"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[graalbaum]

Circumcised men tend to be drier
Its kind of like removing your eye lids...
your eye balls would get dry, without the lubrication caused by eye lids
much as how the foreskin works and protects the glans...

but of course circumcion advocates in this thread fail to mention this

One of the largest reasons of course is the propoganda of disease
inflamded diseased forskins.... penile cancer
which happens... but is the execption not the rule.

Men are not dying in their droves of penis cancer because they have foreskin
However the propogande supported by American health agencies suggests men are dying by the million due to penis cancer....

 

[Me Myself]

So you don't believe that the risk of infection, necrosis, gangrene, BXO, urinary tract infection, urinary retention, meatal ulceration or stenosis, urethral fistula, hypospadias or epispadias, and lymphedemais is increased with circumcision? Okay, But consider the following two observations.

"Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows."
source

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has reported that while the exact incident of post-operative complications following a circumcision is unknown, it is thought to be between 2-10 per cent. One of the reasons for this is that many problems following circumcision do not become apparent until the child grows into adulthood."
source
​

And, I do agree with you that circumcision should go the way of the dinosaur.

AFAIK there is no conclusive evidence that circumsicion decreases sensitivity.

Some people say they became less sensitive others say they became more sensitive. (People who did it at adulthood)

Ultimately, we dont know.

 

[dawny0826]

You obviously didn't even bother to look at the sites. I'm tired of talking to people who don't bother to actually take the time to go through the resources presented.

Look at it: The Intactivism Pages

If you consider to act like an imbecile, I'm going to put you on ignore.

I looked at the sites and they're a bunch of gibberish on anti-circumcision. But, I'm not seeing anything that contradicts the data posted on the CDC and AAP websites.

If I'm missing something, enlighten me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

AFAIK there is no conclusive evidence that circumsicion decreases sensitivity.

Some people say they became less sensitive others say they became more sensitive. (People who did it at adulthood)

Ultimately, we dont know.

Yeah, then there's the stuff about what sort of sensitivity it is, how the nervous system is affected, the amount of nerve tissue lost, what type of nerve tissue, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Circumcised men tend to be drier
Its kind of like removing your eye lids...
your eye balls would get dry, without the lubrication caused by eye lids
much as how the foreskin works and protects the glans...

but of course circumcion advocates in this thread fail to mention this

Because it's non-notable? I've never had any ill-effects regarding this.

 

[Father Heathen]

I looked at the sites and they're a bunch of gibberish on anti-circumcision. But, I'm not seeing anything that contradicts the data posted on the CDC and AAP websites.

If I'm missing something, enlighten me.

Indeed. Appeals to emotion don't make for valid arguments.

 

[Curious George]

That is a variation of what people generally say: "my kid, my decision!".



Which "data" are you looking at that tells you that?

Go ahead and type in Circumcision in your RF search. Read the threads. I look at data from the EU, U.S., Canada, and have now read plenty of studies thanks to this reoccurring thread.

Look at the medical risks- we talking about a low risk. The benefits are low as well- maybe even lower.

The argument comes from the consent and human rights aspect not medical data. I do not think that this is a human rights issue because we are not dealing with brutality nor are we dealing with great harm. There is a slight chance of harm and a slight benefit.

And though you suggest that it is akin to a "my child, my decision argument" I agree- but it is not "my kid- I can do whatever I want." As inhumane as it is, I can take my dog into the vet and get it put to sleep- If I accidently shot my dog in the woods, nothing would happen- this is not true for children. But there definitely is a territorial issue with children. Whether this is a hangup from times gone by when children were viewed as property- I am not going to bother discussing. However, the concept of parental rights is well ingrained in our society. The concept is rooted in the concepts of both Life and Liberty. This is an area that other people do not get to touch save for good reason. Your reasoning is an emotionally laden argument that when broken down amounts to "it is necessary." Consent cannot stand by itself because a child cannot consent to many things. We rely on the parents to make these decisions. If we had a communal family system perhaps things would be different. However, we have chosen to elevate the immediate family unit as an ideal in our society. From this stems parental rights and parental liability. But, if you would like to be prosecuted for the guy down the street who beats their kid, advocate for societal change in how we regard a family. Until we change that, you do not have a say in how someone else chooses to raise their children unless they are causing real harm- not momentary pain from a medical procedure.

 

[graalbaum]

AFAIK there is no conclusive evidence that circumsicion decreases sensitivity.

Some people say they became less sensitive others say they became more sensitive. (People who did it at adulthood)

Ultimately, we dont know.

There is no conclusive evidence about many things
especially when said lack of evidence results in profit for drug companies and government agencies

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I looked at the sites and they're a bunch of gibberish on anti-circumcision. But, I'm not seeing anything that contradicts the data posted on the CDC and AAP websites.

If I'm missing something, enlighten me.

It is presented by subject, as in reasons why people argue for circumcision and then explores the research debunking it. So you're going to have look at the specific arguments and find the page that addresses the study you are referring to. Get it now?

Also: CIRP: Circumcision Reference Library

 

[graalbaum]

Because it's non-notable? I've never had any ill-effects regarding this.

its notable as its an ofted touted thing by advocates

ie get cut or you're gonna get cancer

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Dawny said, and then promptly deleted:

I'm a fan of my husband's circumcised penis because I think uncircumised penises are disgusting and there isn't anything any man can tell me otherwise to sway me.

Nature didn't make us based on the aesthetic opinions of individuals. There's people who think female genitals are disgusting as is and hack them up to suit their tastes. How is that any less insulting as the nonsense you just spewed about the natural human body?

If your husband thought your labia was disgusting, would you have them modified to suit his tastes? If not, you're a hypocrite and should rethink the crap you're spouting.

Further, the circumcised male is less likely to transmit HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer.

Circumcision and HIV

 

[Me Myself]

There is no conclusive evidence about many things
especially when said lack of evidence results in profit for drug companies and government agencies

Sl you do not have conclusive evidence about the alleged lessening of sensitivity.

There are people who report increased sensitivity after the procedure.

 

[dawny0826]

It is presented by subject, as in reasons why people argue for circumcision and then explores the research debunking it. So you're going to have look at the specific arguments and find the page that addresses the study you are referring to. Get it now?

Also: CIRP: Circumcision Reference Library

I got it posts and posts ago.

Look, I respect your opinion. I don't agree with the notion that male circumision is genital mutilation, but, I do respect those who feel that boys should be able to choose for themselves. I get that.

I just wish that those in opposition could understand that as a parent if I were to have a son, I wouldn't choose circumsion for my son out of a place of negativity. And I would make an educated choice, myself. I come from a family of medical professionals. I've cared for post-op infants. I've researched on my own the benefits of circumcision in relation to the spread of HPV.

As it stands, I'm a Mom to two girls and I don't think I'm having any more children. But, I respect a parent's right to choose, as I respect the next person's right to decline.

My emphasis is on making the educated choice.

 

[dawny0826]

Dawny said, and then promptly deleted:

Nature didn't make us based on the aesthetic opinions of individuals. There's people who think female genitals are disgusting as is and hack them up to suit their tastes. How is that any less insulting as the nonsense you just spewed about the natural human body?

If your husband thought your labia was disgusting, would you have them modified to suit his tastes? If not, you're a hypocrite and should rethink the crap you're spouting.

Circumcision and HIV

Circmcision and HIV:

Summary

• Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.
• For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS

 

[graalbaum]

hpv not HIV

adequate sex ed would also prevent HPV, but americans dont value sex ed

Funnily we also have a HPV vaccine... we no longer need to cut penises
funnily, the groups advocating penis cutting (deriving from repressed right wing christian attitudes, largely) are also the ones against the vaccine

funny that

 

[Father Heathen]

If you consider to act like an imbecile, I'm going to put you on ignore.

Watch the ad hominem, son. How is she "acting like an imbecile"? An imbecile would be one who is swayed by the silly appeals to emotion and straw men arguments. It's credible data, studies, and evidence that holds validity, not melodramatic exaggerations based solely on emotional, knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Me Myself]

A parent makes way more damaging choices on his kid than wether or not to chop a useless piece of skin and cause a second of pain.

The way I see it, giving sugar to your babies is way more damaging that circumsising anyone, bad diets, promoting bad habits and a ton of other things will be many times more damaging than a little skin off.

What? 99,999% of circumsized people prefer it that way? I rarely heard anyone complain about it. Ive heard people complain about a gazillion other things their parents do or did not do though and I dont think we should ban them.

 

[Father Heathen]

hpv not HIV

adequate sex ed would also prevent HPV, but americans dont value sex ed

Funnily we also have a HPV vaccine... we no longer need to cut penises
funnily, the groups advocating penis cutting (deriving from repressed right wing christian attitudes, largely) are also the ones against the vaccine

funny that

Enough with the silly generalizations regarding the U.S.

I'm pro sexual education and I'm pro gay rights, so stop trying to tie irrelevant subjects into the debate. Also, I don't advocate "penis cutting". I advocate for the parents' right to elect for the procedure.

 

[graalbaum]

Sl you do not have conclusive evidence about the alleged lessening of sensitivity.

There are people who report increased sensitivity after the procedure.

as already stated, the vast majority of sexual studies are skewed

masters and johnson, arguably the most ïmportant"one..for americans anyway(you keep touting american= best) used prostitutes, attempted to cure homosexuality, stated lesbians were mentally ill..and that the penis is all that is really need for female orgasm during intercourse. All rather probematic propeganda. Yet, you want us to believe the information you supply about circumcision is not unbiased and not full of right wing repressed sexuality agendas...?

Sure..I could do that... but you know...I'd rather think for myself as opposed to pepetuating backward antiquated sexual ideas

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I genuinely do that think that you're coming from a negative place and I'm not speaking out of arrogance.

I'm coming from a place of being fed up with ignorance and disregard for the rights of individuals to decide such important decisions for themselves. I'm tired of the rights of children being ignored and I hate child abuse. If you're going to cut up a kid's genitals, at least have a sound medical reason to do so, not voodoo science that's easily debunked.

I'm tired of ignorant people spewing bile about the natural human body when they don't even understand basic human genital anatomy. "Oh, it's a useless piece of skin". It's even more offensive when women do it, when those are the exact same arguments people in other cultures use to cut up the female body. Most of you people don't even understand why humans started this primitive practice in the first place. It had nothing to do with "health", but everything to do with hindering the sexual faculties of males and females. Do your own damn research into the history of circumcision. The so-called "medical" reasons only came about the last century to give the practice a veneer of respectability and, I can only guess, to keep the money from the procedure rolling in. The reason why it was popularized in 19th century America was because it was viewed as an antidote to male masturbation. It was basically a form of torture, imo.

Now, if you wish to call that "negativity", that's your choice. I choose to call it being fed up.