RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety



Message

feastie -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 4:29:40 PM)

*fast reply*

Since the boy has been circumcised since birth, he doesn't know, nor will ever know, if he is less sensitive.  You cannot miss what you've never had and you can't grow the foreskin back, so there's little point in worrying about it.

Every one of you arguing...and I can't call ANY of this debating, this issue have thoroughly missed the boy's question and probably even now have him sucking his thumb in a corner, convinced he's somehow deformed or missing something. 

Men who are cut have perfectly wonderful sex lives, as do men who are uncut.  If they couldn't experience pleasure, if they couldn't reach orgasm, if they felt pain during sex that they shouldn't, I could see a brouhaha of this magnitude over this issue.  But, since we all know men and have heard from men that lead normal, healthy, sex lives, I can't really see a problem.

As for women undergoing surgical removal of clitoris or labia, I'd remind you that that will cause sexual dysfunction and chronic pain.  The vagina, as lovely as penetration is, isn't the holy grail to female arousal and orgasm.  Of course, I would expect as enlightened males, you'd know that. You're comparing apples to oranges...err...bananas.



meatcleaver -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 4:45:52 PM)

If you had your labia and clit removed at birth you wouldn't experience (know) the difference either. Circumcision can cause sexual disfunction and pain.

At the risk of being accused of repeating myself. As

The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male or female children would not satisfy these criteria.45
Proportionality. One bioethics authority defines proportionality as follows:



The well-being of the whole person must be taken into account in deciding about any therapeutic intervention or use of technology. Therapeutic procedures that are likely to cause harm or undesirable side-effects can be justified only by a proportionate benefit to the patient.51
 

Circumcision of male infants fails the test of proportionality because the non-existent therapeutic benefit is overbalanced by the certainty of permanent injury to the penis, to loss of protective, immunological, mechanical, sensory, erogenous, and sexual functions, as well as the risk to health and life inherent in every circumcision.



bandit25 -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 4:58:20 PM)

Thank you dark...I appreciate it.  And as I stated earlier, we didn't do it for health reasons...simply because his father was Jewish and that's what he wanted.  Do I know what the precise mark of the covenant is as Chaingang asked?  Of course not.  I wasn't there, but then again I would argue neither does he.  As far as mumbo jumbo goes...well, it just so happens that I am not Jewish but I agreed to go along with my husband's wishes.  And I truly resent it being called mumbo jumbo.  There is absolutely NO reason to make fun of anyone else's religious beliefs, in my opinion.



Chaingang -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 5:04:32 PM)

Feastie:

Read some of the links in this discussion - circumcision can cause everything ranging from death, to infection, to skin bridges, to reopened wounds in adult life, etc.

Circumcision removes very sensitive nerve filled mucous membrane tissue from the tip of the penis. Female circumcision is not necessarily any better or worse, it just depends on how botched each case actually is. But whereas you want to make a special pleading for female circumcision as always being a botched procedure, I would say to throw in male circumcision into the same category. In fact, I find it offensive that you think there is anything okay with routine male circumcision but distinguish female circumcision as somehow to be set aside as a special case and always wrong. What can I say? How about: fuck you!

How can you be this mind-fucked?

I know some of you want to make circumcision all okay - but it's not. Part of what has to be fought against is the notion that it's okay and normal to circumcise a child. It's neither okay nor normal.



Chaingang -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 5:12:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bandit25
And I truly resent it being called mumbo jumbo.  There is absolutely NO reason to make fun of anyone else's religious beliefs, in my opinion.


Hey, I argued a way to both preserve the foreskin and still perform the ceremony of circumcision. You haven't answered any of my questions concerning the nature of the covenant so I really can't say whether forcing some infant to have mark complies with the agreement or not. I'd say not, because an infant cannot possibly have standing to make the covenant as he is but a very small child. But whatever...

If I attack anything, it is barbarity masquerading as religion. To mutilate a defenseless child really takes the evil prize in my view.

And again, if we did this to little girls you would all be screaming bloody murder.

There's a double standard so huge here all I can do is be reminded about that quote about motes and beams sticking out of people's eyes. So yeah, look for that mote in my eye while you have the blood of your own child on your hands.



MstrTiger -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 5:19:33 PM)

I don’t like circumcision at all, though I still like circumcised slaves even though there genitals are somewhat less fun to play with, this website has lots of interesting information on circumcision http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html



brightspot -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 10:05:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Wow...a guy posts a very simple question about sensitivity and gets a 5 page lecture on the moralilty and ethics of circumcision.......interesting.


Erin you speak as though this is a strange occurance here at CM. In my experience here the way a thread starts and where it leads is most often anyone's guess.
If you have nothing of any importance or of interest to add here why not move on to another thread?  Maybe one of your's is more interesting[8|].
 
*Brightspot




brightspot -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 10:18:53 PM)

 

He and two of his brothers all had to have the surgery as adults for health reasons. I can tell you that all of them had wished it had been done in infancy as the surgery and recovery were excrutiatingly painful by their accounts.
So can you imagine how "excruciating" this procedure is for an infant?
Or is it your belief that because circumcision as an adult is not "remember" that the pain isn't felt in the here and now for the infant male? That is just crazy thinking and I think parent's use it to justify allowing and handing their child over for a vicious assault permantently mutilating their children.[:'(]

As to your second question....I have never experienced an uncircumcized penis so I can't say that I have a preference other than I "think" that I prefer circumcized.

I polled a few of my girlfriends and they all said they prefer circumcized and a few of them had experienced both. In asking men that I know, they all said they are glad they are circumcized, including my own boys. I know, I am a horribly "abusive" parent who condoned the "torture" of my own children. But when I asked them if they would have preferred that I had left them intact, one's response was "Nope, I am glad that it's the way it is"....and the other's response was a loud "Oh, hell no!!!!".
 
I wonder if they had been educated and allowed to make their own decision if they would be so ready and wanting to have this procedure done? I think with their penis intact they would say a resounding "Hell No!
 
*Brightspot



meatcleaver -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 12:38:37 AM)

To justify irresponsible surgery on the aesthetic tastes of what females like to suck on is a nonsense.

Could you imagine the furore if men went round complaining about women with excessive protruding labia?

The whole idea is bonkers and distasteful and no woman is worth having invasive surgery for.



Reflectivesoul -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 1:54:38 AM)

This topic has raised a lot of questions for me, 1.) because I dont have the pieces parts in question, 2.) because I have never been with a man that hasnt been "cut", 3.) because of all the conflicting ideas on the subject.
 
I dont want to get involved in the "right" or "wrong" debate because everyone has their own views and opinions and I am not trying to add too or take away from that.
 
My questions are for those who have been and havent been "cut"... In the US this has been the norm for a long time even though now it is starting to change... but the majority of males that I know personally have been cut. I went around asking almost every male I know how they feel about the subject. Seeing that the males I know have been circumsized they majority response that I got was that they were happy with the appearance of their penis and its function. The other reply that I got in a huge number was that they hadnt really thought about it that much, that it was there they used it and that was that... along with the feeling that extra skin would just be in the way anyhow.
 
From the years I spent working in the medical field I have only ever come across one gentleman that wasnt circumsized and I had to clean him everyday, so I'm not completely ignorant on the subject and I'm certainly not ignorant on the care of an uncut penis. What I question is how much different it really is or could be in sensation. The articles I have read state that the uncut male has more nerve endings in the area than a male that has been cut, but at the same time the male that has been cut has extra nerve endings in places that the uncut male does not.
 
I have yet to come across a male that is circumsized that has said I hate my parents for doing this.... maybe that is because they didnt have the choice and have never experienced sexual contact with the foreskin intact, I dont know as I dont have the parts either way to be able to explain any differences. What I have noticed is that with a male that is circumsized it does require constant stimulation ( in most cases not all but most) in order for him to reach an orgasm, in the link that ( I believe Tiger posted.. I dont remember... there have been a bunch and I've read most of them) it says that the stimuli for an uncut male is different, I wonder how true that is...?Because in the link it also states that the most sensitive part of the penis is still the same for both, on the under side of the head where it meets the shaft. From personal experience with males who are circumsized I know the consensus with that theory for them is true ( and yes I did ask lol... what a better way to learn a male body than to ask them, yes? )
 
I have lots of questions which I'm not really sure how to word so I know that I didnt articulate that part very well, but I wonder how it would be viewed if one goes looking for an uncircumsized man to find out their answers? I would kinda like to play with an uncircumsized male just to be able to make a decision for myself as to which I perfer.... and even then its still not my pieces parts to decide if I like them or not....
 
< goes off to go find some more of my friends to ask about thier penises lol >



meatcleaver -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 2:59:07 AM)

The foreskin has a function and that is to protect the sensitive membrane of the glans and keep it moist, circumcision in effect exposes the membrane which then cauterizes and loses sensitivity. The foreskin also helps with stimulation which is why circumcised men appear to need lube and other aids to masturbate. The foreskin is not excessive skin, it is an integral and functional part of the male genitals.

The fact that so many American men don't question it, I can only assume it is because it is the norm and social pressure. The fact that so many American women say they prefer circumcision is probably another factor. All the same, no matter how many people prefer it, it is still mutilation. Cut your eyelids off and see if that doesn't make a difference.

As for the extra cleanliness which appears to be a big deal to so many people. You don't have to hire contractors to do it, you merely draw the foreskin back and wash yourself with the dsame care you wash the rest of tyour body! Cleaning your teeth is far more of a hassle but you wouldn't get your teeth pulled so you didn'ty have to do it!

Getting back to what is the norm, if you can't ever remember having a foreskin you don't know what you are missing. A friend of mine who had to have a circumcision and had it at an age where he can well remember sex with it, said the difference in sensitivity is a lot.

To European men uncircumcised is the norm and think circumcision is for religious nuts. I'm sure most would be as surprised as me to find that circumcision is the norm in the US as it is more or less accepted here it is mutilation and unnecessary surgery and to have pay for such procedure makes it double nuts.



bandit25 -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 3:23:51 AM)

What I would then ask you is how you know what the precise mark of the covenant is exactly. Is it important ritually or is the method of circumcision surgically described somewhere? Is age a factor?

Chaingang,

You asked me the above questions.  I answered the first...I wasn't there so no I do not know what the precise mark is.  But, I contend that you weren't there either so you most likely don't know either.  I have no idea if the method is described somewhere.  I do know that the Jewish religion is steeped in rituals going back thousands of years...I am not judging them, simply stating fact.  The bris has been performed in the same manner for thousands of years...again, not a judgment, simply a statement of fact.  It is traditionally done when the child is an infant.  This is Jewish law and tradition. 



darkinshadows -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 3:42:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

*fast reply*

Since the boy has been circumcised since birth, he doesn't know, nor will ever know, if he is less sensitive.  You cannot miss what you've never had and you can't grow the foreskin back, so there's little point in worrying about it.

Every one of you arguing...and I can't call ANY of this debating, this issue have thoroughly missed the boy's question and probably even now have him sucking his thumb in a corner, convinced he's somehow deformed or missing something. 

Men who are cut have perfectly wonderful sex lives, as do men who are uncut.  If they couldn't experience pleasure, if they couldn't reach orgasm, if they felt pain during sex that they shouldn't, I could see a brouhaha of this magnitude over this issue.  But, since we all know men and have heard from men that lead normal, healthy, sex lives, I can't really see a problem.

As for women undergoing surgical removal of clitoris or labia, I'd remind you that that will cause sexual dysfunction and chronic pain.  The vagina, as lovely as penetration is, isn't the holy grail to female arousal and orgasm.  Of course, I would expect as enlightened males, you'd know that. You're comparing apples to oranges...err...bananas.

Why is it I am answering so many times about circumcision?  Because it is a topic I became deeply invovled with when I became incredibly close friends with someone who had the procedure done who ran a support group when I lived in London.  I made a conscious effort to study the side effects of said procedure in both male and female genders.  I support amnesty in their movement to draw more attention to FGM... and I support the MAC and AAP in their acknowledgement that medical circumcision is unethical.  Have you ever seen a dysfunctional circumcised penis?  Have you ever spoken to a man or (even a woman) who have had incredible medical problems from the procedure? 
As for FGM - the majority of women who have this procedure done, have it done not because of religious reasons, but because their mothers had it done... and their mothers mothers.  And it is rare that it is a surgical procedure.
I have to say I am appalled at you indication that in FGM, 'the vagina, as lovely as penetration is, isn't the holy grail to female arousal and orgasm.  Of course, I would expect as enlightened males, you'd know that. '  I am FEMALE.  Do you really think that this issue is really about orgasm only?  Yes the OP was asking about that - but like all topics, there are inbetween discussions and it is a damn good thing.
 
In FGM - it isnt just the clitoris that is mutilated.  It is the entire female genital area, Often sown together with only a small gap for urine to escape.  The nerve endings are often severed - meaning that the woman will NEVER experience orgasm and this has nothing to do with penetration or the vagina or anything.  There is also a high risk of UT infection and in some cases fistulas.
In MC - the foreskin which is there to aid protection from infection and as an aid for lubrication is removed and male children also have nerve endings severed.  Same case - it will lessen sensation, the medical community are pretty much all decided on that fact - but because circumcision is 6 times more practised in males than FGM, there is precedence set and as always, places like the US are loathe to get into a debate on MC due to the complexities involved.  Circumcision can also lead to penile dyfunction, UT infections, and higher risk of UT infection in adult life.
MC in the USA (and I am using it as an example as the majority come from there who are typing) is a surgical medical procedure.  In other countries (and I am not just speaking third world) the reality is that it isnt.
 
My only relief is that circumcision rates are in decline.
 
I am not here to get involved in any moralistic and religious debate.  I deal in ethical, medical documented facts in this case.  MC and FGM leave both parties less sensitive in the MAJORITY of cases.  NERVE TISSUE IS DESTROYED - fact.  That was the OPs question. Fact.  It really isn't about whether the boy will or will not know any different - it is the fact that he has been denied the choice.  It really cannot be compared to school uniforms, or which school they will attend or whether or not you feed them hamburgers or salad.  This is a LIFECHANGING medical procedure that has definate medical consequences.  Boys and men - as well as women - do have to suffer these.  Just because there is little reports available in general, doesn't mean they do not exist, but you do just have to go look for them.  Children are circumcised every year and suffer NO medical problems.  But for those that do - it is swept under to carpet.  Media and government have alot to do with that.  FGM has only recently been recognised as a serious breach of human rights - MC will follow.  Unfortunately in society, men are really expected to put up and shut up - but to infere that MC is less of a violation than FGM is IMO sexism and PC gone incredibly bad.
 
Peace and Rapture



mistoferin -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 5:10:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brightspot
If you have nothing of any importance or of interest to add here why not move on to another thread?  Maybe one of your's is more interesting[8|]. 
*Brightspot


Good to see you here and glad to know that you are still your "bright" and shining self as usual.



Chaingang -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 6:48:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bandit25
The bris has been performed in the same manner for thousands of years...again, not a judgment, simply a statement of fact.  It is traditionally done when the child is an infant.  This is Jewish law and tradition. 


In an attempt to respect the religious symbolism I have tried to suggest less invasive procedures, but if any significant cutting is done to a male or female child then it basically a criminal assault in complete negation of the basic human rights of the child in question. I am not precisely anti-religious, but I am attacking any procedure that is known to significantly harm a child - that the custom is based on some barbaric religious ritual is immaterial. No civilized nation on earth allows anyone to callously harm anyone else, not even in the case of a parent in relation to their own children. You aren't allowed to physically abuse your children.

Circumcision has been given a pass for religious reasons - but in fact, that is no justification for the procedure.

I just want it understood that religious reasons are precisely why female circumcisions are performed - it is a Muslim custom, and yet I doubt that you would hesitate to condemn the practice. A religious basis for a known cruelty is no justification for violence against defenseless children.

Muslim, Jew, male, female - who cares? Why would you mutilate a child? Why is irreparably harming a child so fucking important?

...

Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, author of 'To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah: Legitimization of Male and Female Circumcision' states that: "The most often mentioned narration reports a debate between Prophet Mohammed (Praise Be Upon Him) and Um Habibah (or Um 'Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Mohammed (Praise Be Upon Him). Having seen her, Prophet Mohammed (Praise Be Upon Him) asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively adding: 'unless it is forbidden and you order me to stop doing it'. Prophet Mohammed (Praise Be Upon Him) replied: 'Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it (la tanhaki), because it brings more radiance to the face (ashraq) and it is more pleasant (ahza) for the husband'. According to others, he said: 'Cut slightly and do not overdo it (ashimmi wa-la tanhaki), because it is more pleasant (ahza) for the woman and better (ahab, from other sources abha) for the husband'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

...

I'm going to have to disagree on one point with darkinshadows above - a mohle cutting at a male child is no more a surgeon than is a muslim cutting at a woman. These are both barbaric and repugnant procedures performed most significantly because of religious fanaticism.

It has to stop.





Chaingang -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 7:14:10 AM)

"Mom, dad in court over son's circumcision"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_he_me/circumcision_feud;_ylt=AsQTM3xzKSIf1hlSqaBAjfys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3czJjNGZoBHNlYwM3NTE

Excerpt:

In a March 1999 policy statement that was reaffirmed this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to circumcision, including a reduction in risk of urinary tract infections. However, existing data "are not sufficient to recommend routine ... circumcision" of newborns, the statement says.

The group estimates that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States a year at a cost of between $150 million and $270 million.

Dr. David Hatch, a pediatric urologist who testified, said he performs 250 circumcisions a year, including about 20 on boys between the ages of 5 and 10.

Hatch testified his own three sons are uncircumcised because he does not think it is normally medically necessary. But he said he would recommend circumcision for a son with a history of recurring inflammation or infection.



darkinshadows -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 8:04:13 AM)

quote:

I'm going to have to disagree on one point with darkinshadows above - a mohle cutting at a male child is no more a surgeon than is a muslim cutting at a woman. These are both barbaric and repugnant procedures performed most significantly because of religious fanaticism.

It has to stop.


Chaingang...
 
Sorry if I did not make myself clear.  When I was talking of medical procedures - I was specifically speaking of the ones that most are speaking of here.  People are assuming male circumsicsion is safe, simply because its all done in a hospital.  It isn't always the case.  I think we may just have our wires crossed there.  I apologise if I was not clear.  I do agree with you.
 
Peace and Rapture



meatcleaver -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/15/2006 8:15:10 AM)

What I've been reading is that there are no medical benefits to circumcision to evidence is equivocal. I've not seen any European medical opinion that says there are benefits.

Just to show how ridiculous the argument for medical benefits is, if women had masectomies we would have a cure fro breast cancer.



submissvelilbrat -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/18/2006 4:58:02 PM)

To answer the OP's original questions:

i don't know to what extent (if any, realizing it is all dependent upon the individual) sensitivity is altered.  Does it feel good when you masturbate/have sex?

i have been in a long-term relationship with a man who was un-cut, and a couple others with men who were cut.  My preference is cut.  Aesthetics, cleanliness, smell, etc. are all factors.  Strictly my preference, and based on past experience.  i am sure what i have said will piss some off *shrugs*.  i also prefer tall men, which i am sure will piss off at least one 5'6" man...but then, perhaps just the loss of his foreskin may not be his only self-perceived disadvantage.

One thing is for sure, if it's gone, it's gone, and no amount of whining will get it back.



BelleAnne44 -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/18/2006 5:53:56 PM)

I have 2 sons 11 & 14), and the minute I heard that no pain control was used during the procedure, I began my investigation into circumcision.  It sounded so barbaric to me, and I couldn't figure out why so many women were cavalier about having it done to their sons.

I learned the facts that have been presented here already; Pediatricians don't find a medical value in it, it's often a religious custom, it can be botched, it can be done with pain control at a later age if desired....

I opted out.  I just couldn't get over the no anesthesia thing, but I also didn't feel I had the right to alter their bodies in such a permanent way for no good reason.  Well you would've thought I'd wanted to tatoo my infant!  Streams of nurses and visitors tried to urge me into it. 

The funniest argument was "He'll feel wierd if he doesn't look like his Dad...it could cause damage or mess up his potty training."  Any two year old who's crotch looks like a full grown man's is the one who'd have a problem!  A little boy looking at a naked man's genitalia isn't going to be noticing the circumcision...they'd notice the hair.  Boys and men don't look alike for a long time.

But that said, my youngest is very bothered by the difference between his un-cut and his buddie's cut foreskins.  I told him he can have it cut, but it's between him and his doctor.  If the doctor says it's ok and feels he's mature enough to make that decision, I'm all for it.  I took him for a conference with the pediatrician, and after hearing him out, the doc said nope....not at this age...he said he'd do it at 16 or 18 depending on the reasons.

He said at this stage, it's plastic surgery since there is no medical reason for it right now, and plastic surgery on my 11 year old son isn't something he would recommend in this case.  Now we wait to see if his decision changes or not.

As far as personal preference, I like un-cut better.  I don't like the mushroom look, and always found it a bit...naked looking.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875