Can this parent really believe she did nothing wrong? Tatooing her kids!???

[Peek a Boo]

This goes against everything I have ever read on this topic. :glare:

 

i guess it depends on which sources you've been reading.....

 

and to be fair, each person is different. Not everyone feels the same about every medical procedure, and not everyone's body will react the same.

 

I'm sure that SpyCar is absolutely correct, and i'm sure there are plenty that will attest to the opposite view. i think it's important to keep both outcomes in mind.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't have a penis but the AAP has actually stated the opposite of what you are saying.

 

 

yabbut, the AAP recommends a lot of things that i don't necessarily accept as the best option or decisions in medical care.

[helena]

I think that's crazy, where I'm from a cross between the thumb and pointer finger is a common gang tattoo like a pachuco cross. I've know guys who work to remove those types of tattoos from their bodies because it's a symbol of a negative life. I know that's not this ladies deal, but it grosses me out to see a lady that goes out of her way to mark her children in that place with that symbol (not making light of the cross), when so many people would like nothing more than to remove themselves from that reality.

 

Having said that, it doesn't even matter what the tattoo is, she seriously altered that 10yos reality for the worse. Even if tattoos are common now, they aren't on 10 yo kids in the US. Peoples perception of her and her family will change, they'll pity her (was it a girl or a boy?), they'll be turned off by her, it's human nature to react to things like that.

 

It seems like Americans don't have long traditions with adorning themselves, I worked for years in the bead business business and it was so interesting to see the subtle psychology behind it all. Perceptions of adornment, race, tradition, mimicking others traditions...rejecting your own.

 

I can see the importance of adornment and the reality of self mutilation in the world, and still think it's trashy to tattoo your 10yo with a shoddy homemade gun. yuck.

[Peek a Boo]

It is against the law to tattoo children.

 

 

but that wasn't cited as a reason. Is there a link to each state's laws on tattooing anywhere?

 

not that the law is the beacon of what is Right and Wrong, simply what is Legal and Illegal. ;)

[Spy Car]

I don't have a penis but the AAP has actually stated the opposite of what you are saying.

 

There is not a large medical benefit. There is not a large impact on hygiene. I just don't see that there would be a big issue in getting boys to wash their bits.

 

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

 

It doesn't say the opposite. It states than the uncircumcised have higher rates of HPV, and that risks their partners with cervical cancer, and themselves with (relatively rare) penile cancer.

 

The is a greater incidence of UTIs (virtually a non-issue for circumcised males) and STDs, including a greater chance of contracting AIDs.

 

And penile hygiene is a big problem for uncircumcised men and boys.

 

Bill

[Renee in NC]

And penile hygiene is a big problem for uncircumcised men and boys.

 

Bill

 

Why is that, I wonder? My 7yo is perfectly capable of cleaning himself - why is it an issue with others (unless the people in question are of diminished mental capacity?)

[MelanieM]

Let's say I have more perspective on this matter than 97.4% of the people on this forum, and I''m telling you circumcised men have more satisfying sex lives.

 

Hm. I'm not quite sure how to word this... Let's just say you might be a rare one here that has a penis, but I suspect you've had less exposure to a variety than many here. In other words, I probably have more personal comparitive information to go on than you do.

 

Well, I have first hand knowledge, and I can assure you intercourse with a circumcised penis is ****-fine.

 

 

I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is there's no possible way to make a blanket statement on the subject, and unless a man has experienced both first hand he's not going to be able to say which is better.

 

Lady, I know plenty of unhappy uncircumcised men and the smegma problems they live with. It's foul, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

 

Circumcision is a much better solution.

 

 

Yeah, I know a lot of people that have horrible dental hygiene because no one ever taught them how to properly care for their teeth. It would have been much better if they'd had them preventatively removed to avoid that whole pesky hygiene issue in the first place. WAY easier than brushing and flossing!

 

MANY? I have NEVER, EVER, met a man who wasn't very happy to be circumcised. There may be a few internet-wackos out there to be exploited by radical anti-circumcision crowd, but this is not a real issue with men. Trust me.

 

 

It's great that the circumcised men you know are happy, really. I would hate it if my husband were personally crushed by the decision his mother made for him all those years ago. But just because you (and I) know some men who are happy about it doesn't discount the people out there that aren't. *Both* scenarios can, and do, exist.

 

You know, there are many women who went through FGM and think it is a fine thing, and think their daughters should undergo the same. I don't think that these women saying it's fine for them and therefore should be fine for their sons makes it automatically fine. I also don't think that the women who do speak out against the practice should be referred to as " internet-wackos out there to be exploited by radical anti-[FGM] crowd".

 

Oh, and as for calling male circumcision genital mutilation... To mutilate is defined by MW as "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect". If one assumes that babies are born perfect, then I think the definition fits.

[Spy Car]

Why is that, I wonder? My 7yo is perfectly capable of cleaning himself - why is it an issue with others (unless the people in question are of diminished mental capacity?)

 

Sorry to say it, but wait until adolescence. Then the glads start producing smegma. And it's a big issue for the uncircumcised.

 

Bill

[hsmom3tn]

but that wasn't cited as a reason. Is there a link to each state's laws on tattooing anywhere?

 

not that the law is the beacon of what is Right and Wrong, simply what is Legal and Illegal. ;)

 

I was wondering about that, too. Here are a few:

 

http://www.tattoodesign.com/tattoo_articles/tattoo_laws/united_states_tattoo_laws

 

http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm

[Renee in NC]

Sorry to say it, but wait until adolescence. Then the glads start producing smegma. And it's a big issue for the uncircumcised.

 

Bill

 

So, the skin gets pulled back and they wash, what's the big deal?

 

And for the record, I am not anti-circ. I just couldn't afford to have it done.

[Slartibartfast]

I doubt adolescents have an issue washing their bits. :lol:

 

 

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

 

As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to

discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine

circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision

to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

There is a lot of information about this but I haven't found anything to indicate that benefits outweigh the risks.

 

http://www.icgi.org/information/medicalization/

 

Positions of various world health organizations

http://www.nocirc.org/position/

 

I am not aware of any health organization that recommends routine circumcision.

 

Also, if it had any impact on AIDS transmission, then why is the AIDS rate in the US so high??

Edited January 8, 2010 by Sis

[Renee in NC]

I really hadn't heard about this being a serious problem (the smegma thing.) Even circumcised men have smegma and so do females. Why is it such a big deal? I have an 11yo who *is* circ'd and I have had to have the same conversation with him about pulling skin back and washing....there is just less there.

[Spy Car]

Hm. I'm not quite sure how to word this... Let's just say you might be a rare one here that has a penis, but I suspect you've had less exposure to a variety than many here. In other words, I probably have more personal comparitive information to go on than you do.

 

So you got around? :tongue_smilie:

 

I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is there's no possible way to make a blanket statement on the subject, and unless a man has experienced both first hand he's not going to be able to say which is better.

 

All the major studies of men who've been circumcised in adulthood show either increased satisfaction, or (more commonly) no difference. So I think "enjoyment" is a non-issue.

 

Yeah, I know a lot of people that have horrible dental hygiene because no one ever taught them how to properly care for their teeth. It would have been much better if they'd had them preventatively removed to avoid that whole pesky hygiene issue in the first place. WAY easier than brushing and flossing!

 

It's a bad analogy. Were there a tiny glad in the mouth that caused horrible bad breath, and increased the likelihood of disease (including deadly illnesses), and was (arguably) unsightly, it might be something to consider removing.

 

It's great that the circumcised men you know are happy, really. I would hate it if my husband were personally crushed by the decision his mother made for him all those years ago. But just because you (and I) know some men who are happy about it doesn't discount the people out there that aren't. *Both* scenarios can, and do, exist.

 

It's a fantasy that there are men who are "crushed" because they were circumcised. The ONLY men I ever knew who were unhappy are those whose parents didn't have them circumcised.

 

You know, there are many women who went through FGM and think it is a fine thing, and think their daughters should undergo the same.

 

You've lost any credibility with me if you think having a clitoris sliced off is a "fine thing." I have a good friend who was mutated this way, and it is a barbaric practice. Equating it with circumcising is grotesque!

 

I also don't think that the women who do speak out against the practice should be referred to as " internet-wackos out there to be exploited by radical anti-[FGM] crowd".

 

Neither do I. The things are not comparable. That's the point.

 

Oh, and as for calling male circumcision genital mutilation... To mutilate is defined by MW as "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect". If one assumes that babies are born perfect, then I think the definition fits.

 

I don't understand your purpose. A circumcised penis is not "mutated" or something made "imperfect." The procedure improves the lives of males who have it, and potentially saves the lives of their sex partners.

 

To conflate female genital mutilation with male circumcision is unconscionable not matter what side you made take on the circumcision issue.

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

You've lost any credibility with me if you think having a clitoris sliced off is a "fine thing." I have a good friend who was mutated this way, and it is a barbaric practice. Equating it with circumcising is grotesque!

 

 

Why would she lose credibility? It is a fact that often it is the mother or grandmother who insist that the girl is circumcised or even hold her down. It doesn't make it any less horrific.

[MelanieM]

Why would she lose credibility? It is a fact that often it is the mother or grandmother who insist that the girl is circumcised or even hold her down. It doesn't make it any less horrific.

 

Yes, this. Good lord -- I'm not saying I think it's a fine thing! I don't even see how you could have even remotely gotten that impression. What I'm saying is that some women who have experienced FGM will turn around and say it's something that served them well and should be done to their daughters. So in other words, a grown person's opinion on what should happen to a child's genitals is not always sound.

 

Bill, as for the rest of your post, I think it's safe to say we're going to continue to come out on different sides on this one, with each of us thinking the other is a tad ridiculous. Well, at least we have common ground there! ;)

 

When discussing this thread with my husband he suggested we should go with our old standby that we always ask when considering parenting related issues: "What would we do if we found ourselves on a deserted island?" His opinion is that we most certainly wouldn't be running around looking for sharp shells to poke holes in our kids or cut bits off of them. True enough.

[sparrow]

So you got around? :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

 

Whoa. That is totally unnecessary. IMO, you owe her an apology.

[Spy Car]

When discussing this thread with my husband he suggested we should go with our old standby that we always ask when considering parenting related issues: "What would we do if we found ourselves on a deserted island?" His opinion is that we most certainly wouldn't be running around looking for sharp shells to poke holes in our kids or cut bits off of them. True enough.

 

That would pretty much eliminate any medical advances of the past century. I guess we will have to agree that we find each others positions ridiculous.

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

Whoa. That is totally unnecessary. IMO, you owe her an apology.

 

not necessarily. ;) But if she does have more comparative info, then that's information via an indisputable fact. :)

 

 

and I'm sorry SpyCar, but you'd have to link to "those studies," and when you did, there are probably an equal number of studies backing the other side. Especially if we look into who was funding/driving the study.

 

It's mutilation by very definition -but not all mutilation is a bad thing. That being said, 3 of my boys are c'd, [one in a home by a rabbi -that was interesting]. The one that isn't is only because we were too lazy to get him in. I'll be paying close attention to his hygiene. :)

 

It's a discussion that draws strong passions and solid evidence for each side, but blanket statements won't serve anyone well here.

[LibraryLover]

This goes against everything I have ever read on this topic. :glare:

 

 

:iagree: I have never disagreed with SC, but there is nothing legitimate in research literature to show that circ males have greater sexual pleasure.

 

Given that males have been horribly damaged by circ, it's better , imo to err on the side of leaving it be until the person can decide to take on the risk/benefit.

 

Of course, I will not touch the religious aspect. I am an atheist. And culturally, there is no way I put let anyone put a knife to my infant. I have been to many a bris, however. It's not my fav party to attend, I admit. But still, some very good people circ their children. And pierce. And whatever.

 

Be kind, do no harm is my motto.

Edited January 8, 2010 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

Sorry to say it, but wait until adolescence. Then the glads start producing smegma. And it's a big issue for the uncircumcised.

 

Bill

 

 

No, it's not.

Edited January 8, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Peek a Boo]

.... but there is nothing legitimate in research literature to show that circ males have greater sexual pleasure.

 

 

but then again, not all legitimate facts make it into research. ;)

[LibraryLover]

but then again, not all legitimate facts make it into research. ;)

 

 

Or facts you would agree with.

 

But please do cite all the 'research' proving cut males experience greater sexual pleasure. Do it fast, because I am about to put you on ignore. You've been tempting me for quite awhile.

Edited January 8, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Peek a Boo]

Or facts you would agree with.

 

But please do show all the 'research' showing cut males experience greater sexual pleasure. Do it fast, because I am about to put you on ignore. You've been tempting me for quite awhile.

 

 

you can ignore me all you want, but we have testimony right here in this thread that shows the fact exists.

feel free to ignore that too.

 

eta:

here's one. try google scholar. cuts through the baloney.

 

http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347%2805%2965098-7/abstract

 

A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

 

eta2:

here's another one,in Kenya. Altho SpyCar may cringe cuz it's a BJU study. ;) *****

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118670178/abstract

 

Overall, 17 (3.5%) of the 479 circumcisions were associated with adverse events judged definitely, probably or possibly related to the procedure. The most common adverse events were wound infections (1.3%), bleeding (0.8%), and delayed wound healing or suture line disruption (0.8%). After 30 days, 99% of participants reported being very satisfied with the procedure; ≈ 23% reported having had sex and 15% reported that their partners had expressed an opinion, all of whom were very satisfied with the outcome. About 96% of the men resumed normal general activities within the first week after the procedure.

 

eta3:

I won't link each individual one, but if you use Google Scholar and type in "adult circumcision" you'll get lotsa hits --even about pleasure. Most seem to support SpyCar's claims. But like I said-- I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree with him, too.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Peek a Boo
*****don't worry SC-- it's not THAT *BJU* lol!

[LibraryLover]

you can ignore me all you want, but we have testimony right here in this thread that shows the fact exists.

feel free to ignore that too.[/quote

 

The 'research' cited means as much to me as 'research' cited proving Creationsim.

 

I might not put you on ignore until later. It's not fair for me to respond without letting you respond back.

 

Of course, I *am* enjoying the fact that you & Spy Car agree with this particular research. Strange bedfellows indeed. :D

[Peek a Boo]

you can ignore me all you want, but we have testimony right here in this thread that shows the fact exists.

feel free to ignore that too.[/quote

 

The 'research' cited means as much to me as 'research' cited proving Creationsim.

 

I might not put you on ignore until later. It's not fair for me to respond without letting you respond back.

 

Of course, I *am* enjoying the fact that you & Spy Car agree with this particular research. Strange bedfellows indeed. :D

 

 

I edited my post to include a couple.

 

SC and I have our own understanding. ;)

[MelanieM]

Whoa. That is totally unnecessary. IMO, you owe her an apology.

 

Sparrow, thanks for your concern on my behalf. I'm willing to assume Bill was simply trying to be funny with his choice of words. Or if he was trying to be offensive, then it would say more about his character than mine in any case. Either way, it's all good.

 

Regardless of his choice of wording, my point -- in response to Bill's assertion that he knows more about this subject than us women folk -- was indeed that some of us here have likely "gotten around" with more male genitalia than Bill has. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

That would pretty much eliminate any medical advances of the past century. I guess we will have to agree that we find each others positions ridiculous.

 

Bill

 

I'm not sure if you're simply misunderstanding my post, or being deliberately obtuse. Either way, medical advances have nothing to do with my comment, which was meant to illustrate my belief that most of us can do just fine with the bodies we're born with.

 

... there is nothing legitimate in research literature to show that circ males have greater sexual pleasure.

 

 

 

Yes, I can't even imagine how such a study could exist. Men that were circumcised as babies have nothing to compare to, men that are circumcised for medical reasons are likely not experiencing optimum conditions in any case, and comparing one man to another is completely useless to the discussion. I suppose a survey of adult men who choose circumcision of a healthy penis and then report on satisfaction levels before and after would be relevant.

 

Sorry to say it, but wait until adolescence. Then the glads start producing smegma. And it's a big issue for the uncircumcised.

 

Bill

 

I believe current statistics suggest that 15-20% of the global male population is circumcised. Your assertions here would suggest that 80% of males have personal hygiene issues due to their intact state. I find that type of blanket statement rather silly.

Edited January 8, 2010 by MelanieM

[Peek a Boo]

aw heck. Mr. Boo fell asleep, so here's another study about sexual satisfaction from that creation-driven Journal of Urology:

 

http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347%2805%2965097-5/abstract

 

Purpose

 

Claims of superior sexual sensitivity and satisfaction for uncircumcised males have never been substantiated in a prospective fashion in the medical literature. We performed such a study to investigate these assertions.

Materials and Methods

 

The Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) was administered to sexually active males older than 18 years before undergoing circumcision. After a minimum interval of 12 weeks after the operation, the survey was again administered. The 5 domains of the BMSFI (sexual drive, erections, ejaculation, problem assessment overall satisfaction) were each given a summed composite score. These scores before and after circumcision were then analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank testing.

Results

 

All 15 men who participated in the study between September 1999 and October 2000 were available for followup. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 36.9 ± 12.0 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the BMFSI composite scores of reported sexual drive (p >0.68), erection (p >0.96), ejaculation (p >0.48), problem assessment (p >0.53) or overall satisfaction (p >0.72).

Conclusions

 

Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm willing to assume Bill was simply trying to be funny with his choice of words.

 

maybe snarky, but i don't think malicious. ;)

 

my point -- in response to Bill's assertion that he knows more about this subject than us women folk -- was indeed that some of us here have likely "gotten around" ...with more male genitalia than Bill has. Of course, I could be wrong..

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Yes, I can't even imagine how such a study could exist. Men that were circumcised as babies have nothing to compare to, men that are circumcised for medical reasons are likely not experiencing optimum conditions in any case, and comparing one man to another is completely useless to the discussion. I suppose a survey of adult men who choose circumcision of a healthy penis and then report on satisfaction levels before and after would be relevant.

.

 

I find it difficult to believe that all 479 men in that second study i linked above had less than optimum sexual experiences before being c'd.

[MelanieM]

I find it difficult to believe that all 479 men in that second study i linked above had less than optimum sexual experiences before being c'd.

 

That study doesn't seem to say much about sexual experiences. 99% reported being satisfied with the procedure, but only 23% had had sex at that point, so I'm not sure what constitutes "satisfied" but it's obviously not solely based on sexual experience. 15% said their partners were satisfied with the outcome, but really, what else would they say? Certainly if my husband were to undergo such a thing I would never give him anything other than glowing feedback afterwards. So... not to say this didn't improve things for these men, but I don't see how the study really addresses that particular aspect one way or the other.

[Spy Car]

BJU international is the British Journal of Urology International :lol:

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

BJU International is the British Journal of Urology International :lol:

 

Bill

[StephanieZ]

:iagree:What's up with folks getting bent out of shape about a difference of opinion?? Goodness!!

 

I don't see where she is being offensive at all. You may not agree with her opinion but she stated it politely and was in no way offensive about it. :confused:

[LibraryLover]

Melanie, there is no making sense of these 'studies'.

 

I am saving my breath. I wish I could put certain topics on ignore.

The Penis is Dirty! Circumcision Saves Lives and Leads to Better Sex!! threads would be at the top of my list.

 

You hang in there.

 

 

 

That study doesn't seem to say much about sexual experiences. 99% reported being satisfied with the procedure, but only 23% had had sex at that point, so I'm not sure what constitutes "satisfied" but it's obviously not solely based on sexual experience. 15% said their partners were satisfied with the outcome, but really, what else would they say? Certainly if my husband were to undergo such a thing I would never give him anything other than glowing feedback afterwards. So... not to say this didn't improve things for these men, but I don't see how the study really addresses that particular aspect one way or the other.

Edited January 8, 2010 by LibraryLover

[CAMom]

Sorry to say it, but wait until adolescence. Then the glads start producing smegma. And it's a big issue for the uncircumcised.

 

Bill

 

Retract, rinse, replace...simple.:D

 

Females produce smegma as well. Is it a big issue for them?

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Retract, rinse, replace...simple.:D

 

Females produce smegma as well. Is it a big issue for them?

 

 

Not for me. I find that a little Bon-Ami and a Brillo pad and I'm fresh as a flower in just one hour! :001_smile:

[LibraryLover]

Not for me. I find that a little Bon-Ami and a Brillo pad and I'm fresh as a flower in just one hour! :001_smile:

 

 

And Douche Douche Douche! Feel that summer breeze. You don't want none of them natural secretions interfering!

Edited January 9, 2010 by LibraryLover

[nmoira]

Retract, rinse, replace...simple.:D

Yup. I've never found it to be an issue.

[Spy Car]

I'm willing to assume Bill was simply trying to be funny with his choice of words.

 

It was an attempt at humor. If I failed in that, please forgive me.

 

Bill (who sometimes inserts a :tongue_smilie: when he's not serious)

[nmoira]

Bill (who sometimes inserts a :tongue_smilie: when he's not serious)

Oooh. That's a bit naughty.

 

(Yes, I'm too literal for my own good.)

[Pink Fairy]

Oooh. That's a bit naughty.

 

(Yes, I'm too literal for my own good.)

 

I've been reading all this, strictly for my own amusement and with no intention to participate, but I just have to say...

 

I don't care who you are--that's funny!

[Spy Car]

:iagree: I have never disagreed with SC, but there is nothing legitimate in research literature to show that circ males have greater sexual pleasure.

 

No, you're right. The literature suggests there is basically no difference in sexual pleasure. Where there is is difference, is (how do I put this delicately?) men who are circumcised tend to enjoy a broader range of intimacy (and therefore a happier sex life) than men who are not circumcised.

 

Given that males have been horribly damaged by circ, it's better , imo to err on the side of leaving it be until the person can decide to take on the risk/benefit.

 

I've never know a man who has been damaged by circumcision (horribly or otherwise). I certainly would not advocate the procedure be done by other than a highly competent professional. But that's why we go to Cedars-Sinai.

 

Of course, I will not touch the religious aspect. I am an atheist. And culturally, there is no way I put let anyone put a knife to my infant. I have been to many a bris, however. It's not my fav party to attend, I admit. But still, some very good people circ their children. And pierce. And whatever.

 

Be kind, do no harm is my motto.

 

I'm pretty squeamish about infant (or adult) piercing and tattoos. Does that help? :lol:

 

Bill (who believes circumcision is the "kind" choice)

[Spy Car]

Oooh. That's a bit naughty.

 

(Yes, I'm too literal for my own good.)

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Peek a Boo]

That study doesn't seem to say much about sexual experiences. .... but I don't see how the study really addresses that particular aspect one way or the other.

 

no, but if you do a basic search via google scholar you'll see there ARE many studies that DO report on sexual satisfaction. ;)

since y'all have obviously decided that no study will change your minds, tho, and you've neatly eliminated SC's own bravely public testimony, we are at an impasse.

[Peek a Boo]

Oooh. That's a bit naughty.

 

(Yes, I'm too literal for my own good.)

 

ROTFLOL!!!

[Peek a Boo]

BJU international is the British Journal of Urology International :lol:

 

Bill

 

yeah... i tried to quietly note it earlier in the "reason edited" section just so people don't freak out and assume it's some Creationist joint, but I had to laugh anyway....

 

;):tongue_smilie::lol:

[Peek a Boo]

Melanie, there is no making sense of these 'studies'.

 

well of COURSE not! if you don't bother reading them and then try to make Study X apply to the results of Study B it's no wonder they don't make sense.

[Joanne]

Bill, I'm surprised. Your viewpoint, even when I wholeheartedly disagree with you, is usually informed, contemporary and reasoned.

 

Your information on circ is inaccurate.

 

I suspect you are speaking as a man of a certain age in western culture rather than from solid, actual research and reality.

 

In cultures where routine infant circ is not performed, issues of hygiene, disease and the so-called need for adult circ are non existant. In cultures where circ is not done, it's also not a need, not a preference, not an option.

 

My boys are circ'ed, in part because their Dad believes the same as you do. I understand how pervasive and deeply entrenched these beliefs are and how they emerge out of love and concern for young men in our culture. But this standpoint is not science, reality, or endorsed by major western medical models.

[Peek a Boo]

Your information on circ is inaccurate.

 

I suspect you are speaking as a man of a certain age in western culture rather than from solid, actual research and reality.

 

In cultures where routine infant circ is not performed, issues of hygiene, disease and the so-called need for adult circ are non existant. In cultures where circ is not done, it's also not a need, not a preference, not an option.

 

 

This is simply inaccurate.

 

There are studies after studies on google scholar that are NOT limited to "western culture" in either research institution or study vict--, I mean, uh, subjects......

 

i linked a few above, but there are plenty there for anyone's review.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I'm surprised. Your viewpoint, even when I wholeheartedly disagree with you, is usually informed, contemporary and reasoned.

 

Your information on circ is inaccurate.

 

I suspect you are speaking as a man of a certain age in western culture rather than from solid, actual research and reality.

 

In cultures where routine infant circ is not performed, issues of hygiene, disease and the so-called need for adult circ are non existant. In cultures where circ is not done, it's also not a need, not a preference, not an option.

 

My boys are circ'ed, in part because their Dad believes the same as you do. I understand how pervasive and deeply entrenched these beliefs are and how they emerge out of love and concern for young men in our culture. But this standpoint is not science, reality, or endorsed by major western medical models.

 

Joanne, I never stated there was a "need" for adult circumcision. Instead I mentioned that it's a pretty complicated and risky procedure (and best avoided if possible) in adulthood. That's why a parent must make this decision his or herself.

 

I'm sorry, but the science in favor of circumcision is compelling as far as I'm concerned. It's not even a close call. I'd call AIDS a "modern" problem. Circumcision is not as good at cutting the risks as strict condom use (or abstinence or mutual monogamy) but it's still an important risk reducer. And AIDS is far from the only virus whose transmission rates are reduced through circumcision. HPV is pretty serious (especially for women) and circumcision cuts the risks.

 

So it's not out of some dottery-old "of a certain age" attachment to outdated ideas that motivates my reasoning, rather it's a clear-eyed view of the real world.

 

The procedure protects men (and women) from disease, infections, and offers benefits of hygiene. And I believe the medical model will shift back in favor of circumcision (as it has in Africa) as the fall-out of recommendations based on ideological grounds rather than science leads to unnecessary deaths and illnesses.

 

Bill

[mom2denj]

Yes, I suppose you are right. I do not believe that tattooing a child and piercing thier ears are in the same catergory at all. I guess that I was being overly sensitive in my other posts. Boy, you have got to have a hard shell around here.:D

You are offended because tatoos are offensive to you.

 

Ear piercing children is accepted in our culture while tattoos are not. Comfort level depends on what is culturally acceptable. What we deem as right and wrong is based on cultural acceptance.

 

There are many many types of body modifications in different cultures. Enlongating a child's earlobes is normal in one part of the world, but not in ours....as an example.