Adult Circumcision vs Baby Circumcision [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

bigglet

20-09-2007, 16:00

Let me start off by saying that I am neither pro nor anti circ but I have been doing a LOT of research on this sensitive topic and I still sit on the fence...

My family and close friends consists of both circ'd and not and neither party really has any strong views either way. In the end my DH and I decided we would probably not circ and leave it up to the child in later life.

However.... one of my close male friends just went through the circumcision procedure (he is in his 30's) and we had a very interesting conversation regarding it.

He recently had about 80% of his foreskin removed and it was a personal choice rather than a medical reason.

Basically he started off by explaining that the foreskin traps air, moisture and urine and after showering everything is clean and great but as the day progresses (he also lives in a warm climate) things do start to get a bit uncomfortable sweat wise, smell wise etc. As he is a businessman who travels the world sometimes long flights aren't "comfortable" and well basically by the end of the day things aren't as "fresh".

Besides all this he also mentioned that the foreskin can tear during sex and his personal testimony to this is that it feels like "razorblades" - one can only wince... :o

He also made mention a few more arguments as to why he made the decision and why now if he had a son he would probably circ - he does believe that doctors are able to perform partial circumcision on babies (not 100% removal of the foreskin) - correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway.... interesting conversation from someone close who has gone through the experience as an adult vs other circ'd males who have no memory of the procedure done as a baby.

Still pondering...... :detective:

Ashleigh<3

20-09-2007, 16:08

That's really interesting that you were able to talk to someone first hand in regards to the before and after scenarios.

But I assure you, not all adult-newly circumcised men can empathize with that sort of view, some go through a series of remorseful feelings which can lead to depression.
Some can be incredibly pleased with their decision. I'd say the outcome is variable.

I watched a video today of an Adult male under go the operation and it scared the cr@p out of me.

Now I know how much they really do remove.

MotherNurture

20-09-2007, 16:33

Sounds like he may have had a condition called "frenulum breve" which can be corrected without removing any tissue. As for that 'not so fresh' feeling, women have way more folds and an an...er...wider variety of types of discharge. That being said, he's an adult and it was his body, his decision. You said he was circumcised recently; do you know if it was before or after this study (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf) came out? Keep in mind, if he's newly circumcised he probably hasn't yet experience the results of long-term glans exposure and resulting desensitizing keratinization yet.

Jen

stellarella

20-09-2007, 16:44

Interesting. Good on him for making the decision as an adult. Thats great that he gets what he wants.

Its wrong to make a decision for your child based on someone elses preferences though. Let the child decide when he is old enough to. It is not the parents decision to make.

Anyway, yes doodles can get smelly after going without a wash for a while, yes they get sweaty. Women get sweaty too and become not so fresh after a while. Its quite normal and doesnt require surgery. A simple wash is enough to freshen up again.

However as I said, good on him for deciding what he wants. :thumbsup:

The tearing thing is interesting. Perhaps a bit more foreplay or some lubricant (natural or otherwise) could alleviate this problem. I've never had any experience with a man tearing during sex. I do know if either partner is not aroused enough it can be uncomfortable. Again I think other measures could suffice to fix the problem.

But as I said good on him for making the decision for himself. Now I hope he lets his son decide for him self.

bigglet

20-09-2007, 18:45

Actually here's the strange bit - I think he is disappointed that he wasn't done as a baby.

For one he went through the procedure twice - the first time the doctor only cut away 1/3 of the foreskin, the second time was much better with 80% now removed.

The procedure wasn't cheap, it was extremely painful and from what I can gather I think he wishes his parents circ'd him.

That's what I find interesting - from someone who was "intact" to being very pro-circ now! And also in my own personal experience (with the males I know - both intact and not) I have found a lot of them to favor it!!

SassyMummy

20-09-2007, 20:29

I think it's good that he had the right to make that decision for himself. He had a chance to see how it was with HIS foreskin, living the kind of life he lives, and then go, "Okay, so this isn't working out well for me," and THEN make that decision for himself.

I had a friend circed at 14 because he wanted it done (because he thought it "looked better"). Now he's feeling weird about it because apparently masterbation isn't as good or as comfortable, and he's recently come out of the closet and believes that in the "gay world" foreskin is a bit more... I dunno... covetted?

Your male friend, in a different situation, might not have found his foreskin to be a problem. He may have even been able to resolve any issues with it without circumcision (cotton undies, boxer shorts, etc?). Who knows. Either way, I think it's good that HE made the choice for his own penis... whether it's the right choice or not is left to be seen (I'm guessing he had foreskin for longer than he's been circumcised...).

ShadyCharacter

20-09-2007, 23:06

It's funny, I have been having this discussion quite a bit with my male friends lately (nearly all of whom are intact), and they actually take offense at the idea that they are any 'less clean' than circ'd males... I can't imagine any of them going out and getting circ'd to be 'fresher' :no:

I am also surprised that your friend wishes his parents had have taken the choice out of his hands. That said, if he chooses to get circ'd as an adult, good on him, it doesn't bother me in the slightest :)

And as far as 'trapping' air (eh? :confused:), moisture and urine, like MN pointed out, we have way more folds and crevices than males, and vaginal secretions added into the mix. Makes no sense to me that males are 'dirtier' than females :no:

MotherNurture

20-09-2007, 23:27

Actually here's the strange bit - I think he is disappointed that he wasn't done as a baby.

You know, any painful body modification I might chose as an adult is going to have the drawback of my pre-procedure apprehension and post-op pain. Tattoos, piercings, brandings, breast augmentation, labiaplasty, etc...all those things I could say I'd prefer without the stress/memory and that I'd wish they were just 'done' at birth or that I was born that way. Logically though I know that not everyone wants their body altered in such a way and there was no way for my parents to accurately predict my desires when I was an infant with a immature immune system and a blood volume that could fit in a soda pop can.

For one he went through the procedure twice - the first time the doctor only cut away 1/3 of the foreskin, the second time was much better with 80% now removed.

Sounds like he had very specific goals for his surgery. I think I might ask him why after having a second cosmetic surgery on his penis to ensure he got the exact outcome he personally preferred he wishes it was done as an infant on an extremely tiny penis by a random, imprecise method.

What are the chances the exact percentage of inner or outer skin he personally prefers be cut off would have been removed from his 1" newborn penis by an obgyn specializing in female anatomy or a pediatrician as opposed to an adult urologist?

The procedure wasn't cheap, it was extremely painful and from what I can gather I think he wishes his parents circ'd him.

It's cosmetic surgery. It's unnecessary. His parents didn't have a crystal ball. Most intact men don't seek out elective penile surgery. Suggesting that all infants should be be routinely circumcised and have X percentage of inner or outer skin removed because it's the particular style of circumcision he prefers and because he likely had a problem (frenulum breve) seems very arrogant and illogical to me.

That's what I find interesting - from someone who was "intact" to being very pro-circ now!

I guess I don't find it 'interesting' so much as excessively self-focused and illogical.

And also in my own personal experience (with the males I know - both intact and not) I have found a lot of them to favor it!!

People on both sides of the fence frequently lack accurate, up to date, indepth information about the anatomy & physiology of a normal penis and the long-term implications of infant circumcision.

Jen

Pippi Longstocking

21-09-2007, 06:15

It's funny, I have been having this discussion quite a bit with my male friends lately (nearly all of whom are intact), and they actually take offense at the idea that they are any 'less clean' than circ'd males... I can't imagine any of them going out and getting circ'd to be 'fresher' :no:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - a dirty doodle is a dirty doodle, regardless of whether it has a foreskin or not. Getting circumcised is NOT a good way to ensure adequate genital hygiene - I highly recommend bathing daily :yes: That's what women do to keep themselves clean and fresh and I can honestly tell you I have never considered slicing off my labia in place of having a daily shower... :eek:

An adult researching the decision and choosing to have a circumcision is entirely different to inflicting your whim with a scalpel on a little baby.

And MotherNurture said all the other stuff I was going to say so rather than repeat her, I'll just say what she said! :D

ShadyCharacter

21-09-2007, 08:57

II can honestly tell you I have never considered slicing off my labia in place of having a daily shower... :eek:
Aaww, come on Guv, don't you think you are being a bit narrow minded? Think of how much easier it would be, no washing that pesky vag for you! ;)

jkate

21-09-2007, 10:06

The procedure wasn't cheap, it was extremely painful and from what I can gather I think he wishes his parents circ'd him.

It's cosmetic surgery. It's unnecessary. His parents didn't have a crystal ball. Most intact men don't seek out elective penile surgery. Suggesting that all infants should be be routinely circumcised and have X percentage of inner or outer skin removed because it's the particular style of circumcision he prefers and because he likely had a problem (frenulum breve) seems very arrogant and illogical to me.

That's what I find interesting - from someone who was "intact" to being very pro-circ now!

I guess I don't find it 'interesting' so much as excessively self-focused and illogical.

This is very judgmental, just because the male being discussed is not a bub hub member, doesn't make it right for you to be rude.

I know an adult male that was done, and yes he wished he was done when younger. Not only because of the extreme pain he had to endure but also the embarrassment of people who he thought were friends of laughing at him. His mother did feel guilty for not getting him done, but he assure her that he didn't blame her and that has you put "didn't have a crystal ball".

serendipity22

21-09-2007, 10:07

Besides all this he also mentioned that the foreskin can tear during sex

I believe this is a myth, though I would need to look it up. If thats the case, it may be he has been getting
other dodgy information.

I think he is disappointed that he wasn't done as a baby. Are you sure, or are just assuming?

He is better off in that he has experienced having a whole body, at least he will be able to compare.

I've nothing against adults choosing to have their own bodies modified, its their right, though I suspect it sometimes happens to poor body image.

it was extremely painful Well, it would have been more painful as an infant and yes the experience is imprinted in the subconscious.

bigglet

21-09-2007, 10:25

I believe this is a myth, though I would need to look it up. If thats the case, it may be he has been getting
other dodgy information.

Are you sure, or are just assuming?

No this is not a myth - we are talking about a close friend of mine who is telling me his own personal experience of tearing.

It's all very well for all of you (well most) to jump up and down about this but I'm just relaying an experience that has made me think twice - as I said earlier I'm neither pro nor anti but I like to hear about personal experiences and I respect their decisions.

And no... of course he doesn't blame his parents - he has said that he feels his own parents (like most) always do what they feel is in the best interests of their child but after going through this as an adult I do believe that if he had a son he probably would circ him as an infant.

And I personally find it offensive that some of you would assume he has bad hygiene or doesn't shower properly etc.

Ashleigh<3

21-09-2007, 10:30

It's weird, those who say, "He wished he had it done as baby because it was way to painful having it done as an adult".
What makes you think it's not painful for a baby?
It's incredibly painful for a baby, so painful that babies can go into shock and yes, some even die.

People seem to think that a baby is easier to deal with in regards to coping with the pain because the baby will have no recollection of the procedure in later life, rather then an adult male who knows what is happening to him and will always remember the pain?

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but poor diet can lead to bad bodily smells too.
For males and females.
One shower a day is all we need to stay clean down there and if someone is getting a bit smellier more frequently then I imagine it might have something to do with diet.

One intact man may feel 'dirty' inbetween showers, whereas an other intact man may feel quite clean.

Un-intact men still need to bathe, it's not like once the foreskin is removed they are free of all bodily odors.

ShadyCharacter

21-09-2007, 10:49

And I personally find it offensive that some of you would assume he has bad hygiene or doesn't shower properly etc.
Ok, so what would make his penis dirty or smelly or whatever the problem was, but not the penis of all the other in-tact men in the world that don't have the same problem?

Hokey Pokey

21-09-2007, 10:57

My ex was done when he was 8:eek:

And he said it was the most painful thing he ever experienced.

ShadyCharacter

21-09-2007, 11:00

Could it be he has a tight forskin?
Water and soap not being able to clean it properly?
I am on the offence, just wondering.Yep, thats why I was asking :yes:.... doesn't make sense to me that his penis would be smelly and other in-tact men don't have the same issue, so I would be forced to think something else was a factor.

Certainly not arguing, he is a grown man so it doesn't bother me that he chose circumcision. Just wondering where his smelly penis came from :laughing:

PS, do you mean NOT on the offense? ;)

ShadyCharacter

21-09-2007, 11:03

Does anyone actually know any men that have severe problems due to being circed as a child. Or remember it? I am just interested to know.
I know alot of circed men and none of them have a problem with it.
They dont remember this 'disturbing pain' that you are spose to remember into adult hood.
Physically? Yes. I know one male member of another parenting forum whose circumcision got botched he has severe issues and erectile disfunction as a result.

To a lesser degree, I have a cousin who has serious scar tissue from a bodgy circumcision, best I know, it doesn't cause him physical discomfort, but it causes him a lot of embarrassment :(

Can I?

21-09-2007, 11:59

Does anyone actually know any men that have severe problems due to being circed as a child. Or remember it?My DH is upset that he was circumcised as an infant. He doesn't remember and he hasn't had any bad problems, he would just prefer that he had been left intact (He does have pretty awful scarring and another issue I'm sure he wouldn't be happy about me talking about on a public forum). He hadn't thought about it until our first son was born, and once he saw him, he couldn't understand how a parent could do that to a little baby. :no: Now he gets quite angry about it. Not with his parents, because he believes they did it out of ignorance, but on behalf of all the little boys who have their choice taken away like his was.

Ashleigh<3

21-09-2007, 12:14

My DH is upset that he was circumcised as an infant. He doesn't remember and he hasn't had any bad problems, he would just prefer that he had been left intact (He does have pretty awful scarring and another issue I'm sure he wouldn't be happy about me talking about on a public forum). He hadn't thought about it until our first son was born, and once he saw him, he couldn't understand how a parent could do that to a little baby. :no: Now he gets quite angry about it. Not with his parents, because he believes they did it out of ignorance, but on behalf of all the little boys who have their choice taken away like his was.

That is very sad that it has affected your DH, there are plentiful Men in his position. It's upsetting. :(

DF gets upset when I talk about it because he knows I'm anti-circ and he is circumcised.
His Mother had her three boys circed because she was under pressure after the birth.
Back then it was just within the norm to ask straight after the delivery, "We're going to cut him now okay?".
The fact that they didn't have much information back then to make an informed decision is partially the reason why quite a few parents said sure thing, cut away.
We tend to trust medical practitioners.

I just can't help but think back to the start, who thought about circumcision and why? What made them want to remove foreskin?
The idea had to start somewhere. Would be interesting finding out why, and if it was purely for religious/myth reasonings or medical.

:confused:

xkwzit

21-09-2007, 13:07

Ashleigh, I think that would be very interesting, but lets make that a subject of a new thread. (In fact I think I remember a history of circ thread, I will go looking to find it).

ETA: the history thread is here (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=111286)

Let's keep to the topic at hand, which is being circed as a baby vs adult, the advantages and disadvantages.

Cheers

Lillynix

21-09-2007, 14:20

I think it's great that your adult friend was able to make the choice for himself to be circumcised!!!

That's what it is all about, choices. He decided he no longer wanted his foreskin, for whatever his reasons, and so he was able to do something about it of his own free will.

Babies that are circumcised do not have that choice later in life. Perhaps they may grow up wondering "I wonder what sex is like with a foreskin" or other questions, but they will never get the chance to know because the choice was taken away from them.

Yes your friend may have said that he wished he was done as a baby as the procedure was painful, but the truth of the matter is, it is just as painful, if not moreso for a baby do be circumcised, just because they are done at such a young age and they don't remember it being done as an adult, does not mean that it wasn't painful.

Afterall, do you remember anything from when you were a newborn? Painful or otherwise?

Thumbs up to him for making his own choice! I just wish that every male had this choice...

Ashleigh<3

21-09-2007, 14:24

OscarTheGrouch

21-09-2007, 17:25

Are you sure, or are just assuming?

............

I've nothing against adults choosing to have their own bodies modified, its their right, though I suspect it sometimes happens to poor body image.

Who's assuming here?:rolleyes:

xkwzit

22-09-2007, 20:33

I don't think suspect = assume, lets move on...

Cheers

SweetAngels

25-09-2007, 12:07

THEIR family THEIR choice!!!

MotherNurture

25-09-2007, 12:12

THEIR family THEIR choice!!!

Are their any other male or female healthy, normal, functional infant body parts that a child's family OWNS? I mean, really. Is it, "THEIR family THEIR choice!!!" if we're talking about earlobes, pinky fingers, nipples, labia, etc? Why are baby boys the only ones on the chopping block, and why just the foreskin?

Jen

xkwzit

25-09-2007, 13:44

This has diverged again from the OP. Please lets keep to the topic: adult vs baby, pros and cons and move any general circ discussion to it's own thread.

Cheers

serendipity22

30-10-2007, 23:38

Adult circ versus baby circ is a world of difference.

With an adult its their choice (as are other body modifications) with a baby its never their choice.
The adult making the decision suffers the consequences of his choice.

With an infant the skin is fused to the glans, so it has to be torn off first. With an adult it has separated already. Hence less injury and less pain.

With an adult there is a larger working area hence less chance of mistakes. With a baby any scarring, poor cosmetic outcome etc. will be magnified as the boy grows.

With a baby who hasn't been toilet trained, the fresh wound will be exposed to urine, maybe faeces. Meatal
stenosis is very common.

Complications such as infections and loss of blood are
much more serious in babies who have immature immune systems and very little blood. (Sometimes an artery is cut, this is much less likely with an adult.)

Many poor outcomes in infant circs are not detected or attributed to the circ. With an adult circ it is more likely they would be.

With an adult it can always be done under a GA.

Very few adults elect to have it done.

Cost should be the least of the issue.

MotherNurture

31-10-2007, 01:31

My ex was done when he was 8 :eek:

And he said it was the most painful thing he ever experienced.

I'll bet. I'm sure it was incredibly painful, but it's not because he was 8 it's because it's a significant surgery on one of the most sensitive areas on his entire body, removing half of the skin on his primary sex organ.

Adult Circumcision vs. Infant Circumcision...

Adults provide informed consent. Babies have NO choice.

Babies are typically unwrapped, exposed, and strapped down spread-eagle to a rigid, molded plastic board called a circumstraint; adults are not.

Circumcision may interrupt bonding and may negatively impact breastfeeding success. Babies may be very sleepy and difficult to rouse for feeding after circumcision. Tummy-to-tummy breastfeeding positions may be uncomfortable, increasing fussiness and making getting a correct latch challenging. This may in turn increase the risk of sore nipples and a cascade effect of other nursing problems.

A baby foreskin is fused to the glans, much like your fingernail is attached to your finger. One of the first (and most painful) steps of an infant circumcision involves forcibly separating the two structures-literally, tearing them apart. An adult's foreskin is usually able to retract easily and comfortably.

Adults can have general anesthesia, thereby experiencing a truly "pain free" operation. At best, newborns get local anesthesia...at worst, nothing at all. Studies have shown neonatal circumcision pain has long-term effects on pain tolerance.

Adults can be provided medications to prevent erections during the healing process. Babies are not offered this.

Adults can have "good" pain medications post-op. The most an infant gets is Tylenol.

An adult can choose the exact 'style' of circumcision he prefers...loose, tight...high, low...frenulum/no frenulum...etc. Babies are circumcised by a random methods removing imprecise and highly variable amounts of skin.

Adult penises are BIGGER. There is a lot more room for error with infant circumcision.

Adults will not normally be healing in a 'diaper environment', exposing their surgical wound to urine and feces. This also means adults who are circumcised will likely have a far lower risk of Meatal Stenosis. The risk for babies is 10%.

Adults normally have more developed and resistant immune systems and if an infection did occur it would be less dangerous to an adult then a newborn. MRSA-Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus-is rampant in medical facilities and is frequently fatal in neonates; circumcision creates an unnecessary wound and entry point for such an infection.

Babies are guarenteed a lifetime of keratinization (drying, thickening, and progressive desensitization of the head of penis)

A baby�s entire blood volume could be contained in a soda can; testing for blood disorders prior to infant circumcision is not routine. An adult would be more likely to be aware if he had a condition like hemophilia (which primarily occurs in males). An undiagnosed hemophiliac newborn may hemorrhage/bleed to death during or following a procedure like circumcision.

Guarenteed surgery: Prophylactically subjecting a baby to amputative surgery to prevent the minute possibility (1%) of him requiring it later in life for medical reasons doesn't make sense.

Maternal Trauma: Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, author and unwavering advocate for the genital integrity of children of both genders stated that �Tearing a newborn baby that a woman has carried beneath her heart for nine months from her loving and nurturing breast and inflicting a wound on it�s tiny, protesting, and immobilized body is an unequivocal act of violence against the mother.� Mothers who witness their son�s circumcision are often surprised at the depth to which they are affected and being present (or within earshot) of the operation can arouse feelings of shock, horror, anger, sorrow, guilt, resentment, and regret. While mothers sometimes defer the circumcision decision to the baby�s father, it�s they who must view and gingerly dress the wound, carefully peeling away soiled gauze and reapplying petroleum jelly to the red, raw, weepy glans.

Jen

Prankish

27-01-2010, 10:29

I am 26 (with 2 children) and got cut some months back. I feel that men done as adults have the best say on the subject and my experience is that sex feels about twice as good as before because now the 'out' stroke can also be felt. Masturbation is totally different but only requires an adjustment on technique and it feels better than before. Blowjobs feel the same as before when I retracted my foreskin. I have spoken to many men online before and after the op and they all seem to be with a similar opinion with me. The very few that regret it is mainly attributed to the fact that their surgeon was not overly competent and did not perform a 'cosmetic' grade circumcision, but a simple cut and out the door in an hour job. Many also forget to remove the sutures after 10 days or so for best result. The procedure and recovery is painless, except for the local anesthetic going into the penis which isn't fun, but is no worse than getting dental work.

I used to be on the side of 'no infant circ', let them decide, etc etc. Now I realise this is flawed. The parents should decide. Not inactivists, not the government recommendations. My mother used to do daycare, and the uncut vs cut boys behaviour is no different and they all turn out the same. Cut boys are usually more confident naked in the gym showers. Growing up I was less confident than a cut boy with a wonderfully crafted penis with it's head out in all glory, while I had an elephant trunk. My partner who experienced sex with me both uncut and cut thinks sex is much better of a feeling with me now and can feel 'more' of me.

My son is a toddler now so I wont be taking him in for the procedure, however will ensure he sees me naked plenty when growing up and will leave him to ask questions. I will offer to pay for a procedure if he wishes and explain my story in due time when he can understand. My procedure was $1750 USD for anyone wondering about the cost. It takes about an hour to suture up about 50 very fine sutures. Anyone who says they can do an adult circ for 500 bucks and takes 20 mins the result will be far less cosmetically than an infant job.

serendipity22

27-01-2010, 20:55

Page 3 of this thread lists some of the many ways in which infant circ is worse than adult circ.

I am 26 (with 2 children) and got cut some months back.

In that case the glans will be little different than before the circ. Give it some time and the glans will become calloused/keratinized and lose almost all feeling. In a decade or so you will be lucky to feel anything there, especially with a condom.

Father

27-01-2010, 21:35

luvmyboys

27-01-2010, 21:48

Prankish that's great it has worked out well for you, I'm pleased you were given the choice.

Father

27-01-2010, 21:55

You may have missed this statement luvmyboys.

I used to be on the side of 'no infant circ', let them decide, etc etc. Now I realise this is flawed. The parents should decide. Not inactivists, not the government recommendations.:yelclap:

luvmyboys

27-01-2010, 22:04

I saw it, still doesn't change the fact it was his choice.

luvmyboys

27-01-2010, 22:05

I would much rather read a story like his than someones who didn't get that choice.

Prankish

28-01-2010, 16:07

Good post Prankish. It's good to hear from someone who IS an authority on the matter.

I'm sure you will be questioned and told that you are wrong about your own body. So expect that. The intactivists on here are never wrong - so if you say that it is better now than before, then they will tell you that you are lying or stupid.

Example 1:

Apparently you will lose almost all feeling:laughing:. 28 years after mine and I'm still going strong. I wonder what age that will happen? Since you are 26 now, and I've been done for 28....that means you should be good until you are at least 54. Assuming of course that all lose all my feeling in the next couple of months. I bloody hope not. But somehow, I'm pretty confident that it is not going to happen.

I look forward to the upcoming comments on how wrong you are.:)

Sensitivity does not change either, it just becomes better. The way in which it becomes better is that it is no longer 'painfully ultra sensitive' after extended periods of sex. I have spoken to perhaps dozens of men who were done later in life many over a decade ago, and they all say the same. After 12 months the penis is fully healed and no longer changes significantly.

However, I believe that a circumcision must leave at least 1cm of inner foreskin left because this is what feels more sensitive than shaft skin. I also believe it must be tight to take advantage of being circumcised and the frenulum must be fully removed so that the head of the penis does not distort downward on erection and/or cause painful tears in the frenulum. I remember my surgeon over in Miami told me that he recommends removal of the frenulum during the procedure but leaves it the choice of the patient. 80% choose to have it removed, and of the remaining 20%, 80% of those will then decide to have it removed later on during a circumcision revision, which many men will get a recirc to get it tightened up.

I have 1.5cm of inner skin left and the frenulum is fully removed. The area where the frenulum used to be, now gives more pleasurable sensations than what the frenulum used to give, which was nothing for me. The head and the 1.5cm of inner foreskin left by far provide the best sensations and better than anything the foreskin provided. I would say sex is twice better now. All sex before was the penis masturbating in and out of it's own foreskin. Now both me and my partner can enjoy maximum feeling, and she loves it. It is a lot more intimate. With no smell, spontaneous oral sex is now possible without worrying about if I should wash first.

It is a well known anecdotal fact that cut men are much more confident in the public gym showers than uncut men. I have seen this trend where there is a good mix of cut and uncut. I think anyone who believes than the elephant trunk look is a better look, is kicking themself in the head.

So therefore, I truly believe that I have more authority than an anti-circ man who is uncut or who was cut at birth at knows no difference. I also believe I have more authority on the subject than a anti-circ woman, who doesn't even have a penis. As for a anti-circ man done later on in life, someone bring him to my attention and then we can talk. I have yet to meet one out of dozens I have talked to.

The only flawed part of 'letting him decide' logic is that not all men are as educated, not all men are willing to go through with the surgery or let any knife get near there (just look how reluctant men in their 40s and 50s are to go through with a vas even though it's a much simplier procedure), fear of pain from the operation, and the fact that they never even become curious on the subject, which is perhaps the most valid reason for the flawed logic seeing as less than 10% of babies in Australia are cut. In the US, over 70% are still done and I have seen from much of my travel days that the uncut Americans are much more curious about the subject simply because they are exposed to it a lot more, where uncut men over here still remain largely oblivious about the subject without much opinion.

BigRedV

28-01-2010, 16:12

It is a well known anecdotal fact that cut men are much more confident in the public gym showers than uncut men. I have seen this trend where there is a good mix of cut and uncut. I think anyone who believes than the elephant trunk look is a better look, is kicking themself in the head.

Hi prankish, nice name ;) :laughing:

Well, in the USA, perhaps men will feel more confident in the gym shed, and possibly even grown men here. But, when our boys in Australia grow up, the circumcised ones will be less confident due to the tiny percentage of parents in Australia these days who choose to circumcise - those boys will be in a minority.

Oh, and anyone who believes the penis is a good looking body part is kicking themselves anyway :laughing:

serendipity22

28-01-2010, 17:54

Some intact men would find the term
elephant trunk offensive.

There appears to be a history of subtle persecution of intact men in the US. "EWWW gross, a foreskin is freaking disgusting" seems to be a cliche.

I have 1.5cm of inner skin left. (thats a significant amount) This is one of the many reasons why infant circ is worse than adult circ. In adult circ the individual can largely get what he asks for.

In an infant circ, high or low, loose or tight, its up to the circumcisionist's whim. More than that the working area is so small the result is random to some extent. Cutting more off from one side is quite common, as are numerous small botches which the owner may not notice till adulthood.

For example, I daresay there are likely to be many millions of men circed as infants who have NO inner foreskin left.

I don't give a tinker's cuss if adults elect to pay for and get their own surgery.

Regardless of how happy they are about it, I don't see
that this strengthens the case for involuntary circumcision of infants one iota.

luvmyboys

28-01-2010, 18:46

I think Prankish has made some very good points as to why circumcision is better left until later in life. When a baby is circumcised there is neither the time, care or expertise available to ensure a properly 'crafted' circumcision to ensure the best outcome for the man. Circumcisions on infants are a fairly quickly carried out procedure whose results are varied and certainly not uniform. As Prankish found out it is actually a very finely tuned procedure which should be performed by a qualified cosmetic surgeon at a time when the patient is able to voice his requirements and adjust as necessary.

andrewJ

28-01-2010, 23:44

i used to think that you shouldnt tattoo babies. But then i got a tattoo, and i like it. therefore, all babies should be tattooed.
anyone who doesnt have a tattoo doenst know what they are talking about.

Prankish

29-01-2010, 12:54

Some intact men would find the term offensive.

There appears to be a history of subtle persecution of intact men in the US. "EWWW gross, a foreskin is freaking disgusting" seems to be a cliche.

(thats a significant amount) This is one of the many reasons why infant circ is worse than adult circ. In adult circ the individual can largely get what he asks for.

In an infant circ, high or low, loose or tight, its up to the circumcisionist's whim. More than that the working area is so small the result is random to some extent. Cutting more off from one side is quite common, as are numerous small botches which the owner may not notice till adulthood.

For example, I daresay there are likely to be many millions of men circed as infants who have NO inner foreskin left.

I don't give a tinker's cuss if adults elect to pay for and get their own surgery.

Regardless of how happy they are about it, I don't see
that this strengthens the case for involuntary circumcision of infants one iota.

Thing is that often it would be the grad med or nurse who would perform the circ and because it is such an easy thing to apply a plastibell or gomco clamp and get the job done. My friend told me when he was living in the US they were to have their son done in the hospital after the birth well when he saw the student who was going to do it he was in his early 20s and he started to err. He then saw a Jewish Mohel in the same hospital, asked if he could perform the procedure on his newborn and now he his son has a very nice looking circumcision. I think it is important for the surgeon to be very competent no matter what age it is done at, although done at infancy the procedure is far simpler. The cost added to the bill for the circ is usually only about $100 in the US and compare that to my cost, that's under 15 times the cost vs adult circ. Cosmetic circ clinic Limage on the Gold Coast charges over 4 grand for the procedure.

If the gomco or plastibell clamp is used properly, the 'circumciser' can retain as much inner skin or make it however tight they wish depending on where the two skin edges are set, so there is no problem there. There also tends to be less variation on tightness compared with adult circ, because infant circ is usually done tight and the boy tends to 'grow' into it throughout the next years. Skin always stretches and very tight circumcisions will never remain that way indefinitely. There are also many other reasons for infant circ that remain valid, health reasons, reduced 60% chance of catching HIV in a heterosexual relationship (read SA and Uganda trials), and many boys and adolescents will grow up with foreskin problems such as difficult or impossible to retract, phimosis etc, and are either too embarrassed or may not wish to seek medical advice on it, so they go untreated until they become sexually active, realise there is a problem and eventually go ahead with a circ age 18-22 without their parents knowledge from fear of embarrassment and news leaking out. I see it all the time on various newsgroups and discussion forums.

The case for infant circ is still very strong and just not to 'look like daddy'. I just think it should be the choice of the parents, which ever choice they make, and no one else’s choice. Parents are the ultimate caretaker of their children, not the government, not friends or relatives. Parents choose to give their children vaccinations; they choose to send them to school to receive an education. There are many parenting choices involved in raising children, circumcision is just another choice and that is all. You don't hear parents ever arguing that we should not give them vaccinations because they have no choice in the matter.

Tattoo's are not done for health reasons and is a ridiculous comparison.

Father

29-01-2010, 19:02

luvmyboys

29-01-2010, 19:12

The case for infant circ is still very strong and just not to 'look like daddy'. I just think it should be the choice of the parents, which ever choice they make, and no one else’s choice. Parents are the ultimate caretaker of their children, not the government, not friends or relatives. Parents choose to give their children vaccinations; they choose to send them to school to receive an education. There are many parenting choices involved in raising children, circumcision is just another choice and that is all. You don't hear parents ever arguing that we should not give them vaccinations because they have no choice in the matter.

I disagree that there is a strong case for infant circing and in regards to choice I think everyone should have the choice on whether to remove a healthy functioning part of their body, not someone elses. I do think it is a bit of a stretch to compare circumcision to tatoos (but agree with the principle), but I also think it is a stretch to compare it with education and vaxing. How would you feel about female circumcision, is that her parents choice too?
I think you were very fortunate to be given the choice and wonder how you might feel if you hadn't but I guess we will never know.

Father

29-01-2010, 19:16

I think you were very fortunate to be given the choice and wonder how you might feel if you hadn't but I guess we will never know.

I wasn't given the choice, and am very happy with that fact. My parents would do it again. And so would I.

Prankish

30-01-2010, 10:54

I disagree that there is a strong case for infant circing and in regards to choice I think everyone should have the choice on whether to remove a healthy functioning part of their body, not someone elses. I do think it is a bit of a stretch to compare circumcision to tatoos (but agree with the principle), but I also think it is a stretch to compare it with education and vaxing. How would you feel about female circumcision, is that her parents choice too?
I think you were very fortunate to be given the choice and wonder how you might feel if you hadn't but I guess we will never know.

Rarely now practiced female 'tribal' type circumcision is a totally different thing and has no merits based on health. FGM only purpose is to remove the clitoris intended to make the female more 'pure' and much less likely to be promiscuous to their husbands, as in those sort of cultures the male is treated with much higher value than the female.

FGM or tattoo's has nothing to do with health benefits where male circumcision does. Both FGM and tattoo's are done because of cultural or social factors/influences, or also may come under cosmetic. Male circ also comes under cosmetic, although also largely falls under health category, which is the main reason for infant circ, and a main reason also for circ up to the age of about 12. It is also a main reason for adolescent circ and my surgeon also tells me when he asks each adult patient if the reason were hygene, religious or cosmetic, the majority of reasons fall under hygene. Health reasons don't just mean less smell, but also include sexual health, if the foreskin is difficult to retract. If the foreskin is not able to retract flat back fully or the head distorts downward remarkably, then that is a problem that effects sexual health.

The most recent news on the health benefits male circ provide come from trials performed in South Africa that indicate that circumcised males may be 60% less likely to catch HIV from hetrosexual activities, which I think is a major health benefit for our children. If you don't think this is a major health benefit, which in essence could potentially save their lives if the unfortunate does happen, then I'm not sure what is a major health benefit to our children.

moggy

30-01-2010, 12:07

Opinionated

30-01-2010, 15:49

Father

30-01-2010, 16:31

I would like you to post in a years time and comment if your sensation has decreased with the keratinization of the mucosal skin of your glans.

Your confidence on this happening is amazing. If he were to comment in a years time saying that there has been no change, would you even believe him? You don't seem to believe anything I say about my penis. So I don't think that you would believe him. I imagine that you would rather go with your assumptions.

Prankish. I think it would be great if you could keep opinionated informed on your progress.

Opinionated

30-01-2010, 21:01

Your confidence on this happening is amazing. If he were to comment in a years time saying that there has been no change, would you even believe him? You don't seem to believe anything I say about my penis. So I don't think that you would believe him. I imagine that you would rather go with your assumptions.

Prankish. I think it would be great if you could keep opinionated informed on your progress.

If you notice, I asked him to comment IF the sensation changes. There is no assumption there. As for keratinizion of mucosal tissue when it is not protected by the foreskin, that is not an assumption, but a fact of anatomy. Stratified squamous epithilium are non keritinized in their form as mucosal tissue. When no longer protected and kept moist, mucosal tissue changes. In order to protect underlying tissue (as in the case with circumcision) the cells develop a tough protective protein called keratin. It stands to reason that this could effect sensation as toughened skin often decreases skin sensations.
ref- Marieb E, Hoehn K (2007) Human Anatomy and Physiology 7th ed, Pearson, San Francisco.

As for believing him if he experiences no change, I will. However his experience is subjective and he is only one person. I know that you yourself would not take the experience of one person to represent all. Until there is scientific, peer reviewed studies into this, you will have your view and I mine. As far as your penis goes, I am glad you think it's great, but you have no experience of it in it's normal state so you will never know if it could have been even better.

Fellow Traveler

31-01-2010, 01:25

There are also many other reasons for infant circ that remain valid, health reasons, reduced 60% chance of catching HIV in a heterosexual relationship (read SA and Uganda trials),

And you should read the Australian reaction (http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/BP09_Circumcision.pdf) to this information.

An Australian-born man is estimated to have a 0.02% (0.0002) risk of HIV acquisition if he does not
inject drugs or have sex with men.11 This very low risk means that the population health benefit of an
intervention like generalised circumcision programs would be negligible.

and many boys and adolescents will grow up with foreskin problems such as difficult or impossible to retract, phimosis etc, and are either too embarrassed or may not wish to seek medical advice on it, so they go untreated until they become sexually active, realise there is a problem and eventually go ahead with a circ age 18-22 without their parents knowledge from fear of embarrassment and news leaking out. I see it all the time on various newsgroups and discussion forums.

This is BS. If this was the case then we would expect to see generalized support for circumcision for these reasons. As it stands only religious nuts and American really consider circumcision reasonable.

The case for infant circ is still very strong and just not to 'look like daddy'.

No, actually it's weak and gets weaker by the day. If men wish to be circumcised, they can do as you did and seek it out. This is the only way we can be sure that the individual is happy with the situation and the only rational approach.

I just think it should be the choice of the parents, which ever choice they make, and no one else’s choice. Parents are the ultimate caretaker of their children, not the government, not friends or relatives. Parents choose to give their children vaccinations; they choose to send them to school to receive an education. There are many parenting choices involved in raising children, circumcision is just another choice and that is all. You don't hear parents ever arguing that we should not give them vaccinations because they have no choice in the matter.

Tattoo's are not done for health reasons and is a ridiculous comparison.

Your comparison is naive. Circumcision and vaccination are two completely different issues. Off the top of my head:

Diseases that children are vaccinated against such as polio, smallpox, and measles are not sexually transmitted. They are contracted by such unforeseeable circumstances are unknowingly breathing the same air as someone who is infected. You can’t get sneezed on and contract HIV or herpes or genital warts. Vaccines are also the most effective, least invasive and usually ONLY way of achieving the desired effect, and they show the same risk reduction for everyone. These vaccines are responsible for eradicating the diseases for which they provide immunity for on a global scale. You would never see 4 out of 5 vaccinated people getting polio. Or even 5 out of 10.

So as Dr. Forbes, RACP member, said in a recent editorial, " The procedure[, circumcision,] is not to be equated with vaccination, either in its delivery or in its effectiveness."

Father

31-01-2010, 10:40

This is BS.

You might like to think it is. If you have a look at the forum below, you will see that it's not as uncommon as you think.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054899493

Have a read fellow traveller. There are 44 pages of blokes saying very similar things to what Prankish has said.

Fellow Traveler

31-01-2010, 11:17

Prankish

31-01-2010, 11:28

Hi Prankish,
I'd like to challenge a couple of your arguments. Firstly that female circumcision has no health benefits. What do you make of this scientific paper ?

www.aegis.com/conferences/IASHIVPT/2005/TuOa0401.html (http://www.aegis.com/conferences/IASHIVPT/2005/TuOa0401.html)

Secondly your statement that
"If the gomco or plastibell clamp is used properly, the 'circumciser' can retain .. much inner skin".
While this may be true in theory, it is not true in practice. Both these circumcision techniques are designed to remove most of the inner foreskin . They begin by cutting both layers of foreskin to the base of glans, and the foreskin is ultimately removed below this cut. Watch videos of these techniques, the gomco is particularly brutal in removal of inner foreskin. If a doctor wanted to preserve inner foreskin it is very unlikely plastibell or gomco would be instruments of choice.
The inner foreskin is sensitive, erogenous tissue. It is fused to the glans in foetal development, and is therefore likely to have a similar function to the glans.
This aspect of plastbell and gomco circumcisions should be recognised and debated.

It is true from most I have seen. I have seen a lot of penis in my time. Infant circumcision does for most of the time leave some inner foreskin. Many infant jobs have more inner foreskin than my adult circ. It all depends on what training the circumciser has been given, as they usually only perform their type they learned to do, over and over. It is *No Problem* to do a low or a high cut on an infant, with either a plastibell or gomco clamp. The clamp used is just the tool that performs the operation and both can give nice looking circs in the hands of someone who can use it correctly. I don't recall seeing many circs at all, either infant or adult, that has virtually 'no' inner foreskin left at all. I have seen a couple of post healed revisions where either there had not been enough inner skin left to keep any, or of the choice of the patient, where the shaft skin had to be sutured practically to the edge of the sulcas just behind the head. Men with these types of circs never the less are still satisfied with their results still years later, with only regrets being that they wish they had it done sooner.

As for female circ, is this trial removal of the clitiral hood, or the actual clitiras? It is hard to tell from the very limited information given.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 11:36

I think it's great that you like your new penis style Prankish. I am saddened though that given the fact you were given the choice as to which style of penis to adopt, you would want to remove this choice from other people. I would like you to post in a years time and comment if your sensation has decreased with the keratinization of the mucosal skin of your glans.

Plastic surgery decisions should be left up to the person whose body it is.

As for Prankish's assertion that tattoos are not done for health reasons and that is a ridiculous comparison, the majority of circumcision is not done for health reasons either. They are mostly performed for religious, cultural or traditional reasons, and the percieved health benefits have been discredited in the case of most individuals. Only medically indicated circumcisions can claim to be performed for health reasons.

As for HIV prevention, there may be some merit to this in Africa, however in Australia, proper sex education and the use of condoms is much safer and not only helps to prevent HIV, but also a myriad of other problems. If HIV is the concern, by the age the person with the penis is having sexual relations, they should be able to decide if they think circumcision for this reason is warranted.

I had my circ over half a year ago and the head has became tougher. This only takes a month or two to happen. It doesn't take years, and indeed, backed up by the dozens of men I know to have also had an adult circ.

You can educate kiddies about sex education and condoms all you wish, but the fact that cannot be escaped at the end of the day, is that their young, and immature, and the 'heat' of the moment can and will come up when they do not have the protection with them.

Additionally, condoms do and will break. All the circ inactivists try every possible way to win or avoid the argument of the case for circ. It is like, no matter what you try and say, no matter what sort of 'unique' and 'ultimate authority' level of experience you may have, you cannot get any message across and aknlowledged because it is hard coded into their brains that circ is bad and that is the one thing you cannot change. If you are against infant circ, you are against all circ IMO.

moggy

31-01-2010, 12:01

Prankish

31-01-2010, 12:03

This is BS. If this was the case then we would expect to see generalized support for circumcision for these reasons. As it stands only religious nuts and American really consider circumcision reasonable.

Virtually all of Jewish and Muslim believe in and practice circumcision. Many tribes, even Aboriginals before European settlement, practiced circumcision for thousands of years.

I am an Atheist and have no quams or problems with religion, but if you do perhaps your the one who has the problem with the religions and who have been around a lot longer than you.

Americans circumcise more because they realise the benefits it provides. Because it is such a private and intimate part of the body, it is easier to adopt a 'she'll be right, mate' approach.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 12:11

Prankish,
If the plastibell and gomco are used as they are designed to be used, an amount of inner foreskin equivalent at least to the length of the glans will be removed.
Most doctors who use these techniques would use them as they were designed to be used, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It has nothing to do with the skill of the operator.
The Mogen clamp, a traditional Jewish technique, is not designed to remove inner foreskin, and it is quite possible to preserve all the inner foreskin, which would amount to 3 cm or more in an adult.
In Australia in the 40's and 50's most circumcisions used this Jewish technique and men of this era have most of their inner foreskin. Clearly things are different in America.
Leaving 1 or 1.5 cm (in an adult)means most of the inner foreskin was removed.
Unfortunately the plastibell has become the most common circumcision technique in Australia, but fortunately the vast majority of Australian parents choose to preserve all the foreskin leave and their children uncircumcised.

You are fairly correct in the logistics, a mogen clamp can leave more inner skin, at the possible expense of having a much looser circumcision however. Doing this leaves the frenulum much more intact, and the mogen clamp is not as good result cosmetically.

I believe 1.5cm of inner skin left is *plenty enough*, and works just fine for me. If you are talking about sexually, it still beats having a foreskin, regardless how much inner skin is left. I think the gomco clamp is best because it allows simple loosen off to adjust the amount of skin to keep or take off, it leaves a unique yet suttle brown scar which is attractive in it's own right, and can be reused. When done in infancy, no sutures are needed, either.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 12:21

You might like to think it is. If you have a look at the forum below, you will see that it's not as uncommon as you think.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054899493

Have a read fellow traveller. There are 44 pages of blokes saying very similar things to what Prankish has said.

Thanks Father for the link. It does show how common foreskin problems really are, and how ridiculous and what length some doctors go to by trying to 'save their foreskin', by use of steroidal creams. While steroidal creams can have great effect initially, they can have the opposite effect when they stopped being used, the foreskin can tighten up over the head even more than previously. My surgeon (who is an MD) has pointed this out, as well as more long term risks of use.

Circumcision is the only and best cure for foreskin problems and I never hesitate to give my advise and wisdom down to men who seek help. I will repeat myself, in that never have I seen or heard of a man regretting the decision. The only regreats seem to be 'I wish I had it done sooner'.

I am not even touching a website that is 'foreskin-restoration.net'. The name gives it away that it is biased, not a neutral advise forum like the one Father posted.

Fellow Traveler

31-01-2010, 12:23

Virtually all of Jewish and Muslim believe in and practice circumcision. Many tribes, even Aboriginals before European settlement, practiced circumcision for thousands of years.

I am an Atheist and have no quams [sic] or problems with religion, but if you do perhaps your [sic] the one who has the problem with the religions and who have been around a lot longer than you [sic].

The fallacy of antiquity, if it's old it must be good. I have no particular problem with religion except where it interferes with the rights of another individual.

Americans circumcise more because they realise [sic] the benefits it provides. Because it is such a private and intimate part of the body, it is easier to adopt a 'she'll be right, mate' approach.

No. Americans circumcise more because they are insular and have a hubris about them, I know because I am one. The fact that pretty much no other first world western countries circumcise for secular "health" reasons has never registered with many. In fact, there are Americans who actually believe infant circumcision is common everywhere. :laughing:

Things are improving though.

ETA:
I just had to ask,

If you are against infant circ, you are against all circ IMO

Evidence please?

BigRedV

31-01-2010, 12:56

Americans circumcise more because they realise [sic] the benefits it provides.

Why doesn't the medical association of America recommend it then :detective:

Opinionated

31-01-2010, 14:04

I had my circ over half a year ago and the head has became tougher. This only takes a month or two to happen. It doesn't take years, and indeed, backed up by the dozens of men I know to have also had an adult circ.

You can educate kiddies about sex education and condoms all you wish, but the fact that cannot be escaped at the end of the day, is that their young, and immature, and the 'heat' of the moment can and will come up when they do not have the protection with them.

Additionally, condoms do and will break. All the circ inactivists try every possible way to win or avoid the argument of the case for circ. It is like, no matter what you try and say, no matter what sort of 'unique' and 'ultimate authority' level of experience you may have, you cannot get any message across and aknlowledged because it is hard coded into their brains that circ is bad and that is the one thing you cannot change. If you are against infant circ, you are against all circ IMO.

It is rare for condoms to break if they are applied and used properly. I was a tester of new products for Ansell for a couple of years and have used thousands of the things. Still, the very limited chance of contracting HIV is no reason to advocate an unnecessary procedure for all. In Australia, there is a much bigger chance of our children contracting a great number of other STI's that circumcision does not offer its .00whatever% protection against.

As for your assertion that if you are against infant circ you are against all circ, you are dead wrong. I totally support any consenting, fully informed person to decide how their body looks. I just think it is plain wrong and a breach of human rights that a parent can make a decision to cosmetically alter their son without a medical indication for it.

Prankish, Father's posted link only highlights how rare it is that men need to seek out circumcision. He devotes all his Bub Hub time to this subject and has only managed to find an obscure thread in a forum from Ireland as evidence. Fellow Traveller on the other hand provided a whole forum devoted to restoration. Neither are any more biased than the other, they both contain large amounts of subjective material. I think it would be better if the Irish thread got much bigger, with men choosing something for themselves and the restoration one disappeared because people stopped taking choice away from their children.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 16:55

Why doesn't the medical association of America recommend it then :detective:

The World Health Organisation realises the much reduced chance of contracting HIV as well as the extra health benefits circ provides, and recommends circ for better health.

Which is better than anything this government does, which doesn't hardly even realise or acknowledge circumcision. I became a big hater of this labour government when I first heard plans for the clean feed internet filter and saw the famous 'leaked list' last year, so I don't trust anything whatsoever from this government.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 17:03

I have no particular problem with religion except where it interferes with the rights of another individual.

There is no rights or law surrounding male circumcision. In the case of the newborn the parents have the ultimate right in caring for their children and by providing the best care they see fit. 'Rights of the individual' would be a failure if ever taken to court, because by law the parents have the greater right in giving care how they see fit. No adult that was done in infancy that I know of thinks they should have been given the right, and who thinks they are really missing something. All think that their parents gave the best care to them and raised them as best possible as they see fit. To suggest otherwise may mean there are some psychological issues going on.

As for the last quote, I did include 'IMO', which means 'in my opinion', which last time I checked, it is a little difficult to provide evidence to someone's opinion :D

Prankish

31-01-2010, 17:20

It is rare for condoms to break if they are applied and used properly.

If my son contracted HIV from the result of a condom breaking, I would not be telling him 'you should have used it properly you stupid idiot!'.

sockstealingpoltergeist

31-01-2010, 17:24

If my son contracted HIV from the result of a condom breaking, I would not be telling him 'you should have used it properly you stupid idiot!'.

It has been shown (previously on this forum0 that being circumcised is giving men in Africa a flasi sense of protection against HIV, and that because they have this idea that they are protected HIV is further on the rise.

I would want my son to have safe sex, and the odd time the condom breaks is better then the false notion of being protected.

sockstealingpoltergeist

31-01-2010, 17:29

Which is better than anything this government does, which doesn't hardly even realise or acknowledge circumcision. I became a big hater of this labour government when I first heard plans for the clean feed internet filter and saw the famous 'leaked list' last year, so I don't trust anything whatsoever from this government.
:confused: the governemnt is not the APA nor is it the medical association of America, I believe they are made up of health professionals, very seperate from the government.

Mreover why would the government back something that does more harm then good and is totaly unessecary?

I have no idea why yo are on here pushing RIC, when you your self got to make your own choice?

If my son contracted HIV from the result of a condom breaking, I would not be telling him 'you should have used it properly you stupid idiot!'.

No one is saying you should.:confused:

What would you say if your son died from complications due to RIC?

What would you say if your sons penis was badly damaged from RIC?

Prankish

31-01-2010, 17:55

:confused: What would you say if your son died from complications due to RIC?

DIED from circumcision? Now I have heard it all!!

Opinionated

31-01-2010, 18:09

If my son contracted HIV from the result of a condom breaking, I would not be telling him 'you should have used it properly you stupid idiot!'.

Using a condom, even in the event the damn thing breaks is a lot more likely to prevent your son getting HIV than having part of his penis amputated.

Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners.” So really, what is the point in circumcising? I wonder who the key people consulted by the WHO actually were.

Opinionated

31-01-2010, 18:21

DIED from circumcision? Now I have heard it all!!

Anyone can die from complications of surgical procedures. Not only is there adverse reactions to anaesthetics, but now in the days of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus- google it) people are dying from infections that we simply cannot treat. Yes, I agree, these adverse reactions are rare, but since you like to argue about HIV protection which is a very small percentage too, I will take this as my opposing stance. If we only left it alone and used contraception all of this would be moot.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 18:23

Anyone can die from complications of surgical procedures. Not only is there adverse reactions to anaesthetics, but now in the days of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus- google it) people are dying from infections that we simply cannot treat. Yes, I agree, these adverse reactions are rare, but since you like to argue about HIV protection which is a very small percentage too, I will take this as my opposing stance. If we only left it alone and used contraception all of this would be moot.

Rare would be an understatement. Last case I heard in the US was in the 60s or 70s. I'm pretty sure the merits of HIV reduction are stronger than the chances of fatality from the procedure.

I would consider the chance of fatality so rare that it is not even a debatable issue.

Opinionated

31-01-2010, 18:27

Rare would be an understatement. Last case I heard in the US was in the 60s or 70s. I'm pretty sure the merits of HIV reduction are stronger than the chances of fatality from the procedure.

I think that you will find that deaths from infections including MRSA are attributed to those infections/MRSA, and not to the preceding factor that caused a wound where the infection was able to colonise.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 18:30

I think that you will find that deaths from infections including MRSA are attributed to those infections/MRSA, and not to the preceding factor that caused a wound where the infection was able to colonise.

You show me links to cases resulting in fatality, or better still, some statistics that show what the chances are of this happening in a controlled hospital or surgery environment and not including tribal types of surgery.

Opinionated

31-01-2010, 18:38

That is what I am trying to tell you. We can't know exactly how many people may have died from infections that started with circumcision, because their cause of death will be listed as an infection caused by whatever organism it is and not the circumcision. One of the main principles in a medical environment is maintaining an intact skin so as to minimise the chance of infection. RIC is a totally unnecessary procedure, performed on a very young child with an immature immune system for cosmetic reasons. There just isn't a justification for it from a medical standpoint.

:thumbsup: to adult circumcision all the way.

Prankish

31-01-2010, 19:16

BigRedV

31-01-2010, 19:25

The World Health Organisation realises the much reduced chance of contracting HIV as well as the extra health benefits circ provides, and recommends circ for better health.

The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_United_Nations_Programme_on_HIV/AIDS) (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.

Also, you didn't answer my question; why doesn't the American Medical Association or any other Medical body recommend RIC?

The American Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association) stated in 1999: "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Opinionated

31-01-2010, 20:02

And I disagree. I think both infant circ (the term 'RIC' shouldn't be used because not even America does it routinely anymore) and adult circ have merits. I believe many health benefits are to be had from both circs, and believe it should be the choice of the parents for infant and childhood circ.

If you don't like the term RIC, how about UIC- Unnecessary Infant Circumcision or CIC- Cosmetic Infant Circumcision or NMIIC- Not Medically Indicated Infant Circumcision. I could go on, but I will save the mods the editing time:D

I agree, circumcision has it's merits when medically indicated, but that is never the case in young infants. There is no medical benefit for an infant. You cannot argue prophylactics. If a condition requiring circumcision did not develop then the circumcision was of no benefit, rather it was detrimental in that there was at least some discomfort in the very least.

MummaBear03

31-01-2010, 20:18

When was the last time someone died of AIDS that could have been prevented solely with circumcision?

luvmyboys

31-01-2010, 23:19

Rarely now practiced female 'tribal' type circumcision is a totally different thing and has no merits based on health. FGM only purpose is to remove the clitoris intended to make the female more 'pure' and much less likely to be promiscuous to their husbands, as in those sort of cultures the male is treated with much higher value than the female.

FGM or tattoo's has nothing to do with health benefits where male circumcision does. Both FGM and tattoo's are done because of cultural or social factors/influences, or also may come under cosmetic.

That's actually not true, tribal societies and advocates today cite many health benefits to FGM including lower risk of vaginal cancer and AIDS, less UTI's, fewer infections "from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris" and protection against herpes and genital ulcers. They are really claiming no more than advocates of RIC are.

The most recent news on the health benefits male circ provide come from trials performed in South Africa that indicate that circumcised males may be 60% less likely to catch HIV from hetrosexual activities, which I think is a major health benefit for our children. If you don't think this is a major health benefit, which in essence could potentially save their lives if the unfortunate does happen, then I'm not sure what is a major health benefit to our children.I think it could also be said that a circumcised male in Africa is also more likely to engage in unsafe sex practices with the mistaken belief that he is safer. Condoms alone are the most effective way of stopping the spread of HIV, not to mention other STD's and unwanted pregnancies. I know which method I will be advocating for my sons.

bada

31-01-2010, 23:24

Rare would be an understatement. Last case I heard in the US was in the 60s or 70s. I'm pretty sure the merits of HIV reduction are stronger than the chances of fatality from the procedure.
I have NEVER heard of a baby contracting HIV through sexual intercourse, therefore circumcision is not going to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted HIV in babies at all. :)

Fellow Traveler

31-01-2010, 23:30

There is no rights or law surrounding male circumcision. In the case of the newborn the parents have the ultimate right in caring for their children and by providing the best care they see fit. 'Rights of the individual' would be a failure if ever taken to court, because by law the parents have the greater right in giving care how they see fit. No adult that was done in infancy that I know of thinks they should have been given the right, and who thinks they are really missing something. All think that their parents gave the best care to them and raised them as best possible as they see fit. To suggest otherwise may mean there are some psychological issues going on.

This seems to be all your opinion too. I've provided you with a whole forum of individuals who would have preferred to have had the dignity of the choice that you enjoyed. Who are you to say that a man who seeks restoration has any more or less psychological issues than a man who seeks circumcision.

As for the last quote, I did include 'IMO', which means 'in my opinion', which last time I checked, it is a little difficult to provide evidence to someone's opinion :D

You suggested that all of those who were against infant circumcision were against circumcision generally. There are a lot of threads in this section and I challenge you to find one where someone says that they are against an adult doing what ever they want to themselves.

This shouldn't be hard for you since you seem to be quite the accomplished thread necromancer (http://www.clubfuji.com/Ash/thread%20necro.jpg).

Fellow Traveler

31-01-2010, 23:39

The World Health Organisation realises the much reduced chance of contracting HIV as well as the extra health benefits circ provides, and recommends circ for better health.

I love this one because those who rely on it seem to forget that they added the caveat that such an approach would only be useful in countries where HIV prevalence was high and in places where the epidemic was generalized. In low prevalence countries where the epidemic is concentrated is specific population groups, circumcision is of little practical value. Why do you think the AFAO released this statement (http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/BP09_Circumcision.pdf):

An Australian-born man is estimated to have a 0.02% (0.0002) risk of HIV acquisition if he does not inject drugs or have sex with men. This very low risk means that the population health benefit of an intervention like generalised circumcision programs would be negligible.

andrewJ

01-02-2010, 05:28

There is no rights or law surrounding male circumcision.

bodily integrity is a human right.

a test case would clarify the issue of its legalilty.
its certainly less clear cut than you think

BigRedV

01-02-2010, 05:38

This shouldn't be hard for you since you seem to be quite the accomplished thread necromancer (http://www.clubfuji.com/Ash/thread%20necro.jpg).

:laughing:

Prankish

01-02-2010, 09:15

bodily integrity is a human right.

a test case would clarify the issue of its legalilty.
its certainly less clear cut than you think

What your saying is that hundreds of millions of parents around the world belong in Jail or something?

andrewJ

01-02-2010, 13:55

what you're saying is that if lots of people do something, then it must be fine, or something?

Opinionated

01-02-2010, 16:17

What your saying is that hundreds of millions of parents around the world belong in Jail or something?

No, I don't think so. I think that people who circumcise do so with the best of intentions, despite how flawed their ideas are. I would like the position of circumcision clarified in legislation because I certainly see it as a breach of human rights. If I think that my child would be better off without their ear lobe, should I be able to have it amputated, just in case it causes them trouble down the track? I think not and I am sure that I would be prosecuted or investigated for my mental fitness if I searched for a doctor to do it.. Circumcision should be the same.

Just because something has been done for a long time or because many people have done it does not make something right. I would hope you could independently think of plenty of examples that illustrate this point.

DeniG

02-02-2010, 11:27

No, I don't think so. I think that people who circumcise do so with the best of intentions, despite how flawed their ideas are. I would like the position of circumcision clarified in legislation because I certainly see it as a breach of human rights. If I think that my child would be better off without their ear lobe, should I be able to have it amputated, just in case it causes them trouble down the track? I think not and I am sure that I would be prosecuted or investigated for my mental fitness if I searched for a doctor to do it.. Circumcision should be the same.

Ah but it shouldn't be because it is not. There is no reason to think that removing an ear lobe will provide any possible medical benefit. You people are not alone. Some people think that immunisation is a breach of human rights and some people think that fluridating water is breach of human rights. Thank goodness no legislature has indulged any of these 3 groups.

Now you are entitled to your opinion as lateral as it sounds to me but please don't try to impose it on the general population in law.

Just because something has been done for a long time or because many people have done it does not make something right. I would hope you could independently think of plenty of examples that illustrate this point.

and vice versa

Indeed on balance when people throw out something without proper consideration more problems seem to have occurred then going in the other direction.

But I am continuing a digression. Isn't Prankish's point more that what you are suggesting has a rather undemocratic feel. You want to make something illegal that so many parents have done? Isn't that what you mean? Or by "clarifying" do you mean that you want it enshrined as something legal?

Fuchsia!

02-02-2010, 11:36

But I am continuing a digression. Isn't Prankish's point more that what you are suggesting has a rather undemocratic feel. You want to make something illegal that so many parents have done? Isn't that what you mean? Or by "clarifying" do you mean that you want it enshrined as something legal?

maybe we should bring back female circumcision?

DeniG

02-02-2010, 11:52

bodily integrity is a human right.

a test case would clarify the issue of its legalilty.

its certainly less clear cut than you think

You seem to equate circumcision with a breach of bodily integrity. I’ve just been googling “bodily integrity”.

The Irish Constitution says this:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/irish-constitution-1/right_to_bodily_integrity

“Article 40 of the Irish Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your life or health.

If you are in custody, you have a right not to have your health endangered while in prison.”

Given the potential medical benefits of circumcision it is the opposite. Even if the state mandated routine infant circumcision you could hardly say that the state was harming life or health. They would be protecting it.

Doesn’t bodily integrity relate to physical violence or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment eg. forced labour or torture or extrajudicial capital punishment? Now if a leg was chopped off without anaesthetic as a torture I would see how the concept relates. But the common and long standing practice of removing a flap of skin from the penis (normally now using anaesthesia) seems way removed. I’m sorry but I am not prepared to take that for granted.

Bodily integrity is a basic human right but that doesn’t mean that circumcision breaches any rights. Bringing them together is too lateral for my comfort.

jaxcoop,

maybe we should bring back female circumcision?

I didn't know we ever had it.

A law that made things so that women were forced to have sex exclusively with uncircumcised men would be punishment enough for women. :D (A little flippant but I couldn't resist. The difference isn't extreme. Like I said I just couldn't resist.)

RedPanda

02-02-2010, 12:06

Given the potential medical benefits of circumcision it is the opposite. Even if the state mandated routine infant circumcision you could hardly say that the state was harming life or health. They would be protecting it.

Given that we've had many instances of breast cancer in my family, would it not be beneficial for me to consent to having my daughter's breast tissue removed when she is a minor? There are health benefits in that, however I'd struggle to find an ethical doctor who wouldn't consider it a breach of her rights. Of the few people I know IRL who have circumcised their children, not one has cited health benefits. All have done it for tradition and to look like Daddy. So is it the motive that is the deciding factor in whether it is a violation of bodily integrity?

Besides which, I think the health benefits are still heavily "debated" when we are talking about healthy infant males born into developed countries.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 12:13

Ah but it shouldn't be because it is not. There is no reason to think that removing an ear lobe will provide any possible medical benefit.

How do you know? I mean for starter you wouldn't have to be troubled with cleaning them. :rolleyes: But you know what, if we had been doing it as a tribute to the sky fairy for the last 5,000 years I am sure benefits would be ferreted out. Aren't you?

You people are not alone. Some people think that immunisation is a breach of human rights and some people think that fluridating [sic] water is breach of human rights. Thank goodness no legislature has indulged any of these 3 groups.

There may be people who think that but there are actual benefits which can't be obtained otherwise. For example DeniG, could you tell me a better way to prevent Measles or Polio? I'd really like to know. And when are people at risk for those diseases?

But I am continuing a digression. Isn't Prankish's point more that what you are suggesting has a rather undemocratic feel. You want to make something illegal that so many parents have done? Isn't that what you mean? Or by "clarifying" do you mean that you want it enshrined as something legal?

I am not sure why giving an individual a choice is 'undemocratic'. You should know that just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right.

And yes, I would like equal protection for men and women. Men deserve the same respect for their bodies that women enjoy. And what' wrong with that?

maybe we should bring back female circumcision?

Now you're thinking jaxcoop, DeniG would you like to help revive that beautiful tradition? I hear it helps keep women clean and pure and has a host of other benefits. :rolleyes:

Prankish

02-02-2010, 12:15

Given that we've had many instances of breast cancer in my family, would it not be beneficial for me to consent to having my daughter's breast tissue removed when she is a minor? There are health benefits in that, however I'd struggle to find an ethical doctor who wouldn't consider it a breach of her rights.

Invalid statement because breast tissue is something that develops during childhood & adolescence and is not there as a baby. A foreskin is always there, and it has no use, such as having breasts with breastfeeding does.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 12:18

Invalid statement because breast tissue is something that develops during childhood & adolescence and is not there as a baby. A foreskin is always there, and it has no use, such as having breasts with breastfeeding does.

Not invalid at all. You could remove the tissue that develops into breast tissue very easily. And you know women with a family history of cancer or who test positive for certain markers greatly reduce their risk for cancer by having them removed.

You know Prankish, if you removed it as infants, they would never remember it, it would be easier to do, and you wouldn't have to complicate the child's life with that kind of decision. Sounds like a win win to me. I can't believe that someone like you wouldn't be all for it.

Fuchsia!

02-02-2010, 12:19

jaxcoop,

I didn't know we ever had it.

A law that made things so that women were forced to have sex exclusively with uncircumcised men would be punishment enough for women. :D (A little flippant but I couldn't resist. The difference isn't extreme. Like I said I just couldn't resist.)

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/spencer93_text.html

As long ago as 1994 the Queensland Law Reform Commission recommended that the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) be made a specific offence. The Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)[1] (http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/spencer93_notes.html#n1) has however only recently been amended to specifically criminalise FGM under sections 323A and 323B. [2] (http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/spencer93_notes.html#n2)

In 1994 there were several anecdotal reports of FGC being practised amongst migrant communities in Australia

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 12:20

Invalid statement because breast tissue is something that develops during childhood & adolescence and is not there as a baby. A foreskin is always there, and it has no use, such as having breasts with breastfeeding does.
No we are born with breast tissue, it just increases in size, just like the penis/ foreskin. foreskin serves a multitude uses. It is there to protect the penis and has thousands of nerve endings.

So it is a very fair and valid comparison.:)

So would you remove your DD's breast tissue?

DeniG

02-02-2010, 12:23

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 12:28

:iagree:

and of course it is a breast not a flap of skin

An earlobe is a flap of skin. :rolleyes:

DeniG

02-02-2010, 12:29

No just like the penis/ foreskin. foreskin serves a multitude uses. It is there to protect the penis and has thousands of nerve endings.

Surely with underwear and an outergarment the penis is sufficiently protected. All who leap to talk about modern western countries and hygiene seem to do a back flip on this one.

The skin on the bottom of a foot has thousands of nerve endings but putting a flap of it over a man's penis wouldn't normally provide much benefit to him. What is your point?

DeniG

02-02-2010, 12:40

How do you know? I mean for starter you wouldn't have to be troubled with cleaning them. :rolleyes: But you know what, if we had been doing it as a tribute to the sky fairy for the last 5,000 years I am sure benefits would be ferreted out. Aren't you?

Can you point to any research that indicates medical benefits from removing earlobes. Didn't the Ancient Egyptians also circumcise or was that later. When did indigenous Australians start?

There may be people who think that but there are actual benefits which can't be obtained otherwise. For example DeniG, could you tell me a better way to prevent Measles or Polio? I'd really like to know. And when are people at risk for those diseases?

Circumcision is an even better way of doing things. It is a one off, less painful procedure so you don't have to go back and torture them time and time. Immunisation is a good idea but it is horrible getting it done.

I am not sure why giving an individual a choice is 'undemocratic'. You should know that just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right.

I didn't say either of those things. I was trying to get clarification about someone who seems to want to criminalise normal behaviour.

And yes, I would like equal protection for men and women. Men deserve the same respect for their bodies that women enjoy. And what' wrong with that?

Yep most women just love their bodies.:rolleyes:

Now you're thinking jaxcoop, DeniG would you like to help revive that beautiful tradition? I hear it helps keep women clean and pure and has a host of other benefits. :rolleyes:

To you and your mate I still don't believe female genital mutilation (which you seem to be conflating with female circumcision) has been an Australian tradition whether or not it has happened here. As regards female circumcision you may be right but it is virtually unheard of anywhere.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 12:40

Surely with underwear and an outergarment the penis is sufficiently protected. All who leap to talk about modern western countries and hygiene seem to do a back flip on this one.

The skin on the bottom of a foot has thousands of nerve endings but putting a flap of it over a man's penis wouldn't normally provide much benefit to him. What is your point?

Underwear and outergarments turn the penis dry and callous much like the bottom of a foot.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 12:47

Can you point to any research that indicates medical benefits from removing earlobes.

Well, you do agree that if you removed them you wouldn't have to clean them don't you? There is a benefit right there. And then after we've been doing it for a while, we can surely ferret out more poor reasons.

Didn't the Ancient Egyptians also circumcise or was that later. When did indigenous Australians start?

Who cares what the Ancients did, they also kept slaves and you know how women were treated then don't you? Perhaps we should go back to that.

Circumcision is an even better way of doing things. It is a one off, less painful procedure so you don't have to go back and torture them time and time. Immunisation is a good idea but it is horrible getting it done.

Torture how? And you didn't answer my question. How else do you protect against Measles, Polio, Diphtheria, and similar diseases? And when are individuals at risk for those diseases?

I didn't say either of those things. I was trying to get clarification about someone who seems to want to criminalise normal behaviour.

It's common behavior not normal behavior.

To you and your mate I still don't believe female genital mutilation (which you seem to be conflating with female circumcision) has been an Australian tradition whether or not it has happened here. As regards female circumcision you may be right but it is virtually unheard of anywhere.

That's because of those no good foreigners making women who practice it hate themselves and their culture. But I suggest we start a campaign to get it going again perhaps we can investigate some additional benefits too.

Tell me would you be willing to go under the knife?

Fuchsia!

02-02-2010, 13:00

To you and your mate I still don't believe female genital mutilation (which you seem to be conflating with female circumcision) has been an Australian tradition whether or not it has happened here. As regards female circumcision you may be right but it is virtually unheard of anywhere.

Well actually in a lot of countries in has only been recently banned for example

Africa brought in the laws in 2006
Eygpt 2007
Ghana 1989
Australia 1994
Italy 2006
New Zealand 1995
England 1985
USA 1996

Its still legal in
Nigeria
Uganda
Indonesia
Yeman

So obviously up until those dates parents had the right to choose what was best for their daughter.

So do you think that they shouldn't have taken those rights off those parents to decide whether they can circumcise their girl??

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 13:04

Well actually in a lot of countries in has only been recently banned for example

Africa brought in the laws in 2006
Eygpt 2007
Ghana 1989
Australia 1994
Italy 2006
New Zealand 1995
England 1985
USA 1996

Its still legal in
Nigeria
Uganda
Indonesia
Yeman

So obviously up until those dates parents had the right to choose what was best for their daughter.

So do you think that they shouldn't have taken those rights off those parents to decide whether they can circumcise their girl??

It really is an outrage and undemocratic that these caring parents can't choose circumcision for their daughters. :(

DeniG

02-02-2010, 13:06

Well, you do agree that if you removed them you wouldn't have to clean them don't you? There is a benefit right there. And then after we've been doing it for a while, we can surely ferret out more poor reasons.

That is my point. Good reasons cf. poor reasons.

Who cares what the Ancients did, they also kept slaves and you know how women were treated then don't you? Perhaps we should go back to that.

I was just questioning whether all ancient circumcisions were religious. I'd like to bring back some of their architecture. I think it is gorgeous.

Torture how? And you didn't answer my question. How else do you protect against Measles, Polio, Diphtheria, and similar diseases? And when are individuals at risk for those diseases?

If you have kids you will discover that immunisation is very painful for them and usually involved 2 or 3 needles with a delay in between. This torture is then repeated after a period of months and again etc. It is a gut wrenching experience for a parent. I can't think of any other way to easily protect against those diseases but if you wanted to go to a lot of trouble... I note that doing nothing wouldn't protect them but their chances of getting diseases commonly immunised against is low and in the case of polio zilch. It has been absent a long time. Likewise I don't believe there has been any cases of diptheria since 1993 so it would be hard to find anyone to catch it from.

It's common behavior not normal behavior.

It is both.

That's because of those no good foreigners making women who practice it hate themselves and their culture. But I suggest we start a campaign to get it going again perhaps we can investigate some additional benefits too.

Tell me would you be willing to go under the knife?

For female circumcision if I found that merely removing the clitoral hood could prevent cancers that require removal of reproductive organs I would be in it. Somehow I suspect that there would be no opposition to it. Women aren't seen as being as valuable as men who are so important we should even value the humble foreskin.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 13:19

That is my point. Good reasons cf. poor reasons.

You didn't answer my question. If you cut off the earlobes, would you have to continue to clean them? Is that not a benefit?

I was just questioning whether all ancient circumcisions were religious. I'd like to bring back some of their architecture. I think it is gorgeous.

Would you like to bring back the slavery? The status of women? Pining for the good ol' days is usually a delusion.

If you have kids you will discover that immunisation is very painful for them and usually involved 2 or 3 needles with a delay in between. This torture is then repeated after a period of months and again etc. It is a gut wrenching experience for a parent. I can't think of any other way to easily protect against those diseases but if you wanted to go to a lot of trouble... I note that doing nothing wouldn't protect them but their chances of getting diseases commonly immunised against is low and in the case of polio zilch. It has been absent a long time. Likewise I don't believe there has been any cases of diptheria since 1993 so it would be hard to find anyone to catch it from.

Perhaps gut retching but there is no practical choice in the matter if you want to protect them from those diseases. And please finish your sentence, "to go to a lot of trouble.." how? There is no other way to protect from those diseases. These are things you can get from nothing more than circulating in public, breathing the same air as someone else in many cases. Unimmunized individuals have greater than 90% chance of contracting Measles if they are merely in the same room as someone who is a carrier. So tell me how else do you protect from those diseases?

It is both.

No, it's common but not normal.

For female circumcision if I found that merely removing the clitoral hood could prevent cancers that require removal of reproductive organs I would be in it. Somehow I suspect that there would be no opposition to it. Women aren't seen as being as valuable as men who are so important we should even value the humble foreskin.

Somehow I think you're wrong. I am betting that if anyone suggested touch a women in any way our ears would split so deafening would the screams of opposition be. No matter how solid the finding. But I am glad to hear you're all for it. Here is a study that found circumcised women were at less risk to contract HIV http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 so are you going to spread your legs and get the cut?

I hear it looks better too and men appreciate the tighter feel. :rolleyes:

RedPanda

02-02-2010, 13:40

If removal of the clitoris was proven to prevent cancer in the genital area, I still wouldn't do it. Not to myself, and certainly not routinely to an infant. There are many areas of the body that can be cancerous and I haven't removed them. Why would the clitoral hood be any different to my decision to keep my breasts, my appendix, my spleen etc?

Prankish

02-02-2010, 13:45

No we are born with breast tissue, it just increases in size, just like the penis/ foreskin. foreskin serves a multitude uses. It is there to protect the penis and has thousands of nerve endings.

Yeah sometimes the penis grows faster than the opening of the foreskin does which is a medical condition called phimosis and looks disgusting. This can potentially turn into 'paraphimosis' and is a medical emergency. The age at when this is likely to happen is when the boy is in teen years and experimenting sexually, however shy to talk about problems he might be having.

What exactly is the foreskin's purpose? I have got rid of mine and I know it didn't serve me any purpose at all, was actually more of a liability than an asset. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that one?

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 14:19

Yeah sometimes the penis grows faster than the opening of the foreskin does which is a medical condition called phimosis and looks disgusting. This can potentially turn into 'paraphimosis' and is a medical emergency. ?

Phimosis and Paraphimosis have allready been disicussed ( I shal try and find a link) and it has been proven that Paraphimosis is very rare, moreover it isn't worth RICing because the risks of RIC outweigh the beinfits of such a rare occurence.

The age at when this is likely to happen is when the boy is in teen years and experimenting sexually, however shy to talk about problems he might be having.

Often teens discover that through cricumcision their penis has been damaged and this too can cause many issues. imagine feeling like you are the only one who has sexual problems due to a botched circumcision. Often no one but the individual knows about it.

What exactly is the foreskin's purpose? I have got rid of mine and I know it didn't serve me any purpose at all, was actually more of a liability than an asset. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that one?

Maybe you feel it didn't serve you any purpose, however many men feel it does and unfortunately others will never get the chance to decide for themselves.

I happen to feel it protects the penis and my son has a right to all his nerve endings and sensations. Why should any one be able to take that choice away?

if he doesn't feel it has any benifits he is free to decide for himself when he grows up.

Prankish

02-02-2010, 15:00

Phimosis and Paraphimosis have allready been disicussed ( I shal try and find a link) and it has been proven that Paraphimosis is very rare, moreover it isn't worth RICing because the risks of RIC outweigh the beinfits of such a rare occurence.

Often teens discover that through cricumcision their penis has been damaged and this too can cause many issues. imagine feeling like you are the only one who has sexual problems due to a botched circumcision. Often no one but the individual knows about it.

Maybe you feel it didn't serve you any purpose, however many men feel it does and unfortunately others will never get the chance to decide for themselves.

I happen to feel it protects the penis and my son has a right to all his nerve endings and sensations. Why should any one be able to take that choice away?

if he doesn't feel it has any benifits he is free to decide for himself when he grows up.

All you have is 'a feeling' in your head. I am the only poster here who 'knows' what that difference of feeling actually is, and therefore I feel I have ultimate authority on the subject, knowing 'exactly' what the feeling actually is, rather than 'I have a feeling' or 'my hunch is'. They just don't have any weight. Thats just the way it is.

How do you know phimosis or paraphimosis is rare? It's news to me that they have statistics for this. How do they collect statistics for this?

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 15:34

All you have is 'a feeling' in your head. I am the only poster here who 'knows' what that difference of feeling actually is, and therefore I feel I have ultimate authority on the subject, knowing 'exactly' what the feeling actually is, rather than 'I have a feeling' or 'my hunch is'. They just don't have any weight. Thats just the way it is.

How do you know phimosis or paraphimosis is rare? It's news to me that they have statistics for this. How do they collect statistics for this?
I'll say this- I have big breasts:), I may feel that they give me health problems and serve no purpose and that I should have a reduction.

After a reduction I may feel that it is the best thing I have ever done. I would be an expert on my breasts before and after a reduction, however I am not an expert on other womens breasts and have no right to insist they all get a reduction. That would be ludicrous. We are all different.

In fact, virtually all of the 290 medically indicated circumcisions were for phimosis (ie non-retractile foreskin) - and this is a condition that can in the vast majority of cases be treated without circumcision (usually steroid cream). This is why the rate of adult circumcision for phimosis (and therefore the total adult rate) has been falling throughout the developed world for the past two decades.

The most recent published study comes from Scotland, which examined all circumcisions performed there from 1990 to 2000. They found:

A total of 15,605 circumcisions were performed during the 10-year period; 10,888 (69.8%) for phimosis, 2,724 (17.5%) for nonmedical/religious reasons, and 1993 (12.8%) for all other indications. There was a 33.7% decrease in total number of circumcisions performed between the first and second halves of the study period. The fall in operations performed is almost solely attributable (94.5%) to a reduction in number of procedures carried out for phimosis.

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=6692&highlight=phimosis&page=5

Paraphimosis

Paraphimosis refers to a condition in which the foreskin has been retracted from the glans but becomes trapped there and cannot be brought forward to cover it again. In most cases the problem can be solved by gently compressing the glans by squeezing it and allowing the foreskin to fall forward, but in rare cases (where the condition has persisted for a long time and the foreskin has become swollen and threatens to strangle the penis), urgent medical attention is needed. In the meantime ice may help.
Paraphimosis in infants and young boys is often caused by attempts at premature retraction, and can easily be prevented by observing the golden rule of foreskin care: leave it alone; don't try to pull it back. Some pro-circumcision websites urge uncircumcised men to draw their foreskins back and wear them retracted, so as to get the feel of a bare glans, which is supposed to be pleasantly like being circumcised. Quite apart from the fact that such a condition is nothing like being circumcised (the foreskin, after all, is still there), the exercise is very risky and can induce a genuine paraphimosis (inability to return the foreskin to its normal, position) that may require surgery. The eighteenth century English physician William Buchan reported the case (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/Phimosis_History.html) of a "foolish young man" who tried this trick to keep his glans cool, but whose foreskin became inflamed and suffered permanent damage. The foreskin is meant to cover the glans, and attempts to keep it back are likely to end in tears.
http://www.circinfo.org/phimosis.html

The problem with phimosis is that people are messing with something that aint broke and they try to fix it.:dizzy:

Prankish

02-02-2010, 17:22

The problem with phimosis is that people are messing with something that aint broke and they try to fix it.:dizzy:

Wha? I don't get what you are saying here. Your saying a tight rigid band that prevents foreskin retraction is NORMAL and shouldn't be addressed? You gotta be kidding me.

I'm not saying that I know more than other men who have had the procedure also and can also comment, never the less, their comments post op are equally as positive. What I am saying though, is I certainly know more and experienced more about the subject than you and most people on this forum, however.

Before the circ, all the inactivists would say is that fine, go ahead and get the circ, you will regret it and come crying back. Now that I have had the circ, they can no longer use that argument, but they always come back with something, no matter how random. It's ridiculous.

I just don't understand what you are basing your arguments from. I base my arguments from my own personal positive experience and knowledge on the subject. You seem to be basing them off some sort of inactivist hand book or something. I think my reasons for the debate hold a lot more value personally.

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 19:14

Wha? I don't get what you are saying here. Your saying a tight rigid band that prevents foreskin retraction is NORMAL and shouldn't be addressed? You gotta be kidding me.

Here is what I am talking about.
[QUOTE]Paraphimosis in infants and young boys is often caused by attempts at premature retraction, and can easily be prevented by observing the golden rule of foreskin care: leave it alone; don't try to pull it back.

I'm not saying that I know more than other men who have had the procedure also and can also comment, never the less, their comments post op are equally as positive. What I am saying though, is I certainly know more and experienced more about the subject than you and most people on this forum, however.

That's nice, and men should all be able to decide for themselves, and then you can do more back patting and talk about how great it is. Funnily enough uncirc's men just don't seem to be lining up. Why do all babies have to be forced to be done because of how you feel?

Before the circ, all the inactivists would say is that fine, go ahead and get the circ, you will regret it and come crying back. Now that I have had the circ, they can no longer use that argument, but they always come back with something, no matter how random. It's ridiculous.

Basic human rights are not random nor ridiculous. Everyone should have them.
I also didn't realise you were heavily involved in the debate before you got them done.

I just don't understand what you are basing your arguments from. I base my arguments from my own personal positive experience and knowledge on the subject. You seem to be basing them off some sort of inactivist hand book or something.

I am basing my arguments on the fact that everyone, women and men should be left completely intact where possible and be able to make their own choices as an adult with all the information available to them.

I am basing my argument on the fact that the health benifits of circ have been disproven and thus no medical bodies will recomend it.

I am basing my arguments on the fact that it can CAUSE SEXUAL PROBLEMS WHEN CIRCS GO WRONG.

I am basing my arguments on the fact that any medical procedure puts your life at risk. Babies lives shouldn't be gambled with over a cosmetic procedure.

As for being an inactivist:laughing:, do you know what activist means, thus inactivist is the opposite to.

An Inactivist would stand by and do nothing while baby boys were harmed in the name of tradition.

I think my reasons for the debate hold a lot more value personally.

And I don't. I care about the well being of all children, i'm not basing my thoughts on some wacky notion that everyone should be just like me and be altered at birth because I like it better.

i am basing it on the fact that every individual should have a choice.

You had a choice to have it done, why would you remove that choice from others, others who may not want it done?

Opinionated

02-02-2010, 19:20

Okay then. It seems like you all hate the earlobe example. How about an appendix? In modern man, the appendix has absolutely no function. NIL. It does nothing. What it can do though is become an area in the intestine where waste products become lodged, leading to infection and gangrene. When it ruptures, it spills it's infected contents into the peritoneal cavity (the bit that holds all your intestines). This causes peritonitis, a serious infection which can often cause death. My uncle died of peritonitis. I was lucky, my appendix ruptured during surgery and they cleaned a lot of the gunk out and put me on massive doses of antibiotics. More than 50% of both men and women in my family have had their appendix removed by the time they are middle aged.

Should I just find myself a surgeon to get my kids appendixes removed now? No, because no doctor in their right mind would perform a procedure which has risks to the patient that does not offer some measurable benefit. My children may live long lives and never suffer appendicitis. Arguing that it may prevent a life threatening and dangerous illness is not cause enough. It wouldn't pass an ethics committee. Unless the appendix is causing a problem, it is left alone. Foreskins are not afforded the same consideration but I think they should be. They actually have a multitude of functions and cause much less trouble than an appendix.

As for your penis Prankish, we are all so glad you love it. However, you loving the procedure you had done is no reason to advocate the procedure for all. I love my appendectomy. It probably saved my life. I don't think that everyone should race out and find a surgeon to have theirs out to remove the chance of problems and nor do I think that children should routinely have their appendix removed. That would just be plain silly.

~Candy~

02-02-2010, 19:27

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 19:36

I'm sure if the removal of the appendix was as simple as the removal of the foreskin...it would be a routine thing done as a choice.
Simple is not what I would call it.

Any way choice being the word we should focus on.

Appendix does not effect your life in a major way the way a missing foreskin can and does for some men.

Besides no ethical dr would preform an uneccessary surgey on a baby.

Opinionated

02-02-2010, 20:02

Candy, with keyhole surgery, appendectomies are day procedures. Not that bad at all and I only needed panadol afterwards. The reason they are not performed is that it is unethical to perform surgery unless it is warranted. For some reason though, circumcision is excepted from medical ethics.:detective:

andrewJ

02-02-2010, 20:07

You seem to equate circumcision with a breach of bodily integrity.

yes, obviously. I can only suggest that you dont know what the word 'integrity' means.

Given the potential medical benefits of circumcision it is the opposite.

A POTENTIAL disease is not a disease, and A POTENTIAL benefit, is not a benefit.

name a body part, and i can write a list of potential benefits in removing it. (ad hoc justifications, just like the ones for circ).

But i really cannot be bothered to go through this same ridiculous argument again.

Phyllis Stein

02-02-2010, 20:22

I just don't understand what you are basing your arguments from. I base my arguments from my own personal positive experience and knowledge on the subject. You seem to be basing them off some sort of inactivist hand book or something. I think my reasons for the debate hold a lot more value personally.

Yours is the *least* valid basis for an argument. You are one person, your argument, as based on your experience, is inherently limited. I could just as easily counter with my brother-in-law's circ story, or my husband's positive feelings in regard to his intact foreskin. I don't, or at least I wouldn't expect to be taken as an authority on the subject if I did.

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughout life, conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was a uni module in human rights, and another in theories of violence. Surely you can't dismiss other's highly varied and often extensive, though indirect education on circumcision, simply because you, one individual happen to really, really like your circed penis?

As for your penis Prankish, we are all so glad you love it.

:thumbsup:

Prankish

02-02-2010, 21:22

[QUOTE=Prankish;4451228]Wha? I don't get what you are saying here. Your saying a tight rigid band that prevents foreskin retraction is NORMAL and shouldn't be addressed? You gotta be kidding me.

Here is what I am talking about.

That's nice, and men should all be able to decide for themselves, and then you can do more back patting and talk about how great it is. Funnily enough uncirc's men just don't seem to be lining up. Why do all babies have to be forced to be done because of how you feel?

Basic human rights are not random nor ridiculous. Everyone should have them.
I also didn't realise you were heavily involved in the debate before you got them done.

i am basing my arguments on the fact that everyone women and men should be left completely intact where possible and be able to make their own chopices as an adult with all the information available to them.

I am basing my argument on the fact that the health benifits of circ have been disproven and thus no medical bodies will recomend it.

I am basing my arguments on the fact that it can CAUSE SEXUAL PROBLEMS WHEN CIRCS GO WRONG.

I am basing my arguments on the fact that any medical procedure puts your life at risk. Babies lives shouldn't be gambled with over a cosmetic procedure.

As for being an inactivist:laughing:, do you know what activist means, thus inactivist is the opposite to.

An Inactivist would stand by and do nothing while baby boys were harmed in the name of tradition.

And I don't. I care about the well being of all children, i'm not basing my thoughts on some wacky notion that everyone should be just like me and be altered at birth because I like it better.

i am basing it on the fact that every individual should have a choice.

You had a choice to have it done, why would you remove that choice from others, others who may not want it done?

An inactivist is you, someone who takes inaction when faced with the choice of circumcision, and forcing those beliefs onto other parents parenting decisions. Simple.

Sure, you shouldn't attempt to pull it back when their one week old, but when their 2 or 3 years you should encourage retraction occasionally in the bath so that by the time their independant, they can clean themselves properly and can fully retract the foreskin in later years so the tight rigid band does not get a chance to form from 'leave it alone'.

I am starting to wonder, if some of the men on here arguing against circ were done themselves in infancy feeling resentment and that is their motivational factor for being here.

You going to have to explain to me in detail the health benefits that have been 'disproven'. I quote that word very specifically. Your comment there suggests ALL heath benefits have been disproven. This I am sure has no basis for truth but your going to have to quote me links to articles explaining this and tell me by what medical board.

Prankish

02-02-2010, 21:31

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 21:31

An inactivist is you, someone who takes inaction when faced with the choice of circumcision,

Huh?:dizzy: Are you serious?:confused: It still doesn't make sense. I choose not to circumcise myself and leave the choice open to all other adults.

and forcing those beliefs onto other parents parenting decisions. Simple.

It is a human rights violation, better to force the parents into not doing something that is a violation of those rights than forcing innocent children to be circ'd.

Sure, you shouldn't attempt to pull it back when their one week old, but when their 2 or 3 years you should encourage retraction occasionally in the bath so that by the time their independant, they can clean themselves properly and can fully retract the foreskin in later years so the tight rigid band does not get a chance to form from 'leave it alone'.

No one but the child should pull it back and they do so in their own time.

I am starting to wonder, if some of the men on here arguing against circ were done themselves in infancy feeling resentment and that is their motivational factor for being here.

And what if it was, they have a right to be resentful, their bodies wern't respected in a major way.

Again I ask you- You had a choice to have it done, why would you remove that choice from others, others who may not want it done?

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 21:34

Actually, the appendix may have functions that are not very well understood.

Much like foreskin;), which is why no one should be forced to have either removed.

Prankish

02-02-2010, 21:35

I'm sure if the removal of the appendix was as simple as the removal of the foreskin...it would be a routine thing done as a choice.

Removal of foreskin at birth is a quick and simple 10 - 15 minute procedure.

Removal of the appendix at birth would be a major operation, and would be too risky to administer a general to an infant.

Seen all the work arounds for the circ debate comparing with other body parts and the comparison just doesn't work.

Father

02-02-2010, 21:35

A POTENTIAL disease is not a disease, and A POTENTIAL benefit, is not a benefit.

A POTENTIAL complication is not a complication. A POTENTIAL psychological disorder is not a psychological disorder.

Would you like to enlighten us yet AndrewJ as to why you are so unhappy to be circumcised?

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughout life, conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was a uni module in human rights, and another in theories of violence.

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughtout life (non-sexual), conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was the fact that I am circumcised myself and we circumcised our boy and have found that most of the propoganda out there is just propoganda. Scare tactics by intactivists.

Prankish. I hear all that you are saying mate. But it's hard for these people to listen. Unfortunately they do not respect other peoples ability to be parents to their own children if they have a different opinion.

Prankish

02-02-2010, 21:40

Huh?:dizzy: Are you serious?:confused: It still doesn't make sense. I choose not to circumcise myself and leave the choice open to all other adults.

It is a human rights violation, better to force the parents into not doing something that is a violation of those rights than forcing innocent children to be circ'd.

No one but the child should pull it back and they do so in their own time.

And what if it was, they have a right to be resentful, their bodies wern't respected in a major way.

Again I ask you- You had a choice to have it done, why would you remove that choice from others, others who may not want it done?

Inactivist = taking inaction, ie, taking no action, when faced with a choice. Whats hard to understand?

If you do not educate the boys on how it should be done, then who is going to teach them? This is quite flawed logic. Didn't your dad teach you how to shave or did you 'figure it all out on your own time'. Didn't your dad give you the 'father' talk about sex? If you were raised into a prudish lifestyle, I could only understand.

Father

02-02-2010, 21:45

SSP:

Some pro-circumcision websites urge uncircumcised men to draw their foreskins back and wear them retracted, so as to get the feel of a bare glans, which is supposed to be pleasantly like being circumcised. Quite apart from the fact that such a condition is nothing like being circumcised (the foreskin, after all, is still there), the exercise is very risky and can induce a genuine paraphimosis (inability to return the foreskin to its normal, position) that may require surgery. The eighteenth century English physician William Buchan reported the case (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/Phimosis_History.html) of a "foolish young man" who tried this trick to keep his glans cool, but whose foreskin became inflamed and suffered permanent damage. The foreskin is meant to cover the glans, and attempts to keep it back are likely to end in tears.

Do you even read your own posts SSP?
Are you confident that you will find 'pro-circ' sites that actually suggest this?
And 1 x physician in the 1700's saw this guy that wore his foreskin back.
That is a really interesting story. But I have no idea what point you are trying to make by providing those quotes.
Maybe you are trying to highlight how factual some anti-circ websites can be?

Prankish

02-02-2010, 21:46

Yours is the *least* valid basis for an argument. You are one person, your argument, as based on your experience, is inherently limited. I could just as easily counter with my brother-in-law's circ story, or my husband's positive feelings in regard to his intact foreskin. I don't, or at least I wouldn't expect to be taken as an authority on the subject if I did.

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughout life, conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was a uni module in human rights, and another in theories of violence. Surely you can't dismiss other's highly varied and often extensive, though indirect education on circumcision, simply because you, one individual happen to really, really like your circed penis?

:thumbsup:

And you are only 'one' person debating with me. I personally think my experience give me much more authority on the subject. That is what I think.

You say I am only 'one' person, in that, a major consensus would win the argument, yet, when I also mention that hundreds of millions of parents circumcise their sons, I'm also told that doesn't make it right, either.

So how many do I need to agree with me to make it right? it must be somewhere in between one and hundreds of millions. About 500,000? 1 Mil? 5 Mil? You gotta enlighten me.

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 21:51

A POTENTIAL complication is not a complication. A POTENTIAL psychological disorder is not a psychological disorder.

Yes no one is saying it is, but why risk it? For potential benifit that is highly unlikely anyways? Doesn't seem like a good idea.

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughtout life (non-sexual), conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was the fact that I am circumcised myself and we circumcised our boy and have found that most of the propoganda out there is just propoganda. Scare tactics by intactivists.

This inactivist word that keeps cropping up is becomming really creepy, it sounds like something I once read on a circumfetish site. Not saying you belong to one, just letting you know, and it makes me a little ill. (side note it doesn't even make sense).

Prankish. I hear all that you are saying mate. But it's hard for these people to listen. Unfortunately they do not respect other peoples ability to be parents to their own children if they have a different opinion.

I respect peoples abilities to decide for themselves, that is far more important. I don't understand why you can't see it.

Prankish

02-02-2010, 22:08

Yes no one is saying it is, but why risk it? For potential benifit that is highly unlikely anyways? Doesn't seem like a good idea.

This inactivist word that keeps cropping up is becomming really creepy, it sounds like something I once read on a circumfetish site. Not saying you belong to one, just letting you know, and it makes me a little ill. (side note it doesn't even make sense).

I respect peoples abilities to decide for themselves, that is far more important. I don't understand why you can't see it.

I just don't understand why you would not even bring the subject of circumcision with a son though. You debate it so passionately on the forum, yet you want to shield him from it. I don't understand why any parent would do that if they have an opinion on it, like all others do. If your true position is ONLY against the infant aspect of circ, then why wouldn't the subject even been mentioned when almost everything in life is passed on down to the next generation.

The ONLY reason I can see for this, is if you believe that circ is *just* all out bad. If you believe all the rubbish about nerve endings or sensation being lost. Now I have come in here and disproved that, you have to tell me what your position is on this now.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 22:40

So how many do I need to agree with me to make it right? it must be somewhere in between one and hundreds of millions. About 500,000? 1 Mil? 5 Mil? You gotta enlighten me.

How many men who are upset that their parents did something to them that had no purpose and could have been done, if they wanted it, as an adult do there need to be before people like you are willing to give all men the dignity of the choice you enjoyed?

You gotta enlighten me.

http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/

Father

02-02-2010, 22:44

Are you a member of that site Fellow traveler?

Prankish

02-02-2010, 22:45

How many men who are upset that their parents did something to them that had no purpose and could have been done, if they wanted it, as an adult do there need to be before people like you are willing to give all men the dignity of the choice you enjoyed?

You gotta enlighten me.

http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/

Never said I want all boys and infants done. Said it should be the parents choice. Thats all my position has been all along. You contine to blow this all out of proportion.

Fellow Traveler

02-02-2010, 23:16

Are you a member of that site Fellow traveler?

No, I am not.

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 23:19

[text removed by moderator]

Not irrelevant at all. How could it be?:confused:

Gemmell and Boyle (2001) surveyed 162 self-selected men (121 circumcised; 41 intact) and found that circumcised men reported significantly less penile sensation as compared with genitally intact men. Participants rated their current level of penile sensation (on a scale from 1 to 10) as compared with that experienced at age 18 years (allocated 10 out of 10). Circumcised men complained significantly more often than did genitally intact men of a progressive decline in penile sensation throughout their adult years--presumably due to increasing keratinisation of the exposed glans and inner foreskin remnant in circumcised men. Gemmell and Boyle also found that a significantly higher proportion of circumcised as compared with intact men reported bowing or curvature of the penis (also reported by Lawrence, 1997), shaft skin uncomfortably/painfully tight when erect, and scars/damage to the penis. Although the frenulum was reported as an area of heightened erogenous sensitivity, in the typical circumcised male, either no frenulum remains or only a small severely damaged remnant exists. The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well-documented (Cold & McGrath, 1999; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Fleiss, 1997; Taylor et al., 1996), and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings--many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males (Immerman & Mackey, 1998; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999).

Those guys ^^^ and my DH, has said of course he would have less sensation, he has less skin, tissue and nerves, but he doesn't know any difference and he'd love to know what it was, sadly this option has been taken from him.

Prankish

02-02-2010, 23:30

sockstealingpoltergeist

02-02-2010, 23:35

I have seen that survey before and that particular survey is a false lie generated by the anti-circ propaganda.

Don't believe into the lies.

That fact before is irrelevant because I have experienced it, found it better, and found that 'foreskin nerve endings' are in no correlation to sexual sensation.
That is an oxymoron if ever I have heard one.
If you take something away you have less of it. Nerve endings give you feelings and sensations, taking them away would equal less. It's simple maths.

Prove that the study is a lie.

02-02-2010, 23:38

Back to answering the OP (though after reading the last few posts I can only just recall it).....
I have no problem with adult circumcision, because it's the man's choice. We left DS intact so that he too can decide for himself if the need/want arises to do so.

The man mentioned in the OP may well wish his parents had circumcised him, but he is really lucky (IMO) that the choice was his to make and wasn't taken away from him.

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 00:34

Never said I want all boys and infants done. Said it should be the parents choice. Thats all my position has been all along. You contine to blow this all out of proportion.

I don't see how I am blowing this out of proportion. I asked a simple question I expect a simple answer. How many men have to be disgruntled by their routine infant circumcisions before we give the choice to the only one who can really evaluate its impact on their life?

The men on those boards are unhappy about it for whatever reason. What is the practical reason to have taken their choice away.

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 00:37

Pippi Longstocking

03-02-2010, 07:16

An inactivist is you, someone who takes inaction when faced with the choice of circumcision, and forcing those beliefs onto other parents parenting decisions. Simple. No, you're wrong. :) I suspect you've simply misspelled "Intactivist" an intactivist is someone who campaigns against any unnecessary infant genital modification on the basis that it is a human rights violation. "Inactivist" can be used to describe someone that only half-heartedly supports a cause - that's hardly the case here given that those that oppose RIC have been called all manner of things suggesting an overly-zealous approach to actively objecting to RIC. :cool:

Sure, you shouldn't attempt to pull it back when their one week old, but when their 2 or 3 years you should encourage retraction occasionally in the bath so that by the time their independant, they can clean themselves properly and can fully retract the foreskin in later years so the tight rigid band does not get a chance to form from 'leave it alone'.No no no! This is dangerous misinformation. Children should not be taught to try to retract their foreskin. They will do so, all by themselves, when it loosens naturally. Encouraging children to retract an immature foreskin can and does lead to the very condition SSP was talking about - phimosis.

I am starting to wonder, if some of the men on here arguing against circ were done themselves in infancy feeling resentment and that is their motivational factor for being here.Possibly. It's a fairly valid thing to be resentful about. I would be very very angry if my parents had taken it upon themselves to modify my genitals to match their own preferences. If men are here for that reason, good for them and I hope we can offer them the support they need. And if indeed it is the case, we couldn't really call them "inactivists" could we?! ;)

You going to have to explain to me in detail the health benefits that have been 'disproven'. I quote that word very specifically. Your comment there suggests ALL heath benefits have been disproven. This I am sure has no basis for truth but your going to have to quote me links to articles explaining this and tell me by what medical board.Let's start waaaay back at the beginning. Circumcision used to be performed to curb masturbation, which was believed to have brought about all manner of woes, including insanity, epilepsy, hysteria, tuberculosis, short-sightedness, and death. Hopefully no one here would believe that circumcision could assist in preventing any of the above these days, but they are some of the fairly well disproven mythical health benefits.
It'll be easier to refute your claims if you list the specific health benefits you are interested in, rather than me sitting here doing your research for you and pre-emptively guess at any perceived health benefits you may offer as a valid reason to perform circumcision on an infant. I think pretty much all of them can be debunked, at least on some level, and enough to make circumcision for health reasons an oxymoron, given the inherent danger in any surgical procedure performed on a newborn.

1 x uni module in human rights and another in theories of violence. Well...... I take my hat off to you. Sounds like you are very qualified on circumcisions then. (sarcastic tone). Rude and offensive sarcasm could win you an infraction if someone takes it upon themselves to report your post. You might want to edit that. :)

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughtout life (non-sexual), conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was the fact that I am circumcised myself and we circumcised our boy and have found that most of the propoganda out there is just propoganda. Scare tactics by intactivists.We all bring something to the discussion. The point is though, simply being circumcised yourself doesn't really give you the higher ground in the debate. I'd argue it actually detracts from your argument, given that you don't actually have the body part we are discussing here.

Prankish. I hear all that you are saying mate. But it's hard for these people to listen. Unfortunately they do not respect other peoples ability to be parents to their own children if they have a different opinion.
Au contraire. It's very easy for me to listen, to reflect and to critique misinformation. I'm sorry you're not feeling heard - perhaps it's in the delivery?

The ONLY reason I can see for this, is if you believe that circ is *just* all out bad. If you believe all the rubbish about nerve endings or sensation being lost. Now I have come in here and disproved that, you have to tell me what your position is on this now.Dude, "Rubbish about nerve endings"?! The foreskin has the largest number of nerve receptors and also the greatest variety of nerve receptors than the rest of the entire penis! These include Meissner's corpuscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner%27s_corpuscles), free nerve endings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_nerve_endings), end bulbs of Krause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_bulbs_of_Krause), corpuscles of Ruffini, Pacinian corpuscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacinian_corpuscle), genital end bulbs, genital bodies, Merkel's disks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkel%27s_disks), Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles, and Vater-Pacinian corpuscles.
It cannot be argued that the foreskin is "a useless flap of skin". It is a functionable, nerve-rich, protective and entirely awesome part of anatomy. (I'm too lazy to hyperlionk all of the above but I am sure you can wiki any you want to know more about).
Prankish, as others have said, I am (genuinely) truly happy that you are pleased with your circumcision. You have achieved the very goal I argue for - true, informed choice. I have spoken to my children about circumcision. Actually, my 11yo son knows he has a truly atrocious middle name because that was my compromise - his father wanted him altered and I would absolutely not consent. My son is very grateful, although does want to change his middle name legally. :p He is able to do that, but he would not be able to change the decision had his father's wishes been adhered to.

I have seen that survey before and that particular survey is a false lie generated by the anti-circ propaganda.

Don't believe into the lies. You'll have to refute the study with a little more than that if you expect your argument to be taken seriously.

That fact before is irrelevant because I have experienced it, found it better, and found that 'foreskin nerve endings' are in no correlation to sexual sensation.Perhaps for you, in your limited subjective personal experience. But anecdata does not a study make.

Phyllis Stein

03-02-2010, 07:50

1 x uni module in human rights and another in theories of violence. Well...... I take my hat off to you. Sounds like you are very qualified on circumcisions then.

Thanks. :goodvibes: And no, I'm not an expert on circumcision, per se, simply familiar with the compelling arguments that equate RIC with a human rights violation. :) I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it's widely recognised as such.

My argument is based on interactions with various men throughtout life (non-sexual), conversations with health professionals, extensive reading of medical journals and lurking on both pro and anti circ sites. But probably the most important factor of all was the fact that I am circumcised myself and we circumcised our boy and have found that most of the propoganda out there is just propoganda. Scare tactics by intactivists.

I'm not sure which "propaganda" could possibly have been nagated by your individual experience. The primary argument against RIC is that it should be the choice of the mature man to make, unless medically indicated.

And you are only 'one' person debating with me. I personally think my experience give me much more authority on the subject. That is what I think.

You say I am only 'one' person, in that, a major consensus would win the argument, yet, when I also mention that hundreds of millions of parents circumcise their sons, I'm also told that doesn't make it right, either.

So how many do I need to agree with me to make it right? it must be somewhere in between one and hundreds of millions. About 500,000? 1 Mil? 5 Mil? You gotta enlighten me.

You misunderstood my point. You expect us to respect your authority on the subject, when any other individual could just as easily have an opposite first hand experience and perspective on circumcision. A more objective argument looks at the broader surrounding issues, such as the body of medical evidence, ethical and philosophical understandings and historical and cultural contexts.

Prankish, if anything, your happy and personally satisfying experience simply reaffirms the necessity to provide all men with the choice as to how their penis looks and functions. That even a minority of men (and I'd wager the numbers will rise drastically over time) are deeply angry and resentful at the loss of such choice simply proves that bodily autonomy must be respected above all else, except valid medical need.

Opinionated

03-02-2010, 08:29

*groan* I can't even be bothered responding to any of the previous posts any more.

Back to the OP. I have absolutely no problem with circumcision. In my life I have had multible sexual experiences but only 2 long term partners, 1 circumcised, 1 not. They both were able to function perfectly well regardless of their circ status. My circumcised partner did have a little scarring and some loss of sensation in a small area, probably due to a not very experienced person performing his circumcision as a newborn. Both my partners were/are perfectly able to function with the penis they had/have, never suffered any sort of penile infection or problem in the time we were/are together and were both equally clean due to a daily or twice daily shower. My intact partner has one more thing though- choice. His has not been taken away from him. He could decide to be circumcised if he wanted to. My circumcised partner could never choose to be intact.

Prankish, despite your assertion that a man can just stretch some of the remaining tissue, some men have no remaining tissue. My partner had an area of scar tissue completly around his penis about 3-4mm wide, all of his foreskin is gone and I think some of the skin from his shaft was taken too. There is no raised band of remaining skin to stretch, in fact the scar is slightly indented.

I am all for circumcision. If an adult wants to have a circumcised penis, go for it. I just don't see why parents think that choosing something that can never be reversed is a good option for an infant. Our job as parents is to love, nurture and care for our children. I don't see how removing a perfectly healthy piece of anatomy "just in case" falls into that role. Every human being should have an equal chance to decide how their body looks, regardless of their gender. Unfortunately in this country, male children have less rights than female children and their parents can have part of their genitals removed. It is unjust.

Prankish

03-02-2010, 09:29

No no no! This is dangerous misinformation. Children should not be taught to try to retract their foreskin. They will do so, all by themselves, when it loosens naturally. Encouraging children to retract an immature foreskin can and does lead to the very condition SSP was talking about - phimosis.

Hoe exactly does promoting more regular retraction have an opposite effect like phimosis? I suppose you also think that regular retraction will result in an infection, or something.

It'll be easier to refute your claims if you list the specific health benefits you are interested in, rather than me sitting here doing your research for you and pre-emptively guess at any perceived health benefits you may offer as a valid reason to perform circumcision on an infant. I think pretty much all of them can be debunked, at least on some level, and enough to make circumcision for health reasons an oxymoron, given the inherent danger in any surgical procedure performed on a newborn.

Lets start with the article I posted in the other thread before it got mass-hijacked by the anti-circers.

Then lets move onto trying to disprove the mass-circumcision trials in SA & Uganda.

Dude, "Rubbish about nerve endings"?! The foreskin has the largest number of nerve receptors and also the greatest variety of nerve receptors than the rest of the entire penis! These include Meissner's corpuscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner%27s_corpuscles), free nerve endings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_nerve_endings), end bulbs of Krause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_bulbs_of_Krause), corpuscles of Ruffini, Pacinian corpuscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacinian_corpuscle), genital end bulbs, genital bodies, Merkel's disks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkel%27s_disks), Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles, and Vater-Pacinian corpuscles.
It cannot be argued that the foreskin is "a useless flap of skin". It is a functionable, nerve-rich, protective and entirely awesome part of anatomy. (I'm too lazy to hyperlionk all of the above but I am sure you can wiki any you want to know more about).

You just don't get it that regardless of what the foreskin contains, that is all irrelevant to me, and no explaining the contents of the foreskin or it's function could possibly swing me to believe that the foreskin is an 'entirely awesome part of anatomy'.

Studying the aspects of the anatomy on paper doesn't really make anyone an expert. The one with the knowledge of the practible is always going to be more informed about what really the difference is vs the one with the theory.

You'll have to refute the study with a little more than that if you expect your argument to be taken seriously.

The study I knew of years ago and well established amoung the pro-circ community that it is a generated lie by the anti-circers.

Perhaps for you, in your limited subjective personal experience. But anecdata does not a study make.

What?

Prankish

03-02-2010, 09:36

Prankish, despite your assertion that a man can just stretch some of the remaining tissue, some men have no remaining tissue. My partner had an area of scar tissue completly around his penis about 3-4mm wide, all of his foreskin is gone and I think some of the skin from his shaft was taken too. There is no raised band of remaining skin to stretch, in fact the scar is slightly indented.

Raised band of skin to stretch? What are you talking about? All circs can be stretched, even very tight ones can be, and will naturally over time.

No remaining tissue means that all the shaft skin was taken off. You have to explain better to me.

andrewJ

03-02-2010, 10:23

You just don't get it that regardless of what the foreskin contains, that is all irrelevant to me, and no explaining the contents of the foreskin or it's function could possibly swing me to believe that the foreskin is an 'entirely awesome part of anatomy'.

nobody is trying to convince you that the foreskin is awesome.
we are trying to convince that many people think it is. You dont happen to be one of them, but many people are.

you seem to have a real problem with the idea that people dont have to necessarily share your opinion.

sockstealingpoltergeist

03-02-2010, 10:43

Hoe exactly does promoting more regular retraction have an opposite effect like phimosis? I suppose you also think that regular retraction will result in an infection, or something.

Are you sure you know as much about the penis as you say you do? You never ever retract or encourage early retraction. It can lead to Phimosis, it's very simple really. Any knowledgable Dr will tell you to leave it alone and let boys retract in their own time.

Lets start with the article I posted in the other thread before it got mass-hijacked by the anti-circers.

Then lets move onto trying to disprove the mass-circumcision trials in SA & Uganda.

What article? You will have to link it here.

What mass circ trials?:confused: Link please.

You just don't get it that regardless of what the foreskin contains, that is all irrelevant to me, and no explaining the contents of the foreskin or it's function could possibly swing me to believe that the foreskin is an 'entirely awesome part of anatomy'.

You don't have to, but other men do and you shouldn't be advocating for that right to be taken away.:no:

Studying the aspects of the anatomy on paper doesn't really make anyone an expert. The one with the knowledge of the practible is always going to be more informed about what really the difference is vs the one with the theory.

Excellenet that you are an expert on you. You are not an expert on all men. Perhaps your view has been skewed because of the time you have spent on pro circ sites.

The study I knew of years ago and well established amoung the pro-circ community that it is a generated lie by the anti-circers.

Study please? Please prove it other wise it means nothing.

What?

Originally Posted by Pippi Longstocking http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=4452474#post4452474)
Perhaps for you, in your limited subjective personal experience. But anecdata does not a study make.

03-02-2010, 10:56

Hoe exactly does promoting more regular retraction have an opposite effect like phimosis? I suppose you also think that regular retraction will result in an infection, or something.

This:

Forcible retraction of the foreskin tends to produce tears in the preputial orifice resulting in scarring that may lead to pathologic phimosis.'

Similarly, Pediatrics10 notes that phimosis or paraphimosis is '…usually secondary to infection or trauma from trying to reduce a tight foreskin…' And they add, 'circumferential scarring of the foreskin is not a normal condition and will generally not resolve'.

And even the American Academy of Pediatrics (who formerly discouraged breastfeeding and encouraged regular forced retraction of intact boys) has now changed its policy:
'Caring for your son's uncircumcised penis requires no special action. Remember, foreskin retraction will occur naturally and should never be forced. Once boys begin to bathe themselves, they will need to wash their penis just as they do any other body part.

03-02-2010, 10:57

Sorry, forgot the source:
http://www.kindredmedia.com.au/library_page1/only_clean_what_is_seen_reversing_the_epidemic_of_ forcible_foreskin_retractions/401/1

Opinionated

03-02-2010, 11:04

Raised band of skin to stretch? What are you talking about? All circs can be stretched, even very tight ones can be, and will naturally over time.

No remaining tissue means that all the shaft skin was taken off. You have to explain better to me.

Ok, to be plain, it was like a sausage. Completely smooth. Are you suggesting that a man is to just grab onto some shaft skin and start stretching that?:confused:

DeniG

03-02-2010, 11:15

You didn't answer my question. If you cut off the earlobes, would you have to continue to clean them? Is that not a benefit?

I guess so... why?

Would you like to bring back the slavery? The status of women? Pining for the good ol' days is usually a delusion.

No.

Perhaps gut retching but there is no practical choice in the matter if you want to protect them from those diseases.

To the contrary. There are people like you who think the risk is overly high and it doesn't protect from disease. They see immunisation as a grave evil and want to protect children from the unnecessary medical procedure. I'm glad you don't have the same attitude toward immunisation as you have toward circumcision.

And please finish your sentence, "to go to a lot of trouble.." how? There is no other way to protect from those diseases. These are things you can get from nothing more than circulating in public, breathing the same air as someone else in many cases. Unimmunized individuals have greater than 90% chance of contracting Measles if they are merely in the same room as someone who is a carrier. So tell me how else do you protect from those diseases?

You could isolate them to an extent and ensure that they aren't in public places where other people might have measles. I'm not sure what the current incidence of measles is but it is on the vaccination list so there might not be much around so just living in a modern Western country might get you most of the way.

No, it's common but not normal.

Wrong it is common and normal.

Here is a study that found circumcised women were at less risk to contract HIV http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 so are you going to spread your legs and get the cut?

They are plainly using the term to describe FGM so no need to "spread" just yet.

DeniG

03-02-2010, 11:19

I'll say this- I have big breasts:), I may feel that they give me health problems and serve no purpose and that I should have a reduction.

After a reduction I may feel that it is the best thing I have ever done. I would be an expert on my breasts before and after a reduction, however I am not an expert on other womens breasts and have no right to insist they all get a reduction. That would be ludicrous. We are all different.

He isn't talking about a feeling about health problems. He is referring to the anti-circ myth that the foreskin is more sexual than the glans. He knows the reality. He had a foreskin and he knows the difference before and after. He has an extremely good point.

DeniG

03-02-2010, 11:23

[QUOTE=andrewJ;4451720]yes, obviously. I can only suggest that you dont know what the word 'integrity' means.[QUOTE]

I get it so you think that playing on words with name used to describe the human right.

DeniG

03-02-2010, 11:26

It is a human rights violation, better to force the parents into not doing something that is a violation of those rights than forcing innocent children to be circ'd.

To the contrary. It is a human rights violation to deprive children of the best available medical care.

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 11:37

I guess so... why?

Good. Then we agree that there is a benefit to cutting off the earlobes. Correct?

No.

Why not? You seem so taken by other ancient bronze age practices.

To the contrary. There are people like you who think the risk is overly high and it doesn't protect from disease. They see immunisation as a grave evil and want to protect children from the unnecessary medical procedure. I'm glad you don't have the same attitude toward immunisation as you have toward circumcision.

These people are nothing like me. The case against circumcision is based on rational logical reasoning based on current information. Vaccines are responsible for wiping out disease or reducing it to levels so low most people never know anyone who contracts it. The Measles vaccine is over 90% effective and that is with a disease that infects over 90% of people who come into contact with it. Tell me which disease will circumcision wipe out or even reduce by anything close to that?

You could isolate them to an extent and ensure that they aren't in public places where other people might have measles. I'm not sure what the current incidence of measles is but it is on the vaccination list so there might not be much around so just living in a modern Western country might get you most of the way.

Are you joking? Do you really know how infectious these diseases are? You would have to put your kid in a hermetically sealed bubble and never let him out. Of the 131 cases of measles in the US in the first seven months of 2008, 112 were un-vaccinated children. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26333787/

These two things can't be rationally compared.

Wrong it is common and normal.

Wrong. It's common but not normal.

They are plainly using the term to describe FGM so no need to "spread" just yet.
Why not don't you want what they describe as a significant reduction in your risk of HIV, what about your poor daughters (if you have them). Don't you want to protect them too?

DeniG

03-02-2010, 12:04

Let's start waaaay back at the beginning. Circumcision used to be performed to curb masturbation, which was believed to have brought about all manner of woes, including insanity, epilepsy, hysteria, tuberculosis, short-sightedness, and death. Hopefully no one here would believe that circumcision could assist in preventing any of the above these days, but they are some of the fairly well disproven mythical health benefits.

Yes those things are ridiculous and have been recognised as such. How common a ground for circumcision they were is another question. However I'm glad you raised that issue because the nonsensical masturbation has a modern analogy. Now there is a myth that the foreskin is more significant to sexual response to the glans so we seem to have come a full circle. It is the anti-circs pushing it this time and it isn't just one there are many. That is much more embarassing.

We all bring something to the discussion. The point is though, simply being circumcised yourself doesn't really give you the higher ground in the debate. I'd argue it actually detracts from your argument, given that you don't actually have the body part we are discussing here.

You don't seem to be listening. He was circumcised as an adult. He had it. He knows what it was like to have it as an adult. He had it removed. He knows the difference resulting from a circumcision. It puts him in a very significant place in the debate.

Dude, "Rubbish about nerve endings"?! The foreskin has the largest number of nerve receptors and also the greatest variety of nerve receptors than the rest of the entire penis! These include Meissner's corpuscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner%27s_corpuscles), free nerve endings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_nerve_endings), end bulbs of Krause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_bulbs_of_Krause), corpuscles of Ruffini, Pacinian corpuscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacinian_corpuscle), genital end bulbs, genital bodies, Merkel's disks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkel%27s_disks), Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles, and Vater-Pacinian corpuscles.

Surely you know what he means? Anti-circs spread the myth that the removed foreskin is an integral part of sexual function. That is rubbish and he is in the best position to know.

It cannot be argued that the foreskin is "a useless flap of skin". It is a functionable, nerve-rich, protective and entirely awesome part of anatomy. (I'm too lazy to hyperlionk all of the above but I am sure you can wiki any you want to know more about).

What is its function and what relevance are the nerves. In modern western societies men wear clothes which can offer better protection and they don't need to feel their way out of penile danger with their foreskin. It is a useless flap of skin. Deal with it or better yet ask Prankish.

Prankish, as others have said, I am (genuinely) truly happy that you are pleased with your circumcision. You have achieved the very goal I argue for - true, informed choice.

Until children are old enough to care for themselves it is the parental responsibility to make choices on their behalf.

sockstealingpoltergeist

03-02-2010, 12:14

He isn't talking about a feeling about health problems. He is referring to the anti-circ myth that the foreskin is more sexual than the glans. He knows the reality. He had a foreskin and he knows the difference before and after. He has an extremely good point.

Ok whatever the reasons, my arugument for automatic breast reduction in women still stands.

So we should circ babies, because some guy says it feels better?:confused::laughing:

To the contrary. It is a human rights violation to deprive children of the best available medical care.
It's not medical care, that is hilarious. No medical body endorses it for a reason. It has been proven to be an annecessary procedure.

Please Stop stating things that are not factual that you cannot prove to back up your non existant arguments.

DeniG

03-02-2010, 12:14

Good. Then we agree that there is a benefit to cutting off the earlobes. Correct?

Umm yes. You don't get smegma under your ear lobes but yep that would be a tiny benefit from cutting them off.

Why not? You seem so taken by other ancient bronze age practices.

Because some have value and some don't. There is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

These people are nothing like me. The case against circumcision is based on rational logical reasoning based on current information. Vaccines are responsible for wiping out disease or reducing it to levels so low most people never know anyone who contracts it. The Measles vaccine is over 90% effective and that is with a disease that infects over 90% of people who come into contact with it. Tell me which disease will circumcision wipe out or even reduce by anything close to that?

Those people use logical reasoning based on current information but just like you get it wrong.

What is the reduction in risk of UTIs with circumcision? Isn't it about 90%? I'd be confident that phimosis would be extinct if all boys were circumcisised.

Are you joking? Do you really know how infectious these diseases are? You would have to put your kid in a hermetically sealed bubble and never let him out. Of the 131 cases of measles in the US in the first seven months of 2008, 112 were un-vaccinated children. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26333787/

I didn't say that I would do it. Not getting immunised to me seems as silly as not getting a child circumcised. But I respect that other people have different opinions on both of those topics.

These two things can't be rationally compared.

But they have so much in common...

Why not don't you want what they describe as a significant reduction in your risk of HIV, what about your poor daughters (if you have them). Don't you want to protect them too?

As I said they are referring to FGM. That involves cutting off the clitoris. That is the equivalent of cutting off the penis. I don't advocate cutting off the penis to protect men against HIV so why would I advocate cutting off the clitoris? You do know what male circumcision is don't you?

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 12:15

You don't seem to be listening. He was circumcised as an adult. He had it. He knows what it was like to have it as an adult. He had it removed. He knows the difference resulting from a circumcision. It puts him in a very significant place in the debate.

And what about all the men posting here:
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/

Are they not at the same place, they say that after restoration their experience is significantly better. Do you discount them?

Perhaps this is just something that each individual man has to decide for themselves, don't you think?

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 12:25

Umm yes. You don't get smegma under your ear lobes but yep that would be a tiny benefit from cutting them off.

Maybe not but you can get a lot of dirt under there and you know how kids can be. Perhaps you should consider cutting off their earlobes to relieve them, and yourself, of that concern.

Because some have value and some don't. There is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

No value just like circumcision.

Those people use logical reasoning based on current information but just like you get it wrong.

What is the reduction in risk of UTIs with circumcision? Isn't it about 90%? I'd be confident that phimosis would be extinct if all boys were circumcisised.

First of all, what is the morbidity of UTIs in males? Second, what is the cause of those UTIs? Third, how easily can those UTIs be treated? Forth, are you forgetting this recent editorial: http://www.6minutes.com.au/articles/z1/view.asp?id=498029

Further the stated benefits of protection against urinary tract infection are marginal, and do not justify mass circumcision. Our changing understanding of the relationship between urinary tract infection and chronic renal disease further weakens the case for routine circumcision.

Now do you want to try again?

But they have so much in common...

They have nothing in common. Back to the editorial:

The procedure is not to be equated with vaccination, either in its delivery or in its effectiveness.

As I said they are referring to FGM. That involves cutting off the clitoris. That is the equivalent of cutting off the penis. I don't advocate cutting off the penis to protect men against HIV so why would I advocate cutting off the clitoris? You do know what male circumcision is don't you?

You don't know that. There are many forms of FGM those women could have only had parts of the labia removed. Wouldn't you be interested in finding out how much and what we could cut out of you to provide a vanishingly small benefit?

DeniG

03-02-2010, 12:26

Ok whatever the reasons, my arugument for automatic breast reduction in women still stands.[QUOTE]

No it doesn't. That would be more like cutting off the penis to avoid penile cancer. The proportionality is way out.

[QUOTE]So we should circ babies, because some guy says it feels better?

No but it should raise awareness that the anti-circ groups are spreading bunk. That should help to work out who is telling the truth with all the conflicting information available online.

It's not medical care, that is hilarious. No medical body endorses it for a reason. It has been proven to be an aunecessary procedure.

What about the World Health Organisation and the American Urological Association? Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has moved in a positive direction as evidence mounted.

1971 –"no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision"
•1989 –"circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks"
•1999 –"potential medical benefits . . . however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision"
•2005 –reaffirmed 1999 statement

The RACP in Australia are currently reviewing their statement presumably in light of the growing evidence supporting circumcision.

Stop stating things that are not factual that you cannot prove to back up your non existant arguments.

Whatever.

Opinionated

03-02-2010, 12:29

To the contrary. It is a human rights violation to deprive children of the best available medical care.

When children are circed as infants, they are not in need of medical care. If and when their foreskin ever becomes a problem, nobody opposed to RIC would suggest that they should not recieve the best medical care available.

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 12:31

No it doesn't. That would be more like cutting off the penis to avoid penile cancer. The proportionality is way out.

But women at higher risk have it done all the time now. If your daughter is in that risk group, something you can know ahead of time, wouldn't you want to protect her and do it before she knows?

What about the World Health Organisation and

http://www.cns.sante.fr/IMG/pdf/2007-05-24_rap_en_politique_internationale.pdf

The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States [or Australia].

DeniG

03-02-2010, 12:31

And what about all the men posting here:
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/

Are they not at the same place, they say that after restoration their experience is significantly better. Do you discount them?

Let me put it this way. You want me to get an insight on the topic from an apparently normal man Prankish or the views of men who stretch their residual foreskin to create a flap of skin on the end of their penis? Isn't it obvious who is going to give comments that aren't based on a rather eccentric personality and who is dealing with the real thing not some stretched version.

sockstealingpoltergeist

03-02-2010, 12:46

No it doesn't. That would be more like cutting off the penis to avoid penile cancer. The proportionality is way out.

No because I said breast reduction. Not removing the whole breast, so very valid.

No but it should raise awareness that the anti-circ groups are spreading bunk. That should help to work out who is telling the truth with all the conflicting information available online.

Huh ? Raise awareness with no facual nor current up to date evidence. OK. And take away individuals rights.

What about the World Health Organisation and the American Urological Association? Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has moved in a positive direction as evidence mounted.

Evidence? The WHO are reviewing I believe due the fact that the increased level of circ to prevent disease in african countries is doing more harm then good.

1971 –"no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision"
•1989 –"circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks"
•1999 –"potential medical benefits . . . however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision"
•2005 –reaffirmed 1999 statement

The RACP in Australia are currently reviewing their statement presumably in light of the growing evidence supporting circumcision.

Anything up to date - didn't think so?

Evidence about the RACP? That is rubbish.

Again if it has such benifits why not advocate for adult males to get it done of their own choice?

Let me put it this way. You want me to get an insight on the topic from an apparently normal man Prankish or the views of men who stretch their residual foreskin to create a flap of skin on the end of their penis? Isn't it obvious who is going to give comments that aren't based on a rather eccentric personality and who is dealing with the real thing not some stretched version.

That is a very short sighted post. Of course any normal man would want to be circ'd not get his foreskin back.:rolleyes: (sarcasm).

The point is men are all different and they all feel very different about circing, thus why the decision should be left to them.

The bias in your posts is evident, as not one person has dismissed Prankish's feelings on the subject for himself or said he was eccentric, because he has a right to feel how he wishes about his own penis, just as other men who want their foreskin back have a right to feel that way, because it just isn't about your personal preference.

Fellow Traveler

03-02-2010, 12:49

Let me put it this way. You want me to get an insight on the topic from an apparently normal man Prankish or the views of men who stretch their residual foreskin to create a flap of skin on the end of their penis? Isn't it obvious who is going to give comments that aren't based on a rather eccentric personality and who is dealing with the real thing not some stretched version.

I see. So some man who probably pined for a circumcised penis during his life, read the views of a bunch of other men who had the same desire and acted upon it, and then finally did it himself, his opinion is worth more then a man who resented his circumcision, found a group of men who shared his views, and eventually did something about it.

Sounds to me like the same dance just a different tune. I am willing to say that each man should have his own opinion; if Prankish likes what he did that's just fine, I don't care. Those men also have an opinion and believe that their lives were improved. They like what they did and I don't care why either. Their opinion though is just as valid as his. And the fact that you can't realize that biased your entire thought process.

Prankish

03-02-2010, 13:15

What about the World Health Organisation and the American Urological Association? Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has moved in a positive direction as evidence mounted.

1971 –"no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision"
•1989 –"circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks"
•1999 –"potential medical benefits . . . however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision"
•2005 –reaffirmed 1999 statement

The RACP in Australia are currently reviewing their statement presumably in light of the growing evidence supporting circumcision.

Not to mention the CDC.

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

Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and
function in relation to male circumcision are
few, and the results present a mixed picture.
Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision. However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change. The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision; however, cultural differences limit extrapolation of their findings to U.S. men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf

Opinionated

03-02-2010, 20:36

You can argue all you like about sexually transmitted diseases Prankish, but infants are not sexually active so the point is moot. Circumcision can be performed when a person wants to become sexually active if they think it is necessary. I would guess the majority would prefer to just wear a condom, it is much more effective at preventing STI's.

serendipity22

08-02-2010, 13:19

Originally Posted by DeniG View Post
What is the reduction in risk of UTIs with circumcision? Isn't it about 90%?

This 90% reduction in UTIs in infants (not boys or men) comes from Thomas Wiswell, and is mentioned numerous times by the pro-circ lobby. It is quite possible without his research nobody would ever claim a link. Wiswell's work was eventually rejected by the AAP as being flawed.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html
and
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/vanhowe_uti2005/

In Israel, studies have found circumcision increases
UTIs in infants.

An Australian study found circumcision increased urinary problems in older men.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html (again)

Van Howe found there were no UTIs in intact infants, except when they had a congenital abnormality.

Its certainly counter-intuitive to me that removing the protective cover of the urethra would increase the presence of E-coli (cause of most UTIs) and its a moot point whether circumcision decreases UTIs at all.

In any case, girls get many more UTIs (5%) than boys and it is treated without surgery.

Father

08-02-2010, 13:31

I really like this quote from your first link.

It is Dr Thomas Wiswell (http://www.circumstitions.com/References.omas%20Wiswell%3C/A%3Ehtml#Wiswell) who has made it his life's work to establish the UTI-intact penis connection, and he is also a keen circumcisor. His many papers present statistics involving huge samples, tens of thousands of babies (which may convince those who mistakenly think large numbers guarantee accuracy). However, all the babies were born in military hospitals, where circumcision is very much the norm. It is very likely that the intact babies had their foreskins forcibly retracted (http://www.circumstitions.com/Care.html). It is also likely that a major reason for the babies to be left intact was that they were born prematurly, put in intensive care and catheterised for that reason: the catheterisation, not their intactness, caused their UTIs.

and

without mentioning that virtually no babies born at that hospital (Parkland in Dallas, Texas) were circumcised.

Wiswell then went on to examine the records for 427,698 infants (219,755 boys) born in US Armed Forces hospitals from 1975-79 and found that the uncircumcised had an 11-fold higher incidence of UTIs

So in one paragraph their argument is that there were no babies born that were circumcised. In another - they say that circumcision was the norm in the army hospitals. What is their argument here????

And I don't know how 427,698 would be classified as "tens of thousands". I also like the speculation in their writing. "Very likely" this, and "likely" that.
Very convincing.