SF may ban infant circumcision

[–]TheBananaKing 21 points22 points23 points 15 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobbyisie123 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]redox000 17 points18 points19 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]bagginswonder -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]oppan 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a lie.

Many doctors know that there are health benefits (already stated) to circumcision that many in here willfully ignore.

No, circumcision is not going to cure cancer. But yes, there are definite health benefits that a person will enjoy by getting circumcised.

Should it be mandatory? Of course not.

But should we fanatically feel entitled to rob loving parents of their right to care for their children as they see fit, especially considering there is DOCUMENTED MEDICAL EVIDENCE showing that circumcised men to do benefit from the procedure? Of course not.

Otherwise we should just change the title of this subreddit to Fanatical Feminists Who Consider Emotion Higher Than Reason.

I'm very happy I got circumcised as a baby--"AGAINST MY WILL". Just as I'm happy my parents took me to the dentist to fix a cavity--also AGAINST MY WILL. Do I wish to force my parent's decision on others? No. But I also realize it would be DANGEROUS to try to rob parents of their right to raise their children the way they see fit.

If we allow the government to ban circumcision based on bad info, we should also allow them to start banning black people from going to school since black people commit the majority of crimes. There are plenty of fanatical opportunities to employ bad info to rob others of their rights.

[–]numb3rb0y 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Moreonthatlater-5 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]surfnsound -12 points-11 points-10 points 15 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBananaKing 43 points44 points45 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

Yes. And you're also not allowed to violate the rights of parents who wish to raise their own children as they see fit. Just as others shouldn't have the right to prevent you from going to a surgeon to get your appendix removed.

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

[–]Moreonthatlater-3 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure, if you use the feminist tactic of demonizing language to mean whatever you want, then you can suppress any freedom or right and feel justified about doing so.

I'll give you an example: Why are you trying to rape young boys? Oh and by "rape young boys," I mean "force your fanatically distorted views on others by demonizing their words/actions."

See. It's easy to play the dishonest rhetoric game.

And if you need a "clue," trying taking that logic over to your nearest school and telling teachers that they cannot violate the will of their students by making them pay attention in class.

None of you have YET answered the argument about WHEN it's justified and when it isn't justified to violate the will of your children. Because unless your head has been in the sand all these years, parents have been violating the will of their children for ages. It's called DISCIPLINE. It's called TEACHING SOMEONE HOW TO GROW UP INTO A MATURE ADULT. Btw, the caps are a clue.

[–]cryptorchidism 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

You got upvotes for advocating stoning Timmy to death or equating a helpful medical procedure to capital punishment.

I guess I should get about 700 upvotes for mentioning the fact that I'm wearing socks and drinking Snapple.

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

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

[–]luciansolaris 14 points15 points16 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 17 points18 points19 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrJ1NX -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moreonthatlater-2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]surfnsound -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]BowlingisnotNam 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Equating circumcision to plastic surgery is like equating dentistry to MMA fighting. I guess next time you go to the dentist, just visit the octagon instead and hope the guy knocks out the right tooth that's giving you problems?

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

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

Like a good professional victim or an incompetent intellectual, I highly recommend you assume I'm "trolling" you. It's a perfect way to vilify any opposition to your fascist views. You can simply dismiss them without concern.

It's completely moronic for you to portray circumcision as some type of purely aesthetic procedure. That's like saying brush your teeth is just an ego-sport.

And now you're claiming that circumcision is akin to having sex with children? You put the "F" in "FUCKING IDIOT."

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

[–]Moreonthatlater-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]MrJ1NX -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrJ1NX -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]numb3rb0y 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]numb3rb0y 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh you mean like surgery to remove a bad appendix or dentistry to remove/fix a bad tooth?

When you apply alarmist tactics that feminists employ (like equating whistling at a girl to "rape"), you lose all credibility.

It's an intellectually dishonest tactic to demonize circumcision as "mutilation." Otherwise, to be consistent, you'd have to refer to EVERY SINGLE SURGEON, EYE DOCTOR, DENTIST OR DERMATOLOGIST as a "mutilator." And since we all know you hypocritically don't do that, we can conclude that your demonization of circumcision is baseless and dishonest.

[–]numb3rb0y 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh you mean like surgery to remove a bad appendix or dentistry to remove/fix a bad tooth?

Right, because medical treatment is totally analogous to non-consensual cosmetic surgery.

It's an intellectually dishonest tactic to demonize circumcision as "mutilation." Otherwise, to be consistent, you'd have to refer to EVERY SINGLE SURGEON, EYE DOCTOR, DENTIST OR DERMATOLOGIST as a "mutilator." And since we all know you hypocritically don't do that, we can conclude that your demonization of circumcision is baseless and dishonest.

Surgeons, eye doctors, dentists, or dermatologists work with patient consent and in the best interests of the patient for medical reasons. People who perform infant circumcisions do neither. Mutilation is defined as the normally non-lethal physical degradation of the appearance or function of the body. That covers infant circumcision, but most certainly not medical care as I'm sure you're well aware.

When you attempt to discredit an argument by using an apples and oranges comparison, you lose all credibility.

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

[–]Moreonthatlater-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BowlingisnotNam 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Mothers Against Circumcision

First one that comes up in Google. Would appear, from the name, to not be an MRA group.

Intact America

Intact America works to protect babies and children from circumcision and all other forms of medically unnecessary genital alteration, whether carried out for cultural conformity or profit, in medical or non-medical settings.

Note the lack of gender.

National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers

Despite the neutral name, they seem pretty solidly in the "against" camp. They are members of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity and Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children

The International Coalition for Genital Integrity is an alliance of organizations dedicated to protecting the normal anatomy of males, females and the intersexed, and supporter of the Genital Integrity Resolution.

Our mission [Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children], is to champion a culture of compassionate individuals, families, and communities who have fun with, learn from, and responsively and lovingly interact with children. We accomplish this by providing guidance about consciously conceiving, birthing, and nurturing children.

The Intactivism Pages

Seem to skew to anti-circumcision, but also clearly advocate against FGM as well.

The struggle for genital integrity and against the involuntary genital modification of children of any sex: Circumcision Female Genital Cutting Involuntary Sex Reassignment

Genital Integrity for All!

I found one group, Forward that was exclusively campaigning against FGM in Africa. They don't seem to advocate one way or another on male circumcision.

...And that was about what I got from the first Google page.

The only organizations I found who actually advocate for medical circumcision were WHO and UNAIDS, and I am disappoint-- circumcision seems, to say the least, to be a shitty way to prevent AIDS.

The WHO and UNAIDS recommend male circumcision as a means of reducing the rate of HIV infection,[62] but this has also proved controversial, with doubts raised about the efficacy of mass circumcision campaigns in sub-Saharan Africa.[63][64] Critics have themselves been the subject of criticism; Kalichman writes: "Anticircumcision groups have long existed and are increasingly vocal as MC programs for HIV prevention are promoted. Anticircumcision groups resemble other antiscience and antimedicine extremists including AIDS denialists who refute public health realities to maintain entrenched belief systems"[65]

Source

It does not list Mr./Dr. Kalichman's credentials. He is the publisher of this paper, presumably extolling the benefits of circumcision in slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. This study, from what I saw on other sites, has been called into considerable question.

Anyway, WHO is not a feminist organization. I've never heard of UNAIDS but I doubt they are either. So I'm not sure where the hordes of feminist circumcision-promoters are hiding.

I'm not sure why you're slapping away my hands, or any other non-MRA hand, from advocating against circumcision. Why wouldn't you want all the allies you can get?

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think you're quite getting where I'm coming from here. I am saying that this very much IS a "mens rights issue", I am not, however, saying this is exclusively a mens rights issue...only that most major organizations support it, and those that don't tend to be motivated by MRA leanings, and Intact America is no different in that regard. They are not an MRA organization per se, but then again neither is anyone else. They simply embody much of the concerns we raise.

Frankly, that's more or less the 'definition' of an MRA, one who advocates on the behalf of males. There's no clause in there about exclusivity unless you personally choose that route. Which, admittedly, many of us have.

Not only that, but much of the blowback against MGM is VERY recent...which aside from being yet another clue that the MRM is having an effect, also shows many orgs still cling to 'tradition' (more like money for the foreskins), rather than support the bodily autonomy of males.

Same reason why 'indentured servitude' is still legal...for males.

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]MrJ1NX -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrJ1NX -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrJ1NX0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

I have tried to be reasonable with you people.

How was I not reasonable? What does that even mean? If by "reasonable," you mean, "employing reason to defend your positions," then, no, I'm sorry, you were not.

I'm not sure who "you people" is, but each person on reddit is a separate person, with their own motivations and arguments.

And finally, if you come on a public website and attempt to take a position on a controversial topic, be prepared to defend it. Ain't no one going to just say, "Oh, well, you said so, so of course you must be right." Facts and logic would go a long way towards defending it. You seem short on those.

Or, you can just swear at me. But that's hardly going to sway people to your side, and meanwhile, as you can see from the article, your "traditions" are likely soon going to be illegal.

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

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

[–]MrJ1NX -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

You are correct. It's fascist logic to think that someone else should be able to tell you how to parent your own kid.

Next they'll be making laws about how you're allowed to hold your dick when you pee.

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

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

Yes, but just like fanatical feminists, many of these guys are getting all emotionally worked up and passing off bad information as the gospel. Obviously this is a total lie because many men who are circumcised know perfectly well that there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. To so obviously misrepresent the dangers is not only dishonest, it's fanatical and dangerous because they eventually want to infringe on the rights of the parents. This is the greatest irony of all consider these men want to have their own rights respected.

How can you expect to have your rights respected when you're hypocritical enough to demand that others should have their taken away?

Complete and disgusting hypocrisy.

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

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

It's not any more "barbaric" than dentistry or surgery. These fascists are just using the same tactics feminists use. They're trying to demonize your actions using 1984 doublespeak.

Next time one of these hypocrites visits the dentist, call them a "barbarian" and stone them for being infidels.

[–]MrJ1NX -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]daoom 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[+]rashawng -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]DRowe13 36 points37 points38 points 15 years ago (134 children) | Copy Link

[–]mizzp 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Detached09 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]YesImSardonic 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icecoldcelt 11 points12 points13 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]getfuckingreal 15 years ago [recovered] (106 children) | Copy Link

If you don't know the difference, you don't understand female circumcision.

[–]BlackGlass 25 points26 points27 points 15 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Actually I don't trust you. I've been circumsized and I'm glad I got it done.

Trust me, being uncircumsized sucks.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Well the solution is to find a competent doctor next time.

Not burn down an entire hospital that gave you a faulty bandaid.

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

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

[–]mindaika 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]chroncile 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngryData -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IOnlyLurk 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moreonthatlater2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]craigdubyah 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Moreonthatlater-3 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]American83 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

And just because YOU fail to report the health complications with being uncircumcised doesn't mean others haven't.

You can thank BAD DOCTORS for your circumcision.

Your poor logic would lead people to burn dentists if anyone ever loses a crown or a filling.

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

[–]Moreonthatlater0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Well people can also make the case that their lack of circumcision caused them to experience more PAINFUL urinary infections, more PAINFUL smegma odor and more PAINFUL STDs.

It's amazing how many people here blindly/religiously adhere to alarmist propaganda about circumcision while completely neglecting to engage in healthy discourse about it. If you're afraid of telling the truth, don't expect people outside of this reddit to ever take you seriously.

Well... unless you decide to run for congress.

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

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

An infant is not able to make that choice from birth, nor should an infant be allowed to make that choice. The PARENTS ALONE should be making that choice, NOT YOU, NOT THE STATE.

It is fascist and hypocritical to force your alarmist, uneducated views on others, especially if the child doesn't belong to you.

See the problem here?

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

[–]Moreonthatlater-3 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 28 points29 points30 points 15 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 29 points30 points31 points 15 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]MrJ1NX -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Moreonthatlater0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[+]MrJ1NX -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MrJ1NX-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrJ1NX0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrJ1NX0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrJ1NX0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrJ1NX0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrJ1NX0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

So in your delusional mind, brushing your teeth equates to raping children with barbaric witchcraft devices.

You don't sound too bright. And the fact that you're getting upvotes proves that the people backing this delusional agenda aren't that bright either. You should get upvotes for proving a point, not calling something "shitty."

Otherwise, I should get 300 upvotes for calling your argument poopy kaka.

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

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

[+]craigdubyah -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]klaruz 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]craigdubyah -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

You are an amazingly stupid person, and you need to be called out.

And the numbers given are way way way above the generally accepted death rate (which is less than 1 in 500,000)

Here you make a claim about what a scientific consensus is. "The death rate for male neonatal circumcision is generally accepted to be less than 1 in 500,00". You link this article as evidence. I wonder if you thought no one would read it...

Circumcision can be safe. During one period 500,000 consecutive circumcisions were performed in New York City without fatality. This is feasible if the circumcision is deferred until the infant is at least 1 day old and is tested for bleeding tendencies. Obviously, circumcision should be deferred in boys with a family history of excessive bleeding.

Let's forget about how you linked a two page literature review from thirty years ago. Now, I'm not as upset at you for trying to use the tools of logic and argument like a grown up when you weren't ready as I am upset at the author for knowing fuck-all about statistics and sampling.

Here's what happened: a guy went to one geographical location (New York) and started recording if circumcisions ended in deaths. After 500k when no one had died, he declared his science to be complete and recorded his point measurement rotten with sampling biases and declared it a worldwide average for all of history.

Fuck junk science, fuck giving out degrees so easily, fuck infant genital mutilation and fuck idiots like you polluting the discussion with shit that takes people of average intelligence 15 minutes to demolish.

This isn't even the big leagues, and you're not up to par. Go home.

[–]craigdubyah -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Let's forget about how you linked a two page literature review from thirty years ago.

You're right. Medicine has progressed since that time. The figure today might be even lower.

After 500k when no one had died, he declared his science to be complete and recorded his point measurement rotten with sampling biases and declared it a worldwide average for all of history.

This is a perfectly valid study. It's a retrospective study. This is in no way junk science. And it is actual data. Please provide any data from that Journal of Boyhood Studies paper.

he declared his science to be complete and recorded his point measurement rotten with sampling biases and declared it a worldwide average for all of history.

No. But at least it's data. Which is more than can be said of the Journal of Boyhood Studies article.

I can't even dissect that article without paying $15 for it. Despite the fact that it gets cited all the time on reddit, I doubt any of you have even read it.

DISCLAIMER: I do clinical (medical) research for a living.

[–]disposable_human2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]craigdubyah-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I hope you're jerking me around with this revelation that you actually do research professionally.

Nope. Got an unrestricted grant to study epidemiology. No industry ties at all.

I shouldn't be at all surprised by your willingness to use lazy research methods and obviously unreliable data to argue a point you were seeking to prove in the first place.

I couldn't have said it better. Journal of Boyhood Studies...

You have to be in the industry. Only a corrupt researcher would come right out and say "misleading data is better than no data".

Nope. No financial disclosures at all. But wonderful ad hominem argument, bravo!

And we never established what was misleading about it. Retrospective study of 500,000 circumcisions. Sure beats sensational abstract by unknown researcher publishing in junk journal with no explanation of methods, data sources, or funding sources.

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]craigdubyah-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]craigdubyah-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And then it became about explaining the significance of just how awful your reference was as someone dutifully defended it.

All I was saying is that the Journal of Boyhood Science article is complete and utter crap.

you're standing in quicksand and you're in over your head.

I read, analyze, and write papers for a living. I'm doing just fine.

Had more than 5 minutes to look this up.

Pediatrics. 1989 Jun;83(6):1011-5.

Summary: Review of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985. In 100,157 circumcised boys, there were no deaths attributed to circumcision. There were two deaths reported due to urinary tract infection in the uncircumcised boys.

Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9.

Summary: Of 354, 297 male infants born in Washington state, 130,475 were circumcised. There were no deaths associated with circumcision.

J Urol. 1982 Nov;128(5):1135-6.

Summary: The author notes that 500,000 consecutive circumcisions were performed in New York City without a single death due to circumcision, according to city records.

As far as I can tell, those are the biggest, most complete, most cited studies available. Enjoy!

[–]disposable_human2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]craigdubyah-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I will go off on someone who just tries to drag an argument into the mud. It tends to chase them off, and it's fun. You were more reasonable so you got reasonable treatment. I still think that article was crap and you're intellectually lazy for your conclusions and displayed terrible reasoning.

Honestly, I'm just out of redditing time and need to get going, and I don't have the time to read through another two articles, so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not even arguing that circumcision kills babies. I only took exception to your pulling conclusions where you had no reasonable grounds to do so. Today on reddit I really just attacked people arguing badly. The other guys for being vulgar and you for hasty generalizations. You're all asses and should all be better. Have a nice day!

[–]craigdubyah-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]disposable_human1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cryptorchidism1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]cryptorchidism3 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]craigdubyah-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cryptorchidism3 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]MrJ1NX 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]enderxeno -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

To compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation is like comparing a spanking to a beating with a baseball bat.

Totally ridiculous and intellectually dishonest comparison.

[–]Moreonthatlater-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]vox_dramatica 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

If you equate a healthy medical procedure to "mutilation," then you must apply that same ridiculous reasoning to dentistry which would fall under the "mutilation" of the mouth.

[–]DRowe13 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Well what you would call it and what actual doctors would call it are, thankfully, two different things.

[–]DRowe13 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

There are many other studies that say JUST THE OPPOSITE. If we're going to simply rest our case on the fallacy of medical authority, we may as well cite the founding fathers of the constitution to support the institution of slavery.

We've heard from many doctors who know better, who have no problem telling the truth about the incidents of urinary infections, increased STD risk, etc.

I mean if you really want to go this route, you're basically undermining the entire point of this "Men's Rights" reddit because OBAMA HIMSELF, who by your own erroneous authority standard is higher than the AMA, is employing feminist-tainted statistics right now to support the feminist legislation. Again, if we assume your position is right, this means that the 1 in 4 women false rape statistic is now VALID. And we must also assume that there IS a wage gap (even though it's been proven to be false) and we SHOULD now pay women for work they didn't do.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either you acknowledge that REASON alone must be the highest authority. OR you admit that the feminists are right with their doctored statistics and that you are in NO POSITION to complain about any alleged injustices against men if the highest authority of the land supports these injustices.

I know circumcision is beneficial. I've been circumcised as a baby. I have no trauma issues. I'm perfectly healthy and fine. So to suggest that it should be illegal to circumcise my own child is hypocritical at best and fascist as worst.

I agree that being uncircumcised isn't the end of the world and both types of men can lead perfectly healthy lives. But it's completely hypocritical and fascist to make it illegal.

[–]DRowe13 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moreonthatlater 15 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Then if your baby has a cleft lip or is born prematurely and needs an operation or medical assistance, it's EQUALLY wrong for you to make any of those decisions as well.

Try telling someone that it should be illegal to care for their child as they see fit.

If you tried to force your fanatical views on my family, you had better have a gun. Because I'll defend my family to the death against fanatics like you.

Hopefully, you can see the flaw with your approach.

[–]DRowe13 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DRowe134 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Moreonthatlater-4 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WTFppl -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Is trimming your fingernails the same as cutting off your fingers? They both involve cutting things attached to your hand.

Among practising cultures, FGC is most commonly performed between the ages of four and eight, but can take place at any age from infancy to adolescence. Prohibition has led to FGC going underground, at times with people who have had no medical training performing the cutting without anaesthetic, sterilisation, or the use of proper medical instruments. The procedure can lead to death through shock from excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections.

The first episode of sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful for infibulated women, who will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their partner access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the partner with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

There's a big difference between that, and a cut performed by a doctor with a scalpel a few days after birth.

[–]zyk0s 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]WTFppl -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PacoBedejo 31 points32 points33 points 15 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Faneste123 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]borkborkbork 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Proven is a funny word here. What level of proof do you require? Longitudinal studies in the U.S? Demographic studies? It seems like you're setting a pretty exacting standard for what makes it proved. How much evidence must exist before we can simply say "give the parents all of the information, and let them decide"?

Here, though, reposted from another section in this topic:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/19 "These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potential resulting complications are associated with penile cancer."

http://www.jfponline.com/ccp_article.asp?a=1&ref=5401JFP_ClinicalInquiries6 "Evidence suggests that neonatal circumcision decreases the incidence of childhood urinary tract infections, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis and other genital dermatoses, invasive penile cancer, and the sexually transmitted diseases human papilloma virus (HPV)"

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention "Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of becoming and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners" (HPV, incidentally, is highly associated with penile, throat, cervical, and anal cancers).

[–]PacoBedejo2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Smegma, a cheese-like, foul-smelling substance found under the foreskin of the penis may increase the risk of penis cancer.

Uncircumcised men who do not keep the area under the foreskin clean and men with a history of genital warts or human papillomavirus (HPV) are at higher risk for this rare disorder.

[sic]

Circumcision may decrease the risk. Men who are not circumcised should be taught at an early age the importance of cleaning beneath the foreskin as part of their personal hygiene.

Good personal hygiene and safer sexual practices, such as abstinence, limiting the number of sexual partners, and use of condoms to prevent HPV infection, may decrease the risk of developing penile cancer.

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002255 (emphasis is mine)

In the case of penile cancer, it's easily prevented. Wash your junk & wrap it if/when you have promiscuous sex. I mean really...if you walk around with foul-smelling cheese-like substances on your body, you're bound to die of something.

All-in-all, I view circumcision for such reasons along the same lines as amputating a diabetics feet at diagnosis just to be 100% certain that gangrene won't form.

[–]BolshevikMuppet0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

As medical student Franc Garcia has discussed, male circumcision destroys a male's capacity for certain sexual sensations and dulls other sensations. Doctors and medical students have documented the "triple whammy" of lost sexual sensitivity resulting from circumcision. 1. Loss of the foreskin nerves. The inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings and is probably more erogenous than even the glans. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the foreskin is amputated. Also, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin which attaches to the underside of the glans. Thus, circumcision robs us of a large percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve endings to the penis. 2. Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by the removal of the protective foreskin which leaves the glans permanently exposed. The penis head developed over millions of years of evolution as an internal organ, meant to be safely enclosed by the prepuce. The skin covering of the glans IS the foreskin. The glans becomes artificially keratinized (dry, hardened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus significantly less sensitive. 3. Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are best stimulated by a rolling massage action. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self stimulation mechanism. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. Men circumcised in adulthood have summed up the overall difference in sensation as similar to the contrast between seeing in color and seeing in black and white. There is reason to think the loss may be even greater for men circumcised as infants, as most of us were. Sexual pleasure continues to be reduced as circumcised men age until, in many cases, we are left with relatively little sensation. Like many men in their late thirties or early forties, every day I rediscover firsthand the horror of this procedure. I have noticed a dramatic and heartbreaking loss of sensitivity over the last couple of years. This is due to the continual buildup of layers of keratin over the mucous membrane which remains on our penises after the foreskin is removed.

From: http://www.menweb.org/svocirc.htm

It's a poorly-written, giant wall o'text...but a decent amount of information.

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

[+]mindaika -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]MrJ1NX -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]InvalidConfirmation -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]simohayha 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (189 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 15 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

[–]buttking 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]chroncile 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]blabla15 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]blabla15 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]merreborn 17 points18 points19 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]MDKAOD -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago* (56 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 15 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[+]craigdubyah -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[permanently deleted]

[+]MDKAOD -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[+]MDKAOD -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[+]MDKAOD -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i respect what you're saying and upvoted accordingly, but i don't think im "completely wrong" and i also think that that is a poor analogy, as lips are essential to a mouth functioning. as indicated by the fact that the majority (at least it seems that way, though perhaps not in r/mensrights where suggesting such is anathema) of circumcised people aren't bothered by it and live otherwise normal and happy lives (and sex lives), that doesnt appear to be the case for a foreskin, the lack of which doesnt keep a penis from functioning. its simply a matter of comparing two subjective experiences of pleasure, which i dont think can be categorically compared by someone who hasnt experienced both.

note that there is another poster on this thread that mentioned that he was circumcised at age 24 and thought sex actually felt better afterward. of course everyone is different, but i think that at least demonstrates that this "foreskin = better sex" claim is not a universal truth

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]MDKAOD -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Get your head out of the sand. Circumcision, which is what we're talking about, is a global concern. Not simply US. I stand by my statement, human rights issue.

So, we need to tackle the whole world, or ignore the issue? No in-between? No one is allowed to change things in their own country? No one is allowed to help the efforts in another country? When did YOU become the official actuary for the mens movement anyway?

Like I've said MANY times before, if you're so 'neutral' on this issue, then stay the fuck away from it...because so far all you're doing is IMPEDING us, not helping...

Personally, I feel that's actually why you're here, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

So, stop standing in the way of people creating change, or be prepared to be counted among our enemies. Seems simple enough, hey?

Or do you have some kind of vested interest in seeing MGM continue?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MDKAOD -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If it's not a big deal to you, and you're, say, European, where the practice is essentially nonexistant, I could see where this issue might not seem all that pressing. That said, if this is your view then I would invite you to simply stay the hell out of it. It's not like there's a limited amount of words we can say, and you don't want our quota to be used up on this issue.

More to the point, to a lot of us this IS a mens rights issue, and you have yet to give any real reason as to why this shouldn't be fought, other than you simply don't care, so you figure we shouldn't.

Well, I'll tell you what. We all fight the fights we care about. We put our time and effort into things we deem important, and the choices we make about what to fight for, and what not to fight for, broadcast our real selves to anyone who will listen.

But I'm curious, just why specifically are you continuing to fight to have this subject dropped, if you care so little about it, and are on neither side of the fence.

If you're such a 'neutral observer', why are you still here?

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

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

[–]MDKAOD1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]florinandrei -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MDKAOD 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

No, that is sitting on your hands.

But that's not what you're doing. You're actively obstructing the people who want to change this barbaric practice, which means that yes, you HAVE taken sides, and you have chosen to come down on the 'pro' side. Pro choice, at least.

Note, no one has said it should be banned outright (although I feel that way). What is argued against is the practice of removing the child affected's foreskin without his knowledge or approval (obviously), which is a bodily autonomy issue.

We do not allow this exact same type of procedure on little girls, based on bodily autonomy concepts, and we have repeatedly rejected appeals to allow the practice on religious grounds. Hell, we've publicly castigated the practice since as far back as I can remember..but ONLY for girls.

I'm sorry, there is no way in Hell this is not an issue we need to take up.

It is a mens issue on EVERY single level.

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

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

[–]MDKAOD1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrJ1NX -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]BlackGlass 16 points17 points18 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't enjoy having hair on the shaft of my penis, going through puberty getting ripped and bleeding every time I became erect, and being unable to have sex comfortably until my 30's, when I was finally able to regrow enough skin to have an erection without tearing. I don't enjoy going through all the physical and mental pain in silence because I had nobody to talk to about it without feeling depressed and broken.

My doctors tell me this happens a lot (like 1 in 10 infant circumcisions) but rarely do straight men even discuss it. The gay community is far more open about the issue, only because they see others and have a comparison, thus realizing they are personally disfigured. Even then it is very hard for a man's self image to admit his penis is permanently damaged goods.

Well fuck it all, I am damaged, and have endured the worst. I was mutilated as an infant, and fuck anyone who says it is ok to continue this barbaric practice.

That said, I have absolutely no issue with adult circumcision, the same as I have no problem with piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery of any kind once you are 18 and able to chose for yourself.

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

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

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

[–]hmasing 14 points15 points16 points 15 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link

[–]simohayha 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brotaufstrich 16 points17 points18 points 15 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]MDKAOD 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brotaufstrich 12 points13 points14 points 15 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[+]MDKAOD -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Brotaufstrich 12 points13 points14 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mindaika -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brotaufstrich 14 points15 points16 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]SomethingKiller -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hmasing1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SomethingKiller0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hmasing1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SomethingKiller2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]mindaika -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brotaufstrich 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hmasing1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_Soltero 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]mindaika -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Soltero 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_Soltero2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mindaika0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_Soltero1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mindaika0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_Soltero1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, the worst possible outcome of a mole removal is infection leading to sepsis and death. You don't get to use unlikely "worst case" outcomes in one case and not the other.

I'm not sure why you are attempting to reframe a debate about religious freedoms in emotional terms, or why you're making assumptions about my preferences. I never stated whether I would have my child circumcised or not. You just assumed.

My personal aesthetic preferences have no bearing on whether or not I would choose to have my child circumcised. My personal aesthetic preferences also have no bearing on whether I feel it's okay to subjugate another person's religious desires with my personal beliefs about "genital integrity."

I am neither for nor against circumcision. You, like many others on here, seem to think that because I'm not against it, I'm for it. I am, however, strongly for religious freedom (which is what this debate is, and has been, about). I, personally, do not think it is acceptable to ask someone to set aside their religious traditions on the basis of unlikely outcomes of a medical procedure that has been performed for thousands of years.

Not everyone feels that way, and I'm fine with that. The AMA's stance is "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." That is my stance as well.

[–]Zakrah1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]mindaika0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Weren't you the one who said the US had "one of the highest rates of HIV infection?"

True, I forgot to include the obligatory "in the Political West". Which it does. Higher than nearly all of Europe, including Italy, which has a lot of politicians in it.

I never said I viewed an "intact penis" as flawed. I have no issue with an intact penis.

Not true at all. In fact, you compare a foreskin to a birth defect right up there ^

You are viewing it as simply a piece of skin. What it is, is a direct analogy to the clitoral hood and inner labia. Now, if you believe that you wouldn't lose any sexual feeling from the loss of those parts of your anatomy, go on ahead and argue genital mutilation is 'benign for the most part'. I'll continue to disagree, but at least I'll know you're being honest.

the problem is, I think you're FAR more likely to argue with me, to say the comparison is somehow invalid, all the while ignoring the biological fact that each of these parts could have become the other had the sex determination gone the other way.

Circumcision removes nearly all of the fine touch nerve endings in a penis. And if that doesn't get you, maybe the fact that mutilation often results in tight skin on erections, which in turn results in smaller than God intended penises...

So many reasons to not support genital mutilation...

[–]mindaika0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You should really check into FOX news. Your debate style would fit right in there.

Comparing an apple to an orange does not mean I think apples are oranges. Can anti-infection genital restyling (see how attempting to change accepted language sounds?) have negative consequences? Sure. The HPV vaccine has killed at least 31 people. Might circumcision cause a loss of sexual feeling? It's possible, although circumcision does not "remove nearly all the fine touch nerve endings in the penis," nor does it "often" result in right skin on erections.

Lastly, I don't believe that I was magicked into existence by a children's tale, but that does explain where you are coming from, so now I understand.

So many reasons to support anti-infection genital restyling.

Also, for the record: I'm neither for or against circumcision. I'm circumcised, and I'm glad I am. I've read about 15 papers on the effects (both pro- and con-) of the procedure, and had I not had it done already, I would have had it done as an adult.

Yes, there are demonstrated negative outcomes. There are also demonstrated positive outcomes. However, I don't feel that the negative outcomes are significant enough to outweigh a families right to practice their religion or their traditions.

[–][deleted]0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Might circumcision cause a loss of sexual feeling? It's possible, although circumcision does not "remove nearly all the fine touch nerve endings in the penis," nor does it "often" result in right skin on erections.

Approximately 25,000 fine touch nerve receptors are completely removed in male genital mutilation. Which is nearly the sum total of said nerve endings.

A 2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." They concluded, "intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised

-wiki

Also, for the record: I'm neither for or against circumcision. I'm circumcised, and I'm glad I am. I've read about 15 papers on the effects (both pro- and con-) of the procedure, and had I not had it done already, I would have had it done as an adult.

Yes, there are demonstrated negative outcomes. There are also demonstrated positive outcomes. However, I don't feel that the negative outcomes are significant enough to outweigh a families right to practice their religion or their traditions.

So, at least you admit you're pro-mutilation, so there's that much. I'm just waiting for you to propose allowing FGM too, since that's a 'religious custom' too.

Somehow, I doubt you will though.

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

I don't think it's outrageous demand if you want to give patients the right to give or withhold their consent to a purely cosmetic procedure

Not purely cosmetic, medical benefits abound, ect. (this argument has been had in every thread about this every time it comes up, it's done to death).
Isn't that true of every cosmetic surgery? My parents can have my vestigial tail removed, they can have the plastic surgeon repair my cleft pallet, they can have my tonsils and wisdom teeth removed. Unless it's actually (and incontrovertibly) abusive of them, parents do enjoy the right to give or withhold their consent for purely cosmetic procedures. The only distinction you can draw is that the removal of a vestigial tail is "good", and circumcision is "bad", which is simply a normative and subjective judgment.

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

The existence of medical benefits is not scientifically proven as of now, this point has also been made to death. The risks are proven, the health benefits are at best benign and no justification for the procedure on their own.
Yes, but removing the foreskin is a highly unusual cosmetic surgery - people who do get to make the choice overwhelmingly decide against having it. Therefore it can actually be argued that having your child circumsized can be abusive, because it's an irreversible act of cosmetic surgery that the person who it was performed on most likely would not have given consent to if presented with the choice as an adult - this is fundamentally different from removing a cleft pallet.

The tonsils and wisdom teeth regularly are the cause of very real health problems, so their removal can hardly be seen as a cosmetic procedure. It's still inadvisable to remove them before any symptoms occur.

And my argument hasn't been that circumcision is "bad", it has been that it's a procedure that requires the patient's consent and that this consent can not simply be assumed, because the overwhelming majority of patients decide against it for themselves.

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

The risks are proven, the health benefits are at best benign and no justification for the procedure on their own.

The risks or the harm? If you mean the risks of complications are proved, I'll agree. If you mean the 'risk' of a loss of sexual pleasure/satisfaction, that's highly debated in the literature.

Also, you're simply incorrect. The medical benefits (at best) are far more significant and positive than merely being "benign".

And my argument hasn't been that circumcision is "bad", it has been that it's a procedure that requires the patient's consent and that this consent can not simply be assumed, because the overwhelming majority of patients decide against it for themselves.

The consent issue (which would require giving a child veto-powers over his parents decisions) requires that you be saying that this is an exception to the general rule that parents get to decide what is in the best interest of their child (even if the child doesn't want it). Besides which, I'd wager most guys wouldn't want a circumcision in adulthood because of the pain of recovery (less as a baby, when there is less chance of ripping the stitches due to an erection), and temporary loss of sexual function while he heals (not a problem for a baby).

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

The risks of complications are proven, the risk of loss of sexual pleasure is no more contended than the alleged health benefits are.

The benefit of having the patient's consent outweighs the potential discomfort an adult might feel if he has a circumcision. It can not be important enough to do it regardless of what the boys wishes might be, and then not be important enough to convince an adult of going through a few weeks of discomfort at the same time.

I wager most people decide against circumcision in their adulthood because they value still having the most sensitive part of their penis - the desire to get cut is simply non-existent for almost all men and the arguments for it are simply not convincing enough. I severely doubt that there are millions of men out there who wish they had been circumsized as a child, but are too scared of the discomfort to have it done now.

[–]hmasing 12 points13 points14 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]MDKAOD -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

The purported medical benefits are miniscule.

Gotta love that the focus when most folks talk about this here had gone from "there are no benefits whatsoever" to "because the individual HIV studies done in Africa aren't necessarily valid, there are no benefits". Here (though you didn't ask nicely):

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/19 "These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potential resulting complications are associated with penile cancer."

http://www.jfponline.com/ccp_article.asp?a=1&ref=5401JFP_ClinicalInquiries6 "Evidence suggests that neonatal circumcision decreases the incidence of childhood urinary tract infections, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis and other genital dermatoses, invasive penile cancer, and the sexually transmitted diseases human papilloma virus (HPV)"

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention "Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of becoming and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners"

Those studies were performed mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and with very questionable standards as well.

Three famous studies were performed in Africa about HIV. The HPV, penile/cervical cancer, and even a bunch of HIV studies were done in the good ol' U.S of A, and with good scientific method.

Plenty of info here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Yes, there is. Go down to "satisfaction", and look at the contradictory findings.

Hardly the stuff to prove conclusively that there's adverse sexual effects.

I like what an above poster said: circumcised guys are generally happy being circumcised, uncircumcised guys are generally happy being uncircumcised. We don't need all the drama.

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

"These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potential resulting complications are associated with penile cancer."

Letter from the American Cancer Society.

"Evidence suggests that neonatal circumcision decreases the incidence of childhood urinary tract infections, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis and other genital dermatoses, invasive penile cancer, and the sexually transmitted diseases human papilloma virus (HPV)"

Yes, circumcision status is associated with a significantly decreased risk of UTIs. However, only 1% of boys with normal urinary tract function contract a UTI, and the number of circumcisions necessary to prevent a single UTI has been calculated to be 111. Considering that hemorrhage and infection are the most common immediate complications of circumcision (occurring at a rate of about 2%) and ignoring all delayed complications of circumcision, a net clinical benefit of circumcision with respect to UTIs is only likely in boys at high risk, such as those with high grade vesicoureteral reflux or a history of recurrent UTIs, where the number needed to treat declined to 11 and 4, respectively. It is medically unnecessary to use routine infant circumcision to prevent the rare UTI or balanitis.

There are non-surgical treatments for phimosis and paraphimosis that must be explored before drastic surgery such as amputation, let alone the fact that phimosis and paraphimosis are by no means common, and should therefore not be "treated" by circumcision before even being diagnosed.

"Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of becoming and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners"

Long before baby boys become sexually active, they grow into men who are capable of weighing the pros that you outline with the cons. The parents do not need to make this decision for the future man while he is an infant.

Also, what does that statistic look like for men who practice safe sex?

And exactly how much more likely?

And why do circumcisionists insist on the euphemism "removed" instead of the more accurate "amputated"? The foreskin isn't like a book that can be "removed" from its shelf, or a foot that can be "removed" from its shoe. It's attached and vascularized, just as much a part of the penis as the penis is a part of the body.

Hardly the stuff to prove conclusively that there's adverse sexual effects.

We don't need to prove to you that circumcision reduces sexual satisfaction in order to show that it violates the child's human rights, but while we're on the topic...

The express purpose of circumcision has always been to reduce sexual pleasure according to rabbi Moses Maimonides. (Love that name.) It's even on wikipedia.

A long list of what is lost, including but not limited to the frenulum, Meissner's corpuscles, Taylor's ridged band, about 20,000 nerve endings (comparable to the palm of your hand), and, of course, the skin that would have prevented the glans from drying out and keratinizing (callusing) and desensitizing by rubbing on underwear.

I haven't verified them myself, but there are rumors that Jake Waskett censors anti-circumcision information on wikipedia. Feel free to disprove this rumor to me, but I find it suspicious that our entire ethical arguments are given only a sentence or two on only some of the circumcision articles.

I like what an above poster said: circumcised guys are generally happy being circumcised, uncircumcised guys are generally happy being uncircumcised. We don't need all the drama.

The few uncircumcised guys who are unhappy with being intact are able and allowed to undergo circumcision. The few (hundreds of thousands) of circumcised men who are unhappy with being cut are physically unable to become intact, not to mention being berated and ridiculed for wishing that they could. Their fundamental human right to determine the form and function of their own body was taken away from them. Just because you don't miss that freedom doesn't mean that we don't have a right to it.

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

Letter from the American Cancer Society.

I've been trying (in vain) to find a primary source for this (since, of course, the first guy seems to have no official ties to the American Cancer Society), but everything I've found is a report of the letter. If you have anything which is officially from the ACS, I'd be eager to see it.

There are non-surgical treatments for phimosis and paraphimosis that must be explored before drastic surgery such as amputation, let alone the fact that phimosis and paraphimosis are by no means common, and should therefore not be "treated" by circumcision before even being diagnosed.

My point was about the cancer. Please don't derail the conversation.

Long before baby boys become sexually active, they grow into men who are capable of weighing the pros that you outline with the cons. The parents do not need to make this decision for the future man while he is an infant.

I'm really curious about this statement. At fifteen, a boy is not yet a "man", but certainly can be sexually active. Would you say that at fifteen, a boy in capable of dissecting the pros and cons of this procedure, or that he will have an emotional reaction to the idea, rather than a rational one. At fifteen, would you really have pored over the medical data and come to a reasonable conclusion? I can't promise I would have.

Personally, if it is better (and, bear in mind that both the benefits and harm are hotly debated), I'd rather have it done before I form memories or want to have sex, than wait until I'm hormonal and stupid.

And why do circumcisionists insist on the euphemism "removed" instead of the more accurate "amputated"? The foreskin isn't like a book that can be "removed" from its shelf, or a foot that can be "removed" from its shoe. It's attached and vascularized, just as much a part of the penis as the penis is a part of the body.

"more accurate" is a subjective assessment here. If I had my appendix surgically taken from my body, would that be a "removal" or an "amputation". The former conjures images of a reasonable and common-place action, the latter conjured images of extreme measures. Neither is "more accurate", they simply conjure different ideas when read.

The express purpose of circumcision has always been to reduce sexual pleasure according to rabbi Moses Maimonides. (Love that name.) It's even on wikipedia.

Always the best source available, but largely irrelevant. The fact that the purpose for the procedure in Judaism may have been to restrict pleasure (I'd wager there are plenty of Rabbis of a different opinion on the purpose) doesn't prove it does.

A long list of what is lost, including but not limited to the frenulum, Meissner's corpuscles, Taylor's ridged band, about 20,000 nerve endings (comparable to the palm of your hand), and, of course, the skin that would have prevented the glans from drying out and keratinizing (callusing) and desensitizing by rubbing on underwear.

None of which creates anything more than mere speculation for a loss of sexual pleasure or satisfaction, and the callousing of the glans is simply without basis in any medical literature I've seen (and I've had this discussion a goodly number of times here).

I haven't verified them myself, but there are rumors that Jake Waskett censors anti-circumcision information on wikipedia. Feel free to disprove this rumor to me, but I find it suspicious that our entire ethical arguments are given only a sentence or two on only some of the circumcision articles.

It is not up to the negative to disprove a rumor, you must substantiate it. But, even if there is censorship on wikipedia, there are entire volumes of research out there (many of which I've quoted in this very thread).

Their fundamental human right to determine the form and function of their own body was taken away from them. Just because you don't miss that freedom doesn't mean that we don't have a right to it.

If you'd been born with a vestigial tail, would you gainsay your parents from having it removed? Do you feel your parents were evil for putting you in braces? Hell, was it wrong of them to get your hair cut while you cried in the little baby seat at the barber's?

Or do we generally accept that parents make the best decisions they can for their children, and trust them to do what is right (excluding legitimate abuse), even when it fundamentally alters the child's body?

If you don't want to get your kid circumcised, I don't dispute your right (nor your reasonability) to do that. But, give the same respect to the parents who have looked at the data, and decided that it is (in total) beneficial, and would prefer their child have it done before he will have memories or want use of his penis for sex, rather than leave it until he's a teen when either they force it upon him while he's conscious, or they allow him the choice (which he will make without the benefit of objective, outside, reasoning).

[–]wholemansoon1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've been trying (in vain) to find a primary source for this (since, of course, the first guy seems to have no official ties to the American Cancer Society), but everything I've found is a report of the letter. If you have anything which is officially from the ACS, I'd be eager to see it.

cancer.org

Search for circumcision

First hit: "But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account." "Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer." "Still, circumcision does not completely protect against HPV infection - men who are circumcised can still get HPV and pass it on to their partners. The risk of being infected with HPV is also strongly linked to having many sexual partners (over a man's lifetime)." "Last Medical Review: 12/16/2010 Last Revised: 12/16/2010"

My point was about the cancer. Please don't derail the conversation.

I was responding to the quote that you gave. Please don't accuse me of derailing the conversation for responding to your quotations.

If you'd been born with a vestigial tail, would you gainsay your parents from having it removed?

The foreskin is not an abnormal deformity. The foreskin is natural, normal, functional tissue, whereas a vestigial tail is abnormal and non-functional.

Do you feel your parents were evil for putting you in braces?

They never put me in braces. If they had, then I would have been of the age of assent. If I had been prescribed braces without medical necessity, not assented, and was forced into them anyway, then, yes, they would have been acting unethically.

Hell, was it wrong of them to get your hair cut while you cried in the little baby seat at the barber's?

Hair is non-functional and grows back. Foreskin is functional and can never be regained. Also, hair cuts are not at all physically painful. If a child cries during a hair cut, then it's because they are distressed by a strange new experience. A parent would be wrong to refuse to try to comfort such a child. However, amputation without anesthesia is physical pain that frequently sends the victim into shock. Doctors advise parents not to be present for their child's circumcision because it is so very painful and traumatic.

I'm trying very hard to maintain decorum and hold a civil conversation because I am interested to see whether you can refute my central argument: that children have a right to the freedom to determine the form and function of their own body, and that this right outweighs the acknowledged rights of the parents to do as they see fit, excepting medical necessity. I will thank you for not hurling personal attacks.

None of which creates anything more than mere speculation for a loss of sexual pleasure or satisfaction, and the callousing of the glans is simply without basis in any medical literature I've seen (and I've had this discussion a goodly number of times here).

The callusing of the glans is readily apparent in side-by-side visual comparison., and the mechanism of callusing is well-understood. The glans of the intact man is naturally a mucous membrane that produces its own moisture and remains bright pink. The glans of the cut man dries out in the air, cracking like chapped lips, and turns brownish.

I've also had this discussion several times.

It is not up to the negative to disprove a rumor, you must substantiate it.

Fair enough. My point was only that wikipedia should not be used as an unbiased and complete reference.

But, even if there is censorship on wikipedia, there are entire volumes of research out there (many of which I've quoted in this very thread).

I am not trying to refute the claim that circumcision has medical benefits. I acknowledge this. However, the medical benefits do not outweigh the risks so much that parents may disregard the child's right to the freedom to choose the form and function of his own body. This is my thesis. Please respond directly to it, and not to the side questions of whether it might cause any harm.

But, give the same respect to the parents who have looked at the data, and decided that it is (in total) beneficial, and would prefer their child have it done before he will have memories or want use of his penis for sex, rather than leave it until he's a teen when either they force it upon him while he's conscious, or they allow him the choice (which he will make without the benefit of objective, outside, reasoning).

I respect the rights of parents to do as they think necessary for their child in general, but there are natural boundaries to this right. To cite one extreme example, courts across the country consistently find that parents do not have the right to deny life-saving medical care to their children. More directly, parents must not deny their children the freedom to choose the form and function of their own body, excepting medical necessity.

I respect the desire of parents to try to save their child from pain, but they could save the child from pain more completely if he is never circumcised at all. Even though the pain of circumcision isn't consciously remembered, it was still needlessly suffered.

Please respond to my claim that children have a right to the freedom to choose the form and function of their own body, and that this right outweighs the parents' acknowledged right to do whatever they want, excepting medical necessity. The question of whether circumcision is net beneficial or harmful is secondary.

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

"But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account." "Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer." "Still, circumcision does not completely protect against HPV infection - men who are circumcised can still get HPV and pass it on to their partners. The risk of being infected with HPV is also strongly linked to having many sexual partners (over a man's lifetime)." "Last Medical Review: 12/16/2010 Last Revised: 12/16/2010"

Same letter: "The 2 main factors influencing the risk of genital HPV infection in men are circumcision and the number of sexual partners. Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of becoming and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners" (and, of course, HPV is highly correlated with genitoanal cancers)

The foreskin is not an abnormal deformity. The foreskin is natural, normal, functional tissue, whereas a vestigial tail is abnormal and non-functional.

Normal and "deformity" are somewhat subjective measures. A vestigial tail is only "abnormal" because we define it as such. I'll grant you function, but that's largely irrelevant. The question is not "functioning" versus "non-functioning", but rather "beneficial" versus "harmful" (harm being defined both in terms of actual harm and in the risk of being considered weird (as with a vestigial tail, which does no "harm" to the body except that it's weird).

They never put me in braces. If they had, then I would have been of the age of assent. If I had been prescribed braces without medical necessity, not assented, and was forced into them anyway, then, yes, they would have been acting unethically.

The question of medical necessity is central here, so it might be best not to beg the question. Bearing in mind that "medical necessity" is a hard burden to meet (assuming you mean it as "necessary to avoid death), most things done to children medically are not "necessary". While it's best to have children agree that it's the best course, do you not think that a parent is in a better position to gauge whether braces are in the best interest of the child than the child himself? If you're really saying that children should have veto power over their parents except when the child is dying, we have a very different conception of (a) what powers parents should have and (b) how capable children are of rational thinking.

The glans of the intact man is naturally a mucous membrane that produces its own moisture and remains bright pink. The glans of the cut man dries out in the air, cracking like chapped lips, and turns brownish.

Do you have a citation for that? Yes, I've seen the same anti-circumcision "it must cause harm, we know it callouses, I mean, come on" kind of links, but the best you can do is to say "I know it callouses because..." rather than provide any sort of study which confirms that it does callous. That's my point. I understand the logic, but even if we accept that it callouses, how is that proof of loss of sensation or sexual pleasure? The studies I've seen (while rife with selection and self-reporting biases) have been on both sides of that issue, it's hotly debated.

However, the medical benefits do not outweigh the risks so much that parents may disregard the child's right to the freedom to choose the form and function of his own body. This is my thesis. Please respond directly to it, and not to the side questions of whether it might cause any harm.

That's the thing. The question of actual benefit versus actual harm largely informs the debate on the question of the parents' interests versus the child's. If the risks/harms are great, and the benefit minimal, it's difficult to defend the decision to not allow the child to decide. If the risks/harms are minimal, and the benefits great, it's difficult to justify leaving it up to an idiot teenager.

More directly, parents must not deny their children the freedom to choose the form and function of their own body, excepting medical necessity.

It's a problem of defining medical necessity, generally. Would you call vaccinations a medical "necessity"? A child will not necessarily die without it, and we know that parents can deny their children the benefits of vaccinations. Should, then, it be up to the children to decide to be vaccinated? Can a child really assess the risks and benefits of that?

Wisdom teeth? Braces (where the braces have a purpose, but are not "necessary" to prevent death)? Should all of those decisions be deferred until the child turns 18?

Even though the pain of circumcision isn't consciously remembered, it was still needlessly suffered.

Define "needlessly". If circumcision is a net benefit, the suffering (as with any surgery) was needed, not needless.

children have a right to the freedom to choose the form and function of their own body, and that this right outweighs the parents' acknowledged right to do whatever they want, excepting medical necessity

It's a fundamental disagreement. I believe parents' rights to do what is best for their children supersedes the child's right to self-determination except if the parents are doing substantial and unjustifiable harm to the child.

It's a philosophical difference, but I trust parents more than I trust children when it comes to making important decisions.

[–]wholemansoon1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Normal and "deformity" are somewhat subjective measures. A vestigial tail is only "abnormal" because we define it as such.

Yes, we define abnormal to be statistically infrequent, which is commonly taken to be p<=0.2, 0.1, 0.05, or 0.01, meaning that normal is statistically defined to be p>= 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, or 0.01. Would you say that a vestigial tail occurs in about 1 out of 1,000,000 humans? Would you say that p=1e-6 is statistically infrequent, or, in other words, abnormal?

Now let's compare our statistical definition of abnormal to the human foreskin. In countries where boys are allowed to be intact, about 99% of them keep their foreskin for the entirety of their lives. So, that tissue is born to almost 100% of human males, and in 99% of cases is harmless enough that it never needs to be amputated. Would you say that p=0.99 is statistically frequent, or, in other words, normal?

I'll grant you function, but that's largely irrelevant. The question is not "functioning" versus "non-functioning", but rather "beneficial" versus "harmful" (harm being defined both in terms of actual harm and in the risk of being considered weird (as with a vestigial tail, which does no "harm" to the body except that it's weird).

If "weird" is "harmful", then why can't "functional" be "beneficial"? Isn't the function of your eyes, your mouth, your hands, etc. beneficial?

The question of medical necessity is central here, so it might be best not to beg the question. Bearing in mind that "medical necessity" is a hard burden to meet (assuming you mean it as "necessary to avoid death), most things done to children medically are not "necessary". While it's best to have children agree that it's the best course, do you not think that a parent is in a better position to gauge whether braces are in the best interest of the child than the child himself? If you're really saying that children should have veto power over their parents except when the child is dying, we have a very different conception of (a) what powers parents should have and (b) how capable children are of rational thinking.

I don't mean just "necessary to avoid death". US Medicare defines "medical necessity" as "reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member". More on medical necessity later. Yes, even if their powers of logic are not yet complete, children who have reached an age where they can reason about plants needing sunlight or pets needing food or breaking bones being painful or burning their hand being painful should have some say in what happens to their bodies when it isn't medically necessary. I'm not suggesting letting infants decide whether to be circumcised. The child will grow up into an adult, and adults have the freedom to choose the form and function of their own body. When you amputate part of the child that isn't harming them, then you unnecessarily take away that adult's freedom. In the words of the famous Doc Brown, you have to think fourth-dimensionally.

Do you have a citation for that? Yes, I've seen the same anti-circumcision "it must cause harm, we know it callouses, I mean, come on" kind of links, but the best you can do is to say "I know it callouses because..." rather than provide any sort of study which confirms that it does callous. That's my point. I understand the logic, but even if we accept that it callouses, how is that proof of loss of sensation or sexual pleasure? The studies I've seen (while rife with selection and self-reporting biases) have been on both sides of that issue, it's hotly debated.

See for yourself. Intentionally develop a callus on any part of your body. For best results, choose a part of the body with a very high nerve ending density, like the fingers and palms. Experiment with how much sensation you can feel through the layers of keratin, with different kinds of stimulation: wet and dry, vibrations, rubbing, and pressure, etc. Then exfoliate, as gradually or rapidly as you want, and take comparison readings. It doesn't need to be done in a lab by post-docs with white coats in order to be science.

I also did not believe that I would experience increased sensation when I exfoliated my glans. The difference in sensation when I exfoliated my glans was completely unexpected and shocking. And restoration of sensation isn't even my primary reason for restoring my foreskin, nor the primary form of damage inflicted by circumcision.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this case, it could just mean that there aren't any grants available for investigating exactly how damaging a cultural habit is.

That's the thing. The question of actual benefit versus actual harm largely informs the debate on the question of the parents' interests versus the child's. If the risks/harms are great, and the benefit minimal, it's difficult to defend the decision to not allow the child to decide. If the risks/harms are minimal, and the benefits great, it's difficult to justify leaving it up to an idiot teenager.

I'm well aware of how to balance, you don't need to be condescending. I'm saying that, regardless of which side of "net benefit" circumcision falls, the risks do not clearly and undeniably outweigh the benefits so much that routine infant circumcision is medically necessary, which is a higher bar than "net benefit", and the child will live with the results of the operation more directly and much longer than the parents, and there is no medical time-pressure to circumcise him before he can even assent, so the child's right to decide the form and function of his own body trumps his parents' right to do whatever they want.

There isn't even medical time-pressure to undergo the surgery before the first sexual encounter. He ought to be having only protected sex anyway, and before having unprotected sex or "fuid bonding", he and his partner ought to be tested for STDs. Even after starting to have both protected and unprotected sex, circumcision is unnecessary.

It's a problem of defining medical necessity, generally. Would you call vaccinations a medical "necessity"? A child will not necessarily die without it, and we know that parents can deny their children the benefits of vaccinations. Should, then, it be up to the children to decide to be vaccinated? Can a child really assess the risks and benefits of that?

Vaccines do not remove functionality, whereas circumcision does. Nobody is pointing to their near-perfect immunity from polio, saying that it was unethical to give them that immunity, but hundreds of thousands of men and women are pointing to their circumcision, saying that it's unnecessary and damaging. Circumcision does confer a protective effect, but it is nowhere near as good at preventing any disease as vaccines or condoms, and its risks are far greater than those associated with vaccines. Not being vaccinated is dangerous to children directly, but an intact normal penis is no danger at all to the child as he grows into an adult who is capable of giving informed consent. There is a medical time-pressure to vaccinate children, but there is no medical time-pressure to circumcise children.

Wisdom teeth? Braces (where the braces have a purpose, but are not "necessary" to prevent death)? Should all of those decisions be deferred until the child turns 18?

Wisdom teeth don't usually come in until adulthood anyway. And braces don't remove functionality, and aren't administered until the age of assent. Routine infant circumcision permanently removes functionality without medical necessity or even medical time-pressure.

Define "needlessly". If circumcision is a net benefit, the suffering (as with any surgery) was needed, not needless.

There is a gap between "beneficial" and "necessary", similar to the gap between "permissible" and "obligated". Necessity is a higher bar than beneficence. Donating to some charities can be net beneficial, but not necessarily necessary. Reading instead of watching tv is beneficial, but not necessary. Immunizing against diseases found only in other countries might be net beneficial, but not necessary. Keeping a pet can be net beneficial, but not necessary.

US Medicare defines "medical necessity" as "reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member". The normal foreskin is, by the definition of normal, neither malformed nor ill nor injured. Medical necessity does not cover "improving" the function of a normal body member, even if the cut penis were an objective improvement over the intact penis.

It's a fundamental disagreement. I believe parents' rights to do what is best for their children supersedes the child's right to self-determination except if the parents are doing substantial and unjustifiable harm to the child.

Is female circumcision ethical? Cutting off a tiny part of a girl doesn't seem very "substantial". Is breast ironing ethical? Protecting the girl from sexual attention looks like a justification.

Parents are imperfect, so their powers ought to be limited. If somebody had perfect and total knowledge and understanding as well as the best of intentions, then perhaps they would deserve unlimited power.

It's a philosophical difference, but I trust parents more than I trust children when it comes to making important decisions.

I'm not suggesting letting a child make any decisions. The child will grow up into an adult, and adults have the freedom to choose the form and function of their own body. When you amputate part of the child that isn't harming them, then you unnecessarily take away that adult's freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very much for real. I had a circumcision done at a ripe age of 24. I did it for purely personal reasons (as in - it wasn't medically necessary for any reason). Forgetting the 6 months of pure hell after the surgery until the stitches dissolved and everything healed, it's been a great experience. It feels a whole lot cleaner, I enjoy sex a lot more (foreskin and rubbers just didn't really worked well in my case). I mean - that's all there is to it - everything else is just as before, but the hygiene and sexual benefits made a huge difference to me. All this is just my personal experience. Your mileage may vary and maybe some in my position would highly regret this decision. I have not once regretted it, and if anything wished I either done it sooner or just got snipped when I was born.

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

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

Just don't miss the fact that he said this:

(foreskin and rubbers just didn't really worked well in my case)

This might suggest that the majority of (if not all of) the sex he had involved the use of condoms. "Attempted to use condoms but gave up and depended on the pill" is a possible interpretation, true, but either way it points out a potentially crucial fact missing from his anecdote, namely whether or not he was actually having sex in a way that might reap the purported benefits of having a foreskin.

I mean, it doesn't seem entirely outside the realm of possibility that a condom could diminish or negate the two most common foreskin sexual benefits espoused here at /r/MR. If the condom is supposed to remain on the penis, thrusting would become lubrication-dependent instead of benefiting from the gliding mechanism. Likewise, the extra nerves in the foreskin probably wouldn't mean much behind that rubber.

[+]Sarstan 15 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

The same question can be asked of you. I also had to gag at seeing the article mention "diminished sexual function" after it's pretty clear the debate about it is far from over. The link also mentions that in some cases men do better sexually after circumcision and that women prefer looking at a cut penis.

Being cut, I can tell you I have no problem reaching orgasm, nor has my wife complained about sex, almost always reaching her own orgasm (and no, it's not faked, so let's not play that card). The perk of my situation is that I do not have to give extra attention to cleaning beneath the foreskin every shower and I have slight reduction in chance of STDs and other infections.

From being outside looking in, it seems there's hardly any fair debate about this topic. Considering we begin with hearing that it's "male mutilation", I end up seeing this topic like I'd look at anti-abortionists talking about killing babies when we all know it's not that simple.

And for wanting to discuss this all, I look forward to the downvotes.

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

[–]argv_minus_one 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]crocodile7 -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]selfsufficientnigga1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Equa1 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Brotaufstrich 15 years ago [recovered] (40 children) | Copy Link

If it's so beneficial, why not let people choose whether they want to do it or not? If a consenting adult wants someone to cut off their foreskin, it should be their choice and nobody else's.

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

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brotaufstrich 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]mindaika -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Numerous, numerous studies have shown it is NOT purely cosmetic. Do I need to look them all up for you again?

Says the UN, the WHO, and the CDC: " ...evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex."

Says the Bosch Institute: "The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal."

Says Hawassa University: "The study concluded that male circumcision can be considered as a way of reducing the spread of HIV infection." Says Johns Hopkins University: "Our findings indicate that male circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing the prevalence and incidence of HPV infections in female partners."

Says the Karolinska Institute: "Male circumcision reduces HIV transmission. The risk of transmission from woman to man is halved." If I hadn't already been circumcised, I would be now.

[–]Brotaufstrich 12 points13 points14 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

All of these studies are heavily contested. On first glance I can already see one claim your sources make that is obvious BS - "Male circumcision reduces HIV transmission. The risk of transmission from woman to man is halved." If this is the case, why is the infection rate in countries where circumcision is the norm not lower than in countries where it isn't the norm? Clearly the infection rate in the US should be considerably lower than in any western european country where circumcision is very unusual - the opposite is the case, the US infection rate is even higher than in Europe. This clearly indicates that the effect circumcision has on HIV-transmission is benign at best.

The British Medical Association's position on circumcision is still this:

There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research. Doctors performing circumcisions must ensure that those giving consent are aware of the issues, including the risks associated with any surgical procedure: pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. All appropriate steps must be taken to minimise these risks. It may be appropriate to screen patients for conditions that would substantially increase the risks of circumcision, for example haemophilia. Doctors should ensure that any parents seeking circumcision for their son in the belief that it confers health benefits are fully informed of the lack of consensus amongst the profession over such benefits, and how great any potential benefits and harms are. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.

It is a purely cosmetic procedure. Everybody who wants to have it for themselves should have it, if you want to have it for your children, wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves.

[–]mindaika -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superaverageman 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review Annals of Family Medicine:

"Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men. These findings remain uncertain in men residing in other countries. The role of adult nontherapeutic male circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, and penile cancer remains unclear. Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for these purposes."

Royal Dutch Medical Association's 2010 Circumcision Policy:

"In recent decades, evidence has been published which apparently shows that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS12, but this evidence is contradicted by other studies.

"Moreover, the studies into HIV prevention were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, where transmission mainly takes place through heterosexual contact. In the western world, HIV transmission is much more frequently the result of homosexual contact and the use of contaminated needles. That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin."

Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention - Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity American Journal of Preventive Medicine:

"Recommending mass circumcision by generalizing from the particular RCCTs to the diverse populations of Africa highlights problems of external validity identifıed in several areas of preventive medicine and public health research. Studies published since the RCCTs show that (1) male circumcision is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence in some sub-Saharan populations; (2) circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of HIV to women; and (3) male circumcision is not a cost-effective strategy. This new evidence warrants caution and further study before recommending circumcision campaigns. In addition, ethical considerations, informed consent issues, and possible increase in unsafe sexual practices from a sense of immunity without condoms must be weighed.

"The global health community understands that the most important modifıable factor in sexually transmissible HIV is human behavior. The policy questions to be considered are not whether a link exists between male circumcision and reduced rates of HIV infection, but, rather, whether mass circumcision is (1) an ethical and safe public health choice, and (2) the most cost-effective use of limited resources."

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

First, thank you for actually using real science to back up a point.

Second, those studies also only address a single hazard: HIV, and fail to address things like UTI's and other STD's. Also, as pointed out in the Dutch policy: There is evidence on both sides.

Additionally, Krieger stated "With regard to reduced sexual pleasure and adverse psychological effects, there is some anecdotal evidence, but this is generally not supported by well-designed prospective studies..."

Anderson found that, "circumcised men have a lower rate of STIs that infect not only the foreskin but also other distal penile sites, especially the urethra."

There is insufficient evidence of adverse effects to justify a legal ban on circumcision, especially when that ban would directly affect religious practices.

Note (from the Perera review): "Adult circumcision may potentially have more associated adverse events than childhood or neonatal circumcision, as adult circumcisions usually require surgical wound suturing"

[–]Brotaufstrich 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

It is not justified to have it done if that's your reason / you should not do it if that is your reason. I don't think I misrepresented the recommendation of the BMA in any way.

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]perrym 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]perrym 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'd say the U.S. having both the highest rate of male genital mutilation in the world, AND among the highest HIV infection rates, speaks pretty poorly of the 'evidence' saying HIV is prevented. Same goes for the other diseases mentioned in the study, by the way.

Nah, it couldn't be the millions they make on selling the foreskins to Big Pharma, could it? Could something as crass as MONEY corrupt those fine doctors? Say it isn't so...

This, of course, doesn't even address the whole "doing it without his consent" thing, which I find odd since bodily integrity and autonomy is so in vogue these days... Could these people arguing for the 'right' to cut their baby's foreskin off because they LIKE the idea of mutilating their boys? Could it be a twisted sort of sexual sadism and misandry mixed?

Hell, we can't even ask that question. It's not allowed.

Pro-circ research is pretty much all highly dubious, and requires an ideological predisposition to discount men and boy's rights, even their basic humanity, to support.

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindaika1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mindaika-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]moltersd1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]johnlow942 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was born in 1970 in Australia. At that time, circumcision was the norm, I apparently was the only infant in the ward not circumcised. The choice of my parents not to circumcise was the same as many parents who do - to look like my father.

Growing up, the foreskin was not too great an issue, I was taught from an early age how to clean myself and practised proper penile hygiene. I was aware that I did not look like most of my class mates, but I must admit it was never too much of an issue. It was not until my teens that I noticed that my penis would develop an 'smell', to put it one way. Despite morning showers, by the afternoon my penis would start to develop a slight odour, not strong, and not noticeable to others, but noticeable to me.

If I missed a shower, say because I was camping, the odour grew stronger, and in cases such as these smegma would start to build up under the foreskin rather quickly. As a result, where possible I would wash twice a day. I noticed while living in Europe (where circumcision is in the minority), that many men would have a strong odour, like the one I was familiar with, in winter. When thinking that in countries such as Italy and regions of France, showers are a once or biweekly affair in winter, I could understand why this odour could become so strong.

As I got older and sexual relations developed, I also noticed the difficulty of using a condom on an uncircumcised penis. To have the condom stay put whilst the foreskin under it moved back and forth was almost impossible, on several occasions it came close to coming off and once actually did. Post sex hygiene I discovered was also a big issue, as ejaculate and fluids would collect under the foreskin, and if left would develop into an unpleasant paste.

At this point I must say that my foreskin could cover the glans (head) of my erect penis. If the skin had been shorter, this might have been less of an issue. From a woman's point of view, no partner ever had anything negative to say about the foreskin (and I have had girlfriends from many parts of the planet). Only once, in a discussion with an American girlfriend when living in the US, did I hear that she thought a circumcised penis looked more aesthetic; that was it though and we had a great sex life. It was not until my present partner, and wife, did I hear a woman say that she did not like the idea of a foreskin.

I began to think about circumcision after an experiment an earlier partner and I tried for fun. During intercourse (without a condom), she held back my foreskin, and the difference to both of us was immediate and amazing. To me it no longer felt as if I were masturbating through a rubber glove, I could actually feel my partner and all her textures. For her, the sealing comment was "oh wow that's good". It got me thinking, and in some ways explained why up until that point I thought intercourse was an overrated activity. This together with the continued hygiene issues made me decide to have a circumcision.

Several years later I finally got around to having it done. I saw a local GP who after questioning me as to why I wanted it done, referred me to a general surgeon. After a simple discussion and examination we set the date for the procedure under general anaesthetic. The procedure lasted an hour and recovery took a week or two. Several 'cosmetic' issues arose from the procedure, but those are outlined below.

That was close to ten years ago now, and since that time I consider it to be the best decision I have made. Hygiene is no longer an issue, the lack of foreskin keeps the penis clean at all times. Nor have I noticed ANY loss of sensation. On the contrary, I find intercourse improved 10 fold since the circumcision. The few microns the skin that the glans may have thickened makes no difference at all to sexual receptiveness and I find it in some ways it is more sensitive.

It annoys me that the anti circumcision lobby creates so many myths and lies about circumcision in order to prove their point. I even read somewhere that one of them thought it was uncomfortable to ride a bike because he was circumcised! Being a serious cyclist, I have never heard such guff! All I can say about these people is this: a man who is circumcised (and has been from birth) that says having a foreskin is better has no grounds for comparison. A woman who champions foreskins can and never will have any idea what it's like to have a foreskin, let alone a penis. And an uncircumcised man who says that having a foreskin is best is in the same boat as the circumcised man, as he has nothing to benchmark against. Men who contribute their life's misgivings, bad sex lives, whatever, on their circumcision do so because it's an easy target. Sex is in the brain, not between one's legs. Just remember that there are tens of millions of very happy circumcised men around the planet enjoying their lives and sex.

From my experiences though I have learnt a few things that are very rarely talked about when discussing circumcision. They are as follows and I feel should apply when talking to a doctor about having a circumcision or having one performed on your son.

Ask the doctor/surgeon about what 'style' of circumcision they perform. I did not know about this, nor was it offered to me by my surgeon, but there are three basic styles of circumcision: low, mid and high. These refer to the point at which the 'suture' line is placed. A low circumcision places the suture line very close to the head of the penis. The net result of this is that most, if not all, the 'inner' sensitive skin is removed. This skin is the hot topic for anti circumcision groups and I would agree that if it is removed there will be a loss of sensitive tissue netting in diminished sexual sensations . I would guess that adult men who have been circumcised and then complain of the loss of sexual sensation must have had a 'low' cut. Mid apparently is the norm for most infants and it removes an equal amount of inner and outer skin. This is what was performed on me, and I have no complaints. On an adult, the suture line is approx about 25mm or 1" from the head of the erect penis. A high circumcision leaves a large amount of the sensitive inner skin but apparently can cause issues if it's too high such as excessive skin stretching. Another name for this is a 'tight' circumcision, because the skin of the shaft is tight when erect and when flaccid there is no loose skin. A mid will have a degree of loose, or wrinkled, skin when flaccid (not enough to cover the head) and though taut when erect, the skin still has some movement.
In the case of an adult circumcision the surgeon should use fine non dissolving sutures. In my case the surgeon used dissolving sutures which prematurely dissolved and caused a reaction in the healing. The net result was that the suture line healed unevenly with small rows of fleshy lumps that formed between the sutures. Though causing no problems they were unsightly, as such I had them removed (which was like having a half circumcision!), a process that involved more sutures!! They have been removed very successfully, leaving no trace. In case you are wondering, the removal of very fine sutures involves no pain.
Ask if the frenulum will be removed. This area is very sensitive. I am lucky in that the surgeon left mine intact. An overly tight frenulum will need to be removed regardless (or will break on its own accord), but if it is normal it should be kept, or at least left to develop at its own accord. In many infant circumcisions, even when the frenulum is left it may not fully develop, and can appear as if it was removed.
Do not be afraid to ask your surgeon any questions about circumcision. Ask what method they use, how many they perform (or how experience they are), what style they usually do etc. etc. They should not have any hesitation in talking to you and in many ways should offer much of this information on their own accord. In my case the surgeon offered nothing and I did not know what I know now; I was not happy with the cosmetic results, leading to further, though minor, procedures to correct his 'tardy' work, though now I am a happy camper!

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

[+]MrJ1NX -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrJ1NX -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[+]Rockytriton -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]MrJ1NX -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	SF may ban infant circumcision
Author	bbeard
Upvotes	207
Comments	504
Date	February 23, 2011 12:13 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fqzn9/sf_may_ban_infant_circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/sf-may-ban-infant-circumcision.1042826 https://theredarchive.com/post/1042826

Comments