• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Circumcision

In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?
 
Someone I know was circumcised for medical reasons (very nasty infection). In that case it was necessary lest he either be in large amounts of pain for a long time or, erm, lose function. In those circumstances, circumcision is a damn good idea. In most other circumstances, It's not.
 
Damien Evans said:
Someone I know was circumcised for medical reasons (very nasty infection). In that case it was necessary lest he either be in large amounts of pain for a long time or, erm, lose function. In those circumstances, circumcision is a damn good idea. In most other circumstances, It's not.
Click to expand...
The real problem in such cases is usually premature, forcible retraction of the foreskin. The foreskin of a newborn usually does not retract until puberty - the mean age in denmark for the foreskin to become retractible has once been evalued as some 10 years. However in a society that considers the foreskin to be an useless appendage, and even newborns are tested on "phimosis" by trying to retract their foreskin, the biological age may be higher.

Basically the foreskin widens during puberty, similiar to the hymen and vagina which also widens then.

Chronic infections of the foreskin are usually caused by manipulation. That is, someone handles the foreskin rough, such that it infects. Parents who are told to wash under their son's foreskins do this, or doctors, who, as so often, have friggin clue about the biology.

Parents: Don't touch the foreskin. Beat the crap out of anyone, ESPECIALLY doctors who try that stuff - right away and without hesitation. The foreskin does not cause cancer or AIDS, end of story.

I do not consider BXO (a skin disease also known as lichen sclerosis) an indication for circumcision. The same disease occurs on females, and is treated without amputation of the affected skin areas.

Circumcision is virtually never useful on anyone younger than 70 years. For older people, skin cancers can rampantly grow everywhere, also on the foreskin. There, the surgical removal of a tumor on the foreskin may be confused with "Circumcision".
 
Can it lead to not getting a sensation of urine and impacts therefrom?
 
Kumar said:
Can it lead to not getting a sensation of urine and impacts therefrom?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that's a medical question Kumar. Suggest you stop taking the piss and start one of your own inimitable threads to answer it.

Hope this helps!
 
Southwind17 said:
Maybe, but that's a medical question Kumar. Suggest you stop taking the piss and start one of your own inimitable threads to answer it.

Hope this helps!
Click to expand...

Cosmatic problem or probalems due to cosmatic changes is one thing, getting something else due to unnaturality is other thing. Tongue or no tongue, can make more changes than just not taste or cosmatic problems. We do get affects due to sensations alike cephalic phase effect.
 
Kumar said:
Cosmatic problem or probalems due to cosmatic changes is one thing, getting something else due to unnaturality is other thing. Tongue or no tongue, can make more changes than just not taste or cosmatic problems. We do get affects due to sensations alike cephalic phase effect.
Click to expand...

And what's this got to do with the price of fish?
 
There's still a serious point in here: what right does a Jewish, Moslem or 'hygienic' American parent have to inflict genital mutilation on an infant too immature to give their approval? Suppose I started a new religion and decided that God required the earlobes of newborn babies to be lopped off within weeks of birth. Does no harm; prevents cancer of the earlobe; satisfies the wishes of Ollie, the omnipotent invisible pink unicorn. Or maybe just a notch from the nostril: visible hallmark of a person who's faithful to the omnipresent power of the real truth that hovers in an invisible chariot and causes lightning.

Come on, folks: mutilation of the bodies of neonates without positive medical reason (i.e. essential to preserve vital function) is a moral and ethical outrage. We should take the same attitude to male genital mutilation as we do to female genital mutilation: they both suck!
 
Last edited:
DavidCT said:
In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?
Click to expand...

Does anyone have cold, hard facts to back up the assertation? From my admittedly very small sample group, "most" men aged 20-25 are not circumsized. Anecdotally, among my close male friends and siblings, 2 are circumcised (one is jewish, the other is WASP) and 5 are not. Of these 5 uncircumcised males, one had problems with some sort of foreskin infection as an adolescent (he wasn't really keen to go into the details).

Before we start getting all outraged, can we quantify if this is really a problem?
 
Last edited:
I'd happily whack of their earlobes. And no religious requirement needed.

Then again, I believe whole-heartedly in a parent's right to modify the body of their children in any cosmetic way that does no permanent functional damage - and male circumcision, when done properly using modern techniques, does no permanent functional damage. As do a very FEW forms of female circumcision.

Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off. Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

And with that, I'll make my hasty retreat, as I'm about to be labelled eleven kinds of evil monster now... :D

Keep in mind, though, I'm also the guy that thinks the death penalty should be by publicly broadcast executions, that rapists should be castrated on first offense, etc...
 
Z said:
I'd happily whack of their earlobes. And no religious requirement needed.

Then again, I believe whole-heartedly in a parent's right to modify the body of their children in any cosmetic way that does no permanent functional damage - and male circumcision, when done properly using modern techniques, does no permanent functional damage. As do a very FEW forms of female circumcision.

Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off. Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

And with that, I'll make my hasty retreat, as I'm about to be labelled eleven kinds of evil monster now... :D

Keep in mind, though, I'm also the guy that thinks the death penalty should be by publicly broadcast executions, that rapists should be castrated on first offense, etc...
Click to expand...

Yay, we disagree on everything :) !

You must be very 'primative'.
 
sthomson said:
<i>In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?</i>

Does anyone have cold, hard facts to back up the assertation? From my admittedly very small sample group, "most" men aged 20-25 are not circumsized. Anecdotally, among my close male friends and siblings, 2 are circumcised (one is jewish, the other is WASP) and 5 are not. Of these 5 uncircumcised males, one had problems with some sort of foreskin infection as an adolescent (he wasn't really keen to go into the details).

Before we start getting all outraged, can we quantify if this is really a problem?
Click to expand...

IIRC, the average was about 2/3 of newborns are circumcised in the US, about 1 million/year.

A couple of figures that stood out were in Nevada only about 14% of newborns were circumcised, while in New England it was about 80%. So there appears to be wide variation in circumcision rates in the US.

I wonder if female circumcision / FGC is taken as lightly in the middle east as male circumcision is in the west?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Yay, we disagree on everything :) !

You must be very 'primative'.
Click to expand...

I must be. Hmmm... let's see... what counts as 'primative'?

I don't fight; I don't abuse women or children (the argument over circumcision notwithstanding); I don't think men are the ultimate power; I defer to women regularly; I stay at home and do the cooking, cleaning, and child care myself; I cook healthy, vegetarian meals (and a couple of vegan meals, now that one of our kids has turned up with an extreme dairy allergy); I'm bisexual; I accept gays, straights, bis, polys, transgenders, and other situations as being acceptable and normal; I'm firmly against all forms of racism (including 'positive' racism); I watch science fiction, science documentaries, history documentaries, news, and occasional fantasy shows; I eschew all forms of sports television, wrestling, boxing, and other 'manly' competitions; I can swap a few components on a car, but can't stand mechanical work beyond a fuel pump or alternator; I hire out for plumbing and household maintenance jobs; I believe that violence is always a last resort, usually the last resort of the less intelligent mind; I teach my fourth grader at home because of his own mental issues, which has resulted in him being able to skip one grade generically and two in mathematics; I read 'stuffy' books (a book with less than a thousand pages isn't worth reading, generally) over a variety of topics; I couldn't - and wouldn't - hunt an animal, even for food, unless there were no other possible alternative; I hate fishing; I don't smoke cigars (but I do smoke briar pipes)....

These were all behaviors of the 'primative' man, weren't they? Or might I be wrong about a few of them? I'll have to ask my neighbor, the GIECO caveman, about this.
 
Z said:
I must be. Hmmm... let's see... what counts as 'primative'?

I don't fight; I don't abuse women or children (the argument over circumcision notwithstanding); I don't think men are the ultimate power; I defer to women regularly; I stay at home and do the cooking, cleaning, and child care myself; I cook healthy, vegetarian meals (and a couple of vegan meals, now that one of our kids has turned up with an extreme dairy allergy); I'm bisexual; I accept gays, straights, bis, polys, transgenders, and other situations as being acceptable and normal; I'm firmly against all forms of racism (including 'positive' racism); I watch science fiction, science documentaries, history documentaries, news, and occasional fantasy shows; I eschew all forms of sports television, wrestling, boxing, and other 'manly' competitions; I can swap a few components on a car, but can't stand mechanical work beyond a fuel pump or alternator; I hire out for plumbing and household maintenance jobs; I believe that violence is always a last resort, usually the last resort of the less intelligent mind; I teach my fourth grader at home because of his own mental issues, which has resulted in him being able to skip one grade generically and two in mathematics; I read 'stuffy' books (a book with less than a thousand pages isn't worth reading, generally) over a variety of topics; I couldn't - and wouldn't - hunt an animal, even for food, unless there were no other possible alternative; I hate fishing; I don't smoke cigars (but I do smoke briar pipes)....

These were all behaviors of the 'primative' man, weren't they? Or might I be wrong about a few of them? I'll have to ask my neighbor, the GIECO caveman, about this.
Click to expand...

Your not primitive Z, just incredibly biased:D
 
sthomson said:
Before we start getting all outraged, can we quantify if this is really a problem?
Click to expand...

You're no fun!

"The proportion of male newborn infants circumcised during the birth hospitalization was 56 percent nationally, but ranged from 31 percent in the West to 78 percent in the Midwest." From "National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2003".

From Table 2, the largest reason was hygiene at 69 percent, followed by social custom at 21 percent.

Linda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom