Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I mean, if you look at the plumbing of men (uncircumcized) and women - they pretty much work like they're supposed to. If you refuse to bathe or clean ya junk - yeah, you might have issues. But I think all things being equal - they would work just fine on their own.
I remember I did ask that guy (the one in his 50's) if that was an issue and he looked at me like I was retarded.
A friend of mine who's a nurse said that she'd read reports that female partners of men that had been circumcised were less likely to contract cervical cancer.
Obviously I can't back that claim up but that's what she told me.
I thought that NOT being circumcised caused issues with infections? Is that not true?
It can if you don't teach boys proper hygiene, and for some who have abnormally tight foreskins (but that's pretty rare). Most boys/men here are not circumcised, and I think (not sure though) that's true for most of the countries in Europe and it's probably been true for most males throughout history, so infections are most likely not a big issue.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2006
*OFF TOPIC*.... I have just spotted the first snowdrop of Spring!!!! yay!!!:cheer: :thumbsup: :bowdown: :rockon: :bigclap:
Ok. Sorry. Back on topic.....
Cleanliness and hygiene is a fallacy. Cervical cancer is more common in women who use talcum powder around 'sensitive areas' than for women who have circumcised partners., so i'm not sure that's the worst issue....
Okay. Cervical Cancer /male circumcision debate.:Proven Wrong about three years ago.
Talcum Powder/cervical Cancer debate: proven wrong about April last year.
Aluminium pots etc. / Alzhiemers; study was flawed/ the chemical preperation used to preserve the brains under investigation was "leaching" aluminium salts from the preservation vessel. Proven wrong also about two years ago.
Male Circumcision. (female circumcision)
Cleanliness issue-Bullshit. the glans/foreskin interface is the anatomical equivalent of the clitoris/prepuce (hood) both can become slightly odourous if You don'T wash! like if I don't wash under my arms/armpit-i get smelly there too- it's obvious. using this theory then all women and men should be circumcised-full stop. A stupid and cruel idea/theory.
INFECTION:
If infection/odour/cervical cancer were REAL issues then at least 60% of the male population (would be dying of infections of the penis/and their wives/gf's would be dying of cervical cancer-this has not occured.
p.s. the study found a "very slightly higher incidence" that according to the investigators "could have also been natural statistical variation" in other words NOT SIGNIFICANT! enough evidence to prove/disprove anything.
"Don't need one so cut it off"-theory.
How about this...
most of us have an appendix at the end of our lg intestine. I reckon all of us should have an operation (without anathesia) to remove it-considering we don't NEED it.
Most of us have two pinkies (little fingers)-right now i would conservatively think that about 85% of you don't really use this extra piece of skin/bone/gristle-so cut it off! without anaethesia again.
Pleasure index and fashion.
Okay, Mine is (thankfully) intact-although it was "Trendy" here in aus in the 60's/70's to have an Aussie boy "done". Notice the use of the word "Trendy" it was fashionable-hey its fashionable to look like a friggin stick and vomit-up good food too-I reckon we should all attend the local Vomitariam and take diet pills and starve ourselves-because, Well we don't NEED to look normal-apparently (whatever normal is).
It is also trendy to have pert and voluptuous breasts! YES PLEASE I WANT A SET OF THOSE DD's (AGAIN WITHOUT ANAETHESIA! THANKS)
Now there is some debate over the pleasure situation???Who has the right to determine my or your pleasure experience?? why do i need my genitals mutilated/modified when I'm a BABY-because someone wants me to have a "theoretical" increase (for boys) in their penis, or a KNown decrease in pleasure (for victims of FGM female Circumcision)?
They don't feel it being done when they're babies.
Ever heard/seen one done You tell me!!! when the sreaming subsides that is-For shit's sake-get a grip people! of course it hurts! here at the hospital where my children were born-yes i have a son NO, he's also intact. They get the father if available or the mother (whoever is pushing to get him done) to hold down the baby while the op is done -thankfully many have declined!! sparing their children from absolute agony.
P.S. babies get erections too and it also tears the healing area-OUCH.
Hey I'm tattooed and pierced-MY CHOICE! and it cetainly wasn't done without MY OWN CONSENT! some of my modified friends get themselves circumcised but again-Their OWN CHOICE! and they have stated NO CHANGE! IN PLEASURE.-just different.
you see all of this is absolute rubbish expounded by people who want to support the genital mutilation/subjugation of children, both boys and girls.
The he /she will feel left out." theory.
sorry-absolute crap.
If this was true then if i was to live in a "black or Hispanic area" then I would feel left out too-I should them make myself browned in some way, because I want to feeel "Included".
honestly-this is my two cents worth, but really let's face the facts. GOD/SPIRIT/ALLAH/THE UNIVERSE wanted us to be born with "frills and extras" things that some of us may no longer use-hey what about brains-I reckon, because we have computers to think for us-we should all have our brains removed! yea great idea-also without pain medication-PLEASE!
I liked reading your post, Xrayman...I really did! You make some very good points and give a lot to think about when it comes to circumcision. Gosh, I am so glad I am a girl, and that I have a daughter!
thankyou for your input and replies /PM's yes i do get fired up about this issue-sorry about that, however you will also notice that I tend to fire up when the "Norms" and "that's the way we've always done it, and we're not about to change", brigade come into town.
Small question for you to ponder..
Why is it that we abhor the genital mutilation of girls in our society, yet we, in some cases, "encourage" it in boys?
It is these sort of hypotheticals and questions that intrigue me.
I would like to point out that science has proven that circumcision can be a help as far as preventatives against different types of cancers around the phallic areas go.
let's compare the incidence of penile cancer, in comparison to let's say, Breast cancer (in both men and women)-penile cancer is almost negligible. In fact that argument has been used to show the differences in women's issues versus men's, in the political arena. There is a theory that cancer in general would be a VERY IMPORTANT political issue if the incidence of penile cancer was significant-all our MALE politicians would be making it a REAL bill of concern!!
NOTE:
Prostate cancer in men occurs at these interesting levels.. at age 50, a man is statistically likely to get prostate cancer 50%, at age 60 it's 60% by age 90, 90% most men will have or start to have prostate cancer! frigging scary stats!
If you want some further data-I'd love to present it, however, getting back to the point,
Now does the statistic that you refer to Infanta, mean that by removing the foreskin with the cancererous tumour contained within prevents cancer, or, does it provide protection against penile cancer ON THE PENIS-ITSELF?
just curious,
I apologize. Circumcision is not considered a valid way to prevent cancer according to this release by the American Cancer Association:
However, the penile cancer risk is low in some non-circumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis.
However:
Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.
And:
Non-circumcised children and men tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis, and of the foreskin, than circumcised men. The reasons are unclear, but several hypotheses have been suggested:
* The foreskin may harbor bacteria and infect if it is not cleaned enough.
* The foreskin may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.
* The forcible retraction in boys can lead to infections.
There are less invasive treatments than circumcision for posthitis (an inflamed foreskin) and balanitis (inflammation of the glans). However, these are not as successful in treating balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO), which is harder to treat.
And:
The March 2005 Cochrane review concluded that while individual studies are of variable quality, there are clear indicators that circumcision can significantly reduce the chances of female-to-male HIV infection in an African population, when compared against an non-circumcised control group. The review commented that the results of the three randomised controlled trials will be essential. The results of the first trial were published in November 2005, reporting 60% protection against HIV infection.
Honestly, it's your opinion not mine, but I don't see the huge, immoral deal in circumcision.
Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA) produces a whitish-yellowish patch on the skin, and is not believed to be always harmful or painful, and may sometimes disappear without intervention. Some consider balanitis xerotica obliterans to be a form of LSA that happens to be on the foreskin, where it may cause pathological phimosis. Circumcision is believed to reliably reduce the threat of BXO.
Hello all,
The doctor told my mummy I had to have it done. She didn't question him as people do these days.....Medicine is less of a god now?????? :hair:
Wow!.... whodathunk Johnsons would cause so much discussion?
I have to say, I haven't talked about willies or weiners or trouser snakes or pocket rockets or tallywackers, packages, units, ding-a-lings and (I'm sorry... the newest one I've heard) beef darts - this much and at one sitting in my entire life!
Sorry, BF. I came across this article today and thought some might be interested.
It's about circumcision and AIDS/HIV in Swaziland.
Circumcision makes comeback in AIDS-hit Swaziland
Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:27 PM ET166
By Rebecca Harrison
MBABANE (Reuters) - It's not every day that hordes of men fight to forego their foreskins -- especially not in a country where circumcision was banned by a 19th century king.
But in the tiny African kingdom of Swaziland, circumcision is making a comeback after research showed the age-old rite may help stop the spread of HIV. Volunteers eager for the snip almost rioted at an overbooked clinic in the capital last month.
"There was a stampede," said Dr. Mark Mills, administrator at the Mbabane Clinic. "There is not a family in Swaziland unaffected by HIV and people are desperate ... In some countries you have food riots, we nearly had a circumcision riot."
Swaziland has the world's highest rate of HIV, with around 40 percent of the adult population believed to be infected with the virus that causes AIDS. Analysts say the pandemic could threaten the existence of this nation of 1 million people.
The reasons are complex: many Swazis work in mines in AIDS-ravaged neighbouring South Africa and polygamy is common. But new studies show circumcision could also play a part.
Circumcision, practised by Jews and Muslims, is common in many African countries either as part of rite-of-passage ceremonies, or in Muslim communities mostly in West Africa.
Swaziland's King Mswati II banned it in the late 1800s because young men recovering from the surgery were distracted from waging war. The country, wedged between South Africa and Mozambique, has one of the world's lowest circumcision rates.
Researchers have noted links between high rates of HIV and low rates of male circumcision since the 1980s, but last year the first controlled study in South Africa found circumcised men were around 60 percent less likely to contract HIV.
Circumcision's benefits may stem from the fact that the foreskin has cells that the virus seems able to easily infect.
The study by French and South African researchers was published in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal -- and its findings filtered down to Swazis through newspapers, talk shows and politicians.
MOTHERS PROTECT SONS
The response -- which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with health -- has been huge as deeply traditional Swazis discard their cultural heritage in droves.
Mbabane Clinic, a private hospital, is performing some 10 circumcisions a week compared to less than one a month prior to the study. The Family Life Association of Swaziland (FLAS) has two new doctors working full-time to keep up with waiting lists.
In Swaziland, where the majority of people are Christian although indigenous beliefs are often incorporated into their faith, mothers are a key driving force behind the new trend.
Phindile Maseko, a nurse at Mbabane clinic, fears for her 13-year-old son's future and will do all she can to protect him.
"I decided he needed to do it for safety and for the future. Children are so naughty these days -- they start doing these things so young and then they get sick," she told Reuters at her home in Mbabane. "I want to protect him from all this HIV mess."
Her son Matshidiso said he was initially terrified but that staying alive was more important than upholding Swazi norms.
"HIV doesn't come from Swaziland so maybe you need to protect yourself with something that doesn't come from Swaziland," he told Reuters a week after the operation.
The United Nations is waiting for more studies before making male circumcision part of its fight against HIV, but the U.N. Children's Fund and other health officials in Swaziland are already promoting it.
"In countries in crisis ... we need to put the information out there," said Alan Brody, country director for UNICEF.
MIXED MESSAGES?
Male circumcision is common in the United States and other countries for religious and cultural reasons and to help prevent urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.
But some health officials in Swaziland worry men could start to think that removing the foreskin is like wearing a "permanent condom", destroying the impact of years of safe sex education.
"I am worried about sending mixed messages," said Janet Khumalo, a counsellor at the FLAS clinic.
Her fears are not unfounded. The South African study showed circumcised men registered a slightly higher level of sexual behavior immediately after the operation, although many health officials say the benefits still outweigh the risks.
FLAS hopes the new trend will push men, usually slow to use reproductive health services, to come in and talk about safe sex, enabling the promotion of other services like condoms.
Mills said there was a risk untrained practitioners might start performing operations on the cheap. Scores of men are killed in South Africa every year in traditional ceremonies.
But he hopes that if further studies confirm the South African research, donors will help countries like Swaziland circumcise all male babies and as many young men as are willing.
"This could be the cheapest and one of the most effective interventions so far in the fight against HIV," he said.
In some cases, persuading men to give up their foreskins seems to be easier than getting them to wear a condom and health officials are not sure why, beyond the obvious fact that circumcision is a one-off event, unlike wearing a condom.
Recently circumcised Titus Shabangu, a 36-year-old driver in playboy sunglasses and a smart shirt, had his own theory.
"Swazi men have heard that it is a good thing and when you play with you partner the sex is good," he told Reuters. "That is why they come."
I know very little about AIDS - but just off the top of my head, having folds of skin for things to "bloom" or reside in would make sense.
And for all I know... I could still be talking out my rear-end. I'm assuming AIDS is completely blood-born - but I thought it might be able to seep through the skin in very sensitive areas.
I just saw a show recently about AIDS in Africa. What interesting is that AIDS has always been a threat to the hetersexual communities over there - while in the States, it was wreaking havoc, intially, in the homosexual communities.
AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus which is transmitted by exchange of bodily fluids. Removal of the foreskin makes no difference to the chemical/protein load of semen nor to the immune system. If there is any connection between any form of surgical intervention and the retrovirus, I can find no laboratory evidence in any of the literature. This appears to be another panacea attempt and as medically unsound as the earlier suggestion that HIV is not the causative agent. The HIV does not live on the skin nor can it be "cultured" outside the medium of bodily fluids or similar; it is very temperature sensitive.
This appears to me to be another dangerous myth lie like the one (common in some places) that HIV can be eliminated in an individual by having sex with a virgin!
P.S. I have often been accused of "anti-semitism" because I maintain that infant circumcision without pre-existing medical need is a form of CHILD ABUSE.
Interestingly - the practice of circumcision CAN help prevent cervical cancer in women. This came out in a study in the 70s and 80s where the very low cases of cervical cancer in nuns and orthodox Jewish women was noticed.
Nuns obviously don't have sex and Jewish women only with circumcised men. This brought the researchers to the conclusion that the smegma contained in the foreskin contains the yeasts which encourage the pre-cancerous C changes in the woman. They also discovered that the greater the number of partners, the more likely cervical cancer was to occur.
So the message would seem to be don't mutilate your male children but instill in them the need to wash their winky.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2006
Enforced female circumcision is barbaric and needless... if pracised by the appointed shaman, medicine man or tribal elder, it will mutilate and disigure women for life, and leads to enormous medical problems later on.... it's horrific and it should be banned. http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/female.html
Removal of the foreskin makes no difference to the chemical/protein load of semen nor to the immune system. If there is any connection between any form of surgical intervention and the retrovirus, I can find no laboratory evidence in any of the literature. .
Simon,
I have no oppinion either way regarding this issue, but I think you may have misunderstood the article's argument:
"Circumcision's benefits may stem from the fact that the foreskin has cells that the virus seems able to easily infect."
They're not talking about the chemical/protein load of semen or the immune system. They're talking about the possibility "that the foreskin has cells that the virus seems able to easily infect." So, they're not talking about men infecting others, but being infected.
Just wanted to clear that up a bit.
Enforced female circumcision is barbaric and needless... if pracised by the appointed shaman, medicine man or tribal elder, it will mutilate and disigure women for life, and leads to enormous medical problems later on.... it's horrific and it should be banned. http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/female.html
Yes, I think so, Buddhafoot. Especially when it's done with a dirty shard of broken glass.
This is what I would say to those who advocate this practice:
I don't know very much about this extremely uncomfortable issue but from what I understand it has to do with control over women's bodies. In a cruel and barbaric manner. Yes, I called the acts of our African brothers and sisters cruel and barbaric knowing perfectly well that I am a privileged white, (relatively) wealthy, western women. (That's a lot of w's!) And I stand by it. I may not know everything there is to know about the traditions of other cultures. But I know cruelty when I see it and I don't need to know how electricity works to know how to turn on the lights. So there!
And if anyone gets mad at me you'll protect me, right BF? 'Cuz I've had other white, privileged westerners (in university and with Greenpeace) caution me about criticizing cultures I know nothing about. And they have a point. But I really think we do, too. You, Xrayman and Fede and any others who disagree with this practice probably know more about it than I do, but I just needed to pipe up about this one.
But I've gone off topic since this thread is about manhood. Sorry for the hijack. I'll shut up now.
Sorry, MrsKarmadillo! I didn't want to make you uncomfortable. But I had to say it.
I don't think the argument that "since you don't know about this culture, you should keep yer effin mouth shut" doesn't hold water.
Inflicting un-needed pain on another human being to subjugate or control them is no reason for continuing outdated, cruel, obscure and stupid "traditions".
I understand that with male circumcision - it's sometimes thought of as a passage from boyhood into manhood. There are rites different than this, but just as bloody that cultures use for a specific purpose. And I know that some of you may think it's odd that a boy must shed blood to become a man in his certain "society" - but trust me - compared to living with a woman - a couple pints of blood and some skin is nothing.
But I digress...
Female circumcision is an attempt to remove any sexual pleasure a woman might have during intercourse - to control them.
I don't care where you live. Take one of these "over-thinking" Westerners you know, put them in a nasty, dirty and dark room with their legs spread and tied down with someone holding a dirty knife over their genitals and let's see how they think NOW!
Sorry, MrsKarmadillo! I didn't want to make you uncomfortable. But I had to say it.
Brigid
No problem, I can take it I'm actually a qualified nurse so not particularly squeamish.... although there are certain things... anyway, no details
I totally agree with you on female circumcision and as for males: as I think someone already said: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. As a UKer I find it as hard to understand the US concept of male circumsicion being normal/neccessary, as USers probably find our concept of it being not the norm - a medical procedure to be used if symptoms make it neccessary.
Well as an anti-vivisectionist, I'd expect you'd be able to predict what I am going to say - nobody should have their body cut unless there are genuine medical grounds for doing so or unless they can give their informed consent.
I wanted my ears pierced (that was the only bit we DID pierce in those long lost days) and my mother used to do ear piercing. But she said not until I was 16. She said that at 16 the law considered me old enough to make up my own mind about things and she was not going to argue with it. I hate seing little kids with piercings - who's idea was that?
If it became fashionable to tatoo enormous dragons on the back of kids, who'd be dumb enough to go with it? Nope. Culture schmulture - it ain't right.
okay, I don't know, but I'd certainly like to know the statistics on lives saved versus partial amputations, bleeding to death etc. on botched circumcisions.
The AIDS issue, crap.
I'd like to discuss the pH level in the sex organs of men and women vs. yeast activity vs. viability of semen-borne AIDS virus particles (don't know how yeasts were involved in the AIDS issue) vs. the BLOOD-BORNE AIDS virus-I'm no scientist, but infection with AIDS would seem a HELL of a lot more likely just after a circumcision than (well lubricated, gentle sexual activity-there I said it!).
BF How do you know that male circumcision was not designed to control and subjugate boys/men?
I have read somewhere that there actually was a thought that removing the foreskin prevents "pleasurable feeling over the glans". And was to prevent boys going "wild" around the time that puberty arrives-so it coincided with the concept of "attaining manhood" and a "Rite of Passage'.
Note inserted: Oh, by the way, it was implemented because the male adult has "NO NEED TO MASTURBATE ANY MORE, BECAUSE HE IS CONSIDERED A "MAN""
so by association, removal removes the "compulsion" to masturbate.
I'm not going to comment on this for fear it may incriminate me...:-/
Here's my theory. take your little finger and get some fine sandpaper and rub it for hours days if possible-I'll guarantee that eventually feeling wil go from the sensory perceptorsdue to overstimulation/overuse I feel that having the head of my penis constantly rubbing against underwear/clothing would eventually result in a loss of feeling as well? (see the movie/read the book Marathon Man- about the tooth drilling/torture session for clarification)...
However with an intact foreskin-well I needn't go any further with this-suffice to say I'll keep mine!
there is much more I could write, but this is a "family" forum hahaha
regards,
X
P.S. I enjoy all posts that i read here-love the input-Thankyou.
Well done, Xray! I was sure you were going to explode after I posted that. You're very calm. The article seemed pretty vague if you ask me. But then again I don't know enough about the issue.
You are very welcome, Sister. And quite the contrary I believe you know an awful lot about many things-don't try to deceive us!
I will not explode, I will not explode, I will not explode x10.:birthday:
Ah that's better.
Calm
Relaxed
bye all,
Xray
P.S Don't know why I put the Happy Birthday up-oh well...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2006
I do remember that whilst reading a 18th Century novel at school, in English, that the whole class was in uproar, and that the teacher had to abandon the remainder of the lesson, because we came across a passage where someone exclaimed something in horror, and the phrase used was -
" ....he ejaculated, with some vehemence."
Meaning that his verbal expostulation had been fairly forceful.
Well, read that out loud to a classful of adolescent fifteen-year-old girls and ....
Chaos.
So - Happy Birthday to you too, Xrayman - !! :birthday: :cheer: :wow: :
Neonatal circumcision.
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001; 48(6):1539-57 (ISSN: 0031-3955)
Lerman SE ; Liao JC
Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. slerman@mednet.ucla.edu
The merits of neonatal circumcision continue to be debated hotly. Some argue that circumcision is a "uniquely American medical enigma." Most of the world's male population remains uncircumcised; however, most boys born in the United States continue to undergo neonatal circumcision. Review of existing literature supports that most children who are uncircumcised do well from a medical standpoint and, thus, the question of whether US health care practitioners are subjecting neonates to an unnecessary surgical procedure remains. The medical benefits of circumcision are multiple, but most are small. The clearest medical benefit of circumcision is the relative reduction in the risk for a UTI, especially in early infancy. Although this risk [figure: see text] is real, the absolute numbers are small (risk ranges from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000), and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI. In the case of a patient with known urologic abnormalities that predispose to UTI, neonatal circumcision has a clearer role in terms of medical benefit to the patient. Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved. Proper penile hygiene should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision. Moreover, proper hygiene and access to clean water has been shown to reduce the rate of development of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in the uncircumcised population. Proper techniques on the care of the foreskin are illustrated in the American Academy of Pediatrics pamphlet titled "How to care for the uncircumcised penis." Regarding the relationship between STDs and circumcision, patient education and the practice of low-risk sexual behavior make a far greater impact than does routine circumcision in hopes of reducing the spread of HIV and other STDs. Nevertheless, in areas where safe sexual practices are poorly adhered to, circumcision can have a relative protective effect against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. The medical harms of circumcision lie mainly in the 1% acute complication rate and the additional patients who require revision of their initial circumcision for cosmetic or medical reasons. Anecdotally, the authors see far fewer complications in the acute and long-term phase when the circumcision has been performed by someone with expertise and experience with the procedure. Thus, the authors routinely recommend to parents that, if they choose to have their newborns circumcised, they should seek out an experienced practitioner. A negative psychologic and sexual impact of circumcision has been argued, but solid, scientific data are lacking. Special interest groups have argued that perhaps the greatest harm of circumcision is in performing an operation without a clear indication. Many of these groups have claimed that performing a routine neonatal circumcision is akin to performing a surgical procedure without a clear medical benefit, and in an infant, that is akin to surgery without informed consent. Although this is an extreme posture, the clinician can understand the emphasis on trying to provide invasive medical services only when a clear medical benefit is expected, especially when treating an infant or child. Deciding whether or not to circumcise an infant continues to challenge many new parents. Clearly, the procedure provides potential medical benefits and potential risks. It is difficult to say whether the benefits outweigh the risks for all male infants. Further complicating the decision for many American parents is that, in some areas of the United States, there exists an unexplained positive cultural connotation with neonatal circumcision. For these reasons, parents who actively choose to keep their sons uncircumcised need to be encouraged to make this decision forthrightly. Parents who choose to have their children circumcised also should be encouraged to actively seek an experienced practitioner who can afford the child adequate local analgesia.
okay, I don't know, but I'd certainly like to know the statistics on lives saved versus partial amputations, bleeding to death etc. on botched circumcisions.
The AIDS issue, crap.
I'd like to discuss the pH level in the sex organs of men and women vs. yeast activity vs. viability of semen-borne AIDS virus particles (don't know how yeasts were involved in the AIDS issue) vs. the BLOOD-BORNE AIDS virus-I'm no scientist, but infection with AIDS would seem a HELL of a lot more likely just after a circumcision than (well lubricated, gentle sexual activity-there I said it!).
BF How do you know that male circumcision was not designed to control and subjugate boys/men?
I have read somewhere that there actually was a thought that removing the foreskin prevents "pleasurable feeling over the glans". And was to prevent boys going "wild" around the time that puberty arrives-so it coincided with the concept of "attaining manhood" and a "Rite of Passage'.
Note inserted: Oh, by the way, it was implemented because the male adult has "NO NEED TO MASTURBATE ANY MORE, BECAUSE HE IS CONSIDERED A "MAN""
so by association, removal removes the "compulsion" to masturbate.
I'm not going to comment on this for fear it may incriminate me...:-/
Here's my theory. take your little finger and get some fine sandpaper and rub it for hours days if possible-I'll guarantee that eventually feeling wil go from the sensory perceptorsdue to overstimulation/overuse I feel that having the head of my penis constantly rubbing against underwear/clothing would eventually result in a loss of feeling as well? (see the movie/read the book Marathon Man- about the tooth drilling/torture session for clarification)...
However with an intact foreskin-well I needn't go any further with this-suffice to say I'll keep mine!
there is much more I could write, but this is a "family" forum hahaha
regards,
X
P.S. I enjoy all posts that i read here-love the input-Thankyou.
Well, to begin with, I would very well like to know how exactly AIDS is going to be transmitted into the bloodstream of newly circumcised babies (who are mostly circumcised by a trained doctor, in sterile conditions) as a direct result of circumcision (nothing including breast milk or drugs and sex obviously) and I would like your statistics that give the numerous babies who have contracted AIDS due to circumcision.
As for the control and subjugation of men, the first recorded circumcisions were performed around the early Judaic period as a sign of the covenant that Jews believe themselves to have made with God and in some tribes within Africa as a symbol of the pains of adulthood as well as the joy which is represented by the penis. I would like to hear where you got the notion that it was a tool of control.
Furthermore, I would just like to point out that I haven't heard of a single case in modern days that involve removing the foreskin to remove sexual pleasures and the compulse to masturbate.
If anything, sexual pleasure would probably increase due to a more sensitive feeling to the penis's surroundings and the fact that there is nothing in the way to prevent that sexual stimulation.
And I can assure you from personal experience that having a circumcised penis does not overstimulate.
Well, to begin with, I would very well like to know how exactly AIDS is going to be transmitted into the bloodstream of newly circumcised babies (who are mostly circumcised by a trained doctor, in sterile conditions) as a direct result of circumcision (nothing including breast milk or drugs and sex obviously) and I would like your statistics that give the numerous babies who have contracted AIDS due to circumcision.
I think he was referring to the article Brigid posted that mentioned adult males getting circumcised in a misguided attempt to avoid AIDS. The article stated that men were then becoming more sexually active after the op which would have the opposite effect as they are exposing freshly cut tissue to the risk of infection. As you say, I don't think babies would stand much risk at all of infection from circumcision.
If anything, sexual pleasure would probably increase due to a more sensitive feeling to the penis's surroundings and the fact that there is nothing in the way to prevent that sexual stimulation.
I can only talk from my experience but I definately suffered some loss of sensitivity after I was snipped as an adult. I can only put this down to the reasons that X gave.
Why is it that we abhor the genital mutilation of girls in our society, yet we, in some cases, "encourage" it in boys?
Xrayman
The words 'ignorance' and 'hyprocrisy' come to mind and yes, circumcision, unless for 'valid' medical reasons - of which there are very few indeed, is barbaric in my opinion.
Frizzer, thankyou for your contribution-that is EXACTLY what I was referring to
RE: Fresh circumcisions in MEN. and possible HIV infection, due to increased "Dangerous" sexual activity and the notion that it "protects" against infection etc.
Infanta, Information about "Control and Reduction of Masturbation in Males throughout history" was from "The Dictionary of Sex and Human Sexuality, 1995 (my copy) page 322. Also the Television program, "Taboo" 2002, (sorry I have no idea which episode number it was-I didn't think I'd be asked for this information three years after watching it).
Information referring to "Partial amputation of the penis, during circumcision", has been noted from discussions with my favourite Doctor, and friend, Dr. Ron Dorey, Surgeon and Radiologist about two years ago from memory. By the way, He's Jewish. (I think he'd have an idea about the pro's and cons of Circumcision, both from a surgeon's standpoint and from a "users", point of view!).
Discussion referring to the sensitivity issue is full of conjecture. I can't comment any further on this-sorry.
P. S. This discussion was not meant to infuriate or annoy. My whole point was that if you want to modify yourself-go ahead, when you are an adult!
I am pierced and tattooed-WITH MY CONSENT.
I'm only saying, don't hurt our children (of either sex) without their consent. Please don't ask me to quote figures on FGM deaths and other associated medical issues like fistulae- we could be here all day talking about the horror of it all.
I'm only saying, don't hurt our children (of either sex) without their consent. Please don't ask me to quote figures on FGM deaths and other associated medical issues like fistulae- we could be here all day talking about the horror of it all.
Comments
I mean, if you look at the plumbing of men (uncircumcized) and women - they pretty much work like they're supposed to. If you refuse to bathe or clean ya junk - yeah, you might have issues. But I think all things being equal - they would work just fine on their own.
I remember I did ask that guy (the one in his 50's) if that was an issue and he looked at me like I was retarded.
I think a resounding "No." was his response.
-bf
Obviously I can't back that claim up but that's what she told me.
It can if you don't teach boys proper hygiene, and for some who have abnormally tight foreskins (but that's pretty rare). Most boys/men here are not circumcised, and I think (not sure though) that's true for most of the countries in Europe and it's probably been true for most males throughout history, so infections are most likely not a big issue.
Ok. Sorry. Back on topic.....
Cleanliness and hygiene is a fallacy. Cervical cancer is more common in women who use talcum powder around 'sensitive areas' than for women who have circumcised partners., so i'm not sure that's the worst issue....
If it ain't broke, don't fix it....:wow:
Isn't there "snow" in the winter and "rain" in the spring?
Step away from the bong, Freddie. Step away from the bong...
-bf
Okay. Cervical Cancer /male circumcision debate.:Proven Wrong about three years ago.
Talcum Powder/cervical Cancer debate: proven wrong about April last year.
Aluminium pots etc. / Alzhiemers; study was flawed/ the chemical preperation used to preserve the brains under investigation was "leaching" aluminium salts from the preservation vessel. Proven wrong also about two years ago.
Male Circumcision. (female circumcision)
Cleanliness issue-Bullshit. the glans/foreskin interface is the anatomical equivalent of the clitoris/prepuce (hood) both can become slightly odourous if You don'T wash! like if I don't wash under my arms/armpit-i get smelly there too- it's obvious. using this theory then all women and men should be circumcised-full stop. A stupid and cruel idea/theory.
INFECTION:
If infection/odour/cervical cancer were REAL issues then at least 60% of the male population (would be dying of infections of the penis/and their wives/gf's would be dying of cervical cancer-this has not occured.
p.s. the study found a "very slightly higher incidence" that according to the investigators "could have also been natural statistical variation" in other words NOT SIGNIFICANT! enough evidence to prove/disprove anything.
"Don't need one so cut it off"-theory.
How about this...
most of us have an appendix at the end of our lg intestine. I reckon all of us should have an operation (without anathesia) to remove it-considering we don't NEED it.
Most of us have two pinkies (little fingers)-right now i would conservatively think that about 85% of you don't really use this extra piece of skin/bone/gristle-so cut it off! without anaethesia again.
Pleasure index and fashion.
Okay, Mine is (thankfully) intact-although it was "Trendy" here in aus in the 60's/70's to have an Aussie boy "done". Notice the use of the word "Trendy" it was fashionable-hey its fashionable to look like a friggin stick and vomit-up good food too-I reckon we should all attend the local Vomitariam and take diet pills and starve ourselves-because, Well we don't NEED to look normal-apparently (whatever normal is).
It is also trendy to have pert and voluptuous breasts! YES PLEASE I WANT A SET OF THOSE DD's (AGAIN WITHOUT ANAETHESIA! THANKS)
Now there is some debate over the pleasure situation???Who has the right to determine my or your pleasure experience?? why do i need my genitals mutilated/modified when I'm a BABY-because someone wants me to have a "theoretical" increase (for boys) in their penis, or a KNown decrease in pleasure (for victims of FGM female Circumcision)?
They don't feel it being done when they're babies.
Ever heard/seen one done You tell me!!! when the sreaming subsides that is-For shit's sake-get a grip people! of course it hurts! here at the hospital where my children were born-yes i have a son NO, he's also intact. They get the father if available or the mother (whoever is pushing to get him done) to hold down the baby while the op is done -thankfully many have declined!! sparing their children from absolute agony.
P.S. babies get erections too and it also tears the healing area-OUCH.
Hey I'm tattooed and pierced-MY CHOICE! and it cetainly wasn't done without MY OWN CONSENT! some of my modified friends get themselves circumcised but again-Their OWN CHOICE! and they have stated NO CHANGE! IN PLEASURE.-just different.
you see all of this is absolute rubbish expounded by people who want to support the genital mutilation/subjugation of children, both boys and girls.
The he /she will feel left out." theory.
sorry-absolute crap.
If this was true then if i was to live in a "black or Hispanic area" then I would feel left out too-I should them make myself browned in some way, because I want to feeel "Included".
honestly-this is my two cents worth, but really let's face the facts. GOD/SPIRIT/ALLAH/THE UNIVERSE wanted us to be born with "frills and extras" things that some of us may no longer use-hey what about brains-I reckon, because we have computers to think for us-we should all have our brains removed! yea great idea-also without pain medication-PLEASE!
regards,
Xrayman.
-bf
Fair enough, mind you, it was about 12 years ago that she told me so that was before the theory was properly tested.
Cheers,
Adrian
thankyou for your input and replies /PM's yes i do get fired up about this issue-sorry about that, however you will also notice that I tend to fire up when the "Norms" and "that's the way we've always done it, and we're not about to change", brigade come into town.
Small question for you to ponder..
Why is it that we abhor the genital mutilation of girls in our society, yet we, in some cases, "encourage" it in boys?
It is these sort of hypotheticals and questions that intrigue me.
regards to you all my friends,
Xrayman
Sorry
I think I posted something like this earlier.
You make an excellent point, Universal Farmer.
I'm glad I'm never having anymore kids - so I don't have to worry about this!
-bf
To my knowledge at least.
let's compare the incidence of penile cancer, in comparison to let's say, Breast cancer (in both men and women)-penile cancer is almost negligible. In fact that argument has been used to show the differences in women's issues versus men's, in the political arena. There is a theory that cancer in general would be a VERY IMPORTANT political issue if the incidence of penile cancer was significant-all our MALE politicians would be making it a REAL bill of concern!!
NOTE:
Prostate cancer in men occurs at these interesting levels.. at age 50, a man is statistically likely to get prostate cancer 50%, at age 60 it's 60% by age 90, 90% most men will have or start to have prostate cancer! frigging scary stats!
If you want some further data-I'd love to present it, however, getting back to the point,
Now does the statistic that you refer to Infanta, mean that by removing the foreskin with the cancererous tumour contained within prevents cancer, or, does it provide protection against penile cancer ON THE PENIS-ITSELF?
just curious,
regards,
X
Which study proved this? I'd love to read this..
regards,
X
Whew!
I feel like I've been given a new lease on life, Universal Farmer!
-bf
However, the penile cancer risk is low in some non-circumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis.
However:
Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.
And:
Non-circumcised children and men tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis, and of the foreskin, than circumcised men. The reasons are unclear, but several hypotheses have been suggested:
* The foreskin may harbor bacteria and infect if it is not cleaned enough.
* The foreskin may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.
* The forcible retraction in boys can lead to infections.
There are less invasive treatments than circumcision for posthitis (an inflamed foreskin) and balanitis (inflammation of the glans). However, these are not as successful in treating balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO), which is harder to treat.
And:
The March 2005 Cochrane review concluded that while individual studies are of variable quality, there are clear indicators that circumcision can significantly reduce the chances of female-to-male HIV infection in an African population, when compared against an non-circumcised control group. The review commented that the results of the three randomised controlled trials will be essential. The results of the first trial were published in November 2005, reporting 60% protection against HIV infection.
Honestly, it's your opinion not mine, but I don't see the huge, immoral deal in circumcision.
Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA) produces a whitish-yellowish patch on the skin, and is not believed to be always harmful or painful, and may sometimes disappear without intervention. Some consider balanitis xerotica obliterans to be a form of LSA that happens to be on the foreskin, where it may cause pathological phimosis. Circumcision is believed to reliably reduce the threat of BXO.
The doctor told my mummy I had to have it done. She didn't question him as people do these days.....Medicine is less of a god now?????? :hair:
I have to say, I haven't talked about willies or weiners or trouser snakes or pocket rockets or tallywackers, packages, units, ding-a-lings and (I'm sorry... the newest one I've heard) beef darts - this much and at one sitting in my entire life!
Can we be done talking about them now?
-bf
It's about circumcision and AIDS/HIV in Swaziland.
I had to post it in it's entirety because links to Reuters go dead very quickly. But I included all relevant copyrights and sources.
Brigid
That is very interesting.
I know very little about AIDS - but just off the top of my head, having folds of skin for things to "bloom" or reside in would make sense.
And for all I know... I could still be talking out my rear-end. I'm assuming AIDS is completely blood-born - but I thought it might be able to seep through the skin in very sensitive areas.
I just saw a show recently about AIDS in Africa. What interesting is that AIDS has always been a threat to the hetersexual communities over there - while in the States, it was wreaking havoc, intially, in the homosexual communities.
I hate AIDS.
-bf
-bf
This appears to me to be another dangerous myth lie like the one (common in some places) that HIV can be eliminated in an individual by having sex with a virgin!
P.S. I have often been accused of "anti-semitism" because I maintain that infant circumcision without pre-existing medical need is a form of CHILD ABUSE.
Nuns obviously don't have sex and Jewish women only with circumcised men. This brought the researchers to the conclusion that the smegma contained in the foreskin contains the yeasts which encourage the pre-cancerous C changes in the woman. They also discovered that the greater the number of partners, the more likely cervical cancer was to occur.
So the message would seem to be don't mutilate your male children but instill in them the need to wash their winky.
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/female.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision
Simon,
I have no oppinion either way regarding this issue, but I think you may have misunderstood the article's argument:
"Circumcision's benefits may stem from the fact that the foreskin has cells that the virus seems able to easily infect."
They're not talking about the chemical/protein load of semen or the immune system. They're talking about the possibility "that the foreskin has cells that the virus seems able to easily infect." So, they're not talking about men infecting others, but being infected.
Just wanted to clear that up a bit.
Brigid
Isn't All female circumcision needless?
-bf
*squirm*:eek2:
Yes, I think so, Buddhafoot. Especially when it's done with a dirty shard of broken glass.
This is what I would say to those who advocate this practice:
I don't know very much about this extremely uncomfortable issue but from what I understand it has to do with control over women's bodies. In a cruel and barbaric manner. Yes, I called the acts of our African brothers and sisters cruel and barbaric knowing perfectly well that I am a privileged white, (relatively) wealthy, western women. (That's a lot of w's!) And I stand by it. I may not know everything there is to know about the traditions of other cultures. But I know cruelty when I see it and I don't need to know how electricity works to know how to turn on the lights. So there!
And if anyone gets mad at me you'll protect me, right BF? 'Cuz I've had other white, privileged westerners (in university and with Greenpeace) caution me about criticizing cultures I know nothing about. And they have a point. But I really think we do, too. You, Xrayman and Fede and any others who disagree with this practice probably know more about it than I do, but I just needed to pipe up about this one.
But I've gone off topic since this thread is about manhood. Sorry for the hijack. I'll shut up now.
Sorry, MrsKarmadillo! I didn't want to make you uncomfortable. But I had to say it.
Brigid
I don't think the argument that "since you don't know about this culture, you should keep yer effin mouth shut" doesn't hold water.
Inflicting un-needed pain on another human being to subjugate or control them is no reason for continuing outdated, cruel, obscure and stupid "traditions".
I understand that with male circumcision - it's sometimes thought of as a passage from boyhood into manhood. There are rites different than this, but just as bloody that cultures use for a specific purpose. And I know that some of you may think it's odd that a boy must shed blood to become a man in his certain "society" - but trust me - compared to living with a woman - a couple pints of blood and some skin is nothing.
But I digress...
Female circumcision is an attempt to remove any sexual pleasure a woman might have during intercourse - to control them.
I don't care where you live. Take one of these "over-thinking" Westerners you know, put them in a nasty, dirty and dark room with their legs spread and tied down with someone holding a dirty knife over their genitals and let's see how they think NOW!
-bf
No problem, I can take it
I totally agree with you on female circumcision and as for males: as I think someone already said: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. As a UKer I find it as hard to understand the US concept of male circumsicion being normal/neccessary, as USers probably find our concept of it being not the norm - a medical procedure to be used if symptoms make it neccessary.
Hey ho
Sas
I wanted my ears pierced (that was the only bit we DID pierce in those long lost days) and my mother used to do ear piercing. But she said not until I was 16. She said that at 16 the law considered me old enough to make up my own mind about things and she was not going to argue with it. I hate seing little kids with piercings - who's idea was that?
If it became fashionable to tatoo enormous dragons on the back of kids, who'd be dumb enough to go with it? Nope. Culture schmulture - it ain't right.
okay, I don't know, but I'd certainly like to know the statistics on lives saved versus partial amputations, bleeding to death etc. on botched circumcisions.
The AIDS issue, crap.
I'd like to discuss the pH level in the sex organs of men and women vs. yeast activity vs. viability of semen-borne AIDS virus particles (don't know how yeasts were involved in the AIDS issue) vs. the BLOOD-BORNE AIDS virus-I'm no scientist, but infection with AIDS would seem a HELL of a lot more likely just after a circumcision than (well lubricated, gentle sexual activity-there I said it!).
BF How do you know that male circumcision was not designed to control and subjugate boys/men?
I have read somewhere that there actually was a thought that removing the foreskin prevents "pleasurable feeling over the glans". And was to prevent boys going "wild" around the time that puberty arrives-so it coincided with the concept of "attaining manhood" and a "Rite of Passage'.
Note inserted: Oh, by the way, it was implemented because the male adult has "NO NEED TO MASTURBATE ANY MORE, BECAUSE HE IS CONSIDERED A "MAN""
so by association, removal removes the "compulsion" to masturbate.
I'm not going to comment on this for fear it may incriminate me...:-/
Here's my theory. take your little finger and get some fine sandpaper and rub it for hours days if possible-I'll guarantee that eventually feeling wil go from the sensory perceptorsdue to overstimulation/overuse I feel that having the head of my penis constantly rubbing against underwear/clothing would eventually result in a loss of feeling as well? (see the movie/read the book Marathon Man- about the tooth drilling/torture session for clarification)...
However with an intact foreskin-well I needn't go any further with this-suffice to say I'll keep mine!
there is much more I could write, but this is a "family" forum hahaha
regards,
X
P.S. I enjoy all posts that i read here-love the input-Thankyou.
Brigid
You are very welcome, Sister. And quite the contrary I believe you know an awful lot about many things-don't try to deceive us!
I will not explode, I will not explode, I will not explode x10.:birthday:
Ah that's better.
Calm
Relaxed
bye all,
Xray
P.S Don't know why I put the Happy Birthday up-oh well...
" ....he ejaculated, with some vehemence."
Meaning that his verbal expostulation had been fairly forceful.
Well, read that out loud to a classful of adolescent fifteen-year-old girls and ....
Chaos.
So - Happy Birthday to you too, Xrayman - !! :birthday: :cheer: :wow:
My 2 cents........
Neonatal circumcision.
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001; 48(6):1539-57 (ISSN: 0031-3955)
Lerman SE ; Liao JC
Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. slerman@mednet.ucla.edu
The merits of neonatal circumcision continue to be debated hotly. Some argue that circumcision is a "uniquely American medical enigma." Most of the world's male population remains uncircumcised; however, most boys born in the United States continue to undergo neonatal circumcision. Review of existing literature supports that most children who are uncircumcised do well from a medical standpoint and, thus, the question of whether US health care practitioners are subjecting neonates to an unnecessary surgical procedure remains. The medical benefits of circumcision are multiple, but most are small. The clearest medical benefit of circumcision is the relative reduction in the risk for a UTI, especially in early infancy. Although this risk [figure: see text] is real, the absolute numbers are small (risk ranges from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000), and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI. In the case of a patient with known urologic abnormalities that predispose to UTI, neonatal circumcision has a clearer role in terms of medical benefit to the patient. Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved. Proper penile hygiene should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision. Moreover, proper hygiene and access to clean water has been shown to reduce the rate of development of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in the uncircumcised population. Proper techniques on the care of the foreskin are illustrated in the American Academy of Pediatrics pamphlet titled "How to care for the uncircumcised penis." Regarding the relationship between STDs and circumcision, patient education and the practice of low-risk sexual behavior make a far greater impact than does routine circumcision in hopes of reducing the spread of HIV and other STDs. Nevertheless, in areas where safe sexual practices are poorly adhered to, circumcision can have a relative protective effect against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. The medical harms of circumcision lie mainly in the 1% acute complication rate and the additional patients who require revision of their initial circumcision for cosmetic or medical reasons. Anecdotally, the authors see far fewer complications in the acute and long-term phase when the circumcision has been performed by someone with expertise and experience with the procedure. Thus, the authors routinely recommend to parents that, if they choose to have their newborns circumcised, they should seek out an experienced practitioner. A negative psychologic and sexual impact of circumcision has been argued, but solid, scientific data are lacking. Special interest groups have argued that perhaps the greatest harm of circumcision is in performing an operation without a clear indication. Many of these groups have claimed that performing a routine neonatal circumcision is akin to performing a surgical procedure without a clear medical benefit, and in an infant, that is akin to surgery without informed consent. Although this is an extreme posture, the clinician can understand the emphasis on trying to provide invasive medical services only when a clear medical benefit is expected, especially when treating an infant or child. Deciding whether or not to circumcise an infant continues to challenge many new parents. Clearly, the procedure provides potential medical benefits and potential risks. It is difficult to say whether the benefits outweigh the risks for all male infants. Further complicating the decision for many American parents is that, in some areas of the United States, there exists an unexplained positive cultural connotation with neonatal circumcision. For these reasons, parents who actively choose to keep their sons uncircumcised need to be encouraged to make this decision forthrightly. Parents who choose to have their children circumcised also should be encouraged to actively seek an experienced practitioner who can afford the child adequate local analgesia.
PreMedline Identifier: 11732129
• About Medscape • Privacy & Ethics • Terms of Use • Help • WebMD Health
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2006 by Medscape. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties. Medscape requires Netscape or Microsoft browsers in versions 5 or higher.
As for the control and subjugation of men, the first recorded circumcisions were performed around the early Judaic period as a sign of the covenant that Jews believe themselves to have made with God and in some tribes within Africa as a symbol of the pains of adulthood as well as the joy which is represented by the penis. I would like to hear where you got the notion that it was a tool of control.
Furthermore, I would just like to point out that I haven't heard of a single case in modern days that involve removing the foreskin to remove sexual pleasures and the compulse to masturbate.
If anything, sexual pleasure would probably increase due to a more sensitive feeling to the penis's surroundings and the fact that there is nothing in the way to prevent that sexual stimulation.
And I can assure you from personal experience that having a circumcised penis does not overstimulate.
I think he was referring to the article Brigid posted that mentioned adult males getting circumcised in a misguided attempt to avoid AIDS. The article stated that men were then becoming more sexually active after the op which would have the opposite effect as they are exposing freshly cut tissue to the risk of infection. As you say, I don't think babies would stand much risk at all of infection from circumcision.
I can only talk from my experience but I definately suffered some loss of sensitivity after I was snipped as an adult. I can only put this down to the reasons that X gave.
The words 'ignorance' and 'hyprocrisy' come to mind and yes, circumcision, unless for 'valid' medical reasons - of which there are very few indeed, is barbaric in my opinion.
Frizzer, thankyou for your contribution-that is EXACTLY what I was referring to
RE: Fresh circumcisions in MEN. and possible HIV infection, due to increased "Dangerous" sexual activity and the notion that it "protects" against infection etc.
Infanta, Information about "Control and Reduction of Masturbation in Males throughout history" was from "The Dictionary of Sex and Human Sexuality, 1995 (my copy) page 322. Also the Television program, "Taboo" 2002, (sorry I have no idea which episode number it was-I didn't think I'd be asked for this information three years after watching it).
Information referring to "Partial amputation of the penis, during circumcision", has been noted from discussions with my favourite Doctor, and friend, Dr. Ron Dorey, Surgeon and Radiologist about two years ago from memory. By the way, He's Jewish. (I think he'd have an idea about the pro's and cons of Circumcision, both from a surgeon's standpoint and from a "users", point of view!).
Discussion referring to the sensitivity issue is full of conjecture. I can't comment any further on this-sorry.
P. S. This discussion was not meant to infuriate or annoy. My whole point was that if you want to modify yourself-go ahead, when you are an adult!
I am pierced and tattooed-WITH MY CONSENT.
I'm only saying, don't hurt our children (of either sex) without their consent. Please don't ask me to quote figures on FGM deaths and other associated medical issues like fistulae- we could be here all day talking about the horror of it all.
Very true, Xray.
Brigid