Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?

[Loss Leader]

So if modern Jews can go directly against commandment No. 56, why can't they go against commandment No. 17: To circumcise the male offspring? Some Jewish people already are.

Doesn't that fact blow Loss Leader's Jewish argument out of the water?



Actually, it makes my argument stronger. I have previously argued that banning circumcision might have a harmful effect on the Jewish religion. As you have so ably pointed out, some Jewish people are already abandoning many religious practices - they get tattoos, they don't keep kosher, they marry non-Jews, etc. This is not an argument for abandoning another Jewish practice, it is an argument for preserving as much of Judaism as possible.

The fact that some Jews don't follow some Jewish practices does not mean all Jews should be prohibitted from following a Jewish practice. Already our religion is being eroded by the sea of secularism. It does not follow that we should abandon our efforts to preserve it.


So why can't commandment No. 17 die out too? Or be changed into a symbolic ritual that does not involve removing the foreskin, as is used when a non-Jewish man who is already circumcised converts to Judaism?


Incidentally, we don't refer to our religious rules by number. We're Jews, not Ferengi.

[ClintonHammond]

"it is an argument for preserving as much of Judaism as possible."

So, we should also preserve flat-earth-ism? Maybe we should still 'burn witches'... Or treat peoples 'humours' when they don't feel well....

Cause if you're going to preserve one ignorant stupidstition, you aughta preserve them all.


"But it is indeed the case that the use of artificial lubrication in standard intercourse (except when condoms are used which should be standard) is not common. Nor do most men feel the need to smear foreign substances on their penises when stroking them. They want more friction, not less."

Source?!?!?!?!? (This aughta be good....)

[Ivor the Engineer]

It has already been demonstrated by dozens of links to medical viewpoints that circumcision is medically neutral. It is not beneficial enough to reccommend, nor is it detrimental enough to reccommend against. This is the standard that the AAP and AMA follow.

Actually, infant circumcision is a very rare exception for the modern medical profession who on the whole do not just do what parents want to have done to their child's body. It might have something to do with the fact that the medical profession promoted circumcision as a cure-all for so many years they find it hard to admit that it should never of been offered so widely in the first place.

The medical profession in the US created the demand for the procedure but it now refuses to bring circumcision back within therapeutic bounds, probably in part because of nutters like Dr. Schoen (the head of the 1989 AAP task force on circumcision), who has expressed in several medical journals that he thinks circumcision is such a great idea that ALL infants should be circumcised. Everywhere. That sounds like an objective view of the evidence:rolleyes:

[Ivor the Engineer]

Actually, it makes my argument stronger. I have previously argued that banning circumcision might have a harmful effect on the Jewish religion. As you have so ably pointed out, some Jewish people are already abandoning many religious practices - they get tattoos, they don't keep kosher, they marry non-Jews, etc. This is not an argument for abandoning another Jewish practice, it is an argument for preserving as much of Judaism as possible.

Only if you think that the changes that have already taken place have been detrimental. For example, do you think better integration into the community because of Jews marrying non-Jews is a good or bad thing?

The fact that some Jews don't follow some Jewish practices does not mean all Jews should be prohibitted from following a Jewish practice. Already our religion is being eroded by the sea of secularism. It does not follow that we should abandon our efforts to preserve it.

So do you consider yourself to be part of a hardcore Jewish minority, while other Jews, doing their best to integrate by altering their beliefs and practices to be more into line with 21st century thinking, are sell-outs?

Incidentally, we don't refer to our religious rules by number. We're Jews, not Ferengi.

Oh, ok.

[Loss Leader]

So do you consider yourself to be part of a hardcore Jewish minority, while other Jews, doing their best to integrate by altering their beliefs and practices to be more into line with 21st century thinking, are sell-outs?


Your question contains too many unwarranted assumptions to be taken seriously.

[ClintonHammond]

That's a cop-out response

[Gurdur]

Okay, what the hell? Loss Leader is the one who brought up his Jewish heritage into this. In fact, he has done so quite vocally, quite insistently, and had no qualms about using it to play the victim. That's what we are making fun of, not the fact that he's Jewish.
Get off it and stop whining. If you want to try making stupid, bigoted remarks, be a man and at least acknowledge what you're doing.

The fact you're "making fun", so-called, only destroys your own argument; you're making hysterical personal abuse, is what. It certainly isn't convincing to those of us who don't give much of a heck either way about male circumcision.

[ClintonHammond]

"to those of us who don't give much of a heck either way about male circumcision"
Then why are you in this thread at all?

[Skepticybe]

... vestigial foreskin Americans will continue to, by some majority, to circumcise their male children.

...
I certainly have not been convinced that foreskins are not repulsive.
There's nothing irrational about carefully weighing the advantages to having one against the advantages of not having one, and coming to an evidence based decision that the have-nots are better off. And there is nothing irrational about coming to that same conclusion for your child who is in no state to make ANY decisions for themselves about anything (some would argue this holds true until they're about 35).
The is something profoundly irrational about ignoring the function of the foreskin and continuing to call it "vestigal", just so you can feel better about your own penis and justify what you've done to your own kids.

Exactly the same kind of irrationality that keeps Mr. Randi busy.

You talk as if you've "weighed the advantages", but you had your mind made up the first time you looked between your legs.

[BlackKat]

The is something profoundly irrational about ignoring the function of the foreskin and continuing to call it "vestigal", just so you can feel better about your own penis and justify what you've done to your own kids.

Exactly the same kind of irrationality that keeps Mr. Randi busy.

You talk as if you've "weighed the advantages", but you had your mind made up the first time you looked between your legs.

What function? It has no significant function to me since I am not a nudist in a temperate to arctic climate.
Thanks but I wear underpants. Don't need it.

Again for the bizillionth time in this thead somebody says "Only my viewpoint of what is sacred is right". Try having an open mind about penises. There's room for all kinds. Nobody is forcing you to get circumcised. If your family does not value the sleek aerodynamics of my jet age penis that is their own business. But my family does value streamlining.

By the same logic you apply to penises only your view of what is Art is right. Same must go for music? So whose records should we burn now?

Seriously though ...
The medical studies show that there may be some advantages to circumcision and that there may be some disadvantages to circumcision. None are equivocal enough to reccommend either course as a standard practice. That's why doctors just tell the facts both ways and let the parents make the decision. Obviously somebody weighed the evidence for me and circumcision won. In the same situation with me doing the weighing I see slightly more advantages medically, and tons more socially (which is much harder to quantify and depends a lot on the society you live in).

[Skepticybe]

I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.
Now that we've established how you prefer your penii, maybe we should hear from the other women?

I have never even heard of an instance of a girl backing out when learning that her love hadn't suffered a partial penile amputation. But then again, I don't exactly hang around with the BMEzine people either.
Having never taken a communal shower with other men I'm not sure what sort of teasing may occur. But I'm sure someone else here who went to middle schools that had such things in their gym locker rooms could contribute.
Took plenty of communal showers in Jr high, high school, locker rooms at public pools, etc. Never had any problem whatsoever. But I've never spent much time around guys who are big on the whole penile exam thing.

I have to say, for a circ'd guy who's never had a communal shower, you're quite the expert when it comes to all the details of adult uncut penii.

[BlackKat]

Now that we've established how you prefer your penii, maybe we should hear from the other women?
Oh noes. I've been called gay. Whatever shall I do.


I have never even heard of an instance of a girl backing out when learning that her love hadn't suffered a partial penile amputation. But then again, I don't exactly hang around with the BMEzine people either.

Imagine you're expecting to see a penis circumcised and you've never in your life seen a foreskin. Your initial reaction is going to be "WTF?" If you knew what came out of the pores in the foreskin and what can grow in it you wouldn't put one in your mouth, why should they? Sure you will argue. People who clean there don't have an issue. But frankly I can't trust men to be hygenic as they have a strong tendency towards unhygenic behavior.


Took plenty of communal showers in Jr high, high school, locker rooms at public pools, etc. Never had any problem whatsoever. But I've never spent much time around guys who are big on the whole penile exam thing.

I have to say, for a circ'd guy who's never had a communal shower, you're quite the expert when it comes to all the details of adult uncut penii.
This is because I don't blindly take the evidence from one side but have read all the pros and cons on circumcision and made my decision. It just happens to be a different decision than yours.

[kellyb]

But frankly I can't trust men to be hygenic as they have a strong tendency towards unhygenic behavior.
The desire to get it on seems to be a pretty strong motivator.
I've had intact boyfriends and circed boyfriends. It's y'all nuts that get funky, by the way. :)

[Skepticybe]

Both of you are from Canada which means you don't count. We're talking about Americans as in from the USA.

And the statements I made are not BS as you so rudely put it.
I am in the US. When I grew up, less than 5% were uncut. I wasn't just in the minority, I was the only one. In fact, through jr high and high school, I can only remember a single time noticing another boy was uncut.

I got more action than everyone I knew except one, and that's because he was less selective than me. I got plenty of blow jobs, never tried for anal. And yes, your statements were complete and utter BS. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just making stuff up to defend your penis.

Nowadays, it's still a majority in my state, but not by much, and circ'd guys are going to be in the minority soon. Supposedly, one of the rationales for cutting is conformity. Soon, cut guys will be in the minority even in the US. Probably within the next 10 years. It won't take women long to figure out that they orgasm easier with uncut guys, and the circ'd guys are going to find themselves not only in the minority, but less desirable because of this procedure that was forced upon them under the auspices of making them more desirable. Then, thanks to the internet, they can read all about how functional and pleasurable their foreskin was, but that has now been forever taken from them. Gee, thanks dad.

[Morrigan]

Get off it and stop whining. If you want to try making stupid, bigoted remarks, be a man and at least acknowledge what you're doing.

The fact you're "making fun", so-called, only destroys your own argument; you're making hysterical personal abuse, is what. It certainly isn't convincing to those of us who don't give much of a heck either way about male circumcision.

Hmm. Your post drips with so much irony, I fear I'll drown. Let's see.
1) The only person "whining" here is you. Osmosis and I were just kidding around a bit, then you decided to come in and throw a tantrum, shrieking at our alleged evil, nasty bigotry.
2) The only one being "hysterical" here is, again, you (see above). Get off your high horse will you?
3) I'm not a man.
4) You seem to be implying that acknowledging one's fault (or whatever you think I should be doing) is a manly behaviour. Are you saying that women cannot do that? Or that "hiding what you're doing" is womanly behaviour? OMG SEXIST BIGOT!!
5) If you don't care about the topic, then just leave the thread, and stop being whiny and hysterical. ;)

What function? It has no significant function to me since I am not a nudist in a temperate to arctic climate.
Thanks but I wear underpants. Don't need it.

People have gone to great lengths to explain the functions of the foreskin to you in this thread. That you keep repeating that its only "use" is protection from the cold will not make it suddenly true.

Again for the bizillionth time in this thead somebody says "Only my viewpoint of what is sacred is right". Try having an open mind about penises. There's room for all kinds. Nobody is forcing you to get circumcised.
Hilarious, and ironic, to be asked to have an open mind from someone who thinks that "foreskins are repulsive" and who refuses to even listen when other people list off their uses. And the whole debate is about forcing circumcisions on people: namely vulnerable, defenseless infants.

Anyway, please, please stop pretending you have "an open mind", when you just repeat the same thing over and over again and don't listen to anything Ivan, kelly or anyone else says and have clearly made up your mind since day one. It's pretty damn disingenuous. Especially considering you have been asked time and time again to provide evidence for your claims, and have yet to post a single word about that.

[Ivor the Engineer]

This is because I don't blindly take the evidence from one side but have read all the pros and cons on circumcision and made my decision. It just happens to be a different decision than yours.

All I want parents to do is give their son the chance to do the same for his own body. There is no urgency for the procedure to be done.

By leaving the child intact he is given the right to choose.

You like having the right to choose, don't you?

[Ivor the Engineer]

The desire to get it on seems to be a pretty strong motivator.

As the spread of herpes proves.

"Men are motivated by holes."

I've had intact boyfriends and circed boyfriends. It's y'all nuts that get funky, by the way. :)

Really! In what way:confused:

[BlackKat]

I am in the US. When I grew up, less than 5% were uncut. I wasn't just in the minority, I was the only one. In fact, through jr high and high school, I can only remember a single time noticing another boy was uncut.

I got more action than everyone I knew except one, and that's because he was less selective than me. I got plenty of blow jobs, never tried for anal. And yes, your statements were complete and utter BS. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just making stuff up to defend your penis.

Nowadays, it's still a majority in my state, but not by much, and circ'd guys are going to be in the minority soon. Supposedly, one of the rationales for cutting is conformity. Soon, cut guys will be in the minority even in the US. Probably within the next 10 years. It won't take women long to figure out that they orgasm easier with uncut guys, and the circ'd guys are going to find themselves not only in the minority, but less desirable because of this procedure that was forced upon them under the auspices of making them more desirable. Then, thanks to the internet, they can read all about how functional and pleasurable their foreskin was, but that has now been forever taken from them. Gee, thanks dad.

I don't really see a strong pattern of decline:
http://www.circlist.com/rites/usa.html

Nor do I understand where you get the idea that circumcision has anything to do with female orgasms. Here's some very basic web reading but a whole book could be written on the subject.
http://www.cwluherstory.org/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html
http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp
http://femaleorgasmsecrets.com/orgasmmyths.html

[BlackKat]

All I want parents to do is give their son the chance to do the same for his own body. There is no urgency for the procedure to be done.

By leaving the child intact he is given the right to choose.

You like having the right to choose, don't you?


Some people day trade and some people are content to have 401ks.

Really I like having anything at all surgical in nature done to me as early as possible. Circumcision. Ear Tubes. Corrective podiatric surgery. All before I was old enough to care about anything but eating and pooping. If only there had been a way to take care of my wisdom teeth back then.

[kellyb]

Really! In what way
I dunno...it's just...nutfunk?
Maybe it's old sweat or something? Mixed with some kind of hormonal secretions?
Either way, with proper hygiene it's not an issue. :)

[kellyb]

I don't really see a strong pattern of decline:
http://www.circlist.com/rites/usa.html

You know that's a circumcision fetish site, don't you?

ETA:

Look at one of the "testimonials" a little more than halfway down the page:

I've been doing circumcisions since I was a medic in the Army - mostly at Fort Bragg and then in Korea in the 1970's. In Army hospitals, a medic could "tutor" under a Medical Officer and then carry on. Circs became my specailty and the patients were plentiful. Mostly healthy, 18 to 21 year olds who the Army wanted to prepare for jungle warfare by removing their foreskins. Mostly guys from the midwest or the south where infant circ was obviously not as common. The Gomco (or cookie cutter as we called it) was the "weapon" of choice and after observing a few, I took over and my mentor was so impressed with my handy work that I took over the practice, doing as many as 20 in a day. High and tight was the style of the day and just like a military haircut, the soldier was never asked "how do you want it?" I did ask how much they wanted to feel - some didn't want to feel anything, but some (like the Green Berets) wanted to take it "like a man". I did pride myself in my suturing and follow up and was proud of every job.

When I arrived in Korea at the 121 Evac, I found that my previous boss at Bragg had called ahead to arrange for the Urology doc to meet me at the door. By day 2, I was dropping them left and right but not in the same quantity as at Bragg. With this duty came many privileges usually reserved for officers and I ate it up.

I really never counted but I rarely did less than 12 a day and sometimes 20 or more. I was not the only one performing the circs - but the only non-physician that was doing them. We were a big preparation center for soldiers going overseas to S.E.Asia and many were done to prepare them for jungle survival.

I did do some experimenting just to break the boredom. I would cut looser sometimes but that was frowned upon. Mostly I experimented with pain control and how much local to inject and how slowly to close the clamp and different topical applications. I also did a lot of study on different guys "threshold of pain" and how they reacted differently to the same procedure. I really didn't like the Green Berets because they treated anyone not a Beret as inferior, so I like to shame them in to taking their cut "like a man" without any anesthetic. I was not being mean or sadistic, because they really liked the challenge. They would grip the table and tears would run down their cheeks before they would admit they needed some local anesthetic injected.

Even better was watching their face turn red with embarrassment when I would prep them with warm Phisohex water and they would get an erection. They certainly didn't want anyone to think they were enjoying having another guy wash their dick! But actually it was easier to scrub it when it was hard, and it went down immediately when the insturments came out (or the syringe).

I started to save the skins in a jar of formalin solution, but the doc got wind of that and said it was sick and made me get rid of them. I thought maybe I'd save them up and take them to the leather shop and have something made. I had thought about a wallet - that turned into a suitcase when you rubbed it.
Randy

[BlackKat]

...

Anyway, please, please stop pretending you have "an open mind", when you just repeat the same thing over and over again and don't listen to anything Ivan, kelly or anyone else says and have clearly made up your mind since day one. It's pretty damn disingenuous. Especially considering you have been asked time and time again to provide evidence for your claims, and have yet to post a single word about that.

So if I don't fall down on my knees and say "Oh Morrigan I've been so deluded. Please enlighten me!" I don't have an open mind?

If you can provide me with evidence that men who are circumcised have worse sex lives Then and only then will I believe you. I (and others in this thread) have already linked the same studies that show there is no detriment to having no foreskin so many times. I'm not going to link them again just because you're too lazy to go back to page 5 or whatever it is. Nobody has shown more than opinion pieces that show circumcision is bad for you. Nothing more than hysterical Freudian vomit.

[BlackKat]

You know that's a circumcision fetish site, don't you?

No it's not.
It is a pro-circumcision site.
But the numbers on circumcisions in the USA don't lie. They're just taken from the US DHHS.

[kellyb]

No it's not.
It is a pro-circumcision site.
.

Oh yes it is. :cool:

[BlackKat]

Oh yes it is. :cool:

Oh not it's not.







seriously. You're going to take a post in the blog section and use it to quantify a web site?

By that method I could read my own posts here on this forum and decide JREF was a pro-circ group.

[Skepticybe]

It's been stated in this thread that proper cleaning of an uncircumcised penis is essential, correct? How much time does one spend in the shower cleaning one's uncut penis? 30 seconds? 1 minute?
How long does it take you to lift your arm to wash your armpit? Not the actual washing, just the time spent lifting the arm. That's how much longer it takes to care for an uncut penis.
I myself have weighed the positive and negative effects of circumcision.
This is disingenuous, your penis-defense mechanism has entirely ignored the function and usefulness of the foreskin, and you continue to refer to it as "useless" and "vestigal", and hold to the inane argument that somehow modern underwear performs the same function. You most certainly have not considered the negative effects, you refuse to even acknowledge them!
Maybe I do not value body integrity as much as most people... I do come from a subculture where tatttoos, piercings, hair dying, etc are all considered almost mandatory.
This is the only subculture I can think of where lack of body modification might be seen as a valid reason to refuse sex. Quick question, how many of these tattoos were performed on incapacitated infants at the request of the parents? Or does your particular subculture still place value on one making one's own decisions regarding their body, with the obvious exception of the penis?
And I would gladly circumcise any son of mine as I am ecstatic that I was circumcised as an infant. But by the statements people make here almost every US parent is some sort of sadomasichistic monster. They are not. They just want their child's penis to be right and to them right=circumcised.
How exciting for you! Congratulations! What is wrong with the child deciding once he is old enough to make the choice himself? Why can't a person choose for themselves what is "right" for their own penis? I notice all of the pro-circs in this thread steadfastly avoid that question.
I really have noticed in this thread that with very few exceptions, the people who are against circumcision are using a lot more rude or insulting language than they normally would. Why is that? What is it about this subject that makes them so emotional?
Do you not see the rudeness that has been present in so many of your own posts?
Most people who are pro-circumcision think of the foreskin is a genetic throwback to penile sheathes animals that walk around on all fours use to keep the thing from dangling overmuch and keep it warm.Most people? This just illustrates how out of touch you are. Most people don't think beyond "it's what you do when you have a baby boy", let alone to analyze the evolutionary history behind the foreskin. Your assertions keep getting more and more absurd.
Since we have underpants and walk upright this is why we don't have as much of a sheathe as in the past, and why eventually people will not be born with foreskins at all(or body hair for that matter).

Wow. OK first, can you explain for the rest of us mere skeptics exactly how underpants and walking upright replace these foreskin functions:
- Protecting the glans from keratinization and desensitization
- Provide a gliding action during intercourse
- Provide increased sensation and sensitivity during intercourse and foreplay

And could you also explain how humans will eventually be born without foreskins? By what process observed today would boys with a genetic tendency toward smaller foreskins be favored for survival and reproduction until eventually no foreskin was present?

You've presented an unfounded assertion that foreskins are without any value or function for a human who wears underpants, then piled on the absurdity (and demonstrated your lack of understanding of the evolutionary processes) by proclaiming that human males will eventually be born without foreskins. Apparently your only justification for this is your stubborn and unfounded assertion that the foreskin has no value.

The only foreskin function that underpants can replace is the need to keep the glans warm.
To all those who claim sex is better uncut:
If it were any better than it is cut, I'd be a sex maniac and my wife would be bow legged and sore on the bottom all the time.

Nobody claimed that it made the sex drive stronger, only that sex was more pleasurable. There is no reason (to my knowledge) to think that circumcision would make any difference one way or the other when it comes to sex drive. And more pleasurable sex does not equate to becoming a sex maniac and wearing your wife raw. On the contrary, you and your wife would simply get more satisfaction from the sex you have anyway.

Thus with the advent of underpants we do not need foreskins to keep penises warm or protect the glans at all.
What protects your glans from the damage caused by your underpants? What protects your glans from drying out and becoming less sensitive as a result of being in constant contact with a dry cloth?

Oh, right. Nothing.

[kellyb]

Oh not it's not.







seriously. You're going to take a post in the blog section and use it to quantify a web site?

By that method I could read my own posts here on this forum and decide JREF was a pro-circ group.

The circlist owners pick and choose what to put up. That wasn't a "blog section".
Just look at their "resources" page!

http://www.circlist.com/resources/resources.html

http://www.icon.co.za/~hugot/circum/

CIRCLIST Member Mini-Gallery is a 'members only' site containing before, during and after circ photos, and stories (fact & fiction):

tp://www.noharmm.org/CAtuli.htm

A web site showing other examples of ritual Filipino circumcision (albeit from an anti-circ point of view) is as folllows: Faces of Circumcision: Tuli Ritual of Filipino Boys (Philippines H O M E The Cycle of Abuse: Faces of Circumcision "Tuli" Ritual of Filipino Boys (Philippines) Filipino "tuli" is usually done on "Black Saturday," the day after Good Friday, during the Christian Easter season

And then look at the discussion groups circlist links to:

"groupteencirc"
"circumcisionfetish"
"circumcisedkids"
"eroticmalecircumcision"

[kellyb]

http://www.icon.co.za/~hugot/circum/

CIRCLIST Member Mini-Gallery is a 'members only' site containing before, during and after circ photos, and stories (fact & fiction):

Oh...password to that one is "procirc".
Go in and read "The Doctor and Darren" and tell me these guys aren't a bunch of circumcision fetishists.

[Skepticybe]

Earlobes yes, tattoos yes, labia no.
The criteria is "Is this procedure medically beneficial or at least neutral?"

"I choose to ignore all of the benefits and function of foreskin, and the ethical considerations implied, therefore it's nuetral."

Well done.

What function? It has no significant function to me since I am not a nudist in a temperate to arctic climate.
Thanks but I wear underpants. Don't need it.
I've explained this over and over and over. Somehow your penis ego has inoculated you against considering any loss of function.

Nobody is forcing you to get circumcised. That's just the point, this is being done to people without their consent and in many cases against their future wishes.

You've demonstrated quite nicely what I think is the real reason for RIC in the US, and that's the father's need to not feel inadequate. Were it not for your own need to feel that your penis is every bit as good as a whole one, plus better looking, you'd be able to comprehend the function of a foreskin beyond keeping the glans warm.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh...password to that one is "procirc".
Go in and read "The Doctor and Darren" and tell me these guys aren't a bunch of circumcision fetishists.

LOL!!:D

BlackKat,

I won't tell anybody. Honest.

[BlackKat]

How long does it take you to lift your arm to wash your armpit? Not the actual washing, just the time spent lifting the arm. That's how much longer it takes to care for an uncut penis.

This is disingenuous, your penis-defense mechanism has entirely ignored the function and usefulness of the foreskin, and you continue to refer to it as "useless" and "vestigal", and hold to the inane argument that somehow modern underwear performs the same function. You most certainly have not considered the negative effects, you refuse to even acknowledge them!

This is the only subculture I can think of where lack of body modification might be seen as a valid reason to refuse sex. Quick question, how many of these tattoos were performed on incapacitated infants at the request of the parents? Or does your particular subculture still place value on one making one's own decisions regarding their body, with the obvious exception of the penis?

How exciting for you! Congratulations! What is wrong with the child deciding once he is old enough to make the choice himself? Why can't a person choose for themselves what is "right" for their own penis? I notice all of the pro-circs in this thread steadfastly avoid that question.

Do you not see the rudeness that has been present in so many of your own posts?
Most people? This just illustrates how out of touch you are. Most people don't think beyond "it's what you do when you have a baby boy", let alone to analyze the evolutionary history behind the foreskin. Your assertions keep getting more and more absurd.


Wow. OK first, can you explain for the rest of us mere skeptics exactly how underpants and walking upright replace these foreskin functions:
- Protecting the glans from keratinization and desensitization
- Provide a gliding action during intercourse
- Provide increased sensation and sensitivity during intercourse and foreplay

And could you also explain how humans will eventually be born without foreskins? By what process observed today would boys with a genetic tendency toward smaller foreskins be favored for survival and reproduction until eventually no foreskin was present?

You've presented an unfounded assertion that foreskins are without any value or function for a human who wears underpants, then piled on the absurdity (and demonstrated your lack of understanding of the evolutionary processes) by proclaiming that human males will eventually be born without foreskins. Apparently your only justification for this is your stubborn and unfounded assertion that the foreskin has no value.

The only foreskin function that underpants can replace is the need to keep the glans warm.


Nobody claimed that it made the sex drive stronger, only that sex was more pleasurable. There is no reason (to my knowledge) to think that circumcision would make any difference one way or the other when it comes to sex drive. And more pleasurable sex does not equate to becoming a sex maniac and wearing your wife raw. On the contrary, you and your wife would simply get more satisfaction from the sex you have anyway.


What protects your glans from the damage caused by your underpants? What protects your glans from drying out and becoming less sensitive as a result of being in constant contact with a dry cloth?

Oh, right. Nothing.

Not ignoring other functions of foreskins. Comparing and contrasting those functions with circumcised penises negates them. Studies back that people who are circumcised range from having the same sexual functionality to having better sexual functionality (by a slight margin) than non-circumcised males. This means any purpose of a foreskin in sexual activity is extraneous. And the same studies show a lack of certain types of sexual activity compared to men who were circumcised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
Yes it's Wikipedia but they've collected links to all the studies needed in the references.
Note it also addresses the myths of drying glans.


As for why not wait to perform circumcisions?
Simply put:
Easier to perform on babies.

Same reasons for this:
http://www.gofeet.com/childrensfeet.html
This:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/positional_plagiocephaly.cfm
And this:
http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=550
All being treated ASAP.

[Ivor the Engineer]

From BlackKat's fetish site:

http://www.circlist.com/preferences/feelcut.html

I am uncut and have been keeping my skin retracted for more than 15 years. In fact my skin only covers a little bit of my corona now when I am flaccid. To keep your skin off your head, you may want to try wearing some tight underwear which keeps the penis in a fixed position all the time. Keep your skin retracted at all times. Once you find it slipping forward, go to the toilet and skin it back again. The key is to keep it retracted for as long as possible continously. Gradually your skin will completely loosen up and learn to stay back. Even if it is long enough to cover the head, somehow it will 'crease up' like your elbow skin and can never cover the head continously anymore.

The interruption of sleep was experienced by me, but it did not last more than 2 weeks. Soon or later the skin of the glans will toughen up (well in fact it will 'peel' off as if you had a sunburn). In about 1 month, it will completely dry up. You can then try to masturbate like a cut man, using your dry hand on your dry glans. The painful sensitivity is gone - you can touch your glans anyway you want and clean it anyway you want - unlike before.

However, I think that having a long and loose frenulum is essential if you want to keep your skin peeled back at all times; otherwise, a circumcision is recommended.

There's also a handy illustrated guide demonstrating how to use sticky-tape to hold your foreskin back for up to 3 days at a time. You never know when you might need to know how to do that.:)

[BlackKat]

LOL!!:D

BlackKat,

I won't tell anybody. Honest.

Actually the funny thing is (and I'm sure one of the resident Freuds will chime in here and say I'm lying) I am not "pro-circumcision". That would imply that I think everyone should be circumcised. Whereas someone "anti-circumcision: would be against anyone getting circumcised.

Circumcision is not a black and white issue though (few are).
I am in the middle as are most people. I think every parent should be entitled to make the decision whether for or against. I would decide for because I value the results of the procedure and don't value the foreskin. Others should have the right to make the same decision I would make for their children. And Others still should have the right to retain their child's foreskin. I would be just as voiceferous as I am in defending circumcisions towards someone who came in the post and said that ALL children should be circumcised. Whether one "likes" foreskins or not is all opinion.

Really it's not that different a subject than abortion rights.

[Skepticybe]

Uh, yeah, that is a circ fetish site. Not just pro-circ, but all about eroticizing circumcision. Ewww.:yikes:

For the non-pornographic presentation of circumcision rates:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

I live in the western region, only 31% now. That seems about right based on the other parents I know.

Oh just think about all those poor, poor, circumcised boys that just won't fit in with their peers because their penis is different.:rolleyes:

[kellyb]

There's also a handy illustrated guide demonstrating how to use sticky-tape to hold your foreskin back for up to 3 days at a time. You never know when you might need to know how to do that.
Yeah. Not a fetish site. Right.

In all seriousness, there are a bunch of pro-circ fetish sites. But I've never, ever run across an anticirc site that was goofy in that way.

Wonder what it is about the procircumcision thing that brings out the weirdos?
Oh, and can I say that I absofu**inglutely hate these guys?

They don't just collect images of grownups doing it...they like to link to vidoes and pictures of little kids getting mutilated for their masturbatory pleasure, too.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Psychos.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Note it also addresses the myths of drying glans.

Myth's your fetish site claims are advantages.

As for why not wait to perform circumcisions?
Simply put:
Easier to perform on babies.

Same reasons for this:
http://www.gofeet.com/childrensfeet.html
This:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/positional_plagiocephaly.cfm
And this:
http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=550
All being treated ASAP.

All those are deformities or infections. The mis-shapen head can ONLY be corrected during infancy.

Foreskin is both healthy, normal and functional.
There is rarely any medical reason to remove it as an infant.
Uncircumcised men are just as happy with their penises as you are.
Women can orgasm at least as much with an uncircumcised man as circumcised.
There has been no evidence provided that women will not provide oral sex for an uncircumcised man.

All you have left to argue is Loss Leaders point that the law currently allows you to inflict your idea of perfection on your child, therefore it is "right" and nobody can stop you.

That is a really pathetic argument.

[BlackKat]

Uh, yeah, that is a circ fetish site. Not just pro-circ, but all about eroticizing circumcision. Ewww.:yikes:

For the non-pornographic presentation of circumcision rates:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

I live in the western region, only 31% now. That seems about right based on the other parents I know.

Oh just think about all those poor, poor, circumcised boys that just won't fit in with their peers because their penis is different.:rolleyes:

I don't see a decline in circumcisions on the charts on that web page, and that on an avowed foreskinoganda site.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Actually the funny thing is (and I'm sure one of the resident Freuds will chime in here and say I'm lying) I am not "pro-circumcision". That would imply that I think everyone should be circumcised. Whereas someone "anti-circumcision: would be against anyone getting circumcised.

Circumcision is not a black and white issue though (few are).
I am in the middle as are most people. I think every parent should be entitled to make the decision whether for or against. I would decide for because I value the results of the procedure and don't value the foreskin. Others should have the right to make the same decision I would make for their children. And Others still should have the right to retain their child's foreskin. I would be just as voiceferous as I am in defending circumcisions towards someone who came in the post and said that ALL children should be circumcised. Whether one "likes" foreskins or not is all opinion.

No one here is "anti-circumcision" as far as I can tell. If it's going to provide a significant medical benefit then I have no problem with it, so long as it is done with effective pain relief. I am pro-choice for the child.

Really it's not that different a subject than abortion rights.

I think it's a very different issue, but since you bring it up I'll say I have concerns about how late during pregnancy abortions are currently allowed to be performed.

In this day and age there is no need for any woman to be more than 10 weeks pregnant at the time of abortion, probably less. With the morning-after pill they should not be required at all.

[Skepticybe]

The results of any study of pleasure and sexual function relating to circumcision is highly suspect if it relies in any way on men self-reporting. Additionally, circumcised researchers have a built in motivation (that they probably don't even recognize) for the results to show the circumcised penis is equal or superior to an intact one. In many ways, a man's ego is his penis, and he can't see it as anything less than magnificent. Its not that they lie on purpose, its that their brains are wired to interpret the information in a self-promoting way.

In all cases where men were uncut, then were circumcized, there would be a strong (maybe even overwhelming bias) for men to report that they were more satisfied after the procedure. This is because to say otherwise would be to imply there is now something permanently wrong with their penis. Mens' egos are tied to their sexual identity, and men reporting that their sexual identity is not somehow damaged can't be taken as evidence that the foreskin has no function.

A perfect example of this can be found in the wikipedia article you cited:
In an American study of 123 men, Fink (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11956453) found that medically necessitated circumcision resulted in worsened erectile function (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erectile_function&action=edit) at the 99% confidence level, de-sensitization and/or delayed ejaculation at the 92% certainty level, but improved satisfaction at the 96% certainty level.So the study finds that it decreased sensitivity, caused erectile problems, but improved satisfaction. The improved satisfaction is a virtually guaranteed result, regardless of the other less subjective metrics.

I have to wonder if you even read that wikipedia article before you posted it to prove your point. It is very damning of your continued assertion that foreskin has no function (and therefor nothing is lost) if you wear underpants:
Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Foreskin_sensitivit y
There is a traditional belief that the foreskin is sexually sensitive ... Some recent researchers have also asserted that the foreskin may be sexually responsive
...
Circumcision removes the ridged band at the end of the foreskin [20]. Taylor (1996) observed that the ridged band had more Meissner's corpuscles — a kind of nerve ending that is concentrated in areas of greatest sensitivity [21] — than the areas of the foreskin with smooth mucus membranes. Taylor postulated that the ridged band is sexually sensitive and plays a role in normal sexual function. He also suggested that the gliding action, possible only when there was enough loose skin on the shaft of the penis, serves to stimulate the ridged band through contact with the corona of the glans penis during vaginal intercourse.
...
Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis."
...
Kim and Pang concluded, "There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings." It goes on, too much to quote. Even with the natural bias toward circumcision, the research is strongly indicating beneficial sexual function of the foreskin, regardless of whether men self-report satisfaction with their circumcision.

When it comes to the female's pleasure:
foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.
I don't claim that to be conclusive, but it is an indication of a function and benefit to the foreskin, and that there is good reason to believe that the foreskin contributes to the overall pleasure of sex for a man and maybe for the woman as well.

If any of it is true, infant circumcision is robbing another human being (and maybe his future wife!) of part of the sexual pleasure they would otherwise be able to experience as an adult. That is why FGM is wrong and it is why RIC is just as reprehensible.

That part of the pleasure, which is not hypothetical to me because I experience it every time, is something that you can't experience because of what was done to you against your will when you were an infant. Just because you are not able to experience it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[luchog]

I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.

Complete and total and in every other way horse, pig, dog, and pigeon *****. I'm not cut, and it's never been a problem for me.

I've been involved, over my life, with 22 different people. About a third long-term, the rest one(or two)-night-stands" (some hookups at fetish play-parties). Out of those, only four did not offer to perform oral sex. Of those three, one was interested only in conventional intercourse and "golden showers" (not my thing, which is why it never went anywhere beyond the one night), one did not perform oral sex on anyone after her first, circumcized, boyfriend (though was more than happy to receive), and one wasn't interested in anything that wasn't strictly focussed on her (and was the worst sex I've eve had).

Of the rest, three evinced a positive preference for uncut penises (one really liked playing puppets with them, she was a very silly girl, and quite good in bed). Two of them, one a really hot Jewish goth, were only interested in manual and oral sex, no intercourse.

I've never been interested in anal sex (although a couple of partners have mentioned an interest in it), so I can't speak to that.

Having never taken a communal shower with other men I'm not sure what sort of teasing may occur. But I'm sure someone else here who went to middle schools that had such things in their gym locker rooms could contribute. I grew up in a pretty redneck town.

Well, in my experience, absolutely none at all. Zero. Plenty of towel marks snapping for general purposes, but no teasing about physical attributes. Not even the fat kids.

I would be interested to learn (and not surprised to find it true) if Americans (due to higher rates of circumcision) are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex than their largely uncircumcised counterparts in other countries. A couple of the studies already linked here have hinted at this but since this has not been the focus of the study not really extrapolated on.
Not even remotely true. In fact, in areas where low rates of oral or anal sex are reported (such as North and Central Africa), studies have shown that it is, in fact, just as prevalent as in the west; but that reporting is greatly lower than the actuality due to social taboos. It happens, it's just not openly admitted to.

[Fengirl]

Reading through this thread, I doubt that I am the only woman who is rather amused by the references made (mainly by the defenders of circumcision) to the improved aesthetic qualities of a circumcised penis.

Guys, I have a little newsflash for you: most women don’t find male genitals, cut or uncut, particularly pretty. To be frank, your scrotums usually look like the neck skin of a badly plucked chicken and a flaccid penis is a rather sad and comical-looking thing, at the best of times. This is the reason why the atmosphere amongst the female audience at a Chippendales show is one of good-natured, screaming hilarity rather than steamy eroticism. It is also the reason why the market for pornography specifically aimed at heterosexual women is comparatively small. If you take a quick poll of the women around you, I doubt you will find many who list “genitals” as amongst the body parts they find most aesthetically pleasing in a man.

Personally, the only time I really appreciate the aesthetic qualities of a penis is when it is in my bedroom and ready for some action. At that point, there is almost no visible difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised one.

I also find the argument that women won’t want to perform oral sex on uncircumcised men because it’s not as “clean” to be very unpleasantly revealing. The idea that there might be millions of circumcised men out there who are under the impression that it’s ok not to wash your genitals before asking someone else to put them in their mouth is really quite alarming.

[Morrigan]

So if I don't fall down on my knees and say "Oh Morrigan I've been so deluded. Please enlighten me!" I don't have an open mind?
Strawman alert. I already explained why you don't have an open mind, and I'll repeat it: it's because you refuse to even consider the counter arguments and just repeat the same old tired nonsense. Not because you won't fall to your knees. :rolleyes:


If you can provide me with evidence that men who are circumcised have worse sex lives Then and only then will I believe you. I (and others in this thread) have already linked the same studies that show there is no detriment to having no foreskin so many times. I'm not going to link them again just because you're too lazy to go back to page 5 or whatever it is. Nobody has shown more than opinion pieces that show circumcision is bad for you. Nothing more than hysterical Freudian vomit.
I'm beginning to think that you are a troll.
You made a bunch of outrageous statements about the high chances of uncut men not getting laid and keep repeating that the only use of the foreskin is protection from the cold, REFUSE to provide a single shred of evidence for those claims, and now instead change the subject and ask others for evidence when the onus is on you?
Pathetic.

Reading through this thread, I doubt that I am the only woman who is rather amused by the references made (mainly by the defenders of circumcision) to the improved aesthetic qualities of a circumcised penis.

Guys, I have a little newsflash for you: most women don’t find male genitals, cut or uncut, particularly pretty. To be frank, your scrotums usually look like the neck skin of a badly plucked chicken and a flaccid penis is a rather sad and comical-looking thing, at the best of times. This is the reason why the atmosphere amongst the female audience at a Chippendales show is one of good-natured, screaming hilarity rather than steamy eroticism. It is also the reason why the market for pornography specifically aimed at heterosexual women is comparatively small. If you take a quick poll of the women around you, I doubt you will find many who list “genitals” as amongst the body parts they find most aesthetically pleasing in a man.

Personally, the only time I really appreciate the aesthetic qualities of a penis is when it is in my bedroom and ready for some action. At that point, there is almost no visible difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised one.

Oh, you aren't the only female indeed. This bizarre notion that uncut penises are "repulsively hideous", repeated ad nauseum by Blackkat and others, is more funny than outrageous, since the appearance of an uncut erect penis is so similar to a cut one with the foreskin pulled back.

But, I wonder. Perhaps Blackkat suffers from the delusion that women think flaccid penises are beautiful and sexy-looking?
If so, well... :newlol :newlol Poor lad.


I also find the argument that women won’t want to perform oral sex on uncircumcised men because it’s not as “clean” to be very unpleasantly revealing. The idea that there might be millions of circumcised men out there who are under the impression that it’s ok not to wash your genitals before asking someone else to put them in their mouth is really quite alarming.
No kidding.

[BlackKat]

Strawman alert. I already explained why you don't have an open mind, and I'll repeat it: it's because you refuse to even consider the counter arguments and just repeat the same old tired nonsense. Not because you won't fall to your knees. :rolleyes:


Um. You're doing the same thing. We're all running in circles. That's my point in essence. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything. That's why the decision to circumcise is left up to the individual parents.


I'm beginning to think that you are a troll.
You made a bunch of outrageous statements about the high chances of uncut men not getting laid and keep repeating that the only use of the foreskin is protection from the cold, REFUSE to provide a single shred of evidence for those claims, and now instead change the subject and ask others for evidence when the onus is on you?
Pathetic.


No. I said high chance of no oral sex, not "getting laid", and refered specifically to "with American women" who expect to see a penises circumcised. I didn't ask you to show me evidence you can get laid here in the U.S. so I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't think American women don't think penises should be circumcised why then do so many have their sons circumcised??

Also you're acting as if I said Almost every woman in the world. I said Most American Women. So please stop acting like I said things I did not.

And why are you acting so hostile? You and others on this post took what was otherwise a fairly civil discourse and thoroughly trashed it. Why don't you stop using insulting words in your posts like troll and pathetic? How are we supposed to have a rational discourse on this subject when people are calling each other names?


Oh, you aren't the only female indeed. This bizarre notion that uncut penises are "repulsively hideous", repeated ad nauseum by Blackkat and others, is more funny than outrageous, since the appearance of an uncut erect penis is so similar to a cut one with the foreskin pulled back.

But, I wonder. Perhaps Blackkat suffers from the delusion that women think flaccid penises are beautiful and sexy-looking?
If so, well... :newlol :newlol Poor lad.

No kidding.

To me circumcised penises look funny, and non-circumcised penises look gross. That's because looks are subjective. Two men could look at the same female and one thinks she is ugly wheras there other is attracted.
Finding aesthetic constants is pretty difficult.

But here is a study showing female preference for cicumcised penises (in America because it was done there)
http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html

[Ivor the Engineer]

BlackKat, you're missing the point (again).

Human rights transcend culture. They are for everybody on the planet.

Why do you think removing a body part from another human to suit your preference does _not_ violate that individual's human rights?

[BlackKat]

BlackKat, you're missing the point (again).

Human rights transcend culture. They are for everybody on the planet.

Why do you think removing a body part from another human to suit your preference does _not_ violate that individual's human rights?

It's not as black and white as that. You have to weigh the cultural aspects, the body part in question, the procedure involved, the rights of the parents to make decisions for their children, and the right of the individual, medical benefits, and medical detriments.

No one of those factors automatically trumps the others.

The same fuzzy grayness is true in the debates over abortion rights, euthinasia, cloning.

While I know what decision I would make on infant circumcision I don't agree there should be any blanket policy in either direction on the matter.

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's not as black and white as that.

Yes, it is. You think it is for your body, don't you?

You have to weigh the cultural aspects

No, you don't.

the body part in question

No, you don't.

the procedure involved

Only when there is clear medical indication can physical harm (i.e. a surgical or medical procedure) be consented to by another. If a doctor performed a non-indicated surgical or medical procedure on you without your personal consent you could prosecute him/her for actual bodily harm.

Circumcision is not medically indicated in the vast majority of infants.

the rights of the parents to make decisions for their children

The child's rights trump their rights, just as your rights trump mine with respect to your body.

and the right of the individual

For medical procedures that's all that matters.

medical benefits, and medical detriments.

In the case of infant circumcision these cancel out. It is actually considered a waste of money for the National Health Service in the UK unless there are other medical indications.

No one of those factors automatically trumps the others.

Yes, one does. The individual's basic right to body integrity. It is universal.

The same fuzzy grayness is true in the debates over abortion rights, euthinasia, cloning.

No, the right to body integrity holds for these too.

While I know what decision I would make on infant circumcision I don't agree there should be any blanket policy in either direction on the matter.

The only blanket policy is the one that everybody on the planet (including you) believes in to their very core: What happens to your body is your choice.

The only exception is when you need medical intervention and are unable to give consent.

[Loss Leader]

The only exception is when you need medical intervention and are unable to give consent.


First of all, I am not with Black Kat. I just want to make that clear. I do not endorse any of those arguments.

Second of all, the stuff from the circumcision fetish site was just weird.

Third, I hope you understand that your statement above is what you wish were the rule. It's what you think should be the rule. It is not the actual rule in any western nation and certainly not the US.

Last, I just want to repeat that the stuff about US women preferring one type of penis I do not agree with and it in no way represents my thinking.

[Skepticybe]

BlackKat, again you ignored all information which supported function and benefits of the foreskin beyond keeping the glans warm. And, avoided the issue that if ANY of the benefits claimed are true then circumcising an infant is robbing him of some of the future pleasure he will get from sex.

Instead you respond by repeating unfounded statements like "the foreskin serves no purpose for men who wear underpants" and "lots of American women won't have sex with uncut penises" and "evolution means that boys will eventually be born without foreskins". And now the new one, "circumcision is like the abortion debate". Red herrings all. But if that's what it takes to defend your penis, and your decision to force yourself on your child, so be it.

The core issue remains that there is a lot of evidence, even if not conclusive, that the foreskin contributes to the pleasure of sex for both the man and the woman. In light of even a reasonable possibility that the foreskin contributes to pleasure, each medically unnecessary circumcision of an infant is a human rights violation which potentially robs another unwilling person of some of the pleasure life has to offer. Infant male circumcision is morally wrong and unethical for precisely the same reason that FGM is wrong.

Lets boil this down. We have a procedure which:
1) Is irreversible
2) Is guaranteed to result in the loss of part of a sexual organ, and likely to reduce the sensitivity of what remains
3) Research, though not conclusive, indicates that sexual pleasure and function will be reduced for the patient and possibly their sexual partner. But the patient will still be capable of achieving orgasm.
4) Might make the patient slightly more desirable to some sexual partners
5) Provides some level protection against easily treated or prevented diseases/conditions
6) In an infant, will probably result in some secondary infection due to fecal contact with a wound
7) In rare cases results in other serious complications
(notice that this list applies to FGM also)

Most adults, properly informed, would not choose this procedure. If they do, fine, adults can do what they want. I bet that even BlackKat, if offered another procedure with exactly the above benefits and drawbacks, would say "hell no my penis is perfect the way it is".

[BlackKat]

First of all, I am not with Black Kat. I just want to make that clear. I do not endorse any of those arguments.

My only arguement is that parents can and should be able to choose.
I though you agreed with that.
The rest is why I personally would circumcise my kid. No odder than your reasons.


Second of all, the stuff from the circumcision fetish site was just weird.

I'm still not convinced it's a fetish site per se but I'll take Kelly's word for it. I choose to link from the site because it has collected a number of reports in one place. That's all. I have also linked reports from anti-circumcision sites if I felt their data proved my point.


Third, I hope you understand that your statement above is what you wish were the rule. It's what you think should be the rule. It is not the actual rule in any western nation and certainly not the US.

Agree there.


Last, I just want to repeat that the stuff about US women preferring one type of penis I do not agree with and it in no way represents my thinking.
I'm merely repeating what I have been told by women around me, what certain other men have said in this thread, and what I confirmed by looking at some informal polls and formal studies.
And I don't even know for sure that the perceived reasons for the preference are important as it could just be as simple as prefering what one is used to. That's why I prefer the way circumcised penises look. Because that what I'm used to penises looking like. I also prefer seeing cars drive on the right side of the road but you won't see me running off to England on a crusade to convert them.

[Fengirl]

To me circumcised penises look funny, and non-circumcised penises look gross. That's because looks are subjective. Two men could look at the same female and one thinks she is ugly wheras there other is attracted.
Finding aesthetic constants is pretty difficult.



Well, that’s a perfectly valid argument for an adult male being allowed to have himself circumcised if he chooses. The freedom to choose what happens to our bodies is a fundamental right, and if you were in possession of a foreskin you no longer wanted, I would happily march and wave placards in support of your informed decision to make your genitals look the way you prefer or the way you believe your sexual partners will prefer or the way in which your religious convictions dictate is necessary.

My only arguement is that parents can and should be able to choose.

How is it not hypocritical to champion the rights of parents to choose to rob their child of his future right to choose?:eye-poppi

[Gurdur]

"to those of us who don't give much of a heck either way about male circumcision"
Then why are you in this thread at all?

Because I like to read the evidence on the pros and cons. Sorry if that upsets you. Some of us skeptics actually like rounding out our views and carefully considering all points. Again sorry if you have something against that.

Oh wait. I'm not sorry at all.

[Ivor the Engineer]

First of all, I am not with Black Kat. I just want to make that clear. I do not endorse any of those arguments.

Second of all, the stuff from the circumcision fetish site was just weird.

Third, I hope you understand that your statement above is what you wish were the rule. It's what you think should be the rule. It is not the actual rule in any western nation and certainly not the US.

Last, I just want to repeat that the stuff about US women preferring one type of penis I do not agree with and it in no way represents my thinking.

Yeah, the US is one of the few western countries that did not sign up completely to the UN Charter on Human Rights*.

It is actually the 'rule' in the European Union except politicians, constantly looking not to offend voting minority groups, pass local laws that provide exceptions to it.

What usually happens is some individual or small group takes a case to the European court of human rights and the judges then decide if these exceptions are valid.

There has been some interesting cases in the UK too. Generally, it is moving in the direction I stated in my previous post. The individual's rights are being upheld by the courts more often.

*Because some states in the US still believe the death penalty is ethical. But that's a whole different argument;)

[BlackKat]

BlackKat, again you ignored all information which supported function and benefits of the foreskin beyond keeping the glans warm. And, avoided the issue that if ANY of the benefits claimed are true then circumcising an infant is robbing him of some of the future pleasure he will get from sex.

Instead you respond by repeating unfounded statements like "the foreskin serves no purpose for men who wear underpants" and "lots of American women won't have sex with uncut penises" and "evolution means that boys will eventually be born without foreskins". And now the new one, "circumcision is like the abortion debate". Red herrings all. But if that's what it takes to defend your penis, and your decision to force yourself on your child, so be it.

The core issue remains that there is a lot of evidence, even if not conclusive, that the foreskin contributes to the pleasure of sex for both the man and the woman. In light of even a reasonable possibility that the foreskin contributes to pleasure, each medically unnecessary circumcision of an infant is a human rights violation which potentially robs another unwilling person of some of the pleasure life has to offer. Infant male circumcision is morally wrong and unethical for precisely the same reason that FGM is wrong.

Lets boil this down. We have a procedure which:
1) Is irreversible
2) Is guaranteed to result in the loss of part of a sexual organ, and likely to reduce the sensitivity of what remains
3) Research, though not conclusive, indicates that sexual pleasure and function will be reduced for the patient and possibly their sexual partner. But the patient will still be capable of achieving orgasm.
4) Might make the patient slightly more desirable to some sexual partners
5) Provides some level protection against easily treated or prevented diseases/conditions
6) In an infant, will probably result in some secondary infection due to fecal contact with a wound
7) In rare cases results in other serious complications
(notice that this list applies to FGM also)


My point is not that it has no sexual function. It was that the sexual function is minor to the point of being negligble. The same way that uncircumcised penises are more likely to give females cervical cancer, spread disease, or get UTIs is minor to the point of being neglible.
In short +1-1=0.
Medically neutral procedure.

Oh and I never said:
lots of American women won't have sex with uncut penises
But it's been shown that men who are not circumcised get less oral sex.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
And that women in America tend like circumcsied penises better.
http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html

And this is true (although that's not how I phrased it):
circumcision is like the abortion debate
You may have an absolute moral opinion about the issue, but that does not mean this is a black and white issue.

6+7 almost never occur when the procedure is performed in U.S. Hospitals. Complication rate is rather low.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html


Most adults, properly informed, would not choose this procedure. If they do, fine, adults can do what they want. I bet that even BlackKat, if offered another procedure with exactly the above benefits and drawbacks, would say "hell no my penis is perfect the way it is".
Nope. Have had it peirced.

[Ivor the Engineer]

But it's been shown that men who are not circumcised get less oral sex.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

That study concludes women prefer uncircumcised penises!

And this is true (although that's not how I phrased it):
circumcision is like the abortion debate
You may have an absolute moral opinion about the issue, but that does not mean this is a black and white issue.

The right to health and life are universal for individuals. The gray area for abortion is when the fetus may be classed as an individual.

ETA: Except for the few cases where individuals are sustained only by life support systems and are not expected to recover.

6+7 almost never occur when the procedure is performed in U.S. Hospitals. Complication rate is rather low.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Complication rates are estimated at 2%. Mild infection of the wound is very common.

Nope. Have had it peirced.

And there I was thinking you were just 1 standard deviation away from the mean:covereyes:D

(I think I'd have more chance convincing Loss Leader circumcision is a bad idea)

[Morrigan]

That study concludes women prefer uncircumcised penises!

[...]

(I think I'd have more chance convincing Loss Leader circumcision is a bad idea)

If his "evidence" are studies that negate his point of views, then I'm willing to agree. :newlol

[Skepticybe]

My point is not that it has no sexual function. It was that the sexual function is minor to the point of being negligble.
You said over and over and over that the foreskin has no value for men who wear underpants. The wikipedia article, which you referenced to support your argument, overwhelmingly contradicts your assertion and documents why there is strong reason to believe that the foreskin provides meaningful function and benefit.

When we are talking about use and function and benefits, we are only talking about meaningful use and function and benefits. It is only meaningless to you because you can't feel it, and you need to tell yourself that you're not really missing out on anything.

The same way that uncircumcised penises are more likely to give females cervical cancer, spread disease
WTF are you talking about? This sounds like the same superstition of "the foreskin does nothing for men who wear underpants".

Oh and I never said:
lots of American women won't have sex with uncut penises
Fine. I'll quote it directly:I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.



But it's been shown that men who are not circumcised get less oral sex.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
And that women in America tend like circumcsied penises better.
http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html

You keep trying to make the argument that men who are not circumcised won't be able to get the sex they want, for the sole reason that they are not circumcised. This is not supported by anything you have cited.

First, correlation is not necessarily causation. Some studies (cited earlier in this thread) have shown that circumcised men are more likely to exhibit sexual behavior that many would see as "extreme" or "deviant". Well, duh! If you've lost all that sensitivity and can no longer get the full pleasure from sex, it makes perfect sense that you'd be more motivated to try (or insist on) new things. You have done nothing to demonstrate that being uncut will reduce a man's ability to receive oral sex if that's what he wants.

Second, you make a leap from "women in America tend like circumcised penises better" to "uncircumcised means less sex". This is also unwarranted, and you have done nothing to demonstrate that it would make enough of a difference to enough women that an uncircumcised man would ever get turned down on that basis.

Third, you have an amazing ability to carefully pick-and-choose which data from each study you'll pay attention to. Just like the dowsers remember only the confirming "hits" and forget the "misses". You do know you're on a skeptic site, right?

You linked to the wikipedia article and ignored the majority of the article that contradicted your assertions.

You linked to http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/ (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/) but ignored information such as CIRP Note: The results of this survey are somewhat obscurely stated. This survey surveyed 138 women. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred non-intact circumcised sexual partners while 118 or (85.5%) preferred intact non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners. and With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).
Yes, the study you just linked to provides yet more evidence that circumcision interferes with a man's ability to give a woman pleasure.

The sources you cite overwhelmingly seem to contradict your assertions rather than support them, with the exception of the circ fetish site.

6+7 almost never occur when the procedure is performed in U.S. Hospitals. Complication rate is rather low.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

6) Infant boys in the US don't poop in their diaper? Come on.
7) I have personally known the families of two different cases where the circumcision developed serious complications requiring multiple surgeries to correct later, and it still isn't known whether the boys will have full sexual function as adults. Saying complications aren't worth considering in the US is just putting your head in the sand.

Nope. Have had it peirced.
Peircing does not fit that list, although I will concede that it shows a willingness to modify one's penis.

Since you've introduced that into the discussion, let's apply your illogic to peircing:
What do you think is the percentage of men who make the decision to get their penis peirced? I think it's very low
What do you think is the percentage of women who find a peirced penis less attractive than an unpeirced one? I'd bet the farm that more women find a peirced penis less attractive than an unpeirced one
What do you think is the number of women who would refuse sex with someone with a peirced penis? again I'd bet the farm that it's more women than would refuse sex with an uncut penis
What do you think is the number of women who would refuse oral sex with someone with a peirced penis? certainly it would be higher than the number who would refuse it on the basis of non-circumcision

And finally, what did your wife say when you peirced your infant son's penis? If you didn't peirce his penis, why not? Do you think parents should be permitted to peirce the genitals of their infant children? Why or why not?

[kellyb]

And finally, what did your wife say when you peirced your infant son's penis? If you didn't peirce his penis, why not? Do you think parents should be permitted to peirce the genitals of their infant children? Why or why not?

Beh...
If you even took an infant to a peircer for a genital peircing, they'd probably call CPS on you after calling you a sick freak and kicking you out.

[Loss Leader]

(I think I'd have more chance convincing Loss Leader circumcision is a bad idea)


I am one hundred percent convinced that if parents don't want their child circumcised, he should not be circumcised. I am completely and totally against mandatory circumcision.

I'll go a step further: I am one hundred percent convinced that Jewish parents who don't want their child circumcised should not have their child circumcised. Although I speak in no way for my religion (which has little to no centralized authority in any case), I would not discriminate in any way against a Jewish male who was uncircumcised. I would not look down on the parents, consider them "less" Jewish or bear them any negativity whatsoever.

My only contention is that Jewish parents who want to circumcise their children be allowed to do so. The religious authorities whom I trust are united in believing that circumcision is an important religious rite and I personally have had my son circumcised (and will have the new guy circumcised when he gets here in 14 weeks).

[Skepticybe]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

It's worth pointing out a few things here. This paper covers most of the medical benefits of circumcision that have been discussed in this thread, and weighs those benefits against the risks of circumcision.

UTIs
Despite the increased relative risk in uncircumcised infants, the absolute incidence of UTI is small in this population (0.4%-1%).18 Depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI.16,19 In this case, a large relative risk reduction translates into a small absolute risk reduction because the baseline prevalence is low. One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition.20

Penile Cancer
because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified

HIV/STD
behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections

Conclusion
Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
...
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision

Wow! We have these guys on our side, right? Except that circumcision is big money, so it's not surprising that they avoid taking a stand on the issue.

Most notably, this paper does not even consider the medical and functional value of the foreskin. They have artificially restricted their consideration to:
- The procedure is not necessary to a child's well-being
- What are the medical benefits
- What is the risk, excluding harm caused by loss of the foreskin

They don't claim the foreskin has no use, value, or function; they avoid the topic entirely.

Using the AMA's methodology, they could likewise conclude that FGM is not medically justified, so it is up to doctors to educate parents before performing FGM, and to make sure adequate anesthesia is used for all FGM procedures:

1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for female genital mutilation.
2. Existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal female genital mutilation. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all female infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for female genital mutilation is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
3. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for female genital mutilation be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions.

[Skepticybe]

Beh...
If you even took an infant to a peircer for a genital peircing, they'd probably call CPS on you after calling you a sick freak and kicking you out.
I agree. But how would infant genital peircing be any worse than infant circumcision? Both would be done for social and cosmetic reasons, but peircing is far less destructive. If anything, society should be more outraged by an infant's circumcision than an infant's genital peircing.

[BlackKat]

If his "evidence" are studies that negate his point of views, then I'm willing to agree. :newlol

Alright then so I copied the wrong link.

Seventy-eight percent of male respondents reported being circumcised. Preferences reflected these percentages; 42 percent of women reported a strong preference for circumcised men, while only 7 percent preferred uncircumcised men. However, better than half the women with uncircumcised partners expressed some degree of preference for an uncircumcised penis.


But anyhow...
I'm just explaining why I (and other American circumcised males) enjoy being circumcised.

Ultimately, the point of this debate started out being about whether an infant is entitled to "body integrity". The answer I have argued is "Yes, except where that contradicts socially accepted practices that are medically neutral or beneficial.". Some of you feel it is irrelevant what those parents or medical professionals feel. Some of you feel it is not medically neutral although I have not seen much evidence of this. Nor have I seen more than a handful of men who are not happy it was done to them, and done early. Those who are not happy usually had some form of sexual impotence / mid-life crisis and there was not really anything other than testimonial that their impotence was not due to factors like ... them being 55.

So long as the majority of parents and medical professionals in the U.S.A. feel the procedure is medically neutral or beneficial the procedure will continue. It is in fact covered by most medical insurance providers. Doing some quick math...
About 2,000,000 male babies each year at 65% circumcision (that's generous because in the NE + Midwest where I've lived it's in the 80%s) that's:
1,300,000 circumcised babies each year in the U.S. give or take a few.

So are 1,300,000 sets of parents and doctors being sadistic or uncaring? Or are they doing what they believe is in the best interest of their child / patient. I'm going to vote the latter.

[osmosis]

Fascinating discussion. I never realized just how much circumcision changes the nature of a penis,
http://www.foreskin.org/33-color.htm

why did I click that link... why.. :(

[osmosis]

To all those who claim sex is better uncut:
If it were any better than it is cut, I'd be a sex maniac and my wife would be bow legged and sore on the bottom all the time.

Yes, you probably would be. I know I am. And somehow I keep meeting women who LOVE being bow legged and sore on the bottom all the time.

[osmosis]

Like your "Do not feed the Jew" remark? What was your excuse again?

I was not aware I needed an excuse. You seem to think so, but I'm guessing you're confusing my meaning. When I said "Jew", I was referring to the religion, not the ethnicity. If I had been referring to his ethnicity, which I cannot actually do because I don't actually KNOW what his ethnicity is, I would probably have used the word "Hebrew" instead (assuming that's his ethnicity.)

I believe you're simply failing to see the difference between two usages of the same word. Had I made a derogatory comment about his race or ethnicity, I could understand your apparent horror. However, I did not.

I hope this clears up your confusion; however, if you wish to berate me further, please do so via PM so as not to interfere with the discussion.

[osmosis]

Actually, it makes my argument stronger. I have previously argued that banning circumcision might have a harmful effect on the Jewish religion. As you have so ably pointed out, some Jewish people are already abandoning many religious practices - they get tattoos, they don't keep kosher, they marry non-Jews, etc. This is not an argument for abandoning another Jewish practice, it is an argument for preserving as much of Judaism as possible.

I've yet to see an argument for preserving Judaism in this thread. What I've seen is arguments that ritual genital mutilation must not be interfered with, because we "don't know what will happen" to Judaism if it is. I would expect an argument for Judaism to contain words like "Judaism is good because.."

Why the world at large should care what happens to Judaism (or Catholicism, or Bhuddism, etc) is anybody's guess. The part I have trouble with, however, is that some people place their traditions above human rights.

The fact that some Jews don't follow some Jewish practices does not mean all Jews should be prohibitted from following a Jewish practice.

True. The prohibition should be based on ethical grounds. It should be about protecting the human rights of infants from the delusions of their parents, not about who believes what or why.

Already our religion is being eroded by the sea of secularism.

Perhaps, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

It does not follow that we should abandon our efforts to preserve it.

Nor does it follow that it should be preserved in the first place. But I suspect you'll continue to be concerned nontheless, such is the nature of that particular meme.

[osmosis]

Nobody is forcing you to get circumcised.

Bingo! You just hit the nail directly on the head, and you don't even know it.

Maybe not me, but many others, and they can't even speak yet. By the time they can, they won't know what was done to them.

The reason we anti-circs get so uppity is because we actually care about other people, especially the helpless ones. Is that such a foreign concept to you?

[osmosis]

Nor do I understand where you get the idea that circumcision has anything to do with female orgasms.

I am qualified to answer this, being both uncut and a highly skilled provider of female orgasms.

It has to do with the connection between the man and the woman. The foreskin is not only loaded with nerve endings, it keeps the glans softer, moister and more sensitive. With my enhanced sensory equipment, the sensory experience is more intense and, perhaps more importantly, more detailed. I am more "in tune" with my lover, better able to perceive and respond to her in this most intimate act.

Since my penis remains an internal organ, it is also more on par with my partner's vagina, also an internal organ. Therefore, as Captain of the Love Boat, it helps me navigate towards a mutually orgasmic destination.

And, quite frankly, chicks really dig it. No joke. Yes, the foreskin has provided the occasional "surprise!" moment, but never any sort of revulsion. Most women I know who've had both either don't have a preference, or prefer uncut. Once or twice in my life I've met women with a definite preference for cut, but thankfully I didn't meet them in the bedroom. They weren't my type anyway.

[osmosis]

I dunno...it's just...nutfunk?
Maybe it's old sweat or something? Mixed with some kind of hormonal secretions?
Either way, with proper hygiene it's not an issue. :)

ROFLMAO!! "nutfunk" I'll remember that one! The closest thing I could find to that in the urban dictionary was nut cologne (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nut+cologne).

Seriously though, yes it's sweat and that special musk. Women get it too, what name could I make up for it.. :D

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ultimately, the point of this debate started out being about whether an infant is entitled to "body integrity". The answer I have argued is "Yes, except where that contradicts socially accepted practices that are medically neutral or beneficial.".

The infant is entitled to body integrity. The only exception is when a procedure is medically indicated. Otherwise (s)he gets to choose what is removed.

So are 1,300,000 sets of parents and doctors being sadistic or uncaring? Or are they doing what they believe is in the best interest of their child / patient. I'm going to vote the latter.

Doctors are making lots of money, inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering and committing actual bodily harm. And most of them know it. If I had my way I would prosecute them. What they are doing is a crime against humanity, something they vow never to use their training and skills for.

Parents have responsibilities to look after their child. The rights they have "over" the child are only provided so that they can fulfill these responsibilities. There is very rarely any need to circumcise an infant.

[cloudshipsrule]

Doctors are making lots of money, inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering and committing actual bodily harm. And most of them know it.

Fortunately for us our doctor offered a 'buy one, get one free' on circumcisions (March through June only), so we split the cost between our baby and my brothers. Worked out great!

[Ivor the Engineer]

Fortunately for us our doctor offered a 'buy one, get one free' on circumcisions (March through June only), so we split the cost between our baby and my brothers. Worked out great!

Infant circumcision: The perfect crime?

http://med-fraud.org/medical_fraud__and_the_criminal_3.htm

[cloudshipsrule]

Sarcasm aside from my previous posts, the anti-circ posters here have some very valid points, and it's made me think differently about circumcision.

[Blue Bubble]

Sarcasm aside from my previous posts, the anti-circ posters here have some very valid points, and it's made me think differently about circumcision.

That's very brave and shows you to be a true skeptic. You have my respect.

:clap:

[ClintonHammond]

" My only contention is that Jewish parents who want to circumcise their children be allowed to do so."

And what about parents who want their children's little fingers nipped at the last knuckle, or the ones who want their pinky-toes removed? Should I be allowed to have my child's earlobes removed? I'll wager one could removed a percentage of eyelid and still be "Medically Neutral"? (What an horrific phrase that is...)

[Skepticybe]

Sarcasm aside from my previous posts, the anti-circ posters here have some very valid points, and it's made me think differently about circumcision.
Kudos, man. I think most people have a tendency to dig in their heels and defend a position just because it's their position... I catch myself doing it too. Takes a lot to reconsider a position, something we should all do regularly. :)

Two thumbs up!

[Dabljuh]

I always thought the "Circumcision prevents UTIs" argument pretty funny. Not as funny as the "Penile Cancer" argument (Hey, cut off one of your lungs to reduce lung cancer risk) but still funny. Here's how it goes.

If an infant that is in the process of getting an UTI, gets circumcised, its no longer an UTI. Its sepsis, the pathogens now have easy access to the circulatory system, and with the blood loss and traumatizing pain, the kid's got a realistic chance to die, therefore what it gets is no longer classified as an UTI.

But hey, that's one way to reduce the UTI incidence.

[osmosis]

Sarcasm aside from my previous posts, the anti-circ posters here have some very valid points, and it's made me think differently about circumcision.

That's awesome! Not because you're starting to see things my way, but because you came here with an open mind and a desire to learn.

Starting to see things my way is just the icing on the cake :rolleyes:

[osmosis]

Just a thought, what happens to a half-Jewish baby? Half a circumcision? Do they take the left half or the right half..

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28circumc ision%29)ntroduction. Research, theory, and popular belief all suggest that penile sensation is greater in the uncircumcised as compared with the circumcised man. However, research involving direct measurement of penile sensation has been undertaken only in sexually functional and dysfunctional groups, and as a correlate of sexual behavior. There are no reports of penile sensation in sexually aroused subjects, and it is not known how arousal affects sensation. In principle, this should be more closely related to actual sexual function.

Aim. This study therefore compared genital and nongenital sensation as a function of sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Methods. Twenty uncircumcised men and an equal number of age-matched circumcised participants underwent genital and nongenital sensory testing at baseline and in response to erotic and control stimulus films. Touch and pain thresholds were assessed on the penile shaft, the glans penis, and the volar surface of the forearm. Sexual arousal was assessed via thermal imaging of the penis.

Results. In response to the erotic stimulus, both groups evidenced a significant increase in penile temperature, which correlated highly with subjective reports of sexual arousal. Uncircumcised men had significantly lower penile temperature than circumcised men, and evidenced a larger increase in penile temperature with sexual arousal. No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups. Uncircumcised men were less sensitive to touch on the forearm than circumcised men. A decrease in overall touch sensitivity was observed in both groups with exposure to the erotic film as compared with either baseline or control stimulus film conditions. No significant effect was found for pain sensitivity.

Conclusion. These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision. However, group differences in penile temperature and sexual response were found.

[kellyb]

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis


OBJECTIVE

To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.

CONCLUSIONS

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.




:p

[osmosis]

Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28circumc ision%29)

I hate to have to be the one to say this to you, but that's ridiculous! I'm kinda disappointed in you, Skeptigirl. Anyone can cherry-pick some study from somewhere that supports the conclusion they, for whatever reason, want it to support.

Here's something you may want to ask yourself Skeptigirl, why is it that you want to find this particular conclusion? Is it because you've already made up your mind, or is there some other motivating factor at play?

Simple logic dictates that amputating/excising/removing (whatever term you can handle) thousands of nerve endings will necessarily result in reduced sensation. Can you logically argue otherwise? (ETA: and desensitisation of the glans, which dries up a little and is constantly exposed to friction from clothing.)

It's amusing that the study also recorded a difference in forearm sensitivity? Exactly how would circumcision affect forearm sensitivity? The very idea smacks of homunculus. What probably happened is they didn't even know how to work the equipment properly, and I am, shall we say, skeptical of the study you quoted.

Did you read it all the way through, or just skim through to the part where they came to the conclusion you were seeking?

ETA: since I actually bothered to read the study, which I doubt you did, I noticed this:
*Riverside Professional Center, Ottawa, Canada; University of Nevada—Department of Psychology, Las Vegas, NV, USA; McGill University, Department of Psychology, Montreal, Canada; §McGill University Health Center (Royal Victoria Hospital), Montreal, Canada; ¶Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28circumc ision%29)

Skeptigirl,

I am the world expert on the sensitivity of my glans. I can guarantee you that applying direct, un-lubricated stimulation to my glans is at best irritating, both in sensation and physically and at worst, painful. Can you imagine what it would feel like to have 'dry-sex' Skeptigirl? If not, perhaps you should try it and then come back and tell us there is no difference in sensation.

Most circumcised men can masturbate without the need of lubrication. The only physically possible explanation for this is that their glans becomes harder and either less sensitive or their brain responds less to the constant stimulation because of habituation. Obviously, removing the sensitive tissue of the foreskin means that it can no longer provide sensation.

You refuse to admit the ethics of infant circumcision are dubious at best. The procedure is not medically indicated for the vast majority of infants. No sensible doctor in the UK would recommend circumcision for prevention of UTI in a healthy infant.

The American doctors and nurses performing circumcisions know that most of their patients do not require the surgery they are performing on them. This alone makes the procedure unethical and little (or in my mind, no) different from committing actual bodily harm on the child.

You and many medical professionals have been fooled Skeptigirl, either by the pro-circ. doctors in the medical community or yourself.

[robinson]

I hate to have to be the one to say this to you, but that's ridiculous! I'm kinda disappointed in you, Skeptigirl. Anyone can cherry-pick some study from somewhere that supports the conclusion they, for whatever reason, want it to support.

Here's something you may want to ask yourself Skeptigirl, why is it that you want to find this particular conclusion? Is it because you've already made up your mind, or is there some other motivating factor at play?

DING! DING! DING! We have a winnah!

... because you've already made up your mind...

I think that sums it up. Time for a new thread-

Trepenation: can any rational thinker defend it ?

[slingblade]

DING! DING! DING! We have a winnah!

... because you've already made up your mind...

I think that sums it up. Time for a new thread-

Trepenation: can any rational thinker defend it ?

I thought it was trephination, and I think everyone needs a brand new hole in his or her head.

[robinson]

Evidences? :D

[BlackCat]

I've been following this thread since it was resurrected, and although I'm pretty sure my mind is made up, a well-conceived argument could change my mind.

I've noticed that some pro-circ people seem to skip over questions that are uncomfortable to answer. But perhaps I could bring up one of these questions, phrased in a new way.

This isn't just directed at BlackKat.

I think every parent should be entitled to make the decision whether for or against. I would decide for because I value the results of the procedure and don't value the foreskin. Others should have the right to make the same decision I would make for their children. And Others still should have the right to retain their child's foreskin. I would be just as voiceferous as I am in defending circumcisions towards someone who came in the post and said that ALL children should be circumcised. Whether one "likes" foreskins or not is all opinion.
You almost had me agreeing with you there, until I thought about what you said some more, and a loophole entered my mind.

What if a parent said this about female circumcision? Would you still defend their right to decide?

(Note: "female circumcision" is merely used here to maintain civility, as "FGM" has inflaming connotations.)

[BlackKat]

...
Most circumcised men can masturbate without the need of lubrication. The only physically possible explanation for this is that their glans becomes harder and either less sensitive or their brain responds less to the constant stimulation because of habituation. Obviously, removing the sensitive tissue of the foreskin means that it can no longer provide sensation.
....

I wasn't aware most people even touch the glans during masturbation. Not because it is not sensitive, nor because it is too sensitive. But because the fingers wrap around the shaft of the penis and move up and down the shaft, rarely if ever getting that close to that end of the shaft. I suppose there are multiple techniques though... Maybe people with foreskins masturbate differently than people without...


What if a parent said this about female circumcision? Would you still defend their right to decide?
Nice name there...

IF and only if it was the least severe version of that practice which involves trimming the clitoral hood and not touching the clitoris at all, was performed by medical personnel in a safe and sterile manner, and was performed with at least emala. The problem people have with FGM is that it is often not the least severe version, is performed by some old lady in a mud hut with a piece of jagged glass, and is done not to beautify but to stunt sexual freedom.

[SYLVESTER1592]

is performed by some old lady in a mud hut with a piece of jagged glass, and is done not to beautify but to stunt sexual freedom.

1)Do you realize how close you just came to describing male circumcision?
Why do you think male circumcision is often so much different?...

2)FGM is performed mostly in Africa and islamic countries and they do the same thing for males in the same conditions...

3)FGM in the Western world is very rare to my knowledge, at least in the way you describe it, where as male circumcision is mostly accepted.

Let's not waste each other's time "demanding the evidence" or the exact numbers, when there is no clear case for the contrary and I don't have the time to stay in here for the entire duration of the debate.
I just like your opinion on these points.

SYL :)

[BlackKat]

Originally Posted by BlackKat
is performed by some old lady in a mud hut with a piece of jagged glass, and is done not to beautify but to stunt sexual freedom.

1)Do you realize how close you just came to describing male circumcision?
Why do you think male circumcision is often so much different?...


Male circumcision (in the U.S. anyhow) is performed in a hospital by a doctor with sterile surgical instruments and with the use of Emala cream. That should be how it performed everywhere. That it is not in some places is generally the result of an overall lack of proper health care in those places. And it is rarely done with anything other than cosmetics in mind. Occasionally it is to prevent recurrent UTIs or because of foreskin retraction issues or because the patient's religion requires it. Mostly it's done because people think that non-circumcised penises look weird.


2)FGM is performed mostly in Africa and islamic countries and they do the same thing for males in the same conditions...


Where the conditions I stated above exist is usually where there are little to no resources for healthcare. No hospitals. No clinics. Not even proper sanitation, running water, or electricity. There are industrialized, non-Western countries that do practice FGM however, and sometimes even in hospital settings. That's almost as disturbing.


3)FGM in the Western world is very rare to my knowledge, at least in the way you describe it, where as male circumcision is mostly accepted.

Yes it is rare.

[Loss Leader]

ETA: since I actually bothered to read the study, which I doubt you did, I noticed this:
*Riverside Professional Center, Ottawa, Canada; University of Nevada—Department of Psychology, Las Vegas, NV, USA; McGill University, Department of Psychology, Montreal, Canada; §McGill University Health Center (Royal Victoria Hospital), Montreal, Canada; ¶Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada



Osmosis, after being warned numerous times, you once again appear happily to wade into antisemitism. I will describe what you have implied and I will offer you a chance to retract or clarify your meaning.

The article cited was written by two PhDs and a medical doctor and published in a peer-reviewed journal. You quoted the footnotes which indicate where each doctor practices. You bolded "Jewish General Hospital." It was not in bold in the original article.

Your purpose was to imply that doctors at a "Jewish" hospital have a reason to skew their research to support circumcision. Otherwise, what was the point of bolding the fact that the name of one of the hospitals had the word "Jewish" in it?

In this case, however, you have allowed your hatred for Jews to overcome your reason. Here are the three doctors who authored the (peer-reviewed) study: Kimberley Payne, PhD, Serge Carrier, MD, and Yitzchak Binik, PhD. I will fully admit that one of these names sounds very Jewish. Dr. Binik no doubt enjoys a good latkah with apple sauce. But here's the thing: He's not the doctor who practices at Jewish General Hospital. Dr. Carrier is. And his name, to me, does not sound that Jewish.

But there's more: Dr. Carrier doesn't even just practice at Jewish General. The footnote which you claim to have read so carefully explains that he is also based at McGill University Health Center. In fact, McGill is listed first.

So, did a "Jewish" hospital commission a study to help shore up the case for circumcision as you would like us to infer? Or does one of the three doctors who co-authored the peer reviewed paper just happen to have privileges at one of the best hospitals in Montreal?

Oh right, that's my last point: See, my wife is actually from Montreal. My two neices were born at "the Jewish" (as it's called). Her family all still lives in Montreal. Guess what. It's part of McGill University, genius. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_General_Hospital) The name "Jewish" is no more important than the name Presbyterian is in Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center (which is now part of NYU).

Being a tolerant person, I will be glad to accept your apology. If I have misunderstood, I would be glad to hear exactly why you bolded "Jewish General Hospital" when you quoted the list of medical centers the doctors were affiliated with.

[Morrigan]

McGill University is actually famous for having most wealthy anglophone students, a lot of which are Jews, though. ;) (I also happen to be from Montreal.)
The Jewish General Hospital also has a kosher cafeteria, so the name "Jewish" in the hospital is not -completely- without significance either. Another anecdotal coincidence (?): my last job was a project which was funded by the Jewish Hospital, so we were technically employed by the hospital (they signed all our paychecks), and the sweet lady responsible for the human resources, basically our link to the hospital, was... you guessed it, Jewish. :)

I'm not saying this means the study is inherently skewed because of that, but because he implied potential bias doesn't mean he's an evil bigotted racist, so you can step off the soapbox now.

[osmosis]

Osmosis, after being warned numerous times, you once again appear happily to wade into antisemitism.

First off, your thinly-veiled threat about me "being warned numerous times" is like when I pet my cat and she drools on my pants.. cute, but in a distateful sort of way.

Second, I will not allow you to insinuate that I am racist. Full stop. I am against religion, not Jews in particular. Your attempts to turn this into a racial issue to paint me as a racist are pathetic, and merely underscore your desperation and lack of credible argument on this topic.

I will describe what you have implied and I will offer you a chance to retract or clarify your meaning.

How benevolent of you LL! <worship>

Your purpose was to imply that doctors at a "Jewish" hospital have a reason to skew their research to support circumcision.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Do not presume to dictate to me what my "purpose" is or was.

Otherwise, what was the point of bolding the fact that the name of one of the hospitals had the word "Jewish" in it?

Maybe it's significant, maybe not. I merely pointed it out. I leave it up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

You have allowed your hatred for Jews to overcome your reason.

Wouldn't you like to think so! Wouldn't it be great for you if everything boiled down to beliefs and inclinations. Wouldn't it be great for you if there was no such thing as objectivity, ethics or human rights. Wouldn't it be great for you if your religious beliefs vs. rational arguments really did end in stalemate. Wouldn't it be great for you if everyone who said anything you take offense to was not only wrong, but racist! (ETA: and wouldn't every circumcised man and proponent of circumcision like to think they've been robbed of nothing, and are robbing their children of nothing! And wouldn't they also like to think there was an ethical difference between circumcision and FGM.. I could go on and on.. )

I have not a shred of hatred for Jews or Hebrews, although it's hardly surprising to me that there are those who prefer to throw up the "antisemitic strawman" when the discussion turns towards their beloved ritual mutilation. Disappointing, perhaps, but not surprising.

I will fully admit that one of these names sounds very Jewish.

What's the name got to do with anything? Judaism's a religion, not a race. I think you're just trying to blur this distinction so you can play the antisemite card, and quite frankly I believe you are being disingenuous. J'accuse!

(Incidentally, calling you disingenuous is, in my mind, the greatest personal insult leveled at you in this thread so far.)

So, did a "Jewish" hospital commission a study to help shore up the case for circumcision as you would like us to infer?

I don't know, did it? Stranger things have happened! I do know one thing though, that study was either biased as heck, or performed by incompetents. That part is obvious, with or without Jewish affiliation.

If the Catholic church sponsored a study which reached the conclusion that birth control causes cancer, don't you think it would be wise to take those conclusions with a grain of salt?

It's part of McGill University, genius. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_General_Hospital) The name "Jewish" is no more important than the name Presbyterian is in Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center (which is now part of NYU).
The Jewish General Hospital also has a kosher cafeteria, so the name "Jewish" in the hospital is not -completely- without significance either.

That's funny, none of the hospitals I've ever been to had a kosher cafeteria. Surely it's merely coincidence, right? Surely merely pointing it out is a sign of racial hatred, right?

Being a tolerant person, I will be glad to accept your apology.

LOL! I don't think you're nearly as tolerant as you think you are. And don't hold your breath on that apology.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I wasn't aware most people even touch the glans during masturbation. Not because it is not sensitive, nor because it is too sensitive. But because the fingers wrap around the shaft of the penis and move up and down the shaft, rarely if ever getting that close to that end of the shaft. I suppose there are multiple techniques though... Maybe people with foreskins masturbate differently than people without...

Without going into too much detail, yes they do. The foreskin acts as a roller-bearing allowing indirect stimulation of the glans.

IF and only if it was the least severe version of that practice which involves trimming the clitoral hood and not touching the clitoris at all, was performed by medical personnel in a safe and sterile manner, and was performed with at least emala.

So what human rights (if any) do you believe infants have with respect to their body integrity?

What you fail to understand is that amputation equals physical harm. It really is that simple and doesn't matter how hi-tech the procedure is. The only ethical reasons to perform an amputation on an infant is if leaving the body part attached is likely to cause more harm than if it was removed, or obvious deformities.

The problem people have with FGM is that it is often not the least severe version, is performed by some old lady in a mud hut with a piece of jagged glass, and is done not to beautify but to stunt sexual freedom.

As SYL has already said, what makes you think male circumcision is performed under better conditions than female circumcision? Male circumcision can be very brutal.

[BlackKat]

Without going into too much detail, yes they do. The foreskin acts as a roller-bearing allowing indirect stimulation of the glans.

So what human rights (if any) do you believe infants have with respect to their body integrity?

What you fail to understand is that amputation equals physical harm. It really is that simple and doesn't matter how hi-tech the procedure is. The only ethical reasons to perform an amputation on an infant is if leaving the body part attached is likely to cause more harm than if it was removed, or obvious deformities.

As SYL has already said, what makes you think male circumcision is performed under better conditions than female circumcision? Male circumcision can be very brutal.

No more wire hangers!
Um circumcision is performed (in the countries that do it most) in hospitals with proper instruments and pain killers. That's because it's a legal, medical procedure. There's no need for back alley circumcisions in industrialized countries.

And I've stated about 40 times in this post already what my feeling on human rights are regards to body integrity.
Again:
So long as a procedure is medically and socially neutral or beneficial then it's ok. If it is detrimental then it is not.

This means that male circumcision, tattoos, ritual scarring, and piercings are all largely ok in my book if they are the social norm of the parents' culture. Other forms are not alright (particularly when they are used for gender based rights suppression).

I wouldn't choose any of those besides circumcision for myself or for my children, but that is because I live in the U.S.A. I'm not going to exhibit the hubris to universally condemn someone else's differing culture though without learning more about it. If something I find personally abhorrent means the child grows up happier and more socially functional amongst their people then I don't feel I have a lot of right to judge them or their parents.

On a side note have you not ever seen an episode of Taboo?
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/taboo/

[Ivor the Engineer]

Um circumcision is performed (in the countries that do it most) in hospitals with proper instruments and pain killers. That's because it's a legal, medical procedure. There's no need for back alley circumcisions in industrialized countries.

Yes, it’s given a veneer of respectability by doctors in the US. Gotta keep those dollars rolling in…

And I've stated about 40 times in this post already what my feeling on human rights are regards to body integrity.
Again:
So long as a procedure is medically and socially neutral or beneficial then it's ok. If it is detrimental then it is not.

This means that male circumcision, tattoos, ritual scarring, and piercings are all largely ok in my book if they are the social norm of the parents' culture. Other forms are not alright (particularly when they are used for gender based rights suppression).

Who do you think you are dictating that a particular culture should not give its men more rights than its women? Just because you find it abhorrent that in a particular culture the men dominate women doesn’t make it wrong.

I wouldn't choose any of those besides circumcision for myself or for my children, but that is because I live in the U.S.A. I'm not going to exhibit the hubris to universally condemn someone else's differing culture though without learning more about it. If something I find personally abhorrent means the child grows up happier and more socially functional amongst their people then I don't feel I have a lot of right to judge them or their parents.

What you have written above is an argument for allowing cultures to continue practicing FGM!

On a side note have you not ever seen an episode of Taboo?
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/taboo/

I’ve watched similar programs on UK TV.

BlackKat (and any others who agree with him), you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in cultural relativism or you believe human rights should be universal and independent of culture. I.e. you believe any cultures that disagree with you should be coerced into complying with your will.

For example, if you object that some cultures suppress their females and think it is right for the West to coerce them to stop doing it, then you do not believe in cultural relativism.

[Gurdur]

....Second, I will not allow you to insinuate that I am racist.
Amusing.
Full stop. I am against religion, not Jews in particular.

Sure, sure. There, there, there.

[ClintonHammond]

"I wasn't aware most people even touch the glans during masturbation."
You've exhibited a staggering lack of awareness when it comes to "Most People" all through this thread... why should this be any different? What you don't know could fill volumes!

"Your attempts to turn this into a racial issue to paint me as a racist are pathetic, and merely underscore your desperation and lack of credible argument on this topic."
+10! Don't be surprised if he adds you to his ignore list soon... cause that's his next step.

[BlackKat]

...
Who do you think you are dictating that a particular culture should not give its men more rights than its women? Just because you find it abhorrent that in a particular culture the men dominate women doesn’t make it wrong.

Hope you're being facetious.


BlackKat (and any others who agree with him), you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in cultural relativism or you believe human rights should be universal and independent of culture. I.e. you believe any cultures that disagree with you should be coerced into complying with your will.

For example, if you object that some cultures suppress their females and think it is right for the West to coerce them to stop doing it, then you do not believe in cultural relativism.

I believe in relative cultural relativism. If it does not do more harm then good then it's ok no matter how odd or wrong I find it. If it does more harm then good it's not ok no matter how right they find it. Determining this takes a lot of thought and study and it means knee jerk reactions are never warranted.

Qualifiers are used every day in law and courts worldwide (killing in self-defense, eminent domain, freedom of speech, etc). Why you feel I can't use them is boggling. Do you approach all issues as black or white?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hope you're being facetious.

Yes.

I believe in relative cultural relativism. If it does not do more harm then good then it's ok no matter how odd or wrong I find it. If it does more harm then good it's not ok no matter how right they find it. Determining this takes a lot of thought and study and it means knee jerk reactions are never warranted.

LOL! You're accusing me of a 'knee-jerk reaction'!

I'm not the one who had a child circumcised as soon as possible when there was no urgency to perform it at all!

Qualifiers are used every day in law and courts worldwide (killing in self-defense, eminent domain, freedom of speech, etc). Why you feel I can't use them is boggling.

Hmm. I wonder how the "I modified my normal, healthy child's genitals so they look nice to me." defence would sound to most reasonable people?

Do you approach all issues as black or white?

Only when it becomes apparent that what is being done to a child's body is stressful, painful, permanent and medically pointless. Then I don't care about your "culture" or any other excuse you offer to justify your brutal behaviour.

[BlackCat]

IF and only if it was the least severe version of that practice which involves trimming the clitoral hood and not touching the clitoris at all, was performed by medical personnel in a safe and sterile manner, and was performed with at least emala.
To be consistent, I suppose your answer would have to be that. You're not advocating for hood removal, but why would that procedure be ok?

So long as a procedure is medically and socially neutral or beneficial then it's ok. If it is detrimental then it is not.
So, to you, if a procedure is medically neutral, it's ok. That's why you might argue that removing the clitoral hood is ok. How can you be sure that these two procedures are medically neutral?

[BlackKat]

To be consistent, I suppose your answer would have to be that. You're not advocating for hood removal, but why would that procedure be ok?


So, to you, if a procedure is medically neutral, it's ok. That's why you might argue that removing the clitoral hood is ok. How can you be sure that these two procedures are medically neutral?

Removing is not. Trimming might be, depending on how it's done, where it's done, how much of it is done, etc. Would have to see some sort of medical consensus that it is being done in a safe manner and that it is not detrimental. And it would have to provide some degree of social benefit.

That consensus does exist for circumcision in the U.S. and while it is not a ringing endorsement of the procedure it is medically neutral.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
And from the link:
Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child's best interest and well-being.119 However, it is often uncertain as to what is in the best interest of any individual patient. In cases such as the decision to perform a circumcision in the neonatal period when there are potential benefits and risks and the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, it should be the parents who determine what is in the best interest of the child. In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.119

[osmosis]

Do you approach all issues as black or white?

I hardly see how this issue can be expected to get the same treatment as all issues. Your apparent lack of genuine concern on this particular subject (though for some reason you choose to participate) would be disturbing to me if I: a) thought I was seeing through to the "real you", and b) gave a rat's ass on a Melba Toast what your opinion was.

Considering how it does, after all, pertain to my cock, I for one am deeply invested in this particular debate. Not only that, I feel a deep sympathetic mourning for everyone, male or female, who has had genital (or any other, but especially genital) mutilation. To me, the very idea that anyone could be so ignorant and have so little respect for the intrinsic, inalienable human rights of their defenceless children is just completely beyond comprehension.

To see this pain and suffering rationalised away as minor, necessary or even worse, beneficial, is sickening. To see the "parents' right to choose" ritual mutilation for another individual supported is alarming. To see cosmetic/conformity brought up is, well, not even really worth including in the minutes of the meeting.

Some things really are "just wrong", and non-medical circumcision of unconsenting minors is absolutely one of those things. A kind of, and even worse than, statutory rape, in my opinion.

[osmosis]

In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.119[/i]
Rule 8 violation removed No matter who, or where, you are.

Please keep in mind the new Rule 8 guidelines and do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

[Z]

I'm just glad you guys don't make the laws here in the U.S.

:D

[osmosis]

So, to you, if a procedure is medically neutral, it's ok. That's why you might argue that removing the clitoral hood is ok. How can you be sure that these two procedures are medically neutral?

Clitoridectomy is equally "medically neutral."

[osmosis]

I'm just glad you guys don't make the laws here in the U.S.

:D

wow. that is ignorance at it's worst.

[osmosis]

Funny how many (presumably American) people have said something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter what arguments you make, you can't stop me because that's the way we do things here in the good 'ole U.S. of A and that's good enough for me."

I haven't seen anyone say anything, like, "I live in Uruguay/Finland/Canada/Antarctica/Neptune and I'm just glad you have no say in what I do."

You'd think having practically the entire rest of the civilized world imploring you to "think outside the box" just a little bit would get some neurons firing, but it just seems to make them ever more steadfast.

[SYLVESTER1592]

I haven't seen anyone say anything, like, "I live in Uruguay/Finland/Canada/Antarctica/Neptune and I'm just glad you have no say in what I do."

Uhum... ;)

PS. did you check out the new forum rules on rule 8 ? (referring to post 1353)

[Loss Leader]

********! No matter who, or where, you are.


Reported as a violation of the revised Rule 8.

[Z]

Reported as a violation of the revised Rule 8.

Oh, that was petty. Within your rights, sure, but petty.

osmosis, you're absolutely right about US'ers. We're very much like that on MANY topics - we don't give a rat's patootie about what the rest of the civilized world thinks, we're gonna do things our own way and screw everyone else. And we're often wrong on many of the things we choose to dig in about.

But that's the USA for you - always thinking outside the global box. :D

But seriously, that's what it boils down to for me - I see no harm in circumcision (or the exact female equivalent), I see potentially serious benefits to it (50% reduction in HIV transmission is enough to make it mandatory, IMO), and I do live in the U.S.A., where it's been common most of my life, and where a clean cut penis is far more attractive than a hooded bestial worm-thing. And I AM glad that you anti-circ wooists don't make policy in the U.S., because what I can clearly see, especially in this thread, is that the anti-circ crowd is given to being over-emotional, overly attached to unimportant bits of useless anatomy, and obsessive to the point of fanaticism that somehow removal of a bit of foreskin does irreparable damage, somehow.

When methodology was discussed, many emotive arguments were attempted - detailing babies crying out in pain, blood and gore, etc. Yet when the plastibell method was discussed, which combined with a topical pain-killing ointment causes no pain and extremely minimal blood loss, the anti-circ crowd switched topics. They brought up potential complications, but again - the plastibell method reduces the chance of complications to near-zero levels. And again, the A-C crowd switched topics.

There was even a very emotional appeal related to the removal of earlobes and other unnecessary body parts. Which failed, because the pro-circ crowd has no particular interest in bodily integrity over societal norm where drawbacks are as minimal as they are in circumcision.

And one poster - forgive me for not saying who, as I'm terrible with names and too lazy to go looking back through this thread - even admitted to attempting to stir the emotions of the readers. He actually seemed to value an appeal to emotions as if it were a good thing.

Sorry, but I just don't think that someone who relies on emotive manipulation would make a good lawmaker. Sadly, a lot of our lawmakers do just that.

[Morrigan]

Amusing.

Sure, sure. There, there, there.

:rolleyes: Stop being so damn insipid. Criticizing an aspect of a religion has nothing to do with racial hatred.


and where a clean cut penis is far more attractive than a hooded bestial worm-thing
...
the anti-circ crowd is given to being over-emotional, overly attached to unimportant bits of useless anatomy,
:newlol :newlol

Want some wax for your shiny Hypocrisy Award?


and obsessive to the point of fanaticism that somehow removal of a bit of foreskin does irreparable damage, somehow.

Ah, but it does.

By the way, for emotional reactions, I suggest you look in your camp, where disagreement with an ancient tribal ritual is implied to be racist...

[Ivor the Engineer]

...I see potentially serious benefits to it (50% reduction in HIV transmission is enough to make it mandatory, IMO)...

And hasn't that worked out well for the US, a country with one of the highest incidences of HIV in the developed world.

When methodology was discussed, many emotive arguments were attempted - detailing babies crying out in pain, blood and gore, etc. Yet when the plastibell method was discussed, which combined with a topical pain-killing ointment causes no pain and extremely minimal blood loss, the anti-circ crowd switched topics. They brought up potential complications, but again - the plastibell method reduces the chance of complications to near-zero levels. And again, the A-C crowd switched topics.

Absolute nonsense.

ETA: http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v22/n3/abs/7210653a.html

ETA2: Another ironic thing is that to train to be a doctor you often have to be interviewed and tested. Usually you are asked if you have had any experience in a medical setting such as a hospital, hospice or nursing home. This, along with aptitude and psychometric testing, is used to see if you're the right kind of person to become a doctor. One of the things the psychometric testing is looking for is the applicant's ability to empathize.

How, exactly, is a doctor performing an unrequired circumcision empathizing with their patient?

[Z]

And hasn't that worked out well for the US, a country with one of the highest incidences of HIV in the developed world.

Which is ironic (or alanic, not sure which), considering that several of you anti-circs were willing to accept circumcision for countries with high incidences of HIV.

Interesting, though, how the spread of HIV is inversly proportional to the incidence of circumcisions... Meaning, as less people get circ'd, more people get HIV.

Absolute nonsense.

Got some facts to go with that rebuttal? :D

ETA2: Another ironic thing is that to train to be a doctor you often have to be interviewed and tested. Usually you are asked if you have had any experience in a medical setting such as a hospital, hospice or nursing home. This, along with aptitude and psychometric testing, is used to see if you're the right kind of person to become a doctor. One of the things the psychometric testing is looking for is the applicant's ability to empathize.

How, exactly, is a doctor performing an unrequired circumcision empathizing with their patient?

Hmmm... a painless, harmless, quick and simple procedure that has no significant long-term side effects and numerous social, aesthetic, and health benefits... and with a 40% or greater chance that the doctor is also circumcised... I can see clearly that they can both empathize AND sympathize.

But if you think that this 'testing' is foolproof, you really are naive. All psychometric testing tends to show is that you've studied the expected responses. They've started pulling the same thing at our local airport for the food-service management, and once one manager passed the test, they all started to pass - because they were all spending extra evenings studying the 'desired' responses.

At least, that's here in the U.S., where the Hippocratic Oath means jack diddly squat and doctors HAVE to charge a thousand bucks to pull out a splinter (to cover their insurance rates).

But, I still stand by my statements. Firsthand experience tells me that there's nothing bad about proper modern circumcision, while uncircumcised children have a number of issues that circumcised children do NOT have. And for me, that's good enough. Bodily integrity? Pheh.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Which is ironic (or alanic, not sure which), considering that several of you anti-circs were willing to accept circumcision for countries with high incidences of HIV.

The environment and behaviours that drive the spread of HIV in Africa are different to those in the US.

Got some facts to go with that rebuttal? :D

Yes. Here's a report of a study that was linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm

"What we discovered was that the infants who were uncircumcised demonstrated the least pain during vaccination," Dr. Koren explains. "The infants who were circumcised showed substantially more pain."

So it appears children do experience "real" pain during circumcision and the psychological effects last months.

But if you think that this 'testing' is foolproof, you really are naive. All psychometric testing tends to show is that you've studied the expected responses. They've started pulling the same thing at our local airport for the food-service management, and once one manager passed the test, they all started to pass - because they were all spending extra evenings studying the 'desired' responses.

At least, that's here in the U.S., where the Hippocratic Oath means jack diddly squat and doctors HAVE to charge a thousand bucks to pull out a splinter (to cover their insurance rates).

I definitely don't think psychometric testing is foolproof;)

But, I still stand by my statements. Firsthand experience tells me that there's nothing bad about proper modern circumcision, while uncircumcised children have a number of issues that circumcised children do NOT have. And for me, that's good enough. Bodily integrity? Pheh.

Yes, you've already made your views on body integrity well known. They are definitely in the minority, even among pro-circ. people!

[kellyb]

Z,
What evidence do you have supporting your assertion that the plastibell method is painless?

[Z]

Yeah, I've never been one to follow the crowds.

Probably why I've never seen a single episode of 'American Idol'.

[Loss Leader]

Criticizing an aspect of a religion has nothing to do with racial hatred.


I agree with you completely. In what way is it "criticizing an aspect of a religion" to point out that one of the authors of a peer-reviewed study is affiliated with a hospital with the word "Jewish" in its name?

[BlackKat]

Yes. Here's a report of a study that was linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm

Quote:
"What we discovered was that the infants who were uncircumcised demonstrated the least pain during vaccination," Dr. Koren explains. "The infants who were circumcised showed substantially more pain."

So it appears children do experience "real" pain during circumcision and the psychological effects last months.


Hmm.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm
Quote:
The study involved 87 male infants in three groups: 32 uncircumcised infants; 29 infants receiving a topical anaesthetic prior to circumcision; and 26 who were circumcised without pain relief. The infants were recruited to the study through Women's College Hospital. Between ages four and six months, the infants received routine diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccinations from their primary care physician and their pain response to the vaccination was measured.

"What we discovered was that the infants who were uncircumcised demonstrated the least pain during vaccination," Dr. Koren explains. "The infants who were circumcised showed substantially more pain."


And directly from the study paper itself:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/
Quote:
Interpretation Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants. Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination. We recommend treatment to prevent neonatal circumcision pain.

The bolded above is S.O.P. in U.S. hospitals. Not sure if the same is the case in Canada where the authors are from...

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hmm.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm
Quote:
The study involved 87 male infants in three groups: 32 uncircumcised infants; 29 infants receiving a topical anaesthetic prior to circumcision; and 26 who were circumcised without pain relief. The infants were recruited to the study through Women's College Hospital. Between ages four and six months, the infants received routine diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccinations from their primary care physician and their pain response to the vaccination was measured.

"What we discovered was that the infants who were uncircumcised demonstrated the least pain during vaccination," Dr. Koren explains. "The infants who were circumcised showed substantially more pain."


And directly from the study paper itself:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/
Quote:
Interpretation Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants. Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination. We recommend treatment to prevent neonatal circumcision pain.

The bolded above is S.O.P. in U.S. hospitals. Not sure if the same is the case in Canada where the authors are from...

The report indicates being circumcised even when Emla was being used, caused an increased pain response to vaccinations compared to the uncircumcised group.

Also, don't be so sure about the number of physicians either using Emla (or better alternative anesthesia), or using it in a way that provides significant pain relief.

BTW, the most effective anesthesia for circumcision is provided by a subcutaneous ring block.

[osmosis]

Uhum... ;)

PS. did you check out the new forum rules on rule 8 ? (referring to post 1353)

uhm, yes, just now in fact :)

how long has that been in effect?

[osmosis]

I agree with you completely. In what way is it "criticizing an aspect of a religion" to point out that one of the authors of a peer-reviewed study is affiliated with a hospital with the word "Jewish" in its name?

Numpty! I was simply pointing out a potential source of bias. Next question.

[Loss Leader]

Numpty! I was simply pointing out a potential source of bias. Next question.


Tremendous. Why would the fact of one of the doctors' affiliation with a hospital with "Jewish" in the name be a potential source of bias?

[NewtonTrino]

I think this debate is pretty simple. The pro-circ crowd TRULY believes that the sensory loss is small to the point of being something not to be worried about. Considering how hard it is to gauge this kind of thing and the willingness of people to lie to themselves this is something that will just have to get changed over time. I sure hope we aren't doing this to children in 100 years (I surely don't care if adults want to do it to themselves).

I'm also a little curious about the masturbatory habits of those that are circ'd. Those of us that are uncut use the foreskin as a bearing, as was pointed out above, and this makes it a really nice way to masturbate. Do those circ'd people truly not use the glans? I would also be curious how difficult it is for them to reach orgasm in comparison, anyone have a study?

I've already read some stuff about the orgasm trigger using some nerves in the foreskin. Are circ'd people more prone to premature ejaculation or anything like that? I'm getting the feeling there haven't been too many studies about this kind of stuff...

[homer]

What's that saying in the USA ' If it ain't broke don't fix it ' . If you wish to prevent Aids try using a condom .
Years ago there was push by doctors to force the removal of tonsils regardless of any illness . Nowadays we are told they help prevent certain illness . Maybe this 'useless' piece of skin has some purpose .I don't know . Why take the risk of an operation unless it's necessary ?
As for Female mutilation this should carry a Jail sentence for everyone involved except the victim of course .

[BlackCat]

That consensus does exist for circumcision in the U.S. and while it is not a ringing endorsement of the procedure it is medically neutral.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

Even this report which you sited doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision. I fail to see how that makes circumcision medically neutral. How is it medically neutral?

But, I still stand by my statements. Firsthand experience tells me that there's nothing bad about proper modern circumcision, while uncircumcised children have a number of issues that circumcised children do NOT have. And for me, that's good enough. Bodily integrity? Pheh.
I'm sorry, but your "experience" is anecdotal. I've been told many times that I can't use myself as a reference, so you can't either. Is it possible that you've been conditioned by society to think that a cut penis is normal-looking? It's probably irrelevant to you, but I think people in countries where being intact is normal would say that a cut penis is just as ugly as you think an un-cut one is.

Also, I would like some information on these issues that circumcised boys avoid.

I'm curious as to why you would poo-poo bodily integrity. I'm not going to bring up any false analogies, but does this only apply to foreskin, or can it apply to other body parts, too?

[SYLVESTER1592]

uhm, yes, just now in fact :)

how long has that been in effect?
I'm not sure when the new addition to the forum rules was instated, but there was a banner with a message from Darat. So I think it's quite new.

Found it: http://forums.randi.org/announcement.php?f=68
It's in the new moderators anouncement, a change of the membership agreement. Starting 26th of July, so really very recently.

SYL :)

[Skepticybe]

IF and only if it was the least severe version of that practice which involves trimming the clitoral hood and not touching the clitoris at all, was performed by medical personnel in a safe and sterile manner, and was performed with at least emala. The problem people have with FGM is that it is often not the least severe version, is performed by some old lady in a mud hut with a piece of jagged glass, and is done not to beautify but to stunt sexual freedom.
No the problem is that an adult shouldn't be carving away at a baby girl or boy's genitals unless it is medically necessary. Especially for the detestable reason that the adults "prefer the look" of the carved genitals. Perverse in both cases.

And I've stated about 40 times in this post already what my feeling on human rights are regards to body integrity.
Again:
So long as a procedure is medically and socially neutral or beneficial then it's ok. If it is detrimental then it is not.

This means that male circumcision, tattoos, ritual scarring, and piercings are all largely ok in my book if they are the social norm of the parents' culture. Other forms are not alright (particularly when they are used for gender based rights suppression).
First: Medically neutral. Let me guess... to show medical neutrality, you would merely need to find some information on a pro-circ fetish site supporting your claim. You could then proceed to ignore all contradicting information, no matter how sound.

Second: Nice to see that you're consistent. Really, there is little difference between male and female circumcision; at the roots these customs are all about control and suppression of the individual. I have to wonder why you're drawing this arbitrary line about which types of genital body modification parents should be able to choose. It seems you're imposing your own ideas on cultures who believe that full FGM is necessary to the well-being of the child.

Removing is not. Trimming might be, depending on how it's done, where it's done, how much of it is done, etc. Would have to see some sort of medical consensus that it is being done in a safe manner and that it is not detrimental. And it would have to provide some degree of social benefit.
As we've seen, you'll ignore a mountain of evidence showing the harm to the individual. There is no medical consensus that circumcision is not detrimental; the research shows the opposite. In fact you posted several references showing the loss of foreskin to be detrimental to both the man and woman. Why do you think it is that you're so completely immune to the research showing that the foreskin is both functional and important?

But seriously, that's what it boils down to for me - I see no harm in circumcision (or the exact female equivalent)
The harm caused by circumcision has been explained many, many times. It has not been refuted, simply ignored by the pro-circs.

I do live in the U.S.A., where it's been common most of my life, and where a clean cut penis is far more attractive than a hooded bestial worm-thing.
Oh really? Not more attractive according to the information posted a few pages back.

And I AM glad that you anti-circ wooists don't make policy in the U.S., because what I can clearly see, especially in this thread, is that the anti-circ crowd is given to being over-emotional, overly attached to unimportant bits of useless anatomy, and obsessive to the point of fanaticism that somehow removal of a bit of foreskin does irreparable damage, somehow.

No, not somehow. This has been completely explained, yet you and the other pro-circs seem to see this as penis-challenging and instantly develop a terminal case of cog-dis every time it's discussed. If any wooism is going on here, it's the consistent inability for the pro-circs to even entertain the notion that the foreskin might have some meaningful value. And I love you how resent us opposing medically unnecessary circumcision, yet simultaneously declare that it should be mandatory if HIV protection >50%.

There was even a very emotional appeal related to the removal of earlobes and other unnecessary body parts. Which failed, because the pro-circ crowd has no particular interest in bodily integrity over societal norm where drawbacks are as minimal as they are in circumcision.
Surprise! Still avoiding the issue of the harm caused by loss of the foreskin.
Hmmm... a painless, harmless, quick and simple procedure that has no significant long-term side effects and numerous social, aesthetic, and health benefits...
Exactly how many times do you think you have to repeat this, without refuting the studies that show it to be wrong, before it stops being wrong?

[Ivor the Engineer]

What's that saying in the USA ' If it ain't broke don't fix it ' . If you wish to prevent Aids try using a condom .
Years ago there was push by doctors to force the removal of tonsils regardless of any illness . Nowadays we are told they help prevent certain illness . Maybe this 'useless' piece of skin has some purpose .I don't know . Why take the risk of an operation unless it's necessary ?
As for Female mutilation this should carry a Jail sentence for everyone involved except the victim of course .

Looking at the guidelines that the BMA gives to doctors with respect to non-therapeutic child circumcision it's to do with "cultural benefits". I don't know about you, but I did not realize British culture required males to be circumcised to be accepted into it:confused:

The other excuse offered is that determined parents will have their child circumcised anyway, so it's better it's done in a hospital by a trained doctor than somewhere else less hygienic and by someone potentially unskilled in the procedure. Which is basically saying given that the child is going to be physically assaulted anyway, it's better that it be done in a place where he has less chance of dying and by a doctor! I don't know about anybody else but that argument sends a shiver down my spine.

At least they admit that these excuses are used for FGM too.

Human rights are not going to be accepted unless the countries pushing for them to be adopted around the world sort out abuses by their own citizens (and medical professions!) on each other first.

[robinson]

For some reason, removing healthy tissue from a baby just seems to get some people upset. I wonder if the people supporting cutting on little babies have ever actually observed what happens.

[Loss Leader]

For some reason, removing healthy tissue from a baby just seems to get some people upset. I wonder if the people supporting cutting on little babies have ever actually observed what happens.


I stood right over my son during his bris. I observed the entire thing.

I'm not sure what your point is, but there's your answer.

[Z]

I'm also a little curious about the masturbatory habits of those that are circ'd. Those of us that are uncut use the foreskin as a bearing, as was pointed out above, and this makes it a really nice way to masturbate. Do those circ'd people truly not use the glans? I would also be curious how difficult it is for them to reach orgasm in comparison, anyone have a study?

I've already read some stuff about the orgasm trigger using some nerves in the foreskin. Are circ'd people more prone to premature ejaculation or anything like that? I'm getting the feeling there haven't been too many studies about this kind of stuff...

Actually, circ'd people generally last longer than uncirc'd - I'm a little too lazy to bother finding the relevant research, but there you go. And that shouldn't be a big surprise, since anti-circ folks claim that this process desensitizes the penis.

Warning: the following material is definitely TMI. Read at your own discretion.

As for masturbation techniques, they vary significantly between individuals, and often a single individual uses a variety of techniques. Some claim to use lotion or baby oil; I go dry, myself, and find the natural lube from the opening to be sufficient for the entire task. Some stroke the entire length, some focus on the glans. From what I understand, a few are happy stimulating the base of the penis alone. I don't know if any studies have ever been done on how rapidly circ'd men reach orgasm, but I've experience firsthand both surprisingly rapid orgasms and tortorously long periods of masturbation without orgasm. I've even on a few rare occasions been able to masturbate fully clothed, just by shaking a leg enough times, for my clothes to do the job for me. My preferred methods, though, I'll keep to myself - let's just say that some of us truly get into the process in very in-depth ways.

I can in no way speak for those who use oil or other lubes, toys and gizmos, rubber products, etc.

[Z]

Even this report which you sited doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision. I fail to see how that makes circumcision medically neutral. How is it medically neutral?


I'm sorry, but your "experience" is anecdotal. I've been told many times that I can't use myself as a reference, so you can't either. Is it possible that you've been conditioned by society to think that a cut penis is normal-looking? It's probably irrelevant to you, but I think people in countries where being intact is normal would say that a cut penis is just as ugly as you think an un-cut one is.

Also, I would like some information on these issues that circumcised boys avoid.

I'm curious as to why you would poo-poo bodily integrity. I'm not going to bring up any false analogies, but does this only apply to foreskin, or can it apply to other body parts, too?

Sure, my experience is anecdotal. But that is my experience, and like anything, my personal experience is my number one deciding factor. The same goes for the effects of artificial food dyes (the FD&C ones), the effects of certain colors in the environment, etc.

My anecdotal experience, from being a father to five cut boys and stepfather to two uncut boys, is that uncut boys have considerable hygiene issues, suffer from numerous infections, and generally stink from said areas more. Uncut boys seem to take a lot longer to potty-train, and suffer far more accidents after training. But, again, this is all from personal, anecdotal experience, so clearly it means nothing.

As for bodily integrity, pheh again, I say. Why? It's just how I am. The body is a vessel, and I'm not meaning in any spiritual sense, but the body is the machine used by the mind to interact with the world. Some parts of that body are irrelevant to the successful interaction of brain with world. And if society declares that an otherwise useless bit of body is more attractive gone than present, then I've no personal gripe with it. I have no problem having babies' ears pierced, having circumcisions done, removing warts or moles from babies, babies undergoing cosmetic surgeries to correct deficiencies in appearance, etc. And in the future, I'm fully in support of genetic tampering to make babies into ideal-appearing beings, whatever that means.

But I'm not for tampering where the missing piece would serve a vital purpose. And having lived for 35 years now, without a foreskin, and having fathered six children, and having had successful sexual relationships with several wonderful women and one rather hot young man, I see no vital purpose served by that missing bit of material - that bit of material that stinks so badly on my stepsons, that bit of material that is often, VERY often, sore and red and infected. Again, just anecdotal experience, and utterly dismissable. But it's my personal experience, and if it's good enough for me it's darn well good enough for my sons.

And yes, I'm projecting my will above and in spite of any will the child potentially has or had. I have no shame of that - that's what parents have always done, and that's what parents should always do. When he's an adult, he can make all those decisions for himself; but until then, those decisions are mine - no matter how irreversible those decisions are.

Does that make me a monster? Probably. Do I care? Not really. My children love me. My women love me. The professionals I have to interact with when dealing with the children's many, many problems and issues admire and respect me. Sorry, but I think I'll stick to what I'm doing, since those whose opinions matter think I'm doing the right thing.

All that being said, I fully respect every other parents' rights to choose whether or not to preserve their children's bodily integrities (not sure if the apostrophe use there was accurate), but I refuse to respect any agency trying to come between a parent and their right to choose for their child.

[Z]

For some reason, removing healthy tissue from a baby just seems to get some people upset. I wonder if the people supporting cutting on little babies have ever actually observed what happens.

Been there for every single circumcision. For the most part, the babies acted like they didn't feel a thing - no crying, no startlement, nothing. I saw no blood in most of them (one, I remember, bled a little), and the babies showed no discomfort from the procedure, either during the actual process, or in the following days as the remaining foreskin died off.

So, again, I see no basis, in personal experience, to think that babies suffer horribly from circumcision. Again, it's just anecdotal and utterly dismissable, but that's been my experience, and that's what I'll go off of.

[robinson]

I love it when somebody makes such an obviously false claim. This link takes you to what a real circumcision looks and sounds like. NSFW

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617&q=circumcision&total=723&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Listen to what an infant actually sounds like while being mutilated, then try and convince a skeptic that circumcision is a kind and gentle procedure.

WARNING! Viewing the video may be traumatic, and unless you are a sociopath, it may cause you harm just watching it. It is a real medical video of an actual circumcision.

For anyone who wants to keep insisting on how harmless it is, notice the point where the baby really starts screaming, then goes into shock. The restraint table isn't easy to see, but hell, one showing is worth a thousand tellings.

[robinson]

Personally, watching the video brought up the same feelings in me I get when I see the death camps. How can anyone be so inhuman? I got physically ill hearing the frantic cries of pain, how the helpless infant, tied hand and foot, screams so hard it can't breath.

I'm sure the people claiming their kids didn't suffer, are either liars, or deluded, or mentally sick. I've heard it a thousand times, from parents guilty of child abuse. They really don't seem to be able to empathize with another human being. They can shrug off or ignore cries of fear and pain, like it really means nothing to them.

I can't understand it. But I really despise people who torture and maim children.. So forgive me oh Mods, if I overstepped the boundaries of civility here.


Doctors talk about circumcision, telling the truth about it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-279014940152636579&q=circumcision&total=723&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Jewish Circumcision Video, NSFW
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5537185150388522511&q=circumcision&total=723&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

And yeah, there is screaming in that one too. It sounds like the infant goes into shock, because we don't hear anything after the screams. Of course, the kid is drunk has hell already, so who knows? Don't watch if you have any compassion for babies. It isn't pretty. At least the Jews use booze to block the pain. I give em credit for being practical. Who wants to hear the insane cries of a mutilated baby?

They also edited a shot of the baby from the beginning of the video onto the end, to make it look like the kid is just fine after it is "over".

But if you actually watch, you never see the babies face after the operation. Its friggin creepy as hell.

New information about the level of pain and lasting trauma, medical info NSFW because of the screams of babies
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1828516696206167963&q=circumcision&total=710&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

And for you sick sadistic bastards who enjoy watching a baby suffer, the extended version of the medical film NSFW
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8212662920114237112&q=circumcision&total=72&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

For you woos, watch the videos, then try and defend circumcision. Good luck with that.

[Caper]

I think most people that are circumcized (males) don't really give a ****.... I don't think I'd do it to my kids..... But I bet the risk of having your weiner cut off, weighed with the benefit of circumsicion protecing you from HIV or cancer... you probably swing towards circumsicion.... but jesus there may be a cure for HIV or cancer by the time by future kid gets older... It will be alot longer before there is a cure for a mutilated weiner.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Robinson,

You and I both know the pro-circ. people will not watch the videos. It would be so much harder for them to discount the child's suffering if they did.

Anyone else noticed that when the self-proclaimed believers in cultural relativism want to change another culture's practices they call it 'education'. Must help them sleep at night.

[Z]

Personally, watching the video brought up the same feelings in me I get when I see the death camps. How can anyone be so inhuman? I got physically ill hearing the frantic cries of pain, how the helpless infant, tied hand and foot, screams so hard it can't breath.

I'm sure the people claiming their kids didn't suffer, are either liars, or deluded, or mentally sick. I've heard it a thousand times, from parents guilty of child abuse. They really don't seem to be able to empathize with another human being. They can shrug off or ignore cries of fear and pain, like it really means nothing to them.

I can't understand it. But I really despise people who torture and maim children.. So forgive me oh Mods, if I overstepped the boundaries of civility here.


Doctors talk about circumcision, telling the truth about it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-279014940152636579&q=circumcision&total=723&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Jewish Circumcision Video, NSFW
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5537185150388522511&q=circumcision&total=723&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

And yeah, there is screaming in that one too. It sounds like the infant goes into shock, because we don't hear anything after the screams. Of course, the kid is drunk has hell already, so who knows? Don't watch if you have any compassion for babies. It isn't pretty. At least the Jews use booze to block the pain. I give em credit for being practical. Who wants to hear the insane cries of a mutilated baby?

They also edited a shot of the baby from the beginning of the video onto the end, to make it look like the kid is just fine after it is "over".

But if you actually watch, you never see the babies face after the operation. Its friggin creepy as hell.

New information about the level of pain and lasting trauma, medical info NSFW because of the screams of babies
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1828516696206167963&q=circumcision&total=710&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

And for you sick sadistic bastards who enjoy watching a baby suffer, the extended version of the medical film NSFW
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8212662920114237112&q=circumcision&total=72&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

For you woos, watch the videos, then try and defend circumcision. Good luck with that.

Gee, a lot of cherry-picked videos of improperly done circumcisions using outdated techniques and no pain relief.

I'm sure we could find similar dentistry videos, or videos of vaccinations gone wrong, to support similar points...

I watched every one, and yes, those barbaric practices were horrible. But I also watched all of my children get circumcised, and it was NOTHING like these videos.

Really - do you guys ONLY get your info from anti-circ woo sites? :rolleyes:

[Ivor the Engineer]

I watched every one, and yes, those barbaric practices were horrible. But I also watched all of my children get circumcised, and it was NOTHING like these videos.

Yes, I bet your kids were laughing and smiling while being tied to a table and having their foreskin ripped from their glans:rolleyes:

[Loss Leader]

For you woos, watch the videos, then try and defend circumcision. Good luck with that.


Listen, Robinson, I'm going to try to explain this but I'm not very hopeful that you'll see my point.

When my son was four months old, he had a medical emergency that required brain surgery. Watching the nurses (and then a doctor) try to start an IV was the hardest thing I've ever had to witness. My son screamed himself red for ten solid minutes alternating between fear, discomfort and actual pain. It took three nurses just to imobilize him. Lidocaine would have been useless as his biggest complaints were being held down and having the tournequet on his leg. More powerful sedatives required an IV to deliver them in the first place. His circumcision was mild in comparison: for one thing, it lasted less than one tenth the time (a little under a minute).

I did nothing to stop the doctor from starting the IV no matter how much my son screeched. Now, I assume that you would never say that my behavior in the hospital made me guilty of child abuse. You would never claim that a parent who approves of such a procedure is incapable of empathizing with another human being. And I assume that you would not believe based on my behavior in the hospital that I can shrug off or ignore cries of fear and pain, like it really means nothing to me.

The reason, of course, is that it was absolutely necessary for my son's welfare. He could not understand that at the time, he just knew he didn't like it. But it was my job to make sure that he got what was best for him, not just what he most enjoyed. Perhaps he will grow up to disdain all medical intervention for some reason or other, but right at that moment I did what I believed would help him most in the future.

Now, you have asked about circumcision, "How can anyone be so inhuman?"

For the sake of being sociable, assume for a moment that the following is true: circumcision was in my son's best interests. I know that you don't believe that and maybe you have good reason, but just assume it for one moment. If I thought that circumcision was in my son't best interests, it was no more inhuman to have him circumcised than it was to have that IV put in. If circumcision was necessary for my son's welfare, than the fact that he violently disliked it is would have almost no importance.

That is how I was able to proudly stand by and watch my son be circumcised. I believed that it was in his interests.

The only question, then, is if my belief is obviously and objectively wrong. If it isn't, the pain caused to my son cannot be a reason in itself not to do the procedure.

Now, I know that you think my belief is wrong but so far I have not seen evidence that convinces me. I hope that this helps you understand the mindset of people who circumcise their children.

[Loss Leader]

Yes, I bet your kids were laughing and smiling while being tied to a table and having their foreskin ripped from their glans:rolleyes:


My son neither was tied to a table nor had his foreskin ripped from his glans.

For that matter, my son was not laughing and smiling when I took away a crayon he was trying to eat this morning.

His momentary happiness is almost meaningless compared to his overall well being.

[Ivor the Engineer]

His momentary happiness is almost meaningless compared to his overall well being.

What objective measure of 'well being' are you using?

For example, do you have any statistics to show that Jewish men growing up in 21st century America are likely to be at a significant disadvantage if they are intact?

[Loss Leader]

What objective measure of 'well being' are you using?

For example, do you have any statistics to show that Jewish men growing up in 21st century America are likely to be at a significant disadvantage if they are intact?


A) We've been through this.

B) There is no such thing as an "objective" measure of well-being.

[robinson]

Listen, Robinson, I'm going to try to explain this but I'm not very hopeful that you'll see my point.

I think I got your point. And I agree with you, we all do things that cause our kids pain, to avoid greater sorrow, or future danger, or just the need for medical treatment. I did mention that I consider the Jews practical, as in, if you are going to cut part of my dick off, get me drunk first.

Now, I know that you think my belief is wrong but so far I have not seen evidence that convinces me. I hope that this helps you understand the mindset of people who circumcise their children.

Not only does it help, it also explains a lot of other actions people take, based on faith, that cause others to suffer. A friends father, a preacher man, used to whip his kids until they bled, based on his beliefs. He really believed that whipping a four year old boy, until he bled from the wounds, until he couldn't walk, he really believed it was for his kids own good.

Nobody ever changed his beliefs either. He only stopped doing it when the boy turned into a man at 12, and threatened to kill him if he ever touched him again.

This was long ago, and the preacher man is long dead, but I'm sure in parts of the world, even in America, some father is whipping a child bloody, confident that it is for the kids own good, and nobody will change his belief. Because God told him to do it.

I pretty much tolerate anybodies beliefs, but I don't tolerate actions that cause harm, for no other reason than a moldy old religion says "God told me to do it."

Call me intolerant.

[Ivor the Engineer]

There is no such thing as an "objective" measure of well-being.

That would be really convenient for you if it were true, but alas, it is not.

For example, do you think doctors assess the outcome of treatment totally subjectively? Sure there is a subjective component (e.g., "How do you feel..."), but these are often less important than the objective measurements.

For objective measures of well-being for uncircumcised vs circumcised Jewish men in the 21st century, you could look at income, number of friends, mental health, etc.

Show me evidence that an uncircumcised child/man is likely to be harmed more than a circumcised child/man for some objective measure and I'll reconsider my opinion of infant circumcision for cultural or religious reasons.

[Ivor the Engineer]

...This was long ago, and the preacher man is long dead, but I'm sure in parts of the world, even in America, some father is whipping a child bloody, confident that it is for the kids own good, and nobody will change his belief. Because God told him to do it.

Try this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/nfoster120.xml).

[Z]

Yes, I bet your kids were laughing and smiling while being tied to a table and having their foreskin ripped from their glans:rolleyes:

Let's see:

1) They weren't tied to a table. A nurse assisted by keeping their arms still, and another person (I think another nurse) held their legs still - very gently, I might add.

2) Their nerve endings are not yet mature at this stage, so their sensations are not as severe as you seem to think they are.

3) They used a topical pain-relief cream which is extremely effective. They just used the same cream on my daughter last week when she had to have stitches, and they were able to sew her up with her awake, and she was quite pleased during the procedure. The stitches were just above an eye, in an area FULL of nerves, and she felt NOTHING. And she's 3 - fully able to tell us if it hurt.

4) The Plastibell Method does NOT involve 'ripping' foreskin. How many people have to explain this method to you? The earlier model, yes, required some cutting away of excess foreskin - but that's all done AFTER the cream is applied, AFTER the string is set to crush the foreskin (which, btw, also stops the nerves from feeling beyond the point of the crush), and does NOT cause pain. The more modern model doesn't even require this much cutting, I've been told. And the probe used to separate the foreskin from the glans itself doesn't apear to be painful either - I was amazed watching my sons' calm, serene and somewhat curious expressions as the probe was used. I, like so many of you, had this preconceived notion that circumcision was a horribly painful process but that children just forgot about it rapidly. I was wrong - it's not horribly painful at all. Not anymore.

And even when it was, the children DO forget about it rapidly.

So take your strawman and apply it somewhere else. Thanks.

[osmosis]

That is how I was able to proudly stand by and watch my son be circumcised. I believed that it was in his interests.

Oh? And what did your son say about it when you consulted him?

The only question, then, is if my belief is obviously and objectively wrong. If it isn't, the pain caused to my son cannot be a reason in itself not to do the procedure.

And if it is..?

[ClintonHammond]

"then try and convince a skeptic that circumcision is a kind and gentle procedure"
You can't convince them... They have their fingers jammed into their ears so that they never have to deal with the fact that they are ignorant barbarians....

[Ivor the Engineer]

Let's see:

1) They weren't tied to a table. A nurse assisted by keeping their arms still, and another person (I think another nurse) held their legs still - very gently, I might add.

The child was forcefully restrained.

2) Their nerve endings are not yet mature at this stage, so their sensations are not as severe as you seem to think they are.

You are either lying or incredibly ignorant.

3) They used a topical pain-relief cream which is extremely effective. They just used the same cream on my daughter last week when she had to have stitches, and they were able to sew her up with her awake, and she was quite pleased during the procedure. The stitches were just above an eye, in an area FULL of nerves, and she felt NOTHING. And she's 3 - fully able to tell us if it hurt.

Emla is not that effective for circumcision pain. Most doctors who care about the pain the procedure causes use a ring block.

4) The Plastibell Method does NOT involve 'ripping' foreskin. How many people have to explain this method to you? The earlier model, yes, required some cutting away of excess foreskin - but that's all done AFTER the cream is applied, AFTER the string is set to crush the foreskin (which, btw, also stops the nerves from feeling beyond the point of the crush), and does NOT cause pain. The more modern model doesn't even require this much cutting, I've been told. And the probe used to separate the foreskin from the glans itself doesn't apear to be painful either - I was amazed watching my sons' calm, serene and somewhat curious expressions as the probe was used. I, like so many of you, had this preconceived notion that circumcision was a horribly painful process but that children just forgot about it rapidly. I was wrong - it's not horribly painful at all. Not anymore.

The foreskin is attached to the glans. It has to be ripped off. BTW, what about post-operative pain? Or does that not exist in your world view?

[Loss Leader]

... and I'll reconsider my opinion of infant circumcision for cultural or religious reasons.


Despite the fact that you have consistently been one of the more polite and reserved anti-circumcision people in this thread, I can say with complete honesty that almost nothing has ever been less important to me.

[Loss Leader]

Oh? And what did your son say about it when you consulted him?


The last thing my son said to me today was, "cow, moo." And I can say with perfect confidence that, unlike the last thing you said to me, it wasn't antisemitic.

[robinson]

This case underlines the responsibility we all have to remain alert to people who deliberately deceive others about their real motive for working with children. Safeguarding children is everyone’s business.”
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/nfoster120.xml

[kellyb]

Personally, watching the video brought up the same feelings in me I get when I see the death camps. How can anyone be so inhuman? I got physically ill hearing the frantic cries of pain, how the helpless infant, tied hand and foot, screams so hard it can't breath.

I'm sure the people claiming their kids didn't suffer, are either liars, or deluded, or mentally sick. I've heard it a thousand times, from parents guilty of child abuse. They really don't seem to be able to empathize with another human being. They can shrug off or ignore cries of fear and pain, like it really means nothing to them.

I can't understand it. But I really despise people who torture and maim children.. So forgive me oh Mods, if I overstepped the boundaries of civility here.
I hear ya'. And remember, about half the circumcisions done in the US now STILL don't use any pain relief. And most the rest use something that's more of a token jesture, like EMLA cream.

You are either lying or incredibly ignorant.
Remember, this is the poster who claims they put some cream on, waited just a "few minutes" and his son didn't seem terribly bothered by the procedure.
So essentially, he saw a circ with no pain relief and says it doesn't appear to hurt.
And that the plastibell method is painless. Like it involves summoning fairies who simply breathe on the foreskin and it just magically melts away.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I hear ya'. And remember, about half the circumcisions done in the US now STILL don't use any pain relief. And most the rest use something that's more of a token jesture, like EMLA cream.

I despise physicians who do not object to this cruelty at every opportunity. They have no excuse.:mad:

Remember, this is the poster who claims they put some cream on, waited just a "few minutes" and his son didn't seem terribly bothered by the procedure.
So essentially, he saw a circ with no pain relief and says it doesn't appear to hurt.
And that the plastibell method is painless. Like it involves summoning fairies who simply breathe on the foreskin and it just magically melts away.

It appears the pro-circ. people left in the thread are too far gone. I shall not be arguing with them any more, mainly for the sake of my own sanity!

[robinson]

One showing is worth a thousand tellings.
The following linked image may be disturbing to the sensibility of a rational mind.
http://business.fortunecity.com/mars/272/circ.jpg

Plastibell at work.

I say again, I give the Jews credit for using alcohol to deaden the pain and smooth the trauma. It also helps everyone else out, because who wants to hear the scream of an infant in horrible pain?

I found even more graphic images of circumcision, but I'm not going to link to them. I can't hardly stand to even look at them.

[Skepticybe]

So take your strawman and apply it somewhere else. Thanks.

You are defending circumcision, and your opponents (and an fellow defender of circumcision) posts credible references explaining the long term harm and damage to sexual function caused by the loss of the foreskin. What to do?

Focus on a peripheral issue you can deal with, such as the issue of pain & suffering caused by the procedure, and explain how anesthesia and modern practices & equipment make it relatively pain free. Then all suffering can be blamed on improper medical care. You win!

--------

The biggest issue with infant circumcision is that more than just a bit of skin is being taken; some of the pleasure of sex is also taken. All other considerations pale in comparison. Men who are cut insist that the foreskin provides no meaningful increase in pleasure from sex. How they could possibly know this, considering that they lack the capacity to experience the sensations of a foreskin, remains a mystery. Men who are intact, and therefore still able to experience those sensations, will tell you that the sensation and function provided by the foreskin is significant and important. Studies have confirmed this.

Get your hands off that baby's penis until he is of legal age.

[ClintonHammond]

"summoning fairies who simply breathe on the foreskin"
Heeey... now THAT sounds like something I could get into!

;-)

let's see video footage of that... fairies breathing on foreskin!

Hubba!

[BlackCat]

Two questions that I wish the pro-circs would answer:

Why can't it wait until they are adults and can decide for themselves?

Why do you assume because your experience with circumcision wasn't bad, that others will feel the same way? (Inductive reasoning)

[Loss Leader]

Two questions that I wish the pro-circs would answer:

Why can't it wait until they are adults and can decide for themselves?


Because we are Jewish.


Why do you assume because your experience with circumcision wasn't bad, that others will feel the same way? (Inductive reasoning)


I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't circumcise my son because my experience "wasn't bad." I did it because we are Jewish.

[robinson]

There you have it. If God told his people to cut off a finger, or you were not of the chosen ones, fingers would be removed, and it would be OK.

It is called religion.

[kellyb]

Weird conversation to be having in the science subforum of a skeptic forum...

[robinson]

Maybe it should be moved to religion and philosophy.






































NOOOO!!! Don't even think about it!

[ClintonHammond]

"Because we are Jewish."
Not a good answer... Care to try again, and leave the stupidstition out of it?

[NewtonTrino]

I just don't get the whole not wanting to wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves thing. Wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution when lopping off body parts?

[robinson]

Oh please. You don't want to wait until a kid is thirteen before doing circumcision, (which is the case in some cultures).

You see, you have to get a kid drunk before cutting off part of a very sensitive organ. To keep them from screaming bloody murder. If you get a kid drunk at thirteen, then whack part of his pee pee off, he might associate drinking with extreme pain and mutilation of body parts.

[ClintonHammond]

"You don't want to wait until a kid is thirteen before doing circumcision"
I want people to follow good sense and moral decency and not do it at all.

[robinson]

Mutilation, ritual scarring, neck stretching, bound feet, piercing, tattoos, enduring pain, mankind has a long history of body modification, as well as using these as rites of passages.

[ClintonHammond]

And any time they are done to people without their consent, it's disgusting

You wanna bind YOUR feet? Knock yourself out... You want to FORCE all women to bind their feet? As the Glaswegians say, "*'* *** ****" *Edit... cause of pansy rules.


If you want to try to do it for an ignorant reason like "Ghawd said they have to" then you've opted out of all rational reality.

[osmosis]

The last thing my son said to me today was, "cow, moo." And I can say with perfect confidence that, unlike the last thing you said to me, it wasn't antisemitic.

Are you sure about that? maybe "moo" was meant to be "jew", and... ah, nevermind..

Clearly the reality you experience is significantly different from the reality I experience, so we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "who's the bigot" issue.

[Loss Leader]

Are you sure about that? maybe "moo" was meant to be "jew", and... ah, nevermind..

Clearly the reality you experience is significantly different from the reality I experience, so we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "who's the bigot" issue.


So, just to be clear, you are refusing to answer this question:

Why would the fact of one of the doctors' affiliation with a hospital with "Jewish" in the name be a potential source of bias?

And you also believe that it is not bigotted to say that I am "Jew-serving," that I "live up to the "worst stereotypes" of my ethnicity and that I "deserved" what I got.

I do not agree to disagree on the whole "who's the bigot" issue. I have never been warned by the mods for insulting the ethnicity of a user. I have never compared someone to the stereotypes of his religion. I have never argued that affiliation with a hospital with a "kosher cafeteria" is a potential source of bias in a peer-reviewed study.

The antisemite is you.

[NewtonTrino]

I'm just as offended by your religious crap as he is. It's not anti-semitic it's anti ancient superstitious garbage. It's also anti-mutilation. I also think Christians, Muslims and all other religions are a pile of crap. Does that make me anti-semetic? For the record I think the people that think "the jews" are taking over the world (NWO all that crap) are totally bonkers as well.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really care what your reasons for mutilating your children are... it's a sick act either way.

[BlackCat]

That is how I was able to proudly stand by and watch my son be circumcised. I believed that it was in his interests.

The only question, then, is if my belief is obviously and objectively wrong. If it isn't, the pain caused to my son cannot be a reason in itself not to do the procedure.
So, it's clear that pain is a non-issue for you, because parents have to do far more painful things that are in their child's interests. This may or may not happen, but did you ever consider that your son might question the beliefs he was raised with, and in particular, your choice to have him circumcised? What are you going to say, if one day he tells you that he is unhappy that you didn't give him the opportunity to decide for himself?

No, you cannot say, "that won't happen!" because frankly, you don't know.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't circumcise my son because my experience "wasn't bad." I did it because we are Jewish.
Actually, this question wasn't directed at you, because I already knew that you rationalized your behavior with religion.

This is no different than say, some Muslims, who use the Quran to rationalize how they kill others who don't believe in the same religion.

Sure, I'll admit that it's not a good analogy. In fact, the only part that's analogous is the rationalization part. You (and they) rationalize your actions with your religion.

This is not skeptical behavior.
(Are you now going to reply that you aren't a skeptic? That would be strange, because that's how I've perceived you from your other posts on this forum.)

[Loss Leader]

What are you going to say, if one day he tells you that he is unhappy that you didn't give him the opportunity to decide for himself?


I will say, "I did what I believed was in your best interests."


This is no different than say, some Muslims, who use the Quran to rationalize how they kill others who don't believe in the same religion.

Sure, I'll admit that it's not a good analogy. In fact, the only part that's analogous is the rationalization part. You (and they) rationalize your actions with your religion.


It's a terrible analogy. In the case of circumcision, I am able to substitute my judgment for my incompetent son for his best interests. [I realize you don't believe circumcision is in my son's best interests but I do and, so far, no judge or legislature has cared enough to disagree.]

In the case of some fundamentalist Muslims killing non-believers, they are not substituting their judgment for their incompetent victims for their best interests. First of all, their victims are rarely incompetent to make their own decisions. Second, the terrorists don't hold their victim's medical proxy. Last, death is rarely (but not never) in someone's best interests.

The better analogy would be Japanese mothers jumping off cliffs with their children to avoid capture by American forces in WWII. And even that analogy wouldn't be great. Also, I'm not sure if that really happened or if it's just a myth.


This is not skeptical behavior.
(Are you now going to reply that you aren't a skeptic? That would be strange, because that's how I've perceived you from your other posts on this forum.)


Well, first of all, thanks. As has been argued in another thread (Is Anyone Here Not An Atheist), it may not be realistic to demand purity in skepticism. Religious beliefs and cultural affiliations may be important safe havens both psychologically and sociologically. The ego cannot constantly battle the world without rest.

In my case, I believe the world is better off with Jews than without them. As the forces of assimilation are relentless, I believe it is my duty to continue the traditions of Judaism. This is not necessarily because I believe in God but because if I do not practice Judaism, it might make it harder for the next person to do so. I never want to hear the argument made to my neighbor, "Well, Loss Leader didn't circumcise his kid and he's Jewish, so you shouldn't circumcise yours" or "Why don't you eat pork? Loss Leader eats pork and he's just as Jewish as you are."

I hope that clears things up.

[Koshy]

As far a negative side effect that can befall the circumcised or the cisers, I no longer talk to my family as a result of it.

I love that "all men that are circumcised are happy." Apparently Im not a member of this "all men" Ive been hearing so much about.

You defenders of cutting have absolutely nothing to go on.

The HIV = Mandatory argument, lets see. There are 302 million, give or take, Americans. Of those, about 1.3million have HIV. So, hereby, by cutting our babies we are reducing a roughly .3ish% chance of contracting aids, from anyone with it, by 50% down to .15%. I think, if my math isnt completely off, Im not providing links to the population data, if you can do better do so. I had intended to write a fair deal more, but Im not feeling so well at the moment, so Ill return later.

First post wooooo.

Edit: Yes, before you say it, I decided to edit it that I know that none of the circ advocates are actually saying thats the reason, or any other reason, despite its constant appearance throughout this thread, I totally understand that thats totally and completely not going into the rationale totally.

[Emperor]

As far a negative side effect that can befall the circumcised or the cisers, I no longer talk to my family as a result of it.

I love that "all men that are circumcised are happy." Apparently Im not a member of this "all men" Ive been hearing so much about.

You defenders of cutting have absolutely nothing to go on.


At least there's something we can do about our unfortunate predicament. Do what I'm doing -- Restore your foreskin.

:)

[BlackCat]

I will say, "I did what I believed was in your best interests."
Thanks for answering honestly. I know there's nothing you can do if he said that, but at least you're willing to admit that it might happen. Since the possibility of dissatisfaction is there, might that mean that you really don't know best, despite thinking that you do?

It's a terrible analogy.
I apologize for it then. However, the point still remains. Using religion to rationalize behavior.

[I realize you don't believe circumcision is in my son's best interests but I do and, so far, no judge or legislature has cared enough to disagree.]
Not yet, anyway. It's not like there haven't been lawsuits. They've just been settled out of court. Perhaps to you, as the lawyer, that is unimportant, but I think it speaks volumes. There are people dissatisfied enough to do something about it. I see it as "baby steps," much like any other civil rights movement. Maybe you don't see it that way, that's ok.

Well, first of all, thanks. As has been argued in another thread (Is Anyone Here Not An Atheist), it may not be realistic to demand purity in skepticism. Religious beliefs and cultural affiliations may be important safe havens both psychologically and sociologically. The ego cannot constantly battle the world without rest.
I checked that thread, and saw the arguments about if it was possible to be religious, and also a skeptic. I'm not sure what I think about that, but in any case, it's largely irrelevant what my opinion is. For me, I expect myself to question everything, and it would follow that I expect that of others. Obviously, people don't do that, and I find that terribly disappointing.

I'm trying to understand about what you said about you and your religion; it seems like you are Jewish, but do not believe in god. But you clearly follow the tenets of your flavor of Judaism. (Sorry, not being flippant here, I just am not that familiar with your religion, and so do not know the correct terms.) Why is it that you practice circumcision? (Please don't answer, "because we're Jewish.") Is it because the religion says so, or because your culture values it, or what...?

Not to be rude, but the safe havens argument was not in that thread, except for what you already said about it. I thought that was unfortunate, because I wanted to see people argue that.

[BlackCat]

As far a negative side effect that can befall the circumcised or the cisers, I no longer talk to my family as a result of it.
That sounds sad. I'm curious what happened, but you don't have to talk about it if you don't want to.

First post wooooo.
Welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here. :)

At least there's something we can do about our unfortunate predicament. Do what I'm doing -- Restore your foreskin. :)
That's great. I wanted you to know -- I loved reading your story. It's too bad that restoration can never restore what's been lost (and a lot has been lost, regardless of what the pro-circs say), but at least you can get close. I think it was your post that made me go and look up for myself what really happens when males are circumcised.

In fact, when I came to this thread, I was against circumcision, but didn't really have an opinion either way as to which "looked better." Now that I've researched for myself, I can see the power of socialization, and how even I was socialized to think that a circumcised penis was "normal." I don't know when the change occurred, but somewhere in my research, I came to regard the cut penis as an "anomaly." Not disgusting, just not normal. Much like how we see people in tribes with elongated earlobes or something similar.

[Loss Leader]

Thanks for answering honestly. I know there's nothing you can do if he said that, but at least you're willing to admit that it might happen. Since the possibility of dissatisfaction is there, might that mean that you really don't know best, despite thinking that you do?


I'll do better than that: I will catagorically and unequivocally state that my thoughts about what is right for my children are based on absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever and that what I "know" is nothing more than an amalgam of subjective understandings, rules of thumb, moral guides, prejudices and good old fashioned guesswork.

I'm not sure how that separates me from any other person now living on the planet, but there you go.


I apologize for it then. However, the point still remains. Using religion to rationalize behavior.


No, I don't think your point does remain. In one case, I have the legal and moral authority to make decisions for another person. In the other case, I do not.


I'm trying to understand about what you said about you and your religion; it seems like you are Jewish, but do not believe in god. But you clearly follow the tenets of your flavor of Judaism. (Sorry, not being flippant here, I just am not that familiar with your religion, and so do not know the correct terms.) Why is it that you practice circumcision? (Please don't answer, "because we're Jewish.") Is it because the religion says so, or because your culture values it, or what...?

My "flavor" of Judaism is called Conservative.

I practice circumcision because the religious authorities I trust advise me to.

Subjectively, I believe circumcision to be an indelible mark of one's special obligations as a member of the Jewish people. That is not, however, the reason I circumcised my son (and will circumcise the next one in about 12 weeks). The reason is because the religious authorities I trust advise me to.



Not to be rude, but the safe havens argument was not in that thread, except for what you already said about it. I thought that was unfortunate, because I wanted to see people argue that.


Yeah, and then they started insulting each other. That thread takes some patience to work through.

[Emperor]

That's great. I wanted you to know -- I loved reading your story. It's too bad that restoration can never restore what's been lost (and a lot has been lost, regardless of what the pro-circs say), but at least you can get close. I think it was your post that made me go and look up for myself what really happens when males are circumcised.

In fact, when I came to this thread, I was against circumcision, but didn't really have an opinion either way as to which "looked better." Now that I've researched for myself, I can see the power of socialization, and how even I was socialized to think that a circumcised penis was "normal." I don't know when the change occurred, but somewhere in my research, I came to regard the cut penis as an "anomaly." Not disgusting, just not normal. Much like how we see people in tribes with elongated earlobes or something similar.

Thanks for the reply! I'm very glad when a post of mine is able to help or inspire someone, in any way.

I never really thought about what was "normal" until my wife mentioned that she found intact penii very sexy and attractive, nor did I really know anything about the difference (aside from looks) at the time.

Now I myself find the thought of being "intact", or as close as I can become to being so, more appealing each day. And as I see the small results and differences i have achieved after only a couple months worth of dedicated restoring, it has already made things better for both of us!

[Ivor the Engineer]

Just found an interesting argument against the cultural/religious reasons for circumcision:

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/30/3/248

CONCLUSION
Human sexuality and the attempts to control it, particularly to reduce or add sexual pleasure, have been, in one way or another, a part of all known cultures and civilisations. While sometimes this fact is acknowledged openly as the main purpose for genital mutilation, in most cases other rationalisations are put forward for the practice. These false reasons have varied from religious and cultural demands to a number of medical "explanations", depending on the wider cultural tradition within which the practice has appeared. These different rationalisations for the maintenance of the practices in various cultures show that no matter what the cultural differences are in beliefs and lifestyles, genital mutilation is a universal sign of human civilisation—or maybe the lack of it. All societies have found the arguments that best fit their local cultural traditions and environments in order to introduce or maintain genital mutilation in its various forms. In the Western, rather individualist tradition, these rationalisations are based on benefit to the individual and/or autonomy; in the Southern and Eastern cultures their support is drawn more directly from social values and ties, or from the need to protect one’s unique cultural identity against Western cultural imperialism. Thus, in this regard one cultural tradition cannot be said to be better than another. Rather, with further education and knowledge the cultural smokescreen around the real reasons for the maintenance of the practice can be overcome in all societies no matter what their cultural background.

(The full article is free but you'll need to register to access it.)

[osmosis]

So, just to be clear, you are refusing to answer this question:

Just to be clear, I only refused to answer it because the answer is self-evident to anyone with the ability to reason: 2 + 2 = 4. Unless, of course, they have a huge, gaping, religiously-inspired blind spot on this subject.

Why would the fact of one of the doctors' affiliation with a hospital with "Jewish" in the name be a potential source of bias?

I really wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse as part of your overall disingenuity, but in case you aren't and you really cannot put this together, here goes:

People are biased. There is a VERY good chance that the Jewish doctor (and most of the doctors at the Jewish hospital) happened to have a pro-circ bias. There is very little chance that such a person would undertake a study to prove themselves wrong, and even if they did undertake such a study with the best intentions, there is a good chance their personal bias will interfere at some point, and this will tend to skew the results in favor of their personal bias.

And you also believe that it is not bigotted to say that I am "Jew-serving,"

Your arguments ARE Jew-serving. By that I mean, your arguments are wrong, poorly-reasoned and illegitimate. They are not an honest search for truth, they are pro-Jew rhetoric.

Please, spare us.

that I "live up to the "worst stereotypes"

Sorry man, you are living up to them, at least in this thread. You're displaying many traits that the optimist in me had previously categorized as "just a negative stereotype; not true."

I prefer to think the best of people, so I prefer not to believe those negative stereotypes. However, every now and then someone comes along and proves a bunch of them correct, and I don't like that. I guess it's a bit of cog-dis, it causes me to struggle to hang on to my "people are people" philosophy.

and that I "deserved" what I got.

You so did. You actually had the tenacity to enter into a rational debate about circumcision with your "Jewish boys are circumcised" pseudo-philosophy. Even Sylvia Browne could have predicted you'd get your butt handed to you, and even a bigoted redneck could have predicted you'd cry "antisemite" at the first opportunity. I wouldn't have believed that redneck, but I'd have been wrong.

I do not agree to disagree on the whole "who's the bigot" issue.

Too bad for you, you're just digging yourself deeper into the hole.

I have never been warned by the mods for insulting the ethnicity of a user.

Point?

The mods may not be correct about that, but their mistake is both understandable and forgiveable. Anyone can fall into PC thinking.

The antisemite is you.

Impossible. I just don't care. People are people.

Your problem is you're bigoted in favor of Jews. You think Jews are something special, and I think they're nothing special. I am admittedly insensitive to your Jewish angst, and that's the real issue here. You think I should care about you being Jewish and I don't.

[BlackCat]

I'll do better than that: I will catagorically and unequivocally state that my thoughts about what is right for my children are based on absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever and that what I "know" is nothing more than an amalgam of subjective understandings, rules of thumb, moral guides, prejudices and good old fashioned guesswork.
Since your decision isn't based on objective evidence, is there anything that would convince you to change your mind about circumcision and would make you no longer want to practice it? Anything at all?

(Feel free to ask me the same question. I would never ask a question of someone that I would not answer myself.)

[SYLVESTER1592]

First post wooooo.


Welcome to the forum
:welcomed:

SYL :)

[Koshy]

That sounds sad. I'm curious what happened, but you don't have to talk about it if you don't want to.



Its a long series of events. I realized when I was pretty young that something was wrong with me, what with the areas that looked to have "grown together."
I didnt think anything of it at the time though, whats a penis for anyway? Going to the bathroom and thats about it.

Meanwhile I managed to get quite fat, which probably helped me avoid any sexual situations, reaching a high point of around 300 pounds when I was 16/17.
So, I decided to lose weight, which I can quite easily claim riding a bike at the gym for half and hour with a circumcised penis isnt an exercise(pun) in comfort, which resulted in me just taping the remnants of my shaft skin together over the glans, still under the impression that I was perfectly normal.
After quite a bit of work I managed to bring my weight down to 180-185, at which point I decided, since I was doing all these body improvements anyway, including weight training and all that, I might as well investigate what this growth on my penis was. And also, having weighed so much I had expressed interest in having skin removed, its not a big issue, just some loose skin here and there.

Anyway, upon starting my research I learned about skin bridges and the like, after a few days I kept seeing circumcision in connection to these issues, at the point I didnt really know what it even was, having just seen references in movies and the like, including Mel Brooks(I believe, the comedy director) in one movie shoving a carrot in a guitine, cutting the tip off, and calling it a "circumcision." I didnt get it, but didnt think much of it.
Upon researching that whats wrong with me was in fact a result of my parents deliberate choice, and that had I been left alone chances are that I wouldnt have any problems, wouldnt have to use tape to be comfortable, etc, I became very depressed, and felt extremely betrayed, I started to talk to them less at this point.

I had never directly talked about it with them, up until my mother contacted me saying she had found a surgeon that could help with my skin removal, I was still considering having it done, until by some divine coincidence she said "Its the same doctor that I had you with," I guess he had decided to move on to greener pastures. So, having learned that she was planning to use the same doctor she had cut me in the first place I became extremely angry, but still didnt say anything. She kept calling to push the issue and I finally I suppose snapped and told her, surprisingly articulate considering how I was feeling, "You honestly expect me to go under the knife of the same man that you paid to mutilate me."

Thus, my parents introduction to my feelings on the issue. Needless to say she didnt take kindly to it.

Over the course of a year we started to talk about it, and they increasingly blamed me for everything that was wrong, refusing to read any of the information I sent them, refusing to acknowledge that it was their fault that I am damaged.

Rinse and repeat the same conversation roughly 30 times and you have my current situation. Ive not been home since Christmas, which was a very fun affair with me sitting in a corner until I could leave again, Ive not phoned in a few months, and I generally ignore when they call. I never say "I love you" anymore, except to my grandparents seeing as I suppose they are relatively innocent in this affair. I feel no need to affiliate with people who endorse mutilating babies, who endorse non medical body modifications on helpless people, people that blame me for being damaged as a result of what they had done to me.

Theres a lot more to the story I suppose, and it would have been more correct to say that I talk to them as minimally as possible given the way things are, but theres that. Anyway, I still have alot to add, but consolidating all my feelings on the issue into one posting is impossible, cause there are quite a few.

Until next time campers.

Edit: Thanks Sylvester.

[osmosis]

Thus, my parents introduction to my feelings on the issue. Needless to say she didnt take kindly to it.

Over the course of a year we started to talk about it, and they increasingly blamed me for everything that was wrong, refusing to read any of the information I sent them, refusing to acknowledge that it was their fault that I am damaged.

Even though I myself was spared the pain and indignity, I totally empathize with what you say. That's exactly how I would feel, coming to the conclusion that I had been permanently altered for whimsical reasons.

My sister just had a baby boy and I'm almost afraid to go visit her now; What if I see him naked and he's circumcised? I could never think of her the same way after that.

What your parents did to you they did out of ignorance, not malice. There's really no point dwelling on it, you can both forgive your parents and maintain that RIC is absolutely wrong. Now that you've fallen down that rabbit hole and fully realised your situation, hopefully time (and knowledge) will heal you on the inside.

Welcome to the forum.

[robinson]

http://www.elvovemd.com/files/The_Foreskin_is_Necessary.pdf

A rational and informational paper. Irrational minds need not read, it won't make any difference to you of course.

[Loss Leader]

Since your decision isn't based on objective evidence, is there anything that would convince you to change your mind about circumcision and would make you no longer want to practice it? Anything at all?


Sure. If I were presented with compelling medical evidence that circumcision was detrimental to my child's health in some way, I would be glad to reconsider my views. Bear in mind that I have reviewed all of the actual medical evidence presented and linked to in this thread and have not yet seen anything that leads me to that conclusion.


(Feel free to ask me the same question. I would never ask a question of someone that I would not answer myself.)


Oh, rest assured that I don't care. I don't care who does or does not circumcise their children or why. My interest starts and ends at the right of Jewish children to be circumcised for religious reasons.

[robinson]

http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html

[Koshy]

Sure. If I were presented with compelling medical evidence that circumcision was detrimental to my child's health in some way, I would be glad to reconsider my views. Bear in mind that I have reviewed all of the actual medical evidence presented and linked to in this thread and have not yet seen anything that leads me to that conclusion.


Yes, but to ask the question again on BlackCat's behalf, what would that evidence have to say in order to compel you? Bearing in mind that the removal of a number of body parts (ear lobes, a number of teeth, male nipples, toenails) would be met with minimal medical concern assuming the operation could be carried out with sufficient skill as to avoid complications directly resulting from it.

[Loss Leader]

Yes, but to ask the question again on BlackCat's behalf, what would that evidence have to say in order to compel you?


The possible answers are so numerous as to be infinite. There is no way for me to be more exact.

If circumcision raised the risk of illness from insignificant for uncircumcised men to significant for circumcised ones, I might be persuaded to care. So, for example, if I found our that circumcision doubled a child's risk for chronic granulomatous disease, I would hardly be moved. The disease affects about one person in 250,000. Raising that risk to 1 in 125,000 would not change my opinion. [I just picked CGD because it's rare. Circumcision has nothing to do with it.]

And if I found out that circumcised men had an incidence of prostate cancer 1% higher than uncircumcised men (for every 100 uncircumcised men with prostate cancer, there would be 101 circumcised men), I would not care because the change in risk is too small.

Beyond that, I cannot be more specific.

[kellyb]

If circumcision raised the risk of illness from insignificant for uncircumcised men to significant for circumcised ones, I might be persuaded to care.

What about up to 10% of circumcised boys developing meatal stenosis?

[BlackKat]

What about up to 10% of circumcised boys developing meatal stenosis?

Maybe they should have their diapers changed...

http://www.urologyhealth.org/search/index.cfm?topic=33&search=meatal%20AND%20stenosis&searchtype=and
"The condition is most common in circumcised males and seldom occurs in uncircumcised males. In a recently circumcised male infant, maintaining a clean, dry diaper and avoiding any type of diaper irritation usually prevent meatal stenosis."
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm
" * In a child who is circumcised, persistent exposure of the meatus to urine and mechanical trauma from rubbing against a wet diaper results in ammoniacal dermatitis, loss of meatal epithelium, and fusion of its ventral edges. This results in a pinpoint orifice at the tip of the glans."

[Koshy]

Maybe they should have their diapers changed...

Or not be circumcised, a much more simple solution.

The possible answers are so numerous as to be infinite. There is no way for me to be more exact.

If circumcision raised the risk of illness from insignificant for uncircumcised men to significant for circumcised ones, I might be persuaded to care.

You gave a surprisingly reasonable answer. Still though, pertaining to what I asked, would it be ok to remove any of the parts I listed simply because they did not cause complications further down the road? Most of the ones I listed I cant imagine causing higher rates of anything.

An issue to consider is, as it will be ruled on eventually(there is already for girls), if there were a law to be made on your behalf, one that enforced your point of view, what would it be? I find it difficult to imagine any law that would rule in your favor that wouldnt open up a huge can of worms pertaining to what parents can and cant do in the name of tradition.

[Loss Leader]

You gave a surprisingly reasonable answer. Still though, pertaining to what I asked, would it be ok to remove any of the parts I listed simply because they did not cause complications further down the road? Most of the ones I listed I cant imagine causing higher rates of anything.


Well, you must remember that parents may substitute their judgment for their children's only if it is in their children's best interests. The current law recognizes maintaining religious traditions as being in the interest of a child (and I am sure you and others disagree that it is in children's best interests, but that's the law right now). So circumcision for religious purposes is in a child's interests and the harm is minor to non-existent.

On the other hand, removal of "ear lobes, a number of teeth, male nipples, toenails," etc. is not the tradition of any religion I know of. So, there is no reason to think that routine excisions of such things might be in a child's best interests. Still, I do have a friend who had both of his nipples removed by his parents when he was too young to consent. As he had a rare and agressive form of breast cancer, it was necessary to save his life.


if there were a law to be made on your behalf, one that enforced your point of view, what would it be? I find it difficult to imagine any law that would rule in your favor that wouldnt open up a huge can of worms pertaining to what parents can and cant do in the name of tradition.


That law already exists and is in force all throughout the US. And it does occassionally put parents and the state in conflict with each other but I wouldn't call it a "huge" can of worms. Parents may substitute their judgment for their children in the children's best interests. That's the rule. I think it's a darn good one, not just because it lets me circumcise my child but because it allows for a plurality of beliefs in the US, minimizes state intervention in families and still protects children.

[ClintonHammond]

"because the religious authorities I trust advise me to."
So, blind ignorant faith...

As long as you're not pretending to be rational.

[osmosis]

So circumcision for religious purposes is in a child's interests and the harm is minor to non-existent.

Wrong and wronger.

How do you go from "the law currently allows me to circumcise my child for religious reasons" to "circumcision is in my child's best interests" without making the "my will is his will" pit-stop of absurdity?

And what's with the hit-and-run antisemitism accusations? You accused me of something rather offensive, demanded that I explain myself, and then when I did you just move on to your next victim!

Either I'm antisemetic or you owe me an apology. Since I'm a benevolent, tolerant, patient person, I will gladly and graciously accept your humble apology.

[Loss Leader]

Either I'm antisemetic or you owe me an apology. Since I'm a benevolent, tolerant, patient person, I will gladly and graciously accept your humble apology.


You are a hate-monger and antisemite of the worst stripe. You are no better than the worst and most despicably disgusting monster the Aryan Nation has ever produced. I am genuinely saddened that your family and others in your life must be infected by your filthy, worm-ridden ideology. I loathe the very thought that you inhabit the same earth as I do and I dedicate myself to eradicating you and your brothers from the face of the planet for all time.

Clear enough, you racist slimebag?

Do not engage in this vitriolic mud-slinging either. "But he started it" is not excuse for not following the Membership Agreement.

[ClintonHammond]

As Loss Leader shows us, there's nothing worse than a coward with a big mouth.

[BlackCat]

Sure. If I were presented with compelling medical evidence that circumcision was detrimental to my child's health in some way, I would be glad to reconsider my views.
I guess dying isn't enough, then? Maybe a bit extreme, but it does happen. Circumcision isn't usually listed as the cause of death, so it's hard to find out how often it happens. It's usually listed under bleeding to death, or infection. You keep saying that complications are rare, but I think even if it's 1%, that's still 12,000 boys every year with complications. You don't have to live that life, but I think it must really suck for them. It seems like Koshy is one of those. I hope your children never suffer from complications.

Well, you must remember that parents may substitute their judgment for their children's only if it is in their children's best interests. The current law recognizes maintaining religious traditions as being in the interest of a child (and I am sure you and others disagree that it is in children's best interests, but that's the law right now). So circumcision for religious purposes is in a child's interests and the harm is minor to non-existent.
The law. Another rationalization of yours. Just because something is legal or illegal has no bearing on whether it is moral or not. I know morality in this case is irrelevant to you, but it might not be to lurkers watching this thread. I also know that most laws are moral. That doesn't mean they're all moral. Jim Crow laws weren't moral, but they were still laws. Parents may have the right to decide to circumcise their boys now, but that doesn't make it moral or right.

[BlackCat]

Maybe they should have their diapers changed...
That's a ridiculous statement that unfairly pins the totality of the blame on the parents; "obviously the diaper wasn't changed enough."

The point of boys getting meatal stenosis is that circumcision changes an internal organ to an external one. By doing so, you subject an internal organ, the glans and meatus, to the harshness of the external world, something that it has not evolved to do. Thus, meatal stenosis.

Also, you didn't mention that meatal stenosis requires more surgery to correct. Something that could have been avoided altogether if the boy hadn't been circumcised in the first place.


Oh, and I see that you've returned. Perhaps you'd like to answer my question now?


That consensus does exist for circumcision in the U.S. and while it is not a ringing endorsement of the procedure it is medically neutral.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...cs%3b103/3/686
Even this report which you sited doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision. I fail to see how that makes circumcision medically neutral. How is it medically neutral?

[Loss Leader]

The law. Another rationalization of yours. Just because something is legal or illegal has no bearing on whether it is moral or not. I know morality in this case is irrelevant to you, but it might not be to lurkers watching this thread.


I've already said this, BC, but I'll repeat it because you may not have been here when I did:

I am a lawyer and, as such, it is very important to me that the law and morality coincide. I have spent my entire adult life attempting to make sure they do. But there is something about a moral judgment that we must accept: We may be wrong.

A thought or idea held at any one time by any one person might be completely wrong. It might turn out that some other idea is right, even an idea that we now despise.

Our law recognizes this and has built in something of a failsafe: a plurality of practices are tolerated. Families and religious groups are allowed to test out their own rules. The more there are, the greater chance that one of them will find the right way. This adds a special robustness to the US that (I personally believe) is lacking in countries where human rights are not as highly prized. It adds a creativity and the friction between different cultures creates an energy that we can harness to move ourselves forward.

So, in order for it to be right that circumcision should be banned for all people including Jews, we must be sure we are 100% correct. There must be not the slightest bit of doubt. If we ban a practice, we may never be able to resurect it. Our society will become less diverse and (I think) less productive.

Are you 100% sure that you are objectively and scientifically right about circumcision? Perhaps you are. In any case, the courts are not and the plurality survives.

I hope this helps you reconcile how I can be in favor of both law and morality in the same sentence.


p.s. I appologize to readers of this thread for the harsh and passionate tone of my earlier message. If I were able to delete it, I would.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've already said this, BC, but I'll repeat it because you may not have been here when I did:

I am a lawyer and, as such, it is very important to me that the law and morality coincide. I have spent my entire adult life attempting to make sure they do. But there is something about a moral judgment that we must accept: We may be wrong.

A thought or idea held at any one time by any one person might be completely wrong. It might turn out that some other idea is right, even an idea that we now despise.

Our law recognizes this and has built in something of a failsafe: a plurality of practices are tolerated. Families and religious groups are allowed to test out their own rules. The more there are, the greater chance that one of them will find the right way. This adds a special robustness to the US that (I personally believe) is lacking in countries where human rights are not as highly prized. It adds a creativity and the friction between different cultures creates an energy that we can harness to move ourselves forward.

So, in order for it to be right that circumcision should be banned for all people including Jews, we must be sure we are 100% correct. There must be not the slightest bit of doubt. If we ban a practice, we may never be able to resurect it. Our society will become less diverse and (I think) less productive.

Are you 100% sure that you are objectively and scientifically right about circumcision? Perhaps you are. In any case, the courts are not and the plurality survives.

I hope this helps you reconcile how I can be in favor of both law and morality in the same sentence.


p.s. I appologize to readers of this thread for the harsh and passionate tone of my earlier message. If I were able to delete it, I would.

That's ok LL;)

I almost totally agree with you. People should be free to do whatever they want so long as it does not hurt (or risk hurting) anybody else.

I am 100% confident that cutting off a infants foreskin hurts him, both physically and mentally and the society that tolerates it to happen. It should therefore be regulated and only performed when medically indicated in the safest and most pain-free way possible.

Obviously you will totally disagree:)

[Roadtoad]

As Loss Leader shows us, there's nothing worse than a coward with a big mouth.

Whoa.

Sorry, Clinton, but I've been reading LL's prose for quite a while. You might disagree with him, but LL is NOT a coward. This might hit a hot button for him, and it is something he's very passionate about, but at the same time, to assume he's responding as he is out of fear is wrong.

I think I've made my views on this clear, and while I disagree with LL deeply about this, I respect his choice to disagree.

[Loss Leader]

I am 100% confident that cutting off a infants foreskin hurts him, both physically and mentally and the society that tolerates it to happen. It should therefore be regulated and only performed when medically indicated in the safest and most pain-free way possible.

Obviously you will totally disagree:)


I don't totally disagree, but the amount that I disagree is enough to change the result. For example, after having read all of the information on this thread I doubt that I would have my child circumcised if I were not Jewish. Before I encountered this thread, I would have.

For me, the cultural and religious benefit to my child outweighs the fact that I really am convinced there is usually no real medical benefit.

So, it's not total disagreement, a sentiment with which I am sure you will totally disagree. Or agree. I've gotten myself confused.

[kellyb]

I don't totally disagree, but the amount that I disagree is enough to change the result. For example, after having read all of the information on this thread I doubt that I would have my child circumcised if I were not Jewish. Before I encountered this thread, I would have.

For me, the cultural and religious benefit to my child outweighs the fact that I really am convinced there is usually no real medical benefit.

So, it's not total disagreement, a sentiment with which I am sure you will totally disagree. Or agree. I've gotten myself confused.

You've probably still got me on ignore...
But what, exactly, is the cultural or religious benefit to your child?
If you don't circumcise, you're still Jewish. Would your Jewish peers ostracise you or something? Would they kick you out of Judaism if you say "Hey...I think I'll not do this one little thing right now."?

[Ivor the Engineer]

You've probably still got me on ignore...
But what, exactly, is the cultural or religious benefit to your child?
If you don't circumcise, you're still Jewish. Would your Jewish peers ostracise you or something? Would they kick you out of Judaism if you say "Hey...I think I'll not do this one little thing right now."?

I'll quote you KellyB so LL can see your question, something I would like to know his answer to as well.

It appears to me to be more a fear of what the Rabbi and Jewish peers think rather than God, but I could be wrong.

If I believed in God I'd hope he would judge me on how I have lived my life rather than if I have my foreskin attached or not.

[Loss Leader]

I'll quote you KellyB so LL can see your question, something I would like to know his answer to as well.

It appears to me to be more a fear of what the Rabbi and Jewish peers think rather than God, but I could be wrong.

If I believed in God I'd hope he would judge me on how I have lived my life rather than if I have my foreskin attached or not.


I generally disapprove of quoting a poster to get around the "ignore" function, but I'm still feeling bad about my outburst earlier, so I'll answer. Luckily, I already answered this very question recently upthread:


I In my case, I believe the world is better off with Jews than without them. As the forces of assimilation are relentless, I believe it is my duty to continue the traditions of Judaism. This is not necessarily because I believe in God but because if I do not practice Judaism, it might make it harder for the next person to do so. I never want to hear the argument made to my neighbor, "Well, Loss Leader didn't circumcise his kid and he's Jewish, so you shouldn't circumcise yours" or "Why don't you eat pork? Loss Leader eats pork and he's just as Jewish as you are."


You see, I circumcise my children for the Jewish people. I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. I have no fear of what God will do to me (or my children) and I have no fear of what other Jews might think of me. I live in terror that my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

[ClintonHammond]

"but LL is NOT a coward"
When every time he's challenged with something his religious/cultural zeal can't rationally defend, he buries his head in the sand.... that's the act of a coward.

"I respect his choice to disagree."
I refuse to 'respect' anyone who advocates mutilating children, especially for BS Stupidstitious reasons.

"Would they kick you out of Judaism"
Only if he's lucky.

" I generally disapprove of quoting a poster to get around the "ignore" function"
Awww... poor little muffin.... Want someone to dial whine-one-one and have them send a whaaambulance?

"I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity."
Blind, stupid, faith.

[Loss Leader]

"Would they kick you out of Judaism"
Only if he's lucky.


You're telling me. Do you have any idea what passes for Hannukah presents? Dress socks. That's what I get for Hannukah, dress socks.


" I generally disapprove of quoting a poster to get around the "ignore" function"
Awww... poor little muffin.... Want someone to dial whine-one-one and have them send a whaaambulance?


Considering the fact that I then went on to answer the question, your comment is bizarre.


"I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity."
Blind, stupid, faith.


Nothing I said had anything to do with faith. I didn't say I do it because God commanded me to or because I think that we should obey the rules of the Old Testament. I didn't say that I refuse to question why my religion has certain rules or even that I agree with them. My faith has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Perhaps what you meant to write was "blind, stupid loyalty."

In fact, what I said was so obviously not about faith that I question whether you bothered to read it at all. It appears you may simply have determined that you dislike me and thus you consider everything I say to be wrong. I am sorrier for your lack of discernment than for your intolerance.

[ClintonHammond]

Don't think that I'm 'intolerant' just because I don't like you.

And me liking or disliking you has nothing to do with my condemnation of your support of mutilating children.

[fls]

As Loss Leader shows us, there's nothing worse than a coward with a big mouth.

I've been admiring Loss Leader's ability to remain calm and rational in the face of a disturbing degree of intolerance. And he makes me feel a coward by continuing to engage with you and others, when my response would be to ignore. And even though he now feels poorly for his outburst, I don't think it's a bad thing to let others know that the intolerance is an issue important enough to get passionate about.

Linda

[ClintonHammond]

"a disturbing degree of intolerance"
You're joking right?!?! HE supports mutilating children for NO good reason, but the people who oppose him are 'intolerant'

How, I ask, T.F. does that work?

[Ivor the Engineer]

You see, I circumcise my children for the Jewish people. I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. I have no fear of what God will do to me (or my children) and I have no fear of what other Jews might think of me. I live in terror that my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

Aren’t religious freedoms protected by law? Why would you eating pork say, make it any harder for someone else not to? I’m a vegetarian and I don’t feel compelled to eat meat or find it any harder object to eating it even though I do not know any other vegetarians.

What about the other commandments that have been ignored or modified to fit in with 21st century ideas of morality? For example, your religion no longer stones blasphemers to death. I have been corrected in my assumption that many Jews still feel compelled to marry only other Jews. Are homosexual Jews accepted within your community? All these things go directly against commandments in your religious text.

How do you think these changes to your own and others’ faiths came about? My guess is that the various behaviours were tested against the Golden Rule and found to be lacking.

If the ritual of circumcision is still very important to Jews, why could it not be modified to be more symbolic than physical? For example, men who are already circumcised and wish to convert to Judaism have a pinprick of blood drawn.

I've been admiring Loss Leader's ability to remain calm and rational in the face of a disturbing degree of intolerance. And he makes me feel a coward by continuing to engage with you and others, when my response would be to ignore. And even though he now feels poorly for his outburst, I don't think it's a bad thing to let others know that the intolerance is an issue important enough to get passionate about.

Linda

I hope you are not putting me in the ‘others’ group there Linda. I have no interest in curtailing anyone's freedom to think or do whatever they want, as long as it does not physically hurt anybody else, no matter how much DNA they have in common.

However, I fully admit that at times I can be offensive and blunt. Can’t we all?

[fls]

"a disturbing degree of intolerance"
You're joking right?!?! HE supports mutilating children for NO good reason, but the people who oppose him are 'intolerant'

How, I ask, T.F. does that work?

As far as I can tell, your inability to understand the explanation for how it works is the same thing that leads to the intolerance.

Linda

[fls]

I hope you are not putting me in the ‘others’ group there Linda. I have no interest in curtailing anyone's freedom to think or do whatever they want, as long as it does not physically hurt anybody else, no matter how much DNA they have in common.

Yes, I am. However, since my position is indefensible, this should be of no concern to you.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, I am. However, since my position is indefensible, this should be of no concern to you.

Linda

Being called anti-Semitic is of great concern to me. Am I anti-Islamic too because I object to FGM?

I have tried to keep my argument as far away from religion as possible. However, when LossLeader started arguing his culture or religion are valid reasons to circumcise infants I have pointed out that these have been used to validate other behaviour that Jewish people no longer consider acceptable, such as stoning blasphemers to death or not being allowed to marry non-Jewish people. Thus how can anyone have any confidence they are valid reasons for circumcision of infants?

Cultural and religious convictions can be used to understand why people are behaving the way they are, not as reasonable justification for an action before it is performed.

BTW Linda, the people in the thread who have been making anti-Semitic or overly personal comments have been warned by the mods. I fully agree with those warnings.

[Loss Leader]

What about the other commandments that have been ignored or modified to fit in with 21st century ideas of morality? For example, your religion no longer stones blasphemers to death. I have been corrected in my assumption that many Jews still feel compelled to marry only other Jews. Are homosexual Jews accepted within your community? All these things go directly against commandments in your religious text.

How do you think these changes to your own and others’ faiths came about? My guess is that the various behaviours were tested against the Golden Rule and found to be lacking.


Well, this is exactly what I was talking about - the erosion of the Jewish faith in the face of outside pressures. Kellyb's questions and yours below are exactly the thing that I fear most. When I'm asked, "Well, you modified other practices, so why not this one?" it is precisely what I worry about. I don't want to help you (meaning "secular" or "homogenous" social forces) to dismantle my religion.


If the ritual of circumcision is still very important to Jews, why could it not be modified to be more symbolic than physical?


The answer is that I don't know and I don't care. The religious authorities I trust recommend circumcision. If they changed their opinions, I would change mine. But I have no desire to reform my religion or dilute it in any way. This is the rule. I follow it so that the next person who wants to doesn't have to have my non-observance used by others as an argument for his non-observance.

The fact that the rule could and maybe should change does not alter the fact that it is the rule today. Does this make me less of a skeptic or free thinker? In this area, yes.


Being called anti-Semitic is of great concern to me.


FWIW, I have never considered any post of yours to have been antisemitic. Arguing that a Jewish practice is "wrong" does not apear to me to be antisemitic. Antisemitism is a personal attack against me based entirely on my ethnicity. So, when you say that Jews shouldn't circumcise their children, I find that somewhat narrow but in no way an attack on Jews just for being Jewish. On the other hand, when someone says that I live up to the negative stereotypes of Jews, the implication is that I am in some way lacking based on the very fact of my ethnicity.

Now, you did call me deluded ... twice. But that was just impolite. It wasn't hateful.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't want to help you (meaning "secular" or "homogenous" social forces) to dismantle my religion.

What else do "they" want Jewish people to stop doing? I want the Pope to stop telling Africans not to use condoms, but I'm not trying to "dismantle" the Catholic church.

However, I admit I would not be bothered if it, or Islam or Judaism or Christianity or any other religious or other organizations that promote paranormal beliefs disappeared.

The fact that the rule could and maybe should change does not alter the fact that it is the rule today. Does this make me less of a skeptic or free thinker? In this area, yes.

Ok.

FWIW, I have never considered any post of yours to have been antisemitic. Arguing that a Jewish practice is "wrong" does not apear to me to be antisemitic. Antisemitism is a personal attack against me based entirely on my ethnicity. So, when you say that Jews shouldn't circumcise their children, I find that somewhat narrow but in no way an attack on Jews just for being Jewish. On the other hand, when someone says that I live up to the negative stereotypes of Jews, the implication is that I am in some way lacking based on the very fact of my ethnicity.

I don't say Jews shouldn't circumcise their children. I say no one should circumcise their children unless it is medically indicated. Religion or culture has nothing to do with it for me since so many different cultures and religions circumcise their children for different reasons. E.g.,

Jewish: God said so.
Muslims: Mohammad did it.
Americans: Everyone else is doing it.
Etc.

It doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of any particular group. It appears to be a more "basic" impulse than any religion or culture will admit to.

Now, you did call me deluded ... twice. But that was just impolite. It wasn't hateful.

Like I said, I can be offensive and blunt at times. I'm not proud of it, but it happens.

[Koshy]

(Revising, cause I should have waited till I was more awake to write another response ;))

[ClintonHammond]

"your inability to understand"
I'm not unable to understand... There hasn't been an explanation presented that wasn't a total pant load.

" The answer is that I don't know and I don't care."
So... wilfully blind and ignorant, "Follow The Leader" is the game you play, and one of your moves was to mutilate your child.... Again, as long as you're not pretending to be rational.

"you did call me deluded ... twice."
Apparently for good reason.

[Loss Leader]

and one of your moves was to mutilate your child.


One child so far. In less than 11 weeks, it will be two. It's gonna be mutiltacular!

[ClintonHammond]

And you're proud of the fact that you're mutilating your children?!

That's disgusting.

What do I have to say for you to put me back on your ignore list?

I pity your children


CH, please stop personalizing the argument; attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Loss Leader]

And you're proud of the fact that you're mutilating your children?!


I think I've stated numerous times that I am immensely proud. The circumcision of my first son was one of the proudest moments of my life.

Considering how often I've explained that, your use of both a question mark and an exclamation mark is bizarre.

[BlackCat]

I've already said this, BC, but I'll repeat it because you may not have been here when I did:

I am a lawyer and, as such, it is very important to me that the law and morality coincide. I have spent my entire adult life attempting to make sure they do. But there is something about a moral judgment that we must accept: We may be wrong.

A thought or idea held at any one time by any one person might be completely wrong. It might turn out that some other idea is right, even an idea that we now despise.

Our law recognizes this and has built in something of a failsafe: a plurality of practices are tolerated. Families and religious groups are allowed to test out their own rules. The more there are, the greater chance that one of them will find the right way. This adds a special robustness to the US that (I personally believe) is lacking in countries where human rights are not as highly prized. It adds a creativity and the friction between different cultures creates an energy that we can harness to move ourselves forward.
Even though I am not a lawyer, I'm not stupid, and I actually do understand why our laws are the way they are. I do understand what you're saying here, and I agree.

So, in order for it to be right that circumcision should be banned for all people including Jews, we must be sure we are 100% correct. There must be not the slightest bit of doubt. If we ban a practice, we may never be able to resurect it. Our society will become less diverse and (I think) less productive.

Are you 100% sure that you are objectively and scientifically right about circumcision? Perhaps you are. In any case, the courts are not and the plurality survives.
Ok, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm 100% against all circumcisions. I've never said anything like that, and certainly didn't mean to imply it. What I'm against is routine infant circumcision. You don't seem to care what I think, so maybe this part isn't for you. I speak out against circumcision because it really seems like Americans do them for no rational reason at all, in fact, it seems like most people don't even think about it before they do it. In fact, I get the feeling that most people are so ignorant about their own anatomy, that they can argue that it's a good thing, when they don't even know what they're arguing because they've never had a foreskin that they can remember, and are inherently biased.

No, I am not 100% sure that I am right about circumcision. However, I hold the view that if the outcome of a permanent procedure is unknown or ambiguous, then it is better to be cautious about it, and not do the procedure, than it is to perform it, and be wrong.

Anyway, certainly I believe that there might be medical reasons for circumcision, although, even for conditions like phimosis, it may not be necessary to take the permanent step of circumcision to cure it.

Those things that I said above have nothing to do with you, because your argument is religion. I've come to the realization that I can't argue with you anymore, not because anyone is "right" or "wrong," but because I find the religion argument to be irrational. To me, it's no different than arguing with some christian or whomever about their faith. I don't understand it, it means nothing to me, but obviously it holds relevance for you. Again, I don't mean to be snarky, so I'm sorry if it comes out that way. I'm just being blunt.

[ClintonHammond]

Once again LL, I pity your children.


CH, please stop personalizing the argument; attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Koshy]

The reason people become emotional is because of the appalling nature of whats being done. The reason that the procirc people are so calm is the same as the one going through the heads of the mothers holding down their little girls. The reason emotion becomes involved is because its a clearly sexually motivated operation. Of all the parts to be singled out for being wrong its the vagina or the penis, yet of course the operation itself is devoid of any moral implications, and "normal" people shouldnt be moved to action at the sight of a baby's genitals being sliced into.

----------------

So Loss, as I understand it, if you were an Aztec, and I a Spaniard, and I said to you "Human Sacrifice is a horrible practice." Your reply would of course be "I dont like it, in fact, I wouldnt do it, but the truth of the matter is that Im afraid that the people around me will stop doing it if I dont."

The fact of the matter is, as said by others, Judaism is, like other religions, always evolving. Why you see circumcision as a primary concern in your religious practice is the questionable part. Are you saying youre only a Jew because someone cut off your foreskin (and sucked out some blood as I understand it), and because you dont eat pork, theres nothing more to it. The essence of Judaism is foreskinless pork abstinence.

I feel that you are using that argument as another excuse. Ive read a bit about Judaism, and I agree with you in that I think the world is a better place with Jews. The Talmud has some wonderful musings on life. However, I dont understand the need to violate someone else's rights in order to make you feel as if youre upholding your religion, is that really all there is to uphold? Do you feel Judaism would collapse if people ate pork and left their children intact? If thats the case your religion is well on its way to extinction, I however dont believe that is the essence of your religion.

Would you use that same line on any other topic? About your new child?

"Yeah, and hes going to study the bible too!" "Yeah, Im not going to let my son eat pork!"
Or does it only fit with this particular practice.
"Im going to cut off my son's foreskin and theres nothing you can do about it!"

There is something at work other than the reason youve devised. And as such, Im pretty much talking to noone, because your views arnt going to change. You differ the responsibility of making any decision to someone else.

(Thanks for the welcome 1 page back I think Osmo.) (Also, I dont mean any disrespect, and Ive not become emotional, if what Ive written creates an emotional response in you, take it up with yourself.)

[Skepticybe]

I am a lawyer and, as such, it is very important to me that the law and morality coincide. I have spent my entire adult life attempting to make sure they do. But there is something about a moral judgment that we must accept: We may be wrong.
It is for moral reasons that RIC is unacceptable in all cases, unless medically necessary. Morality and the law should come together to ban this barbaric, sadistic, abusive practice.

This adds a special robustness to the US that (I personally believe) is lacking in countries where human rights are not as highly prized.Apparently, one of those human rights that is preserved here is the right to disregard the human rights of another person, so that adults can get their proud jollies, and can avoid feeling inadequate or different from their social group.

So, in order for it to be right that circumcision should be banned for all people including Jews, we must be sure we are 100% correct. There must be not the slightest bit of doubt. If we ban a practice, we may never be able to resurect it. Our society will become less diverse and (I think) less productive.

Are you 100% sure that you are objectively and scientifically right about circumcision? Perhaps you are. In any case, the courts are not and the plurality survives.
First, circumcision has not been evaluated by the law to determine whether it is even ethical. It is legal only because it has escaped scrutiny and a fair scientific analysis. Using the law as a justification holds no water, it has no bearing on whether circumcision is harmful or moral. When it was legal to kill jews or take their property, it was just as immoral and unethical as it is today.

Second, you've got it backwards. In order for a permanent cosmetic amputation or alteration of a sex organ to be allowed on a non-consenting, we must be 100% sure it causes no harm. There is no dispute over whether circumcision causes harm, pro-circs simply argue that the harm isn't that big of a deal by saying "the pain can be managed with anesthetics" or "change the diaper" or "the medical benefits outweigh the risks of complications". Circumcision causes physical harm, the only disagreement is how much harm and whether that harm is fully offset by other benefits.

Finally, I can't help but notice that you are still ignoring the harm caused by loss of the sensitivity and function of the foreskin. You are depriving your sons of some of the pleasure of sex, and by extension life.

[Loss Leader]

The reason emotion becomes involved is because its a clearly sexually motivated operation.


That is not clear to me at all. My motivation is that it is an element of my religion.


So Loss, as I understand it, if you were an Aztec, and I a Spaniard, and I said to you "Human Sacrifice is a horrible practice." Your reply would of course be "I dont like it, in fact, I wouldnt do it, but the truth of the matter is that Im afraid that the people around me will stop doing it if I dont."


No, that doesn't follow at all. With circumcision, I am substituting my jusgement for my incompetent child with his best interests in mind. The Aztecs sacrificed their enemies. So, their enemies were not incompetent, they were not the Aztecs' children and the Aztecs didn't have their enemies' best interests in mind.


Are you saying youre only a Jew because someone cut off your foreskin (and sucked out some blood as I understand it), and because you dont eat pork, theres nothing more to it. The essence of Judaism is foreskinless pork abstinence.


I have said nothing of the sort. I am not Jewish because I am circumcised, I am circumcised because I am Jewish. Also, there's no blood sucking going on anymore in Conservative Judaism.

And as I have also said, if I stop the practice of circumcision, it will make it harder for other Jews to continue the practice.


However, I dont understand the need to violate someone else's rights in order to make you feel as if youre upholding your religion

No one's rights are being violated. In fact, my son's right to practice his religion is being protected.

Do you feel Judaism would collapse if people ate pork and left their children intact?


Indeed, I do.


Would you use that same line on any other topic? About your new child?

"Yeah, and hes going to study the bible too!" "Yeah, Im not going to let my son eat pork!"


I will, in fact, be preventing my son from eating pork. And I will be forcing him to study the bible.


There is something at work other than the reason youve devised.


The fact that you are incredulous about my thought process does not mean that there is something else at work.

[Loss Leader]

Apparently, one of those human rights that is preserved here is the right to disregard the human rights of another person, so that adults can get their proud jollies, and can avoid feeling inadequate or different from their social group.


No one's rights are being disregarded. My son has the right to make decisions regarding his bodily integrity just as you or I do. However, he is incompetent to understand or evaluate his options so the law has asked me to substitute my judgment for him. I have proudly undertaken this honor and intend to execute my duties only in furtherance of his best interests.


Second, you've got it backwards. In order for a permanent cosmetic amputation or alteration of a sex organ to be allowed on a non-consenting, we must be 100% sure it causes no harm.


First of all, my son is not non-consenting. He is incapable of consenting. There is a difference.

Second of all, this is not the rule. I know you'd like it to be the rule. I know it seems logical to you that it should be the rule. But it is not. Your wishing it were does not make it so.


Circumcision causes physical harm, the only disagreement is how much harm and whether that harm is fully offset by other benefits.


I agree.


Finally, I can't help but notice that you are still ignoring the harm caused by loss of the sensitivity and function of the foreskin. You are depriving your sons of some of the pleasure of sex, and by extension life.


I have not ignored this argument.

The peer-reviewed and properly researched studies linked to in this thread have not demonstrated that circumcised men derive less pleasure from sex than uncircumcised men.

No scientific evidence having been adduced, all that is left is anecdotal evidence. I have read the descriptions that the uncircumcised men in this thread have given of the sexual pleasure they enjoy. Some of them were a little too frank for my taste.

But those anecdotes are offset by my own experience as a circumcised male. And my experience is that I enjoy sex quite a great deal (or, at least, I did until I got married). I don't really enjoy anything more than sex. So I have a hard time believing that the uncircumcised men are enjoying it more. If I were to enjoy it any more than I already do, the process wouldn't last nearly as long and that would make me not enjoy it as much.

All anecdotes having cancelled each other out, nothing is left of your argument regarding sexual pleasure.

[Koshy]

1.That is not clear to me at all. My motivation is that it is an element of my religion.

2.No, that doesn't follow at all. With circumcision, I am substituting my jusgement for my incompetent child with his best interests in mind. The Aztecs sacrificed their enemies. So, their enemies were not incompetent, they were not the Aztecs' children and the Aztecs didn't have their enemies' best interests in mind.

3.I have said nothing of the sort. I am not Jewish because I am circumcised, I am circumcised because I am Jewish. Also, there's no blood sucking going on anymore in Conservative Judaism.

4.And as I have also said, if I stop the practice of circumcision, it will make it harder for other Jews to continue the practice.

5.No one's rights are being violated. In fact, my son's right to practice his religion is being protected.

6.Indeed, I do.

7.I will, in fact, be preventing my son from eating pork. And I will be forcing him to study the bible.

8.The fact that you are incredulous about my thought process does not mean that there is something else at work.

Ive numbered these, for convenience.

1. Fairly simple, even from your religious perspective, why is no other part of the body singled out for this ceremony. Why do similar ceremonies in other cultures also target the genitals.

2. I was using that example completely to highlight your system of justification, examples dont have to be directly parallel. The reasoning being used by the hypothetical Aztec is the same as the less hypothetical you.

3. So youre highlighting a change in the practice while at the same time going on about how if it changes/goes away that Judaism will cease to exist.

4. What is important about continuing the practice? Why must Jews continue it? As I said, if a Jew doesnt circumcise do they cease to be Jewish? Some practices dont need to continue. Youre not the only group that circumcises, nor is your current practice of circumcision the original form.

5. No, your son's rights to practice religion arnt being enforced. You are using your right to religious freedom to trump his right to personal freedom. I highly doubt a newborn has much interest in religious goings on.

In addition, I really really dont see how you could assert that without knowing that its nonsense.

6. Your faith is on the way to its doom then, because a Jew with a foreskin isnt a Jew at all. (Insert the exceptions)

7. You missed entirely the point of that.

Saying "I wont allow my son to eat pork." Whats the effect that has on you? Or anyone else. (Please others, if anyone reads this far, respond to this point.) Likewise to "Im going to make my son study the Bible."

Vs. "Im going to cut off my son's foreskin no matter what anyone says."

8. Your assertion that there isnt also doesnt prove anything.

[Loss Leader]

1. Fairly simple, even from your religious perspective, why is no other part of the body singled out for this ceremony. Why do similar ceremonies in other cultures also target the genitals.


I don't know. I think the psycho-social development of circumcision among diverse groups with no contact is absolutely fascinating. I am intrigued by the explanations I have read. It doesn't change the fact that people of my religion circumcise their children but it is very interesting.

2. I was using that example completely to highlight your system of justification, examples dont have to be directly parallel. The reasoning being used by the hypothetical Aztec is the same as the less hypothetical you.


No, it is not. And I explained why. The Aztec is not looking out for the best interests of the enemy he sacrifices, I am. So my reason to circumcise is to help my child, the Aztec's reason to kill is not to help his victim. They are completely different reasons. Likewise, I only substitute my judgment for an incompetent person whereas the Aztec overrules the judgment of a competent person. His reasoning is different than my own.


3. So youre highlighting a change in the practice while at the same time going on about how if it changes/goes away that Judaism will cease to exist.


Hey, man, I'm not a rabbi. If the religious authorities I trust told me tomorrow that circumcision wasn't necessary, I wouldn't do it. But they haven't said that, so I will go ahead with the bris. We're having it catered.


4. What is important about continuing the practice? Why must Jews continue it? As I said, if a Jew doesnt circumcise do they cease to be Jewish? Some practices dont need to continue. Youre not the only group that circumcises, nor is your current practice of circumcision the original form.


I have answered this numerous times.


5. No, your son's rights to practice religion arnt being enforced. You are using your right to religious freedom to trump his right to personal freedom. I highly doubt a newborn has much interest in religious goings on.


You're right about my newborn son's interest in religion. He has none. That is why I must substitute my judgment for his to do what he would want done if he understood the risks and benefits. And don't bother asking how I know he would want it done. What I want is what he wants. The two are indistinguishable.


6. Your faith is on the way to its doom then


We'll see. Many have said that. None have been right.


7. You missed entirely the point of that.

Saying "I wont allow my son to eat pork." Whats the effect that has on you? Or anyone else. (Please others, if anyone reads this far, respond to this point.) Likewise to "Im going to make my son study the Bible."

Vs. "Im going to cut off my son's foreskin no matter what anyone says."




And ... I guess I'm still missing the point because I don't understand what you're saying here.

[Koshy]

We'll see. Many have said that. None have been right.


And ... I guess I'm still missing the point because I don't understand what you're saying here.

You took that out of context, and clearly cant catch the sarcasm. Twice Ive said it in metaphorical terms, let me just say it outright so as to avoid confusion.

Judaism will not cease because circumcision is no longer practiced. There is more to the Jewish religion than the impulse to cut up its infant's genitals.

The same is true of R.Catholicism, it wouldnt cease to exist if tomorrow the Pope said "no more Eucharist."

And yes, you are missing the point on the other issue. Hopefully someone else will be able to highlight the difference between making your child study the bible and cutting off part of his genitals.

(Ill come back to address the others again later perhaps.)

[Ivor the Engineer]

An interesting site with information about the history of circumcision:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[ClintonHammond]

"My motivation is that it is an element of my religion."
And if it was an element of my religion to hold Jews down without their consent and cut off the last knuckle of their little fingers? Would that be o.k. with you too? I'll wager I could find religious justification to beat my wife... I guess that would be o.k. with you too.

Kindly take your blinkered religion and cram it, thanks.

"with his best interests in mind"
I'm glad you THINK that, but I still pity your children.

"Some of them were a little too frank for my taste."
But you're willing, nay PROUD to stand there and watch your male children mutilated?!?! But you can't handle a frank discussion of basic, natural human sexuality? I wasn't aware that people could get access to the internet in 1950.

"your use of both a question mark and an exclamation mark is bizarre"
Ya... You mutilate your children, and refer to the act as the proudest moment of your life, but MY punctuation is bizarre.... That really makes a lot of sense...

"If the religious authorities I trust told me tomorrow that circumcision wasn't necessary, I wouldn't do it."
So, you freely admit that you'll blindly do whatever your LEADERS (Whose opinions are going to be based on fairy tales and mythology) say you have to?!?! I guess, for your sake, I hope they don't start telling you to throw your children off of cliffs. I can't imagine why you frequent a web forum for sceptics...

"What I want is what he wants."
Wow. What overbearing.... what arrogance.... My pity for your children deepens.

"There is more to the Jewish religion than the impulse to cut up its infant's genitals."
Is there? Doesn't seem like it.


1485 posts, and still the answer to the OP is "NO"... Cause following your leaders blindly isn't the act of a 'rational thinker'.


CH, stop personalizing the argument; attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Loss Leader]

And if it was an element of my religion to hold Jews down without their consent and cut off the last knuckle of their little fingers? Would that be o.k. with you too? I'll wager I could find religious justification to beat my wife... I guess that would be o.k. with you too.


No, as I have explained numerous times, circumcision is effected through a parent substituting his judgment for his incompetent child in the child's best interests. In your hypothetical, the Jews you would hold down are not incompetent to give or withhold consent (in fat, you specify that the procedure is without their consent) and you are not your Jewish victim's next-of-kin or other medical proxy. On top of that, one would then have to weigh whether there is any circumstance where cutting off the last knuckle of a little finger is in the best interests of the person being cut.

But then I just explained all of this with the Aztec example. And I'd explained it all several times before that as well. In fact, I've distinguished these examples so often and so clearly that if you were any other poster, one might be tempted to think that you were being deliberately obtuse. Knowing you, however, I am quite certain it is not deliberate.

[robinson]

Off topic point:

Pointing your finger and crying "Racist!" when you have lost an online debate, is known as Hitler's Revenge.

[ClintonHammond]

Ya... but that's all LL has at this point, robinson.


"I am quite certain it is not deliberate"
That's rich coming from someone who revels in blind, follow-the-leaderism...

Again, I can't imagine why you frequent a web forum for sceptics...

[BlackCat]

I'm not even sure why Loss Leader is in this thread, to be honest. It seems clear that he's not here to learn anything. In fact, all he's doing is defending his beliefs. :con2:

[Skepticybe]

No one's rights are being disregarded. My son has the right to make decisions regarding his bodily integrity just as you or I do.
Great! Progress!
However, he is incompetent to understand or evaluate his options so the law has asked me to substitute my judgment for him. I have proudly undertaken this honor and intend to execute my duties only in furtherance of his best interests.
You keep repeating this as if it makes any difference. Everybody understands that the law grants you broad authority to act contrary to your child's best interest.

The fact that you insist on doing it when he can't stop you indicates that you place his interests behind your own superstitions and your own need to feel adequate. You are pursuing this for your interests not his. If you truly cared for his interests you would allow him to make this important choice for himself, and you would give serious consideration to the harm you are causing. I can confidently say that you are not giving serious consideration because you summarily dismiss all scientific information about the benefits of a foreskin as "anecdotal".

I don't get why you stick so stubbornly to this "It's OK because the law allows me to" argument. Given what the Jewish people have historically faced from official, legal oppression, you of all people should understand it is inexcusable to try to use this argument to justify the oppression of another.

All the lawyerly, legalistic arguments for "consent" don't change the fact that you are unnecessarily mutilating the genitals of a baby for your own enjoyment. That baby is a person and is entitled to make that decision for himself, unless it is medically required.

First of all, my son is not non-consenting. He is incapable of consenting. There is a difference.
Legally yes, morally no. I'm beginning to think maybe you can't understand the not-so-subtle difference.

Second of all, this is not the rule. I know you'd like it to be the rule. I know it seems logical to you that it should be the rule. But it is not. Your wishing it were does not make it so.
Priceless coming from the one who seems to rely on repeated lawyerly, legalistic arguments to defend why it is morally acceptable to mutilate the genitals of a child for one's own enjoyment.

Having a law that says it's ok to mutilate a baby's genitals for your own enjoyment doesn't make it OK to do so, no matter how many times you say it does.

I have not ignored this argument.
Yes, you have. Whether intentional or not, you have given no meaningful consideration to the benefits of a foreskin.

I and others have posted links to plenty of sound, scientific information explaining the function and benefit of the foreskin, including properly conducted studies. You calling it "anecdotal" and declaring that concept defeated is the closest any of the pro-circs have come to addressing any of it.

The peer-reviewed and properly researched studies linked to in this thread have not demonstrated that circumcised men derive less pleasure from sex than uncircumcised men.
I love how you frame this. You put the burden of proof on the people who are trying to preserve and protect.

I love it! First we have moral by virtue of legal, now we have moral by virtue of having never been proven harmful through properly researched peer-reviewed studies.

But I guess I'd have to resort to such preposterous arguments too, if I was defending something as indefensible as an adult altering the genitals of a baby for the adult's enjoyment.

No scientific evidence having been adduced,Translated: having ignored all scientific evidence that shows the harm caused by loss of the foreskinall that is left is anecdotal evidence.Amazing! Does this kind of illogic actually work with judges? I fear for our country if so.I have read the descriptions that the uncircumcised men in this thread have given of the sexual pleasure they enjoy. Some of them were a little too frank for my taste. Yet you are able to dismiss them, completely unconcerned about the harm you might be causing your son, because that harm has not been "proven" according to the impossibly high standards you've set.

Taking off your lawyer hat, and thinking just as a parent, shouldn't the standard be "has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is harmless?"

But those anecdotes are offset by my own experience as a circumcised male. And my experience is that I enjoy sex quite a great deal (or, at least, I did until I got married).
Come on, how can you be on a skeptic site and not see the problem with your logic? You have no foreskin, why would you expect to be able to know whether it would have been any better? Just as a man has no idea what sex feels like for a woman, you have no idea what difference a foreskin makes, except that you can hear what men with foreskin can describe and you can read the research studies on the topic. Very telling that you categorically dismiss all such information for no reason other than the challenge it poses.
I don't really enjoy anything more than sex. So I have a hard time believing that the uncircumcised men are enjoying it more. If I were to enjoy it any more than I already do, the process wouldn't last nearly as long and that would make me not enjoy it as much.
How much you currently enjoy sex has no bearing on whether it would (or would not) be better with a foreskin. And the last sentence of that quote is wrong in every possible way.

Notice how you simultaneously argue "no benefit" and "it would be bad if sex were more pleasurable"? :rolleyes: Too funny.

[JoeEllison]

No offense to everyone who has posted before... but isn't it a bit silly to refer to circumcision as "mutilation", and frame the anti-circumcision position as being about "body integrity"? It is a medical procedure with little risk, and apparent benefit.

And, really, if you have such a profound interest in and obsession with your genitals, and the genitals of others, I think that little flap of skin is the least of your problems.

[SYLVESTER1592]

I think Penn and Teller covered this subject in season 3 episode 1 on Circumcision. They reached the same conclusion using the same arguments pitted against each other, with all the references and arguments for and against circumcision.

The conclusion was no circumcision of all boys.

First the reasons for circumcision chronologically:
1. God wanted this from the Jews (but you are not less jewish, and can still be jewish if you are not circumcised... :boggled: )
2. Christians adopted it because they wanted to annihilate "the perverted act of masturbation" (Kellogg and Graham 19th century. Yeah, the same guys from the cereal and cracker multi-nationals)
3. Questionable Health reasons (after declining religious following) 1970's/ 1980's. This has been rejected already as being pointless. There is no apparent benefit when looking at the population. It is not supported as a guideline for the entire population. It is not advocated as a required procedure for every boy that is born. You are not being negligible when you don't perform this procedure as a prevention measure for the entire population.
4. Conformity (we don't want our kids to feel out of place)

For some reason most North American women are afraid of an anatomically correct penis and men will conform to just about anything to please women.

After restoring the mental health of the community, concerning body image, what will the next reason be? :confused:

Basically circumcision is an easy procedure which brings in money. Some doctors (especially in the US) have forgotten one of the first creeds of medicine: "Do no harm". Or maybe they just don't know any better...

Education of the public starts with the education of doctors
(Yeah, yeah, I know. You'd like me to get of my high horse and don't be so pushy... ;) )

SYL :)

[Katana]

{snip}

Basically circumcision is an easy procedure which brings in money. Some doctors (especially in the US) have forgotten one of the first creeds of medicine: "Do no harm". Or maybe they just don't know any better...

Education of the public starts with the education of doctors
(Yeah, yeah, I know. You'd like me to get of the high horse and don't be so pushy... ;) )

SYL :)


Or maybe docs have read the evidence (provided earlier in the thread) about circumcision's potential benefits.

[Skepticybe]

No offense to everyone who has posted before... but isn't it a bit silly to refer to circumcision as "mutilation", and frame the anti-circumcision position as being about "body integrity"?
Why would it be silly to call it mutilation when an immobilized unconsenting baby's genitals are unnecessary disfigured and desensitized?
It is a medical procedure with little risk, and apparent benefit. No it's not. RIC causes harm to the baby each and every time. Even when the harm caused by loss of the foreskin is disregarded entirely, the supposed benefits are neither sure enough nor significant enough to indicate circumcision.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

In most cases, circumcision is one of the most harmful ways to deal with the various conditions it is thought to help.

And, really, if you have such a profound interest in and obsession with your genitals, and the genitals of others, I think that little flap of skin is the least of your problems.Gotta love the duplicity. Those supporting the often painful and always harmful genital modification of an unconsenting baby accuse those who oppose the practice of being "perverts". If you can't beat 'em, defame 'em!

[SYLVESTER1592]

Or maybe docs have read the evidence (provided earlier in the thread) about circumcision's potential benefits.
As you may have noted before: The "evidence"is debatable and skewed by the interest of the researchers. Mostly there is a lot of pick and choose. When you look at the meta-analysis and follow-up studies the initial recommendations are not supported. It's progress of medical research. However, doctors are human too...

SYL :)

[Katana]

Why would it be silly to call it mutilation when an immobilized unconsenting baby's genitals are unnecessary disfigured and desensitized?
No it's not. RIC causes harm to the baby each and every time. Even when the harm caused by loss of the foreskin is disregarded entirely, the supposed benefits are neither sure enough nor significant enough to indicate circumcision.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

In most cases, circumcision is one of the most harmful ways to deal with the various conditions it is thought to help.

Gotta love the duplicity. Those supporting the often painful and always harmful genital modification of an unconsenting baby accuse those who oppose the practice of being "perverts". If you can't beat 'em, defame 'em!


"Always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.

[Koshy]

In any event Im glad educated rational people are at the forefront of this issue.
In the coming years hopefully it will be made illegal, except in the (very few) cases that its actually beneficial. We will be a much more enlightened society when we leave behind ritual mutilations and all the weird sexual artifacts from history.



(This post really contributes nothing, just be happy that those of you who cut will be looked back upon as perverts at worst, or misguided at best.)



Yes, to BlackCat, I do have a number of problems as a result. Of course these are all marginal, it really doesnt matter to me that Ill never be able to love someone the way I want, and I should really be happy that I dont have an icky foreskin anyway, right?

[SYLVESTER1592]

"Always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.
Please expand on that...
Why is it not harmful to operate and remove any part of on an otherwise healthy baby?

[Katana]

As you may have noted before: The "evidence"is debatable and skewed by the interest of the researchers. Mostly there is a lot of pick and choose. When you look at the meta-analysis and follow-up studies the initial recommendations are not supported. It's progress of medical research. However, doctors are human too...

SYL :)


You can suggest alternative motives, but the evidence of potential benefits exists.

I am not, as some might assume, pro-circumcision. I am simply presenting the fact that performing the procedure does not violate physicians' ethical obligations to do no harm given the available evidence suggesting potential benefits. Having said that, I would agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686) that it is insufficient to advocate that every newborn be circumcised.

It is not, as some would like to make it, a black and white issue.

[Skepticybe]

Or maybe docs have read the evidence (provided earlier in the thread) about circumcision's potential benefits.
And carefully ignored the harm caused by the loss of the foreskin. In all of the medical community's evaluations of the "benefits" and harm of circumcision, I don't see any cases where this has even been considered.

By no means are doctors immune from superstition, magical thinking, bias, and dishonesty. The natural motivation for circumcised men to rationalize that they have lost nothing important can't be overstated. Doctors are no exception. Even more so when they benefit financially from the parents' decision to cut.