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

[Renee in NC]

UK Rate - 20.7%

http://www.nhs.uk/News/2007/September/Pages/HPVinfection.aspx

 

US rate - 26.8%

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813

 

Thank you!

[Peek a Boo]

UK Rate - 20.7%

http://www.nhs.uk/News/2007/September/Pages/HPVinfection.aspx

 

US rate - 26.8%

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813

 

still not that cut n dried. :)

they used different methods to get each number: the first link tested for 4 strains in a limited range and "standardized". The second study actually tested a wider range and more types.

[LibraryLover]

In my experience of intact men, I've never encountered a problem. Goodness, what kind of a woman does that make me sound like!

 

Laura (with husband for 21 years now)

 

 

If I agree with you, I will be incriminating myself. But...call a spade a spade.

 

LL (with dh for over 25 yrs now)

Edited January 10, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Peek a Boo]

.... foreskins. I attach the idea of cutting it off to save problems the same status as cutting off the breasts to avoid breast cancer (unless you have a strong family history, that's something quite different and I know some do it)

um, just fyi-- the foreskin itself is not considered an entire organ. Basic bio 101. ;) That's quite an inaccurate analogy to be put forth.

And I find it ironic that the hygiene practices (or lack thereof) in third world countries are being used as a reason to do it in first world countries.

 

the "lack of NEEDING" hygiene practices is only ONE issue that makes it a desirable thing: it's the ease of implementing it and removing the issue altogether. First world countries have the unique position of being able to implement a simple procedure in a safe manner.

 

So to recap:

we have a LOT of happy circumcised men in the US that are enjoying the benefits of better hygiene since the procedure is available in a safe medical facility, and are also enjoying the medical benefits [for both them and their partners] that come with it. The United States has a lower proportion of HPV that causes Cervical Cancer. Some men are apparently experiencing a heightened sense of pleasure, while some may be experiencing reduced sexual satisfaction [or no difference at all] due to the procedure.

 

We know that 80-85% of the men in the world are "intact" [which kinda makes me giggle because "intact" usually refers to the opposite of a neutering job, and a circumcision is a far cry from that, lol!]. We know that MOST of those 80-85% are in third world situations where hygiene, water, and political strife create problems for men who are not circumcised. We know that a few studies involving hundreds of men that have been done about males who were circumcised as an adult and sexually active both before and after the procedure expressed satisfaction with the procedure.

 

yet we're still supposed to be totally freaked out and consider it barbaric that a guy is being circumcised? :confused:

 

again: based on the topic of the thread, we were discussing what is and is not an acceptable thing to do to a child as a parental choice.

Bill, smegma is produced from well before adolesence, babies still in nappies have it.

 

he never said it wasn't.

he was addressing that it really picks up in adolescence, so mommies speaking of baby boys or smaller children aren't exactly default expert opinions on the subject.

[jazzyfizzle]

But I honestly think that a 10 year old can speak up as much as an 18 year old. Now maybe in some, maybe many cases, people don't speak up, but that doesn't change overnight when they hit a magic age.

 

 

I totally disagree

[LibraryLover]

Edited. Gone. lol

 

 

wait. that quote is about a 10 yr old saying no to a tat, right?

 

never mind...

 

I kill me.

Edited January 10, 2010 by LibraryLover

[MelanieM]

we have a LOT of happy circumcised men in the US that are enjoying the benefits of better hygiene...

 

And a lot of happy intact men in various parts of the world who are enjoying perfectly fine hygiene through the simple process of bathing.

 

...and are also enjoying the medical benefits [for both them and their partners] that come with it.

 

Questionable. Circumcision is not currently recommended for any medical reasons.

 

The United States has a lower proportion of HPV that cause Cervical Cancer.

 

Lower than where? I've not seen anything on this thread, or elsewhere, to provide proof of this claim. The question was raised about a comparison to the UK, but the only responses I've seen do not at all suggest that what you're saying is accurate.

 

We know that MOST of those 80-85% are in third world situations where hygiene, water, and political strife create problems for men who are not circumcised.

 

Huh? We know that intact men have greater problems how, again? Didn't you say we couldn't possibly know this because people don't talk about it? So why are we now saying that we "know" that this is the case?

 

I am not debating that it is harder to get clean when there's no water and inadaquate hygiene practices... but I would debate that in those cases, the state of a man's foreskin is not high on the list of priorities. And certainly, it hasn't stopped the human race from growing to six billion people.

 

Besides, why exactly should the political and water situations in developing nations dictate circumcision practices in the rest of the world?

 

So, I would say the recap looks something like this:

 

Circumcision is *not* recommended as a way to reduce cancer rates for men or women, even if some people are citing this as a reason for doing it.

Circumcision is *not* recommended as a way to help improve a sex life, even if some people are suggesting this is a "side benefit".

Circumcision is *not* recommended, or necessary, for good hygiene, even if some people are suggesting that men who have access to clean water and education about proper hygiene are... too stupid to learn how to clean themselves properly? (Seriously, I'm still missing the argument here. What's next? Botox injections into the sweat glands of all young boys so they don't need to worry about showering at all?)

[Peek a Boo]

And a lot of happy intact men in various parts of the world who are enjoying perfectly fine hygiene through the simple process of bathing.

 

agreed :)

 

Questionable. Circumcision is not currently recommended for any medical reasons.

 

no, it's not questionable. there ARE medical benefits, period. The debatable part is whether those benefits are worth the procedure. The men who HAVE had the procedure ARE enjoying those medical benefits.

 

 

Lower than where? I've not seen anything on this thread, or elsewhere, to provide proof of this claim. The question was raised about a comparison to the UK, but the only responses I've seen do not at all suggest that what you're saying is accurate.

 

lower than the rest of the world.

 

i linked it earlier about cervical cancer.

 

The incidence and mortality in the US are about half those for the rest of the world, which is due in part to the success of screening with the Pap smear.[8] The incidence of new cases of cervical cancer in the United States was 7 per 100,000 women in 2004.[70]

 

In the United Kingdom, the incidence is 9.1/100,000 per year (2005), similar to the rest of Northern Europe, and mortality is 3.1/100,000 per year (2006) (Cancer Research UK Cervical cancer statistics for the UK)[71]. With a 42% reduction from 1988-1997 the NHS implemented screening programme has been highly successful, screening the highest risk age group (25–49 years) every 3 years, and those ages 50–64 every 5 years.

 

 

Huh? We know that intact men have greater problems how, again? Didn't you say we couldn't possibly know this because people don't talk about it? So why are we now saying that we "know" that this is the case?

 

because MOST of the world does NOT live in sweet cushy apartments w/ access to regular bathing. I said a few people's personal sexual and familial experiences can not serve as a valid stance for research. We CAN know about a more widespread case because people have gone into third world countries to study this EXACT issue and reported back their findings. which i linked earlier. that whole pesky "hundreds of men" thing again....

 

 

 

I am not debating that it is harder to get clean when there's no water and inadaquate hygiene practices... but I would debate that in those cases, the state of a man's foreskin is not high on the list of priorities. And certainly, it hasn't stopped the human race from growing to six billion people.

the extensive female circumcisions haven't stopped it either. That's hardly a reason to not address the problems it DOES pose.

 

and it's that whole "no water and inadequate hygiene practices" that applies to...what....an estimated 2.6 billion people? a few of whom are likely intact males?

 

 

Besides, why exactly should the political and water situations in developing nations dictate circumcision practices in the rest of the world?

 

who said it should DICTATE practices in the rest of the world? i said we in America noticed the health, hygiene, and personal benefits and embraced it. Nobody's saying everyone else should do the same. Quite the opposite: we're told how barbaric it is.:glare:

 

 

So, I would say the recap looks something like this:

 

Circumcision is *not* recommended as a way to reduce cancer rates for men or women, even if some people are citing this as a reason for doing it.

Circumcision is *not* recommended as a way to help improve a sex life, even if some people are suggesting this is a "side benefit".

Circumcision is *not* recommended, or necessary, for good hygiene, even if some people are suggesting that men who have access to clean water and education about proper hygiene are... too stupid to learn how to clean themselves properly? (Seriously, I'm still missing the argument here. What's next? Botox injections into the sweat glands of all young boys so they don't need to worry about showering at all?)

 

right: circumcision is not recommended. neither is it denounced: the benefits do exist. homebirth isn't "recommended" either, but many of us are aware of the extensive benefits it provides. ditto w/ homeschooling. ;)

 

right: circumcision is NOT recommended as a way to improve the sex life, altho it too is a measurable benefit for some.

 

right: circumcision is NOT recommended as a way to improve hygiene. It is merely noted that circumcision leads by default to better hygiene.

 

One doesn't have to be stupid to note those benefits and realize that one 5-minute procedure as an infant in a doctors office can lead to all that.

[keptwoman]

..

Edited January 11, 2010 by keptwoman
changed my mind. bowing out. never ending round and round argument

[MelanieM]

Peek a Boo... Having this conversation with you is starting to feel like a round of "who's on first"! lol!

 

I think I'll just stick to teaching my boys how to wash, and making sure they understand the importance of safe sex. Others can have the surgical procedures that possibly, maybe, perhaps can... er... lessen the requirement of hygiene and safe sex practices.

[Peek a Boo]

Peek a Boo... Having this conversation with you is starting to feel like a round of "who's on first"! lol!

 

I think I'll just stick to teaching my boys how to wash, and making sure they understand the importance of safe sex. Others can have the surgical procedures that possibly, maybe, perhaps can... er... lessen the requirement of hygiene and safe sex practices.

 

;)

 

please keep in mind that NOBODY in this thread was calling for worldwide mandatory circumcision-- quite the contrary. One of my boys is uncircumcised, and that is just fine with us.:001_smile:

[EthiopianFood]

Ooo, can I get in at the very end? I have The Solution. The study Peek linked said the men were happy with the procedure. These serious risks don't come up until adulthood anyway. Therefore, leave it up to the man. Not a novel idea, obviously, but the fact that pro-circ people believe that men who have it done are happy with it suggests that it is something a man can reasonably and realistically have done if he so chooses. See, no problem. ;)

[keptwoman]

Ooo, can I get in at the very end? I have The Solution. The study Peek linked said the men were happy with the procedure. These serious risks don't come up until adulthood anyway. Therefore, leave it up to the man. Not a novel idea, obviously, but the fact that pro-circ people believe that men who have it done are happy with it suggests that it is something a man can reasonably and realistically have done if he so chooses. See, no problem. ;)

Yep and what's a week or so's discomfort in exchange for years of "benefit."

[Joanne]

Ooo, can I get in at the very end? I have The Solution. The study Peek linked said the men were happy with the procedure. These serious risks don't come up until adulthood anyway. Therefore, leave it up to the man. Not a novel idea, obviously, but the fact that pro-circ people believe that men who have it done are happy with it suggests that it is something a man can reasonably and realistically have done if he so chooses. See, no problem. ;)

 

When I researched the issue (looks at youngest son......) about 11 years ago, one of the things I remember reading is that adult circ is rarely offered as a medical necessity in cultures where circ is not the norm. In other words, in the USA, medical professionals and laypeople more "naturally" accept circ as a medical solution for situations that in other cultures, circ would not be on the option list.

[Sputterduck]

When I researched the issue (looks at youngest son......) about 11 years ago, one of the things I remember reading is that adult circ is rarely offered as a medical necessity in cultures where circ is not the norm. In other words, in the USA, medical professionals and laypeople more "naturally" accept circ as a medical solution for situations that in other cultures, circ would not be on the option list.

 

It's true. Lots of pro-circ docs tell men they *need* a circumcision for things that are very treatable by other means. It's sad.

[MelanieM]

Yes, and lots of issues intact boys face are due to doctors, who have no clue how to deal with an intact penis, forcefully retracting the foreskin and causing harm. In a pro-circ culture, parents of intact boys (and intact men) really need to be prepared to advocate for themselves.

[Peek a Boo]

Ooo, can I get in at the very end? I have The Solution. The study Peek linked said the men were happy with the procedure. These serious risks don't come up until adulthood anyway. Therefore, leave it up to the man. Not a novel idea, obviously, but the fact that pro-circ people believe that men who have it done are happy with it suggests that it is something a man can reasonably and realistically have done if he so chooses. See, no problem. ;)

 

because it's also a well-noted fact that the procedure is riskier, more painful, and more traumatic for an adult than an infant, and requires a bit more than a week to fully recover. Even in the bigger study w/ HUNDREDS of men, the "sex speed demon" waited 23 days before having sex. It's my understanding that most guys would NEVER voluntarily wait that long, and most of the others waited the full 30 days, and some waited even longer. That's quite an impact....

 

i do find it interesting that the very organizations that supposedly do NOT recommend circ'ing are also the ones doing a lousy job training their docs. That can be a very telling thing. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I don't see anyone asking newborn infants how traumatic it is.

 

How long did the newborn babies wait to have sex?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sis

[scrapbookbuzz]

The mom said her kids love their tattoos, but I didn't see the kids being asked.

[Mrs Mungo]

The mom said her kids love their tattoos, but I didn't see the kids being asked.

 

That was the *stepmom* of the tattooed kids. Their mom was the one who reported it to the police. Therefore, I doubt you will see the kids interviewed.

[Spy Car]

I don't see anyone asking newborn infants how traumatic it is.

 

I was there for my son's circumcision, and there was no trauma, or tears, or even a wince of discomfort. It was pain-free.

 

How long did the newborn babies wait to have sex?

 

As of today it's been 5.5 years since his circumcision and, to the best of my knowledge, he still hasn't had sex :D

 

Bill

[tdeveson]

There is some value to this kind of riff-raff. They make the rest of us look so much better.

[EthiopianFood]

because it's also a well-noted fact that the procedure is riskier, more painful, and more traumatic for an adult than an infant, and requires a bit more than a week to fully recover. Even in the bigger study w/ HUNDREDS of men, the "sex speed demon" waited 23 days before having sex. It's my understanding that most guys would NEVER voluntarily wait that long, and most of the others waited the full 30 days, and some waited even longer. That's quite an impact....

 

Yes, but they mostly said it was worth it, right? :001_smile:

 

i do find it interesting that the very organizations that supposedly do NOT recommend circ'ing are also the ones doing a lousy job training their docs. That can be a very telling thing. ;)

 

That they're ignorant about the real facts regarding not circ'ing? Is that what you mean? I wonder if these issues with doctors are seen less frequently among doctors who have recently completed their residencies, rather than doctors educated in a different culture. This reminds me of the ped. who worked in an office that made a big deal out of being supportive of breastfeeding and bf'ing being best. She immediately suggested formula when it was first discovered that my dd wasn't gaining weight well, even before we knew if it was an issue or if she was just naturally small. If you're going to claim to be supportive, then wouldn't you make sure your doctors had basic facts about making sure bf'ing can be successful? :glare:

[EthiopianFood]

As of today it's been 5.5 years since his circumcision and, to the best of my knowledge, he still hasn't had sex :D

 

See, this is what the pro-circ nutjobs DON'T want you to know!! :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

i do find it interesting that the very organizations that supposedly do NOT recommend circ'ing are also the ones doing a lousy job training their docs. That can be a very telling thing. ;)

You mean all of them?

 

NO National or International Medical organization recommends routine circumcision. Not one.

 

 

American Medical Association=Doesn't Recommend it

American Academy of Pedriatrics=Doesn't Recommend it

American College OBGYN=Doesn't Recommend it

American Cancer Society=Doesn't Recommend it

American Academy of Family Physicians=Doesn't Recommend it

American Urological Association doesn't recommend Routine Infant Circ.

Canadian Paediatric Society=doesn't recommend it

British Medical Association doesn't recommend it

Royal Australasian College of Physicians doesn't recommend it

 

How very awkward to be sick if ALL of the medical organizations train their physicians poorly.

 

Edited January 12, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

I was there for my son's circumcision, and there was no trauma, or tears, or even a wince of discomfort. It was pain-free.

 

 

If necessary I can present videos of infants screaming but I find that sort of thing horrific and would rather not.

[Spy Car]

If necessary I can present videos of infants screaming but I find that sort of thing horrific and would rather not.

 

I've seen them. All it proves is either some circumcisions are done without proper anesthesia (which is completely unacceptable to me in a medical setting) and/or that infants scream.

 

But I was there for my son's circumcision, and I can tell you he smiled though the whole procedure. Didn't miss a beat.

 

An infant who has a circumcision deserves humane treatment (which includes anesthesia) but this is a really simple thing to provide. And it makes the procedure completely traumas-free.

 

Bill (who is anti-trauma)

[Slartibartfast]

I've seen them. All it proves is either some circumcisions are done without proper anesthesia (which is completely unacceptable to me in a medical setting) and/or that infants scream.

 

But I was there for my son's circumcision, and I can tell you he smiles though the whole procedure.

 

An infant who has a circumcision deserves humane treatment (which includes anesthesia) but this is a really simple thing to provide. And it makes the procedure completely traumas-free.

 

Bill (who is anti-trauma)

 

You are right, Anesthesia is good.

 

Anesthesia wasn't in common practice until recently, most videos won't be of a circ performed with anesthesia because most circumcisions were not performed with anesthia. I don't have a source atm on rates of anesthesia use in circumcisions now.

 

This article was from 1997

 

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

 

 

Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised, according to a report from the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm Edited January 12, 2010 by Sis

[IsabelC]

Well, whatever we think about circ'ing babies, I think the use of anesthesia would be something that we can all agree is a positive development. (Or is it forbidden to agree on anything in a thread like this one? :lol: )

[Spy Car]

Well, whatever we think about circ'ing babies, I think the use of anesthesia would be something that we can all agree is a positive development. (Or is it forbidden to agree on anything in a thread like this one? :lol: )

 

We can agree as far as I'm concerned.

 

As to the article above, it states topical is less than totally effective (on it's own) and injected local might be painful in its own right.

 

But what it does not address is using a topical FIRST, so the injected local isn't painful, and then that local blocks any pain. This is the RIGHT WAY to do this procedure.

 

Hopefully this information helps someone.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

You are right, Anesthesia is good.

 

Anesthesia wasn't in common practice until recently, most videos won't be of a circ performed with anesthesia because most circumcisions were not performed with anesthia. I don't have a source atm on rates of anesthesia use in circumcisions now.

 

This article was from 1997

 

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

 

 

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

 

No most videos won't show circumcisions performed with proper anesthesia because such videos would show happy non-traumatized babies, and the purpose of the other videos is to appeal to emotions by showing crying babies.

 

These are propaganda videos aimed at scaring parents away from a valuable procedure that could significantly benefit the life of their child and his partners.

 

It's shameful. Just like it would shameful to scare people off dentistry by filming patents wailing in pain from having dental work without anesthesia.

 

Done properly it's no big deal. It's not even a small deal in terms of pain, because there is none.

 

Bill

[EthiopianFood]

No most videos won't show circumcisions performed with proper anesthesia because such videos would show happy non-traumatized babies, and the purpose of the other videos is to appeal to emotions by showing crying babies.

 

These are propaganda videos aimed at scaring parents away from a valuable procedure that could significantly benefit the life of their child and his partners.

 

It's shameful. Just like it would shameful to scare people off dentistry by filming patents wailing in pain from having dental work without anesthesia.

 

Done properly it's no big deal. It's not even a small deal in terms of pain, b

because there is none.

 

Do you really care if people circ or not? You seem like you want people to agree to do it, not just respect your decision for your own child. Maybe I'm just misreading you. I'm just curious, I guess. :)

[Spy Car]

Do you really care if people circ or not? You seem like you want people to agree to do it, not just respect your decision for your own child. Maybe I'm just misreading you. I'm just curious, I guess. :)

 

I think people should make their own informed decisions. I don't think comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation is a valid comparison (in any way shape or form). And that such a fallacious comparison works against parents making a "reasoned" decision. It's ugly and it's entirely wrong.

 

Similarly, I don't think videos of traumatized babies being circumcised without anesthesia presents the truthful picture of how pain-free the procedure is if done properly.

 

I'd be happy to make common cause with those who seek to make any circumcisions performed in a medical setting safe and humane. I just don't like the scare tactics employed by radical anti-circers who bend the truth for their own ends.

 

I went through the research before my son was born as a matter of due diligence, and was shocked and horrified by the internet-based anti-circumcision web sites out there that spread fear-mongering and falsehoods, rather than attempting to find a reasoned truth.

 

But if a parent looks at the actual risks and rewards of a properly done circumcision and decides against it on the basis of reason and their best judgement, what can I say? We have a different judgement. But each parent must do what they feel is best for their child.

 

Either way, the comparison a circumcision to the amputation of the clitoris is frightfully wrong. As is the the assertion that a properly done circumcision is traumatic. These things are just not so.

 

Bill

[EthiopianFood]

I think people should make their own informed decisions. I don't think comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation is a valid comparison (in any way shape or form). And that such a fallacious comparison works against parents making a "reasoned" decision. It's ugly and it's entirely wrong.

 

Yes, of course, but you just seem so passionate. It SEEMS like you're taking it personally. Maybe this would work better in a private message, and it's obviously not important enough for that. I guess I don't notice that you're this passionate on other topics, so it was interesting to me. Nevermind. :)

 

Not that it's just you at ALL, I just noticed for the above reasons. I hope that makes sense.

Edited January 12, 2010 by RaeAnne

[Spy Car]

Yes, of course, but you just seem so passionate. It SEEMS like you're taking it personally. Maybe this would work better in a private message, and it's obviously not important enough for that. I guess I don't notice that you're this passionate on other topics, so it was interesting to me. Nevermind. :)

 

I'm passionate because I have a dear friend who as a young woman was strapped to a kitchen table in Egypt and a man wielding a razor blade cut off her clitoris.

 

And I read in this thread a comparison between that act of butchery, and the very benign circumcision I witnessed (one that I believe brings great benefit to health and hygiene) and I just can't let it pass.

 

Bill

[EthiopianFood]

I'm passionate because I have a dear friend who as a young woman was strapped to a kitchen table in Egypt and a man wielding a razor blade cut off her clitoris.

 

And I read in this thread a comparison between that act of butchery, and the very benign circumcision I witnessed (one that I believe brings great benefit to health and hygiene) and I just can't let it pass.

 

Bill

 

That makes sense. I'm sure you'll notice my hot button issues at some point as well. Thanks for indulging me. Sorry to put you on the spot, I feel embarrassed now. LOL

[EthiopianFood]

Although..... I think it would be fair to that you are using the way that disgusting event occured as reason why it is wrong in the same way that you feel anti-circ individuals are using those videos to say that circ is wrong. This still doesn't address the "function" issue re. what was taken (as you did address earlier in either this thread or the other), but I think it's worth mentioning.

[Spy Car]

Although..... I think it would be fair to that you are using the way that disgusting event occured as reason why it is wrong in the same way that you feel anti-circ individuals are using those videos to say that circ is wrong. This still doesn't address the "function" issue re. what was taken (as you did address earlier in either this thread or the other), but I think it's worth mentioning.

 

If you can't see the difference between willfully destroying a woman's sexual organ, and the removal of a male foreskin (which does nothing to destroy sexual pleasure) then I don't know what to say to you.

 

Bill

[keptwoman]

My understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that cutting the foreskin cuts the frenulum. The frenulum is not the equivalent of the clitoris, but it does carry a large number of the sensitive nerve paths in the penis and cutting those nerves does negatively impact the sensitivity of the penis. Also the fact that the head is explosed all the time deadens some of the sensitivity compared to a penis covered with the protection of the foreskin.

Now I'm not saying that this is the equivalent of cutting off the clitoris and I'm 100% with you in disgust of that practice. But I'm sure that the removal of the frenulum and the desensitised head has to have an effect on the sexual pleasure of the male. Now as a circed male you are hardly going to admit that your member is deficient in pleasure in some way, but that is my understanding of the sexual drawbacks of the procedure.

[EthiopianFood]

If you can't see the difference between willfully destroying a woman's sexual organ, and the removal of a male foreskin (which does nothing to destroy sexual pleasure) then I don't know what to say to you.l

 

I was referring to method. You referred to the trauma of your friend. They refer to the trauma of the circumcision. I was saying that you can't have it both ways. I specifically said this doesn't address the issue of what was actually taken.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, of course, but you just seem so passionate. It SEEMS like you're taking it personally. Maybe this would work better in a private message, and it's obviously not important enough for that. I guess I don't notice that you're this passionate on other topics, so it was interesting to me. Nevermind. :)

 

Not that it's just you at ALL, I just noticed for the above reasons. I hope that makes sense.

 

go back and read the thread. The discussion started with attacks on infant male circumcision. The thread took the turn it did because SpyCar and others stepped in to defend the practice --which is STILL considered indefensible by others.

So it's not that he's wanting to see everyone circumcised, but there ARE people who want to see the choice to circumcise their child taken away from a parent.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm passionate because I have a dear friend who as a young woman was strapped to a kitchen table in Egypt and a man wielding a razor blade cut off her clitoris.

 

And I read in this thread a comparison between that act of butchery, and the very benign circumcision I witnessed (one that I believe brings great benefit to health and hygiene) and I just can't let it pass.

 

Bill

 

I am passionate because I have a family who can never have children or a normal relationship because he was damaged during his circumcision.

 

It is tragic.

 

It isn't a benign procedure and there is no medical reason for it. I have supplied quite a lot of facts, medical documentation and information from medical organizations that state it isn't necessary.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Sis

[nmoira]

(which does nothing to destroy sexual pleasure)

Value judgements aside, circumcision absolutely affects sensation. See the journal article: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis (link is to a pdf).

 

 

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

 

[Peek a Boo]

Value judgements aside, circumcision absolutely affects sensation. See the journal article: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis (link is to a pdf).

 

 

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis

. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

 

 

 

....and as linked earlier, some unbiased research journals report the opposite.

[Audrey]

I am passionate because I have a family who can never have children or a normal relationship because he was damaged during his circumcision.

 

It is tragic.

 

It isn't a benign procedure and there is no medical reason for it. I have supplied quite a lot of facts, medical documentation and information from medical organizations that state it isn't necessary.

 

 

That's terrible!

 

I have another purely anecdotal example: I know a couple who circ'ed their little boy. Boy then developed complications from the procedure that caused infections, urethral damage and more. He's only 5 now and still can't urinate without discomfort, wets the bed consistently, has recurrent infections. I have no clue what the future holds for him. It's so sad, and it was 100% avoidable.

[nmoira]

 

....and as linked earlier, some unbiased research journals report the opposite.

The article I linked is specifically about fine sensation threshold, which is measurable. The data in the other studies linked were subjective, and with from subjects who had either circumcised for physical reasons, or chose to be. I saw no mention of sensation threshold.

[Peek a Boo]

The article I linked is specifically about fine sensation threshold, which is measurable. The data in the other studies linked were subjective, and with from subjects who had either circumcised for physical reasons, or chose to be. I saw no mention of sensation threshold.

 

and to link SpyCar's statement about pleasure and MelanieM's previous statement, not all men find that higher sensation pleasurable. ;)

[nmoira]

and to link SpyCar's statement about pleasure and MelanieM's previous statement, not all men find that higher sensation pleasurable. ;)

Here's what I said: Value judgements aside, circumcision absolutely affects sensation.

 

Edited to add... are there really any men -- pain, abuse, or similar issues aside -- who shun intercourse because they don't *like* it?

Edited January 12, 2010 by nmoira

[MelanieM]

and to link SpyCar's statement about pleasure and MelanieM's previous statement, not all men find that higher sensation pleasurable. ;)

 

So again, it's an entirely subjective argument. Men who are circumcised receive the benefit/curse of increased/decreased sensation, and men who are intact receive the benefit/curse of increased sensation. I know! Let's leave the baby boys to grow into sexually active men, when they can read all about it and decide for themselves if they're happy with how things are or want to chance a circumcision to increase/lessen their sensations.

[Peek a Boo]

Here's what I said: Value judgements aside, circumcision absolutely affects sensation.

 

Edited to add... are there really any men -- pain, abuse, or similar issues aside -- who shun intercourse because they don't *like* it?

 

about your edited: it wasn't a matter of *shunning*, but as SC noted-- a definite difference. But yes, it's a value judgement that will differ from man to man.

 

So again, it's an entirely subjective argument. Men who are circumcised receive the benefit/curse of increased/decreased sensation, and men who are intact receive the benefit/curse of increased sensation. I know! Let's leave the baby boys to grow into sexually active men, when they can read all about it and decide for themselves if they're happy with how things are or want to chance a circumcision to increase/lessen their sensations.

I like the way you put that. :)

 

the only problem with waiting till they are men is --as SC has already noted-- missing out on those few medical benefits, not the least of which would be a faster recovery time and less trauma. and in third world countries where the ability to practice even basic regular hygiene is hindered, waiting could lead to all kinds of problems as a boy.