Canada: 31 botched circumcisions: doctor fined $20,000, suspended for a month. [Note: every circumcision is a "botch"].

[–]masculinistasshole 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]masculinistasshole 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

FGM serves no medical benefits

Good news! Female circumcision also has great medical benefits!

You will always read that FGM has "no medical benefits". This is totally correct, but not for the reasons you may think. Any and all types of FGM are simply torture and sexual abuse — you are amputating healthy, natural, functioning tissue from the female genitals that have evolved over tens of millions of years. FGM is worse than rape, as rape always has lasting psychological damage, but often, no long-lasting physical damage. But FGM has both.

But it's no surprise, than when you hack off healthy parts of the human body, there is a reduction and/or elimination of certain diseases and illnesses, as those body parts no longer exist. That is not a "health" or "medical" benefit though; as to mutilate a female's genitals and then claim a "health/medical" benefit is just evil and perverse.

For example:

1: 50% of all vulval cancer originates on the inner labia lips — so if you hack those off, vulval cancer is reduced by 50%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvar_cancer

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/vulval-cancer/incidence#heading-Two

2: 1 out of 50 girls will be born with labial adhesions, where the inner labia lips are fused together. Hack those off at birth — and no more labial adhesions.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/labial-fusion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

3: Women are 10 times more likely to get UTIs then men, as they have many folds of mucus membranes in their vulvas, and produce around 10 times as much smegma (a very healthy and natural excretions of the human body). These mucus membrane folds of tissue harbour the bacteria that cause UTIs — so if you hack-off the labia lips (and the clitoral hood) of females, you have a very good chance of reducing UTIs. (But this is not the case with infibulation as that increases the rates of UTIs).

And the same maybe goes for other infections and STDs.

4: Cunnilingus (oral sex) with women can give a man HPV (human papilloma virus) and this can trigger throat cancer in the man. So again, reducing the amount of vulval tissue that harbours the HPV virus might well decrease the chances of the man getting throat cancer.

5: And here's the big one: FGM has been shown to reduce HIV/AIDs infection by 50-60%:

"Stallings et al. (2005) 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."

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS.

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

"Georgia State University, Public Health Theses" — a USA University of international renown:

The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years):

"RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables."

"DISCUSSION: The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS. This finding suggests therefore the need to authenticate this inverse association in different populations and also to determine the mechanisms for the observed association."

"This study investigated whether there is a direct association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, the results indicated that the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV. While a positive association was hypothesized, a surprising inverse association between cases of female circumcision and positive HIV serostatus was obtained, hence indicating that FGM may have protective properties against the transmission of HIV."

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

"Department of Cancer Biology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA" — a USA University of international renown:

A history of FGM decreased the risk of HIV-2 infection:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/21712473_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

But all this is of academic interest only. Amputating healthy tissue from any female's genitals is an evil crime worse then rape — and there can NEVER be any health benefits by definition.

And guess what? Here's the kicker. Exactly the same goes for male genital mutilation - MGM.

Amputating healthy tissue from any male's genitals is an evil crime worse then rape — and there can NEVER be any health benefits by definition.

Happy?

[+]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This just tells me how ignorant you are in regards to medicine.

First and foremost, you're on a MensRights reddit implying that only girls get breast cancer... well done, major win for men everywhere.

Secondly, cancer, in particular breast cancer, is not very hereditary and instead caused by somatic mutations acquired during one's lifetime. So "eliminating breast cancer in a generation" would achieve nothing as the risk of getting breast cancer is quite rare and not worth lopping of breasts left, right and center.

"Fun" fact for you: more men die every year of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer.

Again, someone who doesn't seem to get the whole benefits vs negatives balance thing.

Not having breasts as a female can cause self-confidence issues, issues with feeding their children etc etc.

Not having a foreskin can cause... you to get told how much you need one by a bunch of golum like creatures on reddit feeling overly protective of their "precious"... and that's about all it causes.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some girls would have breasts, because just like circumcision it would be a choice for the parents to make, not forced upon parents like people seem to think circumcision is.

I mentioned prostate cancer because it would have made a better analogy due to it being more prevalent, for instance "Remove every man's prostate to avoid them getting prostate cancer."

I mentioned breast cancer not being mainly heredity because you used the word generation as if it was relevant.

Tell me something that I can't do, or that negatively effects my life because I don't have a foreskin and perhaps you might change my mind. Just bear in mind I have 28 years of experience of not having a foreskin so if you make up stuff like: "Girls won't sleep with guys without foreskins" or "you have trouble masturbating" or "it means your penis doesn't function properly" etc etc (like other people have in this thread) I'll know how much bullshit it is.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]k_kat 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]k_kat 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]k_kat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But by "protecting" the underlying organ by keeping it moist, it provides an unnecessary breeding grounds for bacteria, this is why some people who don't practice good hygiene get "bell cheese".

Don't get me wrong, perhaps they were very useful when we were still on all fours and dragging our members around in the dirt, but now no-one even knows why we have them. Even the World Heath Organization (WHO) doesn't know what it actually does and can only speculate and debate it's function. If WHO still debate it's function I'm not sure where you're getting your information, as you seem to know as a fact what it does? (perhaps you should get in touch with them and let them know what it does).

At present there is no reliable evidence to say that it performs any useful duties however and quoting WHO: "There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of some reproductive tract infections, as well as penile cancer.^{^cit} They also mention that this procedure is significantly less likely to cause any complication when performed as an infant, possibly due to the fact it has fully healed within just a week.

Claiming the foreskin has an actual medical function is like claiming the appendix has a function. Both are believed to be remnants from our evolutionary ancestors, you can live perfectly fine with or without either, and both have a small risk of getting infected can causing serious health issues.

[–]masculinistasshole 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm quite happy with mine....

Sure LOL 😂😂😂

1: Women prefer intact penises. And elsewhere you can find men do as well!

Source: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

2: Masturbation feels better.

Source: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

3: Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/epdf

http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html

4: Despite the reduced sensitivity, there is no change to lasting longer during sex.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 A6D724B4E3606446784E.d03t01

5: Cut men have a more difficult time fapping.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9

Which was the reason it was promoted in the USA in the first place.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/

6: Circumcision increases risk of erectile dysfunctions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt= Abstract|

7: If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the dong needs some skin to expand during an erection:

http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm

http://www.drgreene.com/azguide/inconspicuous-penis

8: Circumcision does not lower the risk of AIDS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/

9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them??

10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit:

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html

11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc

12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death):

http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission

http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract

18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence

http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf

19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full

20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits

http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm

23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902

25: Circumcision has negligible benefit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693

26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302

28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682

30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TorontoIntactivist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TorontoIntactivist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeHappyTrader 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TorontoIntactivist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Nurses of St. Vincent: Saying "No" to Circumcision

Facing Circumcision: Eight Physicians Tell Their Stories

Therapy Uncovers Circumcision Trauma - YouTube

Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital

Anatomy of the Penis: Penile and Foreskin Neurology

The Prepuce: Anatomy and Physiology of the Foreskin

The Global Survey of Circumcision Harm

Psychiatrist Discusses the Lasting Trauma of Circumcision

MAN DESCRIBES HIS CIRCUMCISION ANGUISH

Sex Therapy, Genital Autonomy and Human Rights

Circumcision: Want to Know the Sensitivity that You're Missing???

Got Circumcised as an Adult

Penn & Teller - Circumcision

baby boy goes into neurogenic shock when circumcised

CIRCUMCISION - The most horrific thing a nursing student had ever seen

circumcision shock - YouTube

Why circumcision is the same as FGM

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenandBoysareGood 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]masculinistasshole 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]masculinistasshole 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Studies go back and forth on the benefits of circumcision. We can't just blindly trust scientists on this issue because no one really knows if it's beneficial or not. (e. I'm not saying we can't trust science, just scientists. Just like anyone else, they can bring their personal biases into their work or even outright falsify evidence. Just look at the vaccine -> autism debacle.)

About hygiene, it literally takes a bit of soap and five seconds to clean my foreskin. Do you really think boys need a reason to play with their dicks in the shower?

Also, if you're barebacking so often that circumcision is beneficial to your life, you've got more problems than cutting off half the skin on your dick can solve.

How would I have made that decision anyway when I was incapable of basic bowel control?

How is it right for others to make decisions about your body, which is the only thing you legitimately own?

[–]I-Will-Fite-U-Bro -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes we can trust scientists (in terms of scientific papers published in a reputable journal) because they have a little something called the peer-review process in which other scientists look at their papers before publishing and look for such things as bias/sample size/inappropriate statistical models etc. Now yes, some bad papers will get through, but when the vast majority say one thing then we can safely say it's more likely to be true.

Saying we can't trust scientists is just an argument from ignorance, which is exactly what the anti-vaccine movement cling to try and convince people that vaccines must be bad, because despite all the evidence pointing to A there is a tiny chance of B, so let's go with B.

Vaccines, there's another thing that would fall into your 'abuse of rights' definition, the kid hasn't decided itself that it wants/does not want vaccinating.

Condoms aren't 100% safe and just so you know heterosexual people can get AIDS just as easily. To say you are so strongly against circumcision you don't seam to know much about it... they don't "cut off half the skin". (Unless of course you have a teeny tiny penis, in which case I suppose you need every extra millimeter that a foreskin affords you).

How is it right for others to make decisions about your body, which is the only thing you legitimately own?

It's right because at that age we need others to make medical decisions for us... or we would die. Where would we draw the line, Doctor: "Well we could save your 2 month old's life but it would leave him with a scar and we need his written consent for that because it's his body".

Also, as I mentioned before you don't legitimately own your body medically until the age of 16, so it's the parent's rights to decide weather or not to have their boy circumcised. Your coming across as if it's some horrific form of neutering forced upon all boys by the feminists in order to try and kill us off... Either that or you just really don't trust your parents.

Finally, and most importantly, as you haven't been circumcised why do you think it is such a bad thing? I think people just get all protective about their junk.

[–]Hamakua 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TorontoIntactivist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]VigorousSnow -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]masculinistasshole 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VigorousSnow -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TorontoIntactivist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Canada: 31 botched circumcisions: doctor fined $20,000, suspended for a month. [Note: every circumcision is a "botch"].
Author	Consilio_et_Animis
Upvotes	39
Comments	52
Date	April 11, 2016 1:27 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4e8lvz/canada_31_botched_circumcisions_doctor_fined/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/canada-31-botched-circumcisions-doctor-fined-20000.952121 https://theredarchive.com/post/952121

Comments