The case for circumcision. - WTF!!

The problem is you'd think if this was a big an issue as you're making it out to be the medical community would have your back here, however the pediatric associations of every first world country I could locate do not recommend it. I'll take the advice of M.D.'s who've specifically trained to treat children over the opinion of a lay-person with an axe to grind, but thanks anyway. By the way, if you'd actually read the page you linked you might have noticed this little tidbit: "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." Way to link stuff you think helps your case without looking.

Also, circumcision provides no protection whatsoever against any other STD's according to the study I've linked below, so it's not as if it makes safe sex any less necessary.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2915840-6/abstract

[–]GoatBased 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bikemaul 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]fashraf -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fashraf -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fashraf -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't need to calculate the odds of anything else because I already am a straight white drug-free American male. The factors I included are exactly what I needed to in order to conclude how much circumcision helps the average straight white drug-free American male avoid contracting HIV.

The next logical step is to consider the odds that your child will fall into different risk levels, but I never made any claims about children at all because I don't have the statistics. I could also reassess my risk factors, for instance dividing residence into states or cities, or college educated vs. high school vs. no degree, but I framed the statistics accurately and thus correctly.

My data was accurate, my statements were clear, and my logic was sound. Do not try to attribute statements to me that I did not make (such as me predicting future risks for children or other groups of people).

[–]pakmanishere 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Circumcision often causes an ulceration at the urethral opening (meatal ulceration), affecting 20% to 50% of all circumcised infants. In many cases, the opening narrows (meatal stenosis), although it may take years for the condition to be noticed. The normal urinary stream in the male is a spiraling ribbon. The urinary stream in meatal stenosis is needle-like, prolonged and frequently associated with discomfort.

Circumcision also affects sexual pleasure. The inner layer of the foreskin produces smegma, which keeps the glans soft. Without its protective and moisturizing cover, the sensitive glans becomes dry and leathery, resembling skin instead of a mucous membrane. In addition to maintaining glans sensitivity, an intact, mobile foreskin also provides indirect stimulation during intercourse.

During intercourse with an intact penis, the male's mobile sheath is placed within the woman's vaginal sheath. It is impossible to imagine any better mechanical arrangement for non-abrasive stimulation of the male and female genitalia than this slick 'sheath within a sheath.'

The belief that circumcision is necessary in order to make the penis easier to clean and to prevent infection simply isn't true. As long ago as 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated, "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn....

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx

[–]gnovos 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousdude22 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousdude22 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xoid 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]xoid 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Democracy is only a good political system because people have been groomed to believe in the democratic process.

Democracy is a terrible system, it's just that it's usually the best of a bad lot. The best possible system is a benevolent dictatorship, but exactly how often do you get someone whom not only won't abuse absolute power but is also qualified to wield it? But I digress.

The problem is that you can use similar "anyone who disagrees with me is just groomed/conditioned/brainwashed" arguments about anything.

I wasn't arguing against neonatal circumcision with that, just saying that the analogy about why people don't seem to make a fuss about this is more apt than it at first appears. The argument against neonatal circumcision relies on a different argument: the fact that it's unnecessary, irreversible, and the decision is taken out of the child's hands.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't arguing against neonatal circumcision with that, just saying that the analogy about why people don't seem to make a fuss about this is more apt than it at first appears

That's the thing, though. The analogy to things like slavery and child abuse depend on the implicit argument that the only reason I (and most circumcised men) don't object is because we've been brainwashed. But, a similar "if people only knew, and stopped being sheep" argument applies for almost any conspiracy theory.

the fact that it's unnecessary, irreversible, and the decision is taken out of the child's hands

Define "necessity". Arguably, many of the medical procedures we do for/to children are not medically necessary in the sense that the child will die without it. We allow parents to make an informed decision that the benefits outweigh the risks (my parents can put me in braces, or have my wisdom teeth removed, or fix a cleft pallet, or remove a vestigial tail); and thus necessity is an inapplicable standard.
Irreversibility only applies if we assume (a) that a substantial portion of the affected population would want it reversed, and (b) that their desire is reasonable. We accept that no child would want to keep a vestigial tail (if given proper perspective and logic), and thus don't mind parents being able to lop it off. You can argue "well, foreskin is normal, tail is abnormal", but that's throwing a new standard into the mix.
The child's consent only matters as it ties into one and two. If the procedure is medically justified (as it is, though lord knows we can argue that until kingdom come), then there's no reason to care about the decision being in the child's hands.

That last one may require a bit more analysis though. Basically, the argument always goes "well, if the child had the decision, would he really decide to get it cut off, and if he does, he can do it later; and condoms work just as well". The problem I have with this is twofold: (1) children are, by and large, stupid; (2) we don't apply this logic elsewhere.

Children are, frankly, stupid. And we stay stupid until we hit about our mid-twenties. Few guys in the middle of his hormone-laden bitches-and-hos phase is going to want to go get a circumcision, even if there are medical justifications for it. As children, we do not make reasonable, logical, decisions (and so can't rationally weigh the risks and benefits of circumcision). But, in the meantime, we're having sex. Basically, we're contracting and spreading HPV, ect. (and increasing our risks of penile cancer, and our partners' risks of anal and cervical cancer) while we remain stupid kids. As a sub-point, if kids used condoms all the time, we wouldn't have a shocking teen pregnancy and STI rate.
When you're cooking dinner, do you think "would my child really want to eat this if he had the choice", or do you say "fuck that, I know what's best for him, he just wants to eat candy, I'm going to make him healthy"? I'm betting that if you're a good parent, you go with the latter. Same thing with immunizations ("yes, I know it hurts, and maybe he'll grow up to be a crazy person who thinks it causes autism or whatever, but I don't want him getting whooping cough"), or basically anything else. True, we don't allow parents to tattoo their children, but if you can't see why that is distinguishable, I'm giving you too much credit.

[–]xoid 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xoid1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reduction in HIV transmission via circumcision alone is insignificant compared to a condom and the benefits do not stack very well. HPV can cause cervical cancer. As far as I'm aware, men don't have cervices, and most other STIs that would be reduced by a circumcision can be equally reduced by hygiene.

That's the difference. FGM has no medical benefits and…can have huge impact on normal sexual function.

The unqualified claim of no medical benefits is premature. There's been plenty of quality studies on male circumcision, but few on female. How can you advocate for male circumcision based on studies of statistically significant number of men over extended periods of time when female circumcision hasn't had the same opportunity to prove itself? Especially when there are studies that point to potential health benefits of the same sort as male circumcision, e.g., lower prevalence of HIV (the most thorough of these studies—performed by western women, no less—indicates it to be around 50%). Finally, a Type Ia procedure is equivalent to a male circumcision—if results from comparable hospitals were weighed up against male circumcision it is probable that the same "low" risks would be associated with it.

[–]BolshevikMuppet1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

HPV can cause cervical cancer. As far as I'm aware, men don't have cervices, and most other STIs that would be reduced by a circumcision can be equally reduced by hygiene.

HPV also causes penile and anal cancer (the latter of special concern for homosexual males). HPV's transmission can occur even with a penis, and while I've never seen a study about whether HPV transmission occurs more or less with condoms and circumcision than condoms alone, the benefits may well stack.

The unqualified claim of no medical benefits is premature.

Bearing in mind that I meant that there are no benefits which have any basis in studies.

How can you advocate for male circumcision based on studies of statistically significant number of men over extended periods of time when female circumcision hasn't had the same opportunity to prove itself?

It's been done in the Middle East and Africa for a long damned time now. True, observational studies are weaker than experimental, but no one experiments with circumcision. If there were medical benefits, there's ample time for them to have been shown in looking at the infection rates in countries with FGM versus those without in the same region.

Especially when there are studies that point to potential health benefits of the same sort as male circumcision, e.g., lower prevalence of HIV (the most thorough of these studies—performed by western women, no less—indicates it to be around 50%). Finally, a Type Ia procedure is equivalent to a male circumcision—if results from comparable hospitals were weighed up against male circumcision it is probable that the same "low" risks would be associated with it.

Can you cite the first group you mention? I've never seen anything like that.

As for the second part: the reason circumcision decreases HIV and HPV transmission is that the foreskin is particularly vulnerable to micro-ulcerations (basically tiny tears caused by friction). They aren't large enough to be noticeable, but create transmission vectors for STIs. The same is not likely true of either the clitoral hood nor the labia.

I can only base my decision on the data available at hand, and while I've argued this issue many times, no one has yet provided evidence that FGM has medical benefits comparable to male circumcision, nor that the evidence is so stacked against benefits for male circumcision so as to make it wholly unjustifiable.

[–]xoid1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

HPV also causes penile and anal cancer (the latter of special concern for homosexual males).

I was aware of the anal cancer concern, but not the penile cancer angle. Regadless, there is a vaccine for at least two forms of HPV, why not continue fighting the cause?

…while I've never seen a study about whether HPV transmission occurs more or less with condoms and circumcision than condoms alone, the benefits may well stack.

The benefits do stack, just not very well. IIRC, it was <1% difference when combined versus condoms alone. I will freely admit that I cannot remember the source for that, but I can try to dig it up if you're sceptical.

Can you cite the first group you mention? I've never seen anything like that.

Sure, I'll even throw in the other one.

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer. The authors, who expressed surprise at their finding, concluded that the association was due to confounding due to a further, unknown factor.

—Stallings, R.Y., Karugendo, E., "Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)". International AIDS Society.

Kanki et al. (1992) reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.

— Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. (October 1992). "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes". Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895–907. doi:10.1093/aje/136.7.895. PMID 1442755.

[–]BolshevikMuppet1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was aware of the anal cancer concern, but not the penile cancer angle. Regadless, there is a vaccine for at least two forms of HPV, why not continue fighting the cause?

That's a false dichotomy. Why not do both? Why not get as much reduction of STIs and cancer as we can?

I will freely admit that I cannot remember the source for that, but I can try to dig it up if you're sceptical.

I'm a little skeptical.. But even if you're right, that >1% amounts to (let's say it's .01%) 150,000 possibly stopped HPV transmissions (my numbers are wonky, of course, since I'm using the full population of men, not all of whom are at risk of exposure from every sexual act, but I'm wagering all of them are at risk at some point).

Sure, I'll even throw in the other one.

I meant both arguments for "it decreases HIV transmission" as point (1), and the arguments for it not having impact on sexual function as point (2). That said, I really appreciate your sources.

So, the studies:

(1) Wow, that's really interesting. The problems, as the author points out are:

(A) the lower perceived transmission rate may be correlation, rather than causation, since the lowest transmission in general happened in the areas of highest female circumcision (cultural or religious thing may be in play

(B) All forms female circumcision (aside from the lowest "just a prick" form) are all a hell of a lot worse than male circumcision. I mean, even the third method includes the removal of all external genitalia and stitching up of the vaginal opening. I don't know of a male equivalent procedure, but... Damn.

(C) all forms of FGM are associated with other health problems.

(2). I'll admit that I don't know nearly enough about HIV (I didn't know there were two types, unless 1 and 2 refer to whether the disease has progressed to full-blown AIDS) to read this with any hope of understanding. But, even so, the methodological and other issues presented above seem to apply.

The biggest difference I see (even if we grant that there is a significant causal link) is that male circumcision does not often cause other health problems and sexual dysfunctions.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]madmartian 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Telekinesis 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZQMFGB 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superaverageman -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

There are benefits, no study is needed to prove that. When a body part is removed, all associated problems are eliminated or reduced. There are many problems that affect the labia minora, such as adhesions, cancer, vaginitis, injuries during childbirth, and cysts. If the labia are cut off, those problems will be drastically reduced or eliminated. Pretty simple principle - it's hard to have a labial adhesion when you have no labia. The same applies with other body parts: removing a leg means a 50% reduction in broken legs, sprained ankles, and athlete's foot; pulling all teeth means no cavities.

Preemptively removing body parts because they "might have problems in the future" is clearly an idiotic way to practice medicine, yet it has somehow become a legitimate reason to circumcise young boys.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superaverageman -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superaverageman -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bikemaul 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably a completely unscientific number I just happened to remember from reading a pamphlet during my uni days. I thought condoms had a general 97% success rate--maybe that was just against pregnancy. But at the very least, condoms provide 85% protection for BOTH partners--circumcision provides NO protection to the receiver (male or female), only the guy circumcised. If he has any STD, knowingly or not, he'll transfer it without a condom.

Other than that, I can't imagine how being circumcised makes any difference when you're wearing a condom. Even those African studies (both halted, mind you, based on the grounds it was ethically unsound to have HIV-infected people knowingly infect their partners to see the transmission rate) noted that circumcision was no substitute for consistent condom use.

[–]contrarianism 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]blinkergoesleft -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dorky2 -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A couple points to consider. Approximately 200 baby boys die each year from botched circumcisions but this doesn't really show the real picture because people don't study it in any real depth. I have seen some studies, one or two, that may have shown causation or correlation, where they found that baby boys who died of SIDS(which is higher in boys for some reason) were more likely to be circumcised. The reasoning given was shock or sepsis but again, this hasn't really been investigated to any real degree because of the monetary aspect of the circumcision industry. It is a multi billion dollar industry where the foreskins are used in everything from cosmetics to medical tech (growing skin for burn victims in as a ex, or lip injection as another ex)...

I think many take the mutilation argument because we biofarm baby boys for this and it is a symbol of male disposable nature and how society demonizes male sexuality.

But I won't argue that. You are correct that most men do grow up to function. This is due to the prostrate gland and testes being the main parts needed for men to function in a sexual context. That and the circulatory system. But there are other problems that arise with circumcision that are more prevalent than the problems associated with leaving your sons intact. This is everything from skin bridges to a tight circumcision that causes the dick to bend in weird ways.

But that really isn't even the point. The point is autonomy. I think boys, and girls, should have the right to exercise control over their bodies for their own benefit. I don't really care what guys do to their dicks, I am bothered by people who think they have the right to do this to a newborn babies body.

Autonomy is more of a philosophical term but if we put it in legal or political phrasing it would be called liberty. This is a fundamental right, it is the right to decide your own life and what is best in for yourself. Why take this from your son?

If you are jewish or wish to uphold cutural or religious norms...then fine, take him to synogogue or church or the mosque and when they become a adult why not allow them to decide....or even just 16 or so.

Have a upboat but please understand that your rights, freedoms, and liberties end with your body. I doubt you or most people would claim you should have the liberty to inflict any other form of harm on a child because you rationalized it to be within the best interest of your family.

Now I will make a argument for that though. If one day your son is acting up and doing something that is dangerous, then go ahead and smack him around....smack some sense into him. I am not advocating this, just playing trollivs advocate. The difference here is that a 48 hr old baby is innocent.

I know some point out that it is easier and less painful when boys are babies but I can find some stories of men who were cut when they were older and claimed it wasn't a bad procedure at all...I tend to think it is trollish propaganda for the circ industry but let's assume good faith...

TLDR: It is not about your rights and liberties but instead about your future sons.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]GoatBased -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pakmanishere 11 points12 points13 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gemini4t 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gemini4t -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's also ear removal, to protect the child from the horrors of frostbite. The point is, there is no good reason for foreskin removal without consent. None. None. Any medical argument for foreskin removal that you can make can wait until the child is at least 8 years old, or even until the child is 16 or 18, or any age where he or she can be told about the procedure, explained the various costs and benefits, and then given the choice whether to make that sacrifice for himself. There is essentially zero risk of something terrible happening for the first eight years of life. The child is far more likely to die in a car accident in that time frame. There is no reason to do this at birth without permission from the child. No reason at all. None. It is child abuse. It is child abuse, just as removing fingers, pinky toes, ears or noses would be child abuse. Anyone who does this to his or her child is a monster, and their children should be taken from them before they do even more harm.

[–]Gemini4t -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZQMFGB 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dorky2 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Superaverageman 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lumarin 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

There's this little thing called freedom and liberty. I make the decisions that I feel are the best for my family. I do not force you to circumcise your child, nor should you force me not to.

Seriously? That's akin to a dictator saying that he has the freedom and liberty to rape and murder small children. This is obviously exaggerating a bit, but the analogy holds due to the fact that you have 100% control over your children's lives and could circumcise them, just like a dictator could do whatever he wanted to his people and suffer no consequences. Might does not make right, just because you CAN does not mean you SHOULD.

You see, there's this little thing called freedom and liberty, or do you not believe your children should have the freedom and liberty to make their own choices? You should not make decisions that could permanently alter the lives of others unless they have the understanding what it is that will happen to them and actively consent to it being done, unless they are completely incapable of such AND there is a valid emergency reason to proceed. Using your reasoning, you could cut their ear lobes off and hide it behind what you just said("My parents did it to me, so I'll do it to my kids too!", "I want little jimmy to be just like all the other boys with no ear lobes!" etc), when your reasoning is complete and utter bullshit. It's a rationalization for your want to have your children be just like you, with no factual medical basis for doing it. It's the same as wanting to tattoo your child just because you want to; Not because there's a reason to.

Whether or not men grow up to be healthy well-functioning adults is beside the point. If there were a medical reason for the circumcision, sure, I say. Go right ahead. But if it's just because you yourself are circumcised and want your children to be the same, you're just sick.

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ZQMFGB 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fashraf -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

in canada, until you are 18, your parents have all your rights and are required to make all your legal decisions.

no matter who you are, when you become a parent, you want your children to follow in your footsteps. children are conditioned to become members of society largely in part by the parents and the school system. meaning, however much freedom you think that you are giving your child, your child is still a product of your values and the values of the immediate society. you are forcing your values upon your child when you buy him/her a ball, a doll, or a microscope or when you listen to music together. these values dont work as a hyperdermic needle but nonetheless it will affect your child considerably in that he/she will base all of their values on the experience of your values.

what i am getting at is that in most cases a child is circumcised because of religious reasons. your parents are playing their part to make you a functional member of their society.

a lot of you will disagree with this because you will say 'you cannot compare physical harm done to a child to taking a child to a soccer game or how to speak a language'. to you, i say that they are on par, if not, teaching a child your language or taking him to a soccer match is of greater damage. this is because circumcision is physical and the later is behavioural. conditioning your child to speak your language and take upon your values oppresses the child on a psychological level. your child is forced to think within the confines of your values as it will be the basis of his/her future thought.

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fashraf -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]zarembisty 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zarembisty -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What you're talking about here is technical knowledge about a specific field (engineering).

If I want to learn the answer, I will google or ask an engineer.

There's a difference between knowing how to find an answer and formal education. Formal education isn't common sense.

You're trying to justify your mutilation of your son's (and your own) penis by comparing it to finding the answer to an engineering question.

If you believe you know better about how your son's body should be than Nature, then surely you must also think you know better about building things. In fact, it makes little sense to me that you don't run around performing circumcisions yourself! After all, you know better than the parents of the men who didn't get their dicks sliced up. At what magical point does your opinion no longer count? You're a fascist.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ViolenceHero 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thetrollking 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, that isn't a good analogy. I really wonder sometimes how much biology or anatomy people actually know...I blame house.

Anyways. I better reason not to is because the most sensitive part on his body, where the frenulum attaches the rigid band and foreskin to the glans, will be severed and form scar tissue. Go and watch some POV porn or fap it and look on the bottom of your cock head. If you are cut you will see a tiny or large scar depending on the type of device used. This is basically the male clit or gspot.

The way I look at it is to realize that the frenulum is one of the richest bundles of nerves on the penis. Just like the cilt is on women. While the rigid band, a separate part of the foreskin with more nerves than the rest of the skin, is more like the clitoral hood and the foreskin is more like the labia. I know it is difficult for many people to understand because medical books are woefully lacking in this area and many want to compare to glans or cock head to the clit but this is a false analogy if you look at the number of nerve ending in both.

The glans has about half the number of nerve endings as the clit does but you need to realize that the bundle of nerves in the clit actually extends inside the vagina. Next time you are with your girl, take your fingers, index and middle, with your palm up and her on her back, and insert them and do a come hither motion and press against the upper inside part of her vagina behind the clit. It will feel different than the rest of the inside of her, and it varies between women, but this clump of nerves connects to the clit and is called the gspot.

I did a lot of personal and academic research into this and I also have the benefit of having a father who used to work as a gynocologist and I learned to draw from reading medical books as a kid...he isn't a doctor any more because he got sued by some white trash but that is a different story.

Have you ever seen the feminist pro sex arguments that goes like this:

Women have x amount of nerves in their clit.
Men have y number of nerves in the glans/cock head.
x is greater than y by 50%
Haha, women can have multiple orgasms and men can't...lulz, women are better than men.

This is not the full picture but I have seen it on Oprahs website and even in classes. If you take the number of nerve endings in the foresking + number in frenulum + number in rigid band + number in glans it = the number in clit +clit hood+gspot + labia....with shaft = to the internal walls of the vagiiiiiina.

I will admit that I am uncut and I have hiked the Sinai mountains more than once and not showered for weeks and this was before I could drive cause I lived with my single mom overseas in Egypt as a teen....I never had any problems. I do remember readin more than one survival story where a group of guys were out in the arctic and got severe frost bite on their toes and fingers and even their dick...they all had to have parts amputated except one guy didn't get it on the dick...he was uncut. It serves more purposes than to gross out females.

Unfortunately it is ultimately your choice but if you are going to make it then please do some research and make sure it is fully informed.

I will say this. As a uncut guy I can have multiple orgasms. Orgasm != ejaculation. They are actually two different processes in the body. I have seen one or two studies and plenty of anecdotal evidence that uncut guys have higher sex drives. This may not, to be truthful, have anything to do with having foreskin but may have more to do with having to get over more hang ups sexually when we come of age...girls like confidence. Then again, haven't you ever wondered why American women are so obsessed with european men? I remember the last time I was in Israel I was hitting on some bitches and they kept asking about whether or not I was cut and whether I would get cut. Apparently a lot of Israeli women, especially in the more liberal Tel Aviv, want to know what the other side feels like before getting arranged marriages or settling down with a nice traditional Jewish man....this is one problem in the area, because many go after palestinian men for sexual experiences and ofcourse this creates male-male competition and jealousy which exacerbates the political tensions....and..have a upboat.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

While I think your comments make the rest of us that support circumcision look like an ass, I agree that it has little effect on how a child grows up.
I also agree this is not mutilation (thanks for making it sensational guys. I also love how the foreskin is always compared to the clitoris when they're two completely separate things and issues) and am disgusted at how MR takes this issue without reasoning and makes it into a nasty bash fest. It reminds me of how abortion is called "baby killing" just to make it sound so much worse.

Anyway, the link was way off in it's statistics, but there's not denial that there are small medical benefits with small loss (if any) of sexual pleasure. Like I've mentioned before, there's no overwhelming reason for circumcision, but no overwhelming reason to NOT have circumcision.

So long story short, this topic is completely blown out of the water. If you don't like it, don't do it. If someone else wants to do it, then explain why they shouldn't nicely, without sensationalism, but don't give 'em shit for it. This is far from the levels of false-rape and gender wage gap, yet somehow we talk about male circumcision like we're cutting off arms and legs and disabling a child. It's childish and absurd!

[–]ZQMFGB 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're going to have some people that find a difference. Hell, you're going to find a mistake done here or there, but using that as the norm is irresponsible at best. In an overwhelming amount of cases in adult men getting "cut", they either find no sexual change, or better.
The overall risk of any infection due to circumcision is extremely small when performed correctly. Much smaller than the chance of urinary tract infection. STD transmission is cut down in a small amount, but against it's a much larger amount than the number of complications from circumcision.

Honestly if we really want to talk about sexual performance difference, you just have to ask a cut man if he has enjoyable sex. Whether it's diminished or not (the studies I've seen all saying it's not), sexual pleasure is easily still reached.

[–]ZQMFGB 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Girls get more uninary tract infections than boys regardless of circumcision, your argument in favor of corrective surgery for this reason is invalid.

Also, if you think it provides any protection against STD's as a group you may wish to review the literature in The Lancet which pretty unequivocally shuts down that conjecture. (Specifically, it was a study done in India with a large cohort of circumcised and uncircumcised men whrein numerous factors not addressed in the previously cited South African study were controlled for)

Finally, if you think it's ok to reduce a person's sexual pleasure for no discernible reason as long as they still have some you'd make a great advocate for FGM as well, after all, the less severe forms of it still allow for some sexual pleasure so what's the harm right?

Hint: The harm is that messing with childrens junk isn't ok, even if your parents weren't smart enough to realize that.

[–]aetheralloy 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1[S] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnovos 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The case for circumcision. - WTF!!
Author	Equa1
Upvotes	24
Comments	151
Date	April 2, 2011 6:13 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gh76a/the_case_for_circumcision_wtf/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-case-for-circumcision-wtf.1041469 https://theredarchive.com/post/1041469

Comments