General Discussion Thread, VERSION 1.0 [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

MotherNurture

16-01-2007, 03:14

I'll start...

I never gave circumcision much thought at all until I worked as a nursing assistant in a hospital birth center, and one of my duties was assisting with newborn circumcisions. It was my job to set up the room, page the doctor, and to gather the baby and the consent form. I'd unwrap and lay the baby on the rigid, molded plastic retraint board and strap his legs down. I'd hold the Lidocaine bottle (if a local was being used) so the doctor could draw it up sterile. Sometimes I'd swab the baby's genitals with betadine, sometimes the physician would. Then with a gloved finger and some oral sucrose (sugar water, commercially known as SweetEase) would do my best to comfort the baby throughout the surgery.

Before that experience, I'd only heard the word circumcision, and presumed it was just done, like PKU testing and immunizations-that it was a recommended or necessary procedure. There had to be a good, solid, pressing medical reason to subject a baby to such an experience...didn't there?

Thus began my research...

That was about 5 years ago, and several years before my own son (now 3) was just a twinkle in his father's eye. My husband is circumcised. I'd had two previous sexual partners, and both of them had been cut as well.

For many parents, circumcision becomes a source of stress and argument between themselves and the baby's (usually) father. Even though no study has been done showing any negative psychological repercussions from fathers and sons not matching in the penis department, the myth persists. If we asked our partners to, in detail, describe the shape, length, color, vein patterns, and public hair of their own father's penis to guage it's actual importance they'd probably look at us with shock and horror. Ewww. If they saw it, it was likely only for a split second they'd spent a lifetime trying to forget.

Anyway, my husband was different because he didn't want his newest son circumcised. My stepson, his son from a previous marriage, had experienced circumcision's most frequent complication, meatal stenosis. My husband hadn't wanted him circumcised to begin with, but his mother new someone who'd had it done and figured doing it in infancy was preferrable ("Better now than later", essentially). When it came to the question of whether or not to circumcise our little one, my husband didn't need to know about all the scary risks or the facinating anatomy & physiology of the male prepuce; no, just knowing that it was painful and unnecessary was enough.

In retrospect he'd been insistant about the proverbial perceived importance of having matching surgically reduced penises, I would have absolutely put my foot down the same as I would if he'd advocated for any other painful, unnecessary, elective/cosmetic surgery on our child. I spent 9 months taking care of myself and growing a healthy, normal, beautifully whole baby and wouldn't dream of allowing anyone to deface such perfection.

The foreskin is not a birth defect. (In fact, being born without one is considered an anomaly, a medical condition known as Aposthia.)

I'm against circumcision for many reasons, including...

-It's not medically necessary.
-It's distressing, even with anesthetic.
-It removes a normal, healthy, useful body part.
-The foreskin doesn't regenerate. Once it's gone, it's gone.
-The foreskin has protective, sexual, and immunological functions. Circumcision eliminates those; it's damaging.
-Genital integrity is a genderless birthright of all children.

I believe males and females deserve to be protected equally from unconsentual, non-medically indicated genital cutting. I regret having ever assisted with circumcision, but at the time I didn't have a firm grasp on the medical or ethical issues involved. As Maya Angelou says, "You do what you know, and when you know better, you do better."

Some ideas for discussion...

When did you first hear/learn about circumcision?

Does circumcision belong within the realm of parental choice? Why/why not?

Does "matching dad" really matter? Why do you think it matters to so many men?

Are there inherrent benefits to retaining an intact penis?

If parents can't reach an agreement about the circumcision issue, what should happen?

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Genital integrity, barring true medical indications for amputative surgery, a genderless birthright of all children."? Why or why not?

Look forward to an interesting & productive thread... :)

Jen

Oscar's mum

16-01-2007, 03:27

I'll start...

How exactly are you able to get your brain functioning at 3.30 in the morning:eek:

MotherNurture

16-01-2007, 04:00

How exactly are you able to get your brain functioning at 3.30 in the morning:eek:

LOL...Well, it wasn't exactly that early here. However, I work as a birth assistant and am on call all the time so I frequently get called out of bed at crazy hours and have to be functioning. I'm actually quite exausted this morning, but the lil' guy is up so I am too...

Jen

Pippi Longstocking

16-01-2007, 07:22

Great thread Jen :thumbsup:

It is early here and my brain isn't functioning well :o so I'll use your questions to help me form a coherent post.

When did you first hear/learn about circumcision? My parents were always quite open with us about those kind of issues so I guess mum must have spoken to us about circumcision at some point. I don't remember ever not knowing about it.

Does circumcision belong within the realm of parental choice? Why/why not? No. I absolutely believe that cosmetic alterations are decisions that belong only to the child. This goes for all cosmetic procedures - ear piercing, male and female circumcision, tattoos, :p
Does "matching dad" really matter? Why do you think it matters to so many men?

Are there inherrent benefits to retaining an intact penis? Clearly the foreskin serves many purposes. It protects the sensitive hood of the penis, preventing it from drying and chaffing. It also provides the gliding mechanism which enhances the sexual experience. And the last reason, which I deem one of the most important - it is a part of the child! It belongs to them. It could be argued that I don't need my left little finger. But it's mine and I would miss it if it were forcicbly taken away from me.

If parents can't reach an agreement about the circumcision issue, what should happen? The parents should allow the owner of the penis to make a decision. Unless there is a medical condition that warrants a decision sooner than the child will be able to consent (for example, in the medical condition hypospadius a circumcision is often required as the foreskin is used to repair the penis), it is his choice.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Genital integrity, barring true medical indications for amputative surgery, a genderless birthright of all children."? Why or why not?
Yes, genital integrity should be a birthright for all children, regardless of gender. Absolutely agree. Why? Because the decision only impacts the child, not the parent.

Now some thoughts of my own...

Personally, I would love to see circumcision ceased unless for true medical conditions. (A UTI for example is a pretty dodgy reason to circumcise). I don't believe that they should be readily available to all in the same way that I don't believe that other amputative surgery should be freely available for infants.
I have a thing about feet - I really don't like them. They gross me out and I shriek if anyone touches me with their feet *shudders*. They are yucky and dirty and icky. But I wouldn't for a second consider having my children's feet amputated. My personal preference isn't relevant when making such a huge decision for my children. So my own sexual preference was a circumcised penis, that also wouldn't be relevant when deciding whether or not to amputate my son's foreskins. It would actually be a little...well, perverted. Inflicting one's own sexual preference on your newborn son is odd and all just a little Ipswich for me!

MotherNurture

16-01-2007, 17:47

Guv'nor,

Great post, I think the comparison to tattoos is apt. Another one I've heard is comparing it to footbinding or removing the tips of the pinky fingers, which, consequently would decrease the risk of hangnails by a whopping 20%.

---

I was thinking about the circumcision issue today and started to wonder how I would have felt to learn that my labia and clitoral hood were removed at birth to make my genitals more tidy, hygienic, appealing...or, even that they were trimmed to match my mother's. Cosmetic surgery like hoodectomy, labiaplasty, and vaginal rejuvination are growing in popularity among adult women...the argument could be made that such minor surgeries would be easier on a female if they were done in infancy, before one would have a conscious memory of it.

Males and females both have a foreskin; it's medically known as the "prepuce". In women, it's the clitoral hood, in males it's the foreskin...both protect the glans (glans clitoris and glans penis respectively) keeping them slightly moist and ultra-sensitive. You know how different women like different types of stimulation? Some like direct, some indirect, etc. Men are the same way.

Imagine what it would be like to have a constantly exposed clitoris...the initial hypersensitivity and progressive desensitization. Sure, if it was done in infancy you *might* not question it, but if you started to question and analyze it how might you feel?

Jen

meme

16-01-2007, 19:09

When did you first hear/learn about circumcision?i think it was in the where do you come from book. i distictly remember asking my father if he was circumcised or not. how embarressing:o

Does circumcision belong within the realm of parental choice? Why/why not? at the moment yes obviously. i am not a supporter of unnecesary circs. but i cannot see the status quo changing anytime soon. babies are not independant human beings, they are dependant on their care givers and this gives their carers the responsibility to do what they think is in the babies best interest, some people believe that circs are best for their baby/family.

Does "matching dad" really matter? Why do you think it matters to so many men?no it doesnt matter, i think it matters because if they admit that its best for their bub to keep his foreskin they have to deal with the fact that they had theirs taken from them.

Are there inherrent benefits to retaining an intact penis?
yes.

If parents can't reach an agreement about the circumcision issue, what should happen?
the parent who doesnt want it done should say, hes not having it done and thats final:p

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Genital integrity, barring true medical indications for amputative surgery, a genderless birthright of all children."? Why or why not?
i agree , but thems a lot of big words, can you break it down for those brain dead veiwers like moi:o
are you saying, no child should have any part of the genitals chopped off unless truly medically indicated.
everyone has the right to keep the genitals they are born with?:yes:

the_queen

16-01-2007, 19:28

When did you first hear/learn about circumcision?

I guess as an older kid, I remember that old joke "what's the useless bit of skin on the end of a penis called?" "A man" :laughing: I heard that when I was about 12 I guess? I don't remember specifically learning about circumcision but I knew what it was when I was a young woman (ie by the age of 14)

Does circumcision belong within the realm of parental choice? Why/why not?
Nope. Parenting choices include things like cloth/sposie, vax/no vax, GD/spanking, co-sleeping/cot, age of starting solids, age of giving a mobile phone, age of allowing sleepovers, age of allowing dating, etc etc. The area of "removing part of child's body" is not even a choice IMO, it's a no-brainer ;)

Does "matching dad" really matter? Why do you think it matters to so many men?
It matters to circ'd men, I think, because if they admit and announce that circ'd penis' are not normal, then they're saying THEIR penis is not normal. Having said that, my husband was really really against circ, even though he is cut, and his words when I raised the subject to him, were "no WAY! That makes your d!ck smaller" :rolleyes: So from his perspective, DS's penis is a part of DS, and the image/usage of it is DS's alone. To my husband, it was out of the question for us (the parents) to change something about our son's penis - because it's not our penis to change.

Are there inherrent benefits to retaining an intact penis?
That's like asking, are there inherrent benefits to retaining an intact nose, or an intact foot, or an intact intestine. Having a foreskin is normal, natural, and it is part of the human body. Can a car function without a muffler? Sure, kinda. Are there inherrent benefits to retaining a muffler? Absolutely.

If parents can't reach an agreement about the circumcision issue, what should happen?
Honestly - if my husband had insisted on circumcising our son, my marriage would have ended a lot sooner than it did. How would I react if my husband insisted on chopping off our son's little toe? How would I react if my husband insisted on having our daughter circumcised? How would I react if my husband inflicted physical pain and lifelong disfigurement on my children? I'd leave him. No question. I'm the mumma! My motherly instinct makes me want to protect my children against pain and suffering - that instinct exists for a reason.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Genital integrity, barring true medical indications for amputative surgery, a genderless birthright of all children."? Why or why not?
AGREE totally. Because (Mods, I'm just not going to tone down my language - there are no other words to describe what I mean) genital modification is a violation of human rights. Genital modification is a violation of human rights. Genital modification is a violation of human rights.

Mister Noodle

16-01-2007, 21:08

I was an injury magnet when I was a kid and all the way through adolescence. I've got minor scars on every part of my body, and I've been managed to sustain damage from everything from hat racks to giraffes, literally.

You know the one thing that traumatised me most, and that to this day fills me with regret?

Breaking a couple of teeth (on the abovementioned hat rack). It's the only time I've actually lost a part of myself.

Some of me is missing, and I'll never get it back. I'll never be whole.

That just *sucks*.

It's bad enough that I did it myself, out of my own stupidity.

If it had been deliberately done to me by my parents, while I was helpless... I can't imagine that. I'd certainly never forgive them for it.

That, IMHO, is the worst thing about it. Deliberately making someone damaged and incomplete forever.

I just don't understand how people can think that's OK.

Mister Noodle

16-01-2007, 21:21

YES, it's an emotion-laden word. That's the point.

It's the emotions of loss and horror and grief and pity and outrage that are the whole point here.

Imagine the emotions you'd feel if you lost an eye, or a finger, or a foot - imagine the waves of denial and horror and compulsive checking and re-checking, only to be presented with the stark truth every time.

All those emotions are why our instinctive reaction is "NO!", as soon as we just brush across the concept. That clenching feeling you get in your stomach. That's what I and the others here keep trying to get across.

That combined with the massive sense of injustice, as we all feel when a child is harmed, is the very essence of what people are trying to say.

shed

16-01-2007, 21:41

To be honest, I don't have strong anti-circ feelings. I think that is a product of my upbringing.

When I was growing up it was normal. Us girls used to sit around and discuss it and the general consensus was the un-circed ones were "gross".

It was just the done thing back then. My MIL said they just took the baby away and brought them back again, a bit like the hearing test (although I went with him for his hearing test, first-time mum etc lol).

But I can never even IMAGINE having Baden done. Not in my wildest dreams could I ever imagine anyone doing that to him.

Somewhere here on bubhub is a past rant of me going off about a midwife giving him a blood sugar test on his first morning of life, using the heel pricker thing. I am still upset that I let her do that (I have a lump in my throat, I hate thinking about it, I know its silly but I just feel so bad that I let her do that, for no good reason, I was about to feed him anyway...okay, I am starting again, rambling...).

So if I get that upset about that, then what chance is there that I would let someone cut off a piece of his body :eek:

There is no chance. I would have to be really really really convinced that its for the best before I would be able to handle that.

I know that some people are convinced that its for the best, and I respect their decision, I honestly do. I am not anti-circ, I just know that I could never ever let anyone do that to my little boy.

xkwzit

16-01-2007, 21:54

Yasmeena

16-01-2007, 22:26

When did you first hear/learn about circumcision?
I first learned about circumcision when my Dad told a joke about it and I didn't understand so pestered my Mum until she explained : ) I was an inquisitive child and my Mum explained that is was the medical 'modification' of a healty penis, usually performed on a baby.
I have told my (uncirced) son about it and he is quite (understandably) horrified at the idea :eek:

Does circumcision belong within the realm of parental choice? Why/why not?

No I don't think so, Performing unnecessary surgery involving the cutting of infant's penises is an archaic and outmoded practice that has no place in a modern and civilised society. If it weren't already accepted practice, everyone would be appalled at the very idea of cutting baby's penises.

Does "matching dad" really matter? Why do you think it matters to so many men?

No I don't think matching dad is important is making the decision to dismember a child's foreskin. In any case, surely sharing DNA is 'matching' :o further surgery is not necessary

Are there inherrent benefits to retaining an intact penis?

Yes!:yes:

If parents can't reach an agreement about the circumcision issue, what should happen?

I would follow the advice of nearly every pediatric association in the world and not circumcise unless it is deemed medically necessary:thumbsup:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Genital integrity, barring true medical indications for amputative surgery, a genderless birthright of all children."? Why or why not?

If you are going to cut a baby's genitals and subvert the body's dna-determined formation as a result of evolutionary processes, you'd better have a pretty good scientific reason if you're going to be able to justify the practice. As it happens the vast majority of the scientific and medical community now recognise the outmoded irrationality of circumcision.

MotherNurture

17-01-2007, 02:35

babies are not independant human beings, they are dependant on their care givers and this gives their carers the responsibility to do what they think is in the babies best interest, some people believe that circs are best for their baby/family.

Here's the thing...there are ethical limits to what parents can do to their minor children. For instance, there are types of punishment that a parent may feel is in the child's best interests or that the parent themselves experienced as a child that are excessive, dangerous, and potentially or blatantly damaging. If I went out and found someone to tattoo my son, I guarentee child protective services would get involved and I'd likely loose custody/go to jail. If I had a daughter and I bound her feet or trimmed up her labia and excised her clitoral hood it would be a prosecutable felony and I'd go to prison...and it wouldn't matter that I wanted her genitals to be more tidy or clean or attractive to me.

The reality is, the medical establishments agree it's unnecessary and it's clear the foreskin is nerve-laden, functional, sexual tissue. How could excising it from a child-a future, autonomous, sexually active man-before he can have any say in the matter, in his best interests?

Sexual preferrences are extremely indifidual.
Circumcision is incredibly intimate.
It's very personal.

Why shouldn't the decision be deferred to the child as a fully informed, consenting adult?

[B]Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Genital integrity, barring true medical indications for amputative surgery, a genderless birthright of all children."? Why or why not?
i agree , but thems a lot of big words, can you break it down for those brain dead veiwers like moi:o
are you saying, no child should have any part of the genitals chopped off unless truly medically indicated.
everyone has the right to keep the genitals they are born with?:yes:

Yes, you're interpretation sounds right...

Genital Integrity=Wholeness of the Genitals

Barring true medical indications=Without an immediate medical need

Amputative surgery=Surgery that removes a body part

Genderless=Applying equally to both males & females

Birthright=An inherrent human right, present at birth

Does that help?

Jen

MotherNurture

17-01-2007, 03:04

It is probably time for me to come out of the closet and say that I am also against routine circ (but in my case this decision is purely theoretical).

I'd like to thank Jen (MN) for her powerful posts on this extremely emotive subject. (And she does it without ever referring to the M word. ;) )

Thanks Jen

Wow, thank you for sharing that and for the complement.

Since it's been brought up on this 'general discussion' thread I'll referrence it briefly here to say I think the "M" word is absolutely accurate and I have, myself, used it on debate boards in the past. If you look up the definition, it's clear 'the shoe fits', so to speak. I don't use it here because this board isn't clearly labeled a "debate board", it's more of a discussion board and because of that, I think it's more effective to avoid offending and alienating those who might otherwise listen to what you have to say.

Ultimately though, the reality is when we talk about female genital cutting it's referred to as "FGM", even though the most common type-sunna circumcision-removes the female prepuce (foreskin), the clitoral hood. Sunna FGM is directly comparable to male circumcision. I think that's a huge double standard, and that banning use of the "M" term with regard to male circumcision ignores and avoids addressing.

Why is it "m---------" to remove a female prepuce, but merely "modification" to remove a male prepuce? Is one gender less or more valuable? Is one act less or more violating? The male foreskin is much larger than the clitoral hood and has a lot more mechanical function during intercourse. (google: 'gliding mechanism')

It is a very powerful, emotion-evoking word which is probably partly why FGM has received the public outrage and well-deserved attention of human rights activists that it has.

I will continue to refrain from using it here on bubhub since that appears to currently be what the moderation team prefers but in certain aspects of the debate I think it is valid, useful, thought, and perhaps social-action provoking.

Just my 2 cents...

Jen

MotherNurture

17-01-2007, 03:10

If you are going to cut a baby's genitals and subvert the body's dna-determined formation as a result of evolutionary processes, you'd better have a pretty good scientific reason if you're going to be able to justify the practice. As it happens the vast majority of the scientific and medical community now recognise the outmoded irrationality of circumcision.

What an eloquent statement! Thank you! Do you mind if I share it elsewhere?

Jen

Yasmeena

18-01-2007, 09:16

of course you can :)

shannysmum

02-03-2007, 16:51

Well i guess i'm going to be the most hated on this thread :yes:. However I'd have to say i agree with circumsition. I had my son done and he wouldn't have known anything different. He's newborn and will never have any memory of it. Reasoning behind getting it done..well... i worked in daycare for many years and this one incident stuck out in my mind. I had a little boy who was 4 or 5 and had to get circ'd due to medical reasons. he is actively moving around and can easily knock the area. the area is not protected by a nappy and although it wasn't bothering him too much, when he knocked it it did (i've heard of other similar incidences). I believe prevention is better than cure so to speak. it seems more humane to do it when they know no better than when they do. also seeing chn with uti after uti..it can't be fun...but it COULD have been prevented with about a 5 min procedure. Yes it isn't fun at the time, but my little boy went in fast asleep, had about a minute cry and then was sound asleep again when he came out. he was completely healed within abt 4 or 5 days and didn't cry from pain in that time also. As far a similarity to dad-that had no interest to me. as far as sexual feeling goes-i had a fellow worker who (for her own reasons) had been married twice and both times MADE her husbands get circumcised...the result when comparing...both preferred circumcised without a doubt apparantly...not that they could change it anyway:eek:. I guess everyone has their own preferences and i choose circ'd. did it once and would do it again in a flash. However, i'm not against not-circ'd and if my husband said no way, then i wouldn't have got it done. Also a thought..i have never come across a male who has said 'damn u mum and dad you took my foreskin!!' so who can tell the future. they are male and will love their family jewels no matter what :p. When you think abt it..you are making your childs decision either way, whos 2 say your boy wouldn't be annoyed cos you didn't get him circumcised??? its a decision that has to made and the result respected by all.

the_queen

02-03-2007, 16:58

Pippi Longstocking

02-03-2007, 17:01

Well i guess i'm going to be the most hated on this thread :yes:. However I'd have to say i agree with circumsition. I had my son done and he wouldn't have known anything different. He's newborn and will never have any memory of it.
You could cut off his left hand and he wouldn't know any different. It doesn't make it right.

it seems more humane to do it when they know no better than when they do.

Why? How so? Just because they don't have the vocabulary needed to articulate their pain doesn't mean they aren't hurting.

also seeing chn with uti after uti..it can't be fun...but it COULD have been prevented with about a 5 min procedure.
UTIs are rare and easily treated with antibiotics. Surgery is usually unnecessary.

Also a thought..i have never come across a male who has said 'damn u mum and dad you took my foreskin!!' so who can tell the future.
Believe me, those men are around. There are many men that do feel cheated and angry that their genital integrity was violated for no good reason.

When you think abt it..you are making your childs decision either way, whos 2 say your boy wouldn't be annoyed cos you didn't get him circumcised??? its a decision that has to made and the result respected by all.
It's a decision that can be made by the child when they are old enough to do so. My sons are hardly going to turn around and have a go at me for not circumcisiing them - if they feel strongly about it, they can take themselves off and have the procedure done when they are old enough to take responsibility for their decision.

Mr. Big

02-03-2007, 18:07

Circumsized 'members' are cleaner, easier to maintain from baby to adult, dont get caught on anything or tear.... Yes i said tear!!! and look a lot more attractive.

When it comes down to it Circumcision should always be the choice of the parents, the same way immunisation has become. (you either want it or not)

I think there are some great points in this thread but lets not get to agro in this one, there will always be circumcised people in the world and they WILL circumcise their kids whether you like it or not.

Happy Writing:)

Kizmet

02-03-2007, 18:08

reAllytee

02-03-2007, 18:11

Kizmet

02-03-2007, 18:12

Now tell me how am i meant to look you in the eyes at the next AO meet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laughing: :laughing:

:laughing: :laughing:

Pippi Longstocking

02-03-2007, 18:12

Kizmet

02-03-2007, 18:15

Seen many "members" have you Mr Big? ;)

Well, I have seen a few in my time, being a wanton hussy and all :D , and I can assure you circumcised penises are not more attractive then their hooded counterparts. Nor are they cleaner (a dirty penis is a dirty penis, regardless of whether it has beencut or not) and uncirced penis generally don't tear unless you are using them to open beer bottles or something....

he played australian representative ice hockey so been in a few locker rooms I would imagine :yes:

I have a friend who tore whilst having sex...was extremely painful for him...not opening beer bottles just doing what its there for really

reAllytee

02-03-2007, 18:18

I have a friend who tore whilst having sex...was extremely painful for him...not opening beer bottles just doing what its there for really

Same had a friend in high school who had the same drama & another had to be circ'ed after a rough game of rugby .... It happens.

Mr. Big

02-03-2007, 18:22

[QUOTESame had a friend in high school who had the same drama & another had to be circ'ed after a rough game of rugby .... It happens.[/QUOTE]

"it won't happen overnight... but it will happen!!":laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Pippi Longstocking

02-03-2007, 18:24

he played australian representative ice hockey so been in a few locker rooms I would imagine :yes:

I have a friend who tore whilst having sex...was extremely painful for him...not opening beer bottles just doing what its there for really

I didn't realise they'd check them out that closely! :eek:

Same had a friend in high school who had the same drama & another had to be circ'ed after a rough game of rugby .... It happens.

I guess it's like childbirth really - I'd rather tear than be cut just in case. The only difference being that it is far more likely one will tear while giving birth than it is that a man will tear his foreskin while having sex :rolleyes:
My own personal subjective anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that it would be highly unusual for that to happen, given that I don't know a single man that that has happened to ;)

Mister Noodle

02-03-2007, 18:57

It's possible to tear your frenulum during sex, if it's particularly short and you go at it a lot harder than normal and you've never done any stretching.

The same goes for your hamstrings when exercising.

It's also possible for your foreskin to get injured by having a dozen footballers throw themselves at you with murderous intent.

And the same goes for knees.

Lots of people badly damage their legs during sports and suchlike activities.

We should amputate them at birth, so they won't know what they're missing. :yes:

Barry

02-03-2007, 19:07

lukaelmo

02-03-2007, 19:11

...and look a lot more attractive.

umm that's a matter of opinion :D... I prefer my men au natural :laughing:!

shannysmum

02-03-2007, 21:06

"Prevention better than cure", so i take it you don't believe in immunisation then? Like i said though. it is to the parents choice. I didn't have a go at your decision, I would expect the respect back in return. this is a thread to discuss circumsition, not put down other peoples thoughts and ideas on the subject. I felt that it was only fair that there are many people like myself who believe in circumsition, and with what I have read so far, it would only make the people who really would like to get their boy circumsized feel like a bad and horrible parent. Obviously to many of you that is what we are to you, but in my eyes, it doesn't make you a bad or inhumane person. I am a very loving mother and the choice i made was not just a fleeting choice. I have talked to many other parents and caregivers (in my experience in daycare), and the decision i made was for my reasons. just like other people should make their decision for themselves and not be told that circumcising is the wrong thing to do. It is said I am making a life long decision for my child...yes i am, he is my child. this could continue on. ie, christen/not christen, immunise/not immunise, the name you choose for your child. YOU are the parent, they are the child. Whatever you do is going to be a part of their future...the way you talk to your child, smack/not smack, siblings/no siblings, private school/public school. All in all, parenting is a huge job and YOU as a parent will decide what YOU feel is BEST for YOUR child.

shannysmum

02-03-2007, 21:24

Some of the comments ive made for both replies are in response to what other people have said...i don't know how to do that quote thing in the box,only new to this, sorry. :)

Pippi Longstocking

03-03-2007, 05:41

"Prevention better than cure", so i take it you don't believe in immunisation then?
Nope ;) . Well, it's not so much that I don't believe in it like I don't believe in the tooth fairy - immunisation is very much in existance. It's just that I feel that the risk of vaccinating is greater than the risk of my child being left unvaccinated.

Like i said though. it is to the parents choice.
I disagree. Unless there is a pressing need to circumcise immediately, I believe it should be the owner of the penis' choice.

I didn't have a go at your decision, I would expect the respect back in return. this is a thread to discuss circumsition, not put down other peoples thoughts and ideas on the subject. I felt that it was only fair that there are many people like myself who believe in circumsition, and with what I have read so far, it would only make the people who really would like to get their boy circumsized feel like a bad and horrible parent.
Erm, where have I "had a go" at you or disrespected you? I completely disrespect the practice of RIC but that is not indicative of how I feel about parents who circ. When I am discussing circumcision, I am not bagging out the parents. However, I do feel very strongly about the practice and would like to laws changed to protect little babies from the unnecessary procedure.

It is said I am making a life long decision for my child...yes i am, he is my child. this could continue on. ie, christen/not christen, immunise/not immunise, the name you choose for your child. YOU are the parent, they are the child. Whatever you do is going to be a part of their future...the way you talk to your child, smack/not smack, siblings/no siblings, private school/public school. All in all, parenting is a huge job and YOU as a parent will decide what YOU feel is BEST for YOUR child.

While I have already mentioned I don't vaccinate my daughter, I still don't think that that is a fair comparison due to the fact that there are some pretty compelling reasons to vaccinate. There are some strong arguments to suggest that vaccination can protect small children - and if you believe those arguments, than you simply cannot wait until the child is old enough to make that decision for themselves. Not so for circumcision - there are some sketchy links to circing minutely lessening the risk of minor illnesses such as UTIs. The risk of harm from circumcision is greater than the harm it will prevent.

I don't think that people who circumcise their sons are bad parents and I do fully believe that they are acting in what they feel is the best interests of the child. :hugs:
It's just that I believe they do so generally relying on social conditioning and misguided data to make their decision.

xkwzit

03-03-2007, 06:33

I have deleted some argumentative text and would like to remind everyone that this thread is for respectful discussion of circumcision - all opinions, questions, passions about circumcision.

Thankyou to you all for sharing your diverse views. All of us parent our children to the best of our ability, lets keep that in mind as we contribute.

Cheers

Mister Noodle

03-03-2007, 08:28

Vaccination has been the single greatest public health intervention in the history of mankind. Smallpox was *completely eliminated* from the population, and dozens of life-threatening diseases that used to devastate entire communities are now virtually unknown. On the downside, it does have a pretty tiny risk associated with it. Associated harm does happen, but it's astoundingly rare, and usually mild.

Compare this with circumcision. The risk of penile cancer is some small fraction of a percent, the link to owning a foreskin is tenuous, and if any exists, is likely to be due to poor hygiene practices - completely avoidable by teaching your child to wash, instead of cutting bits off.

On the downside, there is a one hundred percent incidence of serious morbidity. Every single child that is circumcised loses the protection the foreskin provides for the glans. Every single child that is circumcised loses the gliding mechanism and associated mobility. And every single child that is circumcised loses thousands and thousands of nerve endings. Every. Single. Child. loses an important, healthy part of their body to unnecessary surgery.

If any other medical procedure carried such an abysmal cost/benefit ratio, no doctor would dream of performing it.

To consider the two things equivalent is simply ridiculous.

Barry

03-03-2007, 08:45

Compare this with circumcision. The risk of penile cancer is some small fraction of a percent, the link to owning a foreskin is tenuous, and if any exists, is likely to be due to poor hygiene practices - completely avoidable by teaching your child to wash, instead of cutting bits off.

Guess it's lucky that the vast majority of people who circumcise don't do it for the tenuous cancer benefits then eh?

On the downside, there is...

Every single child that is circumcised gains several well defined, medically proven benefits you seem to have omitted in this rather emotional advocacy speech.

If any other medical procedure carried such an abysmal cost/benefit ratio, no doctor would dream of performing it.

I'd direct your attention to various cancer treatments which cost a fortune with minor benefits which are performed every single day worldwide. Also conjoined twin seperation.

To consider the two things equivalent is simply ridiculous.

You're right as most people who support not circumcising also support not vaccinating despite the contradiction in arguments supporting their choices.

Freddyboy

03-03-2007, 08:52

and look a lot more attractive.

I personally think that the whole penis is unattractive so perhaps we should just lop the whole thing off?

xkwzit

03-03-2007, 21:00

Before this thread disappears in a maelstrom of circ / vax comparisons, could we just agree that in both cases it is a risk assessment? Parents evaluate the perceived benefits and risks. The risk assessment of circ is a different problem to the risk assessment of vax - it is not logical to assume that because your answer to the first is "not to circ" means that your answer to the second WILL BE "not to vax". We all have different perceptions of the risks / rewards for both, I think we are getting bogged down by this circular argument.

Cheers

MotherNurture

04-03-2007, 05:09

Circumsized 'members' are cleaner, easier to maintain from baby to adult, dont get caught on anything or tear.... Yes i said tear!!! and look a lot more attractive.

It could be said that women who've had their vulva's trimmed up are 'cleaner' too, couldn't it? We've got those pesky inner and outer labia, and our clitorises spend most of their lives under a hood of skin. Women produce smegma. They urinate. They produce egg white cervical mucous when they're fertile, as well as arousal fluids and various other types of discharge. They typically pass blood several days to a week or more out of every month.

See, genital skin isn't 'extra'. It's standard. It's nerve laden. It's functional. Many consider it very erogenous. Cosmetic surgery, especially on the genitals, is intimate, & irreversible. Unless there's a clear medical indication for amputative surgery, circumcision causes the unnecessary loss of skin, nerves, blood vessels, and sexual functions...thus, it's damaging.

Fortunately, the genitals are for the most part self-cleaning, and don't need much more than a swish of warm water or a light washing with mild soap. It's not rocket science. It's easier than tying your shoes or brushing your teeth. :)

When it comes down to it Circumcision should always be the choice of the parents, the same way immunisation has become. (you either want it or not)

Immunization is recommended by ALL major medical organizations. Routinely cutting the genitals of nonconsenting boys and girls is recommended by NONE. Why? The 'potential benefits' of circumcision don't outweigh the known, proven risks---it's a cultural/cosmetic/religious, not medical---decision.

There is no reason the circumcision reason can't be deferred to the child, as a consenting adult. There's no rush, no reason it can't wait except that many parents acknowledge that few men would volunteer for genital reduction surgery without medical cause. So, in many cases it's being done not because they believe the child would prefer it, but because it's their personal preference, they want it done, and they realize if they don't impose that decision before the child has a say in the matter, in all liklihood he'll have a foreskin for the rest of his life.

Jen

OscarTheGrouch

04-03-2007, 11:53

Women produce smegma. They urinate. They produce egg white cervical mucous when they're fertile, as well as arousal fluids and various other types of discharge. They typically pass blood several days to a week or more out of every month.

:barf: I don't think we need reminding of all that. That's way TMI.:barf:

shannysmum

04-03-2007, 13:13

There are 2 sides 2 every story so I have noted a few facts from the website www.circinfo.net for all your perusal. in reading it, it affirms my choice. I guess a lot of the argument is, though, about, as it mentions in the article 'new-age political correctness' and 'human rights'. Happy reading :)

It has been suggested that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:
The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.
The moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans of both a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis, which have been found to have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms). This means that the inner lining is a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria.
The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.
The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms. The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection', as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection.
Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunisation in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime. Some of the health benefits are:

Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin.
Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis.
Reduced urinary tract infections (which are more common than most think as well as very repetitive and painful)
Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in the male and their partner(s).
Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
Decrease in urological problems generally.
Therefore the benefits are different as the human male progresses through life.
Neonatologists see only newborns and thus only see the problems of the operation itself performed on infants. In fact such problems occur in only a minor proportion of baby boys, and generally because of poor technique by an inexperienced operator (hence the importance of choosing a reputable dr who does the procedure on a regular basis). However, urologists who see and have to treat the problems of uncircumcised males of all ages cannot understand why all newborns are not circumcised. Circumcision later in childhood is an inevitable increase in worry to the boy or man in the lead-up to having this done, usually a more visible scar is left, and the cost can be 10-times as great. No adverse psychological aftermath has been demonstrated when done as a newborn. A number of studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more male sexual partners who were uncircumcised. Complications:
Excessive bleeding: Occurs in 1 in 1000. This is treated with pressure or locally-acting agents.
Infection: Local infections occur in 1 in 100-1000 and are easily treated with local antibiotics.
Subsequent surgery: Needed for 1 in 1000 because of skin bridges, or removal of too much or too little foreskin. Repair of injury to penis or glans required for 1 in 15,000. Loss of entire penis: 1 in 1,000,0000, and is avoidable by ensuring the practitioner performing the procedure is competent. Injuries (rare) can be repaired and in the extraordinarily remote instance of loss of the penis it can be reattached surgically.
Local anaesthetic: The only risk is when the type of anaesthetic used is a dorsal penile nerve block, with 1 in 4 having a small bruise at the injection site. This will disappear.
Death: Data in the records show that between 1954 and 1989, during which time 50,000,000 circumcisions were performed in the USA there were only 3 deaths, but during this period there were 11,000 from penile cancer, a disease essentially confined to the uncircumcised. In the study by Wiswell referred to above there were 2 deaths in those NOT circumcised, but none in the 3 times as many who were circumcised. In Jewish ritual circumcision tightly wrapped gauze is used to stop minor bleeding (as compared to use of local pressure in hospitals), and it is thought that this can cause urinary retention and hence UTI. Not surprisingly, complication rates are higher when circumcision is carried out by individuals who are not medically trained. 500,000-750,000 probs averted (many serious) compared to 4,300 complication (mostly minor).

natasha

04-03-2007, 13:17

...... but, if my boy gets to the age of 18 and is annoyed that I didn't have him Circumcised, well, he can go and have it done, if that's what he wants. But if yours gets to the age of 18 and is angry that you took his foreskin away from him, there isn't much he can do about it, is there.

I guess my point is, it is a non-reversible procedure.

Also, little girls can get UTI after UTI.. interesting that we don't automatically reccomend a complete labioplasty to "tidy up" the area in order to prevent future UTI's.
Great post!:yelclap: I wouldnt get my son done. Teach him how to wash and all is good.:rolleyes: . I dont get how parents can think its okay to cut off a very important part of their babies body and think its okay as it will reduce the risk of infections.:rolleyes: Like Queen said ......its interesting that people dont go and get their girls bits cut and tidied to 'look nicer':eek: and prevent infections'. Whats the difference?

I cant believe people actualy admit to using the line 'it looks more attractive' when talking about circumsicion'! Your'e talking about surgery on your baby!
I understand, or am more willing to accept the idea of circumsicion for religious beliefs.

MotherNurture

05-03-2007, 04:41

Circinfo.net is circumcision advocate/fetishist Brian Morris's personal website. IMO, it's extremely biased and dishonest, and links to groups like...

circumcisionfetish
cutandproud
eroticmalecircumcision
SCARandACORN
BeschnitteneGayBoys

...just to name a few...

It's not a website I would trust for information regarding making an informed choice about circumcision as a parent, although I can understand why some parents come across it and feel it reaffirms their decision. However, everyone should be aware that there's an online rebuttal to most of the claims on his page available:

[This article, while taking the form of a scientific paper, does not seem to have appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. The rebuttal below is a partial review - which makes clear the many reasons for that non-appearance.

Morris produces a vast amount of data, much of it from obscure sources. The fact that a claim goes unanswered here does not mean it can not be answered.]

[REBUTTAL TO]

MEDICAL BENEFITS FROM CIRCUMCISION

Part 1 (http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html)
Part 2 (http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris2.html)

Jen

Mister Noodle

05-03-2007, 08:00

It's the circumcision-themed porn stories on circinfo itself that really add that touch of class...

drbenroth

05-03-2007, 08:29

shannysmum

05-03-2007, 09:35

[circinfo.net also reccomends female circumcision.
thought you'd like to know[/quote]
the main topic is on male circumsition, i didn't read anything on female circ, but i could be wrong...but to each there own. i'm discussing male circ and the benefits and risks on that. if parents don't want to circ thats great, but if they do, thats great also. i don't look down on people who dont circ like some people do on us who do.

drbenroth

05-03-2007, 09:39

if parents don't want to circ thats great, but if they do, thats great also. i don't look down on people who dont circ like some people do on us who do.

am i allowed to look down on people who circumcise girls, or is that "great" too?

exactly where is the line to be drawn?

circinfo.net is amazingly bias. there are thousands of examples.
the author weighs up the risks vs benefits and even make a nice little drawing of a scale.
he considers that circumcision of 2,000,000 american boys would prevent 2000 cases of penile cancer.

there are two assumptions here.
1. the rate of penile cancer is 1 in 2000
2. circumcision prevents penile cancer

1. the true rate of penile cancer is 1 in 100,000
2. the rate of penile cancer in USA (a circumcising country) is the same (or higher) than uncircumcising countries such as denmark, and UK.

circumcised men get penile cancer at the same tiny rate as intact men, and circumcision in no way prevents penile cancer.

This is the first thing i picked out, just to give an example of the incredible bias that the author of circinfo displays. there are many many more.

Mister Noodle

05-03-2007, 09:54

i don't look down on people who dont circ like some people do on us who do.

Yes, that's because we think it's wrong, and you don't.

You see how that works?

Take some hypothetical unethical activity, like using a belt to hit your children.

The people that do it have no criticism of those that don't. They think it's optional and morally neutral - and do it because they can.

The people that don't do it have lots of criticism of those that do. They think it's not an option, and that it's morally very bad.

For the belt-users to come back with "well, we don't bag you out for NOT belting your kids" would be ridiculous.

The opposite of 'wrong' is not 'mandatory'.

Mr. Big

05-03-2007, 10:36

drbenroth

05-03-2007, 10:40

Come on people, why are you all getting so agro about all this, I agree with what most of you say, Circumcision is useless and no matter what excuse is used... IT IS.

The fact is though, people will circumcise their kids anyway because of a variety of reason, including religion, health risks and Family beliefs

What can you do...

it is not just useless, it is harmful and permanent.
we have the right and i believe, the duty to do everything we can.

bodily integrity is a human right.

Anybody who chooses to circumcise a child must understand and admit that they are rejecting this human right.

Mister Noodle

05-03-2007, 11:33

People are going to do all kinds of bad things to each other, laws against them or no. For instance, in many cultures it's long been acceptable to beat your wife if she won't obey you.

When laws against domestic violence were first proposed, the reaction was the same. "People are going to do it anyway, and it's not like you can put a policeman in every home - so aren't these laws just a waste of time?"

The very first step in changing the culture is to band together and say no, we will not stand aside and tolerate this.

It's a long, frustrating road - but if we never take the first step, we'll never get there.

Mr. Big

05-03-2007, 11:50

Mister Noodle

05-03-2007, 11:56

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

reAllytee

05-03-2007, 12:00

So we've gone from Circumcisions to Vaccinations and now we've come to Domestic violence.

Who knows, maybe circumcised people have a tendancy to commit armed robbery and murder aswell.
"The power of the no-foreskin compells me"

(sorry, couldn't help the joke)

This is why many dont bother getting into the discussions anymore.

Btw - Congrats hun soooo happy for you :hugs:

kristi001

05-03-2007, 12:27

Agreed.

In my experience those claiming otherwise either aren't owner-drivers or don't have adaquate field experience. ;)

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Couldnt have Said it better!!

Mr. Big

05-03-2007, 12:44

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

Thank you Mister Noodle, i had a good laugh at this. I think that was a great time for such a classy joke.

shannysmum

05-03-2007, 12:51

Maybe i did take away my sons human right when i took his foreskin. but maybe all the political correctness and human rights in some cases can be taken too far...hence why there are so many disrespectful, inpolite, dishonest, and rude chn these days (im not saying non-circ does this either). yes it is permanent (but i read somewhere that it can be reversed, but never come across anyone whos wanted to) in a physical way, but as far as harmful, that is the minimal cases. when making the choice you look into it as a parent and get an extremely qualified, experienced and regularly practiced dr and it shouldn't be harmful. Also, they are up front and tell u all the risks & procedure (they are obligated to). drbeneth, u say that web site is biased...well the ones that promote non-circumsition are 2. there are believers and non-believers. the facts are what is important

MotherNurture

05-03-2007, 13:04

A few things...

While parents who circumcise their sons generally mean well; they love their boys, they don't intend harm---cutting off a standard, healthy, functional part of another person's body without their consent (which is exactly what circumcision is/does) seems like a very obvious/common sense human rights violation, doesn't it?

Regarding foreskin restoration, a.) It is a long, tedious process, b.) It can never bring back the lost nerves, ridged band, or frenulum; at best, it's just stretching the remaining shaft skin to recreate a protective sheath for the glans, thus helping reverse keratinization.

Even if there are no 'complications' to circumcision, it's still harmful because the sensitivity and functions are gone forever.

Jen

drbenroth

05-03-2007, 13:15

Mister Noodle

05-03-2007, 13:43

Thank you Mister Noodle, i had a good laugh at this. I think that was a great time for such a classy joke.

No joke. People seem to have trouble grasping the concept of an analogy.

Someone asked why anti-circ people judge pro-circ people negatively, when the reverse is not true.

Since the details of the matter at hand seemed to be clouding the issue, I proposed a parallel case.

Some people do X, and see nothing wrong with it. They don't understand why other people think they are acting badly, given that they don't consider not-doing-X to be bad behaviour.

The answer, very simply, is that you can take three basic positions on any moral issue. You can think X is evil, you can think X is mandatory, or you can think X is neutral.

Suppose you think X is evil and I think X is neutral.

If I do X, you'll think I'm a terrible person, and I'll wonder what all the fuss is about.

If you don't do X, I won't feel anything either way about it.

That exactly parallels what's going on with the circumcision issue. The pro-circ people don't see what the fuss is about, and the anti-circ people think it's evil.

I presented the domestic violence analogy because it's easier to see. Nobody needs to explain it in painstaking detail - you can just transfer the reasoning across from one to the other.

Nobody has claimed that pro-circ people are wife-beaters. All I've said is that you can reason about the two issues in the same way.

The fact that they're two different things is completely irrelevant, and useless as a rebuttal.

I later went on to point out that social change on the issue needs to be approached in the same way: a grassroots zero-tolerance attitude, instead of throwing up your hands and declaring it helpless and unenforceable.

Again, objecting to A:B :: X:Y with "but A != X" is a pointless derailment.

Mr. Big

05-03-2007, 14:00

I suppose then that i would be an EVIL person. :devil6:

shannysmum

05-03-2007, 22:08

the_queen

05-03-2007, 22:19

I think perhaps you're looking too deeply into it, shannysmum.

I am anti-circ. *text deleted by moderator* The end.

Mister Noodle

05-03-2007, 22:54

The other thing is that people seem to think it's the risk of complications that are the issue.

While the risks are high, unjustified and severe when they happen, they're just an added extra.

What most people object to is the one hundred percent incidence of having healthy, important and functional bits of your genitals removed.

I don't understand how people don't understand this.

MotherNurture

06-03-2007, 02:12

I guess it comes down to the 1st hand experiences of each individual. ie, ive seen and heard of many babies and chn who have had problems that may have been prevented from being circ'd, however i have not come across anyone with problems from being circ'd. perhaps the non-circs have come across issues with friends, relatives or coleagues who have had problems when they were circ'd, hence such an expression of 'evilness' of parents choosing the procedure.

lst hand experience, shannysmum? That would be the experience of the BABY undergoing the procedure, right?

I have personally (fortunately) never had amputative surgery on my intimate bits while conscious and restrained so I don't 'lst hand experience'. Whew!

As someone who used to assist with routine infant circumcisions in a hospital birth center, my second hand experience, watching dozens, was that they don't enjoy being unwrapped, strapped down to a molded, rigid plastic board (circumstraint), having a needle poked in their genitals isn't pleasant, having lidocaine infiltrated into their sensitive, genital tissue probably stings like a you-know-what, and the tearing the foreskin from the glans with a blunt probe or scissors, clamping, and excising is pretty darn painful, too.

Again, that's my second hand experience.

Every single circumcised boy/man has a problem: He's missing up to half of the skin on his penis, and his glans is unnaturally, artificially, surgically exposed. The sensitive, mucousal skin of the tip of his penis is keratinized (dried, thickened). He's missing a standard, functional part of his primary sex organ. He's been deprived of tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings, and unique structures like the ridged band and frenulum.

Just because it was done to him so early in life he cannot comprehend the percentage of sexual function he lost (or, rather, was taken from him) doesn't negate the damage that's been done.

This has little to do with risks & complications of the procedure and everything to do with the guarenteed, long-term effects and losses of quite literally, skinning a penis.

(I know that may sound harsh, but when babies are born, the foreskin is fused to the glans...it has to be pried and peeled, clamped and excised...)

Jen

shannysmum

06-03-2007, 13:31

I don't think im looking too deep into it. I'm looking at future benefits that i think are beneficial due to what i have seen. the procedure itself, it is quick and the infant has no recollection of it (i know u will say that doesnt make it right)and risks are rare and minimal. like i said way back in one of the original posts that i got put down for (but the anti circ people have free will to say about), i had a work colleague who made 2 of her husbands get circ'd as she didn't like non-circed. in conclusion both found circ'd was better. so as far as taking away the added feeling, not sure then y it was better for the grown men for the comparisons???? as far as the procedure goes...the foreskin is 'peeled'back the plastibell put on the foreskin goes over the bell and a string goes around the plastibell. the plastibell stays on till it falls off naturally. betadine is dripped on the area regularly to prevent infection and it is completely healed within about 4 or 5 days (my son was about 3). by the way i know u will have a go at that but, hey, ur choice. ive made my choice and im happy with it, which is what matters. uve made ur choice and your happy with it, which it what matters. to me you are trying to dispute my human right to be the mother of my child. i (&my husband) make choices for our child whilst he cant...that is life. He didn't ask to be born..we made that choice for him, and he'll have to live with that for the rest of his life.

circangel

06-03-2007, 14:52

Well said Shannysmum and sexual pleasure is only one aspect and I have had it explained to me by a professional why circumcision increases sexual pleasure.

circangel

06-03-2007, 18:22

Do not believe all the hype you hear seek professional advice if you are unsure. A circumcised male might be talking about what he thinks about it after having heard media reports of lost sensitivity etc and when they do hear this they believe it yes I said believe it. What I have been told by a Dr is that the coronal ridge is one of the most highly dense areas of nerves and after circumcision as long as you still have that ridge as well as quite possibly the frenulum then during sexual intercourse you are getting full and complete stimulation for the complete stroke, much more contact than if you were uncircumcised. This makes a penis not only able to function as an uncircumcised penis might be able to but also increase the pleasure sensation in a circumcised penis. While it does not state this here it does explain the anatomy of various parts of the penis.

http://health.discovery.com/centers-sex-sexpedia-penis.shtml

kristi001

06-03-2007, 20:31

Would you agree that cutting off a little girl's healthy clitoral prepuce was unethical body modification? How about her earlobe? His earlobe? A non-consenting adult man's foreskin? What is so special about a baby boy's foreskin that makes it, alone of all these, fair game?

as soon as somebody gives an adequate answer to this, i will shut up.

In some cultures i think it is socially exceptable to remove the female clitoral prepuce... So people Do it..

And while it is still Social excepted to remove a males Forskin its Going to be done!

Beany

06-03-2007, 20:50

In some cultures it is socially acceptable to beat one's wife until they are submissive to the demands of the husband - regardless of what those demands are.

Just because something is accepted in other cultures doesn't make it ethical.

shannysmum

06-03-2007, 20:56

circangel

06-03-2007, 21:11

I really did not want to make the real comparison but some members were going on about it. I do not think that really matters about the sensitivity anyway but what does is he will be certainly proper with a circumcision.

shannysmum

06-03-2007, 21:50

wasn't meaning u circ, all the other non-circs...sorry, dont know how to do the quote thing

drbenroth

06-03-2007, 21:58

the coronal ridge is one of the most highly dense areas of nerves and after circumcision as long as you still have that ridge as well as quite possibly the frenulum then during sexual intercourse you are getting full and complete stimulation for the complete stroke, much more contact than if you were uncircumcised.

firstly, the frenulum is often removed in circumcision.

During sexual intercouse, the foreskin folds back forming the sexually active skin that covers the penis. Circumcison takes the middle section of skin. It is only the "Bit on the end" when flaccid.

A circumcised man has nothing that an intact man does not, except many layers of keratin over his glans AND coronal ridge, which serve to dull whatever feelings he has been left with.

"as long as you still have that ridge as.....you are getting full and complete stimulation"

do you honestly believe that? do the think the rest of the penis has no involvement during sex?

Besides, "density of receptors" is a misleading term.
there are different types of sensory receptor that detect different things...crude touch, pressure, light touch, pain, temperature, stretch.

the glans can barely detect light touch at all, because it does not have these receptors. Almost all of the light touch receptors are removed during circumcision. the glans is very good at detecting pain and pressure.

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3513.html

what you are saying is beginning to make less and less sense. I get the feeling that you are almost making things up.
Theoretically, is there anything we can say that would make you reject your preconceived idea that circumcision is beneficial and justified?

In which circumcstances can your claim be falsified?

drbenroth

06-03-2007, 22:00

it is accepted in our culture, its just the new age that is not accepting it as much anymore.
I just don't understand how people can compare circ and non circ feeling unless it has been undertaken as an adult to be able to make the comparison. ????

cutting babies for cosmetics or any other such frivolous reason is not accepted in our culture.
it is the 'new age' that is realising this.

people who believe that circumcision is a justifed decision must accept that they do not believe that bodily integrity is a human right. They must also explain where the line should be drawn. If genitals are fair game, how many amputated body parts are too much?

i can not argue with someone who is consistent with their views, this really is personal opinion. The unfortunate fact is however, that most people who consider routine circumcision a parental choice are not consistent with their views.

drbenroth

06-03-2007, 22:18

if the belief that circumcision makes the penis more sensitive justifies circumcision, does the fact that this is not true make circumcision unjustified?

or will you simply decide to change angle?

shannysmum

06-03-2007, 22:20

its not all about cosmetics.
yep u finally got something right...it is personal opinion. lets just hope that if u have a son that he doesn't have any repurcussions for not circumsising. yes im consistent with my views. and so are most people. i shouldn't need to justify my choice any more. im not here to pressure anyone into circing, just putting an alternative view on things, so that when those people out there who do agree and want to circumsise, realise they are not the only one out there, there are plenty of us, just many who don't want to deal with the nastiness of people who disagree. nothing else to be said. Goodbye. dr, no i wouldn't change angle. that is not the ultimate reason for my circ. that is one of main arguments as to y it has been suggested to not circ. so does that mean u may change ur angle if it is true that a circ'd penis has more feeling?

circangel

06-03-2007, 22:21

I would like to say if you do find a Dr good at the procedure there would be absolutely no need for the frenulum to be removed during circumcision.

During sexual intercourse the foreskin is almost cursed I would imagine as it is an impediment to the direct stimulation of the glans and coronal ridge.

"A circumcised man has nothing that an intact man does not"

Well that is true and he does not have as much but he has sexual benifits. There is no such evidence of major keritinised skin as scientific studies have been done with little membrane thickness differences at all on the glans and possibly coronal ridge. Which part of the penis would you suggest has the most directional movement the bit near the end of course. The rest of the penis has got a purpose and that is to get penetration in the first place.

Mister Noodle

06-03-2007, 23:48

First up, rubbish.. As a foreskin owner, I can adamantly say that the sensation of the foreskin itself is a major source of sexual stimulation.

Also, the foreskin provides a *zero friction* gliding mechanism that's more effective than any amount of lubricant. Pinch the skin on your elbow, and rub the layers between your thumb and finger. Your fingertips themselves experience zero friction - the skin rolls over them - an effect that can't be duplicated with fluid lubrication.

We have the option of stimulation via this method or direct friction to the glans, just by shifting position slightly. And I can tell you personally that friction is a distant, distant second.

So yes, intact men have *lots* more than circumcised ones.

Shannysmum: to answer your question about sensitivity: imagine having your clitoral hood removed (along with any other folds that are in the way) so that your clitoris was permanently exposed to direct contact.

Initially it'd be a lot more sensitive - though with so many nerve endings missing, what you made up for intensity, you'd lose in detail (a bit like turning up the volume on a badly dubbed tape - It's louder, but you still can't hear what people are saying).

However, after 18 or so of years of scraping against your underwear with every step, and the surface thickened and dried out, most of that initial burst of intensity would be gone - leaving you worse off on both accounts.

Some newly-circumcised adults might prefer the extra friction - but that's not at all the same as the experience of a male circumcised in childhood.

But aside from all this, we seem to be missing the main point:

Who the hell gave parents the right to enforce their own sexual preferences on their children?

If someone wants bits of their genitals cut off because they think sex would be better that way - that's their decision. Not their parents. Not anyone else's.

Theirs.

Parents don't have the right to subject their children to a sex-change, or to tongue-splitting, or to breast implants, or to an amphalang... or to any kind of cosmetic surgery, except in the case of serious disfigurement or disability.

What anyone likes better is not the issue here. The issue is not taking options away from your child, and not depriving them of important parts of their genitals.

circangel

07-03-2007, 00:00

"Some newly-circumcised adults might prefer the extra friction - but that's not at all the same as the experience of a male circumcised in childhood."

And if the truth be known they all would prefer the extra friction. Anyone whom say anything else is probably getting paid to do so. Some to many Asians are getting circumcision in adulthood because they prefer it like that and it is not customary in the countries where I am talking about.

Mister Noodle

07-03-2007, 00:14

Hi. Truth be known, I sure as hell don't, so your assertion fails at the first hurdle.

Again, the adult elective circumcision rate is what, less than one percent?

Who the HELL could afford to pay off billions of men to make a point?

circangel

07-03-2007, 00:44

There are claims going around that circumcision does harm and can I rightfully say that they are on the anti circ sites that like to play on peoples emotions very powerfully. If the truth is to be found people will need to find out by asking that is if they can find a person as an adult whom have had the operation done else it can only be wild speculation.

MotherNurture

07-03-2007, 03:14

I don't think im looking too deep into it. I'm looking at future benefits that i think are beneficial due to what i have seen.

Shannysumum, can you explain, for us, what you've "seen" that has been so convincing? Usually, the things we "see" with our own eyes or the experiences of those in our relatively small circle of family, friends, and coworkers doesn't reflect the larger reality statistically which is one of the dangers of basing decisions on such subjective data.

the procedure itself, it is quick and the infant has no recollection of it (i know u will say that doesnt make it right)

Infants generally don't form conscious memories, however, that doesn't justify doing whatever we want to them just because they won't remember it, does it? Of course not.

Also, just because a conscious memory isn't formed doesn't mean a child isn't effected, developmentally & psychologically. The brain of a newborn is rapidly developing, every experience teaches him about the world he's been born into. They all matter, they all count.

How could being restrained and experiencing intense pain in his genitals not effect him in some way?

and risks are rare and minimal.

That's actually false.

Immediate surgical risks could probably be called 'rare', but I wouldn't refer to hemorrhage, infection, and death as 'minimal'.

In addition, long-term risks like penile adhesions and meatal stenosis are shockingly common, yet parents are rarely made aware of these later concerns.

Also, every single infant circumcision excises healthy tissue containing blood vessels and nerves, specialized structures like the ridged band and frenulum, permanently, artificially externalizes the glans and subjects it to a lifetime of keratinization.

like i said way back in one of the original posts that i got put down for (but the anti circ people have free will to say about), i had a work colleague who made 2 of her husbands get circ'd as she didn't like non-circed.

The idea of 'making' someone you love get cosmetic surgery on a healthy, normal, standard body part to please you is nothing short of appalling to me.

If my husband asked me to get my labia trimmed or my clitoral hood removed...or to sacrifice my pinky fingers to our marriage, I would walk away and never look back; we all deserve a partner who will love us for who we are, and who will not ask us to change essential parts of ourselves for their own selfish, superficial reasons.

On another board, a regular used to always joke that "The foreskin is an excellent stupid woman filter.", meaning: Anyone who would be so disgusted by a normal, healthy, body part that they would reject a potential partner for not having been surgically altered/damaged is someone you're absolutely better off without.

in conclusion both found circ'd was better.

It's not uncommon for a recently exposed glans, like an eyeball that's lost a lid, to feel much more sensitive for awhile; that is, before decades of keratinization have taken their toll. You have to remember, an circumcised infant's glans will be exposed for l0-20 years, usually, before he ever experiences intercourse for the first time. An adult man will frequently start having sex immediately after the inital healing is complete...and for awhile, while the newly-exposed glans is still hypersensitive, it may very well feel 'more sensitive'.

as far as the procedure goes...the foreskin is 'peeled'back the plastibell put on the foreskin goes over the bell and a string goes around the plastibell. the plastibell stays on till it falls off naturally.

The foreskin is stretched open, and torn from the glans, breaking the natural adhesions (synechai) with a blunt probe or scissors; then, a dorsal slit is usually crushed with a hemostat and slit, to make room for the bell. The bell is placed, the foreskin is pulled up over it a variable, arbitrary degree, and then the ligature is firmly tied in place oer the foreskin in correspondance to the groove in the ring at the bell's bottom. After it's tied, and the 'excess foreskin' excised, the plastibell handle is snapped off.

by the way i know u will have a go at that but, hey, ur choice. ive made my choice and im happy with it, which is what matters.

We are still talking about cutting part of your son's penis off, right?

uve made ur choice and your happy with it, which it what matters.

Actually, my son came with a foreskin; not cutting it off was no more a 'choice' than not cutting off any other normal, healthy, standard part of his perfect, beautiful little body.

to me you are trying to dispute my human right to be the mother of my child. i (&my husband) make choices for our child whilst he cant...that is life. He didn't ask to be born..we made that choice for him, and he'll have to live with that for the rest of his life.

Where we disagree is whether or not parents have a 'right' to do whatever they please to their children, including cutting off normal, healthy, standard, nerve-laden, functional parts of non-regenerating *flesh* for 'personal' reasons.

its not all about cosmetics.

Indeed; it's not just cosmetics, it's also very much a cultural phenomenon.

yep u finally got something right...it is personal opinion.

No, it's not. It's a parental opinion. It's a parental preferrence. It's a parental whim. If it was actually the parent's penis, there would be no controversy surrounding this issue.

It's not a personal opinion, preferrence, or decision unless the owner of the penis is making such an intimate, irreversible choice for HIMSELF.

lets just hope that if u have a son that he doesn't have any repurcussions for not circumsising.

Oh, but here's the beauty of not guarenteeing your son the risks and losses associated with routine genital reduction surgery: There's only l% chance he'll ever require a circumcision for medical reasons. If he decides he wants his own penis to look a certain way later in life, for his own reasons...whether that be an alteration through foreskin removal, piercing, tattooing, etc...he always has that option.

Once the foreskin's gone, it's gone forever; leaving his penis whole leaves the decision in his hands. It's his penis, after all.

Jen

MotherNurture

07-03-2007, 10:08

Well said Shannysmum and sexual pleasure is only one aspect and I have had it explained to me by a professional why circumcision increases sexual pleasure.

This defies common sense.

-Circumcision removes up to half the skin on the penis.
-Circumcision removes nerves, decreasing sensory input.
-Circumcision constantly and permanently externalizes mucousal tissue, causing it to dry, fade, and thicken over time.

Do not believe all the hype you hear seek professional advice if you are unsure.

This reminds me of a would-be-funny-if-it-wernen't-so-true joke...

Q. What's the difference between god and a doctor?
A. God never thought he was a doctor.

Doctors are opinionated.

They're human.

They're fallible.

They're prone to bias just like anyone else.

Certainly, question medical professionals, but take advantage of the wealth of information available to healthcare consumers these days and don't neglect to do your own, independent research of topics like infant circumcision so you'll have a basic web of factual information to bounce your doctor's opinion off of.

A circumcised male might be talking about what he thinks about it after having heard media reports of lost sensitivity

Again, circumcision excises nerves and blood vessels, specialized, nerve-laden structures like the ridged band and often the frenulum, and it externalizes the glans which is supposed to be mucousal and designed to be protected throughout life when not in use to preserve optimal sensitivity.

What I have been told by a Dr is that the coronal ridge is one of the most highly dense areas of nerves and after circumcision

What doctor told you this and what anatomical research was it based upon, so we can independently varify your secondhand claim?

as long as you still have that ridge as well as quite possibly the frenulum then during sexual intercourse you are getting full and complete stimulation for the complete stroke, much more contact than if you were uncircumcised.

Ronl23, the more you post and the more I read from you the more concerned I am about parents contacting you for information on circumcision and referral to a local cutter. :(

Tons of speculation. Endless personal opinions. Virtually no referrences/supportive documentation.

These claims about the frenulum inhibiting stimulation of the coronal ridge are just bizarre to me, because unless there's a condition like frenulum breve there's absolutely nothing that would prevent the foreskin from retracting to expose the coronal ridge upon arousal/erection/insertion.

Parents, beware. Be descerning. The long-term health, wellbeing, and sexual functioning of your son-a future autonomous man-is at stake here.

This makes a penis not only able to function as an uncircumcised penis might be able to but also increase the pleasure sensation in a circumcised penis. While it does not state this here it does explain the anatomy of various parts of the penis.

Circumcised penises are missing nerves and blood vessels. The only independently mobile part of the penis is gone; there is no 'gliding mechanism'.

It defies reason and common sense to skin a male's primarly sex organ and then say, "It's the same." or that it's somehow been improved by removing healthy tissue and tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings.

I really did not want to make the real comparison but some members were going on about it. I do not think that really matters about the sensitivity anyway but what does is he will be certainly proper with a circumcision.

"Certainly proper"?

I think it does matter to the owner of the penis.

Why permanently change someone else's body when the decision can wait? Why guess? Why risk being wrong? Why put yourself in the position of hoping you made the right choice when you can defer this very intimate, irreversible decision to him as a consenting, fully informed adult. Why not err on the side of caution???

I would like to say if you do find a Dr good at the procedure there would be absolutely no need for the frenulum to be removed during circumcision.

This may be true, however, this is not a question parents are generally asked. Unlike adult circumcision, when the penis is larger and details light the amount of skin removed, 'tightness' of the remaining skin, placement of the scar, and frenulum/no frenulum are taken into consideration, babies generally 'get' the style of circumcision the obgyn or pediatrician learned in residency.

Baby penises are TINY. The foreskin is FUSED to the glans during infancy. When the practitioner's blindly sweeping between the foreskin with a blunt probe or scissors, forcibly separating the two structures the delicate frenulum is easily torn.

During sexual intercourse the foreskin is almost cursed I would imagine as it is an impediment to the direct stimulation of the glans and coronal ridge.

What a wildly generalizing personal opinion, Ron.

"A circumcised man has nothing that an intact man does not"

Except a sensitive, glossy, richly-colored, ultra-thin and sensitive glans surface, a ridged band, frenulum, and nerve-laden foreskin.

Other than that, they're exactly the same.

Well that is true and he does not have as much but he has sexual benifits.

Ron, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, whether amputative, genital reduction surgery on a future man's primary sex organ is a sexual benefit can only be determined by the owner of that penis. Sadly, infant circumcision denies that future man the ability to make his own choice, and the ability to experience sex as nature/god/evolution intended it, naturally.

There is no such evidence of major keritinised skin as scientific studies have been done with little membrane thickness differences at all on the glans and possibly coronal ridge. Which part of the penis would you suggest has the most directional movement the bit near the end of course. The rest of the penis has got a purpose and that is to get penetration in the first place

There are anatomical studies documenting keratinization of the glans. The foreskin faciliates penetration easily and smoothly through the gliding mechanism, eliminating the need for artificial lubrication. The gland of an intact penis is also more smooth and slightly moist, as opposed to rougher and drier, which also contributes to smooth, comfortable intercourse.

"Some newly-circumcised adults might prefer the extra friction - but that's not at all the same as the experience of a male circumcised in childhood."

And if the truth be known they all would prefer the extra friction. Anyone whom say anything else is probably getting paid to do so. Some to many Asians are getting circumcision in adulthood because they prefer it like that and it is not customary in the countries where I am talking about.

Still more generalizing, Ron.

How can you seriously claim to know what "all" men would prefer?

If an adult choses it for there themselves, for their own personal reasons or sexual predilections, more power to them...their body, their choice. What we're talking about here, though, is the nonconsentual circumcision of infants for whom there is no reasonable way to predict what they'd prefer as grown men.

There are claims going around that circumcision does harm and can I rightfully say that they are on the anti circ sites that like to play on peoples emotions very powerfully. If the truth is to be found people will need to find out by asking that is if they can find a person as an adult whom have had the operation done else it can only be wild speculation.

Circumcision removes healthy, functional tissue; it does do harm.

No parent should base the decision to unnecessarily and permanently remove healthy, normal, functional erogenous tissue from their child's primary sex organ based on anecdotes. They should research it thoroughy. There are indeed biased sites on the internet. Parents should varify the facts and claims the encounter.

Jen

circangel

07-03-2007, 11:46

Originally posted my MotherNurture

"-Circumcision removes up to half the skin on the penis.
-Circumcision removes nerves, decreasing sensory input.
-Circumcision constantly and permanently externalizes mucousal tissue, causing it to dry, fade, and thicken over time."

In some rare situations circumcision would remove upto half the skin on the penis and this is true but is not likely to occur with an experienced cutter.

While circumcision removes nerves and decreases sensory input when the penis is touched, however the pressure response sensory output during sex could be much greater after circumcision

Circumcision does cause mucousal tissue to slightly thicken over time and this is important to reduce the touch response when not arroused.

Originally posted by MotherNurture

"Doctors are opinionated.

They're human.

They're fallible.

They're prone to bias just like anyone else.

Certainly, question medical professionals, but take advantage of the wealth of information available to healthcare consumers these days and don't neglect to do your own, independent research of topics like infant circumcision so you'll have a basic web of factual information to bounce your doctor's opinion off of."

Make sure you have factual information remember "anyone" can be opinionated and Dr's have a lot of knowledge of the human anatomy.

Original quote MotherNurture

"These claims about the frenulum inhibiting stimulation of the coronal ridge are just bizarre to me, because unless there's a condition like frenulum breve there's absolutely nothing that would prevent the foreskin from retracting to expose the coronal ridge upon arousal/erection/insertion."

I think it has to do with the gliding mechanism of non circumcised males and after circumcision the coronal ridge is constantly in contact with the virginal walls. Seek medical advice it might also be presented in medical journals.

Original quote by MotherNurture

"Parents, beware. Be descerning. The long-term health, wellbeing, and sexual functioning of your son-a future autonomous man-is at stake here."

I must say this is true.

Original quote by MotherNurture

"Ron, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, whether amputative, genital reduction surgery on a future man's primary sex organ is a sexual benefit can only be determined by the owner of that penis. Sadly, infant circumcision denies that future man the ability to make his own choice, and the ability to experience sex as nature/god/evolution intended it, naturally."

Think about this and decide for yourselves

Original quote by MotherNurture

"Except a sensitive, glossy, richly-colored, ultra-thin and sensitive glans surface, a ridged band, frenulum, and nerve-laden foreskin.

Other than that, they're exactly the same"

I believe I have answered this type of question previously or relating to it.

Original quote by MotherNurture

"There are anatomical studies documenting keratinization of the glans. The foreskin faciliates penetration easily and smoothly through the gliding mechanism, eliminating the need for artificial lubrication. The gland of an intact penis is also more smooth and slightly moist, as opposed to rougher and drier, which also contributes to smooth, comfortable intercourse."

There are such studies and usually do reveal a minor keratinization of the glans. "The foreskin faciliates penetration easily and smoothly through the gliding mechanism, eliminating the need for artificial lubrication." This sounds to be true

"The gland of an intact penis is also more smooth and slightly moist, as opposed to rougher and drier, which also contributes to smooth, comfortable intercourse." This point might be biased so seek professional advice if you are unsure.

Original quote by MotherNurture

"No parent should base the decision to unnecessarily and permanently remove healthy, normal, functional erogenous tissue from their child's primary sex organ based on anecdotes. They should research it thoroughy. There are indeed biased sites on the internet. Parents should varify the facts and claims the encounter."

This is highly reccomendable

circangel

shannysmum

07-03-2007, 13:01

the_queen

07-03-2007, 14:44

Being born vaginally is the way nature intended.

Having a penis with a foreskin, is also how nature intended.

circangel

07-03-2007, 15:32

Originally posted by the_queen

"Being born vaginally is the way nature intended.

Having a penis with a foreskin, is also how nature intended."

Just because you are born with something does not mean that is the way nature intended. Circumcision has been done by many cultures well before any communication between them and with crude means this must suggest something of how nature intended things to be.

MotherNurture

07-03-2007, 15:43

In some rare situations circumcision would remove upto half the skin on the penis and this is true but is not likely to occur with an experienced cutter.

Ron, do you have any data whatsoever to back this up? You do realize that the foreskin is a double-layered, tubular sheath...

If you google, "foreskin zones" the first link will take you to a page that, through photos of an adult intact penis shows just how much skin is removed from a normal penis, in order to leave the glans exposed---which, as I understand it is the primary goal of RIC.

Circumcision does cause mucousal tissue to slightly thicken over time and this is important to reduce the touch response when not arroused.

Thank you Ron, for conceding that circumcision causes the mucousal surface of the glans to thicken over time.

As for your other comment, I'd like to know why you think the resulting loss of sensation is important/beneficial, and what you base this opinion on.

I think it has to do with the gliding mechanism of non circumcised males and after circumcision the coronal ridge is constantly in contact with the virginal walls. Seek medical advice it might also be presented in medical journals.

l.) For many intact males, the foreskin retracts automatically upon erection, so the coronal ridge would also be in constant contact with the vaginal walls.

2.) The coronal ridge is, like the rest of the glans, thickened-and thus somewhat desensitized-in circumcised males; this may well negate any benefit to constant friction in the vagina.

3.) Circumcised men are missing their foreskin and in many cases, the frenulum as well; the frenulum is extremely nerve-laden. Even if a circumcised man retains his frenulum, it's no longer connected to the foreskin so there is no tension applied with the in-and-out motion of intercourse.

Jen

MotherNurture

07-03-2007, 15:44

Just because you are born with something does not mean that is the way nature intended.

Actually, Ron, that's exactly what it means.

Jen

Mister Noodle

07-03-2007, 15:45

Lots of cultures independently developed the custom of beating their wives into submission, as well.

Therefore, wife-beating is as nature intended.

Hmm... what could be wrong with that argument, I wonder....

Beany

07-03-2007, 15:52

No, it simply indicates what people intended.

You don't see lions gnawing off their cubs' foreskin.

circangel

07-03-2007, 16:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by circangel
In some rare situations circumcision would remove upto half the skin on the penis and this is true but is not likely to occur with an experienced cutter.

Reply Quote:
Originally Posted by MotherNurture

Ron, do you have any data whatsoever to back this up? You do realize that the foreskin is a double-layered, tubular sheath...

*Can someone please ask how much skin is removed during a circumcision next time they are getting a circumcision done for their boy, that is if you do not mind being so childish.

Quote:
Circumcision does cause mucousal tissue to slightly thicken over time and this is important to reduce the touch response when not arroused.

Thank you Ron, for conceding that circumcision causes the mucousal surface of the glans to thicken over time.

As for your other comment, I'd like to know why you think the resulting loss of sensation is important/beneficial, and what you base this opinion on.

* I have explained so the glans does not feel so sensitive when not aroused. The hooded glans makes it more sensitive and after circumcision many decades later these light touch sensations can be recovered if the penis was covered and kept moist. During sex however it is a pressure response that is important and not the light touch response.

Quote:
I think it has to do with the gliding mechanism of non circumcised males and after circumcision the coronal ridge is constantly in contact with the virginal walls. Seek medical advice it might also be presented in medical journals.

l.) For many intact males, the foreskin retracts automatically upon erection, so the coronal ridge would also be in constant contact with the vaginal walls.

*Is this in contradiction to the aspects of what the people whom are against circumcision are saying because I thought they suggest that the rolling of the foreskin over the glans was a major pleasure stimulus and if this happens then the coronal ridge most certainly would not be in constant contact.

2.) The coronal ridge is, like the rest of the glans, thickened-and thus somewhat desensitized-in circumcised males; this may well negate any benefit to constant friction in the vagina.

*It thickens and desensitises in all males as they age regardless of their circumcied or uncircumcised status. The thickening does not matter to a large extent because of the nerve sensation pressure response.

3.) Circumcised men are missing their foreskin and in many cases, the frenulum as well; the frenulum is extremely nerve-laden. Even if a circumcised man retains his frenulum, it's no longer connected to the foreskin so there is no tension applied with the in-and-out motion of intercourse.

* This would change the response as the frenar band would be missing however it should still be tensioned in the circumcised male.

circangel

MotherNurture

07-03-2007, 16:43

Shannysumum, can you explain, for us, what you've "seen" that has been so convincing? Usually, the things we "see" with our own eyes or the experiences of those in our relatively small circle of family, friends, and coworkers doesn't reflect the larger reality statistically which is one of the dangers of basing decisions on such subjective data.
* I have been discussing this with many people, extending on more than i knew, confirming all the negatives of non-circ. these people are friends of friends (which extends my so-called SMALL circle). ive been day care for 9 years and have seen a lot of families go through my care, with many parents discussing the problems encountered in non-circ. the only prob i've encountered with circ's are that the circumsition was not enough taken off.

So, basically, rumors?

There's a lot more reliable sources for information relating to anatomy & physiology, prevalence of disease, and procedural statistics than anecdotal information from those around you.

Infants generally don't form conscious memories, however, that doesn't justify doing whatever we want to them just because they won't remember it, does it? Of course not.
* So how do explain the stress and experience of child birth of a newborn (much more traumatic than circumsition). Does that mean they are going to have long term effects of such an experience?

Firstly, there are a lot of natural, evolutionary hormones at play during childbirth effecting both mother and child. During the birth process oxytocin causes both contractions and the release of endorphins, the bodies natural pain-killers, which are transmitted to the baby via the placenta. In addition, some of the hormones cause amnesia-like effect as well.

Unlike childbirth, circumcision is a completely unnecessary, artificial, unnatural kind of pain, not a natural body process.

Immediate surgical risks could probably be called 'rare', but I wouldn't refer to hemorrhage, infection, and death as 'minimal'.
* Do u know or have heard of anyone that have experienced any of these? What about the infections the child may get due to non circ? i have a friend of a friend who has a boy (3yrs) who has recently had an infection and was extremely ill from it and ultimately had to get circumsised...how traumatic then.

Yep, I'm aware of many cases of these problems occuring; just a day or two ago there was even a post in the circumcision support thread about a baby experiencing a post-op infection. Given the fact that a newborn's entire blood volume could fit in a soda can, and that babies aren't routinely screened for blood disorders like hemophilia (which is much more common in males), hemorrhages DO happen and they are occasionally deadly. If you want to see something really discooncerting, google "plastibell necrotizing fasciitis" or read about the famous John/Joan case where a baby lost his entire penis during a circumcision, was raised as a girl, and later committed suicide by googling "David Reimer"

The idea of 'making' someone you love get cosmetic surgery on a healthy, normal, standard body part to please you is nothing short of appalling to me.
* Its not something i'd do, just eg of comparison of an adult who can say. guess it would be interesting to ask them now when the skin has thickened.

Well, it depends how long it's been since their circumcision. Remember that a newborn circumcised shortly after birth may have a couple of decades of keratinization under his belt before he experiences sex for the first time.

Also, keep in mind that few men choose circumcision as adults without a medical indication, meaning they were having problems that circumcision may have relieved; this relief can play into how a man reacts to/feels about his circumcision status.

We are still talking about cutting part of your son's penis off, right?
* NO!! the foreskin has been removed not the penis. and it has already been done. and its great.

The foreskin is absolutely part of the natural penis.

Circumcision is cutting off part of the penis.

It's genital reduction surgery.

It results in a smaller penis.

A tight circumcision can also decrease length.

Google, "circumcision + buried (or concealed) penis' for more info.

Actually, my son came with a foreskin; not cutting it off was no more a 'choice' than not cutting off any other normal, healthy, standard part of his perfect, beautiful little body.
* It may be a choice if by chance your child (god forbid) gets a horrible infection or the tightened foreskin problem or penile cancer.

A 'horrible infection' is actually statistically much more likely to result from the surgery itself than leaving his healthy, normal penis alone.

Phimosis very very very rarely requires circumcision, there are multiple other more effective and far less invasive alternatives.

The chance of my son getting penile cancer is 3/1,000,000 (http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm).

It's not a personal opinion, preferrence, or decision unless the owner of the penis is making such an intimate, irreversible choice for HIMSELF.
* like i keep saying, parents have decisions to make on a childs behalf for many many years. thats what being a parent is all about. and if u are on the whole human rights committee then good luck to u.

And, as we keep pointing out there are limits to what parents can subject their children to. Breeding simply doesn't give ANYONE free reign to do whatever they want to their offspring.

There's only l% chance he'll ever require a circumcision for medical reasons.
* where did that come from. perhaps its correct. but what about all the incidences that are bad that COULD have been prevented but not bad enough to circumsise, but still have the painful experience. whats the percentage of incidences from being circ'd?

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

The two most common complications for circumcision are penile adhesions and meatal stenosis. The incidence for circumcised boys is 71% for penile adhesions and 10% for meatal stenosis.

Shannysmum: to answer your question about sensitivity: imagine having your clitoral hood removed (along with any other folds that are in the way) so that your clitoris was permanently exposed to direct contact.
* maybe thats what i need then. maybe thats y so many women find it difficult to orgasm???

Question: Why would you think having a calloused (ie, keratinized from years of exposure) clitoris would make orgasming easier for women?

[B]Who the hell gave parents the right to enforce their own sexual preferences on their children?
* they are not enforcing a sexual preference...sexual preference is hetrosexual and homosexual. but who gave parents the right to circumsise their child? the parents, as soon as they bd'd and went through nine months of pregnancy and giving birth to their child. like i said previously, the child didn't choose to be born either, if they don't like their life are they just going to crawl back into their mummy's tummy? no they cant, it irreversible also.

You're confusing 'sexual preference' with sexual orientation, Shannysmum. Sexual preference can relate to being aroused by feet or latex or prefering a surgically altered/reduced (circumcised) penis. In fact, there's actually a term for the fetish: "acucullophilia"...

Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992). "More than 750 entries and 150 original illustrations on the world's strange sex activities". Under "Circumcision" (page 6): "Men sometimes incorporate their fear of circumcision into sex play as a means for arousal. They fake a circumcision by having their partner blindfold and bind them, placing a reservoir tipped condom and then slicing off the tip with a knife ... Women who are only sexually aroused by circumcised males are referred to as acucullophiles."

Jen

MotherNurture

07-03-2007, 16:59

*Can someone please ask how much skin is removed during a circumcision next time they are getting a circumcision done for their boy, that is if you do not mind being so childish.

It's disconcerting that you'd consider asking exactly what and how much tissue a doctor is excising from the primary sex organ of your healthy, normal child's body as "childish".

Here's an idea, C&P "foreskin.org/3zones-c.htm" into your web browser and hit "enter" to see for yourself, with your own eyes, just how much skin is removed when a baby is circumcised, in order to expose the glans. Foreskin=shaftskin.

* I have explained so the glans does not feel so sensitive when not aroused. The hooded glans makes it more sensitive and after circumcision many decades later these light touch sensations can be recovered if the penis was covered and kept moist. During sex however it is a pressure response that is important and not the light touch response.

Perhaps you've (again) misunderstood what I'm asking, Ron; let me clarify: I'd like some verifyable proof of why the desensitization of the glans resulting from a lifetime of keratinization is a good thing. I'm not asking for your personal opinion/preference, here. I'd also appreciate data to support your assertion that "during sex...pressure response...is important and not light touch response". Thanks a bunch.

*Is this in contradiction to the aspects of what the people whom are against circumcision are saying because I thought they suggest that the rolling of the foreskin over the glans was a major pleasure stimulus and if this happens then the coronal ridge most certainly would not be in constant contact.

Nope, no contradiction. :)

Some men retract automatically upon erection, some still have foreskin coverage...both have slack skin that glides, however. Remember, the adult foreskin is a double-layered, mobile, tubular sheath. [Note: I have some very graphic links that illustrate this gliding mechanism, if anyone's interested PM me.]

*It thickens and desensitises in all males as they age regardless of their circumcied or uncircumcised status. The thickening does not matter to a large extent because of the nerve sensation pressure response.

Ron, if you go barefoot all summer, what happens? The bottoms of your feet thicken, correct? Would the same thing happen if you were wearing socks and shoes?

* This would change the response as the frenar band would be missing however it should still be tensioned in the circumcised male.

Ron, the frenulum of the penis anchors the foreskin under the glans, in the same way the bottom of your tongue is anchored to your mouth. There is no longer tension on the frenulum (if it remains at all) in a circumcised man because the foreskin is *gone*.

Jen

shannysmum

07-03-2007, 21:44

u know what. we can all argue till we turn blue, but guess what, none of us will change our minds (although, thats not what im trying to do). all the info is being repeated over about frenulums, and the child owns his penis so he should decide. its all getting very old and what is said to be rumours I can believe, like what i guess u non-circ believers have. or is it just what u are reading....no real life experiences or bad experiences of circumsition??? the infection in the other post may because it wasn't betadined regularly enough, or perhaps that might be just a minute 'taste' of what the child may have gone through on a regular basis as he might be succeptable to infections in that are...who knows? ur not a dr (im guessing) im not a dr...although, like someone else has said...dr's are not god. so who do u believe. is it all rumours???

Beany

07-03-2007, 22:39

That isn't true.

I used to be pro-circ. I no longer am.

People can change their minds. And the only way to achieve that is by being exposed to the wealth of medical and experiential data out there.

drbenroth

08-03-2007, 01:02

does that mean u may change ur angle if it is true that a circ'd penis has more feeling?

if that were proven, yes.
but it goes against both logic and common sense

i am willing to explain many possible circumstances which would lead me to reject my view.
Most of my questions are a challenge to do exactly that.

What would it take for you to reject yours? It seems to me that your opinion is not falsifiable.

if someone says that they believe in purple flying spaghetti monsters, there is no way to prove that they dont exist. it is not falsifiable, all you can say is, fine.

if i say i dont believe that these monsters exist, all it would take is a single instance of one of these monsters being seen, and my opinion (that they dont exist) has been falsified.

i dont believe in purple flying spaghetti monsters, but if i would change my mind if i saw one.

Because it is not falsifiable, it isnt possible for someone who does believe in purple flying spaghetti monsters to change his mind.

What needs to be proven that would convince you that circumcision is harmful?

Unless you are willing to state the conditions that could potentially falsify your argument, there is absolutely no point in this discussion.

MotherNurture

08-03-2007, 02:38

u know what. we can all argue till we turn blue, but guess what, none of us will change our minds (although, thats not what im trying to do).

Shannysmum, you may not be open to new information or reconsidering the issue honestly and objectively, but that doesn't mean that others who are participating (or, reading from lurkdom) aren't effected by the information and arguments presented in this forum.

all the info is being repeated over about frenulums, and the child owns his penis so he should decide. its all getting very old and what is said to be rumours I can believe, like what i guess u non-circ believers have. or is it just what u are reading....no real life experiences or bad experiences of circumsition???

What I've learned, from over 5 years of involvement in this issue now, is that on messageboards, typically, those who defend and promote circumcision usually do it from a very personal, subjective, rumor-based standpoint. For example, "My brother's girlfriend's mother works in a nursing home and said lots of elderly intact men get infected foreskins and require circumcision later in life. I've heard it's much more painful as an adult. My husband is cut, he has no complaints, and wants his son to match..."

Pro-intact arguments, on the other hand, tend to be much more objective and research-based. Those who oppose circumcision tend to post a lot more links to resources and referrences to support their arguments. It's relatively uncommon to read pro-intact arguments based on personal experiences/things they've heard from friends/family/coworkers.

Just an observation. :)

the infection in the other post may because it wasn't betadined regularly enough, or perhaps that might be just a minute 'taste' of what the child may have gone through on a regular basis as he might be succeptable to infections in that are...who knows?

Or, perhaps it had something to do with circumcision being an open wound-creating surgical procedure performed on an immunologically vulnerable infant.

Intact, unbroken skin is undeniably more resistant to the invasion of bacteria.

ur not a dr (im guessing) im not a dr...although, like someone else has said...dr's are not god. so who do u believe. is it all rumours???

No, it's not all rumors, Shannysmum. You just have to consider which information being presented is subjective and which is objective/independently varifiable.

Jen

circangel

09-03-2007, 19:05

If you are parents making a decision about circumcision you might want to read this extract or get the book 'Your Child's Health' (2006 edition)

Foreskin problems
By Professor Frank Oberklaid and Dr Leah Kaminsky, excerpt from 'Your Child's Health'

The normal penis
A retractable foreskin is a foreskin that can be pulled back to reveal the head of the penis. Four per cent of boys have a retractable foreskin at birth; 50% at one year; 80% at two years; 90% at four years. The cleaning of the penis should be facilitated by gently retracting the foreskin as far as it goes, but never try to pull it back beyond the point where resistance is met.

Phimosis
This is when the foreskin opening is very small, often as a result of inflammation, so that retraction of the foreskin is impossible. Sometimes the phimosis is so severe that there is no stream of urine, and it comes out in a dribble. Usually circumcision is necessary.

Paraphimosis
This is when the foreskin is retracted and is unable to be returned to its normal position. This condition is often treated by circumcision too.

Balanitis
This is an inflammation of the foreskin. If it recurs, circumcision is often necessary.

Genital care Content supplied by
Published by Hardie Grant Books, 'Your Child's Health' (2006 edition) (reprinted with permission)
Last reviewed
16-05-2006

MotherNurture

09-03-2007, 19:25

Ron,

This is an excerpt from some parenting book; the comments are also not referrenced. What is the professor a professor of? What is the doctor's specialty? When was this book written?

Phimosis is cured in 80% of cases with betamethasone cream these days. When that fails, there are less invasive procedures like stretching exercises, manual dilation under a local anesthetic, or a dorsal slit.

Paraphimosis is almost always treatable without circumcision as well; there are medical articles available online that describe various techniques that can be done with a local anesthetic to, essentially, pop the glans back into place.

Balantitis isn't inflammation of the foreskin; it's inflammation of the GLANS. If the foreskin were involved it would be called, "balanoposthitis".

Inflammation can be caused by virtually anything, from bubblebath that wasn't thoroughly rinsed off to a bug bite to normal separation trauma or a little bit of yeast overgrowth.

Can you imagine someone suggesting the second time a little girl experienced inflammation of her clitoris or clitoral hood amputative surgery be performed? Of course not.

I can certainly understand the desire to find something, anything that supports the idea that the foreskin is extremely problem-prone and the better-now-than-later mentality, and you may even be able to find someone, somewhere out there that presents themself as an expert and makes such claims, but they simply don't match up to reality.

Jen

circangel

09-03-2007, 20:07

The reference is at the bottom of the post and it was revised in 2006. This book might be an important book to read for parents making an informed decision

circangel

09-03-2007, 23:21

If there are any doubts about what is presented here please seek independent professional medical advice.

MotherNurture

10-03-2007, 01:31

The reference is at the bottom of the post and it was revised in 2006. This book might be an important book to read for parents making an informed decision

No, it means that segment of the site was added or edited/revised in 2006; it doesn't mean that the book (and quotes provided) were written that year.

The facts still stand: The information provided is inaccurate & unreferrenced. I'm more than happy to take the conditions listed, one by one, and provide actual articles and medical journal references for each.

If there are any doubts about what is presented here please seek independent professional medical advice.

Clearly, some 'professionals' and self-described experts have no idea what they're talking about, which is why instead of merely asking someone with medical training, who may or may not be biased or up to date on the latest research, parents ought to do their own *independent research*.

Ron, if this is the quality of information you're providing parents with regard to your referrals, I truly hope they're reading the other threads in this forum for balance.

Jen

circangel

10-03-2007, 06:53

I am reposting this again and please take note the book is the (2006 edition)

If you are parents making a decision about circumcision you might want to read this extract or get the book 'Your Child's Health' (2006 edition)

Foreskin problems
By Professor Frank Oberklaid and Dr Leah Kaminsky, excerpt from 'Your Child's Health'

The normal penis
A retractable foreskin is a foreskin that can be pulled back to reveal the head of the penis. Four per cent of boys have a retractable foreskin at birth; 50% at one year; 80% at two years; 90% at four years. The cleaning of the penis should be facilitated by gently retracting the foreskin as far as it goes, but never try to pull it back beyond the point where resistance is met.

Phimosis
This is when the foreskin opening is very small, often as a result of inflammation, so that retraction of the foreskin is impossible. Sometimes the phimosis is so severe that there is no stream of urine, and it comes out in a dribble. Usually circumcision is necessary.

Paraphimosis
This is when the foreskin is retracted and is unable to be returned to its normal position. This condition is often treated by circumcision too.

Balanitis
This is an inflammation of the foreskin. If it recurs, circumcision is often necessary.

Genital care Content supplied by
Published by Hardie Grant Books, 'Your Child's Health' (2006 edition) (reprinted with permission)
Last reviewed
16-05-2006

drbenroth

10-03-2007, 07:56

if you are making a decision about amputating your childs toe, you may want to read this extract.

Morton's Neuroma
A Morton's Neuroma, (also called a Morton's toe), is a condition that causes pain in the foot due to a swelling of one of the small nerves of the foot.

Ingrown Toenail

This condition usually results when pressure from improper shoewear, and improper care of the toenails leads to pain and hypertrophy (or overgrowth) of the tissue at the side of the nail.

Hammer Toe, Mallet Toe & Claw Toe
The hammer toe, claw toe, and mallet toe deformities are conditions that are most often due to wearing compressive footwear.

Advertisement Turf Toe
Turf toe is an injury to the base of the big toe. This condition is often caused by running or jumping on hard surfaces such as artificial turf.

Great Toe Arthritis & Bone Spurs
Arthritis and bone spurs of the big toe, a condition called hallux rigidus, is the most common form of foot arthritis. Treatment of hallux rigidus may include surgery.

Fungal infections
Fungal infections are among the most troublesome of nail conditions to treat. They are often characterised by thickening, discoloration and separation of the front of the nail from the nail bed. In some cases the nail crumbles. These infections tend to stay in the nail if they are not treated, and can infect the nail bed. There is a range of antifungal medications available for treatment, so see your doctor. Your podiatrist can assist with trimming and care of out-of-shape nail plates.

Other infections
Other nail infections can cause inflammation of the matrix (onychia) and inflammation of the tissue adjacent to the nail (paronychia). In people with lowered immunity, this may sometimes lead to serious complications, including more widespread infection extending up the leg. Your podiatrist can detect such infections early and form a suitable treatment plan.

Trauma
Trauma to the nails may lead to permanent nail deformity. This can be cared for by regular, podiatric treatment, involving filing and possibly the use of a special drill.

Risks of toe amputation by a trained and qualified surgeon are minimal, but infection can occasionally occur.

Parents should be given the risks and benefits of amputating the toes and ultimately it is personal choice how many toes you amputate.

Amputating one toe reduces the incidence of all of these problems by 10%.

The amputation of ten toes is often recommend as a prevention of all of these conditions, as well as a reduced incidence of toe cancer.

You should discuss with your doctor the number of toes you wish to remove, as it is a very personal decision and there is no right or wrong number. There are some people who may tell you that you should not remove any toes, but this is a personal decision and it should be the right one for you, and one that you are happy with.

It is better to amputate your childs toe when very young, because they will not remember it, and is a much simpler procedure than when older.

In addition, people who are very young are not able to feel pain. If you child cries when having his or her toe cut off, it is because they are so happy that you are doing this for them. They are tears of joy.

If you decide to leave the toes of your child unamputated, be sure to teach your child how to clean the toenail and gently around the toe are.

If you are unsure about any of this, please seak medical advice.

MotherNurture

10-03-2007, 08:10

I am reposting this again and please take note the book is the (2006 edition)

[edit-blah,blah,blah]

Genital care Content supplied by
Published by Hardie Grant Books, 'Your Child's Health' (2006 edition) (reprinted with permission)
Last reviewed
16-05-2006

Ron, you can post it one hundered times but that does not change the fact that it's completely inaccurate:

This is an excerpt from some parenting book; the comments are also not referrenced. What is the professor a professor of? What is the doctor's specialty? When was this book written?

Phimosis is cured in 80% of cases with betamethasone cream these days. When that fails, there are less invasive procedures like stretching exercises, manual dilation under a local anesthetic, or a dorsal slit.

Paraphimosis is almost always treatable without circumcision as well; there are medical articles available online that describe various techniques that can be done with a local anesthetic to, essentially, pop the glans back into place.

Balantitis isn't inflammation of the foreskin; it's inflammation of the GLANS. If the foreskin were involved it would be called, "balanoposthitis".

Inflammation can be caused by virtually anything, from bubblebath that wasn't thoroughly rinsed off to a bug bite to normal separation trauma or a little bit of yeast overgrowth.

Can you imagine someone suggesting the second time a little girl experienced inflammation of her clitoris or clitoral hood amputative surgery be performed? Of course not.

I can certainly understand the desire to find something, anything that supports the idea that the foreskin is extremely problem-prone and the better-now-than-later mentality, and you may even be able to find someone, somewhere out there that presents themself as an expert and makes such claims, but they simply don't match up to reality.

Hey, by the way, Dr. Leah Kaminsky is a General Practitioner, in case anyone's wondering...not a pediatrician or urologist.

Jen

shannysmum

10-03-2007, 13:32

mother nature...to me it sounds like u don't want to hear anything that may remotely relate to circ. u won't believe anything that is most likely years of experienience AND professionalism. to u it is false and misleading. If it was i really don't think it would be allowed to be published, otherwise they'd have legal battles on their hands. well, sometimes i think perhaps all the hoo haa about non-circ could be how u feel about the circ info. a bit extended upon, wen all your main argument on the issue is human rights. i know id prefer the prevention than the cure. ud prefer to leave the human body as it was born which is fair enough. hopefully your son/s wont have to go thru the pain (both physically and emotionally) if he happens to get infections etc. which would be more detrimental to the child at an older age than as a new born. the better now than later mentality is (in my incidence anyway) from all the incidences ive seen and heard are reality. all the information i get from the no-circs are text book theories. sometimes experience is more valuable than theories, because it is reality. can a no-circ please let the forum know of any real life experiences they've seen or heard of within their circle of friends family or colleagues that have had a negative result to the babies penis leaving it damaged etc. i am yet to hear these from any of u to date.

Phoenix's Mum

10-03-2007, 15:22

I recommend that those pro circumcision watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_CC9Y-Us210 (doctor's discussing having to perform circ)

There are a variety of videos on YouTube which show a baby being circumcised, albeit without sound.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZLVGFF8UKzA&mode=related&search= (one man's struggle against circ)

This one too is one to look at.

I think that about sums up how I feel about the issue. I think it seems strange that people get so het up about their right to remove part of their son's penis. It seems a no-brainer to me! It's a perfect piece of tissue that performs a function, not a superfluous piece of skin!

I wonder if all the pro-circs would be so happy to undergo what they are happy for their children, as newborns, to experience. Why not wait till they are older and able to make their own decisions?

I don't understand why you would do something to your child that would inhibit their future sexual/sensual experiences because you think it looks better, or might prevent a tiny percentage of infections!

MotherNurture

10-03-2007, 16:25

mother nature...to me it sounds like u don't want to hear anything that may remotely relate to circ.

If that were true, I wouldn't have spent the last 5 years involved with this issue.

u won't believe anything that is most likely years of experienience AND professionalism. to u it is false and misleading.

No medical organization in the world recomments RIC. Not one. That should tell you something.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are potential medical benefits to removing any non-essential part of the human body; that doesn't mean the benefits outweigh the risks.

If it was i really don't think it would be allowed to be published, otherwise they'd have legal battles on their hands.

Opinions are published every day. Inaccurate info is published every day. Most books have disclaimers about the information presented, not guarenteeing it's accuracy. You can't assume just because you read it in a book/magazine or see it on TV that something's true. Authors are human, humans make mistakes.

well, sometimes i think perhaps all the hoo haa about non-circ could be how u feel about the circ info. a bit extended upon, wen all your main argument on the issue is human rights.

Nah, it really and truly is all about protecting vulnerable children from unnecessary pain and harm.

i know id prefer the prevention than the cure.
Wouldn't we all?

The 'prevention' in the case of a normal, intact penis is to leave the foreskin alone during infancy and early childhood. Premature/forced retraction by well-meaning but misinformed caregivers and medical professionals is responsible for a great deal of the irritation/infections/scarring we occasionally hear about. Proper, non-invasive care and simple (retract, rinse, replace) hygiene when he can retract his own foreskin, comfortably is all the prevention boys need.

The pound of cure, in this case, is unnecessary circumcision...putting healthy babies through a painful, risky, invasive, amputative surgical procedure for the miniscule (1% chance) they may someday need it.

ud prefer to leave the human body as it was born which is fair enough.

Indeed, the same as I would leave a little girl's genitals intact.

hopefully your son/s wont have to go thru the pain (both physically and emotionally) if he happens to get infections etc.

Hopefully not. He's 3 now, and hasn't experienced even the slightest irritation. He's not retractible yet. He pees fine. He seems quite fond of his penis.

which would be more detrimental to the child at an older age than as a new born.

You think so? Can you explain why you feel that way?

the better now than later mentality is (in my incidence anyway) from all the incidences ive seen and heard are reality.

I'm well aware of this mentality, which is the reason I started creating a list of reasons why later adult circumcision, should it become necessary, is actually worse than newborn 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.

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 9-10%.

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.

all the information i get from the no-circs are text book theories.

Perhaps you mean, actual research, studies, and medical organization policy statements.

sometimes experience is more valuable than theories, because it is reality.

It's still extremely limited and subjective; anatomy, physiology, incidence of problems, circumcision, etc have objective data backing them.

For instance, say you tell me you know three men who have died of penile cancer. Because of this, you are deeply concerned that your son might be at a higher risk if he's left intact. Of course, you want what's best for your son. In your small, subjective circle 3 seems like a considerable number.

The objective reality is:

"One of every one million men who are circumcised will develop cancer of the penis each year. By comparison, 3 of every one million men who are not circumcised will develop penile cancer each year. (http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm)"

If you really knew that many men who died of penile cancer, there's probably some unknown factors at play; maybe, for instance, you work in a urology clinic to which people with serious penile problems are referred. Those you come into contact with would obviously not be representative of the general population.

can a no-circ please let the forum know of any real life experiences they've seen or heard of within their circle of friends family or colleagues that have had a negative result to the babies penis leaving it damaged etc. i am yet to hear these from any of u to date.

How about this for a pinch of subjectivity:

My stepson was circumcised as a newborn and aquired meatal stenosis as a result of his circumcision; meatal stenosis is circumcision's most common complication. l0% of circumcised boys are effected. In my stepson's case, it required corrective surgery under general anesthesia.

Note: Every single circumcision results in damage; it's amputative; it's penile reduction surgery; it makes penises smaller; it excises nerves and blood vessels; it removes the ridged band; it damages/removes the frenulum; it causes keratinization of mucousal tissue; it removes the only indepenendently mobile part of the penis.

Jen

shannysmum

11-03-2007, 08:46

I guess i was lucky, i had none of the problems suggested by mother nature. no latching problems/painful nipples. (I breastfed till six months). as far as pain threshold now, the only time my son cries now is when the bump results in a bruise (and he doesn't bruise easily). He doesn't really even cry when teething and hes cut 4 teeth. if 10% is the most common of complications well, thats a risk im willing to take. how well experienced was the dr performing the procedure of ur stepson? i chose a dr who completes the procedure at least 3 a day, with the most i think he said was 17 in a day. experience is a major key to successful circumsition. as well as proper care following the procedure. very regular nappy changing and covering the area in betadine regularly is also important. as i said, seeing as tho there are all those complication to circing, i must have been really lucky, and as far as knowing many (not just 1) complications with non-circing in my small circle of friends family and colleagues, then well i guess they just must have been unlucky. as far as penile cancer goes, i didn't even know about that till reading into it more deeply, that just seemed a bonus that i chose to circ. and additionally, i don't know anyone, circ or non-circ that has died of penile cancer. i guess maybe because majority of men of an older age (that i know) is more likely to have been circed??? i don't know.

OJandMe

11-03-2007, 12:45

*clears throat* As this is intended as a 'general dissussion' of the topic of circumcision, why does it always seem like those who HAVE circ-ed have made the worst choice in the world, while those you haven't have made the best choice.... isn't it purely a matter of opinon? There is research both for and against the topic, like any medical procedure there are studies both supporting and against the procedure.

Like cosmetic surgery, some studies say it's fine as it enhances self esteem and all that jazz, other's say it's detrimental as people start trying to achieve a 'perfect' image which is unrealistic and leads to damaged self esteem...

So... as part of this general discussion, of which I don't have a strong opinion either way... I'm going to add this..

My boys are circed, my nephews aren't, they're all at childcare..

I was thinking the other day... I wonder if child care workers pay any attention to it? Coz they'd have some boys who were, and some who aren't.. I was curious about it because my nephews look so different to the boys. I suppose it becomes one of those 'non-issue- things if you're changing 20 million nappies a week :D

And also I suppose on the area you're in. I live in an area with a high Islamic population, so I'm assuming that most of the Islamic boys at the child care centre would be circed.
It's not really a question, or a statement... just a pondering I was having the other day.. and thought... hmmm I might share it in the general disscussion thread... :)

Beany

11-03-2007, 13:05

I live in an area with a high Islamic population, so I'm assuming that most of the Islamic boys at the child care centre would be circed.

Not necessarily. Most Muslims don't circumcise their children in infancy. The wait until they are old enough to be out of nappies and old enough to be able to get anaesthetic.

shannysmum

11-03-2007, 14:41

As a child care worker myself its just something of passing. there is both still found in child care centres. non-circ is more popular and as a child care worker i don't go, �h yuck theyre not circumsised", i'm not against not circing, i'm just for circing. yes u are right ojandme, u change that many nappies everyday u don't pay any attention to it. thanks for the input. it gets a bit harsh when certain people continually criticise ur right and choice as a parent to have ur child circ'd. and i agree, it is a matter of opinion, no one is right and no one is wrong in their own right.

Mister Noodle

11-03-2007, 14:52

I dare say nurses get accustomed to open wounds, too.

That hardly proves that they're of no importance.

I don't think the Argument From Being Jaded will fly.

I do question anyone's right to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on in infant - what's the justification, and why is that justification limited to foreskins?

Why does nobody acknowledge the value of having all of your body parts?

shannysmum

11-03-2007, 20:03

y cant u simply understand it is not cosmetic surgery?

drbenroth

12-03-2007, 01:39

because unless there is a medical conditin that requires circumcision, that is exactly what it is.

'preventative surgery' simply is not done unless it is by a fully informed adult.
"first do no harm"

why cant you understand that the fact that circumcision prevents certain conditions is no more justification than amputating a toe to prevent ingrown toenail.

If however, you accept that parents DO have the right to amputate their childs toe, then i will agree that you are consistent with your own views.

MotherNurture

12-03-2007, 03:38

if 10% is the most common of complications well, thats a risk im willing to take.

Well, if you compare a circumcised boys 10% risk of meatal stenosis, usually requiring corrective surgery with leaving him intact and having him have only a 1% risk of ever needing to be circumcised, I'd choose 'leave well enough alone' any day of the week.

how well experienced was the dr performing the procedure of ur stepson? i chose a dr who completes the procedure at least 3 a day, with the most i think he said was 17 in a day. experience is a major key to successful circumsition. as well as proper care following the procedure. very regular nappy changing and covering the area in betadine regularly is also important.

Meatal stenosis is a result of artificially, permanently, constantly exposing the urinary meatus (peehole) to the diaper-enviroment. It's a delicate area, easily ulcerated...and repeated ulcerations lead to scarring. Meatal stenosis has nothing to do with the experience of the practioner who did the circumcision; it's not a surgical complication, it's a consequence of the penis loosing it's protective sheath.

More information:

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm

as i said, seeing as tho there are all those complication to circing, i must have been really lucky, and as far as knowing many (not just 1) complications with non-circing in my small circle of friends family and colleagues, then well i guess they just must have been unlucky.

Another consequence (although more of a side effect than a complication, because it's so incredibly common) is penile adhesions. When babies are born, the foreskin is normally fused to the glans; one of the first steps of infant circumcision includes stretching the tip of the foreskin open and introducing a blunt probe or scissors underneath it to tear it free from the glans. This leaves the glans and the inner skin both raw. After circumcision, any remaining skin will frequently readhere to the glans. During the first year of life, circumcised boys have a 71% risk of penile adhesions.

More information:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10893633&dopt=Abstract

There are also many instances where children do experience circumcision complicatiosn but the family isn't told that the circumcision caused the problem. Meatal Stenosis is a great example. My husband didn't learn until years later that it was caused by circumcision.

Doctors aren't typically inclined to admit that something they did caused a complication, they usually like to avoid blame/taking responsibility, especially considering how litigious our society has become.

as far as penile cancer goes, i didn't even know about that till reading into it more deeply, that just seemed a bonus that i chose to circ.

I used penile cancer as an example, but my point was merely that our own subjective experiences don't necessarily accurately reflect reality/incidence in the general population. That's why studies are a higher quality of data on which to base such a decision.

Again, there are potential medical benefits to removing any part of the human body not required to sustain life; every single part of our body from our scalps to the tips of our toes is susceptible to illness & infection. I could cut off my son's toes and list a variety of ailments toe amputation could potentially prevent, and call it a 'bonus' too.

Jen

shannysmum

12-03-2007, 14:33

MotherNurture

12-03-2007, 16:51

so meatal stenosis sounds like it is basically caused as the parent hasn't changed the infant on a very regular basis and kept bedadine on it to prevent infection of any sort??? as i would understand it, when u mean the nappy environment u would mean that area as the urine is stored in the nappy making it an unsterile area. however, if it was changed very regular it wouldn't be in that environment, and ultimately if the area was constantly applied with bedadine, it would also keep the area more sterile???? But like ive said, ive circumsized and i'd do it again, but the information needs to be there for others.

Shannysmum, meatal stenosis develops later; it's generally discovered during toddlerhood. It's not an infection at all, so it has absolutely nothing to do with betadine or the area being 'unsterile'.

Again, this isn't an issue of provider or parent negligence, meatal stenosis is caused by the delicate meatal opening being ulcerated by the diaper enviroment. The urinary meatus isn't designed by nature to be exposed to the diaper enviroment *at all*. It's supposed to be covered and protected by the foreskin *constantly* through infancy and early childhood. Did you read the link to the emedicine article I posted? It explains all this, and more...

An excerpt, for your convenience:

Background: Genital disorders are commonly encountered in the office of the primary care physician. Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative.

Pathophysiology: After circumcision, a child who is not toilet trained persistently exposes the meatus to urine, resulting in inflammation (ammoniacal dermatitis) and mechanical trauma as the meatus rubs against a wet diaper. This causes the loss of the delicate epithelial lining of the distal urethra. This loss may result in adherence of the epithelial lining at the ventral side, leaving a pinpoint orifice at the tip of the glans. Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis.

Another hypothetical cause of this condition is ischemia due to damage to the frenular artery during circumcision, resulting in poor blood supply to the meatus and subsequent stenosis. In a prospective study of circumcised boys, Van Howe (2006) found meatal stenosis in 24 of 239 (7.29%) children older than 3 years, making meatal stenosis the most common complication of circumcision.

Frequency:

Internationally: Incidence is 9-10% of males who are circumcised.

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm

Jen

circangel

12-03-2007, 19:21

In the wikipedia prevention section it clearly states

"In a recently circumcised male infant, try to maintain a clean, dry diaper and avoid any exposure of the newly circumcized penis to irrititants (sic)." [10]

Meir and Livne suggest that use of a broad spectrum antibiotic after hypospadias repair will "probably reduce meatal stenosis [rates]", [11] while Jayanthi recommends the use of a modified Snodgrass hypospadias repair.[12] Viville states that "prevention is based essentially upon more caution in the use of indwelling urethral catheters."[13]

MotherNurture

13-03-2007, 01:29

Do keep in mind that wikipedia is written by average, everyday people for average, everyday people. Anyone can contribute. It's a work in progress. Accuracy is not guarenteed; contributions are anonymous.

Certainly, changing your baby as frequently as possible will reduce exposure to ammonia and other irritants, however, there will still be exposure. Circumcision has still unnaturally stripped the penis of it's protective sheath, leaving the meatus artificially, constantly exposed.

Our eyes are designed with built-in protection, too. We could remove someone's eyelid, and then tell them how to avoid exposure to irritants and to use moisturizing drops daily, but it's still an unnatural, very suboptimal situation.

As the emedicine article states, it's repeated ulceration of the meatus that eventually causes scarring; circumcision is the most important risk factor. It wouldn't surprise me though if there were indeed cases of urethral scarring/blockage caused by repeated or chronic catheterization of children or adults of either gender...it's a delicate area.

Jen

circangel

13-03-2007, 15:49

Good points MotherNurture, the wikapedia could be unbiased think of that.

drbenroth

14-03-2007, 12:28

can we get past the bias issue.
anyone who has an opinion on anything can be called biased by someone.

just look at the facts.

xkwzit

14-03-2007, 20:01

Many sources of information on circumcision are biased one way or the other. Presenting both/either side of the issue is what this thread is about and all information is valuable. Thanks to all who are contributing.

Cheers

circangel

14-03-2007, 21:32

Originally posted by MotherNurture

{As the emedicine article states, it's repeated ulceration of the meatus that eventually causes scarring; circumcision is the most important risk factor. It wouldn't surprise me though if there were indeed cases of urethral scarring/blockage caused by repeated or chronic catheterization of children or adults of either gender...it's a delicate area.}

This sounds like a problem that would involve the penis when (a) it is circumcised and (b) when it is not kept clean after the procedure. So I would imagine that one could still circumcise if they want to without causing any problems if they follow basic hygeine. I believe the issue of infections is an important one to consider because of the scaring that could be caused and think circumcision was the usual not so long ago and circumcision can prevent bad scaring from occuring from infections not to mention there would be no more painful urination etc.

circangel

14-03-2007, 21:47

Originally posted by MrNoodle

"I do question anyone's right to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on in infant - what's the justification, and why is that justification limited to foreskins?

Why does nobody acknowledge the value of having all of your body parts?"

The justifications are many and medically recorded. The justification is limited to foreskins as I see it because they are not required in the male just like breasts are not required in the male and unlike other anatomy like the toes etc, think about it.

the_queen

14-03-2007, 21:50

I'm of the opinion that my son requires his foreskin.

Beany

14-03-2007, 21:51

The appendix is required in neither the male nor the female. Why isn't it justifiable to remove that at birth?

circangel

14-03-2007, 21:59

Think about it I said. In the female it does not cause as many problems as in the male. It might not cause many problems in the male but in the female it does not cause as many.

MotherNurture

15-03-2007, 01:01

Originally posted by MrNoodle

The justifications are many and medically recorded. The justification is limited to foreskins as I see it because they are not required in the male just like breasts are not required in the male and unlike other anatomy like the toes etc, think about it.

Oh, the attempted justifications are many...absolutely.

A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an an�sthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.

...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control.

-Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, 1877
Book: "Plain facts for old and young: embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life"

More information, on the history of circumcision in Australia specifically is available at historyofcircumcision.net (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=71&Itemid=50)

It could easily be argued that plenty of babies thrive on formula in our modern world, so breasts are not required these days. It could also be said that toes are also not 'required', since a person can live a fulfilling life without them; they're certainly not required to sustain life, like the heart, lungs, brain, etc.

The core ethical question remains: Do any of us have a 'right' to excise sensitive, functional parts of another person's healthy, normal body without a pressing medical indication for amputative surgery?

Think about it I said. In the female it does not cause as many problems as in the male. It might not cause many problems in the male but in the female it does not cause as many.

:confused:

Jen

MotherNurture

15-03-2007, 02:51

Originally posted by MotherNurture

This sounds like a problem that would involve the penis when (a) it is circumcised and (b) when it is not kept clean after the procedure. So I would imagine that one could still circumcise if they want to without causing any problems if they follow basic hygeine. I believe the issue of infections is an important one to consider because of the scaring that could be caused and...

Urine=caustic substance

Meatus=delicate tissue

Even with frequent changing, there's still exposure.

Keep in mind, this ulceration isn't necessarily immediately post-op, during initial healing.

Circumcision is surgery; it, in itself, results in a scar.

My stepson, who was circumcised and who was one of the l0% of boys that aquire meatal stenosis, was not neglected and left in diapers for excessive periods of time. Children's skin sensitivity varies. Some are more prone to skin irritation/rashes.

I think it's an incredible assumption, and dangerously misleading to-without any supportive data-reassure parents that if they just change their circumcised bub's diapers frequently meatal stenosis can be avoided.

Again, from the article:

After circumcision, a child who is not toilet trained persistently exposes the meatus to urine, resulting in inflammation (ammoniacal dermatitis) and mechanical trauma as the meatus rubs against a wet diaper. This causes the loss of the delicate epithelial lining of the distal urethra. This loss may result in adherence of the epithelial lining at the ventral side, leaving a pinpoint orifice at the tip of the glans. Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis.

Another hypothetical cause of this condition is ischemia due to damage to the frenular artery during circumcision, resulting in poor blood supply to the meatus and subsequent stenosis. In a prospective study of circumcised boys, Van Howe (2006) found meatal stenosis in 24 of 239 (7.29%) children older than 3 years, making meatal stenosis the most common complication of circumcision.

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm

This condition is the result of artificially, permanently & constantly exposing an area that's meant to be completely protected & covered during infancy and early childhood.

Truly, it's like removing an eyelid and then suggesting the child will be just fine so long as they avoid dusty areas and use moisturizing drops regularly.

... think circumcision was the usual not so long ago and circumcision can prevent bad scaring from occuring from infections not to mention there would be no more painful urination etc.

Circumcision now prevents dysuria? Here's a look at some of the causes of painful urination in men:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/990901ap/865.html

"Foreskin" isn't even on there.

Circumcision was only popular for a very brief period of time, thankfully. It was a fad, and a harmful one at that. It was thought to decrease masturbation because it removed so many nerves and resulted in glans keratinization, and at the time masturbation was believed to cause everything from epilepsy to insanity. Thank heavens we now know better.

We do know better, don't we?

Jen

circangel

15-03-2007, 09:56

Pippi Longstocking

15-03-2007, 10:08

I have read all the articles MotherNurture has mentioned well over a decade ago, it seems like they are playing with peoples emotions to stop this practice. Once you actually read it and think about all the issues for an extended period of time it all appears to be nonsense by and large.

I'm sorry? I'm not sure what you are saying, could you elaborate? Are you saying that all of the articles, data and links etc that MotherNurture has posted are nonsense?
To be honest, I think you yourself have posted some pretty dubious references while MN has been a great source of well-researched data and an asset to those seeking more information regarding circumcision.

MotherNurture

15-03-2007, 10:11

I have read all the articles MotherNurture has mentioned well over a decade ago, it seems like they are playing with peoples emotions to stop this practice.

Hey, Ron...what about the articles and studies that have been shared that aren't close to being l0 years old?

Once you actually read it and think about all the issues for an extended period of time it all appears to be nonsense by and large.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinions.

I'm glad everyone in this forum has access to and the opportunity to explore the wealth of information, articles, links, etc. that's been shared.

It seems more and more, people are appalled at this practice. I think they are reacting emotionally because what circumcision is and what it does-to children-touches us to the very core.

Jen

MotherNurture

15-03-2007, 10:13

...MN has been a great source of well-researched data and an asset to those seeking more information regarding circumcision.

:hugs:

Jen

circangel

15-03-2007, 17:21

ok you can argue all you like but I know how important circumcision is to many by the 100's of replies from parents wanting it done.

melfunction

15-03-2007, 17:27

But is it important to the owners of that foreskin?

Mister Noodle

15-03-2007, 18:41

Ron: what's your angle on this, anyway?

You posted a thread offering to recommend a doctor who would do it for people - why, specifically?

Why the proactive advocacy? The anti-circ side have obvious motives - we don't want children to be harmed.

You on the other hand appear to be arguing well beyond parental rights - you would appear to specifically want children to be circumcised.

Why?

poppie

15-03-2007, 20:46

Every parent can make choices for their children. I am glad I have a girl and don't have to enter into the debate for my own child! From my point of view, I watched a circumcision go horribly wrong, not the actual procedure but the bub never regained conciousness. From that perspective, I couldn't face knowing that I had put my child at risk for a procedure that has no definitive evidence as to the benefits. But it comes down to informed choice and being able to let your child know why you chose it for him and that you believe you did the right thing by him.

pookiesossige

19-03-2007, 21:26

Poppie... :hugs: :hugs:

I'm sorry? I'm not sure what you are saying, could you elaborate? Are you saying that all of the articles, data and links etc that MotherNurture has posted are nonsense?
To be honest, I think you yourself have posted some pretty dubious references while MN has been a great source of well-researched data and an asset to those seeking more information regarding circumcision.

I second this 100%

Allegra

20-03-2007, 01:19

MotherNurture

20-03-2007, 03:39

Circumcision was never discussed in my home when I was growing up (I had one brother). I always thought it was a necessary procedure done to all male babies. I only started questioning the point of it after I read a book called "As Nature Made Him" (even though this book is mainly about gender identity it does start of with a circumcision).

I haven't read the book, but I've heard his story and watched a television special on him. Isn't it absolutely heartbreaking?

For those who haven't heard about the John/Joan case of David Reimer (born "Bruce"), there were twin boys; they were both scheduled for a circumcision at 8 months old. (Likely inappropriately diagnosed with phimosis.)

Only one boy was circumcised, because something went horribly wrong---an electro-cautery tool literally burned off his entire penis. (His brother, Brian's supposed phimosis went away without treatment.)

At the time, there was a great controversy about nature vs. nurture, and some believed that if someone was raised as a certain gender they would be that gender, regardless of their DNA.

So, he was castrated and raised as a girl. Later, he found out the truth, had surgery to become male again, married, but later tragically committed suicide after his brother's death (overdose).

David Reimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

The True Story of J O H N / J O A N By John Colapinto
The Rolling Stone, December 11, 1997. Pages 54-97 (http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm)

Gender GapWhat were the real reasons behind David Reimer's suicide?, By John Colapinto, Posted Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 3:58 PM ET
(http://www.slate.com/id/2101678/)

Lots more can be found by googling: "John Joan" or "David Reimer"

Jen