Circumcision

[pdw709]

After finally getting hold of the complete 4 seasons of Penn & Teller Bullsh*t (not so easy in UK has its not offically released over here) I've been steadily wading my way through.

Imagine my surprise when I came to the Circumcision episode - I thought I already new all about this ghastly procedure. I had always assumed that it was confined entirely to the Jewish community but my jaw litterally hit the flaw when I realised that it's far more common infact it appears to almost be the norm over in the US. To watch those "so called" doctors trying to justify acts of barbarism, and to do so in a flipant and nonchalent manner really made my blood boil.

The worst was the assumption that its a "cosmetic procedure" on par with breast enlargement - try telling that to a new born baby. Surely any procedure could be done when the child is older with his consent.

Am I correct in thinking that the vast majority of men are indeed circumcised?

Phil

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by pdw709

... but my jaw litterally hit the flaw ...

Which 'jaw' would that be, and would that be this 'flaw'?

No, seriously, I believe the procedure is sometimes undertaken for medical reasons, although that might just be an excuse. As a 'matter-of-course' procedure I, too, agree that it's barbaric. Forget the 'hygeine' reasons too. If men are too lazy to wash underneath their foreskin then it's education and shower gel that's needed, not the surgeon's knife.

What I find even more barbaric is female circumcision. Both should be outlawed, especially in civilised society where the mechanisms exist to make it so.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I refer you to this thread.

Summary:

Circumcision might be useful if you (or your child is) planning on having unprotected sex in the third world, otherwise it's a cultural thing, that some believe should be tolerated because it does not damage the function of a man's penis enough to warrant intervention.

ETA: Southwind17, medically indicated circumcision is rare, especially for infants.

[Unalienable]

As a man who's not circumsized, I ask myself, "How much money would you have to pay me to undergo that procedure?" $100,000? No freakin' way. Maybe a million dollars, but only because I am a man of modest means. If I actually had a few million dollars in the bank, there's no way I'd do it for a million.

With that in mind, I think to force that upon a defenseless child against his will is positively criminal.

[lanienus]

While we laugh at tribes in some jungle who poke sticks in their lips or stretch their necks, are we really any different? Cutting off parts from newborn males seems rather primitive.

[fls]

Originally Posted by pdw709

After finally getting hold of the complete 4 seasons of Penn & Teller Bullsh*t (not so easy in UK has its not offically released over here) I've been steadily wading my way through.

Imagine my surprise when I came to the Circumcision episode - I thought I already new all about this ghastly procedure. I had always assumed that it was confined entirely to the Jewish community but my jaw litterally hit the flaw when I realised that it's far more common infact it appears to almost be the norm over in the US. To watch those "so called" doctors trying to justify acts of barbarism, and to do so in a flipant and nonchalent manner really made my blood boil.

The worst was the assumption that its a "cosmetic procedure" on par with breast enlargement - try telling that to a new born baby. Surely any procedure could be done when the child is older with his consent.

Am I correct in thinking that the vast majority of men are indeed circumcised?

Phil

I was also surprised to discover this. The numbers are gradually decreasing, particularly in states like California. We've had several long discussions about this - occasionally civil (). Don't assume that any of what P and T presented is representative, though.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Unalienable

As a man who's not circumsized, I ask myself, "How much money would you have to pay me to undergo that procedure?" $100,000? No freakin' way. Maybe a million dollars, but only because I am a man of modest means. If I actually had a few million dollars in the bank, there's no way I'd do it for a million.

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020298

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by fls

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020298

Linda

Self-selecting group. Those that would want more payment or benefit from the procedure before being prepared to be circumcised would not be in a randomized trial.

ETA: How many condoms would 36 Euro buy in Africa?

ETA2: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...&pmid=11463681

Quote:

How much would it cost to close the 1.9 billion condom gap for sub-Saharan Africa? At the international price of $0.025 per condom, the annual cost would be only $47.5m (£34m). However, as with drugs to treat HIV, the commodity costs are only the beginning. Service delivery costs (including promotion) are a greater challenge. Nevertheless, effective models for delivery are known and much infrastructure is in place or can be scaled up through existing successful mechanisms such as condom social marketing and clinics.2

But health programming of any sort requires concerted effort and resources. Finding ways to promote condom use and other prevention among high transmitting people is particularly important. Experience in Thailand shows such an approach can greatly reduce sexually transmitted infection and HIV.3

Relative to the enormity of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, providing condoms is cheap and cost effective. All aspects of HIV control are important, but a first priority must be prevention.

Quite a few, it would seem.

[fagin]

Originally Posted by fls

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020298

Linda

As indigenous circumcisions, in Southern Africa at least, are done by witchdoctors (not pc I'm sure but not sure what they are called these days), with no anaesthetic, in unsanitary conditions and with no actual consent (they boys do consent but if they do not they will never be men), Eur 36 is seems quite a lot by comparison.
These are generally carried out on special circumcision camps lasting a weeks or so and every year there are numerous reports of infections, mutilations, and even deaths.

And as for female circumcision, the barbarity involved should be criminal.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by lanienus

While we laugh at tribes in some jungle who poke sticks in their lips or stretch their necks, are we really any different? Cutting off parts from newborn males seems rather primitive.

That's exactly the point. The pro-circumcision people are, as you suggest, 'rather primitive', hence the desire to end the practice in so-called civilized society.

p.s. That said, I'd probably undergo it for $1 million, but then I'd happily lose a little toe for that too! I don't suppose an application to the MDC would be entertained, would it!

[Walrus32]

Best advice I ever heard about having newborn boys circumcised was, "Hell no...let 'em grow up and wear it off!"

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

That's exactly the point. The pro-circumcision people are, as you suggest, 'rather primitive', hence the desire to end the practice in so-called civilized society.

p.s. That said, I'd probably undergo it for $1 million, but then I'd happily lose a little toe for that too! I don't suppose an application to the MDC would be entertained, would it!

You do realize, don't you, that Linda is never going to talk to you again for making such a terrible slur against so many Jewish, Muslim and American parents?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by fls

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020298

Linda

I have heard of this study, they found that there was a benefit in circumcising men for the prevention of HIV transmission.

I will have to find the article(s), but later because I have to get to bed (Uni today), but I remember finding one that said that there was a danger of an increased chance of catching HIV for however long it takes for the skin to heal and another study that found that some of the circumcised men thought that they became 'invincible' to HIV and were more likely to put themselves into riskier situations because of this idea.

I did find this however.

ETA:And this

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

such a terrible slur against so many Jewish, Muslim and American parents?

Intolerance! Intolerance!

[pdw709]

Thanks for the link to the previous discssion - appologies for not doing a forum search and finding it myslef.

Its one hell of a long thread, and so i'm only 1 third of the way through it!

Cheers

[Jimbo07]

Deleted.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

You do realize, don't you, that Linda is never going to talk to you again for making such a terrible slur against so many Jewish, Muslim and American parents?

Hey, come on man, I'm only referring to the primitive ones! 'Parents', was that?!

[Loss Leader]

Oh, good. Another circumcision thread. Perhaps we should cut this one off at an early age.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

p.s. That said, I'd probably undergo it for $1 million, but then I'd happily lose a little toe for that too! I don't suppose an application to the MDC would be entertained, would it!

Depends upon what sort of growth there was, after.

Linda

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by fls

Depends upon what sort of growth there was, after.

Linda

Mmm ... reminds me of the 'gonorrhoea of the big toe' joke, but I'd better not go there!

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Oh, good. Another circumcision thread. Perhaps we should cut this one off at an early age.

[BarneyFifeMode]
Just nip it, nip it in the bud!
[/BarneyFifeMode]

[DavidCT]

In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Who circumcised Moby Dick?

Four skin divers.

[Walrus32]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Mmm ... reminds me of the 'gonorrhoea of the big toe' joke, but I'd better not go there!

Athlete's what?

[Damien Evans]

Someone I know was circumcised for medical reasons (very nasty infection). In that case it was necessary lest he either be in large amounts of pain for a long time or, erm, lose function. In those circumstances, circumcision is a damn good idea. In most other circumstances, It's not.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Walrus32

Athlete's what?

Go ahead, be a devil, get modded!

[Dabljuh]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Someone I know was circumcised for medical reasons (very nasty infection). In that case it was necessary lest he either be in large amounts of pain for a long time or, erm, lose function. In those circumstances, circumcision is a damn good idea. In most other circumstances, It's not.

The real problem in such cases is usually premature, forcible retraction of the foreskin. The foreskin of a newborn usually does not retract until puberty - the mean age in denmark for the foreskin to become retractible has once been evalued as some 10 years. However in a society that considers the foreskin to be an useless appendage, and even newborns are tested on "phimosis" by trying to retract their foreskin, the biological age may be higher.

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

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

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

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

Circumcision is virtually never useful on anyone younger than 70 years. For older people, skin cancers can rampantly grow everywhere, also on the foreskin. There, the surgical removal of a tumor on the foreskin may be confused with "Circumcision".

[Kumar]

Can it lead to not getting a sensation of urine and impacts therefrom?

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Can it lead to not getting a sensation of urine and impacts therefrom?

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

Hope this helps!

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

Hope this helps!

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Kumar

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

And what's this got to do with the price of fish?

[Walrus32]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Go ahead, be a devil, get modded!

I wouldn't touch that for a free weekend at Pismo Beach...

[Spiro]

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

Come on, folks: mutilation of the bodies of neonates without positive medical reason (i.e. essential to preserve vital function) is a moral and ethical outrage. We should take the same attitude to male genital mutilation as we do to female genital mutilation: they both suck!

[sthomson]

Originally Posted by DavidCT

In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?

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

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

[Z]

I'd happily whack of their earlobes. And no religious requirement needed.

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

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

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

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

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Z

I'd happily whack of their earlobes. And no religious requirement needed.

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

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

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

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

Yay, we disagree on everything !

You must be very 'primative'.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by sthomson

<i>In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?</i>

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

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

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

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

I wonder if female circumcision / FGC is taken as lightly in the middle east as male circumcision is in the west?

[Z]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Yay, we disagree on everything !

You must be very 'primative'.

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

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

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

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Z

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

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

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

Your not primitive Z, just incredibly biased

[fls]

Originally Posted by sthomson

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

You're no fun!

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

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

Linda