Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Researching Circumcision

By razniq in Op-Ed
Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:15:07 AM EST
Tags: Focus On... (all tags)
Focus On...

For most of my life I have never given circumcision a second thought. It was done for health reasons and that's it. As far as I knew every guy was circumcised and an uncircumcised penis was unsanitary. About three years ago I was just walking through my university library when I noticed a book on the floor. It was about circumcision written by a member of a group called Mothers Against Circumcision. Why any mothers or anyone for that matter would be against circumcision was beyond me. I just skimmed through it briefly and dismissed it as absurd and continued on my way. I didn't think about circumcision again until this past October when a friend told me that the vast majority of men even in 'civilized' countries were uncircumcised so I decided to research it for myself.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

Circumcision was originally introduced into the United States in the late 1800's as a panacea for many illnesses including 'masturbation' [1]. By the 1950's non-religious circumcision was common in many English-speaking countries but has since declined dramatically in every country except one. Presently the US is the only nation to routinely circumcise a majority (65.3% in 1999 [2]) of its baby boys for non-religious reasons. There is no medical organization in the world that recommends routine infant male circumcision for medical reasons, yet hygiene and believing circumcision is inevitable later in life are the most oft-cited reasons why parents decide to circumcise [3].

For most American men circumcision was their parent's choice. Unfortunately however most parents were/are not aware that the foreskin is actually not a 'small piece of extra skin'. The foreskin provides almost half of the penile skin, enough to provide partial to full coverage of the glans (head of the penis) when erect [4]. The glans is an internal organ that was never meant to be exposed to the abrasion of clothing and be allowed to dry out. The foreskin protects the glans from desensitization and keeps the glans in a mucosal environment that provides natural lubrication during masturbation and sex so that the use of artificial lubricants is not necessary. If you are circumcised you may have noticed that the skin from your scar to the head of your penis is sexually sensitive; so was your foreskin. The foreskin is the primary erogenous tissue of the penis and necessary for normal sexual function [5]. Without a foreskin the sensitivity of the glans can become dulled which may be the reason why circumcised men are more likely than uncircumcised men to seek out oral and anal sex [6].

Even though female circumcision (as it's called in countries where it's part of the culture) or female genital mutilation (as it's called here) can be significantly more impairing than male circumcision (as it's called here) or male genital mutilation (as it's called by those who know the foreskin is erogenous tissue), both are involuntary surgical alteration of a minor's genitalia for cultural reasons. In the US it is now illegal to surgically alter the genitals of a girl, yet why can't we offer boys the same protection?

In the circumcision debate consider these three things: that it is controversial, irreversible, and there is a sizable number of men who are not happy with the choice that was made for them [7]. Just considering these three things alone is enough to conclude that we should end routine infant male circumcision and instead let circumcision be a choice each individual makes for himself when he reaches an age where he can decide what's best for his body.

References

  1. Wallerstein E. Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urologic Clinics of North America 1985;12(1):123-132.
  2. Trends in circumcisions among newborns, National Center for Health Statistics.
  3. J.D. Tiemstra, Factors affecting the circumcision decision, Journal of the American Board of Family Practitioners 1999; 12(1): 16-20.
  4. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce[foreskin]: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1996;77:291-295.
  5. Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce [foreskin]. British Journal of Urology 1999;83 Suppl. 1:34-44.
  6. Laumann, EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997; 277(13):1052-1057.
  7. T. Hammond, A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood. British Journal of Urology International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you support routine infant male circumcision?
o I'm circumcised, live in the US and YES. 8%
o I'm circumcised, live in the US and NO. 26%
o I'm circumcised, live outside the US and YES. 1%
o I'm circumcised, live outside the US and NO. 6%
o I'm uncircumcised, live in the US and YES. 0%
o I'm uncircumcised, live in the US and NO. 15%
o I'm uncircumcised, live outside the US and YES. 0%
o I'm uncircumcised, live outside the US and NO. 40%

Votes: 560
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Mothers Against Circumcision
o [1]
o [2]
o [3]
o [4]
o [5]
o [6]
o [7]
o Circumcisi on: the uniquely American medical enigma
o Trends in circumcisions among newborns
o Factors affecting the circumcision decision
o The prepuce[foreskin]: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision
o The prepuce [foreskin]
o Circumcisi on in the United States
o A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood
o Also by razniq


Display: Sort:
Researching Circumcision | 463 comments (439 topical, 24 editorial, 2 hidden)
Alternatives to circumcision. (4.87 / 8) (#8)
by lucky 03 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:24:40 PM EST

In case there are any parents reading this and their child's foreskin has not naturally been pulled back over the head of their penis yet.

It is recommended that mothers actually try and loosen (gently pull back) the foreskin over the glans at an early age. My own mother told me later she did not do this, mostly due to fear that it was somehow a vaguely peaodophilic thing to do. I doubt this has any bearing on events though.

This retreat of the foreskin can (as in my case) actually happen quite late if the child has not been encouraged to do this in some way. It get's tight, let me tell you that! But where there's a will there's a wank. Don't assume that children (male and female, especially) are no longer uneducated and ignorant about the workings of their own bodies.

Anyhow, my point.

Doctors can prescribe a steroid cream to aid this movement.

Obviously it's not going to be as easy to do when you're approching pre-teen age due to differences in the elasticity of the skin itself. So, plently of cream = less soreness and chafing.

Please do not take the doctor at their word, if they do not change their opinion, get a second opinion, then, do your own research.


Concerned Parent-Doctor conversation

"But, surely there is some other way, like a partial curcumcision just to start the process?"

"No."

Maybe he was genuinely ignorant, maybe not... but anyway. I might still have one now, and I (occasionally) desire that which I am missing and  will never return.

If you need more evidence. Consider this (remembered) quote from one of the many foreskin-restoration websites. "My wife used to chew on my foreskin. It would drive me wild with pleasure".

I'll never know. :-(
Damn.

Sin hurts God more than it hurts you (2.66 / 3) (#29)
by jabber on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:41:58 PM EST

It's supposed to hurt, the first few score times you masturbate, you sick puppy! Believe me, I know.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Well. I never had any of those (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by lucky 03 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:58:01 PM EST

'Homosexual experiences in childhood '
That I hear everyone allude to, or early straight-sexual come to think of it, so maybe I was unusually uninformed (or just started masterbating v.late).

As far as I could see it wasn't bloody well going to come out & that hole was WAAAAY too small. I forsaw tearing if I carried on. And that was more 'pain' than I could deal with, really.

[ Parent ]

Ahem (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by jabber on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:08:29 PM EST

What you call "homosexual experiences" are actually the serendipitous discovery of male sexuality. At no time did I mention any other person, of either sex, being around, did I?

I swear, some people just lack imagination!

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

aha (4.33 / 3) (#74)
by phuzz on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:33:20 AM EST

Well, I've been thinking about getting the snip (I'm in my early 20's) because sex is just bloody painful for me otherwise, now I know there's an alternative I'm feeling a bit better.  Thanks, you may have just saved my foreskin ;)

[ Parent ]
Stretch it (5.00 / 3) (#143)
by pdrap on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:27:10 PM EST

Lots of men stretch what skin they have to form a new foreskin. If a man can stretch skin that much, then you can certain stretch what you've got a little to give yourself some wiggle room. Definitely you should look at surgery as a last resort.

[ Parent ]
I'm gratfull (4.00 / 2) (#78)
by NoMercy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:58:28 AM EST

That my father virtually insisted I clean every bath time, and try to ensure my foreskin came back properly. It was painful-ish, but sure gave me a head start when puberty hit :)

[ Parent ]
That's also good advice. (3.00 / 1) (#180)
by lucky 03 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:07:15 PM EST

And a way to work around the 'pedo' angle. Obviously it could be seen as dodgy teaching your child to ... well, masturbate, really. I'll remember this should I beget any sprogs of my own.

[ Parent ]
Just let me second that. (3.00 / 1) (#128)
by mindstrm on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:58:56 AM EST

Wow.. the things we talk about on the Internet, eh?

This is good advice.. and damn IMPORTANT advice, actually... deal with this when kids are young... if you don't, it just, well, sucks later.


[ Parent ]

I don't think there's a need to worry, really. (4.50 / 2) (#149)
by PrettyBoyTim on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:34:33 PM EST

It seems best to me to just leave the child to get its foreskin back in its own sweet time. I'd been masturbating for a couple of years before I got my foreskin all the way back, and it was a bit uncomfortable the first few times I had sex - but then - hey! why should it be any different for us guys, eh?

I think one result of a culture in which men are routinely circumcised is that penises are viewed as a lot tougher and less sensitive than they could otherwise be, as if there is something wrong with a penis if it needs to be treated with a little care at times.

[ Parent ]

Now they tell me (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by smallstepforman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:44:58 PM EST

My parents didn't have the foresight to 'teach me' the benefits of moving the skin back at an early age.  As a teen it hurts if you never 'popped' it before.  But not as much as trying to return the skin back to its natural resting position.  Because if you dont, it swells (the skin), and becomes even more difficult to return, requiring a visit to your local medic.  Are a few 'pops', you end up being fine.  Oh well, you live and you learn, I know that my kids wont have to go through that anguish.

[ Parent ]
Watch me beat tiger to the punch: (3.33 / 18) (#15)
by snacky on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:52:21 PM EST

It's a well-known fact that circumcision, like toilet paper, is a result of US imperialism.

Fucking imperialists!

--
I like snacks

Damn, you're good. (2.50 / 2) (#67)
by Demiurge on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:02:29 AM EST



[ Parent ]
An excellent book on this subject... (4.60 / 5) (#17)
by graal on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:30:33 PM EST

...is Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery by David Gollaher. Amazon reports that it's 'out-of-print', but at last check there were used copies available. It's probably in your local library, too.

--
For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
-- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)

Excellent. (3.80 / 5) (#20)
by gr3y on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:18:31 PM EST

Not judgmental, but I did notice you (neatly) sidestepped circumcision as a religious ritual.

I voted +1 FP. I'd be amused if the U.S. outlawed "male genital mutilation", and I'm hoping to see a straight female or gay male post (something like): "Uncircumscribed men make me clammy." That would be interesting.

I am a disruptive technology.

Or the opposite (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by caek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:54:57 PM EST

I'm hoping to see a straight female or gay male post (something like): "Uncircumscribed men make me clammy." That would be interesting.

We could quite equally someone say the opposite, although given the US-dominated demographic of this site I suspect we aren't likely to.

[ Parent ]

2 cents. (4.50 / 2) (#28)
by lucky 03 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:37:58 PM EST

I have had straight female friends express a dislike for the appearance of a circimcised penis.

I've never heard anyone who doesn't support circumcision say they think it looks good.

[ Parent ]

Are you American? (4.00 / 1) (#34)
by brunes69 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:25:39 PM EST

If so, then your results are somewhat biased, as circumcision is nowhere near as prevalant in other first world countries as it is in the US. If every guy a woman ever saw was circumcised, of course it will seem unusual to them.

---There is no Spoon---
[ Parent ]
UK-ian. and I'm not sure I came across clearly. (4.50 / 2) (#36)
by lucky 03 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:38:04 PM EST

American Woman (I imagine) must find circumcised penii fine if it's the norm there.

It's not so common here & so there is a chance women will encounter one by surprise whether in real life or a picture and go 'ewwww, that's not nice' often.

[ Parent ]

Uncircumscribed men make me clammy (5.00 / 7) (#46)
by pathetic on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:59:09 AM EST

Something about having a line drawn around them...

[ Parent ]
bwahah! (none / 0) (#256)
by gr3y on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:48:30 PM EST

I just noticed. Oops.

Of course, I was referring to "uncircumcised" men, not "uncircumscribed" ones. I wish I had said that, but this was funnier, so I don't regret it.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

Uncircumvented issues make you clammy (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by tebrow on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:22:30 PM EST

I think that is a good synopsis of your post.

[ Parent ]
Heh (5.00 / 2) (#220)
by awgsilyari on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:05:13 PM EST

Not judgmental, but I did notice you (neatly) sidestepped circumcision as a religious ritual.

One could say that he circumlocuted the issue. :-)

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]

heh. (none / 0) (#258)
by gr3y on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:50:42 PM EST

Everyone's a comedian... ;)

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

Some thoughts (3.60 / 10) (#25)
by jabber on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:18:42 PM EST

First of all, I voted -1, because I think the topic has been beaten into a bloody stump at this point.

Second, I'm uncircumcised, do not support the practice, live in the US, but was born in Europe. You neglect the potentially significant immigrant (and expatriate) minorities by not accommodating them in the poll.

Third, American culture is very uptight about children and sex being in the same context. The pathetic state of sex education, and the constant arguments about it, are a sign of this. Can you imagine the fuss that would surround teaching proper hygiene of the uncircumcised penis? How about a parent who would pull back their 5 year old son's foreskin in the tub? This is an age where perfectly innocent pictures of naked children, taken by their own parents, draw the ire of the police, and potentially ruin the lives, careers and reputations of perfectly healthy families. Circumcision provides definite convenience and peace of mind advantages in this area.

Fourth, your research does not address the origins of the practice. These are religious, certainly, but as we live in an enlightened age, when God no longer talks to us directly, even this religious basis should be questioned. Why would a relatively small ethnic group take up this practice? In a time of tribal chiefs, warlords and pharaos, male power was very important. Fathers would not willingly do such a thing to their sons for no good reason. So where did it come from? I have a rather incendiary theory, for which I have no substantiation what so ever, but I think it makes sense. Circumcision made it easier for the Jews to identify their own dead on the field of battle.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

May not be so wacky (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by CodeWright on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:52:48 AM EST

When the Egyptians would hold the field after a battle, they would collect penii and bring them back to the Pharaoh for an accurate accounting of enemy battle losses.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#125)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:52:06 AM EST

My GF and I discussed this to a good degree last night, and she had a few additional thoughts.

Circumcision is not something people would do to themselves, or their sons, with little regard. So, it is a significant sign of commitment to the culture which requires it. As such, it truly is a sign of God's covenant with the Jewish people. And once you choose to convert to Judaism, and you give it a wack, there's no going back.

Christianity threatened death if you did not convert and practice the faith, but it didn't mark you as one of it's own. Judaism does, and even if you change your mind about the religion, your penis says otherwise - so you're branded a Jew even if you no longer want to be one.

I suppose a tattoo would have worked, but those are removable, and a scar where the tattoo used to be only raises the question, the possibility. It is not the proof.

Cutting off a body part such as a finger or a toe can happen by accident, but no one ever lost their foreskin with surgical precision, either during the building of a house of pyramid, or in battle.

Another interesting aspect of Judaic faith and culture, as far as I know it (which is not very well, so if anyone better informed can add to the discussion, I'd appreciate it) is that a person is Jewish if their mother was Jewish.

This is related to my thought of circumcision as a branding and warfare-related cultural artifact. Invariably in times of war, even to the present day, the invaders rape the women. When these women give birth, it makes a certain sense to embrace the child into the mother's culture, to replenish the ranks of the people reduced by the invading army - and to brand them as your own with an indelible mark.

Again, I disclaim virtual ignorance of the origins of the practice, and of Jewish cultural history, but this just seems to make a lot of sense in the way of explaining the origins of the practice.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

awfully loose with the generalisations there (4.00 / 4) (#132)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:03:37 PM EST

For instance: "Christianity threatened death if you did not convert and practice the faith." Which Christianity? You might just as well say "Communism killed millions" and expect a pat on the back.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

The Inquisition, perhaps? (n/t) (2.66 / 3) (#150)
by houser2112 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:38:41 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Loose, yes. Untrue, no. (4.00 / 1) (#155)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:39:49 PM EST

The Christianity I'm talking about here is the one that was at the forefront of expansion into pagan territory. Both in Europe and in the Americas, but more so in Europe as it was centuries earlier, Christianity was delivered at the point of the sword.

Since I was talking about religious conversion and increasing the numbers of converts, I thought this meaning would come through in the context. Sorry for the confusion.

And Communism did kill millions. In times of peace, Communism killed millions more than fascism did. That's a very trollish statement, and I am not looking for a discussion on the subject. But in practice, Soviet Communism, especially under Stalin, killed more Russians than Hitler killed Jews. That doesn't say anything about the ideals of either system. It's just the numbers.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

very sloppy thinking (4.33 / 3) (#167)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:43:52 PM EST

The Christianity I'm talking about here is the one that was at the forefront of expansion into pagan territory. Both in Europe and in the Americas, but more so in Europe as it was centuries earlier, Christianity was delivered at the point of the sword.

This is very sloppy thinking. Let's take America first.

The Mexicans and Peruvians were forcibly converted to Christianity as a manifestation of Papal and Spanish imperial policy as much as religious zeal. That forcible conversion was not intrinsic to all forms of Christianity is proven by the casual attitude of the English and French in North America toward conversion. While each of these viewed conversion as desirable, their evangelism took the form of missions rather than of conquest.

The inessentiality of violent conversion to Christianity is further demonstrated by the absence of forcible, mass conversions among ethnic non-Russians in Russia following the Russian expansion into Asia; by their absence in the Balkans and the Ukraine, as the Romanian voivode, the Bulgarian Tsar and St Volodymyr of the Ukraine all accepted Christianity for their people without external threats; and by the non-violent character of virtually all conversions to Christianity today.

Have there been forcible conversions to Christianity? Yes. Are these somehow more intrinsic to Christianity than to any other belief system? No. I really don't see your point.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

So I understand (3.00 / 1) (#178)
by bc on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:03:49 PM EST

That the spread of Christianity in pagan Europe was remarkable peaceful. I know that in the British Isles it involved people like St Patrick, St Columba, and so on. The celtic churches spread very peacefully, how could they otherwise? We are talking about a few missionaries against the combined might of millions of savages, they couldn't feasibly have done it at the point of the sword. And I understand the story in the rest of Europe was pretty similar.

I think the violence in Europe came later, when different interpretations of Christianity were competing. Even then, the Celtic church in Ireland, Scotland, Wales etc came under the aegis of Rome pretty damned peacefully, but I reckon that's because they weren't so much churches of the state, the state was a poorly developed thing, there was no real national identity either.

Maybe the later violence was more due to the increasing entanglement of Christianity with the state and state identity, and the rise of nationalism? All of a sudden your religion isn't just marking your spiritual beliefs and culture, but everything about you. Alternative interpretations of Christianity start undermining power structures and promoting others, and suddenly theres a lot more to be gained and lost by who wins the religious conflicts in any particular country.

When you properly divorce religion from power - from the state - then it seems to me that this violence doesn't make much sense. So we can safely blame massive scale so-called religiously motivated violence on the state and on man's lust for power.

The conflicts of the 16th and 17th century weren't caused by religion, religion was just the excuse. it was really all about power and who calls the shots.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

Oh yes, very true (4.00 / 1) (#214)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:49:49 PM EST

There was that little hic-cough we like to call "The Crusades", but other than that, Christian expansionism was strictly on a "turn the other cheek" basis. Jolly good.

The conflicts of the 16th and 17th century weren't caused by religion, religion was just the excuse. it was really all about power and who calls the shots.

Very much my point at the origin of this tangent:

s/"The conflicts of the 16th and 17th century"/circumcisions/

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

uhh (3.50 / 2) (#253)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:30:47 PM EST

Colour me stupid, but it seemed to me that you were blaming Christianity as a religion. Not the same thing.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Not my intention (4.00 / 2) (#268)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:50:25 PM EST

What I was trying to do was to make reference of one tactic that Christianity at the peek of it's political power used to reach a goal, in order to draw a parallel to the point I was trying to make.

Sorry if that didn't come across clearly. I think that no matter how thorough I could have been, someone would find something the matter with the particulars - so I left it general in the hope that the point would come through. My bad, apparently.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Please read your history of the Crusades. (3.00 / 2) (#306)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:50:32 AM EST

The majority of the Crusades were targetted against other forms of Christianity. (Protestant and manichean heresies.)

That the Muslim world was in any way hit is simply an accident due to bad management. (The Pope never intended to conquer the Middle East; and even if he did, there would be no way he would be able to hold on to it.)

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Charlemagne. (none / 0) (#219)
by haflinger on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:00:30 PM EST

Read up on Charlemagne, and his mass baptisms at the point of a sword.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
uhh (2.00 / 1) (#281)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:21:34 PM EST

Using such events to characterise Christianity, in light of my earlier points about how the episodes in question are not characteristic of Christianity ... is obtuse.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Violence in early Christianity. (none / 0) (#329)
by haflinger on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:59:42 AM EST

You talk about people like St. Patrick and St. Columba, who both postdate Charlemagne.

Charlemagne converted the Saxons, and a lot of the Germans in general. And he didn't do it peacefully. I was responding in particular to this comment:

I think the violence in Europe came later, when different interpretations of Christianity were competing.
And actually, heresy was there almost at the very start. St. Augustine talks about several heretic groups. It's true that they didn't really start fighting about it until the 12th century, with the Catharists, though.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
origins (4.00 / 2) (#134)
by alukaiser on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:10:19 PM EST

God made Abraham circumsise himself so that whenever he had sex, he wouldn't be thinking of the sinful pleasure of the act but of god.

Thats what I always understood of it.

Man, being reasonable, must get drunk. -Lord Byron
[ Parent ]

Ack! That's such bunk! (2.00 / 1) (#158)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:43:29 PM EST

I just love the paradoxical nature of religion, and am constantly amazed at the number of people who still take it seriously, despite the gaping holes.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Ummmm (5.00 / 1) (#339)
by Yellowbeard on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:04:41 PM EST

Hate to break it to you, but the Jews are by no means the only people to circumsize. Many many tribal people circumsize at various points in a young man's or child's life. In some cultures, it is a rite of passage into adulthood. Practicers cite many reasons for circumcision, most often religious, but not exclusively. I would imagine that the initial reasons for the practice were hygenic, and, like many cultural artifacts, it was ritualized to make people keep doing it over centuries.

Other rites are similar. Female circumcision is probably practiced (at least in part) because young girls often tended herds (many of Female circumcisions practitioners are pastoral) and circumcision protected them from rape when they were alone (of course there are other reasons, of which make various degrees of sense).

Australian aboriginal males of a certain age actually split their penises vertically along the shaft - from head to base. The practical reasons for his may be to stop them breeding and let the youth have a chance.

Whatever the reasons were or whatever the reasons people say they have, how can anyone argue in the United States (where one isn't even allowed to choose what to do with their own body, half the time) that it should be just fine for someone else, no matter who it is, to cut a piece of someone's body off without their consent. Children of the age of 17 are not thought legally competent to be able to consent to sex and are thus protected from it. Why should we allow anyone to tamper with a child's sexual organs before they can legally consent? I am not trouncing on religion, here - if there are religious reasons, well, I frankly don't know what to say. But if it's just because society has always done it this way then I think that's a poor excuse to continue the practice.


"Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt." - Deniro in Ronin


[ Parent ]
Cultural Imperialism (2.22 / 18) (#26)
by Bad Harmony on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:19:22 PM EST

In the US it is now illegal to surgically alter the genitals of a girl, yet why can't we offer boys the same protection?

Just considering these three things alone is enough to conclude that we should end routine infant male circumcision and instead let circumcision be a choice each individual makes for himself when he reaches an age where he can decide what's best for his body.

Why not let the parents decide whether or not to have their child circumsized?

It isn't just a medical procedure, to be evaluated on scientific grounds for health benefits and cost-effectiveness. It is an integral part of Judaism and a strong tradition in Islam.

Don't force me to choose between obeying God and obeying the laws of the state.

5440' or Fight!

Let the parents decide? (3.90 / 10) (#30)
by lucky 03 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:47:27 PM EST

Fuck that.

Let the child decide when he is old enough to take responsibility for his own actions to himself.

This is not a form of beard or headgear signifying your allegience, it is not a tattoo, it is irreversible.

"Don't force me to choose between obeying God and obeying the laws of the state".

In the West it is never one or the other. There should be some humane compromise possible on this.

But there won't be, religious bigots like to have people 'one of them' before they are old enough to know any better or to choose for themselves.

[ Parent ]

Religious Freedom (3.50 / 10) (#65)
by Bad Harmony on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:15:03 AM EST

Parents make decisions for their children, many of which have permanent consequences for their future. These decisions may or may not be considered "enlightened" or "normal" by the dominant culture. That does not give the government the authority to substitute its judgement for the judgement of the parents.

There is no medical evidence that circumcision results in serious harm to the child.

Your definition of compromise seems to be "do it my way".

If raising my child as an observant Jew is "religious bigotry", then I have to wonder who the real bigot is.

Are you willing to put me in jail for circumsizing my child?

5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

Fair point (3.77 / 9) (#68)
by Rogerborg on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:42:12 AM EST

"Are you willing to put me in jail for circumsizing my child?"

Absolutely not!  I wouldn't waste tax money on you.  I'd far rather just have you flogged repeatedly.  Hey, don't blame me, it's a deeply held religious belief of mine.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Harm -- why only "medical"? (4.50 / 2) (#192)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:22:04 PM EST

There is no medical evidence that circumcision results in serious harm to the child.
Perhaps sex is much more pleasurable if you're uncircumcised. Since we have no way of knowing what another person feels, we can't answer this question one way or another. In that case, why perform this irreversible and very painful surgical procedure on someone who cannot object?

It's irreversible -- that's the key. If I'd been raised Jewish or Muslim, keeping kosher the whole time, then at 18 I decided I didn't want to give up the taste of bacon and pork, well, I have that choice.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Turn it around.... (none / 0) (#222)
by rantweasel on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:24:51 PM EST

Are you willing to tell women seeking asylum that they can't stay here and that they need to return to their home country, so that the local religious leader can remove her clitoris with a piece of broken glass?  Or stitch her labia together?  For that matter, what about Falun Gong practitioners seeking asylum who are afraid of being killed for their beliefs, or political refugees who are afraid of being tortured to death?  It's completely an internal matter for the other country, right?

Let the kid decide at age of majority.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Religious freedom=red herring (none / 0) (#320)
by chu on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:11:32 AM EST

Female circumcision is considered culturally observant to many people. Do you think a parent should be put in jail for doing that in your country? Assuming your answer is yes then what we are talking about is a comparison of medical harm between the two procedures - not bigotry or your cultural or religious freedom.

[ Parent ]
There's always the other route (4.16 / 6) (#82)
by kichigai on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:11:41 AM EST

The child should be allowed to decide. I mean, I child may grow up Jewish, but when he's 16, decide he's agnostic. The child should decide.
"I said I was smart, I never said I was mature!"
-Me

[ Parent ]
how about killing the baby girls ? (3.80 / 5) (#107)
by animal on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:38:16 AM EST

why not let the parents decide if they want the girls to be killed at birth as this is a strong tradation in some poverty striken countries.

[ Parent ]
religion (3.50 / 6) (#114)
by corian on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:06:48 AM EST

It isn't just a medical procedure, to be evaluated on scientific grounds for health benefits and cost-effectiveness. It is an integral part of Judaism and a strong tradition in Islam.

While you (the parent) might be devoutly Jewish or Islamic, the child IS NOT. No infant is, in the first week of light, sufficiently developed to have reached a conclusion about religious belief. While you may be attributing your religion to the child, the child IS NOT religious. You are IMPOSING your religion on the child. You are making an decision for the child, which involves permanent, irreversable surgery.



[ Parent ]

Belief (2.50 / 6) (#151)
by Bad Harmony on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:46:26 PM EST

What does belief have to do with it? My mother is a Jew. That makes me a Jew by matrilineal descent. What I believe is not the determining factor. That would only be relevant if I was a non-Jew who wanted to convert to Judaism. The same rules apply to any children I might have. If the mother is a Jew, the children are Jews. If the child is male, I am obligated by Jewish law to have the child circumcised on the eighth day (unless there is a question of a danger to the health of the child, which would require a postponement of the circumcision until the child's health became normal).

5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

Belief and abuse (3.25 / 4) (#196)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:28:27 PM EST

I am obligated by Jewish law to have the child circumcised
Big deal.

There are many cults/religions that "oblige" their followers to do things to their children which we have decided are barbaric and brutal and we don't let them do it. (Female circumcision, for instance.) Why should Jews' and Muslims' religious superstitions trump the law?

As someone said above, fuck that.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Female genital mutilation. (none / 0) (#221)
by haflinger on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:15:10 PM EST

Name a religion that requires it. That's a myth. It's a barbaric secular practice.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Female genital mutiliation reasons (5.00 / 1) (#224)
by catseye on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:39:51 PM EST

There are a number of reasons some cultures perform female genital mutilation, and different types of genital mutiliation. Some cultures remove the clitoris, some the clitoris and labia minora, some remove everything and sew the outer lips shut except for a small hole.

Reasons include superstitious beliefs that if the clitoris touches the head of an infant, the infant will die, and coming-of-age rituals for women in which the clitoris is removed so that they'll be "all-woman" instead of having a vestigial man-part. As well, we're talking about mostly patriarchal patrilineal cultures, in which it's highly important to know who the father of a child is. If a man's wife is sewn up and he has to cut her open to have sex with her at the right time of the month then sew her up again, well... he's pretty much ensured that the child is his.

I don't condone any of this... I feel it's horrible... but I understand the reasoning. Fortunately, it's slowly changing. Many African countries have outlawed FGM and are working on educating tribal people.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

If only you weren't such a hypocrite (5.00 / 2) (#319)
by bc on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 07:30:12 AM EST

I guess its okay when its male genitals being mutilated, eh?

Majority of female genital mutilations involve the labia minora only. I know a girl who's had it done, in fact, at birth (Indonesian). It's hardly a big thing for her, and hey, her labia minora were cut off at birth without anaesthetic, pretty much exactly commensurate with what happens to boys.

What's your problem again? Why is it a problem for one sex, but not the other?

Hypocrite.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

If only you weren't such a pain in the ass... (none / 0) (#337)
by catseye on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:00:13 PM EST

I've answered this once in this story already.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/1/14/184628/773/216#216

And no, the majority do not just involve the labia. Check the stats at http://www.fgm.org/WhatKindWhereFGM.html

It depends on the region.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

FGM researcher on male circumcision (none / 0) (#432)
by razniq on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 10:50:10 AM EST

I used to think they were entirely different too.

Here is a side by side comparison of rationals by the noted FGM researcher Hanny Lightfoot-Klein.

http://www.boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm

Look at the thread beginning with post #314 to see the physical comparison.

Its very easy to point out the absurdities of someone else's culture but extraordinarily difficult to do the same for ones own culture.

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily religion (3.66 / 3) (#231)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:54:10 PM EST

As I wrote, "cult/religion." I don't know how else to characterise the ones who have these (to us) barbaric customs; I know there are people (tribes? societies?) in Africa that practice female genital mutilation. It was an example to illustrate the fact that the only compulsions we as citizens of a secular society have are those defined by our laws; religions or cultural customs do not supercede them. Therefore it's a strawman to say that "I'm jewish therefore I must do XYZ." (Was that the reason for the 2?)

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Enlightened Westerners. (1.00 / 1) (#241)
by biggs on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:52:55 PM EST

It's good to know that we Westerners have moved far beyond the barbaric tortures of female circumsision... We know that if you are going to augment the body, and cause pain and suffering during the process and risk permanant complications it needs to be for something far more important to western culture than mere coming of age rituals... like beauty.

But yeah, I mean... do you see how offensive the barbaric comment is? These cultures may have some shit backwards - but you know what? So do we. If the women of these cultures want their genitals mutilated, and the women of our culture want their breasts mutilated then - as sad as that may seem to me or you - we have no right to deny them this choice. If you think they aren't educated about it, who the hell do you think takes care of the consequences of the female circumsison? Fellow females of their own culture of course. They know what they are doing, leave em alone. Value systems have never been perfect so don't try to impose your falty system on another falty one.

--
"Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox
[ Parent ]

Not a valid comparison (none / 0) (#351)
by Dyolf Knip on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:05:07 PM EST

About the only 'child augmentation' I see around here is ear piercings on girls. Which, you may note, tend to heal themselves up if not maintained. A child circumcised at birth has very little say in what is essentially a permanent, life altering, and rather unnecessary piece of surgery. If the kid decides later on they want it, they have my blessing. But Mom & Dad really don't have business doing it to them 'because god says so'.

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

I was talking about female circumsison (none / 0) (#370)
by biggs on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 11:27:37 AM EST

In African tribes and such. These are often done at a certain age when a girl has become a women. And there's no law in place, at least in the US that keeps teens from gettin breast enhancements. Look at Britney Spears.

--
"Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox
[ Parent ]
Disbelief (5.00 / 1) (#312)
by Cowculator on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:46:07 AM EST

Sorry, but belief has everything to do with it.  My mother is a Jew.  I am an atheist.  The only law proclaiming that I am a Jew by matrilineal descent is a religious law, and since I reject the laws of Judaism, I will not agree to the parasitic claim that I'm stuck in it; likewise, I would not insist that my children be circumcised simply to please a god whose existence I do not accept.

Circumcision of Jewish males is supposed to symbolize their "covenant" with God.  I reject both the covenant and the god, and as such I am disgusted by the fact that this primitive symbol was forced upon me before I had the chance to decide for myself; since I am not religious, no religious argument can convince me otherwise.

[ Parent ]

Why is it the parents' choice? (3.71 / 7) (#187)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:16:59 PM EST

Don't force me to choose between obeying God and obeying the laws of the state.
But my parents -- actually, my grandfather -- forced me to be mutilated; I do not follow his religion or his traditions; why am I now forced to carry the mark of his religion?

Circumcision is genital mutilation pure and simple. If I said that I belonged to a cult that required the lower parts of the earlobe to be cut off, would pediatricians perform this procedure on my children? Hell, no. If you, an adult, decide to get yourself circumcised, hey, whatever floats your boat; but no one has the right to mutilate a child.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Circumcision reduces risk of HIV-1 infection (3.09 / 11) (#37)
by maynard on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:40:12 PM EST

This is speaking as an uncircumcised male who has always opposed circumcision of infants on the grounds that they are unable to give consent. It is a permanent surgical procedure with potential complications that effect a reasonable percentage of it's recipients. Given this risk, I think that not even parental consent should trump the child's right to bodily integrity. However, recent studies show that circumcision in prepubescent males does reduce risk of transmission of HIV-1. It's my understanding that the study referenced by the link has been repeated and appears valid. So now we are faced with good evidence that the procedure does appear to have a positive medical effect in limiting transmitting of one deadly STD. Interesting. Facts appear to be in opposition to my ethical ideal on this issue. I'm now rethinking my position. --Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
Condoms reduce risk of HIV-1 infection. (4.22 / 9) (#38)
by lucky 03 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:48:47 PM EST

Also, News just in, cutting off your penis reduces the risks of all deadly STD's!

I'm now rethinking my position on compulsory castration (which is traditional in Ungbulgulungu society from the age of 2 months).

[ Parent ]

In fact... (3.20 / 5) (#40)
by maynard on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:06:03 AM EST

...condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection far better than circumsision, and they help prevent transmission to boot. Though castration at birth does help increase overall conomic productivity by wiping out unnecessary labor costs in the condom factories. Doubleplusgood suggestion! --Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Circumcision and Aids, STD's, UTI's, penile cancer (5.00 / 11) (#42)
by razniq on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:20:43 AM EST

Here are relevant excerpts from the American Medical Association's latest report on neonatal circumcision.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2511.html (about a 1/4 way down)

STD's and AIDS

excerpt "...behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections."

Penile Cancer

excerpt "... because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified."

Urinary Tract Infections

excerpt "Despite the increased relative risk in uncircumcised infants, the absolute incidence of UTI is small in this population (0.4%-1%). Depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI. In this case, a large relative risk reduction translates into a small absolute risk reduction because the baseline prevalence is low. One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition."

[ Parent ]

Excellent factual rebuttal... (3.00 / 3) (#109)
by maynard on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:46:09 AM EST

...I note, however, that the AMA report doesn't refute the claims of the previously referenced Hopkins study, but instead argues that those results aren't relevant for setting public health policy. Since I'm not a pediatric physician, at this point I'll bow out of the policy debate.

It's interesting to note, however, that the Hopkins study does provide a health rationale for the practice of circumcision throughout society, particularly before modern medicine took hold. Given these assumptions:

  • That the procedure reduces risk of contracting more than just HIV-1.
  • That it "protects" in some measure against a wider range of STDs.
  • That due to this those who have been circumcised have a slightly higher fertility rate than the average male in a population.
We can see that this reduced risk would offer selection pressure against the non-circumcised population. Several thousand years ago this might have been tremendously important in cementing the procedure throughout rites and rituals across many different and competing religions.

Again, the procedure appears to offer a statistically significant and detectable benefit, primarily to those who undertake it before puberty (presumably because they are not sexually active, but that's not clear within the constraints of the study). I still think it's an interesting result, the facts of which many staunch opponents of circumcision seem to refuse to accept on ideological grounds alone. I argue not that we should enact a public health policy in support of mass circumcision (I'm not qualified to make that assertion), only that the results of the Hopkins study are interesting and worth further study and analysis.

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

whose body? whose rights? (none / 0) (#433)
by razniq on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:03:55 AM EST

As you noted, you yourself are not circumcised. If you as a competant consenting individual decides the potential health benefits of being circumcised outway the negatives of not having a foreskin then by all means go ahead. Its your body. But to force the choice on an infant, when clearly most uncircumcised men don't regret not having part of their penis surgically removed, is abhorrent.

[ Parent ]
sig? (4.00 / 3) (#64)
by StephenThompson on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:58:56 AM EST

how does glueing a bulls eyes on improve profits?

[ Parent ]
OT: Quote by... (4.00 / 2) (#115)
by maynard on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:07:36 AM EST

Dr. Kurt Richebacher, economist. In context, his statement is perfectly understandable and rational. The '90s stock market bubble was financed through leveraged credit expansion, just like the bubble of the late '20s. Which is no different from the Holland tulip bubble of the 19th century. Too bad the citation is cut off at the end. I'll have to look for a shorter quote... --Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
isn't it obvious? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
by thatwhichfalls on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:10:33 PM EST

1. glue bulls eyes on
2. ??????
3. profit!!!

(sorry - couldn't resist it)

[ Parent ]
LOL (2.50 / 2) (#255)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:46:08 PM EST

Ok, even if it does reduce the risk of HIV-infection, how does that give parents the right to mutilate their children without their consent?  Last time I checked, baby-boys weren't shalacking baby-girls or anyone else for that matter.  Where exactly is the risk of HIV-infection?  I highly doubt the reliability of this study -- I've heard of it before -- because circumcision does not remove all of the foreskin, from someone who actually knows something about biology, surface area isn't a big factor when you have millions of molecules floating around.

If there really is a risk factor for HIV-1 infection, then its up to the person to decide for himself if he should be circumcised, when he's old enough to make decisions.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

btw (3.00 / 2) (#257)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:48:32 PM EST

If you know anything about STD, you'll know that they are acquired the easiest through thin skin or cuts and abrasions.  The small cuts, cracks, and abrasions that accumulate on the head of a circumcised penis -- due to it not being protected -- are excellent entry-points for STDs.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Do you really believe? (4.00 / 1) (#385)
by Korydon on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:33:31 AM EST

If you really believe that being circumcised will protect you against HIV, go ahead and screw yourself silly and see what happens. I dare you. The United States has the highest rate of circumcision in the world, and also a high rate of HIV...something, dear boy, isn't quite adding up.

[ Parent ]
doesn't stop a man from enjoying sex (2.27 / 18) (#41)
by jvcoleman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:16:08 AM EST

It's very different from female genital mutilation, no matter how you choose to abuse your terminology. I've never had any trouble using mine, even if people that are cut later in life sometimes have problems. I've never known anyone with a sexual dysfunction that was related to having been circumcised shortly after birth. On the other hand, I've heard of people with disgusting, stinking, smegged up penises that must be at least partly due to the fact that they basically have an armpit at the end of their cock.

All of you people that rant and rave over this are 1) upset because your dick is small, 2) obsessed with other mens' penises, and 3) are doubtless the victims of other sexual or psychological maladies that keep you from enjoying the dick you have.

Not dysfunctional, just bitter. (4.50 / 4) (#51)
by lucky 03 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:13:09 AM EST

I'm probably one of the few here who got it done very late, knows the before/after sensitivity and later found out it was completely unnessecary and could have been avoided.
  1. My dick is officially average
  2. I'm obsessed with my own penis, and my girlfriends have never complanied either ;-)
  3. Nope.


[ Parent ]
just out of curiosity (4.00 / 3) (#54)
by jvcoleman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:25:49 AM EST

Why did you do it? I can tell you one thing. After the age of 14, anyone coming withing ten feet of my penis with a knife would have wound up with a broken wrist. What was your reason?

[ Parent ]
Explanation earlier, in another comment. (4.60 / 5) (#56)
by lucky 03 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:44:34 AM EST

Basically, it hadn't moved back 'on it's own' as they say very much at all. And it wasn't going to without (I assumed) some kind of incision/loosening cut. Unfortnately my 'Doctor' was as ignorant as me and recommended a full circumcision (not nessecary, there is an alternative,see below).

Earlier comment: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/1/14/184628/773/8#8

[ Parent ]

Early vs. late (4.00 / 1) (#106)
by dachshund on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:36:07 AM EST

knows the before/after sensitivity and later found out it was completely unnessecary and could have been avoided.

I'm curious about the difference in sensitivity depending on when the circumcision is done. I have no doubt that a late circumcision would reduce my enjoyment of sex, because my brain would have grown up wired to pay attention to the extra nerve-endings. But early circumcision may not have that effect at all.

[ Parent ]

I don't really follow your reasoning (none / 0) (#264)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:19:38 PM EST

Just because you've never experienced anything doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. By your reasoning, no one would ever drink, smoke, do other drugs, eat food from anything other than breasts etc.

I may just have missed something, so correct me if i'm wrong.

[ Parent ]

Loss of nerves and adaptation (4.00 / 1) (#298)
by dachshund on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:24:24 AM EST

What I'm saying, is this: is there any evidence that uncircumcized men derive significantly more pleasure from sex than men who are circumcized at birth? The best I've heard from anyone here is that uncircumcized men tend to reach ejaculation slightly sooner (though not ridiculously so), and that actually sounds like a bad result to me.

The human brain is perfectly capable of adapting to the presence or absence of lots of things in such a way that you won't notice the difference; at the extreme end, people regularly have strokes and regain full function after a period of time. I can imagine that shortly after the loss off penile nerve endings, sex might be less pleasurable... I can even imagine that a person who'd grown up with a foreskin might find sex less pleasurable after losing it. But if you lost those nerves at an early age, would the experience of sex be much different than if you'd never had them?

Surely, someone has done some sort of study, at least using subjective measures or-- perhaps better-- brain-activity tests. So far all I've heard is arguments about the number of nerve-endings on the foreskin, presented as though that measurement corresponds to sexual pleasure. I'm just not sure I buy this, especially if the brain has had most of a lifetime to adapt.

I am, however, willing to be educated on the subject.

[ Parent ]

Au contraire (none / 0) (#354)
by Dyolf Knip on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:26:20 PM EST

The sensory nerve connections developed during childhood are of paramount importance. There are occasional cases of a person being born blind (or losing it very early on) but gaining their sight in adulthood through surgery or some freak occurence. It's almost surreal to read about their ability to 'look' at things but not 'see' them. You and I spent years building neural pathways such that when we look at a tree, our brains say "tree". They don't have that. The same thing goes for the other senses. If a person born without an arm were (when medical science is up to the task) able to have one grown into place, how would they know how to control it? Interpret sensory signals coming from it? Look through an anatomy chart and find a muscle you never knew you had. Now flex it. Don't even know where to begin, do you? Our brains get very, very set in their ways as we grow up. Only children, who are totally new to the world, are able to learn how to use their brand-new bodies to interact with it. Just wish they do it quietly and without stinking the place up...

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

mmmm (3.85 / 7) (#59)
by biggs on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:24:08 AM EST

Ok.. maybe sex is enjoyable with a circumsized penis, but shit, if sex is better without circumsizion THEN WHY NOT LET THE NEXT GENERATION HAVE THEIR DAMN FORESKINS???!!! Try to show a lil atruism already. I mean if you feel like your circumsized penis is under attack, it's not... he was neutral and asserted his claims fairly... and did NOT use dysphemisms and irrational observations like you..

--
"Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox
[ Parent ]
Please find a more appropriate user name. (3.50 / 4) (#121)
by datapack on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:31:01 AM EST

You know what they say about men who write in big blocky capital letters.

--
If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry. (Exodus 22:23)
[ Parent ]

you know one now (4.66 / 3) (#174)
by waveclaw on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:58:08 PM EST

Normal circumsion + low grade infection from major wound caused by the surgery = super tight skin that rips and tears on full erection. Makes sex almost unbearable, just ask my last girlfriend.

One of the things your mother probably did was spend several weeks after your surgery keeping you clean. If this woman, not familiar with keeping male genetalia clean, encounters any problems then you are in for a 'special' ride when you hit 13. Remember: circumcision is Major Surgery, not an out-patient quicky like they treat it here in the U.S.

[ Parent ]

that sucks (3.00 / 2) (#244)
by jvcoleman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:56:36 PM EST

You're officially the only person I've ever heard of that encountered sexual problems due to being circumcised. Guess you learn something new every day.

[ Parent ]
That's nothing! (none / 0) (#353)
by Dyolf Knip on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:13:48 PM EST

Some poor guys actually get the whole thing lopped off completey when the doctor zigs instead of zags. It's rare, but it does happen. He is, after all, cutting off a large piece of one's dick.

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

How do you know? (4.25 / 4) (#199)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:34:08 PM EST

Of course it's different from female circumcision, this is male circumcision.

Can you assure me that my enjoyment of sex wouldn't have been greater had I been uncircumcised?

Perhaps you're right, and I'm 1) upset that my dick is small, 2) obsessed with other mens' penises, and 3) am the victim of other sexual or psychological maladies that keep me from enjoying the dick I have. But perhaps if I hadn't been circumcised, I'd have a big dick, not care about other men's penises, and would have absolutely no sexual or psychological maladies!

In other words: you're an idiot.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

okay (1.00 / 1) (#243)
by jvcoleman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:54:48 PM EST

Can you assure me that my enjoyment of sex wouldn't have been greater had I been uncircumcised?

Well, it all depends on what you call enjoyment. Some people enjoy having a woman shit on their face. Anyway, there are many more things that can go wrong with your dick than having an extra small flap of skin on it. They make billions selling Viagra for people that can't get things rolling - and whether or not they have a foreskin makes no difference. Maybe the extra sensitivity is better for some people than it is for others. Really, I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that the idea of a smeggy little hood over my cock doesn't really make me wish my parents had made a different decision.

In other words: you're an idiot.

That may be true, but at least I'm not wringing my hands over an insignificant, fetishistic aspect of male genitalia that isn't even worth your time or mine to worry about.

[ Parent ]

Uh-huh.... Must be a USian thing. (5.00 / 1) (#280)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:14:42 PM EST

On the other hand, I've heard of people with disgusting, stinking, smegged up penises that must be at least partly due to the fact that they basically have an armpit at the end of their cock.
I don't know if you do things differently in America, but here in the UK, we wash *every single day*!

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Well sure... (5.00 / 1) (#352)
by Dyolf Knip on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:09:36 PM EST

You have the French right next door to serve as a striking example of what happens when you neglect your hygiene. All we've got are French-Canadians, and they have at least _heard_ of soap. Let's see, who else can I offend today...

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

My girlfriend has been circumcised ... (none / 0) (#318)
by Chakotay on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 07:02:46 AM EST

... but this genital mutilation does not stop her from enjoying sex either.

But the fact remains that it is unconsentual mutilation. And any form of unconsentual mutilation of any bodypart should be banned.

--
Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

[ Parent ]
circumcision issue (4.00 / 6) (#43)
by tichy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:37:19 AM EST

Perhaps a good time to think with your penis instead of your head for once.

Do you have to clean under your foreskin? (2.12 / 8) (#44)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:37:45 AM EST

I heard you do. That seems like a lot of work to me. If I had a foreskin, I'd probably have shit growing underneath it.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
Wow. Truly an insight, (4.25 / 4) (#47)
by lucky 03 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:02:02 AM EST

Into the sheer ignorance being fought against here.

[ Parent ]
Don't be disheartened! Fight the good fight! nt (3.00 / 2) (#50)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:06:22 AM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
No more than washing under your arms is a chore... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by Bora Horza Gobuchol on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:02:13 AM EST

.. you do that when you shower, right? Do you find it a chore? Do you even have to think about it at any stage since your mother told you to do so when you were a child?

-- "Don't criticise. Create a better alternative."
[ Parent ]
Well, yes (2.66 / 3) (#49)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:05:17 AM EST

My pits are really hairy and I have to shampoo them. Yeah, but do you get fluid under there or anything? Does it smell?

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 1) (#103)
by animal on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:28:41 AM EST

like your pits, it only smells if you don't wash.

[ Parent ]
As an accomplished soap-dodger... (5.00 / 3) (#147)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:29:55 PM EST

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin or not.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Not me! (4.00 / 1) (#75)
by Scott Robinson on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:33:49 AM EST

I've gone well over a month without bathing. Do I still get that feature, sans penile pain, if I wasn't circumsized?

I heard I wouldn't.

Educate me, for one day I'll have to decide whether the Doctor's slice up my child's penis.

[ Parent ]

no (4.66 / 3) (#81)
by boxed on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:11:36 AM EST

It doesn't hurt to be dirty. It DOES hurt to have your penis cut off and the sensitive skin rubbed against cloth. The math is fairly simple. The whole "sanitary" argument is based on the assumption that if something smells it is unsanitary. Of course this is totally bogus. Unperfumed soap hardly smells good.

[ Parent ]
Washing Under the Arms Doesn't Hurt (4.50 / 2) (#86)
by TimM on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:41:04 AM EST

I was circumcised in my mid-20s. Before that time, the area underneath the foreskin HURT! Hurt to touch in any way, it was just wayyyyy too sensitive. It certainly prevented me from cleaning the area every time I took a shower. So for some people, it can definitely be a chore.

Fortunately, after the procedure, it's no longer painfully sensitive there, plus it's much easier to keep clean. Now it's not a chore. :-)



[ Parent ]
I can only speak for myself (4.66 / 3) (#101)
by animal on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:27:05 AM EST

I have never found it painful to clean under the foreskin.

[ Parent ]
Re: Washing Under the Arms Doesn't Hurt (4.00 / 1) (#144)
by Nursie on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:27:40 PM EST

Ummm, that sounds like a medical problem to me,

In my (uncircumcised) opinion that is the only acceptable reason for someone ever to be circumcised.
You find cleaning yourself to be a chore?

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
foreskin care (4.87 / 8) (#55)
by razniq on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:36:17 AM EST

This is written for the perspective of a mother with an uncircumcised son.

Care of the Uncircumcised Penis, Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap1999/

excerpt "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean...

  • gently pulling it back from the glans
  • rinsing the glans and inside fold of the foreskin with soap and warm water
  • pulling the foreskin back over the head of the penis.
...Remember[for a growing boy], foreskin retraction will occur naturally and should never be forced."

end of excerpt

[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.50 / 6) (#57)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:53:29 AM EST

That smegma seems nasty! I'm glad I have no foreskin.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
the much maligned smegma (4.80 / 5) (#60)
by razniq on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:58:48 AM EST

What is smegma?

"Smegma is an epithelial debris[dead skin cells] collecting in this space."

excerpted from: Parkash S, Jeyakumar K, Subramanya K, et al. Human subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973;110(2):211-12.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/parkash/

What purpose does it serve?

"Is Smegma useful? Yes, certainly. It lubricates the cavity between the foreskin of the penis and the glans, thus allowing smooth movement between them during intercourse. "

excerpted from: Wright J. How smegma serves the penis. Sexology (New York) 1970;37(2):50-53.
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/

This paper also noted that quote "Normally, a healthy foreskin can be retracted for cleansing and smegma can be removed by washing. The fact that it is a superficial substance renders its removal easy, provided cleansing is performed with regularity. "

So yes if you are uncircumcised you have to wash more closely than you would have otherwise. But how many guys are really going to complain about having to touch their penis more often than they already do?:-)

[ Parent ]

With that attitude... (4.85 / 7) (#62)
by pathetic on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:32:54 AM EST

you don't deserve a foreskin.

[ Parent ]
accrue. (4.66 / 3) (#87)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:42:33 AM EST

It takes months for smegma to accrue in any noticable amount... And that's months with little or no direct bathing of the area.

Also, if you have an active sex life, the area will get "scrubbed" in the process, and there won't be any chance for it to accrue.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

Yes, you do (4.50 / 4) (#110)
by krek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:46:39 AM EST

For myself, right after I shampoo my hair, I just quickly pull back my foreskin, give a couple swipes in the same motion as maturbating, and let go, the foreskin usually puts itself back into place.

This operation takes approximately 2.3 seconds and can be performed during the time it takes me to turn around 180 degrees in the shower so that I can grab the soap.

[ Parent ]
A lot of work? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:00:41 PM EST

Just masturbate in the shower. Problem solved.

"Shit under your foreskin" huh? Did a little experimentation in college, did you?

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Ahh, something I would do anyway! nt (4.00 / 1) (#157)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:41:52 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Not under (4.33 / 3) (#154)
by zocky on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:29:09 PM EST

You don't really clean your glans "under" your foreskin. You pull it back and just normally wash your penis.
(and yes, before this I could not have imagined that people don't know it).

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

LOL (2.25 / 4) (#245)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:02:31 PM EST

Ok, so, jerking off in the shower using Johnson & Johnson's shampoo is "hard work"???

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

And this from "Big Sexxy Joe" -- Hmm... (none / 0) (#308)
by Gromit on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 03:54:11 AM EST

Dude, I am circumcized, but I still wash the thing thoroughly every day. Geez. Given the warm enclosed environment it lives in, not to mention its other purpose, it'd be a bit much to expect my wife to be eager about getting up close and personal with it if I didn't. And eagerness in this regard is something I tend to encourage... ;-)

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
Amazing (3.71 / 14) (#45)
by John Milton on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:54:47 AM EST

When I reflect on the origins of the Focus On... secton and what it is being used for now, I see this as the ultimate proof that the vast intellects of kuro5hin can turn anything into a conversation about masturbation.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


Disturbing (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by godix on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:25:24 AM EST

"I see this as the ultimate proof that the vast intellects of kuro5hin can turn anything into a conversation about masturbation."

This statement wouldn't be nearly as disturbing as it is except for the fact that the Pete Townshend story is currently on the front page......


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

Three blind usians (2.12 / 25) (#52)
by godix on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:23:30 AM EST

Three blind usians,
Three blind usians
See how they run,
See how they run!

They all ran after
The rabbi's wife
She cut off their cocks
With a carving knife
Did you ever see
Such a sight in your life
As three blind usians?

(Repeat. Endlessly.)








Sorry, I'm getting in touch with my trollish side tonight, I apologize.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

The Diceman Speaketh: (4.00 / 5) (#58)
by Edgy Loner on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:11:13 AM EST

Three blind mice.
See how they run.

Where the fuck were they going?

This is not my beautiful house.
This is not my beautiful knife.
[ Parent ]
trollish? (1.50 / 2) (#94)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:59:00 AM EST

More like idiotic.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Trollish? (none / 0) (#229)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:48:53 PM EST

You mean because you said "usians"?

I agree.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Needs as much care as the elbow (4.66 / 9) (#61)
by hugues on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:23:16 AM EST

"The penis needs as much care as the elbow: none"

That's the comment you read in the most popular Australian baby book (`Baby Love' by Robin Barker). I just love the quote.

If you belive her, `Ease of cleaning' in baby boys for a justification for circumcision should never come into the equation.

Well, what do the women think? (4.50 / 4) (#63)
by lonesmurf on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:42:24 AM EST

I'm jewish and was circumcised as an infant. I've had girlfriends from all different religions and walks of life. My most recent girlfriend was jewish and never had dated outside of her faith before. She was actually pretty surprised to hear that penises look very different from the ones that she had seen.

I'm curious whether it actually makes any difference to women one way or another. I know that I'd personally find a circumcised women's genitalia somewhat odd (ok, ok, i'd probably be grossed out; it IS mutilation afterall) so i wonder what women think the other way around.


Rami

I am not a jolly man. Remove the mirth from my email to send.


What about (4.75 / 4) (#66)
by caek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:38:36 AM EST

I know that I'd personally find a circumcised women's genitalia somewhat odd (ok, ok, i'd probably be grossed out; it IS mutilation afterall) so i wonder what women think the other way around.

Do you consider your own circumcision to be mutilation?

[ Parent ]

No. (4.00 / 1) (#73)
by lonesmurf on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:30:52 AM EST

But then again I'm not a woman who's only been exposed to the "unscathed" version.


Rami

I am not a jolly man. Remove the mirth from my email to send.


[ Parent ]
They like it (3.00 / 8) (#69)
by Platy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:49:06 AM EST

Though I am not a woman I reply to your post: I heard most women like circumcisioned men. Why? For more than one reason. (1) They say it is cleaner. Suet can't settle down that well. I heard women prefer to do oral sex on a circumcisioned penis. (2) Because the glans is used to rub on clothing all the time, it is a bit more insensitive - it takes longer for the men to come to orgasm. Women like it. (3) Some women prefer it also optically.

As said before I am not a woman myself so I can only reproduce what I have heard/read from women.
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
[ Parent ]
Ow! Bad image! (4.85 / 7) (#72)
by zakalwe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:09:50 AM EST

Some women prefer it also optically.
OK. maybe I'm just totally sick and depraved here, but I really wish you had used "visually" instead of "optically" here.

[ Parent ]
Uhm. Yea. Thanks :) (4.00 / 1) (#90)
by Platy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:50:04 AM EST

Sorry for that, somehow the word didn't seem to be very suitable to me in the first place but I couldn't find a better one. Thank you and sorry for the (probably many) mistakes.
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
[ Parent ]
maybe "aesthetically" (4.00 / 1) (#203)
by tebrow on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:46:32 PM EST

Although I wouldn't ever change it. That gave me a chuckle, and then a deep belly laugh when I saw zakalwe's comment.

[ Parent ]
a little selfish, isn't it? (4.40 / 5) (#76)
by Viliam Bur on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:39:47 AM EST

Because the glans is used to rub on clothing all the time, it is a bit more insensitive - it takes longer for the men to come to orgasm. Women like it.

How great! When men are less sensitive, it brings more pleasure to women. Perhaps less pleasure to men, but... who cares?

I heard some girls using the same argument. It seems to me that we are just their sexual toys with no own rights... and the whole feminism is just a damned propaganda (or, psychoanalyst would say: reactive formation).

(Half-joking, half-confused.)

[ Parent ]

Pleasure (3.16 / 6) (#98)
by dachshund on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:17:50 AM EST

How great! When men are less sensitive, it brings more pleasure to women. Perhaps less pleasure to men, but... who cares?

Sorry, I'm not aware of it bringing any less pleasure to men. If that were the case, maybe I would have spent less time locked in my bedroom during high-school, and could have graduated with that 4.0 GPA I so rightly deserved.

The only real evidence people give is the reduced number of nerve-endings and (possibly) a slightly longer time to ejaculation (really not a problem.)

Is there any real evidence that the experience is that much different for uncircumcized men?

It seems to me that we are just their sexual toys...

What, you seriously have a problem with that? Nobody's forcing you to have sex, you know :)

[ Parent ]

yeah, a big problem... ;-) (none / 0) (#316)
by Viliam Bur on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 05:33:18 AM EST

What, you seriously have a problem with that?

I just tried to express that it would be a problem, if for example some country would decide to make people vote, whether male circumcision should be legal or not.

The girls with "as long as it is more pleasant to ME, it's GOOD" opinions would be a real danger to human rights in such a hypothetical situation. And I think lot of them would have such opinions. (Lot of them already had, when I talked with them about this topic.)

But, OK, it's just my wild imagination... So far no such vote is around.

[ Parent ]

when erect... (3.50 / 2) (#88)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:44:55 AM EST

...you can't tell the difference without very careful examination. I guess that may depend on size, however.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
Right. (none / 0) (#217)
by haflinger on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:53:32 PM EST

The foreskin happily slides out of the way, leaving the more-sensitive glans underneath. Oh, it's nice. :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
cleaner ? (4.25 / 4) (#100)
by animal on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:23:16 AM EST

uncircumcised men does clean their penis as well as the rest of the body ( or maybye I'm in a minority  ).
 Do bald people have cleaner heads? do nudists have cleaner skin? am I mad ?
:)
 

[ Parent ]
Well actually, (4.00 / 1) (#118)
by hbw on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:18:10 AM EST

I'd say the chance (or risk, rather) is close to zero for a bald person to get stuff like dandruff. If we try to rephrase this more generally: anything you keep "un-exposed" will become more sensitive and definitely need "more maintenance". ;-)

I have discovered a truly marvelous signature, which unfortunately the margin is not large enough to contain.
[ Parent ]

Maybe because it's just dermatitis? (4.00 / 1) (#272)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:05:05 PM EST

Dermatitis caused by putting harsh detergents containing formaldehyde on some of the most sensitive skin on your body, perhaps?

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Um, what? (none / 0) (#322)
by hbw on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:19:47 AM EST

Please repeat that in english I can understand; Chemistry definitely isn't my thing. ;-)

I have discovered a truly marvelous signature, which unfortunately the margin is not large enough to contain.
[ Parent ]

Skin inflammation... (none / 0) (#331)
by gordonjcp on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:19:46 AM EST

... caused by dumping stuff used to pickle dead laboratory animals (and sheep, if you're Damien Hirst. Putting nasty chemicals on your skin causes dryness and flakeyness.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#269)
by Eccles on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:52:32 PM EST

uncircumcised men does clean their penis as well as the rest of the body

Really? I find a distinct lack of facilities for cleaning one's willy in 99.9% of the urinals and other public bathrooms I use. Exactly how can one keep it clean over the course of a day?

As an uncut individual, I can assure you that it isn't that easy to keep it clean. Before oral sex, I need to do a thorough (and not all that pleasant) cleaning. (I do it before all sex for the sake of my partner regardless.)

[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 1) (#397)
by joshsisk on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 03:27:40 PM EST

Really? I find a distinct lack of facilities for cleaning one's willy in 99.9% of the urinals and other public bathrooms I use. Exactly how can one keep it clean over the course of a day?

I guess yours must be different than mine. My foreskin never touches urine... The tip is never covered by the foreskin unless I am in cold water or something and there is extensive shrinkage going on. If I have an erection, there is literally 0% coverage... the foreskin falls flush with the shaft.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

It's true... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:22:50 PM EST

Some women prefer it also optically.

When it comes to a good old-fashioned skull-fucking fucking, you can't beat an uncircumcized penis.

Damn foreskin gets caught on the eyelid all the time.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
expectations (5.00 / 2) (#232)
by F a l c o n on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:02:41 PM EST

Are you sure your sample was not polluted by expectations? Especially on the "cleaner" point, I guess if you are a women and live in the US and have been told for 20 years that it's dirty, you believe it.

Being clean or not is a question of personal activity. If you wash yourself instead of waiting till the dirt just falls away then skin or not shouldn't matter.

Optical is the same. Our believes on "beauty" are largely cultural. There were long periods in history where skinny was ugly.

--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

Not my opinion (none / 0) (#239)
by Platy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:23:43 PM EST

The mentioned arguments aren't really my opinion, they're merely what I have been told by women. Probably parts of it are nothing more than wrong.

About the "cleaner" point: I am completely sure one can have a clean penis even with the foreskin intact. But probably it is hard - simply because the glans is enclosed by skin. A little experiment: After a day of hard for smell your armpit and then smell your forearm - which one smells worse? ;-)
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
[ Parent ]
cleaner (none / 0) (#315)
by F a l c o n on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 05:17:25 AM EST

Well, since you probably wear underwear, what's the big difference in where your member is enclosed in? In fact, I'd trust something that was tested for a few hundred thousand if not a million years more than something manufactured in this form since maybe 1965. And no, it's not hard to clean at all. You just pull it back when you shower. You can pull it back, you know?
--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]
again,,, (4.00 / 1) (#398)
by joshsisk on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 03:36:58 PM EST

After a day of hard for smell your armpit and then smell your forearm - which one smells worse? ;-)

The armpit has apocrine sweat glands which make it smell worse than the sweat from the eccrine glands on your forearm, so this is a really bad comparison.

While you do have apocrine sweat glands in your genital area, they aren't on the foreskin or head of the penis.

But probably it is hard - simply because the glans is enclosed by skin.

In the case of a normal, uncircumsized adult penis, the glans are not enclosed by the foreskin. It is partially covered by the foreskin when not erect. When stroked, cleaned or when erect, the foreskin pulls back to lay flush with the skin of the shaft, revealing the glans.

This means, in laymen's terms, any time you rub your penis with a washcloth, the foreskin moves out of the way automatically. Likewise, any time you get a hard-on during the day, it peels back.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

In heavily indoctrinated cultures... (4.30 / 10) (#77)
by Jizzbug on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:50:02 AM EST

...like the U.S., a sizable portion of the women population find uncircumcized penises gross and/or disgusting.  A smaller, but still significant, portion of the women population aren't bothered one way or the other by uncircumcized penises.  And a rather small minor of the women believe male circumcision to be tantamount to genital mutilation.  Little does the majority know that hardly 6% of the world's male population is actually circumcized.  Because most Americans have such a perverse and distorted world perspective, most people credulously believe--as the author himself noted--circumcision to be a fact of life for all of humanity, period.  If only they'd pick up a book, read a lil' history, and educate themselves--but I digress.

I, personally, would much have appreciated my parents not having me circumcized.  My little brother was born in Australia, where circumcision is not a common practice, and my parents had evolved to the point where they no longer saw fit to have their children circumcized.  I'm kinda jealous that my little brother will forever enjoy sex to an extent that I will never be able to.  *frown*  Oh, well.  At least I have a my penis.  *grin*

I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
 -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None

[ Parent ]

for the record (4.00 / 2) (#91)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:51:28 AM EST

My girlfriend is from a country where circumcision is very rare. She never dated a North American man until two years ago. She tells me that she finds the circumcised penis to be more aesthetically appealing than the uncircumcised.

This is not an argument for circumcision, of course, just a fact to add to the mix.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Me too... (4.50 / 4) (#138)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:19:16 PM EST

When it comes to looks, *I* find the circumcised penis more aesthetically appealing as well.

When it comes to fucking, on the other hand, I thank God I was born in a civilized society.

Incidentally, has it ever occured to you that almost all women will tell their lovers that their cock is the biggest, prettiest, most talented, etc? The ballbreakers who'll tell you anything different are the ones who get dumped pretty damn quick.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
hmmph (3.00 / 1) (#169)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:46:12 PM EST

Incidentally, has it ever occured to you that almost all women will tell their lovers that their cock is the biggest, prettiest, most talented, etc?

Did it occur to you that my girlfriend and myself may have a chaste relationship, and the uncut penis(es?) mentioned were not mine?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Chaste? (none / 0) (#215)
by haflinger on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:50:30 PM EST

You haven't kissed her yet? :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
uhh (none / 0) (#254)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:31:22 PM EST

What does that have to do with anything?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Hey Beavis. (none / 0) (#305)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:45:08 AM EST

Did you just say "tits" hehe?

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Chastity. (none / 0) (#327)
by haflinger on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:54:08 AM EST

Priests swear to it. A chaste relationship means, well, nothing sexual. Don't even kiss her.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Priests (4.00 / 1) (#336)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:55:33 PM EST

At least in Catholicism, priests swear celibacy (no marriage). Everyone is supposed to be chaste (no sex outside of marriage). I don't think kissing counts.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

whatever dude (2.00 / 1) (#347)
by adequate nathan on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 07:35:40 PM EST

Your lack of historical consciousness shows again. I kiss my mother and in medieval cultures the 'kiss of peace' was an important legal instrument.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Different kind of kiss. :) (none / 0) (#392)
by haflinger on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:11:15 PM EST

At least, I'm hoping that you don't kiss your mother the same way you kiss your girlfriend, but rather more like the way modern Russians kiss their friends.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary... (none / 0) (#429)
by vectro on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:43:23 AM EST

The most common use of chaste is "Pure from unlawful sexual intercourse; continent, virtuous. (Of persons, their lives, conduct, etc.)".

While there are definitions in the Dictionary that at least mildly match yours ("Morally pure, free from guilt, innocent", or "Celibate, single") they are also marked as being obselete.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

Heavily indontrinated cultures. (none / 0) (#431)
by vectro on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 02:18:31 AM EST

What does indoctrination mean in this context? The only way I can see American culture as being heavily indoctrinated and still have the phrase carry meaning is based on religosity.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
You'll be lucky (none / 0) (#309)
by Gromit on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:09:12 AM EST

I'm curious whether it actually makes any difference to women one way or another.
I think there's a woman on kuro5hin somewhere, maybe, but by this point in the thread she's probably lost interest... ;-)

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
Probably so. (none / 0) (#317)
by lonesmurf on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 06:21:20 AM EST

I didn't mean the question directed at women in general. Just trying to spark some discussion. :)


Rami

I am not a jolly man. Remove the mirth from my email to send.


[ Parent ]
Here's my female perspective (3.66 / 3) (#341)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:10:59 PM EST

I prefer them circumcised. Aesthetically they look much better. And I know as long as you're careful, cleanliness shouldn't be a problem, but I'm not convinced all men are careful enough, and it's just one more thing I don't have to worry about :)

I can't say I've noticed any difference either for me or for him when he's circumcised or not circumcised. I also can't say I think it's a very big deal. I understand that many people find removal of the foreskin abhorrent, and whilst I don't agree I respect that. Likening it to female genital mutilation, though, where the girl loses her clitoris and her labia and is left with only a pea-sized hole through which to urinate, is absurd. Circumcised men can urinate and ejaculate just as well as uncircumcised men. They also weren't circumcised so that their wives would get exceptional pleasure out of their agony. Female genital mutilation is usually done so that the woman stays tight for her husband's gratification.

That's my view. If it were up to me, men would be circumcised. Of course it isn't up to me, and it shouldn't be up to me, but that's my personal preference. And it's nothing like what they do to little girls in place such as Somalia.

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

kind of irresponsible (5.00 / 1) (#360)
by truffle on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 02:08:16 AM EST

I think it's pretty irresponsible for any woman to say that men should be circumcised (as infants), involuntary surgery is such a nasty thing. I'm a woman too by the way.

Perhaps it's because I feel so strongly that women have worked so hard to get better control of our own bodies, I feel strongly about this case where men don't have control over their own.

For sure, no one is doubting that circumcised men have enjoyable sex, and I also don't think there is a big noticible difference. But, that's not the point. I don't think I should be judging that there is no difference. I think it's ridiculous for any woman to say that.


meow
[ Parent ]

Would be, if I had said THAT (none / 0) (#413)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Jan 22, 2003 at 03:25:35 PM EST

I think it's pretty irresponsible for any woman to say that men should be circumcised (as infants)

So do I. I didn't say they should be whether the men like it or not. I said personally I prefer them when they are. That's what the original post was asking.

I feel strongly about this case where men don't have control over their own.

Yes, and you're quite right. But I did not say, and would never say, that a man should be circumcised because I want him to be. My current fella isn't, and though I'd prefer him to be, I wouldn't dream of asking him to have it done just for me.

In fact I stated explicitly that it should not be up to me. I just said that IF it were, I'd prefer for men to have it done. But I never said they SHOULD.

I think it's ridiculous for any woman to say that.

Well, I didn't say that, so I hope you still like me :-)


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

irreversible? (3.33 / 3) (#70)
by Platy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:51:33 AM EST

I heard it is not completely irreversible. With much patience you can stretch the rest of the foreskin so that it gets larger again. I've never tried it though, and I will not try it either ;-)
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
Not exactly... (4.33 / 3) (#195)
by lucky 03 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:26:39 PM EST

Whilst you can stretch the skin gradually, it's not the same skin further down the penis as the skin that naturally covers the galns (which has lots of unique properties - super high concentration of nerve endings and regenerative properties).

But it does apparently restore some sensitivity and moisture... if you have the patience to try this, it takes a while...

[ Parent ]

The "rest"? (5.00 / 2) (#202)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:42:49 PM EST

... you can stretch the rest of the foreskin ...
I'm completely fogged. What "rest"? I'm having a really hard time visualizing this. There's nothing there to stretch!

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Link (5.00 / 1) (#240)
by Platy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:28:29 PM EST

Ok, here is a small link (atm only the Google cache works) which mentions this. You can find more information with google.
But also look at lucky 03' comment!
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
[ Parent ]
As I see it (4.40 / 15) (#71)
by Rogerborg on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:01:13 AM EST

As far as I can see it, there are three schools of thinking in support of removing the male foreskin:

  1. God is incompetent.
  2. Evolution dropped the ball when it comes to humans.
  3. As it was done to me, so must I do it to my sons.

Actually, that third option rather supports either of the first two.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

As you see it... (4.00 / 1) (#83)
by ranessin on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:22:28 AM EST

Do you feel the same way about piercings? Tatoos?

[ Parent ]
bad arguement. (3.50 / 6) (#89)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:47:39 AM EST

Because those things aren't done for a medical purpose. In America, doctors recommend circumcision for a medical purpose (whether it is necessary or not is another arguement). Tattoos and piercings are for entertainment, self-expression, etc.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
the currently held view (4.20 / 5) (#93)
by tichy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:53:33 AM EST

of the medical establishment is that there is no medical reason to circumcise. If you're not convinced, read the links of the article. So yes, it's completely cultural.

[ Parent ]
except... (none / 0) (#124)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:40:10 AM EST

As I said in my above comment : "whether it is necessary or not is another arguement". Personally, I agree that there is no medical reason, but that was not the point of my comment.

The fact is at least some doctors do still recommend that it be done for medical or hygiene reasons, and not that long ago the majority of American doctors did, as well.

I'd wager that no (reputable) doctors have ever recommended that infants be tattooed or given body jewelry - which makes a comparison between body jewelry/tattoos and circumcision pretty hollow. One is something adults do as an act of self expression, the other is a practice done to children either as a medical or religious decision.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

Unfit to practice (none / 0) (#443)
by teeth on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 10:22:38 PM EST

"The fact is at least some doctors do still recommend that it be done for medical or hygiene reasons, and not that long ago the majority of American doctors did, as well."

They should be struck off, and reported for assault.


Copyright is for protection against publishers
[ Parent ]

except... (4.50 / 2) (#126)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:52:19 AM EST

As I said in my above comment : "whether it is necessary or not is another arguement". Personally, I agree that there is no medical reason, but that was not the point of my comment.

The fact is at least some doctors do still recommend that it be done for medical or hygiene reasons, and not that long ago the majority of American doctors recommended it. Also, of course, it is done to children for religious reasons (though I don't know much about this aspect of it).

I'd wager that no (reputable) doctors have ever recommended that infants be tattooed or given body jewelry - which makes a comparison between body jewelry/tattoos and circumcision pretty hollow. One is something adults do to themselves as an act of self expression, the other is a practice done to children by adults either as a medical or religious decision.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

ok, right (4.75 / 4) (#161)
by tichy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:59:11 PM EST

ok, right I agree with all you said here; yet the comparison remains insofar as they are all forms of "mutilation" done for cultural reasons, whatever they may be. However I agree that other than that the comparison is pretty meaningless, almost off topic. I merely wanted to give context to this:

Because those things aren't done for a medical purpose.
Except circumcision isn't either; it was shown to be unnecessary in the seventies. That is quite a long time ago, certainly enough time for the practice to virtually disappear, as it happened in other countries, like England. But in the US it remained, despite the pronouncements of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (in the 70s!) that it was unnecessary.

What this means is that circumcising is a cultural phenomenon; there are no medical reasons for it, therefore if it continues the reasons are purely cultural. That (bogus) medical reasons are used to justify it in no way detracts from this fact. If anything it shows that the practice is more culturally ingrained than others, because people see the need to find these bogus medical reasons when they have no other reasons (e.g. religious) to continue it.

I'm sorry if I come off as an ass but I merely wanted to give a proper context to that. Yes, piercing and such aren't very pertinent to this discussion, moving on.

[ Parent ]

Cool, I agree with you. (n/t) (4.33 / 3) (#197)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:32:07 PM EST


--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
plastic surgery (4.83 / 6) (#97)
by animal on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:16:30 AM EST

circumcision is surgical alteration of the body for non-medical reasons. The argument is that a form of cosmetic surgery that is non-reversible, is being carried out on children. this is totally different to adults chosing to have tatoos or piercings.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.50 / 4) (#104)
by krek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:30:04 AM EST

How many parents do you know that give their newborns tattos and earrings?

[ Parent ]
Hispanic (4.50 / 2) (#111)
by catseye on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:58:00 AM EST

It's pretty common in the Hispanic culture(s), at least in South Florida, to pierce the ears of baby girls.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]
I agree, although... (none / 0) (#428)
by vectro on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:38:53 AM EST

Regardless of the ethicality of piercing a baby's ears, the two acts are different in one fundamental way: If the adult girl wants to, she can remove her earrings and the ears will grow back. No such thing is true for the foreskin.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Done to yourself vs done to others (4.66 / 3) (#142)
by flarg on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:25:19 PM EST

Tatoos and piercings are something that you do to yourself.

Circumcision is something that is (usually) done to a baby boy.

If an adult wants to get a circumcision, I have no problem there.

[ Parent ]

God and evolution aren't perfect (4.00 / 5) (#96)
by dachshund on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:11:30 AM EST

As far as I can see it, there are three schools of thinking in support of removing the male foreskin

No offense to God or evolution, but maybe he can explain why the hell he gave me a damned appendix... That ticking time-bomb that serves no other purpose but to rupture at an inopportune moment, maybe killing me in the process.

[ Parent ]

maybe it should be removed in everyone [nt] (4.00 / 1) (#119)
by speek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:21:36 AM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Appendix == leftover from prehistory.. (3.00 / 2) (#164)
by sudog on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:04:05 PM EST

It once harboured the bacteria cultures necessary for humans to digest cellulose--you know, grasses, bark--the stuff that apes and cows can eat and get nutrients from but we can't.

We're not true omnivores. And our appendix is a leftover from those ancient times when we were.


[ Parent ]

We're not true omnivores... (none / 0) (#356)
by Dyolf Knip on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:35:04 PM EST

"...we're herbivores that learned to fight back"

Dunno where I heard that one.

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

Or.. from a radical christian standpoint (4.00 / 1) (#108)
by slash on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:43:21 AM EST

4. Jesus was circumcised. Therefore I follow what the bible says.

[ Parent ]
The Bible says not to do it (4.80 / 5) (#141)
by pdrap on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:24:17 PM EST

Read what Paul wrote in Romans. He said if you're circumcised, don't worry about it. If you're not circumcised, don't get circumcised.

It's made very very clear that circumcision is completely irrelevant to Christianity. So don't do it.

[ Parent ]

Biblically speaking ... (4.42 / 7) (#113)
by AnomymousCoward on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:03:27 AM EST

The old testament declares the need for circumcision, not to correct an imperfection, nor for sanitation, but as a sign of devotion, and a means of identification as a child of God.

The actual passage is Genesis 17:10:

9 And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.


Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
so... (4.00 / 1) (#193)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:23:09 PM EST

its sorta like the Freemason's secret handshakes? :)

[ Parent ]
Dude (5.00 / 3) (#236)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:08:57 PM EST

You put the image in my head of Freemasons having some secret greeting where they give each other's circumsized willy a secret wank. Very solemnly.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

HAHA!!! (none / 0) (#294)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:59:22 PM EST

Damn funny image ;)

[ Parent ]
about the whole "women find it sexy thing&quo (4.57 / 14) (#79)
by truffle on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:03:55 AM EST

Not so much in this thread, but in other threads I've seen women state emphaticly that they prefer circumcized penises, stating they are more attractive.

I consider this sort of statement to be irresponsible, and small minded. I wouldn't appreciate a men telling me that surgically altered vaginas are sexy (some women do have labia reduction surgery, ew).

Probably most women who prefer circumcised penises have husband, brothers, fathers, or male children who are circumcised. To not support circumcision is like stating that these important males in their lives are somehow flawed or inferior.

Others may be offering an innocent esthetic opinion, without considering that circumcision is a state obtained through surgical alteration, and not one that is found naturally.

meow

irresponsible (4.25 / 4) (#140)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:23:14 PM EST

Is it irresponsible to like a woman's breast after she gets implants? How about women after they've had a face lift? There's a whole host of medical procedures used to make people beautiful in ways that don't come naturally, cheaply, painlessly, and without loss of sensitivity. They happen nonetheless.

It's OK to like it, it's another thing to require it.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
infant boob jobs (4.75 / 4) (#198)
by tichy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:33:06 PM EST

All the procedures you mention are done in adulthood, when the subject is (hopefully) informed and in charge of the decision of wether to enhance their appeal surgically. I've heard of no boob jobs on infants. So I think it is slightly irresponsible if used as an argument for routine infant circumcision.

[ Parent ]
I acknowledged that (3.33 / 3) (#218)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:55:30 PM EST

But it's not irresponsible to have a preference. It may be irresponsible to force your preference.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
be aware of the concequences (none / 0) (#359)
by truffle on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 01:59:20 AM EST

We're talking about non consensual surgery on a child.

If you make positive statements about this surgery, you are indirectly supporting this non concensual surgery.

You could say "I find circumcised penises more attractive, but I don't support circumcision of infants".

Just saying "I find circumcised penises more attractive" has an implicit support of circumcision of infants.


meow
[ Parent ]

wow! who knew a two year old had a rack like that! (none / 0) (#237)
by FieryTaco on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:10:41 PM EST

Actually, there are many (hundreds-thousands) surgeries every year for cosmetic changes to infants. Changes that are not putting the child at risk from a health view point. Various "deformities" which people look at and say "ewww" but don't put the child in any kind danger medically.

[ Parent ]
Not the same (5.00 / 1) (#266)
by greenrd on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:34:41 PM EST

Circumcision is a painful procedure for a baby which confers little or no real benefits. Cosmetic surgery saves the child (and his or her family!) from a lot of psychological discomfort in later life. Not really remotely similar.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

psychological discomfort? (none / 0) (#330)
by FieryTaco on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:12:40 AM EST

As soon as you say "psychological discomfort" then suddenly circumcision becomes completely jusitiable. If the culture you are part of routinely circumcises, then not being circumcised leads to a lot of psychological discomfort later in life. They are very much similar situations.

Additionally the statement that a procedure is painful for the baby with little or no real benefits can be equally applied to many forms of cosmetic surgery. There's no reason circumcision needs to be painful, anesthesia could be used for circumcision just as easily as it can be used to correct a hairlip, to remove a skin growth, remove a benign tumor, etc.

[ Parent ]

plastic surgery has consequences (none / 0) (#409)
by agentk on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 04:13:33 PM EST

Breast implants do cause a loss in sensitivity. All these procedures have a host of side effects, and for the most part are just an attempt to conform to the near-impossible "ideal" body type that fills the pages of Cosmo etc. (true reconstructive surgery aside)

[ Parent ]
they didn't ask me (4.57 / 7) (#160)
by muchagecko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:49:24 PM EST

I've had both, and I prefer uncut. I think most women in the US haven't had the opportunity of having sex with an uncircumsized man. I just happened to meet a guy from another country. ;)

"Do you think Mr. Fantastic can stretch his dinky also? And do you think The Thing is hard all over? I mean really all over."
[ Parent ]
so how many such wanks have you tried? (3.66 / 3) (#235)
by FieryTaco on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:05:26 PM EST

You've met a guy from another country and had wonderful sex with him. He's uncircumsized, so therefore uncircumsized is better. That doesn't really follow. What you should do is find yourself, say, 50 circumsized, 50 uncircumsized, and try them all then come back to us and report. Otherwise all your saying is that your lover, who happens to be from another country, is a good lover.

[ Parent ]
I'm not going to give you my numbers (4.75 / 4) (#247)
by muchagecko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:13:22 PM EST

but I am well above average when it comes to the number of sexual partners I've had. I don't think of myself as a slut, but some may.

Its not the sexual performance of the individual that I'm rating, its the actual physical qualities of the uncircumcised penis that I'm preferring. No performance issues compared whatsoever. The uncircumcised penis is more sensitive and responsive to subtle stimulation - more fun than the circumcised penis that needs way more pressure to give a similar response. Good lover or bad.

"Do you think Mr. Fantastic can stretch his dinky also? And do you think The Thing is hard all over? I mean really all over."
[ Parent ]

Oh goodness (3.66 / 3) (#249)
by anyonymous [35789] on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:15:10 PM EST

The diary I just wrote will piss you off. I love my uncircumsized love-rod, and I think more pressure is fun.

[ Parent ]
Typo in last post! Circumsized! Circumsized! (3.66 / 3) (#250)
by anyonymous [35789] on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:17:01 PM EST



[ Parent ]
yours really is lovely (5.00 / 3) (#267)
by muchagecko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:48:42 PM EST

Circumcised or uncircumcised - is not that important, of course. Just a minor preference. I would never decide to have sex, or a relationship with a man because he was circumcised or not.

Its different when you're the mother of a baby boy and you need to choose whether or not to circumcise. I still get crap from my mom because my son is not circumcised. Hey - if he wants to have it done when he's older - at least now its his choice.

"Do you think Mr. Fantastic can stretch his dinky also? And do you think The Thing is hard all over? I mean really all over."
[ Parent ]

Thoughts (3.50 / 4) (#273)
by anyonymous [35789] on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:05:47 PM EST

I suppose it's good to give a kid his choice, but I can say that if I were uncut I would not do it. I'd have the biggest forskin in history. It is far to sensative as is, cut, and I fear being that if I were to hypothetically get circumsized with an even more sensative penis I would be in pain and laid-up for a long time. I wouldn't do it.

Of course, to be an adult in pain able to administer your own anesthetic is far different from being a helpless child.

And to be a helpless child makes it almost completely probable that you will completely forget the entire experience.

Oh heck I donno

[ Parent ]

Oh, and (4.00 / 2) (#282)
by anyonymous [35789] on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:30:13 PM EST

Thank you.

[ Parent ]
attractive is in the eye of the beholder (4.66 / 6) (#165)
by coderlemming on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:17:22 PM EST

Not so much in this thread, but in other threads I've seen women state emphaticly that they prefer circumcized penises, stating they are more attractive.

Of course, the other way to refute this common refrain is to look at WHY women say it's more attractive. In the US, circumcision is the prevailing practice. Therefore, since what's not normal is "weird", it's quite understandable that most women don't question it. Since the majority of men in the US are circumcised, the majority of women in the US will correspondingly feel that it's the way things are supposed to be... and so, the popular opinion bolsters itself.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
She kissed the cow (none / 0) (#383)
by Korydon on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:16:10 AM EST

Frank Lloyd Wright loved telling the story about the lady who said "It's just a matter of taste", as she kissed her cow. The point being, as you implied, that "taste" is a rather poor method of determining beauty, or function. Only when one has studied the subject at hand with insight and determinination does one approach the semblance of truth. Prejudice only confirms stupidity.

[ Parent ]
Female vs Male circumcision (4.75 / 12) (#80)
by truffle on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:09:50 AM EST

Some people seem to be equating female circumcision and male circumcision. Female circumcision involves removing all or part of the clitoris. Male circumcision involves removing all or part of the foreskin. They're not really the same procedure at all. If male circumcision was like female circumcision, it would involve removing all or part of the glans (the bumpy part at the end that squirts). Certainly both of them are involuntary surgeries performed upon infants who can not give consent. Another such surgery is feminizing genital surgery that is performed on children who have ambiguous genitalia or unusually large clitorises. This is being performed every day in the United States on young children, and parents are being told this is a medically necessary procedure, when it is not.

meow

Glans = bumpy? (4.50 / 2) (#84)
by DominantParadigm on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:23:26 AM EST

You might want to get your doctor to check that out, dude.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Correction (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:10:11 PM EST

"You might want to get your doctor to check that out, dude."

I assume that the poster intended to refer to the part of the penis that is that way whilst engorged with blood thus makeing it look "bumpy" via the veinous structure.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

Necessity (1.75 / 4) (#181)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:07:57 PM EST

"This is being performed every day in the United States on
    young children, and parents are being told this is a medically necessary procedure, when it is not."

Explain how correcting genitals is a problem?
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

ok, i'll respodn to your troll :) (none / 0) (#357)
by truffle on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 01:52:34 AM EST

There is nothing to correct in the vast majority of cases. The children's genitals are healthy and require no surgical alteration to function in a healthy way.

They are surgically altered to conform better to social expectations of what male and female genitalia are supposed to look like. Unfortunately, this alteration is often very damaging to the child's genitalia.

There is a growing movement of adults, who had this procedure performed on them as a child, protesting it being performed on other children

meow
[ Parent ]

Intersexual Genital Mutilation (IGM) (none / 0) (#436)
by razniq on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:26:54 PM EST

Pardoning your ignorance on MGM, you bring up another very serious abuse of power that most people aren't aware of: gender reassignment of those born with a clitoris 'too big' or a penis 'too small'. They actually have maximum and minimum allowable measurements for the clitoris and penis respectively. If you fall in between, here comes the knife. The parents are told to keep this secret from the child and raise them as whatever gender they are assigned to. Of course this ignores the mental masculine and feminine differences which often come out later but by then the irreversible damage has already been done to their genitalia sometimes resulting in a complete loss of sexual function.

As with circumcision the same obvious solution applies; let the individual whose body it is decide whether or not to have irreversible surgery.

They wrecked my genitals

Tragic case of John/Joan

Intersex Society of North America

I read and recommend the book Lessons From the Intersexed (Rutgers University Press, August, 1999) by Suzanne Kessler

[ Parent ]

But you all forget one important thing. (3.28 / 7) (#95)
by i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:05:06 AM EST

Sex is overrated.

burn mojo burn

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

...sez the geek. (3.33 / 3) (#99)
by Demiurge on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:19:25 AM EST



[ Parent ]
says people with problems of the prostate/old age (4.00 / 1) (#172)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:55:39 PM EST

or perhaps others who simply have heart problems. Sex is an age limiting thing.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]
"Sex is an age limiting thing" (4.00 / 2) (#189)
by houser2112 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:17:32 PM EST

I think you have it backwards...

[ Parent ]
so I do :) (4.00 / 2) (#191)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:21:04 PM EST

that should read "Age is a thing which can limit sex"
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]
or the person who... (4.00 / 2) (#190)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:20:29 PM EST

has had it enough to make the judgement, geek or not. Sex is fun. It is however overrated.

[ Parent ]
You're probably just doing it wrong (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#205)
by HypoLuxa on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:04:11 PM EST



--
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons.
- Leonard Cohen
[ Parent ]
I have heard (4.66 / 3) (#102)
by krek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:27:07 AM EST

That an intact forskin increases female stimulation during sex as well. The foreskin rolling back and forth over the glans during penetration apparently provides a fair amount of additional sensation to the vaginal walls.

Also (4.33 / 3) (#112)
by krek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:02:56 AM EST

I have also heard, in contradiction to a comment below, that the foreskin is made of a special type of skin with some rather special properties.

For one, some scientists have apparently been successful in extracting and cultivating stem cells from removed foreskins.

Secondly, the foreskin apparently has a rather large quantity of skin tissue in it as well as possessing some rather remarkable regenerative properties, because of this, the foreskin can provide an impressive amount of skin for use in skin grafts for burn victims and the like. We just have to figure out the medical details of how this can be employed to our benefit.

It seems to me that there is, in fact, some rather large medical benefits to avoiding circumcision. Keeping your forskin is like carrying around your own personal, emergency repair kit.

[ Parent ]
Wow! (4.80 / 5) (#117)
by odaiwai on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:17:17 AM EST

I just got this disturbing mental image of a skin graft that you have to be very careful not to rub too much...

dave "*spurt*  Oh, sorry Vicar, it's my old war wound."
-- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
[ Parent ]

circumcision (4.17 / 17) (#105)
by corian on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:35:07 AM EST

I am circumcized and I utterly hate it.

I, an atheist, have, on my body, the permanent mark of of a religious ritual performed on my without my concent (my parents are Jewish). I can think of few things more personally degrading than that.

Yes, I realize that religious reasons are not the only motivation for circumcision. Nonetheless, I believe on principle that all medical procedures which are not of immediate medical necessity should be deferred until a child, rather than a parent, is old enough to give informed consent.

Sue (none / 0) (#444)
by teeth on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 10:34:11 PM EST

If you, and others in similar circumstances, were to sue those who mutilated you perhaps it would get harder to find mutilators.

It might be worth making a formal criminal complaint too.


Copyright is for protection against publishers
[ Parent ]

Not to add more options to an already large poll (4.75 / 4) (#116)
by wurp on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:11:30 AM EST

Your poll seems to assume that those answering are male.  Certainly, I would expect the vast majority of women to answer as uncircumcised, but I interpret that quite differently from an answer of uncircumcised from a male.
---
Buy my stuff
INTACT (4.00 / 3) (#382)
by Korydon on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:03:09 AM EST

I don't mean to be picky, but the term "uncircumcised" implies that "circumcised" is the normal state, when it is nothing of the kind. INTACT, natural, or similar terms are far less offensive.

[ Parent ]
uncircumcised is clear and to the point (none / 0) (#400)
by wurp on Mon Jan 20, 2003 at 01:18:04 PM EST

and I can't see how it's offensive to anyone who isn't seeking out offense.  Uncircumcised people certainly are uncircumcised.  It's not a dirty word.  My youngest son is uncircumcised.  If I said natural or intact, I would then have to turn around and explain what that mean, and probably use the word uncircumcised to do so.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]
backwards (none / 0) (#417)
by dh003i on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:09:35 PM EST

Why should we have to add an extra label to describe the natural state of the penis?  We don't say "unenlarged breasts" do we?

It is more correct and appropriate to say "natural" when describing an "uncircumsized" penis and "unnatural" when describing a circumsized penis.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Clear and to the point (none / 0) (#430)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:55:08 AM EST

I want to commend you for leaving your youngest child INTACT. That counts you "ONE"! How did he escape the knife? It is part of life for children to learn the proper terms to use in polite conversation and who better to teach them than their parents? If you would rather that they display their ignorance...well, that's your choice. Though, for a child to learn that his parents know only slang words is a terrible embarrassment, one that they never forget.

[ Parent ]
Communication (none / 0) (#438)
by wurp on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 03:23:53 PM EST

Select a dictionary of your choice.  Look up intact.  Look up uncircumcised.  Which is slang?  Which is better for communication?  Who's ignorant?

I'm tired of this conversation.  It's obvious I've hit some personally painful issue, about which you don't see clearly.

Have a nice life, and please stop shouting.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

Penile Cancer (3.25 / 8) (#120)
by Chonguey on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:29:54 AM EST

While the sexual consequences of circumcision are debatable there is one hard argument for circumcision: cancer. Circumcision virtually eliminates the chances of a person developing penile cancer.

"About 95% of penile cancers develop from flat, scale-like skin cells called squamous cells.... Squamous cell penile cancers can develop anywhere on the organ, but most develop on the foreskin (in men who have not been circumcised)..."

Source: American Cancer Society - Article Link

uh huh (4.42 / 7) (#123)
by corian on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:36:59 AM EST

Circumcision virtually eliminates the chances of a person developing penile cancer.

Yes, and if you give someone a masectomy, they probably won't get breast cancer. Cut off their head and they won't get headaches either, I bet.

"Health benefits" is different than "immediate medical need". The issue is not benefits; the issue is consent.

[ Parent ]

minors and such (4.50 / 2) (#177)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:02:36 PM EST

"The issue is not benefits; the issue is consent."

Technically (not that I support said operation) minors have little or no rigths regarding medical procedures. In the eyes of the law their opinion is irrevelent.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

And to quote a bit more.. (4.75 / 4) (#130)
by ajduk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:01:07 PM EST

"The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2003 in the United States about 1,400 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed and an estimated 200 men will die of penile cancer. Penile cancer occurs in about 1 man out of 100,000 in the United States."

This is not a major problem.

[ Parent ]

Compare male breast cancer (4.33 / 3) (#148)
by pdrap on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:33:02 PM EST

Breast cancer in men is roughly twice as common as penile cancer. There's also indications that penile cancer is caused by the HPV virus, just like cervical cancer. The biggest factor in penile cancer is number of sexual partners, and past studies failed to account for the difference in number of sexual partners between circumcised and uncircumcised men, since they typically came from different segments of society.

[ Parent ]
perspective (4.33 / 3) (#179)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:04:58 PM EST

"This is not a major problem. "

Well duh but that dosn't matter in terms of a group of zealots. The WTC incident where a group of moo-slims got a wee bit lost still is smaller than the number of people who die in workplace related accidents in the US annually. Same type of thing. If people assume that it's lethal they will certainly create a mountain out of a molehill.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

Oh that's bloody brilliant! (4.88 / 9) (#131)
by jabber on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:02:18 PM EST

I bet that if you cut off your head, you'll be safe from brain cancer.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

futility (4.20 / 5) (#175)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:00:46 PM EST

"I bet that if you cut off your head, you'll be safe from brain cancer. "

I would have to agree with that assesment. What is the point of cutting off your most sensitive part of your penis just to reduce the small chance that you *may* develop cancer? The irony would be that you have circumcision and still get some other form of cancer and die of it anyway.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

No brain no tumors [n/t] (3.50 / 2) (#156)
by zocky on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:41:27 PM EST


---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

the numbers (4.00 / 2) (#173)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:57:36 PM EST

"While the sexual consequences of circumcision are debatable there is one hard argument for circumcision: cancer. Circumcision virtually eliminates the chances of a person developing penile cancer."

Ok so what is the actual percentage of people getting such a thing.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

Better chance of developing MALE breast cancer tha (5.00 / 3) (#381)
by Korydon on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 12:54:40 AM EST

Men have a better chance of developing breast cancer than penile cancer. Even then the chance is about 1 in 100,000. Women have a 1 in 9 chance of developing breast cancer...so, you would naturally recommend that every woman and every man have their breasts removed...if not in infancy, then immediately after puberty, right? We assume that you, being concerned about your chances of developing cancer, have had your breasts removed...as have all the members of your family, no? Do, please, assure us!

[ Parent ]
The effect of circumcision on Women (3.68 / 22) (#127)
by bc on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:56:03 AM EST

It isn't just men that sufffer from the effects of circumcision, it's women too. This scientific study, The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner was an attempt to answer the hoary question, "Which is more sexually gratifying for the female, circumcised or uncircumcised?"

Its answers are conclusive: uncircumcised men can better satisfy a woman. Women reported more orgasms, more frequently, and far less pain with uncirced men that circed. This should not be remotely surprising, of course, as the foreskin has a very important role to play during the sexual act, and one of those is to provide pleasure to both partners while reducing pain for the woman. And it succeeds admirably.

When one considers the many American women who seem to think it a matter of course that they be painful after sex, and that the "nuclear fucking" that indicates a new relationship be accompanied by constant agony (an American girl I knew had to retire to a bath to sit during the day she felt so sore at the start of one relationship with an American), we, its amazing. Sex should NOT result in any pain at ALL for the woman!! What the hell is this?

Further, women who have been with both types of men tend to report that the sex with the uncirced male, while more pleasurable, was also more loving. Why? Because he isn't pushing along desperately trying to reach some destination, he isn't treating her as a sack of meet. Uncircumcised men are so sensitive that the merest brush of the hand can drive him up the wall with pleasure. Contrast to circumcised men, who's sexual organs are insensate rods. They have to do it in 17 positions and swinging from bloody chandaliers to get their jollies.

I think this also helps explain why anal sex is so popular in America. For the circumcised American male, the vagina often just doesn't provide what he needs in terms of sensation. Sex becomes a mental thing, rather than being straightforwardly felt. Many American men I know seem obsessed with anal sex and rant about how good it is. WTF?? It shouldn't be needed at all, its vile, and I don't think I could face the sensation that would come from placing my penis in such a place. Bizarre.

Women say:

"I experienced a huge difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Until I met my natural husband, I thought that the rough, dry circumcised penis was the way it was supposed to be. WOW! I had been missing genuine, naturally satisfying sex and now have the utmost appreciation for the 'real thing.' There is such a remarkable difference, in all aspects of sex-from foreplay and fellatio to intercourse. In retrospect, I now consider the circumcised penis as a sort of unreal 'device' that made intercourse a not very pleasing experience that often left me sore. I now have orgasms that were very rare with circumcised men.
Surprise, surprise. And:
With circumcised, when the man is too forceful with his thrusting I lose all sense of feeling. The glans of the circumcised male feels rough, and the shaft is too hard, unnatural. It is not the same as with a natural penis.

My sexual experiences with three natural men were extraordinary in the gentleness, sensuality, and mutuality of the experience.

These quotes are TYPICAL of women who have experienced both.
The foreskin is the best thing God ever invented for us women. Once a natural penis is in your vagina, you wish it could stay forever. It makes you feel like you're on top of the world. You will only know if you've had sex with a natural man.

Circumcision is a bloody tragedy, it's akin to chopping off half your dick and certainly commensurate with female circumcision in terms of barbarity (female circumcision generally takes off a part of the clitoris, the labia, or the whole shebang) in that both these oprations remove 90% of your sexual feeling. And yet America is full of hypocrisy, horrified about female circumcision, and glorifying male circumcision.

It's AWFUL.

♥, bc.

i think i'll jump off a bridge now -nt- (4.60 / 5) (#137)
by alukaiser on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:18:37 PM EST


Man, being reasonable, must get drunk. -Lord Byron
[ Parent ]

and land on bc? [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#362)
by it certainly is on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 02:43:03 AM EST



kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

heh (4.14 / 7) (#200)
by millman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:37:02 PM EST

I've read articles similar to this before, but nothing as extreme as "uncircumcized is heaven, circumcized is hell". I'll bet this is true to an extent, but not nearly as radical as that article states.

Comments I've heard from several women online, as well as one I know IRL who have had both, state that uncircumsized is a bit better, but not enough to seek out uncircumsized men. It also doesn't guarantee that they'll be better lovers, which should be obvious, since about 95% of being a lover doesn't involve the physical properties of your unit. For some reason this is lost in your article.

I laughed when I read the statement "There is such a remarkable difference, in all aspects of sex-from foreplay and fellatio to intercourse." Foreplay???? That comes before you go at it, at least the last time I checked... Oh and for the record, I am circumcized and do not support it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.
[ Parent ]

Um. (4.33 / 3) (#310)
by Gromit on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:31:34 AM EST

Until I met my natural husband, I thought that the rough, dry circumcised penis was the way it was supposed to be.
My circumcized unit sure isn't rough, and, er, by the time we get down to the actual business, it isn't dry, either. Nor is she, and it takes two to lubricate. Sounds like bad partners, not bad equipment. And a seriously skewed study. [But then, I have to believe that, don't I? ;-)]

[FTR, my sons, if there are ever any, won't look like their dad in this regard -- why chop off a bit of their willy if there isn't a good reason to? I'll teach them to keep it clean, and find out from books or something how to help them make sure the foreskin is supple and moves like it should so they don't get unpleasant surprises in adolescence...]



--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
too inflametory to take seriously (5.00 / 2) (#361)
by truffle on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 02:16:28 AM EST

Your post may have some useful facts in it, but the tone of it is far to harsh to be taken seriously. I'm a woman, and I would never describe things in the way the women you quoted did. It reads like propaganda.

meow
[ Parent ]

Big American Penises (none / 0) (#364)
by gnovos on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 03:37:03 AM EST

Now, how can you be ABSOLUTLY sure the "horrible pain" American women feel is not caused by our grotequly huge American penises?  Hmmmm?  It seems that your data would suggest just such a reality...

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]
My research reveals that ... (4.54 / 11) (#133)
by Bill Melater on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:07:56 PM EST

circumcision is definitely not a cure for masturbation ;-}

Seriously though, there's a significant shift away from circumcision in the US. Before my son was born in 1997 the wife and I attended the obligatory child-birthin' classes at the hospital. Towards the end of the course they showed us a circumcision video. Screaming baby in restraints, blood, very messy. It was very clear that the hospital was discouraging the practice.

We decided against it, which was pretty much the calculated result. I don't think anyone could watch that operation and decide to do it to their child.



Definitely propaganda (3.12 / 8) (#194)
by lorcha on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:24:28 PM EST

Screaming baby in restraints, blood, very messy. It was very clear that the hospital was discouraging the practice.

We decided against it, which was pretty much the calculated result. I don't think anyone could watch that operation and decide to do it to their child.

No way! A baby cried? Who'da thunk it? :-)

But seriously, you are correct that whomever showed you this video had an agenda. I am Jewish, I have been to several cicrumcisions (for the curious: called "brit milah" in Hebrew or "briss" in Yiddish), and can assure you that this is definitely not par for the course.

To give you an idea, according to Jewish law, for the circumcision to be legal, the baby must shed one drop of blood. You read correctly, the unit of measure is the drop. I'm not sure what "very messy" means since I haven't seen the video in question, but it sounds to me like what you saw was designed to shock the audience, which it clearly did. And yes, the baby does tend to cry, as he no doubt feels pain during the procedure.

It seems the "common thinking" on the subject tends to swing between "you should" and "you shouldn't" every 5-10 years or so. I'm told that right now we're in a "you shouldn't" year, but I have to admit I don't keep abreast of circumcisional wisdom since for me and any male children I may have it is not an optional procedure.

Note: I'm not trying to question the correctness of your decision, which, of course, is none of my business. I'm only pointing out that what the hospital showed was not so accurate.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

I might be wrong here but (3.40 / 5) (#271)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:58:00 PM EST

You're saying a hospital would film an operation that was intentionally bloodier than that operation would normally be, just to stop people circumsising their kids?

[ Parent ]
Yes (2.60 / 5) (#286)
by lorcha on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:45:56 PM EST

Why else would they bother to show a video at all, let alone a violent one?

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Oh, for crying out loud (2.29 / 17) (#136)
by trhurler on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:15:33 PM EST

First of all, nobody knows the real impact on sexual stimulation if the procedure is performed early in life. If you can't figure out why, you're a moron.

Second, most of the things said in the story are either highly questionable or outright false. Among them: no, your foreskin does not produce snot. Sorry to break that to you.

Third, from the perspective of a man, the result is, it doesn't fucking matter whether your dick was snipped. Just admit that the whole reason for all of this "reasoning" and "argument" is that you're jealous and wonder what it would be like to have a foreskin, and let's get it over with. While you're at it, just admit that sex feels really good(if you've ever even had it, you fucking dork,) and that if there's anything wrong with your sex life, it is your own goddamned fault.

Fourth, just try and find a woman who has experience with both circumsized and uncircumsized penises who doesn't prefer circumsized ones. I mean, really. Try. I'm sure there might be one out there somewhere. There are millions who feel differently. Think about it.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Huh (4.50 / 4) (#145)
by bc on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:28:41 PM EST

1)Why not as adults who have been circumcised, then?

&4)This is easy, women married or going out with natural men prefer them over unnatural men, and vice versa, generally. So 90% of the world's women tend to prefer them natural. Hell, in the UK being circumcised is rare and freakish, women overwhelmingly prefer uncircumcised. It's a matter of culture, and the US will be predominantly uncircumcised before long anyway.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

Note what I did NOT say (3.00 / 3) (#246)
by trhurler on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:05:39 PM EST

I certainly did not say that men should be circumsized. What I said is that all these k5 people who are pissed off are being silly.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I live in US (4.60 / 5) (#159)
by muchagecko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:44:21 PM EST

And I've had them both ways. I prefer uncircumsized, because an uncircumsized penis seems to be more responsive to more subtle forms of stimulation.

So ninner, ninner.

"Do you think Mr. Fantastic can stretch his dinky also? And do you think The Thing is hard all over? I mean really all over."
[ Parent ]

Porn movies (4.40 / 5) (#146)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:28:50 PM EST

I have noticed that all the men in the porn movies I've seen are circumsized. Do the porn movies in Europe typically feature uncircumsized men? Or do all porns feature circumsized penises because of some sort of inherent advantage? For example, can a circumsized man last longer? Can they shoot their semen farther than an uncircumsized man? Perhaps there is no advantage and this is all a sign of U.S. hedgemony in the porn industry.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
I understand (4.33 / 3) (#152)
by bc on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:49:50 PM EST

..That most blokes in europorn are natural.

Or at least, that's what I'm told, eh.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

porn and nationality (3.00 / 2) (#171)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:54:25 PM EST

"Perhaps there is no advantage and this is all a sign of U.S. hedgemony in the porn industry."

I don't know but I have seen some of those British porn mags and man not only are they partly sensored but they also feature people who really qualify as crack whores.

Hmmm maybe for a kick some Arab porn: Burqa Babes?
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

The Case for Neonatal Circumcision (2.41 / 12) (#153)
by loteck on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:27:29 PM EST

The best argument for neonatal circumcision still lies in the fact that uncut men have to deal with the possibility of infections and diseases that cut men normally wont ever even have to know about:

-Penile Cancer - most people don't even know this kind of cancer exists, mainly because it is extremely rare to find it in circumcised men. It is mainly a concern for the uncut penis.
-Yeast infection, balanoposthitis, phimosis and other bacteria related conditions are found only in uncircumcised men. These conditions can lead to Paraphimosis (again, only uncut men), which can require emergency surgery.

I'm sure these things can be avoided by a myriad of habits, drugs and treatments, but the point is the average circumcised man will never have to deal with these problems, period.

The studies about which kind of penis women prefer simply display the fickleness of those being surveyed; i can find several studies going both ways and supporting both sides, which would lead me to conclude that women can probably be happy with whatever they have at the moment. The man (and his woman, for that matter) should be primarily concerned about his health, sexual satisfaction a distant second.

I think the last thing to consider is the fact that, if at an adult age you DO decide to become circumcised, you should be ready to receive injections into your genitals, and for people to be cutting things off. Any man knows that blunt or sharp impact to anywhere around that region causes great pain, and i cannot fathom the pain adult men that have circumcisions experience.

If for nothing else, i believe for health reasons that i will have my child circumcised when he is very young, for the 5 or 6 serious health risks that i will not have to worry about.

If you would like more information on the great majority of the medical community's take on neonatal circumcision, check this article and the articles that it links to.


--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

Debunking time! (5.00 / 7) (#162)
by mscholz on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:59:27 PM EST

not to beat the dead horse with an uncircumsised penis, but I have some problems with your arguments:

Penile Cancer: What are the rates?  I want 2 numbers here, uncircumsised vs. circumcised ratio, and FAR MORE IMPORTANT, how many men get penile cancer at all?  

Your argument about Paraphimosis is scary, but has 2 problems: 1)it is a slippery slope argument, too many CANs, and 2) all of these things are a result of poor hygene (at least that's what I learned in my health classes).  

If you are going to insist on using risk management to justify circumcision, you need to at least use some solid numbers.
-
you are a shining light streaming up through a hellish, smoking chasm of stupidity. - webwench
[ Parent ]

Fuck. I was going to stay out of this. (4.50 / 10) (#166)
by Hizonner on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:18:11 PM EST

The man (and his woman, for that matter) should be primarily concerned about his health, sexual satisfaction a distant second.
I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing whiners say that it makes sense to give up huge chunks of quality of life for tiny crumbs of safety. Not that you're actually getting any safety in this case, but even if you were the attitude would suck. And it's not primarily about women's preferences, by the way; every piece of available information indicates that circumcision significantly reduces the man's pleasure most of the time.

The medical conditions you mention are all relatively rare, circumcision or no. Penile cancer is still extremely rare even in uncircumcized men. The remaining conditions are both uncommon and usually minor. Yes, a few people have serious problems with them, but you don't go around lopping off other body parts because there may be diseases.

In fact, there are sometimes serious health complication from circumcision, too. Such complications are rare... but not significantly more rare than the problems you describe.

By the way, the only "habit" you have to have to avoid most problems is washing regularly. Some of us feel that's a good thing to teach to children anyway.

I think the last thing to consider is the fact that, if at an adult age you DO decide to become circumcised, you should be ready to receive injections into your genitals, and for people to be cutting things off. Any man knows that blunt or sharp impact to anywhere around that region causes great pain, and i cannot fathom the pain adult men that have circumcisions experience.
Ah. Much better to put a baby through a 100 percent chance of all that than to expose an adult to a 0.1 percent chance. Brilliant. By the way, I've had my genitals injected and cut, in a vasectomy, and it wasn't a big deal. Yeah, it hurt. Being an adult, I managed to deal with that.
If you would like more information on the great majority of the medical community's take on neonatal circumcision, check this article and the articles that it links to.
Wow, thanks for the ammunition. From the very article you link to, the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
There are potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Sounds to me like the mainstream medical position is that, absent an actual problem, the risks and downsides of circumcision outweigh, or at best balance, the benefits.

[ Parent ]
Allow me to retort.. (2.25 / 4) (#170)
by loteck on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:52:44 PM EST

I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing whiners say that it makes sense to give up huge chunks of quality of life for tiny crumbs of safety.

Im not sure what you are referring to when you say "huge chunks of quality of life" here. Cut men still enjoy having sex, so what are you referring to?

The medical conditions you mention are all relatively rare, circumcision or no. Penile cancer is still extremely rare even in uncircumcized men. The remaining conditions are both uncommon and usually minor. Yes, a few people have serious problems with them, but you don't go around lopping off other body parts because there may be diseases

Oh, well, there you are wrong. In fact, we do lop off other parts of our bodies that we deem to be useless or of trivial worth that seem to cause major health risks. Tonsils? Appendix?

Ah. Much better to put a baby through a 100 percent chance of all that than to expose an adult to a 0.1 percent chance. Brilliant. By the way, I've had my genitals injected and cut, in a vasectomy, and it wasn't a big deal. Yeah, it hurt. Being an adult, I managed to deal with that.

We put all babies through significant medical treatment that poses some risks so that we can somewhat secure their bodies for the onslaught of diseases and bacteria that they will face in this world. It all hurts, but you're a baby and you tend to forget. Drawing that same treatment out over 14 to 18 years sounds to me both unpleasant and somewhat irresponsible.

I think the benefits vs. risks of circumcision really boils down to your priorities: do you want to have great sex with even the risk of developing health problems due to your foreskin, or do you want to have (possibly) greater sex without those same risks? Thats right. I said possibly greater.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

ummm... (4.83 / 6) (#182)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:07:58 PM EST

Oh, well, there you are wrong. In fact, we do lop off other parts of our bodies that we deem to be useless or of trivial worth that seem to cause major health risks. Tonsils? Appendix?

Nice try but no prize for you. Tonsils and the appendix generally aren't touched until there is a reason to do so. In the case of tonsils just because the norm is to remove them doesn't mean they should be removed. I've read studies (no and I can't provide any references unfortunately so you'll have to take my word for it) that say that most problems with tonsils could be solved without removal of them. I've never heard of someone getting their appendix taken out unless they're having appendicitis which is very dangerous. Appendicitis untreated can kill you and its a hell of a lot more common than penile cancer. You still dont see people having them removed on the off-chance they'll get appendicitis.

As to the benefits/risks thing it is ridiculous to do a circumcision based on the things mentioned. I'm not circumcised and washing works wonders. Imagine that.

[ Parent ]

Appendix (none / 0) (#251)
by Bad Harmony on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:22:31 PM EST

I don't know if it is still a common practice, but many surgeons used to remove the appendix if they were doing abdominal surgery for other reasons. The idea was that since you were sliced open anyway, they might as well remove the appendix and eliminate the possibility of a future case of appendicitis.

5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

Well as a kid (5.00 / 1) (#275)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:08:36 PM EST

(I'm now 18) I suffered from chronic appendicitis (several times a year, out of school for a week or more) for several years running. My doctor recommended against taking them out, unless i had 6 a year (I had 5 twice). This seems to be a common thought nowadays. I haven't had any throat infection in years, I still have all body parts.

[ Parent ]
Whoops (5.00 / 1) (#277)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:12:19 PM EST

Slow brain day. This, of course, has nothing to do with appendicitis, I was referring to tonsils and throat infections. Sorry.

[ Parent ]
makes sense (4.00 / 1) (#292)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:56:48 PM EST

The body, if given the chance and if you eat right, has an amazing ability to heal itself. Seems pretty goofy to start cutting shit out unless its really necessary.

[ Parent ]
I could see that (none / 0) (#293)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:58:06 PM EST

If you're already opened up in that area I can see them doing that. Then again you're already opened up ;) They're not opening you up just to take out the appendix.

[ Parent ]
Anesthetic for babies (1.00 / 1) (#216)
by catseye on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:53:15 PM EST

The skin of a baby is much thinner, and there's much less of it, than for an adult. Topical anesthetic, such as lidocaine ointment, is all that's really needed, while an adult will probably require an injection.

My son was circumcised and that's how our pediatrician did it. The procedure took about 10 or 15 minutes, and he didn't cry or fuss. We didn't witness the procedure, but you can tell when a baby has been crying recently and we didn't hear him. The aftercare was minimal and only a small amount of skin was removed, basically only enough to let the foreskin pull back over the glans, which it didn't even pretend to do at all... the opening was very, very tiny. Just really enough to pee through. He still has plenty of loose skin down there, so hopefully plenty of nerve endings.

I think that these horror stories about screaming babies speak more of the deficiencies of the doctor than of the procedure itself. There's no reason not to wait until the child calms down and have an assistant there whose sole purpose is to keep the child calm, and there's no reason to use a needle if ointment will suffice.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

Complete Idiocy (4.20 / 5) (#261)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:03:39 PM EST

Firstly, the risks posed by not circumcizing are all minor, and vastly outweighed by the risks of circumcision, such as botched "tight" circumcisions.  All of these risks, if anything arises from them, can be dealt with when the child is old enough to make decisions for himself.  If the foreskin won't retract over the glans, there are medical treatments from that aside from circumcision.  Penile cancer is so rare that it isn't a factor in rational decision-making:  if one gets penile cancer on the foreskin at later life, one can deal with it then -- no justificaiton for torturing a baby.  HIV-1 infection stories are bogus, as condoms are the biggest factor in HIV-1 transmission:  also, the small cracks on an uncut penis are perfect entry-points for HIV-1.

In fact, we do lop off other parts of our bodies that we deem to be useless or of trivial worth that seem to cause major health risks. Tonsils? Appendix?

Idiot.  We don't remove those parts of the body at birth.  In fact, is is medically unsound to remove those parts of the body unless it is medically necessary:  only a quack would do such.  Tonsils are not useless parts of the body that serve no function:  they are lymph nodes, and play an important role in dealing with infections, among other things.  Perhaps the appendix has no function, but even so, removing it is an internal surgery which poses risks.  The foreskin of the penis is NOT a useless part of an organ:  it serves a function -- to protect and lubricate the glans, as well as provide greater sexual stimulation.

It all hurts, but you're a baby and you tend to forget.

Circumcion has no medical justification, as I have pointed out.  The American Medical Society agrees with me, so you are full of shit.  So, what your argument boils down to is that its ok to inflict pain on an infant because (s)he will forget.  According to that logic, it's ok to sexually molest an infant or beat an infant.

Drawing that same treatment out over 14 to 18 years sounds to me both unpleasant and somewhat irresponsible.

Actually, no you idiot, it is not painful at all.  Adults can be given anesthetic to nullify the pain, while babies can not.  The right thing to do is let each individual decide for himself.

For those of you saying that men who are circumcised and unhappy about it should "just get over it", would you also say that women who were sexually mutilated by their parents should just "get over" the fact that they were mutilated?

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

We don't take out appendices or tonsils... (5.00 / 2) (#270)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:56:22 PM EST

... if it can possibly be avoided, in the UK. Hardly anyone has problems with this anyway. I know only one person who has had their appendix out, and no-one who has had their tonsils out.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Cancer: Breast vs penile (none / 0) (#427)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:21:47 AM EST

Since the incidence of breast cancer in males is greater than the incidence of penile cancer, I'm sure that you will tell us that your breasts have been surgically removed, right?

[ Parent ]
An example of social conditioning in the US (5.00 / 2) (#185)
by SamBC on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:13:21 PM EST

If you have a look at other countries (such as the UK, my home), there is not some massive endemic problem with penile infections, and in fact not a notable problem with penile cancer. Testicular and Prostate are far more common.

The reason: while we may not be circumcised, we generally have reasonable personal hygeine. I can only imagine that if uncircumcised american men have widespread problems, then persoanl hygeine is not so important to them.

Sam Barnett-Cormack

[ Parent ]

Penile cancer (4.75 / 4) (#188)
by caek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:17:10 PM EST

Penile Cancer - most people don't even know this kind of cancer exists, mainly because it is extremely rare to find it in circumcised men. It is mainly a concern for the uncut penis..

Until I read this article, I didn't know it existed. And I'm uncircumcised and live in the UK, where less than 1% of boys are circumcised for non-religious reasons. As many other posters have pointed out, perhaps the relative incidence of penile cancer is higher in uncircumcised men, but the important number is the absolute rate, which is very, very low in both groups.

[ Parent ]

Your best bet... (5.00 / 3) (#204)
by graal on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:48:33 PM EST

...is to weigh the incidence of the conditions you're worried about against the risks (and yes, there are risks) of medical circumcision. Our homework on the subject showed that the risk of the procedure was higher than the incidence of penile cancer.

Circumcision, for us, holds no particular religious signficance, so we opted to skip it. After watching our friends deal with post-op penis care (and hearing the firsthand observations of my buddy who forced himself to witness the procedure on his own sons), we're pretty sure we made the right choice.

So for the record, I am (33, US), but our son is not, now will any future sons of ours be.

--
For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
-- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)
[ Parent ]

In other news.. (4.50 / 2) (#276)
by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:10:56 PM EST

A guaranteed cure and prevention plan has been found for athlete's foot. It involves amputating the feet roughly midway between the ankle and the knee. Once this procedure has been completed you are guaranteed never to have any ailments of the foot

 

Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
[ Parent ]
Babies, Circumcision and Pain (5.00 / 1) (#288)
by razniq on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:18:36 PM EST

Since you seemed to be implying the pain of adult circumcision as a reason to have it in infancy. Here is some relevant info.

Circumcision study halted due to trauma, CNN article, 1997
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

excerpted

"A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia...

...Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised...

...One of the reasons anesthesia is not used, the study found, is the belief that infants feel little or no pain from the procedure." end excerpt

I also excerpted parts the AMA's position on the use of neonatal circumcision as a preventive measure in post #42.

[ Parent ]

Europe! Europe! Europe! (2.25 / 24) (#163)
by untrusteduser on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:01:20 PM EST

I am so sick of hearing liberals whine about how we have to do everything Europe does. We need to stop circumcizing babies because Europe did. We need communist healthcare because Europe has it. We need to make guns illegal because Europe did. We need to abolish slavery because Europe did. Blah Blah Blah! When does it end? Will you only be happy if England reconquers the U.S. and we all have to play soccer like a bunch of homosexuals?

uh.. (4.50 / 2) (#176)
by ChannelX on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:00:57 PM EST

Care to point out any well-known liberal who is calling for the United States (I'm making the assumption you mean the US) to do everything that Europeans are doing? I haven't heard any as of yet.

[ Parent ]
Re: Europe! Europe! Europe! (4.50 / 2) (#207)
by cpyder on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:13:43 PM EST

> We need to stop circumcizing babies because
> Europe did.
Well, as a European, I am happy for not being circumsised..
> We need communist healthcare because Europe has
> it.
Please contact me again when you have to sell your house to pay your hospital bill. Sure, I pay quite a lot of taxes, but I also get *a lot* in return: free education up until the age of 18, social security, ...

> We need to abolish slavery because Europe did.
Are you saying you shouldn't have abolished slavery?

No wonder almost half of you guys voted for Dubya..

[ Parent ]

yes (n/t) (none / 0) (#228)
by F a l c o n on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:47:12 PM EST


--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]
You Used the Wrong Word (4.66 / 3) (#263)
by numark on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:18:20 PM EST

No European country has a communist economy or government. Most countries there have democratic socialism. Of course, with the rabid fear of the word "communism" that the US has had since the 1950s, it's no surprise that you apply such a misused word to something you don't agree with and want to argue against.

[ Parent ]
Well.. (none / 0) (#287)
by mindstrm on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:46:39 PM EST

You can always choose not to learn from the rest of the world.

Because Uncle Sam knows best anyway, right?

[ Parent ]

Complements, (none / 0) (#425)
by inertia on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:02:47 AM EST

for you troll well.

[ Parent ]
WTF?!? (3.33 / 3) (#184)
by fluxrad on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:10:30 PM EST

There was a K5 story on this less than a year ago. Practically verbatim.

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#321)
by zocky on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:18:32 AM EST

We have also had numerous stories about computers, politics, science, nature, society, behaviour, food, drinks, children, life, universe and everything.

God damn it, it's time for something new!

z.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

uhh... (none / 0) (#355)
by fluxrad on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:28:28 PM EST

i think K5 really only needs one good circumcision story per anum, don't you think?

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
[ Parent ]
nobody suggested yet (4.66 / 9) (#201)
by loudici on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:38:38 PM EST

nobody suggested yet that the reason why US hospitals continue to perform circumcision is because people are willing to pay for it.

this strikes me as yet another side effect of considering medicine as an industry.
gnothi seauton

On the other hand, (3.66 / 3) (#206)
by tebrow on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:07:37 PM EST

People are willing to pay for morphine, and that's still not on the menu. At least not until you're in pain.

[ Parent ]
morphine not on the menu (1.33 / 3) (#208)
by loudici on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:13:53 PM EST

morphine and cocaine have been shown to have some severe side effects. and why would you prescribe those drugs when you can prescribe zoloft and ritalin?

gnothi seauton
[ Parent ]
Because (5.00 / 1) (#234)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:05:12 PM EST

When you have the cancer in your bones or your leg has just been forcibly amputated Zoloft ain't gonna do shit.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Morphine (none / 0) (#369)
by katie on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 09:03:31 AM EST

Didn't do a lot for me when they gave me a dose for post-operative pain. I felt sick AND hurting and then started having trouble breathing.

Somehow that's not quite what I was expecting. I suppose that's what you get for having a medical education courtesy of Hollywood... :-)

[ Parent ]

On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#380)
by Korydon on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 12:39:57 AM EST

On the contrary, dear boy, on the contrary. Circumcision is performed because people DON'T have to pay for it...at least they *think* they aren't paying for it. When insurance companies and governments stop subsidizing genital mutilation, the practice comes to a virtual end. Witness Britain after WWII. When the NHS refused to fund such unnecessary surgery, the rates of circumcision plummeted. The same thing occurred more recently in Australia and in Canada. The exact same thing is happening slowly in the United States. In the past year five states have removed circumcision as a paid benefit for low income medical insurance, joining five other states. By that one legislative act, circumcision rates will drop in those states from between 25% and 50%.

[ Parent ]
circumcision & the US (3.42 / 7) (#210)
by lil stinker on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:33:45 PM EST

Even though my mother is jewish, and therefore by law she should have had me chopped, she didn't. The reason she has given me for making this decision is that during the Nazi years circumcised penii were seen as an unambigous sign of one's jewness, and were good enough evidence for death. It is tantamount to branding cows, no child should be marked for life as *anything*. Let them become what they will, and do as they please. Isn't that whats so great about living in a 'free country'? Someone in this thread made a comment about desensitized penises (or was it penii) being attached to desensitized men. This would corroborate my feeling that US men tend toward the ape-like (I'm talking your average beer guzzling football talking bonehead, I'm sure most US based readers here do not qualify) in demonstrating their manliness to eachother. Goddamn, living in europe can be so pleasant. me

It's penes [n/t] (none / 0) (#323)
by zocky on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:20:32 AM EST


---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

The discussion reminds me .. (4.14 / 7) (#211)
by sasquatchan on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:39:18 PM EST

All the rantings about "sexually mutilated child" (a web site that I recall seeing tossed around that's anti-circumcision) and loss of feeling/virility/sexual ability, reminds me of the various witch hunts in Africa where mobs of folks attach supposed witches for stealing someones penis.

Folks, if you're cut, you are cut. You can still get out of bed everyday and should start getting on with your life. Freud would have a field day with the hang ups expressed here. At least we have not yet degenerated into the "I'm not cut and boy do the women sing of my prowess" lame assed geek boasting.. Yet..
-- The internet is not here for your personal therapy.

Invasion of the Penis-snatchers (heh. snatch) (5.00 / 2) (#366)
by fenix down on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 05:25:46 AM EST

I guess they got all the witches, they're doing vampires now.

We all love penises, what can ya do. There are way more interesting unecessary medical procedures that kids get than circumcisions. Like the tubes in the ears. What the hell's with that shit? Oh, earache? Let's jam a hunk of plastic in there! There's a 50% chance it'll fall out inside your head, but we're pretty sure it won't do anything too bad. Anybody have that happen?

[ Parent ]

Cut vs INTACT/Restored (3.00 / 2) (#426)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:14:42 AM EST

Ah, well, it seems that someone else is doing the crying here...is it called denial? It's a tragedy, you know: sexual child abuse. I've been trying to understand how a mother can allow her new born son to be taken from her arms to have part of his penis sliced from his body. Can she not hear his screams, as the knife slices through his skin? Can she not see the blood, as it spills from his body? Has the maternal instinct not yet developed? Are mothers too exhausted from the experience of childbirth to think? "Folks, if you're cut, you are cut." Oh, Sasquatchan, you betray by that statement a terrible lack of empathy, of feeling. Have you at long last no humanity?

[ Parent ]
hypocrisy on the left; hypocrisy on the right (3.55 / 9) (#212)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:41:55 PM EST

The left will allow you to be aborted as a fetus, but after that point not force circumcision on you and not enforce a death penalty.

The right wants you to make it out of the womb, but after that point cut your penis off, and execute you if need be.

I guess it's just a matter of timing.

-Soc
I drank what?


Best stay in the middle (4.00 / 1) (#225)
by mickwd on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:41:59 PM EST

The left.....

The right....

Must every decision people make be decided for them by the particular political "team" they think they're a part of ?

[ Parent ]

I'm Glad I'm Circumcised (2.66 / 3) (#223)
by cs668 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:39:36 PM EST

Hell,

I think about sex all of the time now.  If it really feals even better when you are un-cut I would have some major issues.

I might even starve to death because I would forget to eat.  I would just be in a constant stupor of fantasy.

I guess, now that I think about it, circumcision has saved my life :-)

Exactly (none / 0) (#233)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:02:50 PM EST

What's all this stuff about the foreskin being even more sensitive?

Do you mean you'd finish up even more prematurely if you're uncut?

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Me too (4.00 / 1) (#313)
by Gromit on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:52:03 AM EST

Neat, tidy, clean, and the sex is fantastic.

But I probably won't chop any boys I might father. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to, I'll just teach 'em to be clean and all that.

I hope they don't go sex-mad, though! <g>



--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
Right on (4.41 / 12) (#226)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:43:11 PM EST

I agree with your article, however some of your points are off or over-exagerated, and I'll point those out:
  1.  The foreskin does provide lubrication for the glans (head) of the penis.  However, this lubrication is only relevant in regards to keeping the glans lubricated, moist, and uncracked (prevent it from becoming dry, scratched, etc).  It is a negligible amount of lubrication when talking in terms of sex.  The vagina provides the vast majority of lubrication during sex, so much that circumcised or not is irrelevant in terms of lubrication.
  2.  Yes, the foreskin is there to protect the glans from cracks, dryness, damage, or scratches.  Even in modern society where we don't go running around naked in the forest, it is still useful to protect the head of the penis from excessive contact with underwear.  However, the glans is not an internal organ.
  3.  Aside from anal sex, extra lubrication is completely unnecessary for sex.  The vagina naturally provides more lubrication than you need for pleasant sex.  Oral sex also naturally provides lubrication.  Even in the case of anal sex, some people may  find that there is enough lubrication for it naturally.
  4.  If you are circumcised you may have noticed that the skin from your scar to the head of your penis is sexually sensitive; so was your foreskin.  Foreskin is the most sexually sensitive part of the penis, then after that the glans.  However, scar tissue is naturally hyper-sensitive to stimulation.  I have a scar on my hand, and that tissue is naturally more sensitive to pleasureable stimuli than any other part of my hand.  I'm not suggesting that you cut up your penis so there's plenty of sensitive scars.
  5.  Oral and anal sex do not apply more pleasureable stimulation to the penis than vaginal sex.  The vagina is more lubricated than the mouth, and much more so than the anus.  This is counterbalanced by the fact that more pressure can be applied with the mouth or anus on the penis.  However, women who have strong PC muscles through excercises can apply extra pressure through muscular contractions.
Overall, you're right, but you exagerate a few thing.  Male circumcision is a violation of human rights and should be stopped.  I'm uncircumcised, and the way I see it, parents shouldn't have any more right to circumcise their child at birth than a complete stranger should have the right to walk up to me and circumcise me withou my permission.

Circumcision is a hamrful and almost completely unnecessary procedure.  There are only two cases where circumcision may be needed, and that's later on in life:  (1) Penile cancer; (2) A condition where the foreskin does not pull back over the glans to expose it, and is too tight over it.  In both cases, there are alternatives.  For (2), there are treatments doctors can give that don't require removing the foreskin.

Some other naive arguments in support of circumcision tend to revolve around cleanliness.  This is completely bogus, as properly cleaning one's penis avoids this issue all-together.  Cleaning one's inner foreskin with soap and water, as well as the rest of the penis, and drying it before replacing the foreskin over the glans keeps the penis perfectly clean.

The most BS-filled argument is that circumcised penis' look better.  Well, for one thing, the penis isn't a particularly beautiful organ in the first place.  Picture a man running naked with a hard boner -- flip flop flip flop.  Secondly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Over in Europe, where circumcision is rare, women think circumcised penis' are ugly,  and that uncircumcised one's look better.  And if you really think an uncircumcised penis is ugly, you can just pull the skin back if you're a woman -- it looks exactly the same once the foreskin is retracted.  Btw, why care about how it looks?  It's not as if you're looking at it for hours:  it's either in you vagina, or your mouth, or your ass -- where you can't see it.

Some other lame justifications for circumcision go something like, "well, the baby can't remember or feel the pain, so there's nothing wrong with us doing it".  Firstly, the baby certainly can feel the pain.  Circumcision is certainly very painful for a baby:  doing it to a baby should be considered no better than hitting a baby, or cutting another part of his body purposefully.  Secondly, just because the baby can't remember it, doesn't justify it.  If a male doctor molested a baby girl while she was sleeping -- licking or feeling her vagina -- you would certainly want that doctor in jail, despite the fact that the baby wouldn't be able to remember it.

Other arguments revolve around this "parent's rights" bullshit.  Parents do not have "rights over their children".  They have responsibilities do their children.  That means not harming you're child and not putting him or her through a painful procedure with no justifiable reason.  Your child never gave you permission to circumcise him.

My ultimate position on the issue:  circumcising children without their consent should be illegal, irrelevant of the reasons (unless it is medically necessary).  No, there's no exception for Jewish people:  just because your religion is Jewish doesn't give you the right to mutilate your child, not any more than Muslims in the US should have the right to circumcize their daughters.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

RE: #5 (2.66 / 3) (#230)
by catseye on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:53:17 PM EST

"Oral and anal sex do not apply more pleasureable stimulation to the penis than vaginal sex."

Sounds like you haven't been with anyone who really knows how to use her (or his) mouth.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

please (2.50 / 2) (#238)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:20:59 PM EST

I don't care how well a woman can use her mouth -- and I've been with some women who were pretty damn good at giving BJ's, and one who wasn't b/c her mouth was too small (thus scraping) -- it's not as pleasureable as a wet juicy vagina, which is very well lubricated on all sides, and which a woman can tighten by closing her legs together and using her PC-muscles.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Misconceptions about muslims (4.80 / 5) (#252)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:28:43 PM EST

... not any more than Muslims in the US should have the right to circumcize their daughters.
Muslims circumcise their sons, not their daughters. There are some muslims in Africa who have a tradition of female circumcision, but Islam does not say anything about it. (For boys, it's basically the same justification as among the jews: it's the pact that Abraham made with God.)

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

on point #3 (4.00 / 5) (#300)
by ChannelX on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:44:01 AM EST

Aside from anal sex, extra lubrication is completely unnecessary for sex. The vagina naturally provides more lubrication than you need for pleasant sex. Oral sex also naturally provides lubrication. Even in the case of anal sex, some people may find that there is enough lubrication for it naturally.

Try again. That most certainly isnt true for all women all of the time. Trying sticking your dick in a dry vagina and see how easy sex is. There are medical reasons why extra lubrication may be necessary.

[ Parent ]

Are you mad? (none / 0) (#325)
by zocky on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:29:10 AM EST

The vagina provides the vast majority of lubrication during sex, so much that circumcised or not is irrelevant in terms of lubrication.

You seem pretty missguided.

The natural penile lubricant is ultra-smooth, in fact much smoother than woman's natural juices, and provides much of the lubrication during sex.

But guess what? If you want to see really smooth and really well lubricated, you want to mix the two. Fuck, man, I can't imagine having sex without my dick being all wet and slimy. Sounds painful.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

Are you hallucinating? (2.50 / 2) (#335)
by dh003i on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:52:36 PM EST

Your dick doesn't make that much lubrication.  I'm uncircumcised, I know.  It makes enough to keep the head moistened.  It doesn't make enough to be significant for sexual intercourse lubrication in any way.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Maybe your doesn't (none / 0) (#368)
by zocky on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 06:53:32 AM EST

Mine does.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

law != morally correct decision (none / 0) (#344)
by coderlemming on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 06:02:21 PM EST

My ultimate position on the issue: circumcising children without their consent should be illegal, irrelevant of the reasons (unless it is medically necessary)

First, I agree with the fact that blanket circumcision is wrong and cruel.

The problem is, you'd never be able to pass a law like the one you're implying, against male circumcision. Laws aren't about what's morally right, laws are about what people want. Sure, killing's illegal, and that's for obvious moral reasons. But abortion's not. Quite a few other things aren't. And quite a few existing laws are morally unfair, or even unright.

If you tried to pass such a law, you would find that many people would pull the "separation of church and state" clause, among other things. They'd claim it was their right. And no amount of medical argument would be able to beat that, because a large part of this country comes from a religion that blanketly supports circumcision without question.

The best thing we can hope for is to educate people. Do some real government research, find out if it really IS unnecessary, as many studies seem to be saying. Then require new parents to watch videos of what they're going to subject their kid to (it's MONSTROUS, they can't anesthetize a child that young). THEN let them make the choice.

Even then, you would be hard pressed to make that a law. You'd probably only be able to achieve a movement among hospitals to educate. Of course, discussions like this one open many peoples' eyes, so keep talking, by all means.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
re (none / 0) (#395)
by dh003i on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 12:39:56 AM EST

Laws aren't about what's morally right, laws are about what people want.

Actually, laws are about what Congress is bribed into making laws.  cc DMCA, CTEA, USAPA, etc.

If you tried to pass such a law, you would find that many people would pull the "separation of church and state" clause, among other things

That's an invalid claim.  Freedom of religion does not give you the right to commit crimes if your religion seems to demand it.

They'd claim it was their right.

No-one has the right to physically harm -- in this case, I'd argue torture -- another person, including a new-born baby.  What they are doing is no different than female genital mutilation:  it is a basic violation of human rights.  Freedom of religion wouldn't give someone who believes in the ancient panthanon of Roman Gods the right to sacrafice their daughter to Ares/Mars, the god of war.  Freedom of religion ends where your religion starts to involve actions which violate the rights of others.  Circumcision violates the rights of baby-boys.

This parents rights stuff is bullshit.  Parents don't have rights.  They have responsibilities to their children:  one of them being not to harm their children, another one being to protect their children's rights.  Circumcision is a violation of parental obligations, and is most certainly not a "parent's right".

And no amount of medical argument would be able to beat that, because a large part of this country comes from a religion that blanketly supports circumcision without question.

Their religion also supports burning witches at the stake.  The right to freedom of religion ends where it violates other people's rights.

Likewise with parents who refuse to give their children needed medical treatments for "religious reasons".  Parents don't have the right to make your child suffer or die because of their religion.  Again, freedom of religion doesn't imply the right to force your religion -- whether it requires the need for circumcision, or refusing life-saving medical treatment -- on others who don't consent to it, or are unable to consent to it.  It also most certainly doesn't mean the right to violate other people's rights.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Lubrication and circumcision (3.00 / 2) (#378)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 10:24:42 PM EST

l. Ideally, the vaginal sphincter forces the foreskin back over the glans during withdrawal, thus preventing the wicking of vaginal fluids to drying air outside the vagina. With circumcised men these fluids are gradually lost during sex with drying and chafing the ultimate result. That's why circumcised men usually need artificial lubricants...unless they suffer from premature ejaculation, of course. Therefore, your first statement is only valid in cases of very brief periods of sexual intercourse when the male is circumcised. 2. Both the glans AND the inner foreskin are internal organs. One might say that the glans is meant to protect the inner foreskin...and conversely. Anyone who has been circumcised as an adult can tell you the radical changes in it's appearance following circumcision, when it is exposed to drying air, keratinization, etc. 3. True only for INTACT men. 4. The tissue forward of the circumcision scar towards the sulcus of the glans is original inner foreskin that has been turned over to face outward. Its rich innervation has been compromised by exposure to drying air and from chafing. It is more sensitive than shaft skin, but this sensitivity is gradually diminished over time. Frequently there is none of this remaining tissue, as all of the inner foreskin has been removed during circumcision, leaving only relatively insensitive shaft skin. 5. No disagreement, here. 6. Penile cancer is a condition largely of older men who have a habit of poor hygiene. 7. Finally, a tight foreskin can be remedied by simple stretching exercises. See numerous posts to this effect at: http://www.f19.parsimony.net/forum33578 and at http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/organizations/

[ Parent ]
My controversial view (3.41 / 12) (#227)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:46:06 PM EST

I actually have a much different take on all of this than anyone here. When I was in Africa, I saw kids whose faces had been burned by battery acid so that they would be more horrifying to look at, but consequently they would be better beggars. As disgustingly backwards as it sounds, the child is probably better off; families had been doing this for generations and had evolved this means of crippling and maiming their children to give them a better chance in life. You decide: do you give your money to beggars that still have all their teeth, or those who don't have any?

When it comes to parenting, people say that it takes a village to raise a child, but the American village hates welfare moms, views pregnant women in the workplace as unreliable assets (will they return or not?), and generally isolates single moms (how many single guys here would pick the mom over the childless? thought so.). So, we have this great mantra that doesn't exist.

Also, on the whole, I know better how to raise your child. My child's an angel, your child is a creep. I know better than you, you irresponsible lout. The problem is, you feel the same way.

So everybody's right, and no one wants to really do anything to help you. A parent is really on their own to decide the fate of their child. We bemoan child circumcision, but only go "tsk, tsk" when they don't force the child to hit the books. Hey, not every kid can be an A+ student, but by God, they'll all have foreskin.

So, the American village enforces what is easy to enforce, but skirts around the tough issues. It tells you what to do on the small things that it can, but doesn't mind if you screw up the big things, because suddenly, "It's none of my business how you raise your child; that's YOUR job."

And in the meantime, a child is a rope in a tug of war between being a reflection of their parents and a society which is greedy for converts of the biggest cult of all: the norm. Each is making its all-knowing determination of what is best for the child.

And then I remember that kid with the melted face and realize that parents are the ones who have to make all the tough decisions. I'm sure that mother didn't want to maim her child and probably wasn't looking forward to it. It's a tragedy all the way around, but life is difficult and parents experience this most keenly. Frankly, I don't trust 50% + 1 vote; that doesn't have the allure of duty.

And that's why women have the right to choose: they have the burden to determine what is best for themselves and their unborn and yet to be conceived. Parents should be given the right to determine what's best in forming the child's ideology and physical and spiritual well being, even if you think it's wrong.

So, you disagree. Go tell it to a wall and raise your child your way. Or, will you watch my child for me while I'm at work? Can you guarantee that he'll be a doctor? Can you make sure she'll get to heaven? Can you make sure she propagates the values I find important (and is one of the reasons why I wanted a child)? Will you make sure he lives a good life, doesn't become a criminal and learns to fight for his beliefs? I didn't think so... I am my child's God; its fate and responsibility is mine alone. Go away.

But then again, I have no children, so parents will tell me to butt out because I don't know what I'm talking about. And that's exactly what I'm talking about.

-Soc
I drank what?


Wow... (1.00 / 1) (#386)
by Klondike on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:34:49 AM EST

Nobody had the balls to reply to the best comment on this page yet. You've actually convinced me to change my view from the one I had 15 seconds ago that parents shouldn't be the ones making the choice. I really feel the power of what you're saying. Actually changing someone's mind on something, even trivial stuff, is amazingly difficult nowadays. Past that, this post doesn't have much of a point except as a Bravo, and noting that you deserve some sort of reply.

[ Parent ]
Strange view... (5.00 / 1) (#401)
by Spork on Mon Jan 20, 2003 at 02:53:17 PM EST

So, you disagree. Go tell it to a wall and raise your child your way.

I'm quite surprised you're willing to extend this attitude towards children whose parents burn their faces with battery acid. How about parents who remove their daughter's clitoris with a razor blade? Do you still shrug and think they have every right to do so? How about parents who fuck their infant children? Do you think people who don't like this should go tell it to a wall?

Really, I don't see any principled difference between facial and genital mutilation and the simple rape of children. Honestly, if I had to make this terrible choice, I'd rather see a child be raped than mutilated, because with great effort, victims of childhood rape can recover.

I hope a few years of college cure you of your naive relativism.

[ Parent ]

to a degree, yes. (none / 0) (#420)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:30:48 PM EST

"I don't see any principled difference between facial and genital mutilation and the simple rape of children. "

Except that in one case, the child may recover from rape, and in the other case the family may starve to death. I guess there's no difference. Sure.

Perhaps you should travel to someplace other than the Cote d'Azure. Try Nairobi for a change? Make sure to go for a walk, someplace away from the safety of the New Stanley Hotel or the Hilton. Check out the shanty's made of lean-to's that violate the building codes that the British imported and left behind (such as the one's that indicate that a roof must support 6 inches of snow in spite of being on the equator). And keep in mind that Kenya is considered one of Africa's most modernized nations.

Your absolutist standards are antiquated, my friend. I understand your concerns, but you can't dictate everything. Nor should you. I fear the tyranny of the mob more than the illicit pleasures of the very random handful.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Circumcision the best thing to happen to me (2.25 / 8) (#242)
by loonytunes12 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:54:06 PM EST

I was circumcised as a teenager. I can categorically state : - that the procedure was not painful - that my penis looks nicer circumcised - It is definitely more hygienic - that the sensation of my glans has changed - not because the skin is less sensitive but because the glans has lost its stickiness and become silky smooth - I can now experience a broader range of sensations and... - Masturbation is more pleasurable because, owing to the previous point, I can stimulate myself in a variety of ways totally impossible for an uncircumcised man. I can also w**k the traditional way too, if I so desire. - Contrary to claims listed elsewhere, European women, including my fiancee, do not prefer uncircumcised penises. Without exception, those whom I have asked express a preference for the look and cleanliness of a circumcised penis. Indeed, being circumcised in a country where the overall rate is quite low makes circumcised men something of a celebrity with the girls. - As a doctor I can confidently dismiss much of the prior postings as factually incorrect, over-exhaggerated hype. - My only regret about my own circumcision was that I was not done when I was born - for this reason we are having our sons circumcised at birth.

Your experiences != perfect for everyone else (5.00 / 5) (#260)
by dvNull on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:57:20 PM EST

The procedure was not painful for you.
You can experience a broad range of situations.
Your european fiance likes circumsized men.

So you decided to circumsize your son. Of course all this is based on YOUR experiences. Doesnt he get to say whether he wants foreskin or not ? This is not banning circumcision outright. This is about parents circumsizing their children without getting their consent. Of course its not like a newborn can argue and post on K5. But if its as painless and as rewarding as you put it, maybe your son will get that procedure done when he is old enough to decide what should be done to his body.




If you can see this, then the .sig fell off.
[ Parent ]
Also (5.00 / 2) (#284)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:45:16 PM EST

It's been said before, but still.

No one of your girlfriends will ever tell you your dick sucks. Really, they won't. Neither will your fiancee.

Women may be irrational, but they're not stupid ;)

[ Parent ]

some might (4.00 / 1) (#289)
by ph0rk on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:00:20 PM EST

but then they probably wouldn't make it to 'girlfriend' status...

.
[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
[ Parent ]

cites links argument? (5.00 / 4) (#301)
by tichy on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:52:48 AM EST

As a doctor I can confidently dismiss much of the prior postings as factually incorrect, over-exhaggerated hype.
Please elaborate. I'm sure you're a great guy but you can't seriously expect us to just take your word for it.

I'd be interested in an informed rebuttal of the scientific facts so far exposed that are against circumcision. The few we've had in this thread have been shut down and even if they had worked they definitely aren't enough to show the anti-C arguments to be "over-exagerated hype", not by a long shot.

[ Parent ]

Good for you.. (none / 0) (#343)
by Nipsu on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 05:23:59 PM EST

..that you are reasonable enough to think about your son's sexual life already at birth!

People like you make me believe in stereotypes ;-)

[ Parent ]
Doctor? (3.66 / 3) (#377)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 09:18:28 PM EST

So you are a doctor...Then you must know the Hippocratic Oath and its dictum: First, do no harm, and yet you plan to remove perfectly healthy tissue from a helpless baby because you like the "look"? And speaking of hygiene...do you plan to remove your children's hands and fingers, too? It makes about as much sense. As you evidently didn't learn to wash your penis...I'm wondering what you do when you have a bowel movement. I mean, how can you stand the smell without bathing immediately afterwards every time! Is it that you can't SEE it? Truly...where were you educated? I'd really like to know.

[ Parent ]
Argument from authority. (none / 0) (#399)
by porp on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 04:30:55 PM EST

"I'm a doctor! I know the truth!"

That argument from authority itself, ironically, completely negated what little respect I had for your post.

[ Parent ]

Langerhans cells (foreskin) might be a vector.. (1.66 / 3) (#248)
by sudog on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:13:32 PM EST

Langerhans cells are in the foreskin of the human penis. According to articles like:

This One and This one here (scroll down to the bottom)

...seem to suggest that circumcised men are at less of a risk than uncircumcised men to be infected from a woman who herself is infected with HIV.

Then of course there's This article which suggests the same thing.

Perhaps there's something to that cleanliness bit after all?

Oh, here's another article that seems to suggest that these cells are efficient in transmitting viral pathogens to the immune system. With chronic diseases (*cough VD cough*,) perhaps it'd be better not to risk exposure at all?



"May be", "speculate", ... (4.00 / 4) (#290)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:43:14 PM EST

"Study shows" -- that wonderful lead-in to any statement you want to cite when you need a little authority. I quote from one of your cited articles: "Scientists speculate that uncircumcised men are at greater risk for HIV infection because of cells called Langerhans' cells found on the inner surface of the foreskin. And: the study had 187 subjects, all Ugandan. Since they don't talk about methodology, I'm skeptical that this study is statistically significant applied to other populations.

Another only has an abstract, so I may be extrapolating: it says that the study was performed in vitro, and talks about transmission from acutely infected Langerhans' cells to T-cells, but nothing on whether or not Langerhans' cells on the foreskin get acutely infected. The other suggests that the DC/T-cell conjugate is easier to infect with HIV.

These results may be suggestive, and should certainly lead to more research along similar lines, but these studies do not show that uncircumcised men are more likely to be infected by HIV.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Of course (5.00 / 1) (#390)
by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 10:53:03 AM EST

Of course men without foreskins have fewer medical problems with their penises.

So, too, women with cut off breasts have fewer breast cancers.

Perhaps men should have a ball cut off, too, to halve their risk of testicular cancer, by this reasoning.

[ Parent ]

Bah.. (3.00 / 2) (#422)
by sudog on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:30:39 PM EST

.. a ball is useful for making useful baby batter. Useful in procreating. What's the foreskin's usefulness? Debatable.


[ Parent ]
May be a vector??? (none / 0) (#416)
by harold on Wed Jan 22, 2003 at 08:51:00 PM EST

Then why do circumcising countries have the highest HIV rates in the world???

HIV cases /100,000 World Health Org (1994)

Circumcising countries:

Zimbabwe........................96.7

Congo..............................58.4

Malawi..............................49.2

Kenya...............................24.8

Chad................................20.2

USA.................................16.0

Non-circumcising countries:

Japan.................................0.2

Finland...............................0.9

Norway..............................1.5

Sweden.............................2.0

Germany...........................2.2

World Heath Organization data from 1995 show the following AIDS rates for that year:

Nation        AIDS cases/100,000    Cirk rates/1995*    Cirk rates/1975**

USA........................16.0........................60%.......................85%

Australia...................4.5...........................8%.......................55%

Canada....................3.8........................<17%.......................30%

France.....................3.5..........................<1%.......................<1%

Netherlands.............3.1..........................<1%.......................<1%

UK...........................2.4.............................1%.........................1%

Germany.................2.2...........................<1%.......................<1%

Sweden..................2.0............................<1%.......................<1%

Norway..................1.6.............................<1%.......................<1%

New Zealand.........1.2...............................5%......................10(?)

Finland.................0.9..........................<1%..........................<1%

Japan................... 0.6............................ <1%........................<1%

[ Parent ]

Uh.. you're making a comparison between.. (3.50 / 2) (#421)
by sudog on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:29:17 PM EST

..advanced, literate countries and third-world backwater countries. You're implying a causal relationship when it's more likely coincidental.

*bzzzzt* Try again.


[ Parent ]

Circumcision and Impotence? (2.66 / 3) (#259)
by vile on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:55:56 PM EST

De-sensitization..? Interesting thought here... I am curious about the %s of impotent men in comparison to the %s of circumsized men within particular age ranges within this country..

Is circumcision fueling the pharmaco's Viagra sales?! My God it's a conspiracy!

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
In my experience... (4.50 / 4) (#285)
by Gwen on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:45:41 PM EST

Hi,

As a sexually active woman, I've played with penises both with and without skin.  In my experience, boys with skin are more senstive than those without.  The skin of the glans is also more subtle with forskin, compared to a certain amount of roughness on a oenis left to brave the elements.

I don't think impotence would be different either way, because errections are based on bloodflow.  Since a lot of guys get errections for psychological reasons anyways, it wouldn't matter how much sensation there was.

--
"So raise your hands in the air like you're born again
But make a fist for the struggle we was born to win"
-The Coup ft. Dead Prez, Get Up!


[ Parent ]
My own experience (none / 0) (#334)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:09:34 PM EST

I've also had dealings with cut and uncut ones. Personally they seemed to enjoy it whether or not they were circumcised; I couldn't, from my position anyway, detect any difference in sensation levels between them. But that's just my experience. Maybe I'm just THAT good.... ;-)

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Impotence and circumcisions.. (none / 0) (#415)
by harold on Wed Jan 22, 2003 at 08:48:29 PM EST

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

And Viagra useage around the world:

http://www.pfizer.com/pfizerinc/investing/annual/earnings/2000Q1earnfin.html

VIAGRA SALES:

WORLDWIDE---------------------U.S---------------------------------INTERNATIONAL

2000..1999..%Change--------2000..1999..%Change--------2000..1999..%Change

333...193......73------------------227....149......53----------------106.....44.......140

Demand for Viagra is greatest in circumcising countries..

[ Parent ]

An Interesting Subject (3.44 / 9) (#262)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:07:16 PM EST

Considering that my wife and I had our first baby, a boy back in Sept. So we had to face this very question not too long ago.

I can tell you it wasn't an easy decision to make.

As a parent you want to do whats best for your children to make them happy and healthy.

You also don't want to be impossing your own will on your child. You basicly want them to have the freedom to choose to live thier life the way they want.

However the reality is that a little baby can't communicate to you how it wants to live it's life beyond eating and pooping. It certainly can't give you it's take on major decisions like circumcision and won't be able to do that for a very long time.

The reality is that your going to have to make alot of major life decisions for your child before thier mature enough to make choices for themselves. You don't have the luxury of avoiding those decisions... it's part of your job and responsibilty as a parent. Certain decisions just can't be put off until the child gets old enough to make a choice themself. Circumcision is one of those decisions. If you're going to do it at all, you really do want to do it within the first few days of your childs birth. If you wait till later on it really does become a much bigger ordeal.

So as I said my wife and I were faced with this decision and it was a very difficult one for us. We did alot of thinking and talking and reading about it. We wanted to do what was best for our son.

Probably one of the reasons it was such a difficult decision was that it's one of the first major ones you face as a new parent. If you're a first time parent like we both were, you're probably not feeling particulary confident or used to the idea of parenthood in the first place....and boom here is this big, life altering decision that you've got to make right away.

Anyways, the first thing we did was research the medical aspect of it. My wife works in a health related field so she was pretty confident that there wasn't any overriding medical reason to have it done. Myself, the eternal skeptic, I wanted to make sure that was the case.

After doing quite a bit of research on the subject. We pretty much came to the conclusion that my wife (as usual) was right and there was no overriding medical reason to have it done.
There was some evidence that it did provide some benefit for certain types of problems but those are rare enough to start with and the benefit was questionable enough that it didn't really make sense to do it as a general procedure.

Tossing aside the medical question, the only other aspect we felt we needed to consider, and it was a very valid concern, was the psychological one.

The first part of that being that young children really do have a very strong need to identify with thier parents. I'm circumcised (I'm old enough that it was pretty standard medical practice when I was born) would my son feel insecure or uncomfortable if he looked differently then I do?

The second part of that equation was that it's still a very common practice here in the NorthEastern U.S.  Would my son feel insecure or uncomfortable if he looked different from all the rest of his peers? Would he be teased? Would he feel odd about it? Acceptence among your peer group can be a very important thing, especialy for young boys.  

Those were very important concerns for us. My wife was also concerned about the pain and stress our son would go through during the procedure if we had it done.

Frankly, that wasn't as important a consideration for me. I used to get in fights occasionaly as a kid, my attitude about that was always...

 "A broken nose and a bloody lip isn't going to kill you... they'll hurt for a few weeks then go away... but letting some-one push you around, man that can eat at you for the rest of your life."

I pretty much stand by that today. Physical pain is really a pretty minor and ephemoral thing compared to what goes on inside your head. For me the real issue was whether it would cause my son any pschological issues not to look like me and not to look like most of his peers? That's what the issue hung on as far as I was concerned.

So I went out and did some research on exactly what percentage of boys in this area (i.e. my sons future peers) were having it done these days. As it turned out, it wasn't nearly as high as I had assumed it was. I think it was something like only 70-75% of boys born in my area were circumcised. That pretty much decided it for me.
If at least some of my son's classmates were also uncircumcised I figured he wouldn't be feeling so out of place. I can explain to him why he doesn't look like me.... and it'll be easy enough to explain to him how people are different if he at least knows that some of his classmates look like him.

My wife concurred, so we decided not to have him circumcised. We don't regret it.  If it was something like 95% of his classmates were, then we probably would have had it done.

The only real thing I take issue with is the authors assumption that some-how he has the right to dictate to me what decisions I must make for my son. When you are willing to make ALL the decisions I have to make for my son... AND take responsiblty for dealing with consequences of all those decisions.... AND do all the hard work and emotional investment of raising my son. THEN you can come into my home and tell me what I must decide. UNTIL you are willing to do that, keep your dictates to yourself.

Confused by your logic (3.66 / 3) (#283)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:38:23 PM EST

I admire the great deal of research you did to find out that circumcision has no significant medical benefits.  However, I do not understand your psychological logic.  If 95% of parents had sexually mutilated their child, then you should do so too, so your child doesn't feel left out as the only one not sexually mutilated?

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

baa (5.00 / 1) (#296)
by Baldwin atomic on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:17:04 AM EST

This guy sounds like a bit of a sheep...

If 95% of parents cut off one of their kids arms, he'd probably do it too...


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Opinions not necessarily those of the author.
[ Parent ]
Don't be crude. (4.50 / 2) (#311)
by Koutetsu on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:45:15 AM EST

This guy obviously cares a lot about his son - that's why he did all the research instead of blindly accepting or rejecting such a major decision.

His logic in making the decision is just another example of his care: he wants his son to be socially accepted.  That's not a crime.  However, I myself stand with the side that says there are many more reasons your son might be teased.  If he concentrates more on his studies than on 'fitting in', he'll likely be subjected to ridicule - any geek can attest to that.

No one wants their child to be forced to think of themself as a freak--which might've happened if he were the only one on the block with a foreskin.  I think the better decision would have been to wait and see if the child could handle whatever social pressure came about before making the cut.

Then again, I believe a later-circumcized penis is much worse off overall than an early-circumcized one, so the decision might best be made at birth.  Perhaps I should stop speculating so much in my comments and concentrate more on delivering one point.

m(y) d.n.e. Me in terms of You does not exist.
[ Parent ]

Let me explain (3.00 / 1) (#333)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:33:33 AM EST

First of all,

             I am circumcised. I can assure you that I haven't been traumatised by the event. I certainly don't regard myself as "mutilated". You may choose to but that is your own cultural hangup. I enjoy a satisfying married life. I'm quite happy and content with my life and don't really feel I've "missed" anything by having the procedure done.

             I've had surgeries and other injuries that I'm sure are far more painfull then the rather simple procedure in question. While I'm sure it's not fun... that sort of pain doesn't have any lasting effects.

             I'm of the opinion that psychological and emotional pain are FAR more damaging and have much longer lasting effects then most (non-debilitating) physical trauma.

You may not choose to believe it but peer acceptance can be a very important part of a young boys emotional health.

For the most part I had peer acceptance as a child but I'm willing to bet that quite a few K5'ers were ostracized by thier peers. They may not want to admit even to themselves that it has caused any lasting pain.... but I'm willing to bet there is quite a bit of bitterness hidden there.

Now I've never had my tonsils removed or my appendix.... but I certainly would if it were neccesary to resolve a lasting health problem and I wouldn't hestitate to make that decision for my son too, if it were called for.

I don't really regard circumcision as any more physicaly debilitating then the removal of a tonsil or an appendix. If I believed that such a procedure were neccesary to prevent my son from suffering long term emotional harm then I would make it.

Fortunately it turns out that is not neccesarry. Obviously I'm not going to submit my son to the pain and discomfort of a needless procedure even though I don't believe that procedure is likely to have any long term debilitating effects for him.

I wouldn't do that any more then I would have his tonsils or appendix removed just for the heck of it.

[ Parent ]

Follow the lemmings? (3.33 / 3) (#338)
by dh003i on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:04:04 PM EST

Your psychological argument seems to revove around a hypothetical where 95% of people are circumcised, so therefore, to fit in, your son should be as well.  I don't see the logic behind this, because it seems like a case of ad populum thinking to me.  Why is a cruel and painful procedure which deprives a future man of his full sexual capacity for feeling pleasure -- which has no medical justification what-so-ever as a general procedure to perform, not any more than we'd be medically justified in cutting off teenagers breasts so they don't get breast cancer -- suddenly acceptable when 95% of people do it and make fun of others who haven't been mutilated?

Maybe you don't feel mutilated, but many people who've been circumcised do, especially those who are unable to obtain full sexual satisfaction (the foreskin is the most sexually erogenous part of the penis), or those who are unable to perform sexually at all, because the cicumcision was done too tightly making erections painful.

The entire point is, parents have no right to do this to their child:  their child had no choice in the matter, and it shouldn't be done unless it is needed for a good medical reason, which it is not (except in very rare cases later on in life, should someone get penile cancer or should to foreskin fail to retract).  Your scenario about a boy possibly feeling chastigated by his peers because he's natural could be resolved at a later time, when he is capable of making a rational decision for himself.  The same procedure can be done later on, when the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself, and with anesthetic (which can't be used on babies) to eliminate any pain.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

One more time (2.00 / 1) (#342)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:15:59 PM EST

The logic for making the decision is based upon 2 factors:

1) What is more likely to cause harm.

2) What is the degree of harm that will be caused.

Can we agree on that basic premise so far?

Now in order to make the proper decision I have to first determine exactly what sort of harm is caused by circumcision and how likely it is to occur. I also have to determine exactly what harm would be caused by having a penis that looks different from everyone elses and how likely that is to occur.

Your view is that great harm is caused by circumcision and that harm is likely to occur.

However that really doesn't bear out with the experiences of the vast majority of circumcised men.

Something like over 95% of men in my generation in the U.S. underwent the procedure. The perecentage of people who have actualy reported problems or disatisifaction because of it is incredibly minute. Nor has there been much evidence to suggest that the problems reported by that percentage are actualy caused by the procedure rather then some other unrelated(possibly pschological) dsyfunction.

For my determination the only real harm likely to be caused is the pain and discomfort of the procedure itself.

On the other hand, there is the liklihood and degree of harm which can be caused to young, impressionable child by feeling like he is a "freak". Note, I am not saying that looking different from everyone else makes a person a freak.... but that is easly the feeling a 5 or 6 year old boy could experience......despite any reassurances his parents might try to give him.

In my judgement the psychological harm caused by that is far more damaging then the pain and discomfort of the procedure itself.

Fortunately the percentage of boys today who undergo the procedure has dropped quite a bit.
That means the liklihood of that sort of psychological harm occuring has dropped dramaticly because my son won't look differently from ALL the rest of his peers. Which means it doesn't make sense to have the procedure done. Which I am quite happy about.

Now do you understand my logic?

It's not just a simple case of having it done or not done because that's what everyone else is doing.

It's a case of trying to determine what the repercussions of doing it are vs. what the repercussions of not doing it are.

[ Parent ]

no, can't agree on that premise (none / 0) (#418)
by dh003i on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:33:31 PM EST

If you value human rights, as I do, then you can't agree that parents have the right to violate their children's rights by having an unnecessary operation performed on them for perceived social conditioning.

It simply boils down to the fact that parents don't have the right to make that decision, because it violates their children's rights.

Your logic runs something like this:  if everyone else is violating their children's rights by circumcizing them, and those who are circumcized make fun of those who aren't, then its ok for me as a parent to violate my child's right by circumcizing him so he'll fit in with all those other boys who's rights have been violated.  This kind of logic is used to justify violating the rights of a child under the conditions you mentioned (vast majority of people circumsized, and make fun of those who aren't).

So my ultimate argument boils down to this:  unless there is a compelling medical necessity for circumsizion, which there usually isn't, parents circumsizing their new-born boys violates their rights.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

So by your logic (none / 0) (#437)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 02:51:12 PM EST

So by your logic it is ok that greater harm be done to a child as long that harm is being directed by the government and society (i.e. strangers that don't care about the child) and doesn't involve an "unneccesary" medical operation.... rather then allow parents (i.e. people who actualy care about the child) to make a decision about what will make thier child most healthy and happy?

So I must ask you, exactly what are parents for?

I'm sorry but we are diametricly opposed on this issue and will never agree. My basic position is:

1) Society has no right to dictate to individuals what choices they make about thier life nor infringe upon their individuals freedoms unless such choices conflict with the personal freedoms and rights of other individuals within society.

2) Parents have both a legal and moral responsibility to look after thier childs welfare until the child is old enough to look after it themselves. This neccesarly includes the ability to make life affecting decisions for the child until the child is old enough to make those decisions themself.

3) The person in the best position to make the determination of what is in the childs best interest is some-one who actualy cares about the child (i.e. the parents) rather then some-one who does not care about the child and does not know the child (i.e. government and society).

4) Historicly when Society and Government have attempted to intercede into individuals personal choices in order to "protect" the individual (presumably from themselves) they have done a remarkably piss poor job. Invariably such determinations are based upon politics, sensationalism, "feel good policies" and special interests... rather then any REAL concern for the individuals well being or the actual facts of the matter in question.

You claim to be a supporter of human rights but you seem to oppose the greatest human right of all.... self-determination.

[ Parent ]

please (none / 0) (#442)
by dh003i on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 01:01:21 AM EST

.... rather then allow parents (i.e. people who actualy care about the child) to make a decision about what will make thier child most healthy and happy?

Who are you to say that?  Being someone's parent does not mean your going to know about their preferences, our how they will feel about having been circumcised once they're old enough to contemplate such matters.  If you circumcise them, and they later don't like it, they're fucked.  At least if you don't, and they don't like it later, they can change that.

1) Society has no right to dictate to individuals what choices they make about thier life nor infringe upon their individuals freedoms unless such choices conflict with the personal freedoms and rights of other individuals within society.

A decision to circumcise your child is a direct and obvious violation of that child's right to their body.  You don't have the right -- not even as a parent -- to mutilate your child's genitals (when it's medically unnecessary) because of perceived social norms, which may very well change (and even if not, that's irrelevant as one can be circumcised at any time).

2) Parents have both a legal and moral responsibility to look after thier childs welfare until the child is old enough to look after it themselves. This neccesarly includes the ability to make life affecting decisions for the child until the child is old enough to make those decisions themself.

You don't have the right to make life-affecting decisions on your child which will or may harm that child in the future, as circumcision obviously can.  It is a violation of human rights.  The same arguments you make could be used to justify female genital mutilation in Africa, so that the girls "don't feel left out".

3) The person in the best position to make the determination of what is in the childs best interest is some-one who actualy cares about the child (i.e. the parents) rather then some-one who does not care about the child and does not know the child (i.e. government and society).

Parents should be able to make decisions within certain boundaries, none of which include VIOLATING their children's bodies.  Parents don't have the right to assault, rape, molest, or mutilate their children, under the guise that "they're the ones who care the most and thus know the best".  This is this "parents rights" bullshit again.  Parents have obligations and responsibilities to their children, not rights to them.  You don't have the right to circumcise your child -- this is barbaric genital mutilation, no more justifiable than the removal of girls' clitori.  Nor do you, as a parent, have the right to refuse medical treatment for your children because of your religious beliefs.

4) Historicly when Society and Government have attempted to intercede into individuals personal choices in order to "protect" the individual (presumably from themselves)

I'm cutting you off here because the rest of your statement is irrelevant.  The government is not protecting anyone from themselves.  They are protecting children from parental abuse -- which includes circumcision.  The government has a right to protect the rights of us all, one of which is a child's right not to be forcibly genitally mutilated without any choice in the matter.

You claim to be a supporter of human rights but you seem to oppose the greatest human right of all.... self-determination.

How fucking twisted you are.  If you seriously believe that I'm trying to deny your right to self-determination, you are a egotistical control freak.  You can do whatever you want to yourself -- cut off your penis if it makes you happy.  You can't do anything to your child.  I'm opposing what you claim as your "right" to violate the rights of your children.  In the way your speaking of -- permanent sexual alteration, or otherwise physical alteration -- you have NO RIGHT to do that to your child, unless it is medically necessary (i.e., prevent death), or medically very clearly beneficial (i.e., separate twins).

All of your 4 basic premises are valid; however, you have abhorrently misapplied them.  In each case, you are trying to assert that the government is preventing you from self-determination (thus violating your right to self-determination), when it is in fact preventing you from violating the right (to future self-determination) of others.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

No you still don't get it (none / 0) (#450)
by CENGEL3 on Mon Jan 27, 2003 at 02:23:54 PM EST

If you think I WANT to control my childs life for him then you don't know anything about me as a parent.

Nothing would please me more then to let every decision that would effect his life wait until he was old enough to make that decision for himself.

However, there are some decisions that simply CANT wait until the child is old enough to make them himself. Waiting will have an adverse impact. In effect waiting IS making a decision... or even worse it's aborgating ones responsibility as a parent.

If you really have done any research about circumcision you would know it's a much bigger deal to have it done when the child is older then right after the child is born.

While you may consider it "mutilation", the A.M.A. considers it a medicaly accepted practice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue in favor of it... but clearly you are the one who is not in touch with societies and governments norms here.

There are lots of things which societies and cultures do, which are considered norms within those cultures but which outside cultures would consider abhorant. What is abhorant to an individual really depends upon the culture they were raised in.

One thing you clearly seem to be incapable of grasping is that failure to adhere to a cultures accepted norms can have a far more adverse impact on an individuals life and happiness then even uneccesary medical procedures. I can assure you that is the case. You may not wish to take that into account....and as an individual who is only responsible for themselves you certainly have that right and luxury..... however as a parent who is responsible for safeguarding my childs future happiness and well being I HAVE to take them into account. I do not have the luxury of hiding my head in the sand and pretending that bucking cultural norms has no consequences.

Finally you are quite right in aserting that I do not trust society or government to be the arbiters of what is medicaly prudent and what is not. I offer as evidence this very issue we are debating. Forty years ago you could have had your child taken away for NOT having them circumcised because you were refusing a "medically necessary "
(even though it really wasn't) treatment for your
child. You may have the hubris to believe that we know everything today (Just like I'm sure they thought back 40 years ago) but I can assure you that 40 years from now they will be saying we had it all ass backwards about a good many things.

That is why individuals need to have the right to make decisions about treatment for themselves... even if those treatments seem to be unorthodox....
and when individuals are NOT ABLE to make those decisions for themselves thier guardians need the right to make those decisions as thier proxies.


[ Parent ]

So confused (none / 0) (#463)
by Josh A on Wed Jun 04, 2003 at 11:43:03 PM EST

I'm so confused. Where do you live that your son's penis has anything to do with social acceptance?  I'm fairly young, and so attended school fairly recently. None of my "peers" ever saw my genitalia. Not even in high school (no one showers in gym any  more), by which time I would have been just as equipped to handle criticisms of my penis as I was to handle all the other criticism everyone endured at the hands of their "peers".

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
"All" decisions (3.33 / 3) (#291)
by phliar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:52:14 PM EST

A good message, but this brought me up short:
The only real thing I take issue with is the authors assumption that some-how he has the right to dictate to me what decisions I must make for my son.
But we (society) have already made some decisions about how you're allowed to raise your child. You're not allowed to lock him in a basement for a day with no food or water. You're not allowed to beat him. You're not allowed to circumcise your daughter. Some people here clearly believe that male circumcision is in this class. With that last paragraph you just come across as sanctimonious.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Intent (none / 0) (#328)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:57:09 AM EST

Society does have the right remove children from a home if thier parents neglect to care for them or abuse them.

If the parent is mentaly competent and has demonstrated that they are attempting to act in the childs best interest then NO, society does not have the right to dictate how that child is raised. They certainly have the POWER to do it, just like they have the power to throw some-one into a concentration camp based upon thier ethnic origion but that does not mean they have the right.

What I find sanctimonous is a complete stranger attempting to impose thier own subjective beliefs and hangups on myself and my child...... especialy when they aren't willing to accept responbility for dealing with the consequences of the decision they wish to impose.... but rather expect me to deal with those consequences and hold me responsible and at the same time allow me no say in the decision.


[ Parent ]

Ironically, (none / 0) (#349)
by tebrow on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 08:57:12 PM EST

Had you chosen to circumcise your child, who would it be that would have to "deal with those consequences"? Certainly, you don't think you'd be in a position to "accept responsibility" for the condition of your child's penis? The way I see it, you scarcely stand to lose any more than the author does in the event of your son's circumcision, and given your line of reasoning -- that the one who must face the consequences should make the decision -- I think that the choice should be your son's.

[ Parent ]
You obviously don't have kids (none / 0) (#371)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 02:11:45 PM EST

You obviously have never been a parent. Otherwise you would know that any pain or unhappiness your child experiences effects you just as deeply. I would rather cutoff my own arm then see my son unhappy.

I would love to be able to wait until my son was old enough to make all the decisions that will affect his life himself. Unfortunately some
decisions just can't wait that long. Circumcision is one of those. Ask any doctor, if your are going to do it at all the time to do it is the
first few days after birth.... you wait even 6 months and it becomes a much more involved deal.

Let's be brutualy honest here, you don't give a rats ass about my kid.... neither do most of the other posters here (on both sides of the issue). This is all about YOU. This is all about projecting your own world view, hangups and mores on everyone else. This is all about making the universe and everyone in it correspond to your own vision... so YOU can feel more comfortable and more confident... and boost your own self esteem.

The only thing that comes through resoundingly in post after post in this topic is "ME", "ME", "ME". You don't care about other peoples kids, you care about yourself.

Well, thank god it doesn't work that way here. You don't get to have a say in other peoples major life decisions.... not unless those
decisions happen to involve your own rights in some major way. You don't get to force everyone in the universe to conform to your own personal hangups.

Maybe when you become a parent (if you're a good one), you'll realize that it's no longer about YOU anymore. It's not your ego, and your world view and the image you want to present to the world anymore... you'll realize that the only thing that matters then is your kids health and happiness.

One things for certain, I'm sure as heck not about to let anyone who doesn't give a rats ass about my kid to dictate major life decisions
for him. You go play god in your own backyard. The only people that get to have say in effecting my kids life are the people who actualy care
about him, that is until he's old enough to start making decisions for himself.

Just goes to prove what I always say, the only difference between Liberals, Fascists and Stalinists is the color of thier T-shirts.


[ Parent ]

Not quite (none / 0) (#462)
by Josh A on Wed Jun 04, 2003 at 11:38:26 PM EST

No one is trying to dictate to you what decisions you must make for your son. If they are, they are off the mark.

What's on the mark is this: to paraphrase another one of your posts, you [i]have no right[/i] to have your son circumcised. Yes, you have the power to make it happen, but only because our society hasn't yet seen to it that circumcision be prevented.

If you feel defensive when presented with the facts to the point of shooting the "sanctimonious" messenger, then you are off the mark.

"According to modern medical ethics, parents do not have the right to consent to a procedure that is not in their son's best interests. The removal of a healthy, normal part of the male sexual organ is not in their son's best interests"

See http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/end.html

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
oh man.. (4.66 / 3) (#297)
by ChannelX on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:21:26 AM EST

so you're saying that you'd be willing to circumcise your son if 95% of his classmates were. You'd be willing to take that decision away from your son because of the possibility he might get teased for a few days? Hes gonna get teased about *lots of shit* during his years as a kid. Life ain't fair and lopping off a body part won't change that.

[ Parent ]
Sickness (5.00 / 1) (#389)
by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 10:50:12 AM EST

Had some religious person recently invented it, claiming "God told me to cut off the foreskin of little boys," he'd quickly be put into an asylum or jail or both.

Especially if he did it without the boy's permission.  And if the parents consented, they'd be put in jail, too.

It's because it's some ancient thing left over from the murderous days of human history that it's "acceptable."

[ Parent ]

"if he looked differently [from me]" (none / 0) (#374)
by bandy on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 08:34:05 PM EST

The first part of that being that young children really do have a very strong need to identify with thier parents. I'm circumcised (I'm old enough that it was pretty standard medical practice when I was born) would my son feel insecure or uncomfortable if he looked differently then I do?

Ok, so whack off half of his pee-pee, that would be taken care of. But what would you do about all that extra hair on your body, hm? Would you be willing to wax it off until he reaches full Manhood?

I'm glad you decided to leave him as he was made.
Marlboro: War ich Rindveh bin.
[ Parent ]

Korydon (5.00 / 1) (#376)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 09:03:13 PM EST

Cengel3: I wish you had printed the next to last paragraph at the beginning...you had my heart thumping until I reached it for fear that you were going to circumcise your son. For whatever reason you chose to leave him INTACT he will thank you. However, you must prepare him with information at an early age. Three is not too young. You and your wife's attitudes toward the penis and its foreskin will have an enormous effect upon him, too. If you could hear the horror stories from men who eroticized circumcision at an early age you will not neglect this aspect of your son's education. Perhaps you might read Kristen O'Hara's book: Sex As Nature Intended It, c. 2001 (see SexAsNatureIntendedIt.com). Obtain a copy of the recent book by Paul M. Fleiss, MD: What Your Doctor May NOT Tell You About Circumcision, c. 2002, also. Finally, if you begin foreskin restoration now, by the time your child is three years old, you will look like HIM! Rood

[ Parent ]
Hi (5.00 / 7) (#274)
by idislikejesus on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:06:44 PM EST

Firstly, I was born outside of US, I'm half jewish and luckily uncircumcised. I moved to USA when I was 6, and now that I look back I find it kind of funny that living in american culture made me question and confused me why my penis is different from the rest of the male population. Now that I am more educated on the subject I really appreciate that I was not stuck with an *unnatural* penis. Nature gave me a foreskin and I don't see a worthwhile reason to take it away. Now many of those of you who are uncircumcised have a lot of missconceptions since you probably never even seen one. So I want to clear a few things up. First, there is nothing nasty with being uncut, some of you might think that there is a big pile of skin needlessly surrouding the head. When I was younger(before ~10) that was the case, the skin would fully engulf the head, but as I grew in size the skin would eventually stop covering the entire thing. Right now even when I am fully flacid, only about 1/2 - 2/3 of the "head" gets covered. Meaning that when I pee urine doesnt(and simply cant) get stuck in the skin. When I even get moderatly erect the skin starts sliding back revealing the entire head. Someone said that "all guys in porn are always cut". The fact is: that it would be pretty hard to determine whether a guy is cut or not. When erect the skin does not interfere at all with the glans. The difference between an erect cut male and an erect uncut male is that an uncut guy will have a thicker layer of skin below the head. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however for me...it would not be beautiful to have a visible scar owhere skin was once attached. I am not an expert on penis's but from what I have seen in pornos many men have very obvious red scarred tissue just below the head. It can be seen as an advantage or disadvantage, but uncut guys are more sensitive because they dont suffer years of clothing rubbing and desentizizing their dick. I personally don't see a disadvantage when it comes to women. I really do think that its a fact that what foreskin does is make the penis softer and more "gentle" just below the head. Inside a vagina it greatly reduces painful friction for the woman. Perhaps some woman have gotten used to uncut guys and do prefer it. But the simple fact remains that uncut sex is much more natural, its the way nature intended it to be. Its pretty clear why circumcision came into practice in the first place. Masturbation is a sin in many cultures. I have heard a lot from cut guys that to jack off they sometimes need lubricant or even their own saliva to make it easier. (I never required that, jacking off is pretty easy and simple). Could this be a reason why circumcision came into place? I think that the condition where the skin wont go all the way back is caused by lack of masturbation(thank you religion). In a society where masturbation is forbitten and circumcision is not practiced, many men would have a serious problem with their foreskin. Because if they *had* masturbated, their skin would naturally stretch over time. I will not have my children circumcised(unless they wish to do it themselves later in life). I dont see any shame in having to tell my son to move his skin back and wash his thingy.

Spelling error (4.00 / 1) (#279)
by idislikejesus on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:14:15 PM EST

Sorry I am new here and didnt know that you cant edit your posts. Where I said Now many of those of you who are uncircumcised have a lot of missconceptions since you probably never even seen one. instead of uncircumcised I meant circumcised. Additionally I would like to add that I am glad that I am in the 80% majority(worldwide) being uncut.

[ Parent ]
I have an entire penis, and I am glad. (4.85 / 7) (#278)
by YelM3 on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:13:23 PM EST

Being an uncircumcised male from the US, I just had to give me own opinions about this. First of all, I have never ever been ridiculed or teased by anyone about having a foreskin! Not as a kid, and not as a sexually active adult. This idea that a kid will get teased is in my opinion quite silly. Every kid gets teased about something, anyway. I didn't even realize my penis differed from anyone else's until I was at least 10 or 12.

Now about the hygene thing. You bathe daily, right? Well that's all it takes.

And lastly the most important consideration: feeling! I have read in several places that a very large percentage of nerve cells in the penis are in the foreskin. Now if this is even remotely true, why would you ever want to deprive your son of that?

I have always felt sorry for circumcised guys. I know it's hard to hear this, but you don't know what you're missing. The foreskin adds all sorts of functionality to the penis during various foreplay and sexual acts. I've always thought circumcision was cruel and somewhat disgusting. Every culture has their bizarre traditions, try and think of this as one of ours for a moment. If you are circumcised, you are MISSING part of your penis! An important part! I hope this doesn't hurt anyone's feelings too bad. Just think about it before you hack part of your kid's dick off, eh?

Foreskin Restoration, plus links (5.00 / 4) (#295)
by razniq on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:12:11 AM EST

For many of you I recognize that reading the above article can be very difficult. I know when I first started reading about circumcision the disbelief and denial were pretty strong. No one wants admit that a perfectly normal and useful part of their body has been taken away from them. Circumcision is irreversible, but it is possible to get back some of what has been lost so I would be remiss if I didn't mention it here.

Non-surgical foreskin restoration works by appyling constant tension to the remants of your foreskin to encourage new skin to grow. It is an arduous process, but well worth it for some particulary those who have noticed they are not as sensitive as they used to be. It takes most guys at least a year for adaquete coverage. The restored foreskin protects the glans and increases sensitivity by allowing the glans to shed the keratinized layers of cells that have built up over the years to protect the sexually responsive nerves. Personally, I am going through this process at present.

Foreskin Restoration is still an underground movement though I did it mentioned in one paper. (scroll 2/3 down, or ctrl-f "foreskin restoration") http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

Here are some links:

Article on Foreskin Restoration
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.27.00/foreskin-0004.html

Normal Male Anatomy, also a good site for other penis concerns
http://www.the-penis.com/anatomy-circumcision

Foreskin Restoration diary, with before and after photos
http://homepage.mac.com/rmpayne/

Foreskin restoration faqs
http://www.cirp.org/pages/restore.html

Also just try googling "foreskin restoration".

I'm at work now (none / 0) (#324)
by Bill Melater on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:24:19 AM EST

so I'm not going to be clicking on a whole lot of links to what might look like male genital torture. Sounds like snapping an alligator clip with a ten pound weight onto the shaft of your dick. =8-0

Couldn't you get the same result with an artificial foreskin? Perhaps we could bring back the codpiece ...

[ Parent ]

More details on techniques (none / 0) (#396)
by NMSpaz on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 01:24:20 AM EST

A variety of foreskin restoration techniques with instructions (and some with pictures) is available here. They seem to have a whole blog and forum set up there (www.themenscenter.com) now too, though I'm pretty sure that wasn't there back when I originally got involved in restoration. There are also some commercial products available. The one I use and recommend is the stupid-sounding Tug Ahoy.

[ Parent ]
Not to be a critical of anyone here.. (1.57 / 7) (#299)
by Calledor on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:35:41 AM EST

but I've only gotten half way through the comments here and I can't seem to avoid reading about an uncircumsized guy and his joy at being able to jack off at a thousand strokes per minute without his penis bursting into flames. I mean holy crap. Do you people even get inside a girl before you blow your load? "It's so Sensitive!"

I'm glad you can masturbate like a monkey on meth, but that is not a good reason to argue against circumsion unless you like the single life a lot.

-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos

I think you're missing.... (3.00 / 1) (#302)
by YelM3 on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:10:14 AM EST

...half your penis. And also the point. Which is: multiple orgasms. Well OK, that's not really the point but in any case you're just jealous. :)

[ Parent ]
Right. (1.60 / 5) (#303)
by Calledor on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:24:45 AM EST

If there are no rounds in the chamber it doesn't matter if the hammer's dropped. And I may be missing some skin, but I bet mine's bigger than the raging two inches your sporting. And your point, like your penis, is limp like a worm. Multiple orgams are in the defined sense is only possible if you are a female. Later limpy.

-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
[ Parent ]
hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#304)
by idislikejesus on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:40:43 AM EST

It really sounds like you are being protective of your own integrity for your dick by making these completely untrue and unneeded comments. For your information, uncut penis can get an erection just like a cut one. Otherwise I doubt that life could propagate all these years considering that our ancestors 10000 years ago lacked the tools to perform a circumcision, if we go by your logic that you have to get rid of your foreskin to gain an erection. Also I am uncircumcised, enjoy sex and masturbation. I can last as long as I want while recieving great pleasure, because I have something called self control.

[ Parent ]
Actually. (2.00 / 1) (#326)
by Calledor on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:39:18 AM EST

I had at first made a comment saying I disliked reading about how much uncircumsized men enjoyed masturbating, because it seemed to be in a lot of the comments below the main article (which I thought wasn't that bad). I'm not really being protective though because apparently one of the masters of masterbation replied to me in a way that most certainly demanded some insults. Now I am correct that women are the only ones who can have defined multiple orgasms, but men can have something similar if they practice a lot and learn control. So yes of course you're right, but it didn't need to be said because I was blatently insulting someone who insulted me, you know, flame. Not proud of it, not ashamed of it, it's more or less a common occurance on this site.

-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
[ Parent ]
Multiples. (5.00 / 1) (#363)
by katie on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 03:20:47 AM EST

"Multiple orgams are in the defined sense is only possible if you are a female"

Actually, this isn't completely true.

Men can have multiple orgasms too. Seriously. It does require some commitment, because you need to strengthen your pelvic floor muscles and learn to... ah... clench them. At the right moment.

No, I've not seen it happen, but the technique is fairly widely written about (as wide writing about these sorts of things goes.)

[ Parent ]

You're right, but for purposes of my reply.... (none / 0) (#372)
by Calledor on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 04:51:05 PM EST

I didn't include that. I have a feeling that isn't what he was talking about, and technically it isn't a multiple orgasm it's something similar to it, I really wouldn't rather go into details and it kinda saddens me that I know the details to begin with. Thank you for your contribution though to the conversation.

-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
[ Parent ]
It's not about whacking off (5.00 / 4) (#332)
by Bill Melater on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 10:24:21 AM EST

I think there's a fundamental truth being exposed here: "Unless you have a really good reason you should generally avoid cutting off parts of your body or your children's bodies".

IMO, "it's just cleaner", or "my father had it done", or "my religion told me to" are not good reasons.



[ Parent ]

Again sorry for replying so late. (5.00 / 1) (#446)
by Calledor on Sun Jan 26, 2003 at 06:17:00 PM EST

You're right of course. Really it should be a decision made by a man later on in life. Though reasons are relative. And yes I know it's not about whacking off, I was just expressing my displeasure at having to read more than three accounts of the mastibatory meantimes of uncircumsized men.

-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
[ Parent ]
"Inside a girl" (5.00 / 3) (#375)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 08:47:14 PM EST

Ah, yes, Calledor, being able to masturbate like a monkey on meth, as you say, is good reason not to circumcise. You see, monkeys have their most sensitive nerve endings in the glans. We men have them in the prepuce, which circumcision removes, usually completely. It is absolutely necessary for the penis of the human male to have its foreskin intact in order for him to have a 'normal' sexual relationship with the female of the species. Besides being richly innervated, the foreskin ensures that vaginal fluids are not wicked and evaporated outside of the vagina. This is nearly always the case when the male is circumcised, causing drying, chafing and discomfort for the male and especially for the female. That's why artificial lubricants are most often a necessary aid to sexual intercourse when the male's penis has had it's prepuce removed by circumcision.

[ Parent ]
Are you serious?! (none / 0) (#405)
by Lenny on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 02:10:37 PM EST

It is absolutely necessary for the penis of the human male to have its foreskin intact in order for him to have a 'normal' sexual relationship with the female of the species.

umm...hmmm...let me think...rrrr...NO! That is pure bullshit. I have a normal and successful sexual relationship with a female of the species. That flies in the face of your frivolous theory.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Successful, perhaps, but not NORMAL (none / 0) (#411)
by Korydon on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 08:07:06 PM EST

You didn't say, but one must assume that you have been circumcised. One cannot have a normal sexual relationship when one's penis has been eviscerated by the removal of the foreskin any more than one can have normal eye function if one's eyelid has been removed.

[ Parent ]
Where do you get this? (none / 0) (#412)
by Lenny on Wed Jan 22, 2003 at 09:29:23 AM EST

I am circumcised. I have a normal and successful relationship with a woman. Maybe you haven't heard, but millions of people have been doing this for thousands of years. Circumcising does not ruin a sexual relationship. I know that you cannot conceive of such a radical idea, and you have no rational explanation - but it is true. I can't speak for the circumcised world, but my closest friends and I have normal sexual relationships with our respective women and we're all circumcised.
Circumcised men can and do have normal sexual relationships. You don't have to believe it to make it true.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Circumcision sure doesn't help a relationship.. (none / 0) (#414)
by harold on Wed Jan 22, 2003 at 08:42:49 PM EST

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/ AND it certainly does not make a man's penis anyway near normal--it is just damaged.. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/ http://www.cirp.org/news/nocirc12-7-00/ http://www.noharmm.org/numbness.htm http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

[ Parent ]
How do you know? (1.00 / 1) (#419)
by Lenny on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:41:56 PM EST

from one of your extremely biased references: These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of 'premature ejaculation'.

Maybe being uncircumcised is a...oops, sorry about that...problem.

Did I fail to mention that they reviewed very few women? 138 women in one study. Thats not even close to being a real study. And the studies mentioned that there are women who prefer circumcised men. Every female that I have talked to sex about has said the same thing about uncircumcised men - GROSS!
Lets do a timeline: an uncircumcised man takes a shower in the morning at 6:00 a.m. and ends up having sex that night around midnight. That's 18 hours since the last shower. That's 18 hours worth of secretion. The women that I talked to said that smells south of limburger!

I understand that most of the women in the study prefer uncircumcised men, I have no idea where they found them. All the women I know prefer circumcised men, and thats all that I care about. If they prefer uncircumcised men in the jungles of wherethefuckever, good for them. Around here, circumcision is king.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Normal intercourse (none / 0) (#423)
by Korydon on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 11:53:32 PM EST

Normal intercourse is only possible where the genitals of the respective participants are INTACT. When one or both have been surgically altered, one has the possibility only of an abnormal interaction, as parts necessary to a NORMAL sexual experience are missing. Sure, you can still have sex if your penis has been deprived of the foreskin, but it is an experience breviated by the absence of a dynamic interaction between the moveable foreskin and the vagina. The circumcised penis can only function as a battering ram. NORMAL intercourse is a slow, gentle, loving interaction between two people and their genitals, NOT the cruel, dry, relentless pounding experienced as a result of circumcision...and usually only with the aid of artificial lubricants. INTACT men rarely if ever use artificial lubrication, having husbanded the natural lubrication of both man and woman through the aid of the dynamic foreskin.

[ Parent ]
Is that so? (none / 0) (#439)
by Lenny on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 04:31:53 PM EST

I prove, on a regular basis, that you're completely full of shit. Mw wife has multiple orgasms, has no problems with dryness, and never complains of irritation. Maybe it is that you're jealous? Maybe it is that you're a little...umm...quicker than most (as is common with uncircumcised men)...I don't know. But you are definitely wrong.

NORMAL intercourse is a slow, gentle, loving interaction between two people and their genitals
Thank you, Mr. Fallwell.
Why didn't you tell me that you are a virgin to begin with?


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Yes, tis...so! (none / 0) (#441)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 10:15:01 PM EST

If your wife doesn't get dry, then it's you who are quick on the draw, rather than slow and gentle. I'm sure that your wife is pleased with that, though I suspect you are still young. As far as proving anything, you have done nothing of the kind. And, yes, you don't know anything about the status of my foreskin.

[ Parent ]
Well then... (none / 0) (#449)
by Lenny on Mon Jan 27, 2003 at 01:57:57 PM EST

then it's you who are quick on the draw, rather than slow and gentle.

Look, if it makes you feel more secure to believe that, go right ahead. If it is your contention that of the millions of men in the world that are circumcised not one of them can have a normal sexual relationship, great. Have some more neverfood.

p.s. circumcised men are bigger


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Aplogist for genital mutilation? (none / 0) (#451)
by Korydon on Mon Jan 27, 2003 at 05:36:31 PM EST

Yes...anyone who has been mutilated in any way can still function, somewhat, but not "normally". Lose a finger, a hand, even two hands, and one can still type, paint, cook and drive an auto, among other things, but it's not quite normal to do these things without full access to the gift of a whole body. Same way with the penis. It's possible to do most of the things done by an INTACT penis, when the foreskin has been excised, but it's a truncated experience and not a fully functional, "normal" process. On the other hand, you are an apologist for genital mutilation, so why don't we simply agree to disagree. As to your PS....what's the point? Women prefer the normal penis, in size as well as INTACT. This statement only reveals a self-centered, erotic interest, nothing more.

[ Parent ]
nah (none / 0) (#452)
by Lenny on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 10:54:15 AM EST

Women prefer the normal penis, in size as well as INTACT.

What women? Maybe the skanks in europe that don't shower or shave...but here in America - circumcised men are preferred.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
stop attacking each other (5.00 / 1) (#454)
by razniq on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 01:10:12 PM EST

This issue is NOT about attacking circumcised men as somehow inferior. The whole point of the above article is that we are still cutting off a part of men's bodies without their consent that SURPRISE actually does useful sexual things. But what circumcised guy wants to hear that? I certaintly wasn't thrilled to come to conclusions I did when I was reading through the various journal articles on the topic. But if thats reality I say its better to accept it and see what can be done about it.

Circumcision doesn't affect every guy the same depending on when it was done and how much was amputated. Circumcision is partially reversible but thats only recommended if your loss is significant.

If you have:

*full body orgasms
*skin mobility when erect
*your frenulum(area of highest concentration of erogenous nerves)
*high pleasure plateau before orgasm
*highly sensitive glans

and don't have:

*too much coarse hair on your shaft
*your testicles pulled uncomfortably close when erect
*an ugly scar line
*painful erections
*problems with lasting too long (caused by a desensitized glans that most guys don't start to notice until their 40's)

then thats great.


[ Parent ]

Respectful attacks (none / 0) (#458)
by Korydon on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 11:39:48 AM EST

Sorry, but I don't believe we were attacking one another, personally. The intellectual stimuli of a heated exchange helps hone one's argument and understanding. I, personally, have learned much in the process, and I respect my worthy opponent. If a circumcised man shrinks into himself and bemoans his fate...well, that's an example of cowering timidity. One needs to come to terms with one's fate and use it to improve life. If the truth doesn't make one free, what will? To conceal facts from circumcised individuals is to do a disservice to them, especially as lack of knowledge usually leads to a continuation of the practice of circumcision into the next generation. Having been circumcised as an adult at a time when no other recourse was offered to correct a tight foreskin, I know intimately what was lost. As a result, I'll fight for every person's right to have an intact body, no matter whose feelings might be hurt, certainly not those who eroticize circumcision. Foreskin loss is always significant, as the most sensitive tissue in the penis surrounds the preputial orifice of the prepuce. This is lost in every case, no matter how much other tissue is retained. And as a normal sexual relationship is impossible without a usable foreskin, the only recourse to circumcised couples is for the male to restore. It's not only the male's pleasure and needs which are important, after all, regardless of his pleasure. Circumcision is a direct assault against the female in a sexual relationship, and it's thus a terribly selfish act in those adult males who eroticize circumcision and the exposed glans. Circumcision is never "great".

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry I didn't reply to you earlier. (none / 0) (#445)
by Calledor on Sun Jan 26, 2003 at 06:09:21 PM EST

But I really didn't think my comment was discussion worthy. It was more or less a criticism of more than several men saying how much they like to beat off with their uncut cock. It was insulting of course, but the article wasn't half bad and I just couldn't read all the comments without feeling a little ill. Now you make a very a good point, but perhaps living in a very humid climate has helped me avoid the negative consequence you described. In any event I don't take a keen interest in the sexual problems of others so I did not know that was the case.

Since I'm posting late though, I just want to try out a little theory I have. Hey tiger! Maybe if you didn't stare forlornly at your botched circumsion you wouldn't have such a problem wiping your ass.

-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
[ Parent ]

It's typical (1.75 / 8) (#307)
by the77x42 on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 03:33:57 AM EST

I'm cut, so what. All I see is a bunch of men crying about their dicks (like usual).




"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

So what? (5.00 / 1) (#388)
by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 10:46:17 AM EST

So am I.

Evidently some of the skin cut off is the sensitive pleasurable type, like the head itself and the underside near the head.  (I have no way to confirm this, sadly, of course.)

That should outrage anybody, knowing they not just random flesh was trimmed away, but parts that are functional to enjoying sexual arousal.

It should be against the law, immediately.  Your religion does not get you the right to modify someone else's body.

[ Parent ]

So what? (none / 0) (#408)
by harold on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 03:46:35 PM EST

easy answer--circumcised men are sexually handicapped, having lost the majority of the nerves of the penis...

[ Parent ]
Crying (none / 0) (#424)
by Korydon on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 11:57:29 PM EST

And what are you doing if not "crying".

[ Parent ]
Closer to Female Genital Mutilation than you think (4.85 / 7) (#314)
by gordonjcp on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:53:51 AM EST

Sexual organs grow from more-or-less the same foetal tissue. Ovaries are broadly similar to testes, for instance, working in a very similar way. Now, uncircumcised men have a thin whitish piece of skin on the underside of their penis running from just behind the tip of the glans, perhaps 1/4" back from the tip of the urethra, for an inch or so down the inside foreskin. If you have been circumcised, you don't have this bit any more. Find a guy you know *really* well who isn't circumised (hey, if you know he's uncircumcised, presumably you know him well enough to ask) and have a look. This bit of skin develops from the clitoris. That is why it's so sensitive. Furthermore, the "tightness" in the foreskin when you try to pull it back the first few times (usually at puberty) is roughly analogous to rupturing a girl's hymen.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


Almost correct. (4.00 / 2) (#345)
by muchagecko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 06:18:43 PM EST

Just this correction:

I found this a few days ago.

Prior to differentiation of the gonads into testes or ovaries at one and a half months of fetal life, the external appearance of the male and female fetus is the same. In female fetal development the genital tubercle turns into the clitoris, the female equivalent of the penis, and the urogenital sinus develops into a portion of the vagina and the urethra. In male fetal development the genital tubercle forms the penis, the labioscrotal folds will eventually fuse in the midline to produce a scrotum, and the urogenital sinus will eventually become the penile urethra.

The skin removed in circumcision does not develop from the clitoris. The genital tubercle forms the whole penis in males, and the clitoris in females.


"Do you think Mr. Fantastic can stretch his dinky also? And do you think The Thing is hard all over? I mean really all over."
[ Parent ]

Possibly... (4.00 / 1) (#346)
by gordonjcp on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 06:48:48 PM EST

... not what I was taught though.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
you learn something (5.00 / 1) (#348)
by muchagecko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 08:01:43 PM EST

new everyday. Science is constantly changing. Let me find the article link. Its dated January 2000, but it isn't from a medical science site. But its what I was taught. I should probably find a better source.

"Do you think Mr. Fantastic can stretch his dinky also? And do you think The Thing is hard all over? I mean really all over."
[ Parent ]
Fun Medical Fact of the Day (4.33 / 3) (#340)
by wanders on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:05:12 PM EST

I believe the medically correct term for someone who has not been circumcised is "intact". There is a point to this; foreskin restoration aside, you can't really get yourself uncircumcised.
~
~
:x
Yeast Infections (3.50 / 2) (#350)
by avdi on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:12:54 PM EST

I've been through a similar process to the author's recently - not giving it a second thought, followed by research, followed by some serious questioning of my assumptions about the subject.  But one thing keeps bothering me, that I haven't seen addressed by any anti-circumcision advocates:  what about yeast infections?  There is evidence that women with uncut sexual partners have signifigantly higher rates of yeast infections.  As a man who's partner fights a constant battle with candida (yeast), I wonder why this isn't brought up more often in discussions of the pros and cons of circumcision.  The common claim that remaining uncut has "no detrimental effects" either on the man or his partners seems to be either ignorant of this fact or deliberately ignoring it.

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
Links! (none / 0) (#365)
by fenix down on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 05:06:05 AM EST

Got any links handy about this? Never heard anything like that before, but it sounds interesting. Do they have a reason or anything?

[ Parent ]
Sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#367)
by VrtlCybr2000 on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 06:33:07 AM EST

Unfortunately I don't have any links, but one of my good friends was married a few years back, and her husband at the time was "uncut", and she had constant yeast infections, and since his mom was almost a nurse, and insisted that there was nothing unhealthy about being uncut, she had just assumed it was always her, but as soon as she left him, it went away, and she's never had problems like that since... (w00t, all that shit in on sentance.. Making the world a better place by not using periods since 1994...)

[ Parent ]
Candida (5.00 / 2) (#373)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 08:24:07 PM EST

If one goes to the ARC Forum numerous references to the treatment of Candida are found in answers to questions from afflicted individuals, the best and most reliable of which answers are from one "PaulB" and from "Jim". For instance...most recently message 6545 addressed to "Mark" on 7 January 2003..."Stretching Efficiency and Permanence" by PaulB. See also messsage 6546 as regarding how diabetes might cause phimosis through development of chronic candidiasis...+ treatments. See the link: http://www.f19.Parsimony.net/forum33578 Please note that this is the English language version of a German language site, and while completely separate in subject and response, the German site may appear...and don't ask me why, but one can obtain the English language site by using reason...and finally typing in "forum33578" when asked for the forum number. Good luck. Oh, yes, the same "PaulB" and "Jim" may be found at the Fathermag site: http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/organizations When the main page is reached one must log in and later click on the "circumcision" site. While the Fathermag site is moderated, the Parsimony is not...and you can expect controversy. Ignore it and search for relevant information. Any questions, let me know.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely incorrect (3.20 / 5) (#379)
by benzapp on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 10:56:17 PM EST

While there may be a particular survey which came to this conclusion, the overall consensus is circumcision is an antiquated, barbaric fetish foisted upon the medical community by puritanical nitwits.  

Yeast infections have a variety of causes, but none of them are due to any failings of the human body. Do you really think millions of years of evolution would leave such a necessary part of the human body afflicted with such a trait?  Yeast infections are not "spread". In fact, the entire concept of infectious disease is flawed at best and deceitful at worst. Infectious diseases are all around us, all the time.  Some people have immune systems which can handle it, some do not.

You have to ask yourself if men infect women, where are the men getting a yeast infection?  Why aren't other mammals affected with our favorite fungus?  Specific aspects of western behavior are to blame, partly diet, mostly unhealthy sanitation.  

The surest advice any doctor can give any person regarding their pussy/cock is LEAVE IT ALONE.  It does not need cleaning. Certain substances are secreted to prevent fungal infections, and our primitive cleaners destroy these substances.  Even water is not good.  


[ Parent ]

Alls I knows (4.33 / 3) (#387)
by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 10:42:26 AM EST

I just love the idea that my sex organs were mutilated because of ancient, archaic, ritualistic religious reasons.

Seriously, what kind of fucked up God concerns Himself with hehehe, heee hee, sliiiicing off parts of a baby's penis!  Ya!  Slice!  Slice!  Slice!

Nice, um, God there folks.  Of course, He sits by while children are raped and tortured to death because, umm, He is perfectly Good, and has the power to stop it infinitely easily, so it's, umm, Good to not stop it.

Uhhh, ok "Lord", if that is your real name.

[ Parent ]

Shows what you know... (none / 0) (#453)
by avdi on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 12:00:06 PM EST

Men do get yeast infections, dumbass. Next commenter?

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
[ Parent ]
Ha ha ha! fucking tool (2.00 / 2) (#460)
by benzapp on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 09:53:05 AM EST

Oh, thanks! What the fuck was I thinking? You stupid fuckwad. How about this, why don't you tell me where I said men do not get yeast infections? Go eat a dick

[ Parent ]
ok, your partner fights constant yeast (5.00 / 1) (#403)
by catmatic on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 01:29:00 AM EST

and you're circumcised, I assume, since very few intact males defend circumcision.

I'm struggling to follow your logic here.

[ Parent ]

Uncut and yeast infections.. (5.00 / 1) (#407)
by harold on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 03:45:10 PM EST

Can you support this claim of intact men causing more yeast infections than circumcised men? By support, I mean some medical studies from medical journals, not some mere anecdote. Frankly I get tired of these specious and unsupported claims, and I would like to see some evidence--or do we just chalk this up as another circumciing myth?

[ Parent ]
Personal Story (2.00 / 2) (#456)
by MatthewB79 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:51:59 PM EST

I can't supply any linkage to research on this so take it on its own merit or chalk it up to coincidence. Honestly, I wasn't even aware that I was circumsized until about age 20 when my girlfriend happened to mention something about it. (more on that in a minute) After some research I uncovered the Evil Plot to Mutilate Every American Penis(TM) In a state of semi-anger and confusion I approached my father for answers. He told me an interesting anecdote that changed my attitude entirely. Apparently for most of my late mothers sexually active life she suffered from recurring yeast infections. My father said he was instructed by her doctor to pull back his foreskin and carefully clean underneath with a non-soap based wash each day. This seemed to help her avoid the yeast infections long enough for her to become pregnant. On the advice of the same doctor, my father had a partial circumcision after I was born. As far as he knows, she led a happy yeast-infection-free sex life. My girlfriend commented about my being circumsized. She had yeast infections almost constantly during her previous relationships with uncircumsized men.

[ Parent ]
circumcision also makes the penis shorter (1.00 / 1) (#358)
by catmatic on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 01:55:32 AM EST

By removing a significant part (up to 50%) of the "skin tube" that the penis is, a circumcising doctor ensures that his "patient" will have a shorter penis for the rest of his life.

Ever wonder why you get all those "increase the size of your penis" spams? Somebody must be responding. Is it you, oh blithely ignorant and unconcerned circumcisee?

Sometimes these penis spams even come from doctors!

half your penis (3.00 / 4) (#384)
by FourDegreez on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 01:19:30 AM EST

In numerous posts below, people have expounded on the notion that to be circumsized is to have half your dick cut away. I am circumsized, and based on what I've got now if this is true, my intact genitalia would have put a well-endowed horse to shame. ^_^

Seriously, these "neener neener" posts about circumsized men having half a penis are laughable and should be disregarded out of hand.

Half the skin surrounding your (none / 0) (#394)
by G_Man on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 11:07:58 PM EST

You're either intentionally misunderstanding so that you can comment on your own manhood, or you really don't get the practice of circumcision. It isn't half the penis, that wouldn't make sense, it is the skin surrounding.

[ Parent ]
not a "neener neener" (5.00 / 1) (#402)
by catmatic on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 01:01:33 AM EST

since I'm circumcised.

The phrase was "up to 50%" of the penis skin is removed. Averaging about 15 square inches. Of course the foreskin is usually folded in the flaccid penis. The extra skin shows up when the penis is erect.

You seem to think that you have a big dick. Good. But actually, when one reflects that it is the *sensitive* part of the penis that doctors remove (to be replaced by an SUV when you're older, I suppose) then it is actually much MORE than 50% of the feeling of the penis is removed.

Suddenly explains a lot about American culture, say what?

[ Parent ]

Korydon (2.00 / 1) (#410)
by Korydon on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 07:53:35 PM EST

Yes, it's true. Circumcision removes up to half of the skin of the penis, and the most sensitive tissue, too. When one's foreskin is removed, the penis becomes not a pleasurably interacting instrument of true love, but a brutal battering ram, desperately searching for orgasm. Big or small, you have been left with not very much. Try foreskin restoration. It will somewhat compensate.

[ Parent ]
Uniquely American? (2.66 / 3) (#391)
by kiven fish on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 11:17:40 AM EST

As a Brit I often find the traditions and customs of our colonial cousins quite perplexing. Things like saying "have a nice day", eating with one hand, shouting your conversaions at each other, and shooting people in drive-bys. But the idea of chopping off vital parts of your penis at birth is particularly puzzling. No wonder American girls are so easy when they come to Europe, once she's experienced some randy Frenchman's uncircumsized dick she's not going to want to go back to rough old Yankie boys is she? I feel a verse of our national anthem comming on: God save our Foreskins, Long live our Foreskins, God save our skins! Send them victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to cover over us; God save our skins! Now that I have got that off my chest I'm going to have a lie down and masturbate furiously.

American Men are victims (5.00 / 1) (#434)
by razniq on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:22:25 AM EST

Lets not hold against someone something they didn't deserve to happen to them, alright? Most American men did not ask for this, yet it is they who must suffer in denial of the damage done to them.

excerpted from a post by waterBrian on ezboard141

"The American male is often seen as the dominant force in the world; as the cause of great hardship and destruction....and this notion is often true. But, my friends, facts have recently come to light that show that American men are victims; victims of other American men. Our fathers and their fathers and their fathers are our oppressors. They took part in the mutilation of our bodies. The purpose of which lends itself to the pseudo-science of the past. No other country in the Western developed world mutilates its male children in this way, albeit for religious purposes. American males are mutilated at birth with the removal of their fore skin. Circumsision is not the norm the world over. We are the freaks. We are unusual."

I had a conversation with Sabine on Sunday. A friend of her's in Germany had a birthday party this past weekend and she received a book on penises. Our conversation led to the fact that German males aren't circumsized. My penis is the first circumsized cock that Sabine has ever seen. I was fully unaware that Europeans do not circumsize their males at birth like we do. They think that we are strange for doing so. I was blown away by this fact and by my ignorance. I found myself trying to stand up for my circumsized penis and the reasons for having the procedure done....the problem is that there is no medically proven reason for doing so. From some research, I have found out that the result of being circumsized is that there is less sensation resulting from the loss of nerves and glands that normally secrete lubricants. The result is that masturbation AND SEX are less pleasurable!!! I once read about female circumsision that is done in some parts of Africa and how horrible it is. Guess what?...we are also victims of our society.

Un-fucking-believable!!!!

Here is a website with more information:

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/circ.html

I'll never look at my penis the same again."

end of excerpt

[ Parent ]

Visiting the Louvre (4.00 / 1) (#393)
by slade hawke on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 10:13:30 PM EST

The first time I visited the Louvre, I had a strange feeling of "intactness" as a toured the sculptures.

I've never been ashamed of my parents' decision to leave my penis intact, and perhaps one day I'll thank my dad for it.

Over the last 5-6 years I've had quite a number of conversations with female friends (all american) about foreskins, and while some think of it as odd, they understand after I make a number of points:
1. This really is just an american thing
2. Hygene has nothing to do with it
3. I couldn't image having a dry glans (purplehead)
4. Just mention female circumcision
5. It was invented to cure masturbation (see #3 and consider a circumsised man's infatuation with hand lotion)
6. Your meat curtains are just as "grody"

They all understand #6

Doctors Opposing Circumcision Organization (3.00 / 1) (#404)
by catmatic on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 03:13:33 AM EST

Welcome to the Doctors Opposing Circumcision home page. D.O.C. is an organization of physicians, and others who are opposed to routine neonatal circumcision. D.O.C. has members in 50 States, 12 Canadian Provinces and Territories, and in nations on six continents. These doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual. They also believe that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn.

The reasons that D.O.C. is opposed to routine infant circumcision are explained in The End of Circumcision in America.

To learn more about D.O.C., contact us at this address:

Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
Seattle, Washington 98107
U.S.A.

But what about... (none / 0) (#447)
by SecretFire on Sun Jan 26, 2003 at 09:38:34 PM EST

12 Canadian Provinces and Territories
So I guess all the babies in nunavit are SOL
--- Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is a step beyond logic.
[ Parent ]
Researching circumcision (2.00 / 1) (#406)
by harold on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 03:39:10 PM EST

Why would some mothers be against circumcision? That is easy to answer, they educated themselves on the subject; and they didn't dismiss the evidence as absurd merely because it was something that they didn't want to hear or face. Anyone who actually researches the subject soon discovers that: 1. No medical organization in the world recommends circumcision. 2. There is not a single PROVEN benefit to circumcision--NONE! 3. 85% of the world's men are healthilly and happily living without being circumcised. And MOST importantly, circumcision sexually handicaps it victims!

Nuts. (3.00 / 2) (#435)
by leandro on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:49:39 AM EST

Nice article with references.  But none with contrary arguments or any serious attempt at refuttal.  Lots of misinformation, as per other answers.

And actually some other answers suggest, or rather affirm, this is human rights violation.  RIIIIGHT... NOT!  Hebrews and Arabs have been doing this for millenia, much before modern surgery appeared, and there has been no evidence this has damaged the people as a whole or any individual.

Dismissing whole cultures and lots of favorable arguments, besides spreading misinformation, is no way of arguing.  This has just reminded me why I should waste no time with K5.

You may think it bad reasoning if you don't believe the Bible.  But anyone who tries to classify circumcision as evil will not only have to prove the point much better, but also fight the Three Big Monotheistic Religions out there.  So much for tolerance...

Sorry to disabuse you...but...! (none / 0) (#440)
by Korydon on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 10:02:57 PM EST

Paragraph 1. What "misinformation"? List them, please! . . Paragraph 2. Human Rights: The genital mutilation of babies is sexual child abuse, no matter how many centuries it has been inflicted upon them. . . Paragraph 3. Waste no time. Go! . . Paragraph 4:Christianity Obviously, Leandro, you aren't a Christian or you would know the Biblical proscriptions against circumcision. For instance: ACTS 15:6-12. Peter: We are saved through grace, not through circumcision. ROMANS 4:9...Faith was reckoned to Abraham before he was circumcised, not after, and therefore cannot be dependent upon circumcision. GALATIANS 5:2 ...if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. Every man who receives circumcision...is bound to keep the whole (Jewish) law. Christ and the Mosaic law of circumcision are mutually exclusive. Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone...it produces good works through love, not circumcision. CORINTHIANS 1:7:17+ Was anyone at the time of his call (to Christ) uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called. . . Paragraph 4: Judaism. Jews who circumcised children are cowards. The child has no voice in the matter, save for his screams of pain. If circumcision were a religious rite, it would be freely chosen by the adult male professing his faith. Rather, torture is inflicted upon helpless children. . . Paragraph 4: Muslims: Circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mohammed or his religion.

[ Parent ]
Disabuse pressuposes you know better (1.00 / 1) (#448)
by leandro on Mon Jan 27, 2003 at 05:18:36 AM EST

> What "misinformation"? List them, please!...

For example, that circumcision is mutilation. Or that it causes desensitization or lack of lubrication. Or that the skin that was removed was to be as sensitive as the scar left. I didn't list them because other comments did, and many I haven't besides. And also because this seemed to silly to be taken seriously.

> The genital mutilation of babies is sexual child abuse

Please show us how circumcision is genital mutilation, or sexual abuse. Seems to be you are thinking about African female mutilation, which is not circumcision at all but misnomed.

> you aren't a Christian

I am. Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Arminian, church-goer, a born-again sinner, reader of the Bible and the Fathers. Is that enough?

> Biblical proscriptions against circumcision

You mean, against Gentile ritual circumcision. None of the texts you quote has anything against Jew ritual circumcision or Gentile medical circumcision. More to the point, they are against the reliance on circumcision for salvation.

> Jews who circumcised children are cowards.

Interesting, so obeying God is cowardice? I'd rather be a coward in Heaven than a brave in Hell.

> The child has no voice in the matter, save for his screams of pain.

Neither circumcision is as painful as you think it to be, nor the child remembers or is traumatised by it. And obviously the child has no voice in it, as she hadn't in being conceived, given birth, or being born in a Jew (or believing in the medical benefits of circumcision) family. Yet some disctinct benefits accrue from each of these facts to the child.

> If circumcision were a religious rite, it would be freely chosen by the adult male professing his faith.

That you don't agree with it, it doesn't make it less of a religious rite, unless you are willing to take Moses' place and rewrite their Bible for the Jewish. Where your claim for authority is based I don't know.

Also, some parents do believe that they must educate their children in their own religion, perhaps because they really believe as opposed to just "appreciate" it.

> torture is inflicted upon helpless children

Your words are so loaded as to be false, useless, hateful.

But pray, what help should a child need? Why is circumcision torture?

> Circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mohammed or his religion.

I don't know about it, but even if it is true, it wouldn't be all the story. The Koran isn't something out of the blue, but was built from an adaptation of the Bible to the pagan Arab mindset. And it is construed as being successor to the Bible, even while it's claimed that the Bible was corrupted as opposed to the Koran. To make a long story short, Abraham is the father of both Israel and Ismael, and thus you would risk great wrath from Islam also if you tried to rewrite or dismiss Abraham.



[ Parent ]
Nuts indeed (none / 0) (#461)
by Josh A on Wed Jun 04, 2003 at 11:16:12 PM EST

You try to use an appeal to tradition to support the idea that circumcision is not a human rights violation. Not only is this fallacious on its face, but you've appealed to a tradition that doesn't exist: modern circumcision is not in keeping with the original religious rites, which did not involve removing the entire foreskin.

Anyway, circumcision is a non-consensual surgical removal of a non-diseased organ that puts the patient's health in danger due to possible complications. I fail to see how any procedure fitting this description is anything but a violation of one's rights.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
good article (none / 0) (#455)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:02 AM EST

made me think about a few things. i'm thankful that one of the other posters was kind enough to mention that there are some cases where circumsision is necessary - namelessly when the foreskin does not retract on its own naturally. One of the people who i have known for a long time [i wont say who :)] was circumsized when we were both little kids- and i can see how some of the differences between us arose after that. i repeatedly fell in and out of love, again and again - he...well...appears at least to the outside world to be bored with women. and i'm pretty sure he's not gay [and i'm definitely not gay[not that there's anything wrong with gays.]]...so mabye there was an effect... *ponders*
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
To be "kind" (none / 0) (#459)
by Korydon on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 11:52:44 AM EST

Circumcision is not indicated in the cases of a tight or unretractable prepuce. And circumcision is never "kind". It's a brutal practice and completely unnecessary, unless, perhaps, a person has developed a skin cancer and allowed it to grow for decades before alerting a doctor. Shame is the evil in these cases, not cancer, which is rare and easily fixed if caught early. To "fix" an unretractable prepuce, the individual only need pull with his fingers...outward on his foreskin for several minutes each day. Depending on the individual circumstance, each foreskin will become perfectly retractable in a matter of months if not weeks. No doubt your friend would wish he had been kindly offered this solution. I sure do. What was done to us was not "kind".

[ Parent ]
MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org (none / 0) (#457)
by vanlewis on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 02:09:56 PM EST

PLEASE COPY THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE AND EMAIL IT TO YOUR FRIENDS:

James Prescott, Ph.D., wrote the "Ashley Montagu Resolution to End the Genital Mutilation of Children Worldwide: A Petition to the World Court, the Hague" in 1994. (See http://MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org and http://violence.de )

Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate in medicine (1962) and discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, endorsed the Montagu Resolution in 1995, along with Dr. Jonas Salk and many others. (See http://MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org )

Dr. George Wald, Nobel laureate in medicine (1967) and discoverer of vitamin A in the retina of the eye and how it works there with light to form the molecular basis of vision, was also a strong defender of the human right to bodily integrity. More information about him and his historic 1975 essay, "Circumcision", is available at http://MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org.

On April 1, 2002, Dr. Prescott's important child-protection petition became available for all to sign on the web at http://MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org. Signing it there is the easiest and quickest way to begin to support and participate in the worldwide uprising against all sexual mutilations of children, regardless of what sex they happen to be or what the religion, culture, ethnicity, aesthetic preferences, or sexually-child-abusive insanity of their parents happens to be.

It is the CHILDREN'S bodies, THEIR religious freedom, THEIR health and safety, THEIR bodily self-determination, THEIR futures, THEIR lives that are important now. All humans have the inalienable human right to bodily integrity. We adults have the inalienable human RESPONSIBILITY to protect each other's and ESPECIALLY the CHILDREN'S human rights from violations and their human bodies including their genitals and rapidly developing brains from ignorant-adult-inflicted torture and lifetime harm and mutilation.

Please sign the Ashley Montagu Resolution and pass the word on to your friends to sign it, by copying this message and emailing it to them and to your lists. We are hoping to receive 1,000 valid signatures by April 1, 2003, the Montagu site's first birthday and the first day of the third annual Genital Integrity Awareness Week (see http://StopInfantCircumcision.org ) and the first day of Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Please make me work hard and long receiving these signatures. Swamp me. Give me 10,000 by April 1 if you can. Wear me out. This is what I came to this planet for.

Being born human is not a disorder requiring surgical correction.

Take the whole baby home!

Let's roll!

VanLewis@MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org

The greatest crime against humanity is the torture and mutilation of children.

James Prescott, Ph.D.
http://violence.de


Researching Circumcision | 463 comments (439 topical, 24 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!