Why all the vitriol on the circumcision threads?

[AngryAmish]

Why do folks get so wound up this issue? Those of us who have had it done don't really miss anything (with exceptions of course. It is possible to botch anything.) We still enjoy sex - unlike female genital cutting.

The thing with doing it to an infant is that infants cannot create memories. It simply is an anatomical impossibility at that age. It may hurt but you don't see babies carrying on for a long period of time after it is done.

Will I do it if if have boy babies? I was on the fence but the HIV issue puts me in the cutting camp. Will I have my girl babies get the anti-HPV vaccination? Yes - and there are risks with any vaccination but the benefits far outweigh the risks.

But why do folks get so torqued up about this issue?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. People who have had a lobotomy don't miss anything, either

But then, some people see nothing wrong with genital mutilation.

[AngryAmish]

2. See, that is the vitriol I am talking about

It implies terrible things about folks on the other side of this issue (have brain damage, approve of mutilation of both sexes).

Please, try to convince me. Do not call me names.

BTW, many folks with lobotomies realize something is wrong.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

"Naughty bits", eh?

That shows both a sense of shame about your genitals, and a level of immaturity about discussing the subject.

The identical procedure on a female (the removal of the clitoris hood) is almost universally decried as genital mutilation. Please explain why it is NOT genital mutilation on a male.

[havocmom]

26. "naughty bits" shows a tendency to be aware of other cultures

and terms used in other places. It could show a sensitivity to the sensibilities of others by the avoidance of using course language.

Doesn't necessarily show any sort of shame at all.

[Kingshakabobo]

39. LOL....Shame! Actually, I watched too much Monty Python and Benny Hill..

I would discuss this with the other poster but his avatar reflects too much immaturity.......oh the horror!

(if I had more shame, maybe I wouldn't get in so much trouble!)

On a serious note: As a gay man, I'm quite happy I don't have extra nooks and crannies for little nasties to hide....Also, my parents were the most non-religious people you would ever meet.

[havocmom]

49. See, you got some education about a different culture and place

I recognized the influence right away. Having a good friend from across the pond I do appreciate use of many terms from Great Britain, (and any memos from the Ministry of Funny Walks that come my way)

[northofdenali]

52. "Naughty bits"

:rofl: I remember a book called the Unauthorized Autobiography of God that used the exact same phrase, so you got it on highest authority, havocmom!!

[Vektor]

185. It's worse than that.

They remove the clitoral hood, the entire clitoris, and the inner labia. The goal is to completely eradicate any possibility of female "pleasure" - hence the removal of any areas containing the nerve endings from which orgasms originate.

The idea is that allowing a female to enjoy sex means she'll stray. Female circumcision is a means by which to keep females subservient.

It is utterly barbaric.

[kiahzero]

194. Agreed.

The deleterious effects of female genital mutilation are orders of magnitude beyond male genital mutilation, to the point where they are almost incomparable.

[Zookeeper]

241. That's right...

Female circumcision is really female castration. It's brutal and severe. Many girls die of infection as a result and some girls have what's left of their labia stitched shut until marriage.

BTW, I've never heard of just removing the clitoral hood. I would need to be convinced that any culture practices that. What would be the point?

[KittyWampus]

271. To compare female removal of the clitoris with removal of foreskin is absurd

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Dupe, sorry.

[TankLV]

19. Yes - I noticed that too...

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I am not calling anyone names

You stated, "Those of us who have had it done don't really miss anything...." Since the vast majority of circumcisions in the United States are done very soon after birth, it is not possible for a circumcised man to miss anything, as very few infants have had sex before their foreskins were removed.

As for my comment about genital mutilation, that is exactly what it is, regardless of what presumed sanitary or ritual purpose such mutilation is supposed to serve.

And finally, there is one very important tidbit from the report that supporters of male genital mutilation refuse to acknowledge: The population that was studied has very little in the way of potable water, and hygienic practices are not up to the minimum level suggested by the World Health Organization. Circumcision makes it easier to keep the penis clean, and thus minimizes transmission of HIV and other STDs, yes, but regular washing an uncircumcised penis before and after sexual intercourse with soap and clean water has a lower incident of transmitting sexual diseases than not washing a circumcised penis.

[JacksonWest]

130. If you're not going to wear a condom....

I don't think they're going to take the time to wash their penis after sex.

[pnwmom]

300. That's absolutely true.

The problem you're not acknowledging, though, is that even in developed countries men can end up in situations -- such as in military service -- where good hygiene is very difficult.

[bicentennial_baby]

31. Wow, that's a fucked up comparison

People get lobotomies in this day and age b/c they are a medical necessity. Ask my gf's mother, who had one a few years ago. Jeebus...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Seems A Bit More Effective Than A Lobotomy

Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to AIDS because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans’ cells, which attach easily to the virus. The foreskin may also suffer small tears during intercourse, making it more susceptible to infection.





http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html...



And:



French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2916212

[seabeyond]

3. my husband made the decision for the boys. i would not.

i didnt feel it was my place. he would be in confusion with all this too. i see nothing that suggests my husband has any negative feeling to what happened to him 41 yrs ago. it has been interesting to read though. i am open to others perception, expecially when it is on a subject i will never experience. i hate that time for my babies. the worst so far 11 yrs into being a mama.

[woodsprite]

6. I belong to a Mom's group - 150 ladies

and this is something that cannot be discussed in a civil manner. I'm not surprised that the same happens on DU. I guess I'm in the 50/50 camp - one girl uncircumsized, one boy who is. ;)

[seabeyond]

9. it really

cannot be compared what and why it is done to girls to boys. all the rest of the argument and debate and research i am open to. but if a person wants to compare what they do to females and why,... i think that is beyond absurd.

[JacksonWest]

131. Female circumcision is used to subordinate women.

And it's extremely common in Africa. Essentially, the procedure is brutal and often performed long after birth. It essentially removes the clitoris and makes sex pleasurless for the woman. If a woman does not enjoy sex, she will not cheat. And since it doesn't matter if a woman enjoys sex-for the man- it's a way of life for millions of women.

It's really not comparable to male circumcision. I don't have one-and I'm quite the fan of sex.

[Touchdown]

234. Sounds like the exact same reasons for male circs when they became vogue.

To stop masturbation, and womanizing, and not thinking about healthy things, like working 18 hours in the mines.

Also here. a comparison between male and FGM...

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

[JacksonWest]

256. Really? 'Cause it sounds nothing like that.

Sheeesh. Welcome to the world. Men run it. We're not going to do anything that hinders our enjoyment of sex. This whole MGM crowd is a farce.

[NashVegas]

282. That Tells Me Two Things About Those Who Promote Female Circumcision

1. They haven't heard about g-spots.
2. African men wouldn't care about g-spots even if they had.

[Jamastiene]

310. No, it's is definitely not the same thing.

They remove more than just the clitoral hood. They remove everything that offers any feeling of sensation to keep the women subservient. It's a different story.

[Solo_in_MD]

225. As a father I am glad I never had that decision to make, we had daughters

Not sure what I would have done.

[seabeyond]

227. almost 12 yrs later, i am fine with his decision. we discussed with

boys and told them what it was about. they are fine, hubby is fine.... all are fine. i see no issue with his decision. i didnt feel it was my place, that is all.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. My husband over-ruled me on it too. I said that he had to be the one

to care for them after it was done because he owed it to them. But really, who was the one who had to make the pee-pee teepees of vaseline and gauze?

Uh-huh.

[seabeyond]

12. lol lol. hated it. just hated it. i could say that a handful more times

but then, when the kids would have to get a shot i would cry. hubby had to do that one. also he had to clip the nails. i took care of them after circumcision though. i feel that is the least, so i truly was a part of the empathetic process

[AngryAmish]

22. Could the idea of an infant in pain be the reason for the vitriol?

We don't react well when we hear a baby cry and we react worse when it is a cry of pain. I think you are on to something.

[seabeyond]

28. i will tell you when done, my boys didnt cry during procedure nor

after it, nor seemed to have been effected in behavior in anyway. i saw NO signs of discomfort from it or anything. i was so cnnected to the boys, i could recognize stimulis from birth that effected them, foods they ate ect... so it was not a lack on my part to recognize. not to mention my own squeamishness with it and a desire to comfort, i could easily pass it to the boys out of empathy and still, i saw nothing.

that being said

i think there is a greater battle in this that is beyond. for both male circumcised vs not circumcised and probably more in the relationship of parent and relationship to their own body. i think it has more to do with those issues.

on edit: i think a lot may be the perception of the pain one give to a baby, but as i said, being honest as a mom and on the look out i did not see it. those that chose to not do it because of what they preceive the pain will be, do not have the opportunity to realize otherwise

[GreenPartyVoter]

95. My first son had it cut off, the second they used that bell thingy that

they say is painless.

[Bridget Burke]

15. Mom said that my Father requested my brother be circumcized.

Apparently, my father wished he'd had it done as a baby. But a friend of his had it done as an adult....

[cali]

27. I made the decision with my son

My husband leaned toward having him circumcised. I was against it, just because it seemed like a traumatic thing to do to someone so young and tender. Not that I think it would have done lasting or serious damage; I just couldn't bare to add another trauma so soon after birth.

I gotta say though, I find the comparison of circumcision to female genital mutilation and lobotomy, utterly obscene

[seabeyond]

34. post 28. i hear ya cali. that is how i see many have looked at it

with this issue. i had the same issue with so soon after the turmoil of birth. i certainly felt that too. IF i had made the decision then i could see me not doing it. and the reason would be for my comfort..... my yuk at hurting baby and was that ok in the long run. my emotional perspective. why i gave to hubby to decide.

[JacksonWest]

132. I think having to make that sort of decision with your mother

would be more traumatic then the procedure. There are some things I just wouldn't want to discuss with her. And really, If I were able to have a say in the decision, I can't see wanting to cut anything off my penis at any age.

Make the call for them, do it while they're infants.

[skipos]

4. My friends who work in retirement homes say that old men with foreskin

have trouble cleaning themselves and are prone to infections and what not.

[TahitiNut]

54. How many of them choose circumcision to 'solve' that problem?

I chose to have my tonsils removed after repeated infections. :shrug:

(It's funny how 'choice' is demeaned on this issue. 'Progressive'? Right.)

[Midlodemocrat]

109. My dad was circumcized in Korea at 21.

He had repeated infections both as a child and an adult and overseas during the war, caring for himself in a hygienic manner became overwhelming.

He had my brothers circumcized to spare them that. My son is circumcized as is my husband.

[bridgit]

224. my husband's dad was circumcised in his 60's for the same reasons...

[Book Lover]

63. Funny - my 78-year old father has never had that complaint

Nor have any of his relatives - all from the Old Country... Maybe Italians know something about hygiene that we don't? :shrug:

[skipos]

97. I am sure it isn't a problem for everyone.

But it is definitely a problem for some. These were fairly incapacitated people too.

[tenshi816]

279. It's not routinely done in Europe.

My husband isn't circumcised and neither are my two sons. It's not even suggested by the medical establishment in the UK that it should be done with baby boys unless there's some specific medical or religious reason for it.

We haven't encountered any problems in our family.

Edit: clarity

[gollygee]

205. How do they control infections in women who can't clean themselves?

I don't know if I'd circumcise a baby because maybe when he's an old man in a nursing home he won't be cared for properly.

[William769]

8. My problem with it is a false sense of security.

My other problem with it seems that it has certain religious overtones to it.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. you wrote...

It may hurt but you don't see babies carrying on for a long period of time after it is done.


Are you kidding? I couldn't walk for a year and spent most of the time crying! :P

[seabeyond]

13. you are not only funny, but clever. took me about 30 sec to get

that. fun neeee

k... on edit: more like ten, i had to re read and i am not that slow of a reader

[RedEarth]

37. lol.... that's hilarious

[uppityperson]

81. that was funny, thank you

[krispos42]

313. And crapping yourself... lmao n/t

[sharp_stick]

14. Most pediatricians now use anesthetic.

I don't remember getting it done when I was a baby and I don't think I have any really evil repressed hatred against my parents for it.

In any case, almost all Docs now use anesthetic during a circumcision so the discomfort is better limited to the recovery which isn't that long.

People really do get bent out of shape on this issue though. I think that's likely because it's something being done to somebody that can't make the decision for themselves and nobody likes to make a baby feel pain.

[Zookeeper]

242. The doctor used anesthetic on both of my sons....

as newborns. The eldest didn't even wince and the youngest cried for less than 10 seconds.

[TankLV]

17. Because it cuts close and personal?

Just guessing...

Like I had any choice in the matter anyway...

I don't and haven't had any complaints...

[xchrom]

18. i am happily, happily cut.

but i certainly don't mind fooling around with boys who aren't.

variety is the spice of life.

[movie_girl99]

20. my son's father was not circumcised but wanted our son to be

I really didn't want to have it done but not being male and not knowing what his dad went through, i let him make the decision. He was catholic and had gone to a private boys school with a lot of jewish boys and said that had always felt odd in locker room situations and didn't want our son to have to deal with that. I cried for a few days after we had it done to my son when I would change his diaper and have to clean it. My son doesn't remember it but there are times that I wished we hadn't done it.

[cwydro]

21. I don't know.

I don't have a dog in this fight (so to speak:P ), but there was one heck of a flamewar in the Lounge about this yesterday. Hope this one doesn't get locked.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Circumcision, breastfeeding, homeschooling, co-sleeping...

For some reasons the decisions we make as parents raise the shrillest objections. Apparently no one can be trusted to raise an infant successfully to adulthood anymore. Parents can't be "good enough," they have to be perfect.

[sharp_stick]

35. As I'm sure you know

When it comes to parenting the old saying "I truly believe everyone is entitled to my opinion" comes into play.

Nobody is willing to leave you alone to raise your children. I don't think it's being perfect that people want they want conformation to their belief and value systems. If you don't breastfeed your child until he/she is at least 2 years old it pisses off somebody who does because they feel it's an attack on their values.

[seabeyond]

43. they want conformation to their belief and value systems

YES. i was also going into some of the issues why with circumcision and i think it is very much this for a lot. especially in this culture for those that have not had it done

[PVnRT]

174. I don't even think it's that, necessarily

Deep down, the people who are so OMG OUTRAGED at stuff like this are fragile themselves, and need to be validated by others; they feel validated when others agree with them, and are offended when people don't. They lash out in anger and automatically assume all who disagree are idiots and ascribe to them all of the characteristics of "the enemy."

[Pithlet]

46. That is very true.

Although those subjects rarely rise to the level of lunacy that circumcision threads do. And considering how bad those subjects can get, that's saying a lot. Even the most strident breast feeders don't usually rise to the level of vitriol that some of the anti-circ crowd do. They would have to equate bottle feeders with those who burn their kids with cigarettes to even come close. How many posts did it take until someone compared them to frontal lobotomies? It's insane.

Edit I meant for this to be in response to post #23, but it works with yours, too :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

94. You're absolutely correct and I didn't express myself well.

It's not that people necessarily require others to be perfect it's that they are no longer comfortable being "good enough" parents themselves. External validation of our choices is a huge problem. Confidence is lacking.

Goodness knows I've offended countless parents when they learn I homeschool. As if that means I think they are insane or horrible parents for using the school system. Heavens to Betsy, it's just want I want to do with my family. No skin off my nose where or how your child is educated. Just get them educated for Pete's sake!

[seabeyond]

41. YOU are so RIGHT. i cannot express to you how right on you are

i have been most surprised over the years on du with this attitude. i remember after having my first child... about four months into it i went to doctor and told her, people tell me to do this, but i am not comfortable. am i hurting baby.

she told me.... you are the mama, you KNOW best. you do what you think is right.

she had confidence in me. and my parenting, after just a few months. that was the best gift and insight anyone gave me. first time mother, was hard and scary for me. i didnt need all the other stuff being thrown at me. was exhausted. i needed encouragemnet. but.... she was right and i have seen 11 yrs into it, i do. and i give the same gift to other parents

there are those that would look at me, admire my parenting praise me. and there are those that can look at the same me and condemn me.

[sharp_stick]

45. It's not just DU

Man, I lost count of how many times people gave us their "opinions" of how we should raise our child. Hell, it's even happened in the store at a checkout line.

[Pithlet]

50. I had to stop going to parenting boards.

I haven't been to one since my first born was a toddler. It's definitely not just DU. :scared:

[Midlodemocrat]

111. Me, too. The Self righteousness is unreal.

The only person whose opinion ever really mattered to me about my parenting was my husband. Everyone else can go pound sand.

:hi:

[Pithlet]

112. It's a shame, too.

It could be a wonderful resource for parents to bond together. And sometimes that did happen. But, more often than not it was overrun and spoiled by the self-righteous brigade. It's a bit easier to form that bond with other parents outside the internet, but even then you sometimes run into it. :hi:

[mondo joe]

Sometimes we're a weird parallel of freepers - we don't care if you abort,

but everything you do IF you have a child is subject to extraordinary moral security.

[mondo joe]

102. Sometimes we're a weird parallel of freepers - we don't care if you abort,

but everything you do IF you have a child is subject to extraordinary moral security.

[kiahzero]

166. Forgive me for being pro-choice.

I think that the person directly affected by the decision should be the one to make it.

[mondo joe]

176. So do I. I'm 100% pro choice.

What I was trying to say is that while we are often very non judgmental about abortion, we are pretty free with moralistic judgment about other things.

[kiahzero]

179. My point is that moralistic judgment seems appropriate here.

Infant circumcision robs the child of their choice.

[Pacifist Patriot]

223. A vast array of parenting decisions robs children of their choice.

[XemaSab]

280. That's what being a responsible parent is about

Deciding how your children will be safely born, what to feed them, when to change them, what to vaccinate them against, how to educate them, when they will go to bed, what they will see on TV... millions of decisions made on behalf of a child until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

[CTyankee]

157. Add natural childbirth to that list. I still have the scars from

one of those flamewars!

[Pacifist Patriot]

222. Ooo, right you are. How could I have forgotten that one?

Says a woman who gave birth three times without so much as an aspirin but advised her sister to get an epidural during her labor because the circumstances were wildly different.

[CTyankee]

253. Uh, oh. You'll never hear the end of it!

I get chastised for advising women to keep their options open regarding use of anesthesia and discussing the issue of pain relief frankly with their doctor. Several women I know, including my oldest daughter, were told by their docs to "wait and see" but when they did that and THEN said they wanted anesthesia the doc said "Too late!"

This is one of those issues that people take VERY personally!

[seabeyond]

260. first moment i walk into doctor told him, want epidural

they told me depends.... i told them, hu uh....

i am all for the epidural.

woman doesnt want one her choice.

no controversy for me.

[ContraBass Black]

172. It's not that parents have to be perfect,

It's that I'm the only one who knows how to raise a child.

[Pacifist Patriot]

221. I was unclear. See explanation here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2916766&mesg_id=2917977

[gollygee]

24. Have you ever known anyone whose had problems from

getting circ'd?

There aren't good statistics on how many botched circumcisions there are because the gov't only defines something as a complication if it shows up within a year, and these kinds of problems don't always show up until sexual maturity.

I just don't think it's worth the risk of problems. Men can wear condoms.

[AngryAmish]

32. I know a lawyer who had a circumcision malpractice case

Horrific case. But just a dumb doctor.

[murdoch]

25. Unhappily circumcised

I am circumcised, which I am unhappy with. Due to some sick, barbaric, antiquated religious nonsense, I had part of my penis cut off at a young age, which I had absolutely no say in. In Europe this is not this case, for some reason this barbaric practice is widespread in the US. If it's so normal, why can't I make the choice to do this myself when I become an adult? The "modern" cover to this barbaric sickness is a joke - it sounds like reasons why we went to Iraq, or the old eugenic stories about how Ango-Saxon Aryans are scientifically superior.

[Lurking Dem]

42. ...

Wha?????????

[JacksonWest]

135. This barbaric tradition cuts your chance of HIV infection in half.

Fuck'n barbarians! But, please, capital P-L-E-A-S-E, WITH sugar on top, underneath, and spread across the sides, Eeeee-lab-ore-eight on your going to Iraq rationale is similar to circumcision rationale.

[mainegreen]

193. That's a bad argument for western nations.

I promotes unsafe sex. Not good.

[Touchdown]

236. So you believe these quacks over this man?

American circers have been in desperate need for a disease which circumcision can cure for centuries.

Some of the other diseases that circumcision "cures" of the past...

Masturbation
Genital warts
Herpes
insanity
hooliganism
polio
homosexuality
necrophilia
testosterone overload
priapism
urethral infections
zipper catches
all venereal diseases at one point or another

It's a sick practice and a Dr. who do it with glee gets a sexual kick out of it.

[JacksonWest]

257. Hmmm. What else do these doctors get a sexual kick out of?

If you miss your foreskin so much, I'll be happy to staple some roast beef to your wang.

[Touchdown]

269. Kind of snotty.

aren't you?

[Bridget Burke]

29. Although I didn't make a scientific study....

Most of the circumcized men I knew in my youth managed to "do" quite well. And the circumized ones did have hygiene issues--which limited their options!

It appears that some men who have "problems" blame them all on circumcision. I remember reading about one who lost turgor whenever he thought about What His Mother Had Done To Him. (Issues?)

Of course, the decision is up to the parents--unless their religious decides for them. I knew an Egyptian circumcized at puberty--he rememberd it vividly!

[Deja Q]

30. Dunno.

I can think of more important issues than slicing away dead skin off a doodle.

But that's just me. I think about lots of things.

[youthere]

LOL...

doodle...:rofl:

[verse18]

33. Because men are very SENSITIVE when it comes to the penis.

:shrug:

[AngryAmish]

38. But many folks with the most vitriol are female

And yes, we are sensitive about that bit of our anatomy!

[gollygee]

44. In some cases it's because we're moms

I didn't find out my daughter was going to be a girl until I was 36 weeks along, so I had to research this issue in case. And once I'd decided that I didn't think it was worth the risk, I had to justify my decision to every nosy and opinionated person who asked.

I've had partners who were circumcised and partners who weren't. I don't think it makes a difference sexually, so long as the circumcision is done right (and it isn't always). But god there are people who are so pro-circumcision as to be stupid about it. One woman told me that if I had a son and he wasn't circumcised, no woman would ever be willing to perform oral sex on him, and how could I justify that. Seriously. As if Eurpoean men never get head. When you hear garbage like that from people, eventually you get frustrated enough to lash out when the subject comes up.

I had a daughter so it died down. But I'm guessing if I'd had a son I'd still be having that conversation.

[FedUpWithIt All]

139. Just more to play with.

;-)

I dated a man who overheard a conversation between women in a bar about similar subject matter. They realized he was listening and tried to involve him in the conversation. He laughed along with them. At the end he told them that he was uncut and had personally never had issue finding mentally and sexually healthy women willing to perform for him. He added that he in turn did not have issue with their breast size or labia differences.(I am stating it nicer than he did of course)

It hurt him badly.

[verse18]

51. Your right. I think men and women

are sensitive about anything that has to do with sex, sexuality, sexual behavior or sexual performance. What's really sad IMO is that any topic about sex is going to bring out a range of negative emotions in people.

[Pithlet]

64. Because women aren't immune

from the thought process that dictates that decisions other parents make that are different from the decision they made are inexcusable and wrong. I can't think of a single parenting issue that doesn't routinely turn inflammatory because members of either side think their way is the only way. Stay-at-home vs working outside the home. Cloth diapers vs disposable. Breast vs bottle. Co-sleeping v crib. TV or no TV. Private school vs public. Circumcision is one of the worst, though. It's a parental choice AND it involves a penis. A recipe for disaster.

[TahitiNut]

119. I think it has the MOST to do with the degree to which people identify with the role.

Some think "parenting" is something they DO. Others think "parent" is something they ARE. From what I've observed, there's a strong gender correlation in which mode of thinking is adopted.

Indeed, I see a similar mode of thinking with regards to employment. Some identify with their jobs to the degree it defines who they ARE ... while others regard it as something they DO. The former have a far greater emotional adjustment to job loss than the latter. In this, as well, I've observed a stong gender correlation.

We rarely react as strongly to criticism of what we DO as to criticism of who we ARE. The phrase "take it personally" has become so trite that we don't stop to consider that it actually portrays a choice.

[HardRocker05]

232. we're vitriolic about FEMALE 'circumcision' and efforts to belittle the damage

damage done by it. i haven't seen too many women getting worked up over male circumcision; i think that this thread proves that. personally, i think it's probably better to not circumcise boys and let them wait until they are adults and make the decision for themselves. either way, i'm certainly not getting vitriolic about it; now, i *will* get vitriolic about anybody trying to say that cutting a girl's privates off is no big deal and nobody's business.

[slackmaster]

36. People like cutting each other down this time of year

They're preoccupied with their holiday trimmings, rumors of job cuts, etc. Everyone gets short during the holidays.

[ourbluenation]

47. No voluntary scalpelling of my baby boys body. I said no way...he can decide for

himself when he's grown. He's 18 now and quite the big man on campus and could care less about the au natural state of his penis.

[FedUpWithIt All]

48. I have memories from infancy.

Not as far back as birth but pretty far back. I also disagree about babies carrying for a long time after it is performed. Many infants respond as if in discomfort for an amount of time that one would assume them to for such a procedure.

As to your question about why people get so ramped up about the discussion. Nearly everyone's opinion is based on a decision they made regarding one of the most important aspect of their lives, their children. No parent wants to make a decision that is wrong and the decisions that are already made were done with the best intent and judgment available to them, tempered with no small amount of personal opinion. Whether a parent decides to circumcise or not they make this decision with the intent of providing for the lifetime future sexual health of their children. This is not a small thing.

Personally, i think that no matter what decision parents make, it is done with loving concern and good intent. There really are no hard and fast right or wrong choices. Even medical data has only recently offered sway to the subject. Before this is was largely a perspective and personal issue.

Raising human beings to live successful, happy, meaningful lives is never a simple matter.

[Kelly Rupert]

105. If you do, they're likely confabulated.

You make excellent points in your post, but the brain is simply incapable of forming episodic memories in infancy. I'd guess they were confabulated, possibly from stories about your childhood.

[Lurking Dem]

108. Not so sure about that.

My father and I *both* have memories that far back and I have related events that have shocked people going back to 3 or 4 months old.

[FedUpWithIt All]

134. About infant memory

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7622990&dopt=Abstract

These findings suggest that infants have a nonverbal declarative memory system that supports the recall of past events across long-term delays.

While it is certainly a fragile system infant episodic memory has been shown in studies. Explicit memory is functioning in infants. It's development is now believed to parallel that of implicit memory.

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/Rovee-Collier-97.pdf

Extending the Jacksonian principle of the hierarchical development and dissolution of function to
the development and dissolution of memory, researchers have concluded that implicit (procedural)
memory is a primitive system, functional shortly after birth, that processes information automatically,
whereas explicit (declarative) memory matures late in the 1st year and mediates the conscious
recollection of a prior event. Support for a developmental hierarchy has only been inferred from the
memory performance of adults with amnesia on priming and recognition-recall tests in response to
manipulations of different independent variables. This article reviews evidence that very young
infants exhibit memory dissociations like those exhibited by adults with normal memory on analogous
memory tests in response to manipulations of the same independent variables. These data demonstrate
that implicit and explicit memory follow the same developmental timetable and challenge the utility
of conscious recollection as the defining characteristic of explicit memory.

[Lurking Dem]

143. Cool info!

Thanks!

[Trillo]

235. More on "vitriol"

Maybe it's a body or somatic memory of some kind of early childhood trauma. Explanation (emphasis added):

The psychotherapeutic approach I use when working with early trauma resolution involves a guided associative process that follows my client's flow of thoughts, memories, images, and body sensations. This is intertwined with a sensitive repatterning of memories of traumatic events and is more fully described in my article "Touching and Holding During Regressive Therapy" (Rhinehart, 1998).

Many men who were circumcised as neonates consider it a nonissue because they cannot remember anything about it. In my psychotherapeutic work with men, however, it is clear that the memory is there. Since the event occurred at a very early preverbal level, it is most often experienced as a body or somatic memory rather than as a more familiar verbal memory. Various disturbing mental images and intense feelings often accompany the reemergence of this body memory, including the feel of sharp metallic instruments cutting into one's flesh (anesthesia is normally not used in circumcision), the sense of being overpowered by big people, being alone and helpless, feelings of terror, and a sense of paralysis and immobilization.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/rhinehart1/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. I Got This From Another Board

"The health benefits of male circumcision are irrefutable, even without the AIDS risk, but with it factored in, the issue is not a contest. It's amusing that men who will have glasses to correct their vision, and braces and caps to repair their teeth, will argue that it's not "natural" to circumcise.

We have more sense than animals, and can therefore figure out things that are beyond nature's design. Nature designed the male appendage and its packaging to protect it in a dirty, rough environment. That's why males and females both have an abundance of hair in the region. We now know that while the foreskin may have real benefits when we were swinging through the trees or running across the savannah, we don't need that in this era. We need protection from sexually transmitted viruses."

[Kingshakabobo]

56. I had the "barbaric" wisdom teeth removal procedure!

Now my mouth is mutilated!!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

61. You would have no problem, then, with the equivalent female procedure?

There are several cultures where it is routine to remove the hood of the clitoris when a girl is at a very young age. This practice is almost universally condemned as genital mutilation and a gross violation of the child's body. I am curious as to why circumcision should not be viewed with equal condemnation.

[seabeyond]

62. this is done when the child is 8-10 without

medical or pain stuff, and the purpose is to make sex not fun. i do not see it as the same at all.

[Pithlet]

67. It isn't the same.

But there is no use in arguing with those who think it is. It's a highly emotional, irrational opinion. Run away. Run like the wind.

[Touchdown]

237. Oh' but it is the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. Infant circumcision is almost always done with no anesthetic

With little bandaging, and under circumstances when body wastes are retained against the resulting wound.

So it all comes down to intent? The end result is irrelevant; only the mental state of the person mutilating a child's genitals should be taken into consideration?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. A Physician Did Mine And It Works Great.

eom

[Zookeeper]

243. I don't think that has been true for quite a while...

My eldest son was circumcised as a newborn with anesthetic in 1990. His dad stayed close to him to offer comfort and my son didn't cry at all.

[Crunchy Frog]

299. In most cultures where females are "circumcized" at that age

and without anesthetic and other medical things, males are too. In most cultures that practice male circumcision, it is done at around 7 or 8 years of age, without anesthesia, and often in unsterile conditions.

Also, there are many different types of procedures that are done on females. Some of them only remove a small amount of tissue from the clitoral hood. In a few of the cultures that practice it, they actually believe that it makes sex more pleasurable for a woman.

There's alot more cultural diversity, and complexity than most people in this country are aware of.

Me personally, I'm against any kind of elective surgery on normal body parts being done on people too young to consent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Silly Comparison

But , hey, I'm just some poster on an internet board so I'll quote some experts:

Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

AIDS experts immediately hailed the result, saying it gave the world a new way to fight the spread of AIDS, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would now consider paying for circumcisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA




French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL



If you like your uncircumcised penis that's your choice... But to compare male circumcision to female circumcision is akin to comparing a quadruple bypass to rhinoplasty because they are both medical procedures..

[TechBear_Seattle]

80. In situations where basic hygeine is difficult, circumcision might be better

But the very well documented fact is: Washing an uncircumcised penis with soap and clean water before and after intercourse results in a vastly decreased incident of transmission of sex-related diseases such as HIV over not washing an uncircumcised penis.

The real issue is not circumcision but the lack of basic hygiene in most of Africa, mostly as a result of the lack of clean water. In the developed world, where there is (for now, at least) an abundance of clean water and a high standard of personal hygiene, there is absolutely no rationale for circumcision. Witness: the incidence of HIV infection in the United States -- one of the few countries where circumcision is routinely practiced on male children -- is slightly higher per capita than in any European country, where circumcision is rare.

What gets me angry is the number of people who are using this study as an excuse to perpetuate male genital mutilation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. "male genital mutilation"

What do you say to the hundreds of millions of men and their partners who have had the procedure and are happy with it...


I'll defer to what a young woman once told me " if it has too much skin , it doesn't go in."

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

126. OK, trying again without pictures. You made me laugh

wikipedia has pictures of erect penises, circumcised and non. "Too much skin"? Check the pictures as I can see little excess skin when erect. Flaccid yes, but that won't go in either. Pictures were to show the differences, NOT to make fun of anyone or be ribald.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. I Think She Was Referring To A Flaccid Penis

I think she was referring to a flaccid penis and what it would take for her to make it turgid.


Those pictures were disturbing and the subject seemed small...

[NashVegas]

283. What a Party Pooper

I made the decision long ago that if I ever had a boy-child, I'd want to leave him uncircumcised as a gift to a future (assuming) daughter-in-law.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. It can depend on anatomy

I was circumcised as a child (not an infant), because my foreskin was too tight to allow me to wash inside it. It was done before I hit puberty because things might get painful then. Since then, medical practice now seems to have developed to saying they'll wait and see if any infection and/or pain develops before operating, and so medical circumcisions are much rarer. I'm quite happy to have had the operation.

[PVnRT]

182. Washing hands before and after contact with another person

results in less spread of disease too. No shit. Washing skin prevents spreading diseases. You really should make sure to get that out - I don't think anyone knows that.

And, of course, the first thing any man thinks of in the throes of passion before and after sex is, "Oh, wait! I need to wash my dick first!"

I find it funny you ignore the fact that in many countries in Europe they also have comprehensive health care that includes contraception, as well as much less of a stigma against condom use and more open attitudes about sex and sex education as well.

Feel free, though, to continue living in your bubble world where everything bad has only one cause. It's amusing watching you foam at the mouth.

[TechBear_Seattle]

190. Where do I claim that "everything bad has only one cause?"

You are the one frothing at the mouth.

But to use your own example: I assert that the people promoting the removal of the foreskin as a way to slow the spread of HIV can be compared to people promoting the removal of one's hands removed as a way to slow the spread of the common cold. Both will show reduced contagion rates, and both are entirely unnecessary.

[pnwmom]

303. I understand that this study was designed to account for

confounding variables, such as different sexual practices, hygiene practices, etc. that had complicated the analysis of results from previous studies.
And the end result was that circumcision added significant protection even to men who used condoms, had good hygiene, and limited sexual partners.

[uppityperson]

91. Also from articles questioning results and reason for less HIV transmission

I would be very happy for a decrease in HIV transmission, however, mass circumcision has NOT been shown to be the way to go, even in the 2 articles you post. Here are other questions. What else is different between the groups in the studies, what is different between the groups in the studies and people elsewhere? Is it due to cleanliness? Easier answer-clean more. Is it due to "tears in foreskin"? Perhaps the addition of lubrication would be another way to go (not getting into foreplay, just added lube). Look at last line below from SFG article, addressing ritual washing and promiscuity. The problem I see with studies is what other factors are included and not counted? How about the healing time after adult men get circumcised leading to less sexual activity therefor less chance of HIV transmission?

(NYT) But experts also cautioned that circumcision is no cure-all. It only lessens the chances that a man will catch the virus, it is expensive compared to condoms, abstinence or other methods, and the surgery has serious risks if performed by folk healers using dirty blades, as often happens in rural Africa.

(SFG)Laboratory studies have found that the foreskin is rich in white blood cells, which are favored targets of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. So the theory is that men who are uncircumcised are much more likely to contract the virus during sex with an infected woman, and that the epidemic spreads when these newly infected men have sex with other women within their network of sexual partners.

Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.

[mainegreen]

197. Infant and small children don't (or shouldn't) need these benefits.

Why not see if the young adult can make this choice himself?

[XemaSab]

281. What young adult thinks they're at risk for HIV?

:shrug:

[JohnnyLib2]

55. In my offbeat way of thinking,

it's another area where there is no clear answer, so we fuss and feud. Sorta like life-after-death, stem cell research, origins of mankind, origins of homosexuality, etc., etc. 'Tis the human condition, perhaps.

[Hosnon]

57. Did I miss something? I saw the thread but had no idea it was potential flamebait.

And I'm cut and happy I am.

[Bake]

58. I'm sure this will piss a few folks off, but here goes

As a man, I would never presume to dictate to a woman what she should or should not do with her own body (i.e., I'm pro-choice).

So why should women think they can or should dictate what a man does with his body? Personally, I think it's the father's decision, since he probably has a little more experience with the subject than the mother does. And he also has a little more "in common" with his son in this regard as well.

And I say this with absolutely no vitriol.

Bake

[Hosnon]

59. I tend to agree with you here.

If the husband and wife simply can't agree then the husband's decision trumps.

[seabeyond]

60. respectfully i gave to my husband to decide. i agree. and i did n/t

[gollygee]

66. I don't think the father has more experience

the father has experience, in most cases, with one penis. And he's probably happy with however his penis is because generally men's penises make them happy.

But I have experience with more than one penis, and I have experience with both circumcised and uncircumcised penises.

But, beyond that, it's a medical procedure and both parents should have to consent when any medically unnecessary surgery is performed.

[Hosnon]

69. Well the father definitely has more experience with *having* a penis.

Based on that line of thinking, can a man who has been with a lot of women tell women that FGM is ok or anything else about their vaginas?

[gollygee]

71. I don't think either procedure should be done at all. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. How About In Africa Where Male Circumcision Can Save Lives?

eom

[gollygee]

85. As long as adults are consenting to the procedure

it's up to them. But I don't think it should be done to a child who is unable to consent.

[seabeyond]

88. this is a little off the track

but... i have issues with vaccinations. i think they may do harm to our children and really create a different child than what they are born. saying, with my oldest, i think vaccinations may have escalated or enhanced an autistic characteristic in my son. yet..... i chose to get the boys their vaccinations. as a parent, they had no input into the decision, that may be a lifetime result of the vaccination. the parent makes the decision for the baby/child.

[Pithlet]

92. Good point, seabeyond. n/t

[gollygee]

110. Yes we make decisions for our kids.

and I've never derided anyone for choosing to circumcise. I just said I wouldn't do it and why. In my opinion, the risks associated with the procedure outweigh the potential benefits, particularly if done before sexual maturity. At that point, the guy would be able to evaluate it for himself. The risks of waiting until a child is mature enough to decide whether to be vaccinated are, in my opinion, greater than the risks of vaccinating.

It's the parenting curse though. You have potential guilt no matter what you do. LOL

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Children Don't Consent To Being Born Either.

I think that's a bigger decision...

[gollygee]

99. it's also a red herring

not relevant

[mongo]

291. If a mom should have so much input into your son's circumcision

Then shouldn't the father of a fetus get a say on whether the potential baby gets aborted or not?

If the couple can't agree -- they go to court.

Edit: I'm just playing devil's advocate here. The decision to end a pregnancy is solely the woman's -- as the decision to circ should be the father's when possible.

[Crunchy Frog]

302. Then why do they have mothers sign the consent forms?

The decision to have one's body surgically modified should belong to the owner of that body IMO.

[youthere]

75. I agree with you..

when it came to our son, my husband couldn't decide because he really didn't care one way or the other, so he left it up to me. I'd actually had an older gentlemen complain to me one time about being left intact and, not having vast "penis experience" myself, I assumed that was the general sentiment and so our son was circ'd.

[Hosnon]

89. "Cir'd"....Ok that makes it sound painful. nt

[youthere]

117. Oh..sorry..too lazy to type out the whole word.

[JVS]

160. Seems perfectly reasonable

[dysfunctional press]

65. circumcision makes the penis less sensitive...

the head of the penis is where the most nerve endings are- when you reomove the foreskin- you spend the rest of your life with your clothing rubbing/sanding those nerve endings and rendering them less sensitive...

so- uncircumcised men actually get more "sensation" during sex.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. I Never Had Or Have That Problem

eom

[gollygee]

74. How would you know?

it's an issue of relative sensitivity. The only person who would know would be someone who was a sexually active adult with a foreskin, who then had a circumcision, and could compare sex before and after.

I have no idea if it makes a difference or not, but I don't think saying, "I'm happy with how I am" really means much because there's no basis for comparison.

[seabeyond]

76. except, it is really offensive i would ONLY imagine to a male

circumcized to be told he doesnt get as good of sex as his noncircumcized counter part.... dont you think. especially when it doesnt appear to be factual, simply word of mouth. you can see that cant you. being a female like myself. i can even see the battle line drawn on this one

[Hosnon]

77. I agree to an extent.

I've seen my fair share of porn including men with and without foreskin.

All of them have pretty much appeared to enjoy the sex relatively equally.

There probably is a difference in pleasure but it's probably (in my opinion) the difference between a tenth of a degree when deciding whether or not to wear a coat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. How Graphic Do You Want Me To Get Because I Have Zero Problems In That Area

Lack of sensitivity in that area is the least of the average man's problem.


I suspect for every case of delayed ejaculation there are one hundred cases of premature ejaculation and I suspect the research would confirm that common sense observation.

[Hosnon]

83. Haha good point. There is no urban legend that cut guys last longer because

we are less sensitive.

"Ooohh...he's cut??? Sarah you are SOOO lucky! (wink wink)"

[Pithlet]

87. You don't share the only true and correct opinion

How could you be expected to have a valid opinion about your own body? Silly. :sarcasm:

[Zookeeper]

244. As a woman...

I've always preferred delayed ejaculation to premature ejaculation. 'Just sayin'.:evilgrin:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

255. There are actually

Exercises for the uncircumsised man to delay ejaculation. There was a show on HBO that taught couples (even longtime couples) how to have better sex and the guy (uncirc'd, as we saw both the man and woman naked throughout the show) was told how to delay ejaculation (flexing his "muscle" 50-100 times a day). It worked.

Just sayin'

[Zookeeper]

264. 'Sounds like a lot of work....

How many men would actually "bother" with that? There are still plenty of men that don't really give a damn about pleasing women as long as the women pretend to be pleased.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

254. Funny that you have

RFK as your avatar.

JFK was circumsised at 21 in 1938 at the Mayo Clinic and he had this to say of being circumsised:

"When you're circumcised at a much later age like that, you think of it as a kind of castration, a threat to manhood, so you have to keep on proving 'IT' is o.k. by any means possible."

There we go.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

262. JFK and RFK Were My Childhood Heroes

But JFK is the man who lost his virginity in a Harlem brothel and contacted syphilis so I don't know if he's my model in that area.

Why did he have a circumcision at such a late age?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

263. It is said

That his foreskin was too tight that's why he got it done.

[Teaser]

84. Fuck sensation. I want another circumcision.

It's sexy.

[dysfunctional press]

86. like going from a turtle-neck to a crew-neck, to a v-neck...

nt

[Teaser]

82. I loved my circumcision. I want another one

it was so great.

Man I wish I could get a circumcision every goddamn day.

[kiahzero]

96. Here's why.

Some people operate with an unstated premise that a child has no independent rights until they are "of age," and thus it is solely up to the parents to determine what happens to the child up to that point. Thus, they see nothing wrong with making an irrevocable decision regarding modifying the body of the child.

Others believe that children have rights, and so are hesitant to endorse a decision by the parents to irrevocably modify the body of their child.

Personally, I find female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation and intersex genital mutilation to be quite disturbing, though I admit that male genital mutilation is the least abhorrent of the three due to the lesser harm that comes of it compared to intersex genital mutilation or female genital mutilation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Isn't It Possible To Weigh Those Rights?

eom

[Pithlet]

107. You do realize that it is entirely possible

to be of the mind that children aren't our personal property to do with as we wish, and still think that the decision to circumcise is a reasonable health decision made by reasonable people who do not wish to mutilate their child? You do take a more reasonable tack, and acknowledge that it doesn't equate female "circumcision".

There are decisions that other parents make regarding their own children that I don't necessarily agree with. For example, I hate it when I see people take their baby girls to get their ears pierced. It's not a decision I would make at all if I had had a girl. But I wouldn't equate it with feet binding. Children are indeed people with their own rights. But they are also completely dependent on their parents. There are thousands of decisions that a parent will make in the course of that dependency. There is no way that a parent can make every single one of them without someone somewhere disagreeing with that decision. There are obviously choices that are just plain wrong and violate the rights of the child, no question. People who choose to circumcise their babies simply do not fall into the same category as people who violate those rights. It's one thing to disagree with the choice. A lot of points against are valid. I just wish people could resist the urge to then go on and totally blast the opposing opinion and whack at their opponent with a stick, sending the straw flying in an attempt to paint their viewpoint as morally righteous and pure.

[kiahzero]

114. There seems to be little, if any, concern for the child's rights.

Why is cutting off a part of a child's genitals more comparable to an ear-piercing than a foot binding to you?

[Pithlet]

120. Of course.

*clearing away more straw flying through the air* People who don't agree with you and see it as you do have no concern for children's rights *oops, missed some, don't you hate it when that straw gets stuck in your hair?* There's no other possible explanation for the difference of opinion. Never mind that millions of men who have been circumcised go through life completely functional in every way and unaware that they've been victimized by their brutal parents who had no concern of their wellbeing or their rights. *more swirling clouds of straw dust*

[kiahzero]

121. That's a nice man you've built out of all that straw.

Do you think all of those millions of men would have decided to get themselves circumsized had the decision not been made for them?

[seabeyond]

123. cant go off what a two day old wants, but we can use all the fathers

that have made the choice for their sons. best that can be given to you in answer to your question

[kiahzero]

128. Why do irrevocable elective surgery at that stage, then?

No, you can't try and ascertain what a two-day old child wants, but if that's the case, why do elective surgery at that point?

[Pithlet]

124. I'm the one building the strawman? *edit*

I'm not the one painting millions of parents as brutal beasts uncaring of their own children.

It's not the fact that your against circumcision that gets me. I understand the position. But your argument that people who disagree are uncaring about the rights of children is straw distribution at its finest. It's the same kind of irrational emotional argument that some pro-lifers use "Abortion is murder! People who support abortions are murderers who don't care about life or babies", or some pro-death penalty people. "If you don't support the death penalty, you're pro-murder, and don't care about the victims and their families!"

ETA that yes, I do place circumcision more in the ear piercing category, though I think it's arguable that ear piercing is worse, because there is no known medical benefits to earpiercing. But, even more to the point, baby girls who were the victims of foot binding couldn't walk for the remainder of their lives. Both circumcised infants and ear pierced infants go through their lives completely uninhibited by that particular choice. Not the case for babies who were victims of feetbinding or female "circumcision". I understand thinking circumcision isn't the right choice, and not a choice one would make for their own child. But I think the push to demonize it and equate it with true mutilation is just self-rightious blather that has no basis in any rational fact.

[kiahzero]

127. It's not that the parents are uncaring.

It's that the parents don't tend to think of their children as independent entities with rights of their own. How else can you explain the prevalence of intersex genital mutilation?

[Pithlet]

129. How else do you explain it?

Easy. People see things differently. They have different opinions. They look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. Funny how people are like that.

[kiahzero]

137. What conclusion justifies intersex genital mutilation?

How do you explain this?
Nonetheless, her long-term goal remains the eradication of infant genital surgery for the sole purpose of altering appearance, and this continues to sound outlandish to many medical professionals and to most of the general public as well.

Over coffee, Sandberg told Chase that he, too, could not yet join her in taking the position that cosmetic genital surgery on infants is always wrong, and Chase was trying hard to understand why.

“But is there ever a good reason for reducing the size of a clitoris?” Chase pressed Sandberg.

“If the parent cannot tolerate it,” Sandberg replied.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html?pagewanted=6

That discussion makes zero sense without the unstated premise that what the parents can "tolerate" is more important than a child's rights.

[Pithlet]

141. I don't see how that negates my point one bit.

Until anyone can prove that removal of foreskin is equally as debilitating as removal of a clitoris, you can't argue that a person making the decision to remove a foreskin is equally as guilty of mutilating their infant as a person making the decision to remove the clitoris. Therefore, you cannot claim that the same type of depravity and thoughtlessness is behind both decisions. That is my point. A parent making the decision to remove the foreskin isn't necessarily doing it because they view their child as property to do with as they see fit with no regard to their own rights, but because they weighed the risks and benefits of the procedure and arrived at a conclusion that you happen to not agree with.

To use my initial example, I can certainly disapprove of a parent who takes their infant to local mall kiosk and pierces their babies ears, and if it's someone I care about and they ask my opinion on the matter, I may tell them I disapprove. But, I cannot claim that they used the same thought processes and reasoning that someone who chose to bind the feet of their infant daughter. In other words, I realize that the parents who pierce their baby's ears are just as likely to love and cherish their children and value their individual rights as I do. I just don't agree with their choice, and I'm sure they could find some decision I made that they thought was less than ideal.

Another example: vaccination. An issue that arguably has even greater consequences than whether or not to circumcise. I won't divulge my opinion on the issue because that might just start yet another flamewar, but it would be foolish, judgmental and self-righteous of me to claim that parents who take the opposing view just see their kids as property. I'm perfectly able to disagree with a choice, even one as important as vaccination, without demonizing and belittling the parent who made a different choice. My whole point in this exchange with you.

[kiahzero]

142. Again with the strawman.

I specifically rejected the argument that male genital mutilation is as bad as female genital mutilation.

You haven't addressed my real argument at all - that parents are forcing their infant children to undergo irrevocable, elective surgery with negligible, if any, medical benefits.

[Pithlet]

146. But you seem willing to judge the parents anyway.

And, while you reject the argument that isn't as bad, you're still willing to bring it up in your argument that parents who make the decision to circumcise their children are doing so because they disregard their child's rights, with that article you quoted.

I haven't addressed your real argument, because I'm not taking exception to your argument. It certainly is an elective surgery, and it's one where the benefits aren't significant enough to make a strong case for it. I won't argue either point. I was arguing with your contention that parents who choose this elective surgery are doing so because they don't value their child's individual rights. I'm saying to you that it's very possible they value those rights just as much as you do, they simply arrived at a different conclusion than you do. Isn't it possible that they perceive those medical benefits to be worth it? Seems to me that a more compelling argument would be "Those benefits aren't enough to outweigh the negative aspect and here's why..." and not "You don't see your kid as an individual with rights!" As for the argument that it's mutilation, that's probably going to be a harder sell because most people reserve that label for acts that cause a considerable reduction in quality of life. And the fact that the procedure heals quickly and the infant goes on to grow up and enjoy the same level of quality of life as their non-circed brethren will indeed hurt that argument. They just might not see it the same way you do.

[kiahzero]

149. Then how do you avoid the conclusion?

If you agree that it's an irrevocable elective surgery with little to no medical benefits, what possible reasons are there to make that decision for a child if you were to consider the rights of that child?

My point is that the motivations for male genital mutilation and intersex genital mutilation seem to be exactly the same - what the parents can "tolerate." I've yet to see an argument made that cutting on children so that their appearance is more pleasing to you is morally acceptable.

[Pithlet]

151. Except that there are indeed medical benefits

to routine circumcision. They just aren't enough to satisfy *your* judgment of whether it is necessary. There are people who disagree. That disagreement alone does not make them inconsiderate of their child's rights anymore than the parent who chooses to/not to vaccinate their child, or chose to/not to bottlefeed, or makes them wear ridiculous, funny clothes that the other kids will laugh at. No pun intended, but this issue simply isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. You cannot presume that the motivations are the same, because human beings aren't all robots who arrive at conclusions the exact same way.

[kiahzero]

153. It's an elective surgery.

Forgive me for thinking that parents who subject their children to irrevocable elective surgery aren't concerned about their child's view on the subject, since they have the surgery done before their child can express a view.

[Pithlet]

156. That's parenting for you.

Parents make decisions affecting the wellbeing of their children, even when the children can't express their own personal preferences. Who knew? I'm sure I could look back and find at least one decision my parents made for me in my interests that I don't agree with. But, that doesn't mean that they weren't concerned about my view on the subject. I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous. There are hundreds of elective decisions that parents make. You can make the judgment that parents who circumcise are faulty parents who don't care as much, and I can find that judgment without merit.

[kiahzero]

158. Elective. Irrevocable. Surgery.

Why do it before the child can express their own personal preference?

[AngryAmish]

161. Because when they can it hurts a lot more

When done in infancy the boy won't remember the event.

[kiahzero]

164. OK, here's a hypothetical.

A man, 18 years old, falls into a coma. He is uncircumcised. While in a coma, his legal guardian decides to have him circumcised. He won't remember the event, because he's in a coma. He awakes a year later to find part of his penis missing.

Would he be justified in being upset?

[Pithlet]

167. Let's add to that hypothetical

and say that somehow they came to the conclusion that the the circumcision would benefit their son, because they're told or they read somewhere that people in a coma are more susceptible to infections. Mind, I'm not saying this is the case and I realize this is a very unlikely hypothetical, but as long as we're hypotheticalizing, and since this subthread is about judging the motivations of the parents, I thought this apropos. Would you still claim that they aren't taking into consideration what their child wants, and therefore this is evidence they don't care about their son's rights, or what he would want? Because I'd take the position, just as I do with real life cases with babies, that they're making the best decision they know how to make, and are working with the information they have at the time, and I have no way of knowing exactly what their motivations were.

[kiahzero]

175. You're forgetting something.

The AAP, even with its apparent bias towards allowing for surgery solely if it makes a child easier to "tolerate," could not find circumcision to be medically necessary.

I think I'd be pretty pissed off if I woke up from a coma to find part of my penis missing. I think I'd be even more pissed off if the person responsible claimed that they had considered my rights and done it anyway, because clearly they didn't.

[Pithlet]

181. But I'm not forgetting that.

And anyway it's irrelevant because I'm not arguing the benefits, or lack of, of circumcision, but your pronouncement that parents who choose it are doing so because they don't consider their child's rights or wishes important. You simply have no way of knowing every single time what the motivations of the parents were behind that decision. Your point of view simply isn't absolute on this particular issue. Because you think it's wrong, it doesn't logically or ethically follow that there was a deliberate decision on the person exercising that choice to wrong.

If your parents made a decision they felt was in your best interests, and you disagreed when you woke up, then that would be something for you to work out with your parents, obviously. But, that doesn't follow automatically that they didn't care about your rights or what you would want, or deliberately wronged you because of how you feel about it. No one is perfect, and there are bound to be instances where someone who is in a position of responsibility over you to make decisions you don't agree with. It doesn't mean they deliberately wronged you. That is a simple, naive way to look at things.

[kiahzero]

188. The point is that they shouldn't have the right to do it in the first place.

If the patient were older and were incapacitated for other reasons, from what I understand, the guardian wouldn't have the right. I really don't think that a wife, for instance, would have the authority to have her husband circumcised while he was in a coma, despite having the same legal authority as a parent over a child in a coma.

[Pithlet]

195. The wife would have the right if there were benefits to be gained.

If it's just for the hell of it, then of course not. But, hypothetically speaking, if there were, then regardless of what the unconscious patient might want in the future, it's her responsibility to weigh the risks and benefits, including his wishes, and it would be unduly harsh to judge her and say that she didn't care what her husband thought if he were to wake up and disagree with the decision.

There actually was a case where it was discovered that a woman was pregnant when she was in a coma. Continuing the pregnancy would jeopardize the chances of a recovery, and even threatened her life. Was it not the right of the husband to make the decision on whether the abortion took place? Under normal conditions, of course it's the wife's, but because she couldn't speak for herself, her next of kin, her husband, had the right to determine either what her wishes would have been, what's in her current best interest, did he not? In fact, right to life groups tried to bar him from making that decision, if you can believe it. There were people that judged him for the decision to terminate the pregnancy. They were judging him because they failed to look at the situation outside of their point of view. Their view that abortion is wrong, period, so the husband did not have the right to make that decision.

[kiahzero]

199. That's a different situation.

My analysis turns on a simple fact: there's no risk in waiting. Making a medically necessary decision is substantively different from making an elective decision that can be put off until the person in question can have a say.

If a man were in a coma and developed testicular cancer, and his wife decided that he should be castrated to save his life, that would be more comparable to your example. And I would agree that the wife had the right to make that decision.

[Pithlet]

201. Your analysis isn't absolute.

There's enough evidence out there to suggest that there is benefit to NOT waiting, as well as to the contrary. Parents can certainly weigh the evidence in their mind and come to a completely different conclusion then you do, and still have considered their child's rights and wishes. If you contend that parents do not have the right to make a medical decision unless it's life threatening because it could possibly go against the future wishes of the child, then I contend that that is unreasonable. If a parent reasonably judges that the benefits of an elective surgery outweigh the risks, then they reasonably have the right to make that decision. You can disagree with the choice, but you can't claim to know what their motivation was or what factored into their decision.

[kiahzero]

204. What evidence?

The only thing I've heard is "The operation is more painful if it's done later."

[Pithlet]

208. In this very thread you are participating in

There have been links to studies claiming it reduces the chance of AIDS. You are free to think it's bunk, and I personally haven't even made up my mind about it, yet, but that doesn't mean parents have to disregard it. Really, if you've even done a smidgen of research on this subject, you would have heard much more than "the operation is more painful later". I've seen scads of evidence both for and against circumcision. Your contention that there is simply no consideration other than what the child would want is baseless.

[kiahzero]

215. Um... infants don't generally have sex.

So that's not a concern for infants.

[Pithlet]

216. Um.. infants grow up.

They don't stay babies forever. Some think, whether you agree with it or not, that infancy is the best time to perform the procedure, so rather than lack of concern, that could be the factor in the decision. Not lack of concern for the rights of the child as you have been contending. Which is what I've been arguing, not the merits, or lack of, of circumcision. Just so this doesn't shift to a debate about the actual procedure, because I'm not interested in that.

[kiahzero]

217. Is there any medical evidence to support doing it eariler?

The only thing I could find from the AAP was that you need to use general anesthesia for circumcision after the person is newborn, which adds potential complications. That hardly justifies doing the operation without the consent of the patient.

[Pithlet]

219. Whether or not there's actual evidence

it's a likely candidate for a factor in a parent's decision, isn't it?. Therefore it's entirely possible that they did consider their child's rights and wants, and decided that benefit was more important, thus negating your contention that it impossible that they considered it if they came to the decision to circumcise. Again, I'm not arguing whether the decision is the right one, or if there's enough evidence to justify the decision, but your contention that their decision is evidence they don't care about their child's wants or rights.

[AngryAmish]

171. If the guardian did what they beleived was in his best interest, then no

He would not have a right to be upset.

[Pithlet]

162. Because the benefits they perceive it brings to the child.

You may not see those benefits, or disagree they even exist, or think they're so minimal that they don't factor for you, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean you then get to claim that they didn't bother to consider what their child would want. You're expecting other people to make decisions only from your point of view and then judging them from that perspective when they don't. That is unreasonable. I don't find your position on the subject unreasonable, but your opinion and judgment of those who make the decision. It would be like me taking my mother to task for bottle feeding me and judging her for it because I'm now an advocate of breastfeeding, and she should have taken that into consideration when making the decision, and who knows what health benefits I'm missing out on,blah blah blah. It isn't possible for a mother to love and care for the wellbeing and best interest of their child any more than my mom did me, and I'm not going to insist that she should have been using my current point of view when making that decision.

[kiahzero]

165. There's a bit of a difference.

Do you really not see the difference between cutting off a part of the body and determining what type of food to give a child?

[Pithlet]

170. It's not whether or not I perceive a difference.

It's whether or not I choose to presume the motivations of either decision. Because one feels x is wrong does not mean that every single person who chooses to do x is motivated by the reasons one thinks x is wrong. Insert for x circumcision, breastfeeding, vaccinations, ear piercings, any number of every day decisions millions of parents make every day.

[kiahzero]

178. What you're really saying is that you haven't thought about their motivations

I see no way to believe that a child has a right to decide whether or not part of his penis is removed and come to a conclusion that infant circumcision is morally acceptable.

[Pithlet]

183. I'm saying I have no way of knowing what the motivation is.

Because I'm not them. I can disagree with the decision to circumcise. But, I have no way of knowing what they did or did not consider in making that choice, so I cannot say for certain what they did or did not disregard in making that decision. I can think it's a shame the child won't get to make that decision for himself, but I don't know how I can claim that they considered their child's right and disregarded it. There are simply too many factors involved.

[kiahzero]

184. I'm not saying they considered and disregarded the child's right.

I'm saying that I don't think it ever occurred to them in the first place.

[Pithlet]

186. You can think it. But it doesn't make it so.

They could have simply done what parents do all the time. Consider the child's wishes, or what they might be if they aren't able to vocalize it, and then decide that the benefits of the decision, even if you disagree, outweigh what the child might want. We'd be pretty handicapped as parents if we could never morally or ethically make a decision that was counter to what a child might want for him/herself.

[kiahzero]

187. You're right, but I'm not saying "never."

I'm saying "Not when it's elective surgery."

[Pithlet]

189. That's fine.

You are of course completely entitled to that opinion. I still think that's rather limiting because elective does not always equal unnecessary or without benefit, but there you go. I just disagree that because it's elective, it means the parents had to have considered and rejected, or never considered the rights and wishes of their child. I contend you have no basis in fact to make that judgment.

[kiahzero]

192. You've yet to explain how that's possible.

I simply do not see how it is possible to consider the rights of a child and perform irrevocable elective surgery. If you could simply explain how that is possible, I will agree with you that my original statement was lacking in basis.

[Pithlet]

200. All I've been doing is explaining how it's possible!

Elective doesn't mean no benefits are gained. It simply means that the consequences of the decision either way aren't threatening to life, or quality of life. That includes circumcision, whatever your personal feelings on it. The fact is that not everyone thinks that it is totally 100% without any benefits. The parents who made the decision could very well have considered their child's rights AND determined the benefits at the the same time. Why is that absolutely impossible in your view? Parents are never able to make a decision on anything elective? Is that honestly your position? Because that severely limits the role of parenting. It's a ridiculous and unreasonable position to take.

[kiahzero]

202. Why not defer it, then?

I'm not saying that parents are "never able to make a decision on anything elective." I'm saying that parents making a decision for their children that is irrevocable, elective, and can be deferred without risk indicates a lack of concern for their children's input. If they were concerned about their child's input, why would they not defer the decision under he could give that input?

In other words... what's the rush?

[Pithlet]

207. It doesn't indicate a lack of concern at all.

Your point of view doesn't affect the thought processes and judgments of another person. Your point of view is determining your personal judgment of their actions (which is fine, we all do that), but it is not a pronouncement of fact. Because there are pro-lifers who think abortion is murder doesn't make a woman who has an abortion a murderer. Because you personally feel that there's no way a parent can make the decision to circumcise if they care about their child's rights and wishes doesn't mean the parent who made that decision actually doesn't care about their child's rights and wishes. There is no evidence they lacked concern at all. It just indicates they disagree with you.

[mongo]

293. The "rush" is that it is a much more complicated and painful

procedure to have done as an adult.

Many Dr.s would not perform the surgery on an adult unless medically necessary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

210. Believe What You Want

"You haven't addressed my real argument at all - that parents are forcing their infant children to undergo irrevocable, elective surgery with negligible, if any, medical benefits."

Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to AIDS because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans’ cells, which attach easily to the virus. The foreskin may also suffer small tears during intercourse, making it more susceptible to infection.





http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA




French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

[hedgehog]

147. I think you are wrong with that statement. Most parents try to do what

is best for their children. In the past, the consensus medical opinion was that it was best to assign an inter sex infant a gender and do plastic surgery to try to achieve a normal appearance for that gender. Now we know better, but we shouldn't cast aspersions on parents who acted on the best information available at the time. What about all the parents who committed handicapped children to institutions because that was " best for the child and best for the other children"?

[kiahzero]

150. Perhaps not the people who did it in the past.

However, the only reason the procedure is even allowed today is because of what parents can "tolerate."

[hedgehog]

152. I bet you'll find the procedures are done in some communities but not others.

So often, one or two surgeons dominate the local scene and procedures aren't updated if they haven't gotten the word on latest findings The same applies to tonsillectomies, although that is hardly in the same league.

[kiahzero]

155. Then perhaps they should do their job. (n/t)

[TahitiNut]

113. I wonder how many who subscribe to infant circumcision also support ...

... parental notification laws on abortion. :shrug: There's a strange interplay of ethical principles, it seems.

[kiahzero]

115. I'm not sure I get where you're going with that.

Then again, my brain is a bit fried from just taking a Contracts exam, so I may well be missing the obvious.

Edit: Nevermind, I get it.

[seabeyond]

116. interesting. i couldnt make decision on circumcision and

i see both sides, ergo no input (though i lean to not notifying parent) with parental notification. i see both as making a decision where it isnt mine to make.

[Pithlet]

136. I'd be willing to bet

That progressives who don't equate circumcision to mutilation or are at best neutral on the subject, are going to be at least as likely to hold the position that parental notification laws are wrong. And it would be completely within the realm of logic and reason to hold both of those positions.

[BlooInBloo]

245. "an irrevocable decision regarding modifying the body of the child." ROFLMAO!!!

Um, parents do that on a daily basis.

Sheesh.

It's just a pathetic attempt to manufacture synthetic outrage - likely in an attempt to to distract from the heinousness of female genital mutilation (which is actual mutilation), by saying "it happens to men too! it happens to men too!".

But just because idiot jackasses put it down, doesn't mean we have to pick it up.

[Kelly Rupert]

101. Because no man wants to hear

that his penis is defective. Circumcized guys don't like hearing "you have bad sex and you're a hideous disfigured mutant." Uncircumcized guys don't like hearing "your penis is grimy and unattractive." Really, it doesn't matter if you circumcise or don't.

[LizW]

122. That is so EXACTLY RIGHT. n/t

[etherealtruth]

198. That's the best explanation I've heard

[La Lioness Priyanka]

103. have you seen the vitriol over other issues that are really not very important?

like pitt bulls, breast feeding in public, smoking, olive garden?

[Kelly Rupert]

104. How dare you even suggest

that going to Olive Garden instead of local restaurants is something that should be tolerated as "unimportant"?!

[Horse with no Name]

118. Well working in a newborn nursery

Which I have occasion to do...I can say that the infants that are circumcised cry more with their admission bath than they do with their circ.
They use xylocaine to numb with and then give them a VERY high dose of glucose (called a sugar nipple) that releases endorphins and makes them sleepy during the procedure.
Since I only have girls, I have never had to consent for one for my own children.
I don't care about it one way or the other...the babies sleep through the procedure so I don't imagine they are hurting (yet they scream through their entire admission bath--go figure).
It is always about parental preference...whether it is piercing ears, picking out their clothes (imagine the horror of kids that are into Goth of being forced to wear blue or pink), or other various and sundry things.
There is absolutely no evidence that their sexual pleasure is altered by circumcision since I have personal experience there...cut and uncut men seem to enjoy sex with about the same intensity.

[QuestionAll...]

125. I think this is why...

some people, myself included, consider circumcision a barbaric practice. I would never do that to my baby, but just because I wouldn't doesn't mean I consider you a barbarian if You do.

[Jcrowley]

138. Welcome to the History of Circumcision pages

• Why do Americans (United States only), Iraqis, some Nigerians, Sudanese, Pakistanis, South Koreans and some Australian Aboriginals circumcise boys?
• Why don't the British, New Zealanders, Japanese, the Germans, the Swedes, the French, the Italians, the South Americans and most other people?
• Why are Canadians abandoning it?
• When and why did "health" circumcision of boys start, and where? Why and where did it stop?
• What is the origin of ritual circumcision among certain tribal peoples in the ancient Middle East and Africa?
• What is the connection between male circumcision and female genital cutting (sometimes called female genital mutilation)?
• When and why did circumcision of boys start in Australia? When did it fall out of fashion? Why has it nearly disappeared?
• If you're curious about these and similar questions, this is the site for you.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

[Superman Returns]

140. are you people freaking serious?

body mutilation? its a freaking circumcision. Every guy I know had it done. There is nothing wrong with "it" after. In fact, those that are non-circumcized look nasty!

[Strawman]

144. It's a dicey subject (n/t)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

145. Sex is much better for a woman with an uncut man

Based on my experience, sex is much better with an uncut man. I've known very few in America. You don't need lubrication, the man slides in and out of his own skin. The woman does not get sore either.


Doctors used to say the thymus gland was useless; they were wrong.
They used to say that tonsils and adenoids were useless; they were wrong. They are part of the immune system.

And there are NO useless parts of the body. There is a good reason for foreskins, to make sex a lot easier with very little friction.

I think it's a shame that so many males have NO CHOICE in the matter. People diss the foreskin and say "oh it's only a bit of tissue" and it's really several million nerve endings lost. It's done to attempt to control sexuality in our uptight society.

[CTyankee]

163. Huh? I haven't heard one woman friend complain about a circumcised

man as compared to an uncircumcised man with regard to sex. It just doesn't add into the equation, there are so many other factors that determine a woman's sexual experience with a male lover. That's not even on the list!

[seabeyond]

191. from this female, YOU are so right n/t

[CTyankee]

206. Methinks someone is trying awfully hard to prove a point that

can't be proven!

It doesn't even make sense...

[seabeyond]

214. it doesnt. i am not even in the battle, but cut or not cut... both are good

doesnt have to be a battle. i know my hubby isnt mutilated, nor experience less in sex, nor do i. equally i have no need to go after those that chose not to circumcize. but it is clear that people are trying to defend their position which is the silliest. enjoy whichever way.

[gollygee]

220. I'll agree with that

sexually, it doesn't seem to make a difference.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

231. maybe you haven't heard that because......

I don't complain about it because I don't talk about my sexual past to anyone, or how many men, or how many were cut or uncut, or any of that stuff. It's not anybody's business. And I'm several years or decades older than a lot of you.

But there is a whole lot less friction and a lot less vaginal soreness because of the extra layer of skin on the man. It's more pleasurable. It's part of the whole biological mechanism to induce people to get it on to reproduce. The biological imperative.

I just wish that it was not done on infants who had no choice in the matter.

That's my experience and I'm sticking to it. I know about this and I'm not gonna go into too much detail because I don't want to get this thread anymore explicit than it already is.

As I said, there are NO unnecessary parts to the human body!!! Even the appendix has been found to have a function.

[Touchdown]

239. I know of dozens of women who agree with her.

They all say sex with un-cut men are more pleasurable, because there's no battering ram effect.

[CTyankee]

252. If there is a "battering ram" effect, then there's a problem that has more

to do with a man's technique (and attitude about pleasing his partner) than whether or not he has a foreskin. Good lovers are good lovers are good lovers. Consideration of the partner must be there, regardless.

[seabeyond]

261. i was wondering myself. that feeling has been about cut or not

about style of partner 100%. not seeing cut or uncut being the issue either

[Manifestor_of_Light]

267. you're confusing forward motion with friction or lack thereof

You're confusing forward motion, hitting the cervix, with friction, or lack thereof when there is a foreskin, which is on the SIDES of the penis. The whole process is FAR SMOOTHER with a foreskin.


Some folks don't get the concept of lack of friction.

[CTyankee]

277. I understand the concept. I just don't think it necessarily applies

the way you say it does. Or perhaps it does from a man's point of view. As a female, this has never been a concern because of a man's foreskin status and frankly, I haven't heard it discussed by other women (when they do discuss sexual issues).

I worked for Planned Parenthood for many years and had VERY frank conversations with the clinical services staff (who have, believe me, heard it ALL!) and the education dept. staff. I still have friends there (I am retired)so maybe I'll check this out with them!

[Coexist]

196. funny thing is, it WAS originally done en masse to control masturbation!

It is for every parent to make. I don't care it you do or don't.
I didn't. Two sons. No problems (yet!).

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_36/ai_99699493

[ScreamingMeemie]

148. Because the botching happened to us.

Sorry, but that's why I get upset. My son looks neither like his father, nor his friends... I was wrong and I admit it, after having to watch my son suffer.

[yodermon]

154. Easy. Because these threads involve:

1) Children
2) Genitals
3) Childhood Trauma

Any one of these things can trigger all kinds of psychological baggage even in most well adjusted folks; here they are compounded three-fold. The wider the readership, the higher the probability that someone will read/post for whom such subjects trigger a more emotional or negative reaction.

And as for your quote that "infants cannot create memories. It simply is an anatomical impossibility at that age." -- You are probably (probably) correct regarding conscious memories, but there is PLENTY of research about pre-/neonatal trauma and how this affects brain development (emotional/cognitive, etc).
Google something like "circumcision memory neonatal hippocampus amygdala". Oh here, I'll do it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=XQH&q=circumcision+memory+neonatal+hippocampus+amygdala&btnG=Search
And the top link is a scholarly article titled "Long-term consequences of pain in human neonates".

[AngryAmish]

159. I do not doubt that a baby can feel pain and it can effect them

There is nobody outside of RNC headquarters who wants to purposefully cause a baby to suffer. I just don't think the procedure itself causes an inordinate amount of pain without a bad outcome.

[Sapere aude]

168. You knowingly start a flame bait thread and ask why will it get flamed!

[ContraBass Black]

169. Circumcision reduces HIV transmission risk?

"I was on the fence but the HIV issue puts me in the cutting camp."

That's very big and suspicious news to me.

[AngryAmish]

177. Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS, Study Finds

There have been multiple studies and they all agree. At first they thought it was cultural factors but they have a lot of data on the subject now and there seems to be a consensus.

[Dastard Stepchild]

180. I'm inclined to want the read the actual research document...

and not the media account, myself. But from what I was able to gather, the cells in the foreskin were more susceptible to infection. I'd like to read a bit more about this... at the moment it raises my eyebrows and sounds reassuring, but I'd still like to read the actual research.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

211. Intutitively It Makes Sense...

The foreskin provides the HIV virus and presumably other sexually transmitted diseases a place to harbor....

[Dastard Stepchild]

212. Sure does...

And if it is anything like vaginal tissue, it may be more porous and/or prone to irritation.

[Dastard Stepchild]

173. I have to confess, this is one topic I have never given thought to...

I remember when I was in my Masters program, there was a gentleman that stood outside my university's medical center every day with a poster of a baby and a sign that said "End Circumcisions!"

Even then I never thought much of it, though I was tempted to ask a few questions. Never seemed to have the spare moment. I suppose I could have sat down and mulled it over. I mean, I've sat down and thought about the intersex surgeries that young children are exposed to upon birth. Not exactly comparing apples to apples, but it does raise the question of who has the ultimate authority over the adult body. Interesting!

[Warren DeMontague]

203. I don't think it's the kind of people should be lecturing OTHER people on, pro or con.

And some of the "ahhh, cut it" pro-circumcision people can get pretty pissy and self-righteous, too.

I'm circumcised. I've had a lifetime's worth of enjoyment out of my penis, It's great just the way it is. I come from a Jewish background, even though I'm a Taoist/Atheist. My wife IS Jewish. We were on the fence, back and forth with this, throughout her pregnancy with our son..

But you know what? Once he was born, once we held him, particularly once I watched him scream after they pricked his feet for the glucose level--- we both said, "There is NO WAY anyone is cutting him unless it is ABSOLUTELY MEDICALLY NECESSARY." And I'm sorry, but even with these AIDS studies.. it's NOT medically necessary. If you do it for religious reasons, aesthetic reasons, personal reasons, even the idea that it might confer a bit extra protection against STDs- hey, that's your right as a parent. But all things being equal, there's not an overwhelming MEDICAL case that it NEEDS to be done. And the reality is, there are certainly a lot of nerve endings in there- logic tells me that there's gotta be some sensation lost when you take that part of the body off.

That said, I don't think it's the kind of thing where anyone has the right to second-guess someone else's parenting decision. And it is a decision, whether you do it or not. Even deciding (as I did) that I couldn't make the decision TO do it to someone else's body, that was a decision.

Interestingly enough, though, once my wife and I made that call, not only did we both feel like a huge weight had been lifted off our shoulders, there hasn't been one day since that we've ever regretted that decision.

[Pithlet]

209. Agree 100%

:thumbsup:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

213. I Agree And Disgaree

If you read this thread closely it's the anti-circumcision proponents who are the most adamant. They are the ones who have compared it to female genital mutilation which is a god awful procedure. In extreme cases the woman even has problems menstruating.

To compare that to the removal of the foreskin is ridiculous.


And again the sensation argument... It doesn't wash...

[gollygee]

226. Most people who are *very* strongly pro-circumcision

that I know anyway are quite conservative and their pro-circ arguments are largely related to weird issues with sexuality. A neighbor told me she had her son circumcised because "boys who aren't circumcised touch themselves *down there* all the time." LOL. Good luck with that keeping your son from touching himself thing, I told her. LOL. Anyway, that's an example.

So, this is a liberal group. Most people who are very opposed to circumcision are liberal, although of course not all liberals are opposed to it by a long shot. But that's why *this* group is skewed that way.

[seabeyond]

228. having two boys that were circumcised

didn't stop them.... lol. it is only a small time, then they grow out of it, ... in public anyway

[Warren DeMontague]

230. Wow. I was circumcised, and it sure as shit didn't keep me from masturbating pretty much constantly

throughout my teen years, at least when I didn't have a date.

Perhaps you should show your neighbor this study:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

And ask her why she thinks "good boys" should get prostate cancer later in life.

[Warren DeMontague]

229. Well, if you want me to point fingers and say "THOSE people are wrong", you're missing the point

of everything I said.

As far as FGM, why don't you argue the point with someone who actually made it. I didn't.

MY point was, it needs to be up to the individual parents to come to their own conclusions. The conclusion *I* came to was that I couldn't arbitrarily decide to have part of my son's body removed unless there was a DEFINITIVE MEDICAL NEED.

As far as the "sensation argument doesn't wash"... Uh, where do you get that? Wanna back it up? Have you been an adult with a foreskin, and without, so you can compare? There ARE nerves in the foreskin- a lot of them- so if there's no foreskin, there's sensation that is gone, namely, sensation from the nerves in the foreskin. That's not an "argument", that's a fact.

My point was, pro-circumcision people can be just as hardheaded and dogmatic as anti-circumcision people. I think the final decision should be up to the parents; and it is- and the same as I wouldn't second-guess any other parents' decision to circumcise, I certainly don't appreciate someone second guessing my decision NOT to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

248. The Only Way You Can Establish That As As A Fact Is

"As far as the "sensation argument doesn't wash"... Uh, where do you get that? Wanna back it up? Have you been an adult with a foreskin, and without, so you can compare? There ARE nerves in the foreskin- a lot of them- so if there's no foreskin, there's sensation that is gone, namely, sensation from the nerves in the foreskin. That's not an "argument", that's a fact."


The only way you can establish that as a fact would be to do a survey of circumcised and uncircumcised men and ask them if they suffer from a loss of "sensation"

Since we don't have a survey like that I will go with personal experience. Circumcision hasn't prevented me from climaxing three times in one hour, six times in a four hour period, and ten times in a twenty four hour period.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. If you read my original post again, you'll see that I, too am circumcised

and I have no complaints about my dick, either.

But like I said- there are nerves in the foreskin. That IS a fact. Therefore, if you cut it off, there is going to be sensation that is taken away. Do I, personally, feel like I'm missing anything? No- but I wouldn't know what to miss, now, would I... since the last time I had the thing was when I was a couple days old.

Are you a parent? Do you have a son? I'm not asking that in an accusatory way, really- what I mean is, from my experience, all the arguments around this issue are fairly abstract (I was solidly pro-circumcision before I became a dad.. in that I always assumed any sons of mine would get circumcised) but -for me at least- the reality of holding this tiny person in my arms and having the responsibility to make that call was an entirely different situation.

[Touchdown]

240. Actually it does. You like science?

You seem to be selling that HIV study, so you must be a fan of scientific facts.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html

.. the type, not just the amount, of skin lost to routine male circumcision is often overlooked. Anatomically and physiologically, the skin of the penis is designed to activate the male sexual reflex mechanism. To perform this interesting function it is richly endowed with smooth muscle fibres that cause its upper, (sexual contact) surface to 'firm up' and wrinkle - and become much more frictional - during erection.

During vaginal intromission these conformational changes in penile skin ensure stretching of ridged band and reflex contraction of bulb muscles .

In short, the penile skin behaves in exactly the same way, during erection, as scrotal skin. Almost certainly, uniquely-structuresd penile and scrotal skin play an important role in activating and moderating erogenous sensation and sexual reflexes for ejacuation. As far as I know, there is no female equivalent.

In short, male circumcision completely alters the way male sexual sensations and reflexes are generated during vaginal intercourse.

- John Taylor (a Dr. BTW)

--on same link---

Contrary to Masters and Johnson's thoroughly confused and confusing discussion, removal of the foreskin does affect the surface of the glans. It becomes keratanised, covered in a hardened coating. This shields the nerves of the glans from stimulation.

These two effects together combine to change the quality, and reduce the quantity, of sensitivity of circumcised men. The neurology has not been studied in detail, but other work suggests that when nerves are severed in infancy they reconfigure themselves, so that men circumcised in infancy find pleasure in stimulation of the glans (for which it was not designed/did not evolve) that intact men do not. This suggests that men circumcised in adulthood react differently from men circumcised as babies:

When a man is circumcised in adulthood, his loss of sensation has been well documented elsewhere. It has been compared to sight without colour, seeing with one eye or hearing with one ear. It includes both the immediate loss of sensation from the foreskin itself, and the progressive desensitisation of the glans as the surface keratinises.
Immediately after circumcision, the nerves of the glans bombard the brain with the new sense impressions they are constantly receiving, which the brain interprets as pain. (Newly circumcised men are advised to wear loose clothing - none if this is practicable.) This fades over time. One reason will be that the brain learns to disregard these signals, like any other constant sensation. They have been called "false alarms".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

246. Your Link Is From A Biased Site That Makes Tendentious Arguments

They don't even try to hide the bias in their title...


I have been reluctant to speak from personal experience at the risk of being coarse but I am left with no choice.

If circumcision reduces sensation why can I climax three times in one hour, six times in a four hour period, and ten times in one day.

[Touchdown]

268. So is yours. Any American health organization is under political pressure.

Under that pressure to advocate for circumcision, and always has been since Kellogg invented cereal and advocated daily enemas to keep boys from masturbation.

The main problem with this subject is that there is political pressure to come up with certain "facts" that support what one's advocacy is for. This is true on both sides of the debate where American medicine is concerned. Eurpoean and Asian medicine are far along in knowing what the foreskin actually contains, and what it's purpose is. Much of the info on my link is from those sources. Only american arogance that "we have the best health care in the world" would call it bias with only a quick glance.

As far as your cumming a lot, bully for you. Being able to orgasm is not directly linked to sensitivity. I can only speak for myself, but I was sliced up when I was an infant. I found a dermatological exercize that, with a lot of time, can grow me a new foreskin (it's called tugging, look it up, many more personal testimonies on increasede sensitivity). Once I started to have coverage over the glans, all those long dead nerves (which were covered up by more skin cells which shouldn't be there)started to turn themselves back on, and I have twice the sensitivity I used to having a naked head. The site that I linked to is comparable to my personal experience. Before, I could not orgasm from condom use (felt barely anything actually), or through blow jobs. The only way for me to climax was to manually use lubrucated friction. NNot all men are the same, you may have retained more of your nerves than I did. For what? Because of some dubious notion of "hygene".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

270. I Respect Your Decision

But sex is about lot more than sensitive glans...

That's why a lot of young men climax before they even get it out of their pants....



Like in the movie "Liberty Heights"....


As I told the other poster in this thread sex is about a lot more than coitus...

[Touchdown]

275. So do you believe me?

Or do you still maintain that there is no validity to sensation argument? You asked another poster for a personal experience, or testimony. I gave you mine, which is all I can do. I could link to others but those are from the same sites that you would call biased.

Of course sex is a lot more than just that, but why be limited in it because of a cultural tradition?

[Bake]

218. Thank God we're done having children!

No more children. We're too old for these complex decisions ...

BAke

[Touchdown]

233. It was done to me as an infant, and I resent it.

So what you say is false.

Also...those studies haven't had the time to prove anythig yet. What is known about about HIV transmission in science meanns these studies have a lot of explaining to do, where the question of having a foreskin is involved.

[Jamastiene]

311. Like they could not contract HIV if they were circumsized.

I don't get that argument at all. Condoms are the answer in either case to avoid HIV transmission.

Btw, I saw your post and did not want it to be overlooked. What you said is precisely why I would not have it done if I had a son. If he changed his mind later, he could have it done. Dilemma solved.

Besides, nature intended that skin to be there for a reason. That's why it is there. Or at least, that's my belief. I wouldn't suffer through monthly pain the way I do if I didn't view it that way (nature's way for a reason) across the board.

[NV1962]

238. Because it operates on the assumption of an inevitable laziness to justify invasive procedure.

This is one case where I wonder why the big-mouthed "anti-nanny staters" on the right don't jump on it.

Until I realize that by far most of 'em are circumcised too.

That's where the comparison with lobotomy is not too bad: like female genital mutilation or FGM (oh, but "properly done" of course!) there's no way to "experience" the alternative.

It's a choice taken away.

And it's a damn unnatural thing to do, too.

Nothing excuses a lack of parenting skills to teach little boys to take care of themselves. And it sure as hell is no justification to make the arrogant choice for the child, either.

I don't care about the "sexual preference" angle; within a generation, the partners will have grown accustomed to the non-mutilated and natural aspect of a penis.

Like the overwhelming majority of people on this planet do.

Nothing to get worked up over; just an observation on a local oddity, here in the US, where mutilations are performed out of habit - and no necessity whatsoever (other than covering up for laziness of parents). The HIV angle is just another such bit of absolving both parental and individual responsibility. Let's put it this way: contrary to the circumcision issue, I haven't heard anyone suggesting that lessons of proper condom usage should be issued mandatory in all elementary schools.

Now that'd be a sensible thing to do.

But leave my son's pecker alone, lazy creeps.

[depakid]

247. Whenever I think that progressives are inherently more intelligent

than those on the far right- all I have to do is read threads like this one.

I suppose after 25 years of defunding education and denigrating science, one should expect no less.

The studies found what they found- and the results are what they are- the only laziness I see is among people who choose not to read them or for whatever reason, choose not to pay attention to what they're saying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

249. What's Odd Is The Irony Of The Anti-Circumcision Proponents

Their largest argument is that removal of the foreskin reduces sensation or sexual pleasure. But then they turn around and argue that even if a circumcised penis is safer than an uncircumcised one men should wear a condom which certainly reduces sensation or sexual pleasure more than circumcision.


Everybody should wear a condom when they aren't 100% sure of the STD status of their partner but it's disingenuous to argue against circumcision because it reduces sensation or sexual pleasure then argue the same people should be wearing condoms.

[Touchdown]

273. There's no irony at all.

As I have personal experience in this, is that a covered glans is is more sensitive, then it stands to reason that condom use is more enjoyable since there is more feeling to get through the latex...your prostate's amazing manufacturing capablility notwithstanding.

[gollygee]

274. I've heard it reduces it, and I've heard it makes it

too sensitive. I still think there isn't any real way to know, unless a man underwent the procedure during adulthood and has an idea of before vs. after. I doubt it makes much difference in that regard.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

251. It Reminds Me Of The Global Warming Debate But In Another Direction

The right ignores all the scientific research on the subject because it is in conflict with their world view which is there is no downside to growth....

[NV1962]

284. You dismiss a position based on principle, and yet you see an "intelligence" issue?

I could of course counter by pointing to the odd argument fielded by the proponents of infant butchery, when they point to research done in Africa (!!!) which has no bearing whatsoever on the cultural and developmental issues that affect the AIDS pandemic there, but let's just focus on your appeal to "intelligence" here.

So enlighten me: where and why do you suppose "intelligence" favors the reflexive and overall hardly grounded practice of butchering infants?

Trust me, I'll read your reasoned reply with great interest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

250. Are You Suggesting The HIV Studies In Africa

Are you suggesting the HIV studies in Africa were instituted to absolve parents who have their children circumcised of their guilt?


I though the studies were instituted to save lives. Silly me:


Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS, Study Finds
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

AIDS experts immediately hailed the result, saying it gave the world a new way to fight the spread of AIDS, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would now consider paying for circumcisions.

“This is very exciting news,” said Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at Harvard’s Center for Population and Development, who has argued in scientific journals for years that circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of Africa where it is practiced.

In an interview from Zimbabwe, Mr. Halperin added: “I have no doubt that, as word of this gets around, millions of African men will want to get circumcised and that will save many lives.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA







French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

[FunkyLeprechaun]

258. I see that you're insuniating that we don't read the studies

But as my two family members who are doctors and have different views of circumcision:

My dad: He doesn't believe in it. He simply says that it's easy to keep it clean and teach your children personal hygiene. Of course he's originally from Ireland so he'll have these views.

On the other hand...

My sister: born in America, grew up in America, and started to opine that circumcision is ok. She became a doctor and her position on circumcision is simply "they might want to look like their daddy."

I think it's rather insulting of you to say that circumcision prevents HIV. You have to consider the factors:

1) There is a lack of clean water in Africa, which means there's no chance of having a clean personal hygiene schedule. The men cannot always go into the shower everytime they have sex. I should know, my (Irish) mother was born and grew up in Africa when Nigeria was a British Colony and since her family was well off, she had the luxury of having a shower when the poorer people didn't.

2) Lack of personal education of cleaniness. My parents admittedly didn't tell me how to keep my bits clean, but they did give me a book which instructed me to keep clean. Even the sex education classes, as graphic as they were, didn't tell us how to keep clean.

There might be other factors such as preventing men from having sex (too painful to have sex, loss of sensation, etc). JFK compared his circumcision at 21 to being "castrated".

You have to take a grain of salt with this report, like all other studies. They did research in Africa where medical care is rare in some parts of the continent and where did they do their studies? Also who did they offer the circumcision to? Adult men? Teenagers? Infants?

Compare the studies to AIDS rates in America. How many american men are circumcised? How many american men have AIDS (heterosexuals or gay men combined)? You can't go about checking if they're circumcised but if you find those numbers, there's a ratio count, so if there are 2 circumsised men for every 1 AIDs affected male, that's not a good indicator of circumcision working.

You really have to read between the lines.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

259. I Said It Decreases The Risk Of AIDS

"I think it's rather insulting of you to say that circumcision prevents HIV. You have to consider the factors: "


A few points...

I also have physicians in my family. They are no more or less immune from cultural influences than anybody else.


I never said HIV prevents AIDS. That's plain silly.


I said it reduces AIDS and we have two independent studies that suggest that is the case:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?ei=5065&en=8833323645b51227&ex=1166677200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1166104812-zje0IoqFJgl9L/s+wKmzLA


The latter study confirms what a person of reasonable intelligence and even the most tenuous grasp of the male anatomy would know; that the foreskin provides a place for bacteria and viruses to harbor, ergo:

"Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to AIDS because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans’ cells, which attach easily to the virus."

[NV1962]

286. You're seriously projecting Africa onto the US?

As a legendary friend once said: I don't know whether to laugh or shoot myself - but I can't hold the gun barrel steady from laughing so hard, dammit.

[Zookeeper]

265. As a "lazy creep," I assure you that I have no interest...

in your son's pecker.

However, I chose to have my sons circumcised to make hygiene easier for them and because I had the foresight to understand that a parent can teach their children to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean things are always going to turn out the way you've planned.

You didn't mention the age of your child, but I have two teens and a tween. I'm a very attentive and loving parent, but I'm not in control of all of their decisions. When they were born there was already enough evidence that circumcision reduces infection for men's female partners and this AIDS study just reinforces the science involved. Yes, men can wear condoms, but why not do both?

I've lost 15 friends and aquaintances to AIDS. This is not a game. Anything that protects men and their partners is worthwhile.

Now, you made your choice...fine. I made a different choice, I'm glad I did and, at this point, so are my sons.

[NV1962]

287. You're overlooking that YOUR choice and the choice of the INFANT are not the same. (n/t)

[Zookeeper]

289. The infant has no choice about anything!

Cloth or paper diapers, bottles or breastfeeding, sleeping on her tummy or back, etc., etc., etc.

I haven't overlooked a damn thing. I did my research and I made MY choice, as a parent. I have absolutely NO problem with parents who don't have their boys circumcised, as long as they do their job and teach their kid how to stay clean so they don't infect my daughter with something some day.

There are a million possible reasons to resent your parents, if you're looking for one. Maybe some uncircumcised men are pissed that their parents didn't have it done when they were infants.

On edit: Did you actually read my post?

[NV1962]

294. You're STILL ignoring the infant's choice

As a responsible parent, you have very little but OBLIGATIONS toward protecting the (future) choices of the infant.

For me the key issue here is CHOICE. The choice of the INFANT, which shouldn't be dictated by essential laziness.

This isn't about "love". One can argue in circles forever on that; after all, I presume we ALL love our children, and the "heat" in this debate is just another reflection of that.

Taking away choices is a dereliction of your duty as a parent, instead imposing your OWN choices, under whichever convenient excuse.

Personal hygiene is another prime parental responsibility; once you accept invasive surgery on a voiceless infant to accommodate a possible lack of parenting skills, the slope may just as well glide past into eugenics, selective euthanasia and other horrors of lazy ethics.

I don't resent my parents: quite the contrary, I respect and love them for protecting MY choices.

[Zookeeper]

296. I'm glad you don't resent your parents....

but, you can't speak for everyone. 'Just like you can't make the choice for other parents.

You clearly will continue to think of anyone who has circumcised their child as a horrible human being. Or "lazy creep." Whatever.

:shrug:

[NV1962]

297. Au contraire: I'm arguing in favor of people leaving sovereign bodies ALONE.

If my argument against ethically lazy behavior that denies choices stings, so be it.

Go chop yourself up, if you must.

[Zookeeper]

298. What about behaving ethically toward women?

Since very few circumcised men seem to have a problem with it and it isn't even remotely like female "circumcision," which is actually castration, why is it so wrong to trim the foreskin if it may save a boy's future female partner from HPV or HIV infection? And why are you so sure that all uncircumcised men properly clean themselves, even when they are taught to?

Why do you hate women? (Kidding, but, honestly the comment is on the same level as your argument.)

I wonder if you would feel differently if you had a daughter. And you are really full of yourself if you think you're entitled to judge other parents on this issue.

[NV1962]

305. Yeah, what about world peace, hunger and global happiness?

A relatively few men in the US may have "a problem" with circumcision, but then again there's a minority that ISN'T.

Once more: no telling, once the choice has been removed.

But as to your appeal to "behaving ethically toward women": no idea what that has to do with circumcision. Except that, for me, I apply the same "pro choice" argument as in the case of abortion. It's ultimately the adult woman's choice. The obligation of men in general toward maintaining personal hygiene, and for example not mass-raping women as a weapon of mass terror in conflicts is, after all, just as obvious. Please explain how you see that differently, because I don't see it.

The thing is, as I've said repeatedly and therefore won't rehash anymore: with circumcision of newborns, infants are left at a stark disadvantage in the decision taken FOR them: an ethically rather questionable and disrespectful kind of behavior.

Might as well chop off their little toes, too: goodness knows what those are good for, plus there are eight others left.

[Zookeeper]

309. If you don't know the difference between toes and...

a bit of foreskin, then....I'm just left speechless.

[NV1962]

312. Sadly, your speechlessness speaks volumes...

If you can't see why removing a choice from an infant is an act of utter arrogance, aggravated by stupidity considering the absolutely unnecessary nature of circumcision (especially when no "religious" argument is in play other than lazy habit - although I can't be bothered to "respect" that aspect of the Muslim and Jewish traditions, either) then I'm not too much distressed by your speechless contemplation of an equally stupid and arrogant "tradition" like female genital mutilation.

I suppose you're not speechless at all when you consider that removal of (part) of the clitoris is (quite rightly!) referred to as "mutilation", whereas the moronic habit of circumcision is shrugged off, if not "justified" with arguments that are only valid if one accepts that education and parental guidance are ineffective to begin with. What an abdication of parental responsibility... Then again, there is an awful lot of sex-related complexes going around in this country.

Genital mutilation is wrong in Africa and the US alike. The pseudo-argument of "AIDS prevention" when applied to the case of the US is just a handy-dandy excuse to skirt a quintessential lack of a culture of intimate hygiene. If you don't believe me, for example when one would point to the equally pathetic "intimate sprays", I have a simple example here: how common are bidets here? That's my point: intimate hygiene is not a normal topic of parental discussion.

I'm ready to argue the stupidity of suggesting sheer universal circumcision in Africa as well, by the way; wielding that study as an argument in favor of such pseudo-universal circumcision, while ignoring the host of other very pertinent factors involved in the case of Africa and its AIDS pandemic, is damn arrogant too. And stupid.

Either way, suit yourself. Such barbaric and ethically lazy idiocy is no skin off my nose. But if, in a hypothetical future, I ever catch someone volunteering to whack off any bit of an infant kid of mine, which is something that to my astonishment does happen here in the US, there'll be hell to pay. I'm damn glad my son was born in a civilized country, as far as that curiously backward tradition is concerned.

(sorry for my multiple edits here)

[Zookeeper]

314. I'm just amazed at the energy you are putting into this

subject. It makes me think you come from a very protected and privileged background and you expect life to be perfect. You are insulting and seem to be unable to even consider some of the very good arguments made in this thread. And your hostility and rigidity certainly isn't likely to win many converts to your POV.

I've stated my reasons for the fully informed decision my husband and I made as parents. My sons aren't bothered by our decision. Why do you care so much about MY kids' "peckers?" And why are you so paranoid? You've twice mentioned the possibility that someone might have an interest in circumcising YOUR child. I'm sure your child is perfectly safe from the horrors of circumcision because, luckily, it is a decision left to parents.

On edit: BTW, I DO understand your arguments. And I disagree with them.

[NV1962]

315. Yet even more lazy assumptions...

I happen to do work that allows me to flip back and forth occasionally, on a rather flexible time schedule. In that regard, I am fortunate, or privileged if you will.

For the rest of your projections, you get zip.

I'm not sorry that you feel insulted; I am rather sorry, instead, that you're not an exception at all. You're happy with the barbaric "tradition" that is traditional circumcision. You're also bringing your children into this issue; I'm not inclined to discuss them, let alone their genitals. If they're old and/or articulate enough, I suppose they could speak for themselves - if at all they care about this issue.

However, the absolute hight of arrogance is your assertion that I'm "unable to even consider some of the very good arguments made in this thread."

I have. I simply happen to see no merit whatsoever in your parroted boilerplate material.

I'll credit you for one thing though: you're damn right I'm rigid in my principles, as well as in my low opinion of backward barbarians. Butcher away, if you must. Just don't call yourself "civilized" in my vicinity; I might offer an equally notable protestation.

[NV1962]

316. I didn't see your edit...

Okay, I have sinned myself quite a bit earlier, by editing afterward, so...

I'm not trying to "win you over". I'm "just" offering my POV, and invite serious arguments against it. And yes, I happen to "care" about this, as much as I care for the widely ignored AIDS pandemic in Africa, or the practice of FGM, for example.

What irked me to begin with is (was) AngryAmish's sophomoric opener post: contrary to very lucid other posts, AngryAmish's position in favor of traditional circumcision is couched (quite lamely) in "surprise" over the strength of opinions. It's either of two: either you care, in which case you can state your case with more or less passion, or you don't - in which case you ignore the pertinent topic(s). That initial duplicity of this thread's creator is what set me in a foul mood.

And perhaps you were somewhat on the receiving end of that, as well. For that I apologize, as you're not AngryAmish. After all, I could have stated my beef as such to AngryAmish, which I didn't. So there's no need to take that out or let it carry over onto others, either.

However.

I do feel that, although you apparently acknowledge my arguments in disagreement (which is perfectly fair and fine of course) you've also thrown in a similar argument of being "amazed at the energy" I put into my arguments. Well, if you care, you understand; so either you don't care, or you're repeating AngryAmish's defense-by-dodge. I'm not impressed with that type of response; that's why I wrote my reply above to you in a tad more acerbic tone than I usually would.

It's not whether we agree or not; apparently, we both feel secure and unmoved in our respective positions. And that's fine with me; we agree to disagree and move on. It's that I find it dishonest to first engage repeatedly on an issue and then to come back with a statement of "surprise" over the (obviously) principled insistence in opposition.

After what I thought were a few rather concrete observations I made, on what I personally believe are flimsy arguments in favor of traditional circumcision (just in case: there are quite a few medical situations where circumcision is a very sensible and wise thing to do), I was irked by insistent appeals to the "hygiene" argument. I didn't state so overtly earlier, so I'll do it now: I believe that people (i.e., parents) chopping off their infant sons' foreskin for "hygiene" reasons (the AIDS argument is closely tied to that one as well!) have a hygiene issues themselves. To abdicate the responsibility and obligation to instill hygienic practices on children by way of mutilation is, well... Curious, in my view.

I've mentioned why I see little distinction between FGM and traditional circumcision (maybe I should type MGM - hehe). Contrary to AngryAmish's falsely positive assertion, it is bunkum to assert, without further qualifiers, that a woman can't enjoy sex after a clitectomy. I think I can make the case that she may have orgasms, once the external tip of the clitoris is removed as an infant (not assuming further and even worse butchery of course). Now, female sexuality is much investigated in a mostly male-dominated scientific environment, yet still surprisingly little understood. By way of example, women who can experience vaginal orgasms are not always affected by "clitectomy" (removal of the external "hood", again: as an infant). And aside from that, the entire organ that makes up the very nerve-rich clitoris is really surprisingly huge, and by far mostly internal; somewhat like an iceberg, the clitoris is "just" a tiny tip on the outside. Without going too much further into this, and while restating my firm conviction that FGM is a loathsome and barbaric phenomenon, one might argue that FGM is not like removing eyes, where eyesight is taken away completely and permanently. So, the assertion that "unlike" FGM, a circumcised man can enjoy sex is a rough distortion. As is belittling the discomfort caused among many circumcised men, many years after the circumcision as an infant. But here, my point is that it's not at all a "visceral" position that I have; my notion "on principle" is grounded on something far more tangible.

For another example, I've mentioned my objections to projecting the "AIDS-and-circumcision study" onto the USA. Another thing I could pit against that argument is that in Africa, the refusal among many, many, many men to wear a condom makes the fight against AIDS extra complicated there; another reason to reject blunt and blind projections onto the US without further qualifiers. Using condoms helps an awful lot more, in the US. So that's another argument of AngryAmish thrown out of the window as, at the least, poorly stated.

I've mentioned what I consider as a huge sex-complex in the USA, which probably also accounts for the oftentimes finicky and amazingly visceral pro-circumcision positions here, looking at this country. And by sex-complex I mean the almost paranoid refusal to deal with sex in a normalized and adult fashion, as just another aspect of human life. Plenty of things serve as an illustration for me: the near-hysteric aversion against homosexuality among an increasing proportion of voters; the state of panic whenever sex ed in elementary school comes up; or, a for me rather hilarious personal discovery: that men urinating in side-by-side stalls in the restroom tend to avoid conversation - typically out of fear of being seen as "chatting up" - and there's that homophobic streak again... I could go on and on, but getting back to the issue, I believe it also affects the off-handish and IMO facile support for what is IRREVERSIBLE: circumcision. Showing your son how to properly clean your weewee? Nah, let's circumcise instead, that'll diminish the probable outcome of wanting hygiene! Problem solved! That's what I call arrogant. And lazy. And inherently sexist.

Now, in spite of all these things I brought up, and which I believe are at least somewhat more solid arguments that merely screaming "barbarian" at the other, I've yet to read an argument that tips them over as false, off-base or otherwise not appropriate.

Instead, when I apparently insist on getting some more solid counterpoints, I'm left as "hostile" and "rigid" who "amazingly" puts a lot of energy into this.

Call me utterly unsurprised, but slightly disappointed too.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll call it over and done with, in this exchange with you; as I admitted in the beginning, I don't think we'll reach a fertile exchange, but moreover: I'm not expecting a satisfying rebuttal, either.

Because, believe it or not, I'm among those who actually can enjoy a debate.

Call me a barbarian for that, and we're even.

[Zookeeper]

317. So sorry I haven't satisfied you....

But, if you reread my posts you'll see that I explained my reasoning. I actually wasn't looking for an intense debate on the subject, I was simply mentioning my experience. And your posts certainly didn't have the tone of an invitation to a civil debate. Rather, you seemed to just want to have a heated argument and insult people, which is probably why I kept responding....I don't back down when attacked.

I think you have a lot more time on your hands than I do. I have a busy, demanding and somewhat stressful life and don't have the time or energy to waste on pointless arguing.

So, we agree to disagree.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

266. If circumcision is so great then...

Why would a doctor's son be uncut??? I knew one of those.

[Zookeeper]

276. My boys' doctor is in favor of circumcision...

in fact, we recently had a conversation about how intense the anti-circumcision folks can be.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

278. As I said, There are NO unnecessary body parts

Foreskins are there for several reasons, and they need to be kept clean.

[Zookeeper]

285. As I've said...

it's really up to the parents.

On edit: Why exactly are you so passionate about telling other people what to do?

[Kelly Rupert]

288. The appendix would like a word with you. n/t

[TahitiNut]

292. She is, huh?

:dunce:

[Zookeeper]

295. Actually, Tahiti....HE is.

:-)

[Kelly Rupert]

304. My fiancee gets her MD next year.

And she's told me that between decreased risk of STD transmission and ease of cleaning (not to mention appearance), she can't really understand why anybody wouldn't circumcize. Really, though, it's just a matter of preference, and rather unimportant.

[Crunchy Frog]

307. I've always kind of wondered why we don't surgically remove

toenails at birth. Talk about a body part that's useless and prone to problems! I actually don't understand why we haven't surveyed the entire human body for parts that we don't need and would probably be better off without. We could do an entire surgical makeover on all our newborns. Then they would be spared both the memory of the pain, and the lifelong inconvenience of dealing with useless and troublesome parts.

[election_2004]

290. Because people are extremists

I can understand people being opposed to the circumcision of baby boys (although I disagree with their position, since I believe infant circumcision is fine).

But the people who want it made ILLEGAL across-the-board (i.e. not even an option available to parents) are the TRUE closed-minded extremists.

[Crunchy Frog]

301. I have been happily utilizing the "hide threads" feature

to "circumcize" these threads from my DU experience.

For the record, I believe it's a form of mutilation when done to an unconsenting minor, though I respect the fact that most parents who choose it are well intentioned.

No male child that I ever have will have this procedure unless there is a serious medical indication for it.

I won't be reading any replies to this post, as this thread is going into "hide threads" along with the others. :)

[dollydew]

306. Oy

Actually, OY!:-)

[Jamastiene]

308. I don't get worked up over it.

I just personally think that nature intended the foreskin to be there, so I'd leave it. I'm not overly religious in that way that I'd make the decision based on religion either. To me, I just wouldn't have it done to my son if I had a son. No big deal. If he changed his mind later, it would be his decision. Remember: Measure twice, cut once. If I cut him as an infant, that would be measure once, cut once and hope for the best. Why? Is that any point to it? My aunt and I disagree on this topic as well. Oh well. It's no big deal and I don't get worked up over it. Different strokes for different folks.

[frustrated_lefty]

318. Gut-level, instinctive response: women don't get a vote.

You don't have the equipment, you don't have the perspective, you don't have the knowledge or experience to make an informed decision. Realistically, all you can do is project your own emotionally over-charged perceptions onto a situation about which you have no first-hand experience. Men, other than the father, don't get a vote either. Although your opinion may well be more informed, it still isn't YOUR child, so bite your tongue and make your own judgments in your own good time.

I realize this post is kinda rude, but a lot of the handwringing going on borders on silliness. Perhaps we should be debating a ban on women's ear piercings? Those do, you realize, cause unnecessary, gratuitous pain?