It really is all about the foreskin:
Recent Comments
- John Monett: Why would the author of “Homosexual... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- NoYourGod: Holy f***ing (bull)s**t… on Still Earth
- ExpatPaul: Failing to give somebody special privileges that they try to demand over... on Religious tollerence
- JohnMWhite: I think you’re being rather intolerant toward teenagers, Custador. While... on Religious tollerence
- UrsaMinor: Rich, I’m pretty sure that you, like most theists, do not actually know what... on Case For a Creator?
- drax: He moved the goal posts. He originally said that atheist soldiers were big... on Soldiers without Heaven
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Watching this and knowing the “history” behind it does not soothe my anger at my parents for circumcising me without asking me first.
In my somewhat limited experience, girls prefer cut to uncut :D I don’t begrudge it.
Preference or not, I have a damn right to say what happens to my body; I’m not my parent’s property.
You sort of are until 18.
Genital mutilation is not something that should be decided for a child. Haircuts? Whatever, it’ll grow back. Diet? Fine; if it’s bad, it can be fixed later on. School? They get what they put in. Getting rid of the foreskin? Never coming back at all. It’s permanent. All those other decisions parents make are temporary these days and can be fixed later if needed. Circumcision is not.
Um, some cultures practice actual female genital mutilation. Today. To compare male circumcision to something that eliminates sexual pleasure is demeaning to the unfortunate victims of actual genital mutilation. That’s like saying a minimum wage job is like slavery.
You still danced around the issue about it being permanent. And yes, circumcision is still genital mutilation.
Properly, “alteration”. “Mutilate” implies damaging or removing something essential.
It’s still genital mutilation though. No, it’s not as demeaning or damaging, but at the end of the day, part of your bits has been removed without your consent. If you fancy a circumcision because of health reasons, or because you think women like it (incidentally, I’m a woman, and I prefer un-cut, foreskins are pretty amusing) then go right ahead – it’s your body, it’s not really any different to getting a piercing or a tattoo in terms of body-mod. Just don’t force it on someone else before they’re even capable of understanding the concept of a foreskin, let alone deciding whether or not they want one.
Circumcision leaves a scar on the penis. This scar is slightly less sensitive. Most people aren’t even aware that its a scar.
I personally would not have sex with an uncircumcised guy. He has a greater chance of giving me an STD or cervical cancer. Plus, what guy washes under the skin every time in the shower?
If you want to claim that circumcision is bad, then you need to prove sexual hygiene is a regular practice for guys that has been properly taught to them…
Wich is the relation between sex with an uncircusized guy and cervical cancer?
@LRA
“Plus, what guy washes under the skin every time in the shower? ”
Me.
This is just one study, but…
“Monogamous female partners of circumcised men at high risk of HPV (intercourse before age 17, six or more sexual partners, and history of contact with prostitutes) had a significant reduction in risk of cervical cancer (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89). ”
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/Sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp
It classifies men with 6 or more sexual partners as “high risk”. My husband was 29 when we got married. He’d had more that 6 partners.
And here’s a review from PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17935209?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
If you want to read up on what the medical and scientific community thinks, input “circumcision” and “cervical cancer” into pubmed’s search bar:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Here’s a study that looks at religion as well! Interesting…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17137513?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Here’s another discussion on the matter:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1733861&blobtype=pdf
It seems that the medical community is FOR circumcision because of its health benefits.
Or you could get the HPV vaccine and cut off the risk of cervical cancer at the source.
Yes- Ben, sorry, I conceded the point below in a discussion with Custador. Thanks!
Genital mutilation is for female is injurious.
Never heard of women missing males’ foreskins.
Just because it doesn’t cause excess pain or sexual dysfunction doesn’t mean it’s not something you should be doing to your kids. Let them make the choice.
It DOES cause the child undue pain. That, in itself, should make any parent cringe at the idea of doing such a horrid thing.
Fair do’s, I was more referring to the fact that the pain doesn’t last beyond the recovery period, as opposed to forever changing the way sex is experienced. But yeah, I just asked my flatmate what being circumcised felt like (he got it lopped off for medical reasons) and he said it ‘caned like a mother lover’ afterwards.
I have a feeling someone has already soothe your anger.
Duh…………..? Which would you rather do, be circumsized as a baby so as to not remember it. ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRR be circumsized as an adult or teen-ager when the same little snip is a major, painful operation? I’m glad my parents did it when I was 8 days old!
It’s not at all clear which would be preferable. If done as an adult, you are aware of and can remember the pain, but you also have a conception of why the pain is occurring and stronger coping mechanisms. A baby has neither understanding nor experience with pain, and while we may not remember it, who knows what sort of changes to our neurobiology is wrought by a traumatic experience that early in development?
They prefer what they are used to. Go ask women in a society where not circumcising is the norm, and I bet you will get a different answer.
Another answer might be that women actually like that the male sexuality is being dulled by circumcision since it may make them last longer. But that’s “just a theory”. :)
I’ll back that up. I’m from the UK, where circumcision is not the norm. Most blokes I know have a foreskin. I don’t know many women who really give a damn about whether or not there is one – all they care about is that it’s clean.
Exactly. Do guys keep it clean?
A penis is only as “dirty” as a vagina is. Foreskins can accumulate smegma (basically shed skin and skin oils) and a little bit of belly-button lint, but (just like for women) simply paying attention to where you wash easily takes care of everything. It’s basically no effort to pull back the foreskin and “wash behind the ears” so to speak.
The idea that foreskins are somehow dirty spreaders of disease is basically a misinformation campaign by the pro-foreskin movement (which is essentially a conformity/sex-negative movement). Back when it was deemed proper to suppress people’s sexuality, circumcision was promoted as a method to curb young boy’s masturbating.
A nonzero number of circumcised babies die every year from circumcision, a larger number suffer serious complications (including, but not limited to, loss of penis). What percent chance of a child dieing of losing sexual function is acceptable so that a kid’s penis “looks like daddy’s”?
Well, given advances in this:
“How should the operation be
performed? The American PlastiBell
device has one of the lowest complication
rates, providing a ‘‘no scalpel’’
circumcision by means of a ligature tied
around the base of the foreskin when it
is stretched over a protective plastic cap
which covers the glans penis.”
(from one of the articles I posted above).
I’d say it is the pro-forskin people who might be a bit misinformed.
The ones I’ve allowed near me, yes, yes they do. And bloody right too.
Not all girls prefer cut to uncut….
lol
Is that going to be a poll?
1. Circumsized
2. Non Circumsized
3. Shorn scrotum
4. Hairy like animal!
5. Other
@Rodney:
I don’t prefer cut to uncut; I have a very definite preference for uncut. And I’m a girl.
Also, what about gay men? What do they prefer?
My comment was intended to be jovial and limited to my own experience, which does not include all (or even many) women nor any gay men, and also was not intended to make any serious case for circumcision. Sorry.
I’m glad I’m circumcised. It’s more sanitary and I think it looks a hell of a lot better.
“One is just a childrens’ fairy tale, and the other is real.”
Oops, not meant as a reply :)
I like the penis, but they’re funny looking either way.
Cutting off all kinds of things from our bodies would be more sanitary, but that doesn’t mean it should be done. I think we can learn to wash easy enough.
I don’t know what I’d do if I had a boy. Personally, in terms of looks, I wouldn’t care. It’s a penis, it’s not winning, or entering, any beauty contests. In terms of cleanliness, my little sister went to school with a boy that was uncircumsized- until 14 when he developed a very serious infection. Poor kid was out of school for a month, in pain for a while after that, and mocked for years by classmates because of it. Then again, that’s one person, and I shouldn’t base a decision on one person’s experience.
On the other hand, circumcision is NOT the same as female genital mutilation. Last time I checked, my hubby has no trouble orgasming, and he has no foreskin. Victims of FGM cannot orgasm. In fact, some of them die from not being able to urinate because the labia are sewn shut too tightly. After that, any sexual act is an act of rape, because the only way to have sex with someone who’s vaginal opening has been reduced to the size of a pea is to tear it open or cut it open with a knife.
Please don’t compare circumcision to that.
To clarify, because I realise an earlier comment of mine could be seen as directly comparing the two – I don’t think female and male circumcision is at all comparable.
I’d compare male circumcision to piercing ears or giving a child a tattoo – not exactly damaging, but still a violation of their choices about the body.
Except for the fact that (if I’ve been reading the scientific info correctly) circumcision does significantly reduce sexual pleasure in males. If true it’s enough to make this generally unacceptable until the person can decide for himself.
Not sure that’s true. All the guys I’ve been with have been circumcised and all of them orgasmed just fine (and quite intensely). I was glad not to be exposed to an increased chance of STD.
I’m not sure it’s true either, just reporting what I read. And it doesn’t effect orgasm afaik. It apparently has to do with pleasurable sensation in foreplay and build up.
Really, without exceptional medical need, I don’t see why this can’t be delayed until the boy can make his own decision.
LRA, what do you think is the evolutionary pressure behind human foreskin?
@Question I thority
but at what point do you ask the boy?
I surely wouldnt have had it done when I was a kid, i’m not so sure i’d do it to myself now if I wasn’t circumsized as a baby. I’m kindof glad it was done when it was done, I don’t remember having a sore dork, and It doesnt look like im packing an anteater.
Do I have less sensitivity without that flap? I’ll never know, but I think its plenty sensitive as it is. If it was more sensitive, Id probably have to wear a condom when I walked in public.
The wife likes it, those before her liked it…I have no complaint.
All I know is, this is one of the most interesting conversations that’s ever graced this site.
Just when you hear the bible can be taken as a beautiful set of inspired texts if they are not taken literally, you need to hear a bible story told this way to really appreciate what it is about. That guy is very funny.
Involuntary circumcision does not make me happy. Removing your child’s body part for anything other than medical reasons seems like a violation to me.
I was circumcised as an infant for supposed health (cleanliness) reasons. It was the vogue.
By medical reasons, I mean a pressing medical condition or infection, rather than a move towards cleanliness, if you see what I mean.
I agree if there is a truly pressing medical need, not just a general medical leaning. It appears that there may be some statistically small, long term risk benefit to the procedure with a clear statistical risk of losing sexual sensation. So unless there is a pressing need, then let it go until the guy can make up his own mind.
I’m not a guy so I can’t say… I watched this video the other day from another site, so I can say I oppose the religious rationale for modern circumcision, and I can even say from an infant’s standpoint, having to live with a permanent mutilation such as this may be unreasonable to bear, whether the parents used religious beliefs or simply custom. Female preference of the fashion of a male’s genitalia is an interesting issue, however. DDM’s supposition is that learned behavior can easily be undone, but still it is the custom that most women bear an obligation to attend their personal hygiene toward the male preference, and to in fact, ingrain these thoughts as one’s own preference (i.e., patriarchal society) and not derived externally. It’s possible to “grow it back” and stop conforming to this ideal, an ideal which also has roots in the bible. It’s all on the outside though, if you could grow your foreskin back as a decisive act opposing the bible or your parents, it’s hidden in your pants until someone looks at it and cares. It’s very difficult for a woman to disregard the societal preferences for her appearance, and instead of a procedure that’s been done when you have no cares, it demands attention almost every day. Just a little something to think about.
” it does not soothe my anger at my parents for circumcising me without asking me first”
If there is no dysfunction, the anger is past as the act is unreversible. For the present, I agree with Daniel.
” It’s very difficult for a woman to disregard the societal preferences for her appearance, and instead of a procedure that’s been done when you have no cares, it demands attention almost every day.”
I hope his anger is not because of this.
My anger is because how I was born and meant to be is how I wish to stay. Within reason, of course(For example: I wouldn’t keep my tonsils if they were acting up and I wouldn’t get angry over replacing a bone with a steel bar if I had to). I make a compromise with my hair because it grows back, same with my nails. I avoid any sort of drugs and alcohol for this very reason and only take medical drugs in the more extreme circumstances. I’m 24 and have never tried alcohol, imagine that.
But nothing can be done because it is of the past and keeping that anger is not beneficial for you or anyone if your parent is reasonable beside the circumcision.
I would like to presume you are talking about you past anger.
Pretty sure it’s not something I’ll ever get over.
Whoops, meant never.
What really happened? What has your parents done? But I respect youur privacy.
They cut off my foreskin. Apparently you have no idea just how much this one violating act angers me.
How old are you then?
Parents deprive or subject their children to all manner of things, large and small, reasonable or unreasonable, blatantly abusive, and just following custom for (at least what they think is) their own good. Some people are scarred mentally for lack of their mother’s love, and some are scarred from the imagination of it, for example, but you’re able to forgive those things because you know yourself to be capable of growing past the resentment and being your own person, as this is obviously possible, growing into the person you are and become, not even despite the lack of a mother’s love, but to realize you would have been a different person without that experience. I’m using the word “you” as general and the “lack of a mother’s love” as an example of a real or perceived common childhood trauma realized later in life, not projecting this has happened directly to you or what type of person you are as a result. But you can’t regenerat your foreskin as if you were a lizard, so you’re angry?
I can sort of see where you’re coming from, even that you apparently dismiss or ignore all manner of mental alterations that aren’t easily undone (which aren’t, by the way), but it comes across as materialistic of your body, and making rationalizations for things that can grow back or would need replaced for medical reasons. You’re not angry over the loss of sensitivity, you’re just not as physically perfect as you were the day you were born, the way you were designed (?), and this bothers you a lot. Grieve, man, but after that, I think it’s holding you back.
I’m done with you, DarkMatter. You obviously have no reading comprehension.
DM has demonstrated pretty strong reading comprehension, if not the best writing comprehension (zing!). What did you write that you feel he did not understand?
Gee, I don’t know. The fact I’m having to repeat what I’ve already written because he apparently can’t put two and two together to get the answer I’ve already said.
rodneyAnonymous,
it’s actually none of my business concerning his anger toward his parent, it’s his business. My “no reading comprehension” lies only in his perception. Let him be.
if you really want a reason, science has shown that men that are cut are less likely to contract HIV. In fact, less likely as a whole to contract an STD from unprotected sex. They are not sure why. Personally, as a chick, I like cut. My sex god partner is cut and I love every inch. Uncut is just icky.
People who use condoms are less likely to contract HIV. In fact, less likely as a whole to contract an STD from sex. Priests are still unsure as to why.
lol
and catholic priests are less likely to contract an STD, as when they do sex it use to be the first time for their partners
Again, it’s fine and dandy if a guy wants to dispose of his own foreskin for any reason – sexual, sanitary, medical, whatever. Hell, whip it off and sew it into a patchwork quilt for all I care. Just, you know, don’t do it to someone else without their informed consent.
Also, am I the only person who feels a little uncomfortable with the concept of one genders sexual preferences dictating the genital alteration of the other? I think it’s unfair that women are under pressure to shave their bits in order to satisfy male desire, and I think it’s equally unfair that men should be under pressure to remove their foreskin in order to satisfy female desire.
“Also, am I the only person who feels a little uncomfortable with the concept of one genders sexual preferences dictating the genital alteration of the other?”
I totally agree. If you really couldn’t stand to have sex with someone because they are uncut, or because they hadn’t properly shaved their bits, then maybe you just shouldn’t have sex with them. Don’t make them change because you don’t like it, especially something as serious and permanent as removing foreskin.
I am a woman from the US and I really don’t care one way or the other. I am married and my husband is cut, but if he hadn’t been I wouldn’t have cared. If had a son, I wouldn’t want to circumcise him because I would believe it’s his body to do with what he wants. To circumcise based on current preference isn’t wise, in my opinion, because things may different by the time the child is an adult. Studies are showing that greater numbers of infants are not being circumcised (some studies show close to half), so by the time they are grown, it should be fairly normal to be uncut. And who knows, by then, women their age may even prefer uncut.
I don’t think waxing is as prevalent as circumcision, but its popularity is on the rise to the point that one does have to care, and decides for themselves for or against or some degree in between. Overall, females have a lot more to do, and a lot more upkeep to conform to the minimum standards of societal (not just men) acceptance over their appearance. I care more about the whole story than just the beaver. If one is to disregard custom, then one understands the consequences of doing so. If a man is circumcised or not, the female’s preference is of a sexual nature, and not all women agree, so being cut or uncut does not really affect the ability to attract a mate. Being waxed or not waxed or partially waxed or just trimmed will also attract and repel a variety of potential mates; men with beards get women who like men with beards the same; men with goatees repel a lot of women, but they still do ok. Women are still affected by the societal standards of their appearance or accept the consequences of deciding not to conform. I conform. Not as much as my sister, but I conform. I’ve been taught to think that I look better when I do and judge myself on the basis of doing so. That’s a mental alteration, where circumcision is a physical one.
It would be nice if we could undo the social custom of training little girls how to be acceptable looking, appealing for not just mates but friends and jobs. We can start right now making circumcision less customary, it has a biblical tradition, but is also mythologically “unclean,” and sexually “icky” to some people, without reference to the bible. It’s in the pants. How I dress and take care of myself so that I don’t appear unclean or icky on the outside is a chore, but I don’t want to live with the consequences, and I’ve learned so well this is how I prefer to be. How is that easily undone by deciding one generation as a new custom that we’re going to stop socializing our daughters as to preferential appearance standards?
I realize this is going off the religious topic, but I question lots of things, and religion is only one societal value that I’ve examined, to the intent of what we think and how we came to think certain things, and whether they are right or wrong – religious thoughts and behaviors vs. examination of what’s real and what’s indoctrinated falsely in order to think another way. I don’t mean to trivialize female genital mutilation or circumcision as a physical violation toward infant boys, but another common social value doesn’t seem to equate the psychological being with the physical body unless the brain is actually injured or becomes diseased. I’m trying to make an effort to write shorter posts, but it’s not working out so well.
Studies have shown both sides. This is still a freedom issue, and about the choice of a person. I never wanted any body modification, no piercing of ears, no tattoos, and yet my parents had the gall to do this to me as a child. It aggravates me to no end, as I can’t grow it back.
Oh, but you can. Seriously. I shall save you the details and defer to Google, but it involves weights.
That is still something a man could decide for himself when he is ready to have sex.
It’s because uncircumcised gay men sometimes tear at the frenum during anal sex, which exposes their blood to their partner’s bodily fluids (tearing of the skin around the anal sphincter is also common during anal sex). During consensual vaginal intercourse (with any woman who isn’t a virgin), your odds of tearing your frenum are non-existent.
I am an 19 yr old male and i had been sexually active for years, straight and only having had vaginal and oral sex, uncircumcised. I had never had this problem before, but with my most recent partner (non virgin) I had more than one incident in which my frenum tore. The first time it didnt seem anything to worry about, but one incident was scary. We have learned how to prevent such incidents since.
As for the uncircumcised debate, if you really care you shouldn’t be having sex at all. I also think it should be the choice of the person in question.
Also, Anne, “Uncut is just icky”… I’m trying very hard to repress my rage at you right now. I couldn’t give a flying monkey’s chuff what your preference is thanks to the ridiculous societal conditioning you experienced in the US. How would you respond to an Arab man who said “Oh, I just prefer my women without clits. Uncut is just icky”. It’s the exact same thing.
YOUR desire to have men who are circumcised means precisely SQUAT. It’s not YOUR tackle that people are talking about taking a knife to.
Just a small point, I’m tired of Arabs being tarred as a collective that so everything the same. You’ll find female circumsision is a more african/asian thing. I fact I can think of at least 7 arab countries of the top of my head that don’t have it!
Fair one, I was generalising to make a point.
@ DDM:
My father was circumcised late in life for medical reasons. He always said that he lost a lot of sexual sensation due to circumcision. His meatus (bell-end) became less sensitive, as well as the obvious loss of nerves in the foreskin itself.
Speaking as one who still has a foreskin, I can confirm that mine is very sensitive and has a pleasing effect during sex.
Sorry if this is too graphic, I’m a nurse so it never bothers me :-)
Anyway, circumcision, whether male or female, is the removal of a sexualy sensitive part of the body and is therefore genital mutilation.
Oh, and the hygeine argument is pure bullshit. You still have sebacious glands (i.e. the bits that make smelly white stuff) whether you’re circumcise or not. Plus, HELLO! SHOWERS! Since when does having a foreskin stop you from washing?!
So: Be angry at your parents. You have every right.
Feed us the facts. This is the first time I heard of such a thing.
Are you aware it is relatively common for elderly men to get infections that require circumcision, and that it is very painful?
Speaking as a nurse on a care of the elderly ward: Bullshit.
Ok.
That was poorly phrased, of course you are.
I meant, are you saying it might be better to be subjected to extreme pain later in life, in return for moderate pleasure earlier?
Although, when I put it that way, that’s not so unreasonable.
I’m trying to post you a link detailing the loss of sexual function casued by circumcision, which cites an awful lot of very well respected urologists, but the spam filter keeps eating it.
The key phrase in your question: “might”.
Do I think it’s better to risk being one of the one in several thousand men who have to be circucised when elderly and in so risking also not lose any sexual function over the course of my life?
YEEEEES!!!!
I find your argument valid and convincing.
However, I do think such arguments are potentially effective against future circumcisions, and ineffective to denounce past circumcisions or justify anger over them.
How about the boys who either die or lose their entire penises due to circumcision relation complications every year? Does that not make you angry too?
That is still evidence to support a case against future circumcisions, isn’t it? I guess I just don’t understand the desire to dwell on the past. No one did anything deliberately malicious, did they? There are no crimes to avenge, no justice to seek.
I am not trying to equivocate or get in a last “yes, but” jab. I agree with you. You convinced me. Full stop.
Yes they did. They mutilated my penis. If that’s not malicious, I don’t know what is.
I’m afraid that’s not malicious.
It’s not malicious. It’s only religion.
“Malicious” describes intent. An action is never malicious merely because it is a certain kind of action. Would this level of anger be justified if it had been an accident?
Read this:
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html
Then get back to me.
Get back to you about what?
Oh, huh… is that a post that didn’t “get through” until recently? Sorry.
I’m sorry but I don’t trust men to clean that part. Maybe it’s because I live in the puritanical US of A.
But you would trust them by not using a condom?
I would use a condom, of course. But in my long term relationships (I had two that lasted at least two years before I was married– and I’ve been with him for 8 years– we used birth control pills because they liked that better.)
(ps in each of those cases we got tested before switching)
Also, if you’re not mature enough to talk with your lover about whether or not he remembers to wash his penis, then you’re probably not mature enough to be having sex
Well, at 34, I’m pretty sure I’m mature enough. However, scroll up and read my posts from the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision.
There are no proven health benefits of circumcision. Period. There are, however, some very real risks to it.
You haven’t read what I posted, have you?
Measles vaccination is not something that should be decided for a child. Haircuts? Whatever, it’ll grow back. Diet? Fine; if it’s bad, it can be fixed later on. School? They get what they put in. Immunity to a disease? Never gonna get it. It’s permanent. All those other decisions parents make are temporary these days and can be fixed later if needed. Vaccination is not.
Orthodontia is not something that should be decided for a child. Haircuts? Whatever, it’ll grow back. Diet? Fine; if it’s bad, it can be fixed later on. School? They get what they put in. Straightened teeth? Never gonna have crooked teeth. It’s permanent. All those other decisions parents make are temporary these days and can be fixed later if needed. Braces are not.
(In other words, the argument relies on circumcision being “bad”, or at least “not good”. You can argue that your parents, or anyone’s parents, were wrong when they decided it would be good to have their baby circumcised, but not that they don’t have the right. Parents make many permanent decisions for their children. Tradition is not the only — or even the main — reason for circumcision.)
My father-in-law was born with a deformity caused by Thalidomide, a medication that was prescribed and considered safe. Should he be angry with his mother for having taken it?
No, because it wasn’t her fault. He has every right to be angry at the drug company that released it without proper testing, though.
The thalidomide tragedy led to much stricter testing being required for drugs and pesticides before they can be licensed.
A single drug company was not responsible, in the same way that no single entity is responsible for circumcision being common practice and promoted as such.
I don’t think vaccination and cultural circumcision are comparable. Vaccination is a medical procedure, and would be more analogous to removing a foreskin for medical reasons. The evidence for the protective qualities of not having a foreskin is ambiguous at best, and certainly not supported by the kind of evidence that vaccination is, and therefore the argument can’t be made that it serves the same function. Having your kid circumcised is much more like piercing their ears or giving them a tattoo than getting them vaccinated. Orthodontic work is a trickier one, but then, orthodontic work often has a practical medical reason behind it (or at least, it did in the cases of most people my age who had braces as kids/teenagers. Purely aesthetic orthodontic work isn’t all that common amongst my peer group, largely because it is not covered under the NHS and thus costs a bomb,) and again, I’m not entirely sure the analogy holds, although I’m willing to accept that it’s a much, much fuzzier distinction than between vaccination and circumcision.
And actually, I do think that parents don’t really have the right to impose their cultural mores on the actual bodies of their children. It’s a tricky one, but I think the perception that the bodies of children are the *property* of their parents is, as my friend would say, ‘kinda skeevy.’ Yes, parents are responsible for their children, and have the legal right to make decisions for them, but does that really translate into making aesthetic and culturally based decisions about what bits should be removed from their genitalia? Does responsibility for someone’s upbringing, education, discipline and well-being translate to having the right to permanently alter their body without necessity?
Circumcision has many supposed health benefits. Baby circumcision is done for social and medical reasons… perhaps just not good ones. I think the vaccination analogy holds fine. In fact, I think it’s stronger than the braces one, as braces are usually applied when a child is old enough to have and express an opinion.
I agree that the perception that childrens’ bodies are the property of their parents is kinda skeevy, but I think that in this country that is effectively true. But I have no children and am sterile; happily, my opinion doesn’t count.
* biological children; I do have a step-daughter
I am so sick of “Parents make many permanent decisions for their children.” They don’t have the right to cut any other healthy, non-renewable part off his body (and no such part at all off hers, be it ever so hygienic, surgical, and anaesthetised). In most of the western world they’re not even asked, and they’d be horrified if they were – the only reason they have to make this decision in the US is that it’s pushed on them.
“”You can argue that your parents, or anyone’s parents, were wrong when they decided it would be good to have their baby circumcised, but not that they don’t have the right.” Why not? They don’t have the right to have even their daughter’s clitoral hood cut off (as above, be it ever so etc.) It would be illegal to circumcise a non-consenting man. Hell, it would be illegal to circumcise a dog or cat! Why are baby boys singled out for this lack of protection?
I don’t think parents of FGM victims are told their daughter’s life will be healthier and happier as a result.
This was a great video that should be used to teach children in Sunday Schools.
“Losses from Circumcision
Dr Peter Ball MB,B Chir
Many people think circumcision removes nothing more than a little extra skin. However, circumcision removes several critical components of male sexual anatomy. This list enumerates everything currently known to be physically lost after circumcision.
Alongside these physical losses, it is important to remember that whenever a child is circumcised, by far the greatest loss is his choice to make decisions about his own body and his own sex life when he becomes an adult.
Further information on the anatomy of intact male genitals, and a diagram, can be found on the anatomy page.
The Foreskin which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches( the size of a 3×5 inch index card). This highly specialised tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing(keratinisation), and contaminants of all kinds.The effect of glans keratinisation has never been studied.
[1. M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 79-81. 2. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of the Foreskin," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.]
The Frenar Ridged Band, the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response.
[Taylor, J. R. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.]
The Foreskin’s ‘Gliding Action’ – the hallmark mechanical feature of the normal natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth , comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a oneway valve, scraping vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for pleasurable intercourse.
[P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]
Nerve Endings Nerve Endings transmit Sensations to the Brain – Fewer Nerve Endings means fewer Sensations. Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin – thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture.
[1. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959): 39-47. 2. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.]
The Frenulum The highly erogenous V-shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; frequently amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, either of which destroys its function and potential for pleasure.
[1. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44. 2. Kaplan, G.W., "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.]
Muscle Sheath Circumcision removes approximately half of the temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the corpus cavernosa. This is called the dartos fascia.
[Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): Plates 234, 329, 338, 354, 355.]
The Immunological Defense System of the soft mucosa. This produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme.
[1. A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901. 2. P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.]
Lymphatic Vessels the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body’s immune system.
[Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 379.]
Oestrogen Receptors The presence of estrogen receptors within the foreskin has only recently been discovered. Their purpose is not yet understood and needs further study.
[R. Hausmann et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.]The Body is Well Designed – Altering it Surgically can only Disrupt it’s Natural Function
The Apocrine Glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheremones -nature’s powerful, silent, invisible behavioural signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been studied.
[A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901.]
Sebaceous Glands which lubricate and moisturise the foreskin and glans, normally a protected and internal organ-like the tongue or vagina. Not all men have sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin.
[A. B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's Glands: Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.]
Langerhans Cells Specialised epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body’s immune system in a whole penis.
[G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.]
Colouration The natural coloration of the glans and inner foreskin (usually hidden and only visible to others when sexually aroused) is considerably more intense than the permanently exposed and keratinized coloration of a circumcised penis. The socio-biological function of this visual stimulus has never been studied.
The glans ranges from pink to red to dark purple among intact men of Northern European ancestry, and from pinkish to mahagony to dark brown among intact men of African and Asian descent. If circumcision is performed on an infant or young boy, the connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together is ripped apart. This leaves the glans raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. Over a period of years the glans becomes keratinized, adding additional layers of tissue in order to adequately protect itself, which further contributes to discoloration.
[P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]
Penis Size Circumcision means Less Penis – Doesn’t that matter? Some of the penis length and circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than it would have been if left intact.
An Australian survey in 1995 showed circumcised men to have erect penises an average of 8mm shorter than intact men.
[1. R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis, "Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733. 2. Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Why do condoms break or slip off in use? An exploratory study. Int J STD AIDS. 1995; 6(1):11-8. ]
Blood Vessels Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery are removed in circumcision. This loss of the rich vascularity interrupts normal flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the the natural function of the penis and altering its development. [1. H. C. Bazett et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.� 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plates 238, 239.]
Dorsal Nerves The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision. If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be almost completely without sensation. [1. Agur, A.M.R. ed., "Grant's Atlas of Anatomy," Ninth Edition (Williams and Wilkins, 1991): 188-190. 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 380, 387.]
Complications Every year boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infection. They are then “sexually reassigned” by castration and “transgender surgery” and expected to live their lives as “females”. [1. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989):799-801. 2. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-Term Review and Clinical Implications," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 298-304.]
Death Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of circumcision, a fact the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry in the U.S. routinely obscures and ignores.
[1. G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549. 2. R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View," Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.]
Emotional Bonding Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development. Additionally, an infant’s self-confidence and hardiness is diminished by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of “learned helplessness” or “acquired passivity” to cope with the excruciating pain which he can neither fight nor flee. The trauma of this early pain lowers a circumcised boy’s pain threshold below that of intact boys and girls. [1. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997), 139-175. 2. A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.]
Neurological Sexual Communication Although never studied scientifically, contemporary evidence suggests that a penis without its foreskin lacks the capacity for the subtle neurological “cross-communication” that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes and which contributes to the experience of sexual pleasure. Amputating an infant boy’s multi-functional foreskin is a “low-grade neurological castration” [Immerman], which diminishes the intensity of the entire sexual experience for both the circumcised male and his partner.)”
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve only been with circumcised men and it was extremely pleasurable for both of us…
Then you really have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever, do you?
Once you’ve had intercourse with a number of men both circumcised and non, and of varying health, ethnicity, and “size”, your experiences might be a worthwhile addition to this discussion.
I think my experiences are a worthwhile addition to this discussion regardless…
And seeing as how I may be a mother someday who gets to choose to circumcise my child, I’m interested in hearing what you all have to say on my defenses of it…
Also, if you read the citations from that post, quite a few of them are from the 60′s! In other words, it is out dated. Please scroll up and read my posts from the 2000′s. Much more appropriate.
I’m sorry LRA, and I don’t mean this to be sexist, but you’re a woman! Your opinion on male circumcision is, by definition, less well informed than that of a man – particularly that of a man who actually has a foreskin. If my mother had had me circumcised, I would disown her. I mean it.
You’re right. But this is a decision I may face someday. If the medical benefits are documented, then I’ll have it done on my son. So it is important for me to understand it.
And your son may well hate you for it – and you’d deserve his hatred.
Well, my husband and my brother don’t hate their moms. It is generally more accepted here in America. But I have conceded your point about the health benefits (below) and will, should I have a son, discuss with my son’s doctor ways around getting a circumcision.
Coolio :-)
My younger brother was circumcised at age 7 for medical reasons (his foreskin was too tight and was causing problems), and my mother was distraught about having to have it done. Not as distraught as my little brother, though!
Yikes!
“Quite a few” is the same as “one” now, is it? Hmmmmm.
“Dr Peter Ball MB,B Chir”
And seriously, you quoted a chiropractor on this matter? Really?
Lol – I quoted an article written by a chiropractor in which he cites an absolute butt-load of urologists with PhDs.
Yes- a chiropractor who used outdated information to support his supposed “medical” claim on this matter.
LOL! You’re determined to be blind about dates, aren’t you?
I don’t think it is something we should complain about. Some people have it, some don’t. Why critisize them for it?
Good (and sourced) table summarizing circumcision arguments. Pretty good student essay linked also.
Synopsis: the benefits of circumcision are “possible” at best, “nonexistant” at worst.
(…and there are many drawbacks.)
Yep, that’s pretty much my argument. There’s also a lot of danger involved: It’s relatively common for boys to lose their entire penis or die as a result of complications caused by circumcision, even in the US. I would never, ever, ever consider it for my own children without strict medical need.
That’s misinformation. It is not common at all. You need to read the medical research on the matter. I have posted some already, above this comment.
“RELATIVELY common” – I did qualify my comment. It’s. Still. Genital. Mutilation. Of. Infants. It’s the unecesary damaging removal of a piece of a boy’s body that we as a species have evolved over millions of years. Do you really think that your personal preference takes precedence over that? Sorry, but no.
It’s not about personal preference. It’s about medical benefits.
Sorry, LRA, but it’s been obvious since you started posting that it’s all about your personal preference.
I don’t see how. I stated that the men I’ve been with enjoyed sex (meaning that their circumcisions did not affect their abilities to enjoy it) and I’ve argued for the medical benefits. I’ve also stated that this is a decision I face someday. How is that about my personal preference (as in some silly social custom)?
Scroll down and answer the question that I’ve asked you four times and Daniel’s asked you once, please.
Depending on your age, don”t blame your parents. My sons are both “cut”. they are in their late twenties. It was accepted practice at that time and there was very little information to the contrary. If they were in their late teens neither of them would be circumcised. People learn and grow as they age (hopefully). Medical science is constantly evolving. We learn new things every day (another nurse here). Hopefully people are tuned into making their decisions with as many facts as are available at the time. Most parents made the decision with the information they had at the time. I’m sure I’m not the only parent that would do it differently now. And don’t forget the large number of parents making the decision for religious reasons (even if the reasons they gave at the time were :medical”).
Speaking as a surgical nurse I can tell you that most circumcisions done on older (anything over 6 or 7) males aren’t “whacking off the end”. The excess skin is usually taken off midshaft.
Aesthetically, when erect, they look the same. I won’t speak to sensation, I have no way of knowing.
Can you at least speak on hygiene?
LRA, I’m not sure where you’re coming from on the hygeine issue. Are you saying that an uncircumcised man iss definitively dirtier around the meatus than a circumcised man? If so, why? I think that your belief that uncircumcised men are somehow incapable of keeping the heads of their penises clean might be a response to the social conditioning to which you are exposed. The truth is, circumcision has no proven benefits whatsoever and an awful lot of drawbacks and dangers.
It comes from the medical community. Please read the peer-reviewed articles I posted above.
Okay LRA. I’ve decided that circumcision is okay. But let’s be fair! If we should circumcise boys, then we should circumcise girls, too. I mean, there are clear medical and social benefits:
“Female circumcision has not been prescribed for no reason, rather there is wisdom behind it and it brings many benefits.
Mentioning some of these benefits, Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi says:
The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.
Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse.
Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain.
Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation.
Circumcision reduces excessive sexual desire.
Then Dr al-Ghawaabi refutes those who claim that female circumcision leads to frigidity by noting:
Frigidity has many causes, and this claim is not based on any sound statistics comparing circumcised women with uncircumcised women, except in the case of Pharaonic circumcision which is where the clitoris is excised completely. This does in fact lead to frigidity but it is contrary to the kind of circumcision enjoined by the Prophet of mercy (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he said: “Do not destroy” i.e., do not uproot or excise. This alone is evidence that speaks for itself, because medicine at that time knew very little about this sensitive organ (the clitoris) and its nerves.
From Liwa’ al-Islam magazine, issue 8 and 10; article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat (circumcision of girls).
The female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid says in an article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat Ru’yah Sihhiyyah (Female circumcision from a health point of view):
For us in the Muslim world female circumcision is, above all else, obedience to Islam, which means acting in accordance with the fitrah and following the Sunnah which encourages it. We all know the dimensions of Islam, and that everything in it must be good in all aspects, including health aspects. If the benefits are not apparent now, they will become known in the future, as has happened with regard to male circumcision – the world now knows its benefits and it has become widespread among all nations despite the opposition of some groups.
Then she mentioned some of the health benefits of female circumcision and said:
It takes away excessive libido from women
It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.
It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections
It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.
In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:
With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.”
And before you start complaining about how many of those “benefits” are to the male partner, I suggest you read back over your arguments for male circumcision and pick out the arguments that you’ve used which point out the benefits for the female partner of male circumcision.
You can’t compare male to female “circumcision”. It’s apples to oranges.
No, it’s NOT! IT’S THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!!!!!
All of your studies are from one source, and regardless of what they say, these ARE the parts of the penis that are removed by circumcision, FACT:
Foreskin,
Frenar ridged band (the primary male eroginous zone),
Frenulum,
Muscle sheath of the penis,
Sebacious glands,
Oestrogen receptors,
Lymphatic vessels,
Blood vessels,
Sebacious glands,
Langerhans cells,
Apocrine glands.
So now YOU tell ME why we’ve evolved all of these things if we don’t need them?
So should the labia be cut off because it aids cleanliness? That seems crazy to me, but it’s the same argument.
If not, why do you think it’s different?
NO it is not. Removing the clitoris removes the possibility of orgasm. Removing the foreskin does not. Also, I’ve repeatedly asked you to read the MEDICAL RESEARCH I posted on this matter. You keep giving me references that are 10-50 years OLD. That is OUTDATED information. I have posted THREE articles so far that are from the 2000s. I could post more, all of which discuss the BENEFITS of circumcision. This is a choice I may face someday. I want to be sure I’m informed and not just talking about opinions here.
In fact, here’s ANOTHER article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15097799?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Anyone has noticed those sentences?
“We all know the dimensions of Islam, and that everything in it must be good in all aspects, including health aspects. If the benefits are not apparent now, they will become known in the future”
Incredible!!!
@ LRA: Shows how little you bothered reading! Female circumcision does NOT remove the clitoris (except for pharonic circumcision, which is extremely rare). It reduces it and thins the labia minora – so removing sexualy sensitive tissue (without eradicating it) and also thining “excess” skin. The same as in male circumcision. Also, ONE of the studies I cited above is from the 1960s – and that study deals solely with the function of the sebacious glands – and unless human physiology has changed significantly in the last 40 years, they still do the same thing now that they did then. There is also one study cited from the 1970s, but that deals exclusively with the reduction in penis size caused by circumcision – again, still relevant because human physiology hasn’t changed that much. The rest of the studies I cited are far more recent.
Now answer the question: How is the thinning of the labia for hygeine reasons any different to the removal of the foreskin for hygeine reasons? I contend that it is not.
“A 2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that “the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males.” They concluded, “Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well.”
“In a 2007 study, Sorrells et al., using monofilament touch-test mapping, found that the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, noting that these parts are lost to circumcision. They also found that “the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis.” “
“One study looking at 354,297 births in Washington State from 1987-1996 found that immediate post-birth complications occurred at a rate of 0.2% in the circumcised babies and at a rate of 0.01% in the uncircumcised babies. The authors judged that this was a conservative estimate because it did not capture the very rare but serious delayed complications associated with circumcisions (eg, necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis) and the less serious but more common complications such as the circumcision scar or a less than ideal cosmetic result. They also stated that the risks of circumcision “do not seem to be mitigated by the hands of more experienced physicians”.”
“In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV, cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection. ”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15097799?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
And you don’t think that, oh, I don’t know using a condom is a better way of reducing HIV infection and human pamplona virus incidence rates? You know, versus chopping off mens’ foreskin, frenar ridged band, frenulum, muscle sheath of the penis, sebacious glands, oestrogen receptors, lymphatic vessels, blood vessels, langerhans cells and apocrine glands?
Once again, I’ll say it: All of the “benefits” you’ve quoted for male circumcision are easily acheivable through the thinning of womens’ labia minora – so why shouldn’t we do that instead or as well? I’m guessing you won’t be so keen about having your own genitals mutilated, though.
As long as the foreskin retracts and the man washes there is no real problem I can see. Phimosis can be a real problem and does usually require circumcision to correct. I do have to say the worse cases I’ve seen are in 7-10 year old boys, normal disdain due to the age group or religious nutcase parents who pound into them that it’s wrong to touch themselves? (Most of these charts have Catholic in the religion field, I went to Nursing School with a woman who wouldn’t do breast self exams because the Catholic church convinced her that it was wrong to touch her own breasts).
Pingback: It’s Bible-story time! « Hello Universe, This Is Nessie
I had a botched circumcision as a child and had to have it re-done by another doctor (while still an infant). I rarely have an erection. I could go into the best strip club in the world and wouldn’t get a hard on. I’m extremely pissed that I am missing part of my body.
Thank you for your honesty, Jack. That can’t be an easy thing to reveal. Your predicament highlights my objections to male circumcision clearly.
I would be really, really, really angry about that.
Indeed. It’s easy for LRA to talk about “hygeine” and for Anne to call uncircumcised penises “icky” – they’re both women. It’s not THEIR sexual organs that have been sliced and mutilated.
To them both I would say this: How do you feel about female circumcision? That’s exactly how you ought to feel about make circumcision, too.
Well, seeing as how the sex act has to do with my body as well, I think I have somewhat of a right to speak on this matter. You are right that I’m not the one being cut, but I am the one who has to deal with a penis being inside my body.
I think your concern here is moot. If for some reason, you are seeking a new mate in the future, there will be circumcised men for you to choose from. If you are deliberating whether or not to do this to your son (if you ever have one), on the basis that he will put you at risk for STD, well I hope that doesn’t happen. You can teach him how to clean his penis and make sure he knows how, but probably don’t inspect his work after age 5 or 6, possibly earlier. Give him a good education about sex, not a mythological one, warn him of STDs and tell him no means no, and what condoms are good for, and what his sexual partner’s pregnancy means for him legally, should they choose not to abort or put it up for adoption. If he can find someone who loves his foreskin or doesn’t have an opinion, that’s up to the ladies of the future, now, isn’t it.
As for the cleanliness under that part, I’m a little leery myself. Not all men who say they have good aim for the toilet do. How would I know they’re attending their junk as carefully as they ought to? Is there a serious cause for concern, like gradual loss of hearing if you don’t wear earplugs at rock concerts, only nobody heeds, or one of those particularities assigned to germophobes, who are a lot more cautious than generally necessary?
Data point: I’ve never seen an uncircumcised penis!
I really would like LRA to try to address Jack’s post.
I’m not sure how to do so without being insensitive. I believe this man has been dealt a terrible blow and I acknowledge that this surgery had a very bad outcome for him. I am deeply sorry for his circumstance.
Well, at least you tried :)
If god hates foreskins, why did he create them? So much for intelligent design.
Circumcision on male babies should be illegal. But this would never happen, as the American Jewish community would play the race card.
Aren’t individual rights above community rights?
In theory, yes. In reality, well, babies don’t vote.
AGAIN, I’ll ask LRAt: All of the “benefits” you’ve quoted for male circumcision are easily acheivable through the thinning of womens’ labia minora – so why shouldn’t we do that instead or as well? I’m guessing you won’t be so keen about having your own genitals mutilated, though.
I’m sorry, you have yet to present current credible medical evidence for that claim.
I think the point is that the labia and the foreskin needs to be washed to keep clean & sanity. (Cutting off the clitoris, I agree, is a different issue in most respects, though cutting off foreskin was also originally done for sexual reasons.)
If foreskin should be removed for sanitary reasons, so should the labia. But why not just not remove either and teach kids to wash? That probably has the same benefits as circumcision.
We could do studies on how cutting off the labia results in certain benefits, but does that mean we should do it? Those benefits would have to be pretty damn high.
You’re right– but beyond the hygiene claims, I’m trying to explore other claims, like problems with cancers and HIV.
Condoms and washing! No surgery required!
Also, I would like to add that if there were such evidence, then why get upset about a procedure that is done before one can even remember? Additionally, if the procedure resulted in a small loss of sensitivity (which wearing a condom does anyway), but results in having half the chance of getting cancer, then why not?
You’re trying to appeal to my emotions, but you need to appeal to reason. Going to the dentists and getting shots aren’t pleasant things, but they are good for us, usually.
You’ve answered your own point by equating the benefits of circumcision to the benefits of condom use. Why not just use a rubber instead of mutilating an infant? It has the added benefit of birth control.
because one doesn’t use a condom for every sexual encounter. I am married and had two significant relationships before that. We got tested and switched from condoms to birth control pills because that is what the men wanted for our sex life. Is there a test for latent HPV in men?
No, but there is an almost 100% effective vaccine for HPV in women!
Excellent! Now we’re getting somewhere– my mind is beginning to change…
In fact, if you move to Britain it’s now routinely given to girls at 17. Oh, except for girls in Catholic schools, because the Holy Roman Church says it would “encourage promiscuity” – unbelievable, hey?
Oh, no, wait – it’s the Catholic Church I was talking about wasn’t it? I should have said “entirely believable”.
Absolutely! If I had a daughter, I’d encourage her to get the shot! And, if there are medically sound ways around the cancer issues, then I say don’t circumcize. Thank you for sticking through it with me.
Lol – thank you for putting up with me getting emotional about it!
So we’re agreed? Vaccination, condoms and personal hygeine beat male circumcision?
Yes- I believe they might!
Woohoo! *does a little dance*
Alright, let me rephrase: If the removal of the male foreskin to prevent a build-up of smegma (which is the substance supposed to cause cervical cancer) and bacteria is acceptable, then why should we not remove the labia for exactly the same reason?
Well, what is the evidence for that? I’m willing to entertain it if there is credible evidence.
How can we study it in Western medicine? Women aren’t mutilated routinely as men are, after all.
LRA and Custador, thank you for the posts. I have a question:
My 4 and a half year old boy forskin does not retract, it’s very tight, doing some raeading seems like phimosis. I am taking him to the doctor, but I would like your opinion.
I will worry if it is like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phimosis_Penis.jpg
It is not like that. We have an appointment coming. My wife thinks this might interfere with the proper growth of his penis.
Thnx.
I’m sorry, but I don’t feel comfortable giving a medical opinion! But do take him to the doctor! (Even get a second opinion!)
Oh– Also as your son is older, there may be a chance of having a non-scalpel procedure like the PlastiBell mentioned above! Hope that is helpful! :)
Unfotunately, it is possible that he’ll have to be circumcised. Without a doctor physically examining him, though, you can’t really know.
I’ll hazard a guess that this is not the Zach of the previous post, worried about who to talk to…
PS Effing foreskin
Well, that about covers it all….