You don't mutilate your daughters - why do you mutilate your sons ? (Discussion concerning human se

Originally posted by cleveract
reply to post by ofhumandescent

 

. According to studies, that has been showed, is that it is more benificial than harm to get circumcized...

Those studies are wrong. And you are wrong.

reply to post by havok


The circumcisions in the Bible were a minor procedure that removed only the redundant end of the foreskin. Today's circumcisions are much more brutal. However, circumcision was never meant for Christians, or for that matter, anyone outside of the Jewish faith. It was intended for Jewish slaves. If I could go back, I would not have had this done to my son.

reply to post by cleveract


I beg to differ with you. This is just more of the brainwashing that has occurred.

www.cirp.org...

These days, Weinberg, like many doctors, is careful to go over the pros and cons with prospective parents. "I think it's a parent's choice to decide," he said. "It is not a medically necessary procedure."

For some parents, circumcision isn't really a choice: It's dictated by their religion, or there are specific medical indications for the procedure.

Potential benefits, says Dr. Monja Proctor, a pediatric surgeon with Swedish Pediatric Specialty Care, are thought to be decreased incidence of urinary-tract infections and penile cancer, a very rare disease in men. Circumcision also may help protect men from getting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, although the pediatrics academy statement calls that evidence "complex and conflicting."

Like I said in a previous post, there are many studies done on the both "for" and "against" that can be cited by either side, but the simple fact remains that if the Government provided insurance Medicaid, along with many other insurance plans - refuse to cover the proceedure, then it becomes glaringly obvious it is not medically necessary.

You were simply circumcised due to your parents' religous beliefs. It is highest among Muslim and Jewish people, and lowest in the Hispanic and European communities.

No one should be circumcised as a baby, as I've already mentioned it should be left to the individuals personal choice when he/she is at an age where they understand the pro's and con's and have the ability to make the decision themselves.

I know it's an extreme example but what if parents started deciding that their child would be better off only having one leg instead of two and therefore allowed a surgeon to remove a limb from a baby, one who had absolutely no choice in the matter and simply had to accept the was he was because his parents made that decision for him.

Obviously, there is a massive difference because a leg is a functional part of human anatomy and you would be disadvantaged if you were missing one but the point of the matter is that although it's functionality isn't the same, a foreskin is still a functional part of the human body and the only person who should have the authority for it to be removed is the individual themselves.

Taking religion into account makes the whole subject a lot more complex but I'd also extend the same argument and state that a child shouldn't be forced or born into a religion, they should be allowed to make that decision when they reach an age where they understand the implications of their actions and beliefs.

Originally posted by Ruler
Reading this thread has just made me damn worried.
I have phimosis(You can't pull the foreskin back, at all.)
So I have to be circumcised for medical purposes.
Thanks alot people xD

Unless you have tried everything else first, your doctor is having you on.
Even if the topical steroids this is usually treated with don't work, a longitudinal slit in the prepuce allows the foreskin to be pulled back, is much less painful and has far fewer complications.

Clinical Guidelines for Phimosis

reply to post by Death_Kron

Taking religion into account makes the whole subject a lot more complex but I'd also extend the same argument and state that a child shouldn't be forced or born into a religion, they should be allowed to make that decision when they reach an age where they understand the implications of their actions and beliefs.

I totally agree with you. However, if that were the case, there'd be no such thing as religion, because if a person was allowed to reach the age of reason without being inculcated into the particular doctrine their parents favoured & were then suddenly told "this is whats right & wrong because some blokes wrote it down ages ago", anyone with any intelligence would simply reject it out of hand.

reply to post by InterestedUK

reply to post by ofhumandescent


To be frank here, I don't honestly care. I'm fine the way I am with circumcision, I will do the same to my sons, as my grandfather did to his sons.

All these things you listed? Do not concern me. As I do not sleep around, nor do I care about sexual pleasure being maximized. As a matter of fact, I would consider it a positive to not feel as much. As my desires for a woman are not pure sexual desire.

So as you can see, I fail to see why it matters.

It's bad for girls for quite an obvious reason. In terms of what they are actually cutting off, thee synonymous organ is the penis itself, not the foreskin.

reply to post by silo13


Hi Silo,

I have assisted in a couple of circumcisions in the clinical setting. There is practically no blood. Most docs use a little device called a gomco. It isolates the tiny little flap that they remove, and starves the area of circulation for a few minutes so the tissue goes to sleep kind of like your foot when you sit wrong for a while. This also helps reduce pain. Really good docs use a local anesthetic. General anesthesia is too dangerous in a child that young for anything other than major life saving surgery. I have even seen an infant sleep through the whole procedure (not typical though.) It seems that the being restrained upsets them more than the procedure. Most kiddos are back to normal like nothing happened in about an hour or two. If someone comitted an act of horrid mutilation to you I doubt you would be right as rain in an hour or two. I was personally present in the room when all 3 of my boys were snipped. The first 2 fell asleep in my arms within 15 minutes, and #3 cried til he got back to mom, and fell asleep immediately after getting his mom fix. I have cared for infants truly in distress, and post circumcision just doesn't come close. A distressed baby is inconsolable, persistant vital sign changes, and sometimes turns blue from increased oxygen demand called acrocyanosis. I have never witnessed this in a post circumcision.

I have also inserted chest tubes. In my mind that would be much more on the order of a mutilation. However when we put those in it's do or die, while a circimcision is completely optional, and yes medically unnecessary. I have an adult friend who had a circumcision for personal reasons in his mid 20s, he has also had an in grown toenail fixed at the foot doc. He said the toe fix hurt much worse. Everyone experiences pain differently, and different complications make it different so no 2 people will compare it the same. So I'm sure someone will have an anecdotal person experience with adult circumcision, and think it was the worst thing ever, but that person also probably never had a chest tube to compare it with.

So from the perspective of decades of personal clinical experience, and profession training I stand behind the opinion that mutilation is a very over the top descriptor for proper modern circumcision. Not trying to be patronizing, but you also have to consider the emotional condition of the parents. This child is their life, their pride, and joy. These emotions are felt extremely acutely at birth, especially for the mother who is in full blown protective mode. Nature wired her this way, and for good reason. Now we have some insult to the babies happiness, and security right in the middle of this, and it is going to evoke a much stronger reaction than for the clinician that performs the procedure a dozen times in a week.

I do however think that a thoughtful parent would probably wait until the child could understand, and process the information, and make its own informed decision. The law doesn't require it, but it would just be nice. I decided to do it at the time out of a sense of protection. You can cross off a list of about 150 wierd rare diseases that can only happen in an uncircumsized male. The chances of any of them occuring is rare, and remote, but when you're looking at the center of your life, and an hour or two of discomfort can eliminate a page and a half of possible complications for a lifetime.... I have seen penile exonerations due to infection, and a clipped tip would have eliminated the risk. You remove the whole thing in an exoneration, and get to pee out of a tube. Again it should be a choice, and pressure either way is unethical. Parents should be presented with raw data, and make their own informed decision. It eliminates a couple hundred long shot problems, but it hurts, and there is conflicting data on whether or not it reduces sensation later in life. Neither way is wrong. In either scenario the parents were acting in the best interest of their child. People come to different conclusions based on their experiences, and level of knowledge at the time.

Look what happened to this poor boy... shame on us for letting this child mutilation procedure go on

Google Video Link

reply to post by Binder


No reason to bring all that logic, reason, and sensibility to these peoples' newest freak out fest. Give it a few more pages and parents who circumcise their children will be compared to Hitler, if they haven't already.

Well this all got started when God told the Hebrews to do this to their eight day old sons, I am sure he had his reasons as to why, I believe in ancient times it had to do with hygienic variables. Whatever the reason it is no longer required. Of note is that he allowed his own son to be circumcised when he was in human form. Then within a few decades it was no longer required as the Mosaic law was finished.

However the practice carried on within Christianity anyways, most males born into strong christian families are circumcised, but really it isn't necessary anymore, with hot water and soap readily available to most modern families to look after the hygienic aspects.

Ultimately it is the parents choice as to what they think is is best for the child.
For example if I was parent living in a country that has excellent sanitary conditions, I would say circumcision is not necessary. But if I was parent in in a third world country where even basic running water was hard to find, I would opt for circumcision for hygienic reasons.

Originally posted by Ruler
Reading this thread has just made me damn worried.
I have phimosis(You can't pull the foreskin back, at all.)
So I have to be circumcised for medical purposes.
Thanks alot people xD

edit on 19-9-2010 by Ruler because: (no reason given)

If you look at people that have excess fat, they develop larger skin to accommodate the extra fat tissue. This is a perfectly natural thing. Stretch skin over periods of time, and it will expand. This is just how human skin works. Stretching the foreskin is easy and the results are dependent of two factors. First, do not pull so much that you tear and get scar-tissue. Second, do it over a long period of time. You will find many resources online about this thing. Some people even use this for "foreskin-restoration". You can actually stretch yourself a new foreskin. But, do some research on the Internet before you try this. And I am not trained in medicine, so you could consult your physician before attempting this. There are some kinds of steroid cream that can help you do this faster.

reply to post by nidstav


Human beings were not meant to get to the levels of fat that people do today. The body does compensate, but all those folds of skin get infected ulcers frequently, called panniculitis. Many people end up needing body circumcisions, especially if they lose the weight, since the skin will stay the same once it's stretched out, and they'll look like a child wearing their parent's skin.

I really am shocked reading all the ignorant posts about babies being traumatized by circumcisions, way to let emotions get WAY ahead of sanity. The child was JUST born, things are rough for them for a few days anyway, that's probably one of the least of their concerns. I had it done, my son had it done, it isn't any kind of issue at all, there are no stitches, no medications needed, nothing. It's a simple, voluntary procedure. Do it or don't, but for the OP to be on the stage with the drama running high about regretting having had it done to her sons, is a bit out there. Move back to vaccinations and leave circumcisions alone, they're not a big deal, one way or the other.

Ok, I've been wondering whether to post this next, or not, since I began reading this thread. Its my experience tho, so in the spirit of collaboration to deny ignorance, I will:
A few years ago I saw a comedienne do a stand-up routine based on anecdotes about her various ex b/fs. She suddenly stopped & said, "Yeah, I dont know why I seem to attract so many Jewish guys... Oh wait, its because I've got a really small vagina."
I'd guess you'd have to see the way she delivered the line to get just how funny it was, but I mention it because, like all the best jokes, part of what makes it funny is the underlying truth of it. It may not be the case for all cut men, but on average, we all know that circumcision desensitises the penis.
Now I suspect that this may be an advantage to young men. There was a lad I knew as a young teen who was something of a legend in his own lunchtime, amongst the girls we knew, for being able to have sex for ages before ejaculating, whilst the rest of us were 5 minute wonders, & he was cut. I was jealous. However, this was just before AIDS hit the news & in a resort, so rampant promiscuity was the norm. I soon discovered that there is an innocuous solution to the issues attendant on a super-sensitive penis & lack of sexual experience, which, in the hope that some teenage ATSers can benefit from my experience, I will now reveal:
JUST HAVE MORE SEX.
Its that simple: the more you do it, the longer it lasts &, like anything else, practice makes perfect.
In later years & throughout my 17yrs of marriage my ex & I vigorously participated in activities which usually have the phrase "between consenting adults" attached, so, whilst I'm no Kinsey, I have a fair clue on this subject. Its my experience that the older a cut man gets, the less able he is to achieve 1 orgasm, let alone become aroused enough for consecutive ejaculations. Whereas I, despite being 42 & a moderately heavy smoker & drinker, can still do an 8hr session & ejaculate 4-5 times. The boot is firmly on the other foot these days!

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I haven't noticed any such problem at all, in regards to achieving multiple orgasms, nor do I have sensitivity issues. ALL of that is much more dependent on hormone levels, than skin, particularly testosterone. Your buddy in school prolly just squeezed one off real quick before his encounters with the ladies, that was a trick that always worked for longevity, gotta get the bullet out of the chamber.

People are plain evil

reply to post by 27jd

Move back to vaccinations and leave circumcisions alone, they're not a big deal, one way or the other.

As I said earlier to gimme_some_truth, you dont know that from personal experience, do you? You are guessing & going on anecdotal evidence from other cut men, none of whom, nor yourself, has experienced what its like to be a fully mature man with a fully intact penis.
I asked him if he would be prepared to describe the sensations of sex with a cut end, so we could compare them to my uncut experience. Who knows, he may come back & reply, but I doubt it. Still, I offer you the same opportunity to be frank about this taboo subject.
If you dont wish to, or perhaps cant put it into words, maybe this question will illustrate what I'm talking about:
Have you ever fainted from pleasure overload & hyper-ventilation during fellatio?

it boggles the mind how any how any human being can justify in any way shape or form circumcizion of a child and that its a sick ,disgusting ,less than human practice that should stop. it clearly cause's great pain and suffering to the child which we cant even grasp the mental damage it may or may not cause, but the pain part we can grasp, utterly barbaric and is not civilised.

if you want to throw some religous bable into the mix and say well its for those reasons, then clearly you are a crackpot , because any 1 one who beleives in god has to agree that he made them and by circumcizing yourself and others is sin becuase god would not have put a foreskin on you for nothing then have it chopped off

seriously people this has to stop

and i havent even began to disscuss the female genital mutilation yet which i will and this has even more sinister implecations behind it, and if you go on www.truthtube.tv and look for the female kind , makes you ask yourself why no outrage about this and you then start to wake up about other things a well but we'll not get into that bit.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by cleveract

 

I beg to differ with you. This is just more of the brainwashing that has occurred.

www.cirp.org...

These days, Weinberg, like many doctors, is careful to go over the pros and cons with prospective parents. "I think it's a parent's choice to decide," he said. "It is not a medically necessary procedure."

For some parents, circumcision isn't really a choice: It's dictated by their religion, or there are specific medical indications for the procedure.

Potential benefits, says Dr. Monja Proctor, a pediatric surgeon with Swedish Pediatric Specialty Care, are thought to be decreased incidence of urinary-tract infections and penile cancer, a very rare disease in men. Circumcision also may help protect men from getting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, although the pediatrics academy statement calls that evidence "complex and conflicting."

Like I said in a previous post, there are many studies done on the both "for" and "against" that can be cited by either side, but the simple fact remains that if the Government provided insurance Medicaid, along with many other insurance plans - refuse to cover the proceedure, then it becomes glaringly obvious it is not medically necessary.

You were simply circumcised due to your parents' religous beliefs. It is highest among Muslim and Jewish people, and lowest in the Hispanic and European communities.

Brainwash? i think that you are brainwashed, because you seems to buy everything what the media says...
You can ask your doctor if circumsision is beneficial or harmful.. Than you can come back and and replay by telling me that you are sorry for making a foolish statement...