Has this new San Francisco bill been discussed here?

[Spy Car]

I guess it depends on the men:D

 

Seriously, the men I know are not big on admitting insecurities at all, genital related or otherwise.

 

How many men have to be upset about being forced to have surgery without their consent, surgery that can never be corrected, before it becomes a "right of the child" issue instead of a "parental rights" issue I wonder?

 

My best friend growing up was not circumcised. He was not at all happy about it.

 

All I can say is I will be eternally grateful my parents exercised their parental responsibility and made the decision they did.

 

With the threat of HIV still very much alive I would not dream of not circumcising a male son of mine as I would not take the risk with his life not acting would entail. Not a close call.

 

Bill

[Veritaserum]

My last reply hit on something. I think what people against this initiative don't understand. They see this as government oversight versus parental rights. Those in favor of the initiative see it as rights of the child versus parental rights.

 

That seems accurate.

[ktgrok]

I believe that circumcision is a very personal choice and that the law should respect that. I was raised in a family where circumcision wasn't the norm and felt that I still wanted to have my son circumcised. Not for religious reasons, but I felt that it would be better for him hygienically. He slept through the procedure and healed rather quickly. I don't have any regrets with the procedure and if I had any more sons, I would have done the same for them. I don't think there is a wrong or right....it's a personal choice that we as parent's should have the right to make for whatever reason. I don't even think my son realizes that he is circumcised!

 

I suppose that is true, but one day he will know. How he will feel about it then I have no idea.

 

My son is intact. This past year, during our religion studies the issue of circumcision came up. I explained what it was, as delicately as I could, and explained that some people feel that it is better or cleaner for the child, or that it helped prevent disease, but that we felt that he could keep it clean by washing, and that there were other ways to prevent disease as well, so we decided not to do it. We told him that about half of boys have it done. He thought, then burst out with a huge, heart felt "THANK YOU for not doing that to me!"

 

Just another experience, from another family.

[elizabeth]

Since when are other men polite company? :D

 

The only men I've know who were unhappy with their state have been uncircumcised men. And getting circumcised in adulthood is not something many men are choose to do even if they aren't that happy.

 

Bill

 

My former significant other was from Minsk in former USSR. Present spouse from Kiev. My dear friend from Minsk could not of course have the procedure in 1965. He had to have the procedure as an adult for structural reasons. It was the worst thing he had been through as an adult. For a Jewish male who fled with his family to Italy and literally lived on the streets for a year while waiting for "family" to get them to US that is saying something. His parents could not have it done when he was an infant for obvious reasons. Both had to have it done as adults for health and identity reasons. The recovery was unpleasant. To each parent his or her own. But you are not kidding when you say most men would not choose to do this as adults.

[ktgrok]

My best friend growing up was not circumcised. He was not at all happy about it.

 

All I can say is I will be eternally grateful my parents exercised their parental responsibility and made the decision they did.

 

With the threat of HIV still very much alive I would not dream of not circumcising a male son of mine as I would not take the risk with his life not acting would entail. Not a close call.

 

Bill

 

All I can say is that many of us believe there are better, safer, less invasive ways to prevent HIV.

 

If my son at some point feels his lifestyle puts him at higher risk he can be circumcised then.

[ktgrok]

Both had to have it done as adults for health and identity reasons. The recovery was unpleasant. To each parent his or her own. But you are not kidding when you say most men would not choose to do this as adults.

 

There are many babies for whom the recovery is unpleasant. Many get infections, or have to have the surgery redone, sometimes several times, due to adhesions. Having it done as a baby does not eliminate that potential. And honestly, i'm not sure that any open wound being rubbed in dirty diaper is exactly pleasant.

[Spy Car]

All I can say is that many of us believe there are better, safer, less invasive ways to prevent HIV.

 

If my son at some point feels his lifestyle puts him at higher risk he can be circumcised then.

 

There are other ways to prevent HIV, and no one should ever rely on being circumcised as their protection plan. But what happens if a condom breaks, or if there is that "one time" when a person acts irresponsibly and the roll of the dice goes against them? Not a scenario I'm willing to risk.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

There are many babies for whom the recovery is unpleasant. Many get infections, or have to have the surgery redone, sometimes several times, due to adhesions. Having it done as a baby does not eliminate that potential. And honestly, i'm not sure that any open wound being rubbed in dirty diaper is exactly pleasant.

 

A properly done circumcision is painless and low risk. Uncircumcised male babies get UTIs (very rare in the circumcised) and have retraction/adhesion issues the circumcised don't have, and there are legitimate hygiene issues as well.

 

There are risks either way and a parent has to use his or her best judgement.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

If I were a man, I think I'd be pretty hacked if I found out an elective surgery deprived me of approximately 30% of my penile nerve endings (this is the average for each circumcised male).

 

My ds is circ'd, because I didn't research the issue enough, and because dh's family pressured us to do so. It is a decision I regret, not the least of which is it wasn't my body part to excise.

[tntgoodwin]

I prefer being circumcised, for what it is worth.

 

I hate to say, but I agree with Bill on this one.

[Aelwydd]

I prefer not being circumcised. But that's just me! ;)

[Spy Car]

If I were a man, I think I'd be pretty hacked if I found out an elective surgery deprived me of approximately 30% of my penile nerve endings (this is the average for each circumcised male).

 

 

Except it is simply not so. And studies have not found a spits worth of difference in sensitivity or satisfaction of the circumcised and uncircumcised. Some studies say the circumcised have slightly more satisfaction, some break slightly the other way, and some show no difference.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

Except it is simply not so. And studies have not found a spits worth of difference in sensitivity or satisfaction of the circumcised and uncircumcised. Some studies say the circumcised have slightly more satisfaction, some break slightly the other way, and some show no difference.

 

Bill

 

 

That might be so. It's been a few years since I researched it. Although, IMO, there ARE nerve endings there (that's why it hurts like a ***** after all), so to remove part of it entirely means there will be some nerve damage. That's just common sense.

 

More than that, the reasons behind male circumcision are uncomfortably close to many behind female circumcision. I will not go into it, but I have very direct, very personal reasons to abhor the practice.

[Penny_P]

The "intactivists" got to me before I had ds#1. They are extremely vocal. He ended up with repeat UTI's and we finally needed to either circ him at 2.5 years or continue to give him frequent antibiotics. It was extremely traumatic- for all of us. He woke up from anesthesia screaming bloody murder and spent the next week crying out "my peepee gone! my peepee gone!" Needless to say, we didn't hesitate to circ ds#2.

 

It IS cleaner. I'm a nurse and, although no one wants to think of their precious ds as a demented old man unable to perform proper hygeine, this fact should be considered. Ick. As an aside, I wonder if any studies have been done on elderly men and UTI rates on circ'd vs. uncirc'd men....

 

Just my experience speaking. No flames, please.

[Spy Car]

That might be so. It's been a few years since I researched it. Although, IMO, there ARE nerve endings there (that's why it hurts like a ***** after all), so to remove part of it entirely means there will be some nerve damage. That's just common sense.

 

More than that, the reasons behind male circumcision are uncomfortably close to many behind female circumcision. I will not go into it, but I have very direct, very personal reasons to abhor the practice.

 

The reasons are not "close" at all. Female Genital Mutilation removes the clitoris. Sexual pleasure is destroyed.

 

Male circumcision does not destroy sexual pleasure or the male sex organ. They have no commonality. I also abhor FGM and have worked on projects (with a friend who was a victim of this practice) to raise consciousness on the issue.

 

Conflating the removal of a male foreskin with removal of a woman's clitoris makes the efforts to combat FGM all the harder. These two things are not remotely the same.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

The "intactivists" got to me before I had ds#1. They are extremely vocal. He ended up with repeat UTI's and we finally needed to either circ him at 2.5 years or continue to give him frequent antibiotics. It was extremely traumatic- for all of us. He woke up from anesthesia screaming bloody murder and spent the next week crying out "my peepee gone! my peepee gone!" Needless to say, we didn't hesitate to circ ds#2.

 

It IS cleaner. I'm a nurse and, although no one wants to think of their precious ds as a demented old man unable to perform proper hygeine, this fact should be considered. Ick. As an aside, I wonder if any studies have been done on elderly men and UTI rates on circ'd vs. uncirc'd men....

 

Just my experience speaking. No flames, please.

 

Many studies have been done, and there is tremendous anecdotal evidence that hygiene in elderly uncircumcised men is a great problem.

 

I'm sorry about what your son went through.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

The reasons are not "close" at all. Female Genital Mutilation removes the clitoris. Sexual pleasure is destroyed.

 

Male circumcision does not destroy sexual pleasure or the male sex organ. They have no commonality. I also abhor FGM and have worked on projects (with a friend who was a victim of this practice) to raise consciousness on the issue.

 

Conflating the removal of a male foreskin with removal of a woman's clitoris makes the efforts to combat FGM all the harder. These two things are not remotely the same.

 

Bill

 

Actually, no, there are different degrees of FGM. First degree FGM is the removal of the clitoral hood, and is physiologically comparable to what happens to boys. Then, there is the removal of the clitoris, itself. The next degree is removal of inner and outer labia, as well, and is the most extreme version of FGM. I have numerous medical articles on this subject if you're interested.

[Spy Car]

Actually, no, there are different degrees of FGM. First degree FGM is the removal of the clitoral hood, and is physiologically comparable to what happens to boys. Then, there is the removal of the clitoris, itself. The next degree is removal of inner and outer labia, as well, and is the most extreme version of FGM. I have numerous medical articles on this subject if you're interested.

 

In cultures where FGM is practiced the clitoris is typically destroyed/removed. That is the whole point of the procedure, to destroy a females sexual pleasure center.

 

No such thing occurs in male circumcision. It is not remotely comparable, and the deliberate tactic of linking the two wildly dissimilar things is intellectually dishonest.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

In cultures where FGM is practiced the clitoris is typically destroyed/removed. That is the whole point of the procedure, to destroy a females sexual pleasure center.

 

No such thing occurs in male circumcision. It is not remotely comparable, and the deliberate tactic of linking the two wildly dissimilar things is intellectually dishonest.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I understand this is a personal issue, and so I'm trying not to take offense at my reasoning being called intellectually dishonest. I'm telling you that first degree FGM does exist, it is medically documented, it is practiced, even here in the U.S., and I have a very personal, very immediate reason for knowing why. It's the same reason I was compelled to research FGM.

 

In fact, cultures that practice FGM are being encouraged by some physicians' groups to go with the lesser evil of first degree FGM to satisfy cultural and religious reasons, and the ideal that women are less clean if they are not circ'ed.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

Here are some articles on FGM. If you notice, many of the reasons given for FGM are the same, or similar, for justification of male circumcision. Reasons such as, the genitalia look more attractive to the opposite sex, or the procedure makes one "cleaner,", and that it's done for religious stipulations.

 

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://oumabdulaziz.jeeran.com/femalecircumcision.html

[Spy Car]

Bill, I understand this is a personal issue, and so I'm trying not to take offense at my reasoning being called intellectually dishonest. I'm telling you that first degree FGM does exist, it is medically documented, it is practiced, even here in the U.S., and I have a very personal, very immediate reason for knowing why. It's the same reason I was compelled to research FGM.

 

In fact, cultures that practice FGM are being encouraged by some physicians' groups to go with the lesser evil of first degree FGM to satisfy cultural and religious reasons, and the ideal that women are less clean if they are not circ'ed.

 

The fact remains that where FGM is in wide practice the clitoris is completely removed/destroyed. That is the point of the act. If there are other less fully destructive variations that exist it does not negate this fact that destruction of the clitoris is the norm with FGM. To have that equated with a male circumcision by anti-circers is not cool. But is is a constant (and highly offensive) tactic.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

The fact remains that where FGM is in wide practice the clitoris is completely removed/destroyed. That is the point of the act. If there are other less fully destructive variations that exist it does not negate this fact that destruction of the clitoris is the norm with FGM. To have that equated with a male circumcision by anti-circers is not cool. But is is a constant (and highly offensive) tactic.

 

Bill

 

It is the norm now. I never stated otherwise. What I am negating is that the main or only reason FGM is done is only for sexual control, when as I said, as the articles I posted talk about, it is done for several reasons that are the same or similar to the reasons for male circumcision.

 

Furthermore, there is the issue of increasing numbers of physicians and religious scholars suggesting first-degree FGM as an acceptable compromise to the more extreme forms. There are already a lot of debates between NGO's and women's rights organizations about whether such a move is progress enough, since it stops at recognizing all forms of FGM as a violation of girls' and women's rights.

 

Whether you like it or not, FGM encompasses a form of cutting that is directly comparable to male circumcision; and the reasons for why it is performed are strikingly similar to those given for male circumcision in the West.

 

That's why I'm not comfortable with male circumcision. It's splitting hairs ethically-speaking, to say it is wrong to cut off the genitalia in one sex, but okay to do so in the other sex, as long as it's only a partial removal, all while using the same basic logic to fuel both choices.

 

It's not that I think parents who circ their boys are terrible, or that men who are circ'ed should feel upset about it. It's that I disagree with the premise that it is necessary or indicated for the the health of boys, in general. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the practice for this very reason, because the medical evidence is pretty evenly split between benefits and negative side effects.

[Spy Car]

It is the norm now. I never stated otherwise. What I am negating is that the main or only reason FGM is done is only for sexual control, when as I said, as the articles I posted talk about, it is done for several reasons that are the same or similar to the reasons for male circumcision.

 

Furthermore, there is the issue of increasing numbers of physicians and religious scholars suggesting first-degree FGM as an acceptable compromise to the more extreme forms. There are already a lot of debates between NGO's and women's rights organizations about whether such a move is progress enough, since it stops at recognizing all forms of FGM as a violation of girls' and women's rights.

 

Whether you like it or not, FGM encompasses a form of cutting that is directly comparable to male circumcision; and the reasons for why it is performed are strikingly similar to those given for male circumcision in the West.

 

That's why I'm not comfortable with male circumcision. It's splitting hairs ethically-speaking, to say it is wrong to cut off the genitalia in one sex, but okay to do so in the other sex, as long as it's only a partial removal, all while using the same basic logic to fuel both choices.

 

It's not that I think parents who circ their boys are terrible, or that men who are circ'ed should feel upset about it. It's that I disagree with the premise that it is necessary or indicated for the the health of boys, in general. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the practice for this very reason, because the medical evidence is pretty evenly split between benefits and negative side effects.

 

It is not comparable. It is a disreputable tactic to keep equating things that are highly dissimilar. It is not "hair-splitting."

 

One practice destroys a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. Male circumcision does nothing of the sort.

 

It only inflames emotions to link these two unrelated practices.

 

We could call ear-piercing "ear-lobe mutilation" if we wanted to create heat rather than light. This is a strange practice than has no benefits what-so-ever.

 

There are benefits of circumcision. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is a matter of on-gong debate. Reasonable people may come to different conclusions. I might have made a different decision if I didn't have an outstanding physician who was expect doing the procedure in a humane fashion. But a parent puts their sons and the partners of their son's at increased risk for very serious diseases. That is a reality. Hygiene issues are real and span a lifetime, from infancy to old age. UTIs in young boys can be quite serious and are virtually unknown in circumcised boys. There are valid "reasons" for choosing circumcision.

 

As a parent I weighed the benefits and the risks and am quite confident in my decision. And am very grateful my parents made the same decision on my behalf.

 

Bill

Edited June 9, 2011 by Spy Car

[Slartibartfast]

I chose not to circ my son, I do know men who have suffered long term damage as a result of circumcision.

 

There is no American medical organization that endorses it.

 

My son is intact but I do not know what sort of person would do it to a child with a heart condition being released from the nicu.

 

My child has not had a single problem, no UTIs and he has been through surgery and everything.

 

I am very confident that we made the right choice for our child. I am glad I educated myself on the subject before hand.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

I chose not to circ my son, I do know men who have suffered long term damage as a result of circumcision.

 

There is no American medical organization that endorses it.

 

My son is intact but I do not know what sort of person would do it to a child with a heart condition being released from the nicu.

 

My child has not had a single problem, no UTIs and he has been through surgery and everything.

 

No American medical organization endorses banning circumcisions, which is the issue in this initiative in San Francisco. The WHO (World Health Organization) endorses circumcision.

 

My son has not had a single problem from having a circumcision and will enjoy a life-time of benefits and (hopefully) increased protection from contracting STDs.

 

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the risks, rewards and benefits of circumcision.

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

No American medical organization endorses banning circumcisions, which is the issue in this initiative in San Francisco. The WHO (World Health Organization) endorses circumcision.

 

My son has not had a single problem from having a circumcision and will enjoy a life-time of benefits and (hopefully) increased protection from contracting STDs.

 

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the risks, rewards and benefits of circumcision.

 

Bill

 

My son does not live in Africa or any other third world country, he is American. So I do feel the American medical organizations are more pertinant

 

I am not in favor of banning it either. I did say the bill was not constitutional. If there was a religious exemption I would be fine with the bill.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

My son does not live in Africa or any other third world country, he is American. So I do feel the American medical organizations are more pertinant

 

If you don't think Americans can get HIV you are kidding yourself. I was in my senior year of University at Berkeley when we started hearing about the "gay-flu" killing people across the bay in San Francisco. But it wan't long before I knew people that died from AIDS.

 

Who could have known when I was born what people of my generation (and those subsequent) would face? We can't be sure what diseases our children might encounter that are unknown to us now. Hopefully we don't face another similar threat in the future.

 

But the pathway of contagion for disease through the mucus membranes of the foreskin is well understood. It is a biological fact.

 

I an not willing to roll the dice when the alternative is so simple and offers other benefits including better hygiene throughout life.

 

Sorry, but I have a difference of opinon on this matter.

 

Bill

Edited June 9, 2011 by Spy Car

[Slartibartfast]

However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.

 

That is cute how you twisted my words there. I have not been rude, please do not do things like that.

 

It is a roll on the die either way. You are still rolling the dice on complications and I have know more men with complications from circ (that they had as babies) than I have known people with HIV.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

That is cute how you twisted my words there. I have not been rude, please do not do things like that.

 

It is a roll on the die either way. You are still rolling the dice on complications and I have know more men with complications from circ (that they had as babies) than I have known people with HIV.

 

I don't see how I twisted your words, and I'm not trying to be rude. Conditions change. In 1980 no one had even heard of AIDS. Two years later I knew people who had died of the disease. Children travel. Diseases cross international boundaries. I fervently hope transmission rates decline and/or a cure is found. I just don't want to bet on it.

 

I'm sure our individual experiences color our risk assessment. I have known many people who died of AIDS, and not a one who had complications from a infant circumcision, and circumcision is almost univeral among my friends and acquantences in this community.

 

So we come to different conclusions. And I consider my son intact if we want to get on the subject of what sort of discussion is (or is not) rude.

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

And I consider my son intact if we want to get on the subject of what sort of discussion is (or is not) rude.

 

 

 

You consider that rude? That is the accepted term for boys who are not circumcised. Why would that be rude?

[AvasMom]

I have known many people who died of AIDS,

 

And how many of those were circ'ed? I would imagine, if we are talking about Americans, that most of them were.

[ktgrok]

It is not comparable. It is a disreputable tactic to keep equating things that

 

There are benefits of circumcision. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is a matter of on-gong debate. Reasonable people may come to different conclusions. I might have made a different decision if I didn't have an outstanding physician who was expect doing the procedure in a humane fashion. But a parent puts their sons and the partners of their son's at increased risk for very serious diseases. That is a reality. Hygiene issues are real and span a lifetime, from infancy to old age. UTIs in young boys can be quite serious and are virtually unknown in circumcised boys. There are valid "reasons" for choosing circumcision.

As a parent I weighed the benefits and the risks and am quite confident in my decision. And am very grateful my parents made the same decision on my behalf.

 

Bill

 

Bill, please stop saying this is about hygiene issues. Yes, you have to wash it. Amputation is not a realistic solution when 10 seconds with some water will also solve the issue. I also have to brush my teeth everyday, which takes longer than it takes to wash a penis. I'm not having my teeth removed so that I don't have to brush my teeth for heavens sake. Removing a body part to avoid washing it is just silly. As for th elderly, yes, they need help bathing. Women need help too, or they get infections. And yet we manage to take care of our elderly women, and don't amputate body parts to avoid washing them. Besides...is getting men to spend more time touching their penis in the shower really an problem :lol:

 

As for UTI's yes, they are very rare in the circumcised. Turns out, they are also very rare in the intact. They are very rare in general. And after the age of one there is no difference in the rate of UTI's between intact and circumcised males. Again, amputation to avoid a condition that is rare to start with, easily treated in the rare case it happens, and only an issue for a few months, seems silly as well.

 

Also, the countries that have mostly intact men do not have these issues, because people are educated in the care of intact males. The uti issue in particular is greatly effected by the care of the penis. Or rather, the penis should be left alone in infancy. Many, if not most, pediatricians in this country tell parents to retract the foreskin to clean under it. Doing this in infancy can CAUSE the infections, adhesions, etc that you list as issues of being intact. If this is not done those issues dramatically decrease.

 

And as I said before, if you hang out on some new baby forums the number of babies having to have repeat surgery after a circumcision is NOT small. It's not rare at all. So obviously circumcision doesn't solve the issue of adhesions.

 

Which leaves us with a procedure that really doesn't do much that proper care wouldn't do. Maybe there are a very few benefits, but when compared to amputation of a fucntional, functioning, nerve rich organ without the consent of the person that it belongs to....I don't see how the choice is justified.

 

Because it is body modification without the consent of the patitent. A person can let their pierced ears close up as an adult, if they decide they wish they didn't have earrings. But they can't regrow a foreskin. That is permanent.

[mommaduck]

My son does not live in Africa or any other third world country, he is American. So I do feel the American medical organizations are more pertinant

 

I am not in favor of banning it either. I did say the bill was not constitutional. If there was a religious exemption I would be fine with the bill.

 

If you don't think Americans can get HIV you are kidding yourself. I was in my senior year of University at Berkeley when we started hearing about the "gay-flu" killing people across the bay in San Francisco. But it wan't long before I knew people that died from AIDS.

 

Who could have known when I was born what people of my generation (and those subsequent) would face? We can't be sure what diseases our children might encounter that are unknown to us now. Hopefully we don't face another similar threat in the future.

 

But the pathway of contagion for disease through the mucus membranes of the foreskin is well understood. It is a biological fact.

 

I an not willing to roll the dice when the alternative is so simple and offers other benefits including better hygiene throughout life.

 

Sorry, but I have a difference of opinon on this matter.

 

Bill

 

We could go on all day with this...

 

Three sons: one damaged by circ, one not damaged by circ, and one that is uncirc'd (and will remain so). When circing, you are intentionally tossing a coin. When not circing, you still MIGHT run into an issue.

 

Point: Educate yourself on both sides, make your decision, and encourage other parents to educate themselves.

[AvasMom]

Bill, please stop saying this is about hygiene issues. Yes, you have to wash it. Amputation is not a realistic solution when 10 seconds with some water will also solve the issue. I also have to brush my teeth everyday, which takes longer than it takes to wash a penis. I'm not having my teeth removed so that I don't have to brush my teeth for heavens sake. Removing a body part to avoid washing it is just silly. As for th elderly, yes, they need help bathing. Women need help too, or they get infections. And yet we manage to take care of our elderly women, and don't amputate body parts to avoid washing them. Besides...is getting men to spend more time touching their penis in the shower really an problem :lol:

 

As for UTI's yes, they are very rare in the circumcised. Turns out, they are also very rare in the intact. They are very rare in general. And after the age of one there is no difference in the rate of UTI's between intact and circumcised males. Again, amputation to avoid a condition that is rare to start with, easily treated in the rare case it happens, and only an issue for a few months, seems silly as well.

 

 

 

:iagree: I was thinking this exact thing this morning as I was reading this thread and shaking my head trying to stay out of it. I love a good debate but don't particularly enjoy banging my head on the wall. lol! Some of the premises presented in the last few pages aren't exactly the most logical arguments I've ever read. :glare:

[kalanamak]

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

 

 

They don't know what they are missing.;)

(I wink because of the content, but I am not kidding about them not known what they are missing.)

(And yes, I've known men who wished they weren't. Not "traumatized", but regretful.)

[mommaduck]

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know there are a few internet zealots who claimed to be "traumatized" for life by a procedure they can't possibly remember. These people are sick and need psychological help rather than exploitation.

 

Bill

 

Do a search online. There are plenty out there. In fact, there are gadgets and tapes out there to help one "restore" a foreskin (by stretching the skin that is left down around the head of the p3nis). There is also an interesting website called "S3x as nature intended" (I believe that is the address to it also, except change the 3 to an e...will not link as there are pictures and videos that are adult in nature, naturally).

[kalanamak]

And I consider my son intact if we want to get on the subject of what sort of discussion is (or is not) rude.

 

 

Indeed, in physical exams, we do say "hymen intact" or "foreskin intact". I never ascribed moral terms to it, but it is in the interest of society, IMO, to keep moral judgments out of physical exams. To say a man is "intact", when discussing genitalia, is shorthand for "a man with an intact foreskin". People abbreviate such things in speech all the time. No point in looking to take something the wrong way. Although my boy is "intact", I think it merely a descriptor, not a claim of his being superior than yours.

[Veritaserum]

:iagree: I was thinking this exact thing this morning as I was reading this thread and shaking my head trying to stay out of it. I love a good debate but don't particularly enjoy banging my head on the wall. lol! Some of the premises presented in the last few pages aren't exactly the most logical arguments I've ever read. :glare:

 

:iagree: Yeah....

 

I read both the links Bek posted. A surprising number of women who have had FGM do report sexual pleasure, including orgasm. As a woman I know that one can achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Some women find more enjoyment from the g-spot in general. So Bill's assertion is false that removal of the clitorus = no ability to experience sexual pleasure.

 

I still find all forms of genital cutting to be repugnant, but it is interesting to note that circumcised males and females both believe that their sexual function has not only not been negatively impacted by amputation, they believe it has been enhanced.

 

My dh says it's a self-protection thing. As a circumcised man, he said it was extremely uncomfortable to even acknowledge that circumcion might not be better because if circumcision is not better, he is missing something valuable.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I read both the links Bek posted. A surprising number of women who have had FGM do report sexual pleasure, including orgasm. As a woman I know that one can achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Some women find more enjoyment from the g-spot in general. So Bill's assertion is false that removal of the clitorus = no ability to experience sexual pleasure.

 

 

 

Maybe 'one' can, but not EVERYONE can. And in any case, reduction is a given, even if no ability is not.

[Carol in Cal.]

In one anti-circ website I looked at the last time this came up, there was a description of the TYPES of nerves in the foreskin vs. elsewhere in that general vicinity.

 

It said that the nerves in the foreskin are of the type on the palm of the hand, while the ones nearby are of the type on the back of the hand. If you run your finger over your palm and then over the back of your hand, and feel the difference, that's supposed to be indicative of what is lost in circ-ing baby boys. This seems to me to be a pretty significant loss.

 

It's not comparable to the female circ. losses, but it still seems significant.

[Veritaserum]

Maybe 'one' can, but not EVERYONE can. And in any case, reduction is a given, even if no ability is not.

 

I agree. I was merely pointing out that FGM doesn't always prevent sexual pleasure as has been claimed on this thread. As an intact woman, I am sure that they are missing something, even though they believe they are not. :(

[AvasMom]

FWIW, many women who have had female circ compare it to male circ. I just have this wild idea that they might be good judges of what it entails since they've experienced it but that's just me.

[Spy Car]

And how many of those were circ'ed? I would imagine, if we are talking about Americans, that most of them were.

 

Probably a lot (no first hand knowledge there :D). They were all homosexuals. Being circumcised doesn't add any protection from contracting HIV through anal sex.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

You consider that rude? That is the accepted term for boys who are not circumcised. Why would that be rude?

 

I don't accept the term. It is a deliberately value laden term (of recent vintage) that strongly implies (by design) that circumcised boys/men are not "intact."

 

It is part of the assault on circumcision that includes this ballot initiative, attempts to link circumcision with FGM and misinformation campaigns on the internet.

 

One would not refer to a girl who's ears are not pierced as "intact," unless one was laying down a value judgement and spoiling for a fight. Otherwise "UN-pierced" would work.

 

One would not refer to a tattoo as skin mutilation unless.....

 

It is pretty clear what the tactic of calling uncircumcised boys/men is all about. You bet I think it is rude tactic.

 

Bill

[Veritaserum]

I don't accept the term. It is a deliberately value laden term (of recent vintage) that strongly implies (by design) that circumcised boys/men are not "intact."

 

It is part of the assault on circumcision that includes this ballot initiative, attempts to link circumcision with FGM and misinformation campaigns on the internet.

 

One would not refer to a girl who's ears are not pierced as "intact," unless one was laying down a value judgement and spoiling for a fight. Otherwise "UN-pierced" would work.

 

One would not refer to a tattoo as skin mutilation unless.....

 

It is pretty clear what the tactic of calling uncircumcised boys/men is all about. You bet I think it is rude tactic.

 

Bill

 

Am I undecapitated? Unamputated?

 

A male who has all the body parts he was born with is not UN anything. Inact/whole/complete are all descriptive words to illustrate that no body parts have been removed. It is not an attempt to inflame. It's simply a more accurate descriptor than "uncircumcised."

 

Would you prefer "natural" instead?

[Spy Car]

The thread has sunk too low (what a surprise) so I'm outta here.

 

:auto:

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

I don't accept the term. It is a deliberately value laden term (of recent vintage) that strongly implies (by design) that circumcised boys/men are not "intact."

 

It is part of the assault on circumcision that includes this ballot initiative, attempts to link circumcision with FGM and misinformation campaigns on the internet.

 

One would not refer to a girl who's ears are not pierced as "intact," unless one was laying down a value judgement and spoiling for a fight. Otherwise "UN-pierced" would work.

 

One would not refer to a tattoo as skin mutilation unless.....

 

It is pretty clear what the tactic of calling uncircumcised boys/men is all about. You bet I think it is rude tactic.

 

Bill

Medically speaking, they ARE intact. It is what it is. Piercing (piercing through skin) is different than removal of a significant amount of skin (as circumcision does).

[AvasMom]

The thread has "sunk too low" because you don't get to choose to define words based on your feelings? Ooookay. Who was just recently talking about intellectual honesty here? I can't for the life of me remember who that was. *scratching head*

[Veritaserum]

The thread has "sunk too low" because you don't get to choose to define words based on your feelings? Ooookay. Who was just recently talking about intellectual honesty here? I can't for the life of me remember who that was. *scratching head*

 

:lol:

[Negin]

The World Health Organization says: "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."

 

No small thing.

 

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

 

Bill

 

:iagree: and have not yet had time to read any of the other posts.

It is a parent's choice for sure. This is not the role of government, IMHO.

The decision to have our ds circumcised was not religious for us, but cultural for sure, and definitely for hygienic reasons also.