per 100 children, and uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100.

Or do you go with the theory that circumcision is bad for infants when the same study showed that during infancy the very same children had a significantly higher risk of problems than their over the fence test subjects.

Or do you go with the theory that circumcision is the best thing since sliced bread when one reads further to see the very same study with the very same children then shows after infancy the uncircumcised children became walking disease centres (my emphasis).

Then when reads even further they find that the correlations stayed the same even when adjusted for social and perinatal factors.

The above was done at Christchurch Public Hospital is anyone wishes to read into it further. It's also worth noting that the study used parental complaints rather than direct examination and as a result the problems may be understated.

Regardless it paints an interesting picture as to why so many medical instititions may be removing their negative stance to go neutral, perhaps society too should take a neutral position rather than making out the parent is harming the child by pre-emptively choosing to avoid putting their child through a lot of pain, it's a parent's right to protect their child, even if that form takes circumcision. It's also a parents right to choose not to circumcision their child - and it should be left that way.

Chickadee

22-02-2006, 08:07

Ok so that can then lead to the question that well my child at say 2yrs wont be able to consent to having it done for medical reasons so then it cant be done or say with appendicts or tonsils so do we leave these until they are say 10yrs ?
Ally, I suggest you read the proposed bill, and particularly Subsection (b) which provides an exemption in the case of surgery on children where the surgery is: "
necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available"

So I can't see this bill as a starting point to future restrictions on any medically necessary procedures such as the ones you mention.

WeThree

22-02-2006, 08:08

Going slightly off topic again because I am annoying, why does "body modification" not cover piercing ears?

i think you will find many people who wouldnt circ their child also do feel this way about ear peircing, i know i wouldnt put my darling baby girl through that, when she is old enough she can decide for herself. :)

Barry

22-02-2006, 08:21

Ally, I suggest you read the proposed bill, and particularly Subsection (b) which provides an exemption in the case of surgery on children where the surgery is: "
necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available"

So I can't see this bill as a starting point to future restrictions on any medically necessary procedures such as the ones you mention.

I can. "less-destructive alternative treatment" is not a defined definition. Who decides what that is? Are you going to be arrested and have your children taken off of you because you had to circumcise your boy due to phimosis when the local medical association believes you should have used steriods even though it was an reccurant problem untreatable by steriods?

Or worse are you going to have to explain to your child that there's nothing that can be done to help him?

Then what sort of circumcision is justified by the law if the law does deem it neccessary? Only a partial circumcision or a full circumcision?

The open and neutral wording of their amendment is a disaster waiting to happen when some go-getty anti-circumcision activist gets a position in the legal system.

cosmic

22-02-2006, 08:27

So me stating overall statisfaction favoured circumcision would be wrong exactly how? You've just agreed I'm right while trying to agrue I'm wrong!

ok, I haven't read the study, but my understanding of what has been posted is that a number of people were satisified with the result of the procedure when they had the procedure done to rectify existing painful problems. Is this correct? If so, to continually focus on the word 'satisfied' as support for circumcision is to miss the point completely. :confused:

Someone can be very SATISFIED with a procedure to have their little toe removed when it is causing horrendous pain and the procedure results in less pain. They can feel SATISFIED that the removal of their little toe does not affect the overall functioning of their foot. That's not an argument to support the routine removal of little toes. Nor is it an argument to say that if you think you'd like to remove your little toe (or your child's), you should go right ahead based on these findings of 'satisfaction' because you've ignored the fact that 38% of those people (if Andrew's numbers are correct) were DISSATISFIED with the functioning of their foot after the procedure!

Chickadee

22-02-2006, 08:29

Barry, I'm not going to argue with you on that one. Every law is open to interpretation and the choice of how to enforce a law can make a huge difference.

But Ally was talking about procedures such as appendicitis and tonsilitis which already are pretty much only performed when medically necessary. Even for tonsilitis I believe there are pretty clear guidelines on making the decision to operate after repeated problems (though I'm not 100% on that so feel free to correct me). Are there non-surgical alternatives to treating acute appendicitis that I'm not aware of?

Barry

22-02-2006, 08:45

Are there non-surgical alternatives to treating acute appendicitis that I'm not aware of?

Unfortunately yes, some of which are flat out dangerous.

Whilst treatment is undefined it can or could be forced to emcompass unproven herbal remedies or nutjob overnight salesman remedies (like those wristbands that cure cancer that the heartless ******** sell to poor old ladies who know no different).

Once you've got acute appendicitis you're essentially boned and in reality you have two options: Appendectomy or Laparoscopic appendectomy, the later leaves less scaring as they use cute tiny tools.

The thing is though, quite often abdominal pain is diagnosed as acute appendicitis so they go in to bust them out, and when they reach the appendix they're okay currently they take them out anyway to avoid any problems in the future (the crowd gasps - routine unrequired appendectomy ;) ) and explore the abdomen to see if there's something else causing the pain and stitch you back up.

If the legislation was enacted & extended to appendicitis then the above wouldn't occur, ie the wouldn't take out the appendix for no reason, and if the patient did in the future develop acute appendicitis they'd go in for the operation, again hoping like hell it was that or else they'd be stitched up again and may have to come back yet again in the future.

So yes, there are some retarded treatments but the main two are two types of appendectomy and we in the western would do perform unrequired appendectomies :)

andrewJ

22-02-2006, 09:06

cosmic has summarised why "satisfaction rates" of men with problems that are solved bu circumcision cannot be used to suggest that men without problems would be equally satisfied.

If I had a circumcision and I was no longer able to gain an erection, enjoy sex, climax, lost senstivity and had painful side effects - I'm would not be answering questions and completing tests in a manner that showed I was satisfied with the procedure.

I agree, and youll notice that a significant number of men did not report being satisfied. Some men experienced erectile problems, and im sure they reported NOT being satisfied.
If YOU had a circumcision to resolve issues of pain or some medical problem, then you are much more likely to be satisfied, and put up with reduced sensitivity than a man who had no problems prior to his circumcision. The vast majority of men in all of your studies DID have medical problems in the beginning. A religious reason would also justify a reduced sensitivity.

Had you read more than the article abstract you'd be aware that not all those research papers envolved solely adult circumcision for medical reasons, some did include routine circumcision.

The fink study involved men who according to FINK himself � in most cases, opt for the procedure to correct medical problems.�
In The Senkel study, almost all of the men chose to be circumcised for medical reasons.
The Masood study used men that had �penile problems�

None of these can therefore be used to suggest that circumcision is beneficial to the general population, who DO NOT have medical or religous motivations.

So I'm interested to know, being that you've quoted no research to back up your argument, what research papers have illustrated that circumcised men are more aggressive than non circumcised men? I'd like to see a peer-reviewed and endorsed reputable paper on this.

My argument is that the circumcised penis cannot experience same in the way as it was supposed to. Because of the loss of fine touch receptors in the foreskin, and because of the desentisising of the glans, due to keratinisation. You repeatedly claim that I know nothing of neurology, but it is you who claims that circumcision �adds to the mix� of sensations. This simply makes no sense, unless you would care to explain..?
The point that �women may find� circumcised men to be more forceful, was a passing comment. It is a common complaint in America, and I (and i'm not alone) believe that it is a natural and logical consequence of desentizing the penis. I believe that physiology and common sense support my idea. Its possible that I am wrong, but until you can suggest a single plausible reason as to why this might be the case, I will continue to believe it. You are welcome to not believe my point. I never claimed that I had undeniable proof.

The main problem with your studies is that At BEST you can show that men who want or have to be circumcised, in general prefer it this way.

This is a given.

Therefore, the studies do not prove that circumcision causes no harm, or that it is beneficial to perform it routinely.

Barry

22-02-2006, 09:17

ok, I haven't read the study, but my understanding of what has been posted is that a number of people were satisified with the result of the procedure when they had the procedure done to rectify existing painful problems. Is this correct? If so, to continually focus on the word 'satisfied' as support for circumcision is to miss the point completely. :confused:

Someone can be very SATISFIED with a procedure to have their little toe removed when it is causing horrendous pain and the procedure results in less pain. They can feel SATISFIED that the removal of their little toe does not affect the overall functioning of their foot. That's not an argument to support the routine removal of little toes. Nor is it an argument to say that if you think you'd like to remove your little toe (or your child's), you should go right ahead based on these findings of 'satisfaction' because you've ignored the fact that 38% of those people (if Andrew's numbers are correct) were DISSATISFIED with the functioning of their foot after the procedure!

Generalising: All these tests envolved a group of adults, some had penile problems (64% of which were for phimosis in the Fink study you later quote, which usually is not a painful condition), some wished to be circumcised for religious beliefs, some wished to be circumcised routinely.

Now, going into the surgery most had only know the status quo, after the surgery they knew something different in comparision to their previous knowledge and a comparision was made between the two.

Moving forward, had the operation not been a success then they would not be satisfied, the overall satisfaction percentage is used as a yardstick which encompasses: sensation, erectile function, ejactuation latency, sexual sensation, et cetera.

Now 38% of the people were not dissatisfied in the Fink study, you're mixing the results. 38% of the people reported some form of harm, this does not say 38% of men now have a non-functioning penis, it means 38% of men report some form of decrease in one of the catagories. eg, to quote Fink "When asked generally about benefits and harms, 50% reported a perceived benefit or improvement, and 38% reported a perceived problem or difficulty as a result of the procedure. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised."

Seeing as we're going to disect Fink's study so much please note his own comment: The reported decrease in penile sensitivity that resulted from circumcision bordered on statistical significance. ie, it's basically insignificant, so can we all please stop quoting nonsense?

Also from the same study:
- 47% reported that sex was physically more pleasurable*
- 47% also said that their sex lives were more satisfying after circumcision*
*(The fact that a percentage of people may have been disabled should be factored in here)
- "Although many have speculated about the effect of a foreskin on sexual function, the current state of knowledge is based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence. Myths have mostly addressed changes in penile sensitivity but some have also regarded sexual activity and satisfaction with appearance. Little has been written about the effect of circumcision on erectile function."
- "Pleasure with sexual activity could mean enjoyment of the shared sexual act and being a good sexual partner, or it could reflect a pleasing sensation from physical stimulation. Many believe that circumcision reduces penile sensitivity but some believe that it prolongs intercourse and provides greater pleasure during sexual intercourse. Theories to explain the decreased sensitivity are that the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified and sensory nerve receptors in the glans become desensitized from constant stimulation. Taylor et al offer a histologically based theory on how the prepuce enhances sensitivity through it's "ridged band."Masters and Johnson performed exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penis, with particular attention to the glans, of circumcised and uncircumcised men finding no clinically significant difference. We found a statistically significant decrease in penile sensation following circumcision in men but our respondents had mixed feelings. Some responders appeared to be better able to satisfy their partners after circumcision but some men were not satisfied with the decreased sensation of physical stimulation. It seems that sexual pleasure means different things to different men and should be more specifically defined in future studies."
- In a survey of college women 87% expressed preference for pictures of circumcised over uncircumcised penises.
- We found that the men in our study and their partners were more likely to think that the penis looked good after circumcision.
- Note: "Overall, the majority of men were satisfied that they had undergone circumcision which suggests that in this population factors in addition to sexual function affect satisfaction."

Now, in closing, I'm not making an argument to support and force routine neonatal circumcision as I have said many times! I'm illustrating that for those parents that choose to circumcise their child, for whatever reason, aren't harming their child longterm.

Furthermore I can quite clearly state you haven't presented a single reason as to why routine non-circumcision should be practised. The argument that it causes discomfort is null because immunisations also cause discomfort and are regularly practiced in the same sub-group of those parents who choose not to circumcise their children.

Also here's a funny little gem from one of the Fink study participants: "I feel like I have a penis that I'm proud of now."

andrewJ

22-02-2006, 09:30

Generalising: All these tests envolved a group of adults, some had penile problems (64% of which were for phimosis in the Fink study you later quote, which usually is not a painful condition), some wished to be circumcised for religious beliefs, some wished to be circumcised routinely.

In other words..they are in no way representative of the general population. And their experiences are therefore of little relevance to parents of healthy and normal children.

Furthermore I can quite clearly state you haven't presented a single reason as to why routine non-circumcision should be practised.

routine circumcision should not be practiced, because penile problems that require circumcision are rare.
The vast majority of men circumcised in your studies had penile problems, and are unsuprisingly satisfied with being circumcised.

Ana Gram

22-02-2006, 09:39

The point that �women may find� circumcised men to be more forceful, was a passing comment. It is a common complaint in America, and I (and i'm not alone) believe that it is a natural and logical consequence of desentizing the penis. I believe that physiology and common sense support my idea. Its possible that I am wrong, but until you can suggest a single plausible reason as to why this might be the case, I will continue to believe it. You are welcome to not believe my point. I never claimed that I had undeniable proof.

Since you keep harping on this point without listening to anyone else, it wasn't a passing comment, you said it several times and then questioned why you kept having to explain it.
Ok, it's a common complaint in America (although I would like to know where you pulled that information from), what about everywhere else? If America is the only place reporting this, then logically it could be argued that it is because they are American not because of circumcision.
Not only do I find this course of arguement incredibly damaging and irresponsible but I find it laughable. Since you are a man and have no experience of being a women who has slept with men, you constant pushing of this arguement is getting tiring.
I am a women who has slept with men. I have slept with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. In fact the man who raped me was uncircumcised and I would say that he was a lot more aggressive than any of the circumcised men I have slept with.

If you have to rely on this arguement of circumcised men hurting women sexually because they have no foreskin, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Chickadee

22-02-2006, 09:43

Also here's a funny little gem from one of the Fink study participants: "I feel like I have a penis that I'm proud of now."
Barry, regarding that and also your comment about the portion of men in the Fink study choosing to be circ'd due to phimosis and that this is not usually is not a painful condition. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the condition. Even though it's not painful does this condition interfere with sex or sexual pleasure, or even with a man's sense of self? That might help explain why the men were pleased with the circ results.

I'm illustrating that for those parents that choose to circumcise their child, for whatever reason, aren't harming their child longterm.
I can only wish you luck with that, I think you'll need it. There may be some people reading this thread, now or in future, who are undecided about circ who will value your points. But you're not going to change the mind of anyone who is already anti-circ.

andrewJ

22-02-2006, 09:43

Since you keep harping on this point without listening to anyone else, it wasn't a passing comment, you said it several times and then questioned why you kept having to explain it.

i keep mentioning it because of comments such as yours. After my first passing comment (and yes it was exactly that). I have only mentioned it in response to questions and comments such as your last post. I am only talking about it right now because you brought it up again.
I am happy for you to ignore it. I believe it is true, and i believe that medical science is on my side.
You don't agree.
thats fine.

cosmic

22-02-2006, 09:45

(64% of which were for phimosis in the Fink study you later quote, which usually is not a painful condition)
According to some of the personal experiences of phimosis posted in the circ threads here, it is a very painful condition!

- In a survey of college women 87% expressed preference for pictures of circumcised over uncircumcised penises.
- We found that the men in our study and their partners were more likely to think that the penis looked good after circumcision.
Of course! That is what American and Australian women are used to so they find it more attractive. Funnily enough when you ask European women what they find attractive, they prefer an uncircumcised penis because it is what they are used to. Given the declining circ rates in Australia, you might find that in 20 years it is the uncirc'd penis that is more "attractive" because again, it will be the norm.

Now, in closing, I'm not making an argument to support and force routine neonatal circumcision as I have said many times! I'm illustrating that for those parents that choose to circumcise their child, for whatever reason, aren't harming their child longterm.
Excellent! It is SO good that you have spent enough time finding articles to support your position that you can feel justified that what you have done is ok and that you feel passionate enough to spread the word. Of course, most of us rely on the summary papers of the relevant medical authorities as we simply do not have time to trawl for individual articles, besides which we are well aware that there will always be a paper to support either position if you go looking for it (or as demonstrated here with this endless discussion of Fink and his dodgy study, they can always be interpreted in a way to support either position).

But before you go Barry, do you have a link or a paper you can refer us to which verifies this 'neutral' position being taken by the medical profession. I've read them all and if their position has changed I would genuinely like to know about it first hand. Thanks :)

Ana Gram

22-02-2006, 09:45

Once you've got acute appendicitis you're essentially boned and in reality you have two options: Appendectomy or Laparoscopic appendectomy, the later leaves less scaring as they use cute tiny tools.

The thing is though, quite often abdominal pain is diagnosed as acute appendicitis so they go in to bust them out, and when they reach the appendix they're okay currently they take them out anyway to avoid any problems in the future (the crowd gasps - routine unrequired appendectomy ;) ) and explore the abdomen to see if there's something else causing the pain and stitch you back up.

I can vouch for this example. I went into hospital last year for mystery abdominal pain. They couldn't find the cause so decided to do exploritory surgery for a look around (makes it sound like a tourist attraction) and they would take out my appendix while they were there.
Miraculously, the pain disappeared and I was released. (The miracle was that I, someone who has several piercings and a tattoo is petrified of needles, and told them the pain had gone and discharged myself.)

Ana Gram

22-02-2006, 09:54

i keep mentioning it because of comments such as yours. After my first passing comment (and yes it was exactly that). I have only mentioned it in response to questions and comments such as your last post. I am only talking about it right now because you brought it up again.
I am happy for you to ignore it. I believe it is true, and i believe that medical science is on my side.
You don't agree.
thats fine.

I don't believe that you can make a passing comment like that and just think everyone will ignore it. I can't ignore it as I think it is the most irresponsible, damaging and ridiculous arguements I have ever heard from anyone ever. I would very much like to see your medical evidence on this "fact". And once again, you haven't answered anything that I have questioned you about.

Apart from finding it interesting that you only come in here to discuss circumcision, I also find it interesting that you won't expand on certain parts of your arguement and simple say "I believe this to be true". Yet if someone else said that to you, you pull out medical documentation to discredit them. I for one would like to see your medical evidence to support your arguement.

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:03

cosmic has summarised why "satisfaction rates" of men with problems that are solved bu circumcision cannot be used to suggest that men without problems would be equally satisfied.

Read my previous comment, you two are mixing catagories of response.

None of these can therefore be used to suggest that circumcision is beneficial to the general population, who DO NOT have medical or religous motivations.

My argument is not that it is beneficial, but that it is not harmful. Please read my commends more carefully, I'm becoming very tired having having to continually repeat that I am not telling everyone to go out and circumcising their children but merely illustrating the fact that circumcision is not harmful to the childs life.

My argument is that the circumcised penis cannot experience same in the way as it was supposed to. Because of the loss of fine touch receptors in the foreskin, and because of the desentisising of the glans, due to keratinisation. You repeatedly claim that I know nothing of neurology, but it is you who claims that circumcision �adds to the mix� of sensations. This simply makes no sense, unless you would care to explain..?

Your argument is a theory that has been disproved numerous times and is also not supported by most informed doctors. Because it seems like you're losing points to debate I'll raise a controversial study that supports this view - Masters & Johnson; Which raises that since the vast majority of uncircumcised males within the study developed a significant degree of foreskin retraction during active coition, obviously the uncircumcised glans frequently is exposed directly to exteroceptive stimuli resultant from intravaginal containment just as is the circumcised glans. Thus from a physiologic point of view, a retained foreskin probably contributes little if anything to the individual male's ejaculatory control.

It is a common complaint in America, and I (and i'm not alone) believe that it is a natural and logical consequence of desentizing the penis. I believe that physiology and common sense support my idea. Its possible that I am wrong, but until you can suggest a single plausible reason as to why this might be the case, I will continue to believe it.

Two reasons:

a) correlation does not imply causation - you have a correlation between circumcised males and aggressive sex, this directly contradicts the correlation between circumcised population rate who are in their sexual prime and aggressive sex rate. Why when the population of circumcised males in the sexual prime is decreasing would the aggressive sex rate be going up? Perhaps socio-economic factors? (Note: I have assumed you're correct in stating aggressive sex in on the rise and have assumed the levels of immigration into the United States of circumcised males are not stopping the fall of the rate of circumcision since the 1950s.)

b) Masters & Johnson quoted above contradicts this theory.

The main problem with your studies is that At BEST you can show that men who want or have to be circumcised, in general prefer it this way.

Therefore, the studies do not prove that circumcision causes no harm, or that it is beneficial to perform it routinely.

I want to paint my house, but once it's painted it doesn't mean I'll like it.

I believe the studies are ample proof circumcision causes no long term harm in the general population, furthermore my previous quoted studies showing no neurological difference between an uncircumcised penis & a circumcised penis illustrate that the removal of the foreskin does not affect neurological sensation and therefore no identifiable neurological harm is done with routine neonatal circumcision.

Please note yet again; I am not trying to prove it is benefical to perform neonatal or adult circumcision routinely, merely that it is not harmful to do so in the long term.

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:18

In other words..they are in no way representative of the general population. And their experiences are therefore of little relevance to parents of healthy and normal children.

Yes & no. Polio occurs in less than 1 in 1000 children and we give a painful injection for that, yes phimosis (to take just one example) occurs in 1 in 1000 children and it's regarded as silly to remove a foreskin just incase? The experiences are pretty relevant to those 1 in 1000 children.

They are representative of the general population, a circumcision regardless of the condition of the penis beforehand, still involves removing the foreskin and any harm done between the start point and end point can be used to compare the damage that would be done to a normal adult.

Hypothetical Example.

John has erectile dysfunction and decides to get circumcised. After the procedure he's in extreme pain and now has no erectile capability. Result: Circumcision = Bad.

Fred has erectile dysfunction and decides to get circumcised. After the procedure he feels like he's got a pine tree growing in his pants and now has maximum erectile capability. Result: Circumcision = Good.

Terry has erectile dysfunction and decides to get circumcised. After the procedure he's still got erectile dysfunction and still has the same erectile capability. Result: Circumcision = caused no harm.

Now, again tell me why one can't compare the above to the general population?

routine circumcision should not be practiced, because penile problems that require circumcision are rare.

I suggest you go over to the immunisation thread and start rousing on those child abusing mothers who immuse their children then, my God! Infection rates are rare, quick somebody stop the madness!

By the same theory routine non-circumcision should not be practiced because some men who are circumcised get penile cancer. Oh, but wait, some men who are circumcised get penile caner... I know, lets and penile amputations and all be enunchs. Yep that'll fix the problem like introducing cane toads to QLD did.

Seriously, because penile problems that require circumcision are rare doesn't mean routine circumcision should not be practiced, it's not even a conclusive argument.

cosmic

22-02-2006, 10:20

I also find it interesting that you won't expand on certain parts of your arguement and simple say "I believe this to be true". Yet if someone else said that to you, you pull out medical documentation to discredit them. I for one would like to see your medical evidence to support your arguement.
Chelle, I think he's made it clear that he doesn't have medical evidence and it was a personal opinion only. We are all entitled to an opinion about something and I think as long as we say it is an opinion and not proven, we can't do much more than that in terms of transparency. To continually focus on it after he's made it clear it's just an opinion is just taking away from other, more relevant points in the debate.

WeThree

22-02-2006, 10:23

My argument is not that it is beneficial, but that it is not harmful.

Then Why Do It???? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Sorry if I sound a bit peeved, but I just dont get what point you are trying to prove? I can understand someone who passionately believes it is right to do so, even if i dont agree with their reasons, but why do if you dont believe there is a good reason ?

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:24

Barry, regarding that and also your comment about the portion of men in the Fink study choosing to be circ'd due to phimosis and that this is not usually is not a painful condition. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the condition. Even though it's not painful does this condition interfere with sex or sexual pleasure, or even with a man's sense of self? That might help explain why the men were pleased with the circ results.

Funny you mention that, statistically phimosis in all it's forms is not a painful condition, but what you will find is that the most severe cases, which take longer to fix, will also seek out... ugh I can't think of the word... support? I guess is the best way to say it. So whilst there are people talking about how bad there case is (and I'm not trying to take anything away from them) you'll find the minor-midrange cases are more easily dealt with and as a result not needing support. A good comparision would be a small-medium skin cancer being burnt off to awaiting surgery to have part of your lung removed. Hope that made sense?

There may be some people reading this thread, now or in future, who are undecided about circ who will value your points.

I hope it is valuable or educational to some, or atleast thought provoking enough so that people will do their own research.

But you're not going to change the mind of anyone who is already anti-circ.

I hope I never change the mind of anyone - It's a decision to be made by the parent not an anonymous bloke on a forum with a blue monster icon or anyone else.

cosmic

22-02-2006, 10:27

Yes & no. Polio occurs in less than 1 in 1000 children and we give a painful injection for that, yes phimosis (to take just one example) occurs in 1 in 1000 children and it's regarded as silly to remove a foreskin just incase? The experiences are pretty relevant to those 1 in 1000 children.

I suggest you go over to the immunisation thread and start rousing on those child abusing mothers who immuse their children then, my God! Infection rates are rare, quick somebody stop the madness!

Barry, there are actually many, many parents who are choosing not to immunise their children because they see the risk of immunisation as outweighing any potential gain. Polio was all but eradicated before vaccinations for it were introduced. It is an equally controversial topic and perhaps one best not used to support the circ argument for that reason.

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:28

I believe it is true, and i believe that medical science is on my side.

Drop some evidenced counterpoints then please.

I'm genuinely interested to see medical/scientific research stating that circumcised men are more aggressive and that the sexual aggression rate in America is a direct cause of circumcised males.

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:33

Then Why Do It???? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Sorry if I sound a bit peeved, but I just dont get what point you are trying to prove? I can understand someone who passionately believes it is right to do so, even if i dont agree with their reasons, but why do if you dont believe there is a good reason ?

One reason is because it potentially reduces possible problems down the track.

We routinely immunise against possible infection.

We routinely remove appendix against possible infection.

Yet, when it comes to removing a foreskin which causes less immediate pain than both immunisation and both forms of appendectomy it's wrong? You're position isn't really justified.

WeThree

22-02-2006, 10:37

I believe it is. You said your argument is NOT that it is beneficial, but that it isnt harmful. :)

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:37

Barry, there are actually many, many parents who are choosing not to immunise their children because they see the risk of immunisation as outweighing any potential gain.

Yes, but there are parents anti-circ yet pro-immunisation.

Polio was all but eradicated before vaccinations for it were introduced. It is an equally controversial topic and perhaps one best not used to support the circ argument for that reason.

Well they are two forms of the same argument, routine medical procedures which cause some form of pain or discomfort now for future gain, all three are linked.

It's also worthwhile to note the people of Africa and Indonesia where the disease is at epidemic proportions and slowly spreading may disagree that it is all but wiped out, especially considering unlike the outbreak in Hiati/The Domenican Republic the strain in question has not been traced back to an oral vaccine.

WeThree

22-02-2006, 10:37

Please note yet again; I am not trying to prove it is benefical to perform neonatal or adult circumcision routinely, merely that it is not harmful to do so in the long term.

and here it is again :confused:

melfunction

22-02-2006, 10:38

cosmic

22-02-2006, 10:40

Barry, I hate to state the bleeding obvious but you are clearly in the minority given the current circ rates in Australia and your position clearly deviates from the medical profession, not just in this country but pretty much the whole western world.

You are right though.. it is your decision (under current law) and you are obviously very happy with that decision. What baffles me completely is why you have gone to so much time and trouble to dredge up articles to support your position and what you hope to gain by posting pages and pages of information, if not to sway other parents to your way of thinking. :confused: I just don't get what the motivation is?? Were you made to feel bad for your decision to circ your boy, and so you want to avoid other parents feeling bad?

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:44

I believe it is. You said your argument is NOT that it is beneficial, but that it isnt harmful. :)

I'm not saying it's not beneficial. I'm saying my argument is that it is not harmful like so many here seem to be pushing without substantiated facts. I dare not present facts here that say circumcision is beneficial or people's heads may explode as their paradigm shifts. I'm not even going to enter in of that debate.

Regardless, why when it comes to removing a foreskin which causes less immediate pain than both immunisation and both forms of appendectomy is it wrong considering we routinely immunise & remove appendix against possible infection?

Do you not feel an appendectomy is more painful, higher risk and just as redundant as removing a foreskin when there is not immediate infection or risk?

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:45

and here it is again :confused:

Read above: I'm not saying it's not beneficial. I'm saying my argument is that it is not harmful like so many here seem to be pushing without substantiated facts.

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:46

[quote=Barry]
We routinely remove appendix against possible infection.
quote]

Thanks for reminding me. Must go and get my appendix out tomorrow to avoid a possible and unlikely infection....Makes sense to me :rolleyes:

Would you like evidence that this is a standard practice in Australia, American, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and basically all countries which have modern medical practices and routines?

Your mockery lends no factual or substiated position to the conversation.

Refresh

22-02-2006, 10:48

Off topic (which wouldnt be like me....:rolleyes: ) but is there an injeciton for polio now? I thought is was taken orally...

Ana Gram

22-02-2006, 10:50

Chelle, I think he's made it clear that he doesn't have medical evidence and it was a personal opinion only. We are all entitled to an opinion about something and I think as long as we say it is an opinion and not proven, we can't do much more than that in terms of transparency. To continually focus on it after he's made it clear it's just an opinion is just taking away from other, more relevant points in the debate.

I completely disagree as he has previously stated that he has medical evidence. He brought this into the debate and hasn't backed it up. I think this is perfectly revelant to the debate.

Barry

22-02-2006, 10:51

Barry, I hate to state the bleeding obvious but you are clearly in the minority given the current circ rates in Australia and your position clearly deviates from the medical profession, not just in this country but pretty much the whole western world.

I have already proven this wrong. Please go back to prior comments where I gave you a listing of western medical institions which are neutral on the issue.

Please provide evidence of this "position clearly deviates from the medical profession, not just in this country but pretty much the whole western world" statement. As currently you have made a blanket statement with absolutely no factual back up.

Also, why does it matter if I am in the minority? Should I feel bad that I also suffer from a medical condition that is in the minority? Should I feel bad I have an extremely high IQ in a bracket which is a minority among the general population? I don't even see how this is relevant.

What baffles me completely is why you have gone to so much time and trouble to dredge up articles to support your position and what you hope to gain by posting pages and pages of information, if not to sway other parents to your way of thinking. :confused: I just don't get what the motivation is?? Were you made to feel bad for your decision to circ your boy, and so you want to avoid other parents feeling bad?

My motivation is people like you who post incorrect unfactual statements.

I feel everyone has a right to factual and correct information not unsubstantiated propaganda.

However you're welcome to prove me wrong by providing evidence of the majority of the western world who opposed circumcision because I know for a fact it's not the case, even your local GP will tell you this if you gave him a chance to explain the current medical position on circumcision.