Circumcision

[BmorePat87]

I was intrigued by a topic brought up in the Kansas Planned Parenthood thread. Vlad called out the disgusting practice of female circumcision (genital mutilation). He mentioned the fact that it is still prevalent in a number of nations in West and Saharan Africa and a few in the MIddle East. They range from 1% prevalence to about 96%.

Many African nations have now banned the practice and the UN decided a few years ago that this is a human rights issue.

These are good first steps but it makes me wonder something. Why are we ok with the prevalence of male circumcision? It certainly is a safer practice and is done either for presumed health reasons or religion, not to make sex less pleasurable.

But is it still not mutilation? My friends' pediatrician told them that he couldn't give them a reason to do it or not to do it when they asked about their son a year ago. Besides the Middle East and much of the Northern half of Africa, America and Australia are alone in their high rates of male circumcision.

Where do we stand on this practice?

[Vlad]

(01-19-2016, 10:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was intrigued by a topic brought up in the Kansas Planned Parenthood thread. Vlad called out the disgusting practice of female circumcision (genital mutilation). He mentioned the fact that it is still prevalent in a number of nations in West and Saharan Africa and a few in the MIddle East. They range from 1% prevalence to about 96%.

Many African nations have now banned the practice and the UN decided a few years ago that this is a human rights issue.

These are good first steps but it makes me wonder something. Why are we ok with the prevalence of male circumcision? It certainly is a safer practice and is done either for presumed health reasons or religion, not to make sex less pleasurable.

But is it still not mutilation? My friends' pediatrician told them that he couldn't give them a reason to do it or not to do it when they asked about their son a year ago. Besides the Middle East and much of the Northern half of Africa, America and Australia are alone in their high rates of male circumcision.

Where do we stand on this practice?

There are glaring differences between the two...for men it was about cleanliness, stopping spread of disease.
Does not affect pleasure.

For women...they are not allowed to feel pleasure during sex...zero health benefits.

For men, although painful, done as an infant. I don't remember mine. No long term health issues from being circumcised.
For women, done as children or pre-teen. Extremely painful. Women suffer long term health issues as a result.

Far more deaths from female circumcision than male.

I am glad I am circumcised because I know women who wouldn't touch an uncircumcised dick. Think its disgusting.




 

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: There are glaring differences between the two...for men it was about cleanliness, stopping spread of disease.
Does not affect pleasure.

There are differences. However, the whole cleanliness and stopping the spread of disease isn't so much of an issue if you just engage in good personal hygiene.

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: For women...they are not allowed to feel pleasure during sex...zero benefits.

Indeed, it is primarily a social and religious thing. Much like male circumcision started off as.

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: For men, although painful, done as an infant. I don't remember mine. No long term health issues from being circumcised.

True that most don't remember, still a traumatic experience. Also, no long term health issues? Tell that to those where the knife slipped.

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: For women, done as children or pre-teen. Extremely painful. Women suffer long term health issues as a result.

Indeed, and at a much higher rate.

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: Far more deaths from female circumcision than male.

Won't argue against that.

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: I am glad I am circumcised because I know women who wouldn't touch an uncircumcised dick.

You know some very shallow women.

As to the OP in general, in the western, developed world there is no real justifiable reason for male circumcision beyond the social/religious aspect. Personally, if I ever have children and I have boys, I'm not going to have them circumcised. Instead, I will teach them to clean themselves and not be lazy about their hygiene. Just my two cents.

[Benton]

(01-19-2016, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are differences. However, the whole cleanliness and stopping the spread of disease isn't so much of an issue if you just engage in good personal hygiene.


Indeed, it is primarily a social and religious thing. Much like male circumcision started off as.


True that most don't remember, still a traumatic experience. Also, no long term health issues? Tell that to those where the knife slipped.


Indeed, and at a much higher rate.


Won't argue against that.


You know some very shallow women.

As to the OP in general, in the western, developed world there is no real justifiable reason for male circumcision beyond the social/religious aspect. Personally, if I ever have children and I have boys, I'm not going to have them circumcised. Instead, I will teach them to clean themselves and not be lazy about their hygiene. Just my two cents.

Agreed on all points.

[Vlad]

(01-19-2016, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are differences. However, the whole cleanliness and stopping the spread of disease isn't so much of an issue if you just engage in good personal hygiene.


Indeed, it is primarily a social and religious thing. Much like male circumcision started off as.


True that most don't remember, still a traumatic experience. Also, no long term health issues? Tell that to those where the knife slipped.


Indeed, and at a much higher rate.


Won't argue against that.


You know some very shallow women.

As to the OP in general, in the western, developed world there is no real justifiable reason for male circumcision beyond the social/religious aspect. Personally, if I ever have children and I have boys, I'm not going to have them circumcised. Instead, I will teach them to clean themselves and not be lazy about their hygiene. Just my two cents.

Shallow? Has nothing to do with being shallow.

Knife slipped? lol. You can throw in as many hypotheticals as you want to defend your foreskin. Cmon man.
There are no long term health issues resulting from male circumcision.

The idea of cleanliness came along with the religious and ritualistic aspects of male circumcision. It wasn't like it started out only as a religious thing.

[Westwood Bengal]

Didn't have this done when my son was born. Absolutely no REAL reason to have it done.

It is a holdover, that has stuck around due to religion, and is a conditioning tool to keep the sheep uniform and make them feel like they are playing on the same team as other brainwashed sheep.

[Benton]

(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Shallow? Has nothing to do with being shallow.

Knife slipped? lol. You can throw in as many hypotheticals as you want to defend your foreskin. Cmon man.
There are no long term health issues resulting from male circumcision.

The idea of cleanliness came along with the religious and ritualistic aspects of male circumcision. It wasn't like it started out only as a religious thing.

http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/circumcision-facts/

Quote:Here are some facts regarding circumcision that most parents are unaware of, and some websites and many physicians fail to mention. We thought you should know them.

• About 117 boys die each year in the United States as a result of their circumcision, most from infections or blood loss.1
• The U.S. circumcision rate is steadily declining. In 2002 it was 65%, 56% in 2006, 54.5% in 2009.2
• Circumcision is a heated issue, and the circumcision controversy has become a full-fledged human rights movement, making it even more important that parents become better informed.
• Most physicians do not have their sons circumcised.3 Why not, if circumcision is medically advisable? Since most have performed the surgery as part of their training, they are the ones who should know more about its consequences than anyone else.
• Physicians are biased toward circumcision. Circumcised doctors are 5 times more likely to recommend circumcision to patients.4
• Contrary to frequent claims, infants do feel pain as intensely as adults, and very possibly even more.5
• Painful newborn procedures—including circumcision—should be avoided in order to prevent long-term psychological and physiological consequences.6
• Circumcision regularly removes a shocking 3/4 of the penis’ sensitivity through the removal of the ridged band, foreskin “lips,” and most often the entire frenulum.7
• Anesthesia is used in only 45% of circumcisions; the type of anesthetic varies.8 The most effective method does not eliminate all pain, and the most common type used, a topical creme, does almost nothing to reduce it. In fact, a major clinical test of the various types of anesthetics, on actual infants, was halted for humane reasons because of the intense pain.9
• As adults, men circumcised in infancy are almost 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction (ED).10 11
• Circumcised men and boys are 60% more likely to suffer from alexithymia, a psychological trait disorder which causes difficulty in identifying and expressing one’s emotions, which can lead to difficulties in sustaining relationships.12
• 5.1% of boys will have significant complications,13 and the rate can be as high as 55% for all complications.14 Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urinary opening) is found in 20% of circumcised boys.15 The average male will have more health problems from being circumcised than from being left alone.16
• Circumcision has never been proven to be effective in either reducing or treating cervical cancer, penile cancer, urinary tract infections, or sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS.17
• Not one medical association in America, or anywhere else in the world, recommends infant circumcision; some even recommend against it.18 At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.
  

I dunno the validity of the information. But the issue isn't as simple as tossing out hypothetical.

In western culture, we chop off a part of the penis because of religion... and some people die or get injured. In another culture they chop off part of the vagina because of religion... and some people die or get injured.

[Au165]

It is funny, guys on both sides of the argument tend to try and throw out crazy shit to support whatever they have going on.

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2016, 12:06 PM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: Didn't have this done when my son was born. Absolutely no REAL reason to have it done.

I think it is more for the child. Have no idea why you would consider having it done when you child was born.

As to the OP: I choose not to hide the prize under the Pope's hat.

I had a friend that had it done as an adult; simply because it was associated with being "unkept".

It may not be necessary; however, as the saying goes "When it Rome...."

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2016, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know some very shallow women.

Young bfine gave less than a damn how shallow they were; many prefered a "clean" penis and spoke of not being with someone who was uncut.
Could have been the main reason for my friend getting it done as an adult.

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Shallow? Has nothing to do with being shallow.

Yes it does.

Go learn what that term means.

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2016, 12:06 PM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: It  is a conditioning tool to keep the sheep uniform and make them feel like they are playing on the same team as other brainwashed sheep.

No one is more brainwashed than the ones who see absolutely every aspect of life as a conspiracy or a form of "brainwashing".

[Westwood Bengal]

(01-19-2016, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one is more brainwashed than the ones who see absolutely every aspect of life as a conspiracy or a form of "brainwashing".

You offer a great example of the type of absolute thinking you are mocking. Want to try and explain why my point is wrong?

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2016, 12:11 PM)Benton Wrote: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/circumcision-facts/



I dunno the validity of the information. But the issue isn't as simple as tossing out hypothetical.

In western culture, we chop off a part of the penis because of religion... and some people die or get injured. In another culture they chop off part of the vagina because of religion... and some people die or get injured.

If you are looking to support your position you can find about anything on the web. For instance the American Academy of Periatrics states:
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

Quote:Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life. The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it.

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Shallow? Has nothing to do with being shallow.

It absolutely does. Unless it's due to ignorance. Take your pick.

(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Knife slipped? lol. You can throw in as many hypotheticals as you want to defend your foreskin. Cmon man.
There are no long term health issues resulting from male circumcision.

The idea of it being unclean or diseased is a hypothetical as well. And there are a number of reported long term health effects found through studies, as someone has already pointed out.

(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: The idea of cleanliness came along with the religious and ritualistic aspects of male circumcision. It wasn't like it started out only as a religious thing.

The reason it was called 'clean' is because that is the terminology from the Hebrew Bible for everything associated with the Mitzvot. Beef and sheep is clean, pig is unclean, circumcised men are clean, uncircumcised men are unclean, menstruating women are unclean, etc. It wasn't clean as in the hygiene sense, it was clean as in the religious sense.

Prior to that in prehistorical societies, it was most likely done much like female circumcision today. It was a sacrifice, a right of passage into manhood. We know this because of it still existing as such in some primitive cultures that have had limited contact with the outside world.

So yeah, it started off as a religious thing, became about hygiene, and now we know a bit more about it all. This isn't to say there aren't studies showing benefits to circumcision. Those do exist. The issue is that we don't know how accurate these are, and we also have studies showing negative impacts as well. This is why I say there is no justifiable reason for it other than religious/social, because we don't really have anything firm (heh, see what I did there?) to go on as for the actual medical benefits outweighing the negatives.

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2016, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you are looking to support your position you can find about anything on the web. For instance the American Academy of Periatrics states:
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

Indeed, there have been studies showing benefits. I will say, however, that if you look at some of the information in more detail on these studies the only one where circumcision provides a statistically significant benefit is HIV. Though this is more preventable through safe sex practices, so it's hard to say how much of an impact this makes. This is why the AAP has stated it is still up to the parents.

[GMDino]

(01-19-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it is more for the child. Have no idea why you would consider having it done when you child was born.

As to the OP: I choose not to hide the prize under the Pope's hat.

I had a friend that had it done as an adult; simply because it was associated with being "unkept".

It may not be necessary; however, as the saying goes "When it Rome...."

Pretty much why we had our son circumcised.

There was no compelling reason one way or the other but it was the "norm" so we went ahead with it.  I also remember one kid in gym class back in grade school that another boy would make fun off because he wasn't circumcised.  

With our son he was born with a hernia so they did everything at once after he was was off oxygen. (Premie, 3 months early).  So he was just aobut 5 months old when it was all done.

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2016, 02:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why the AAP has stated it is still up to the parents.

Of course it is up to the parents

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2016, 03:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it is up to the parents

I could've worded that better. I forget sometimes how literal I should be.

[BmorePat87]

(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: There are glaring differences between the two...for men it was about cleanliness, stopping spread of disease.
Does not affect pleasure.

For women...they are not allowed to feel pleasure during sex...zero health benefits.

For men, although painful, done as an infant. I don't remember mine. No long term health issues from being circumcised.
For women, done as children or pre-teen. Extremely painful. Women suffer long term health issues as a result.

Far more deaths from female circumcision than male.

I am glad I am circumcised because I know women who wouldn't touch an uncircumcised dick. Think its disgusting.




 

Agreed, glaring differences. I even mentioned the reasons why as it is important to note presumed health reasons versus sexist reasons. 

That said, it is still mutilation, is it not?