CIRCUMCISION (A sensible discussion)

I remember other threads on this subject and things do get heated over circumcision

anyway Im not circ as Im british, and unless your jewish who do it for religous reasons most brits dont get circumcisions .

if I had a kid I wouldnt have him circumcised because I think its pointless.

when you get a erection the loose skin just becomes part of the shaft so I dont know if there is that much difference in look .

I think it would be easyier to masterbate uncirc as I think you would need to lube more if you were circ ,also most of the feeling in the penis is in that band of skin .

anyway I dont think that you are less of a man if your circ , Im sure there are lots of very happy men with great sex lives who are circumcised but really is there that much point getting it done .

also its done on babys if someone for whatever reason wants to get this sort of thing done wouldnt it be better leaving it up to the person involved .

There are men who are really unhappy about being circ, now even if there are only a few of them wouldnt it be better not to take the risk that your kid is one of them .

as for it being a family tradition if your family came from europe it isnt that much of a tradition here so far back in your family you had people who were uncirc.
I think its just some con that doctors pulled on americans I think about a 100 years ago .

if I had a kid who had something up with his foreskin and we had tried other methods and had second opinions, then I might get him circumcised.

but generally I wouldnt do it and Id try as hard as I could to keep him as he was originally designed

 

I'm a man and I'm circumsized from birth.

Personally, I'm glad my parents decided that for me. Hard to explain, I just feel more comfortable being circumsized.

From what I've heard it's much easier to clean when you're circumsized. However, I'm an American so I don't meet many people who aren't circumsized.

It does tend to be a touchy issue. I know some dads who don't want their sons circumsized because it makes them cringe much the same way they cringe at getting their dog neutered or scheduling a vasectomy.

Just seems kindof insecure to me. But, of course, I'm biased as I am circumsized and don't really think that modification of the body immasculates anyone.

 

If male - Are you circumcised? Yes, since birth.

Which do you prefer sexually? Circumsized
Why? Haven't experienced uncircumsized.

Would you circumcise your son(s)?
If so, why? If not, why not? No, because
A) If they want to cut off part of their penis they can but I don't see any good reason to do it, they can always have it cut off when their adults if they want.
B) I'm not Jewish.
C) I can't stand that kind of stuff, thinking about it makes me feel sick and put the blade in my hand I couldn't do it.


If you could add any additional thoughts you have, they'd be appreciated. Also, if you could share any experiences which may be enlightening?- Who the hells idea was it to cut off part of the penis anyway? Why the hell would you cut something off for it to be more clean? My parents must be fucking insane.

 

in america they give the parents the option after labor at the hospital

 

Yes but females are off limits,..In another words boys are treated just like police treated the blacks in 1960s.

 

oh yeah, us men sure have it rough and we need to fight for our rights! its high time that men get the same civil rights as everyone else! too long the world has oppressed us and............oh.....wait a minute.......

anyway, someone said something about vasectomies or neutering dogs. these are very, very different issues and have little place in this discussion. neutering dogs is an unfortunately necessary procedure for the majority of dogs in our culture, not because of individual needs but because of the needs of both dogs AND humans in this region at this time. its a social practice, not a practice designed to better or worsen the life of the individual dog.

and when i get pissed about circumcision, it has no relation or resemblence WHATSOEVER to my thoughts about vasectomies. perhaps if a BABY were being "fixed" it would be a similar issue, but no one has that done to children as far as i know, and anyone undergoing a vasectomy is doing so as a legal and willing adult who has made a conscious decision to undergo the procedure because they think it will in one way or another improve their lives. apart from that, there have been a lot of advances lately in vasectomies, and it can almost always be reversed now if someone decides they actually DO want children. i don't want kids and hope to get a vasectomy as soon as i am in a position where financially it would not create a setback. i ought to start looking into it now, actually, to find out more about the procedure. however, a like i said, vasectomies are done to men who have made a rational decision for themselves and WANT it done, and it can be undone in most circumstances. however, short of what i would imagine would be very uncommon and costly procedures, if such things even exist, a man cannot get a foreskin back once he has it removed!

personally, i'm pissed that i don't have my foreskin. it is a shame, but i can see at least ONE up side to the desensitization....i may not ALWAYS last long enough for the girl i'm with, but hell...if i was getting any more pleasure out of it than i already did, i sure as hell would think i wouldnt last as long!

 

I dont care how it is, as long as it's CLEAN!!!!!

 

No, no, I wasn't trying to say that neutering dogs or getting a vasectomy was the same as circumcision. What I was trying to say is that many men make it about themselves instead of the baby. They feel it makes them less of a man to get their baby circumsized. It's fine if you don't want to put your child through what some consider to be a brutal procedure (I personally would not count myselves among them) but you shouldn't do it just because you shrink back (no pun intended LOL) at the thought of ANYthing being performed on ANY penis. One cannot deny that many men do this with their dogs. They don't like the idea of an operation being performed on the penis of their dog because they make it about themselves rather than the dog.

I am circumsized from birth, but I am not traumatized from it. I never have really thought about it in depth until this thread came up. A piece of skin should not be entitled so much power as to define who you are or your emotional status. Some would call it simplistic materialism.

But it's not my decision whether or not other people let it be done to their children.

Also, one cannot compare it to procedures done to girls in some societies. Many of these procedures cause women to lose sexual sensation in their genetalia. The removal of the foreskin cannot be compared to this in much the same way, as you said, it cannot be compared (in the sense of the actual physical procedure, disregarding the spirit of its purpose) to neutering a dog.

I had a hard time putting that last paragraph into words. Hope that made sense.

 

well, you've got an incredibly hard time proving to me the problem with it every single male in my family, as well as every male i've loved has been circumcised and hasn't a single problem with it. i'm just not considering it an issue. should dave consider it an issue, there you have it. sensible, loving, considerate, reliable and intelligent husband over here; sarcastic, rude, pompous stranger over here....who do you think i'm more inclined to listen to?

 

Why do you say that I have been rude , sarcastic or pompous ? I have only tried to use logical arguments to debate with you - one can give offence but one can also take offence. Please point to the comment that gave offence.

I've pointed out to you that taking a knife to a child's genitals is inherently wrong and damaging., that there is ample evidence to suggest that it is so. It stands to reason that you would not meet males with problems with circumcision since they were all cirumcised at birth ,those that died during the procedure you are unlikely to have met! I can only imagine the embarassment of those who have been dreadfully scarred by it - and you can find many examples of such.

You mentioned before that your husband holds a certain belief - naturally I can't compete with his affection with you - but I can appeal to your powers of reason.I'm absolutely convinced that if you should choose to take up your duty as a guardian of your future children to investigate this thoroughly that you'll realise what an abominatoin this is. Simply saying I'm not considering this an issue when your points have been refuted is rather poor.

 

I am sorry but what do dogs' penii have to do with anything ? The foreskin is such a successful design in nature that it is present in both sexes (clitoral hood in females) of EVERY mammal. It's more successful than eyelids , than hands , flippers or legs.

You say you are not traumatized by that - I'm genuinely pleased for you - but you're 16 - compare adult impotency rates amongst US males with the rest of the world. As I mentioned earlier there are prominent examples of European porn stars circumcised late in life for professional reasons - all reporting decreased sensitivity. Surely before one has a true idea of the usefulness of a foreskin one has to at least have one to test drive. You have been DENIED that - which was your birthright - it's that denial to an intact sexual body which many find so offensive.

As to procedures performed on girls , you're also wrong - there are 4 forms of female circumcision - ranging from the most common which is far LESS invasive than the male removal of the skin - it's the same as a cut along the length of the foreskin - to the most barborous , the "pharonic" style - involving complete excision of the entire clitoris as well as removal of the outer labia.
What some seem to miss in that in the same countries which practice female circumcision the also practice a rather different form of male circumcision - the male is taken at age 14 , held down by three men and circumcised with flint knives without anaesthesia....

 

sorry, it appears i lumped you and intenseheat together.

at any rate, i trust my husband's ability to see reason. what i've been attacked for here is my desire to allow my husband (who may or may not have placed far more importance on this issue than i) to decide based upon his own profound beliefs. if you have a problem with that, i'm sorry to say that you're just gonna have to swallow it. to continue to argue further is pointless.

 

Obviously people are very sensitive over this issue. Sorry to have upset anybody, but I just don't see the big deal. And, as I said, I understand that some people are against it and are entitled to their opinion. I just don't share it and I won't apologize for disagreeing.

Dog's penii? I didn't mean for that to become such a focus point of discussion, but it seems to have. I was alluding to the fact that many men have some sort of odd obsession to where they cringe at anything done to the penus of anyone. Many men don't want their sons to get circumsized (which is fine if they do it for the right reasons), but I don't think a man should rule out circumcision for his son just because it makes him feel "icky." People should grow up.

Concerning the impotence rates, that's interesting and should be examined closely, but one should also consider that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

And as far as being denied anything, I'm quite happy that I've been circumsized, thank you very much. I know I do not like the idea of having a foreskin, and I never have. I don't quite know if there's less sensation because of lack of foreskin because I've never experienced anything with a foreskin, but I can tell you that I have no complaints the way things are.

Again I must reiterate that attaching so much importance to a piece of skin is very unhealthy in my opinion. Perhaps it's better that I was circumsized so that I'm not obsessing over something like that.

But I'm afraid that this debate is genuinely disturbing me as it's taking such a hostile tone. I genuinely wish that there was less sarcasm and cynicism involved in this discussion, but rather I feel as if people are making me a victim where I don't feel victimized or a fascist where I don't feel I'm being unreasonable. As I've said, if someone is against circumcision, go with my blessing. My only reserve is for men who are so insecure with themselves that they project their insecurities onto their children.

Remember, there are many more scarring things than physical destruction (if that is indeed what circumcision is). It may be (and I'm just positing a hypothetical situation) that the opponents of circumcision are causing more psychological harm than good by placing judgment on the procedure and those who have experienced it (the very same judgment we see here in this thread). Obviously there are negative examples of the procedure, and fucked up cultures who practice cruelty to their own (and that may include our own, I genuinely don't know yet), but the same can be said of many procedures, most notably abortions. One cannot place a judgment on the entirety of these procedures by some horror stories.

And because of the personal negativity I've seen portrayed in this thread, I really don't think it would be in my own interest to post again on this issue. Best wishes.

 

well, impotence has been linked to male obesity and stress levels, too.

 

Exactly , I'm trying to imagine I'm having a debate with reasonably intelligent people. "ickyness" is however the most ridiculous reason for undergoing/not a surgical procedure and one I've not heard yet.

That's certainly an interesting viewpoint considering recent US law settlements involving large multinational pharmaceutical companies.

LOL - why do you not like the idea of having a foreskin ? Let me put it another way - do you like having eyelids ?

I merely ask because the function of the foreskin is very similar to that of the eyelid - lubrication and protection of the organ underneath.

As you point out you don' know so can't compare , if you had been left well enough alone you could have made an INFORMED choice but others made that decision for you.

this is the funniest one of all - only those pro-circ are attaching obsessional importance to this - the rest of us are arguing to LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE. It's the pro-circ crowd who are so insistent on their need to go cutting up kids' penii - all without the consent of the child.

 

I was circumcised as a baby.

Sometimes thinking about it I don't care,
other times I get really mad or want to cry.

I feel so mad I want to kill every person on the Earth.

Then other times I could care less.
It is strange like that.

 

I'm not really against or for getting babys circumsized, i just wanted to clear some stuff up in here. One thing that was bugging me is the kids that were saying i'm not circumsized and i dont need lube to masterbate. Why would u think a circumsized person needs lube, i'm circumsized i'm 22 and i've never used lube once when masterbating, i can do it as many times in 1 day as i want and never had any problems. Another thing is i was circumsized when i was 14 years old. Now about actually getting it at that age, it isnt as big of a deal as one might think. They treat it like any other type of surgery, u can usually use just an anesthietic (probly spelt that wrong) but supposivly i was too nervous and shaking so i was asleep while it was happening. Woke up, there was no pain whatsoever, had a little pain about an hour afterwards took a pain killer and it was gone, and never came back. A week later i was perfectly healed and that was that. It was actually the easiest surgury u can think of with almost no pain whatsoever. i dunno how it is for babys but for me at 14 thats how it was. (oh, i've never had sex before the surgury, but obviously had masterbated, and from what i can tell if their is any differnce in sensation, it's almost nothing cause it feels exactly the same now as before it was done). All this being said, i would definatly recomend not having the baby circumsized, and letting it be the choice of the kid once he gets a bit older. it's really not bad surgury at all if he wants it. boys growing up in america can definatly feel insecure about not being circumsized since just about every other guy is, but if the boy is fine with it, then hey great.

 

well like i said over and over to the 2 ______ above . is not your penis or your husband. and that quackery practice should be made illegal.

 

Masturbation and cervical cancer ... "look like dad" ... cloning your son into the image of his scornful peers ... making sure that all boys are "molded" onto the Procrustean Bed of Society ... etc ... the reasons for circumcision are just plain WACKY.

Human beings are so inventive ... they can invent "reasons" to justify almost anything !!

Do you believe in the quackery of preventive amputation ?? ... Do you believe that "circumcision" is cruel and unusual ?? ... Can you think of anything that CANNOT be cured and/or resolved by mutilating a child's sexual organ ??

Thanks to the never-ending efforts of "circumcision" advocates, the list of problems allegedly cured by "circumcision" continues growing to mythological proportions.

By mutilating your son, you can help his future sexual partner. The utter insanity of it !!

Welcome to the Wacky World of "circumcision."

"An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." ~ Orlando Battista, Chemist

 

North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners
Rhonda Ketterling, MD, Chair
418 East Broadway, Suite C10
Bismarck, ND 58501

To the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners
and the Commission on Medical Competency:

We place the following Accusation before the Board: Routine infant
circumcisers (if individuals need be cited: Roger Allen, MD and Manuel
Neto, MD, Minot) are practicing quack medicine, namely, a pattern of
inappropriate and fraudulent care.

Request: that the NDBME discipline circumcisers (namely, Roger Allen, MD
and Manuel Neto, MD, Minot) for practicing quackery (request made under
NDCC 43-17.1-05: "All residents have the right to make or refer complaints
to the commission...").

Accusation's Legal Basis: NDCC 43-17.1-07 (Sec. 4) and 43-17-31 (Sec. 6 and 7):
"The board of medical examiners may revoke or suspend a physician's
license to practice medicine in this state or may attach conditions or
restrictions thereto on any one or more of the following grounds:... 4. A
continued pattern of inappropriate care, including unnecessary surgery, in
the performance of his duties as a physician." (emphasis added)
"The board may refuse to grant a license to practice medicine in
this state or may suspend or revoke such license...upon any of the
following grounds:... 6. The performance of any dishonorable, unethical, or
unprofessional conduct likely to deceive, defraud, or harm the public. 7.
The use of any false or fraudulent statement in any document connected with
the practice of medicine." (emphasis added)

Basis for Board's Authority and Need for Action: A. Michael Booth, MD, PhD,
in testimony, 2/13/95, that helped defeat ND HB 1381 (1 endnote) argued
this Bill would "cripple the State Board of Medical Examiners" by
restricting its ability to "act against a physician by suspending or
revoking his or her license on the simple finding of a continued pattern (2
endnote) of inappropriate care." (3 endnote)

We must assume Dr. Booth, as a member of NDMA and its Commission on
Legislative Affairs, and as President of the ND Chapter of the American
College of Surgeons, has a good sense for the powers of the NDBME. One of
these is the power to determine what "appropriate care" means.

Dr. Booth pointed out that quackery is inappropriate care. He quoted the
U.S. Congress Select Committee on Aging's definition of a "quack" in its
1984 report on quackery. A quack is "anyone who promotes medical schemes or
remedies known to be false, or which are unproven, for profit." (emphasis
added) He pointed out North Dakota has not been free of quacks, but "the
Board has acted appropriately to remove them." This is fortunate, according
to Booth, or the expected and needed trust in physicians would have been
seriously eroded. "Indeed, had the Board failed to act, the public would
have had every reason to believe that the relationship of trust between
patient and physician had been knowingly violated." (emphasis added)

Dr. Booth pointed out that "These practitioners of quack medicine [have]
always been difficult to deal with." They are successful
(a) because of their ability to "take a bit of scientific fact and
then extrapolate [it] to incredible proportions to justify the use of their
therapy, oftentimes ignoring the very real toxic potential that their
treatments involve..." and
(b) because "too often, the victims of these practitioners fail to
take action, out of embarrassment...."

Summary of Accusation

A. Circumcision is quack medicine. Routine infant circumcision meets every
definition of "quack medicine" and is, therefore, "inappropriate care." It
is:
(1) based on "a bit of scientific fact" which is "extrapolate[d]
to incredible proportions to justify the use of their therapy, oftentimes
ignoring the very real toxic potential that their treatments involve...."
When all the evidence is examined, it is seen to be physically and
psychologically harmful to the infant, his parents and society at large.
(2) fraudulent since the circumciser fails to provide full
information, either from lack of knowledge or deliberate misrepresentation.
(3) at least a quarter billion dollar business in the U.S.
(4) a subject that embarrasses people, so corrective action is not
taken.

B. Circumcision violates human rights. Infant circumcision, however, is
more than just the usual form of quack medicine. Circumcision does not just
defraud the person who is persuaded by misleading information to consent to
the procedure for him or herself. The patient, in this case, has no say at
all. The amputation is forced upon a completely non-consenting individual.
No one has the right to unnecessarily alter an infant's physical integrity.


Supporting Arguments for Accusations

A (cont.): Support for Statements that
Circumcision is Quack Medicine:

Support for point (1)-Harmful, not beneficial, care based on inadequate
evidence:

Published studies, considering all the known so-called physiological and
cost benefits, show no positive balance of actual benefit can be
determined, even when these studies ignore the negative weight of
psychological damage and human rights violations. (4 endnote)

For example, in an article in Family Medicine, "Circumcision: A Decision
Analysis of its Medical Value," Oct-Dec 1991, Dr. Lawler writes, "We
conclude there is no medical indication for or against circumcision. The
decision may most reasonably be made on non-medical factors such as parent
preference."
We would like to suggest that the child's preference is the only
one that counts.

In another article in Medical Decision Making, Oct-Dec 1991, Dr. Ganiats
states: "Circumcision has essentially no effect on either dollar costs or
health. For this reason, personal factors could justly be brought into the
decision process."
Even though those doing these studies have not faced the human
rights issue, nor long-term psychological or sexual effects, they make
clear, that circumcision is not a procedure to be justified on medical
grounds.

Thomas Wiswell's urinary tract infection studies is a typical example of
those who take "a bit of scientific fact and then extrapolate to incredible
proportions to justify the use of their therapy." He even claims God made a
mistake providing men with this erotic and protective tissue. One has to
circumcise 99 infants to prevent one UTI, even if Wiswell's retrospective
study on military babies is accurate, which other researchers question
because catherization was used to gather urine samples and may have
contaminated them, and because of invalid statistical analyses. Girls are
four times as prone to UTIs as boys in any case.

100,000 infants must be circumcised to prevent one penile cancer. Who
explains to parents that more infants die of circumcision complications in
the U.S. than older men are saved from penile cancer (about 200)? We still
hear about the cervical cancer study--proved invalid decades ago. This is
just some of the persistent misleading information the quacks dispense or
fail to correct. Their approach allows them to hood-wink a trusting public
into a procedure with "very real toxic potential."

In fact, all national and international healthcare and medical
organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, say these amputations
are not medically necessary. How can they, therefore, be defined as
"preventive medicine" when imposed upon a non-consenting person? They are
unnecessary surgeries, and as such must be censored by Board action
pursuant to NDCC 43-17.1-07 (Sec. 4).

Surgical amputation of normal tissue can only be called "mutilation."
Perhaps we do have a right to mutilate ourselves, but not others. As Ron
Miller, MD, Fargo, says, "What risk is acceptable when one is tampering
with something that is normal?" The following is a list of a few more North
Dakota people and organizations that have recognized the non-necessary
nature of routine infant circumcision: (5 endnote)

* Rhonda Ketterling, MD, Chair, ND Board of Medical Examiners, Medical
Director for U.S. Healthcare, Bismarck, and practicing physician, Rugby.
* Arlene Mack, RN, Vice President, Medcenter One, Support Services
(speaking for Medcenter One, she said their physicians have agreed not to
recommend circumcisions and will explain the risks).
* Shari Orser, MD, Chair, Department of Ob/Gyn, Medcenter One, Bismarck.
* Robert Wentz, MD, pediatrician, former ND State Health Officer, now
Deputy Insurance Commissioner.
* Jon Rice, MD, ND State Health Officer.
* Sister Mary Margaret Mooney, PBVM, RN, Professor and Chair, Department of
Nursing, University of Mary.
* Gladys Cairns, Director, ND Child Protective Services and Chair of the
Alliance for Sexual Abuse Prevention and Treatment.
* Craig Shoemaker, MD, Director of Neonatal Services and Chair, Department
of Pediatrics, Fargo Clinic MeritCare.
* Ron H. Miller, MD, pediatrician, Fargo Clinic MeritCare.
* Alan Lindemann, MD, Ob/Gyn, Fargo.
* Thomas W. Mausbach, MD, former President, ND Chapter of the American
Academy of Pediatrics (in a letter to the NDBME).
* Charles Severn, MD, Chair, Department of Neonatology, St. Alexius Medical
Center, Bismarck.
* Connie Kalanek, MSN, RNC, Associate Professor, Medcenter One College of
Nursing.
* Robert Roswick, MD, and Jeffrey Smith, MD, Family Medical Center, Bismarck.
* Judy Haynes, PhD, UND Counseling Center and clinical psychologist, Grand
Forks.
* Robert Pathroff, MD, urologist, Bismarck.
* Roger Allen, MD, neonatologist, Minot.
* BlueCross BlueShield of North Dakota.
* Medicaid (does not pay for this unnecessary surgery).