Even Jews Are Axeing Circumcision

[Lemur]

I haven't posted on penis-chopping in a while, so I thought I'd give the Orgahs an update.

First off, Jewish activists (http://www.forward.com/articles/11192/) are finally getting uppity about the unkind cut.

Activists Up Efforts To Cut Circumcision Out of Bris Ritual

Jacob Victor | Wed. Jul 18, 2007

A few months before his son was born, Thomas Wolfe of Wheeling, W.Va., consulted the rabbi of his Reform congregation to discuss plans for the baby’s circumcision. “I had the perception that a circumcision was just an innocuous procedure, with no risk,” he later told the Forward. After the rabbi had recommended that Wolfe find a ritual circumciser, or mohel, to perform the newborn’s bris, Wolfe did a little Internet research. “It wasn’t really until that time that I became aware of all the controversies,” he said.

While the United States is one of the few industrialized countries in which a majority of newborn boys are circumcised, recent surveys show that the American circumcision rate, which was close to 90% in the 1960s, is now at only 57%. But even though the national rate has declined, circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations; most newborn Jewish boys have either a traditional brit milah or have the procedure performed at a hospital. Nevertheless, a small but vocal minority of Jewish activists have begun to question the importance, and even the morality, of circumcision. Some have even begun using alternative “bris-less” brisses to welcome their sons into the world.

The Internet is full of Web sites sponsored by circumcision opponents, who often call themselves proponents of “genital integrity” or “intactivism.” After conducting his research, Wolfe decided to forgo circumcising his son. Instead, he arranged a so-called brit shalom ceremony, a newly created ritual that celebrates birth while omitting circumcision.

His own son’s case behind him, Wolfe is now pressing for broader change. This past May, he began circulating a petition calling on Reform rabbis and congregations to reconsider a 1982 rabbinic edict affirming the centrality of circumcision in Reform Judaism. As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatories. But despite — or perhaps because of — their small numbers, Jewish anti-circumcision activists remain vocal in demanding that Jews change the way they view circumcision. Mark Reiss, a retired diagnostic radiologist, is executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a strong advocate of the brit shalom ceremony. Reiss, who is a member of a Conservative congregation in San Francisco, believes that the time has come for Jews to abandon the practice. “A lot of scholars feel that circumcision was an atavistic cultural remnant from the days when pagans sacrificed their boys to the gods,” he told the Forward. Reiss has been active in creating a database of rabbis and laypeople who will officiate at brit shalom ceremonies. There are no restrictions on the content of the ceremony, according to Reiss. Some parents simply use it as a naming ceremony, some celebrate the “intactness” of their child and some design versions all their own.

Moshe Rothenberg of Brooklyn officiates at around six or seven brit shalom ceremonies a year. He preserves many of the traditional aspects of the bris, including a blessing over wine, a festive meal and a sandak (a person close to the family designated to hold the newborn during the ceremony). Instead of a circumcision, however, Rothenberg incorporates unconventional rituals. “One time we gathered stones and cast them into water to remember all the living people in the child’s life in one bowl and all the people who aren’t there in another bowl,” Rothenberg told the Forward. “Sometimes we do a ritual involving nature, often consecrating a plant or tree on behalf of the baby.” At the brit shalom of his own son, Rothenberg retold the biblical story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming angels disguised as travelers into their home. It was these angels who told Sarah she would give birth to Isaac. After the story was told, the baby’s feet were washed. This symbolically linked him to Abraham and Sarah, who washed their guests’ feet as a sign of hospitality and respect.

Many brit shalom proponents have based their stance on medical grounds. Reiss and other anti-circumcision activists claim that there are several medical reasons to abandon the practice. These include the possible pain experienced by a child during the procedure, the risk of infection and the theory that the foreskin provides sexual sensation that circumcised men can never experience. Reiss also argues that many of the perceived benefits of circumcision are in fact spurious. “Circumcision has always been related to whatever the disease of the decade was,” he said.

For some doctors, however, recent studies showing that circumcised heterosexual African men are around half as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to contract HIV simply back up what they have claimed all along: that circumcision is not only harmless but also beneficial. Edgar Schoen, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision, claims that there at least 10 known medical benefits provided by circumcision. For example, there is some evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of infant kidney infection early in life and helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Still, the official position of the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision is equivocal: “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” Schoen argues that this decision was reached because of the influence of what he calls “anti-circ” activists. “These people are very good with the sound bites, and they get on all the talk shows and all over the Internet,” he said, adding that such activists are especially effective in convincing young liberal Jews not to circumcise their sons. “For young, trendy Jewish parents, everything has to be natural and organic. ‘Why would the foreskin be there if it wasn’t good?’ That resonates with a lot of young Jewish parents.”

Jewish critics of circumcision have not limited their arguments to the medical realm, with some contending that the central issue is one of volition. Eli Ungar-Sargon, a Chicago-based filmmaker, recently released the documentary “Cut,” an exploration of circumcision from religious, scientific and ethical perspectives. Ungar-Sargon, who was raised Orthodox but no longer identifies with a specific denomination, told the Forward that he views circumcision “as gross violation of human rights.” He said, “I think the real central ethical issue here is one of autonomy. Do we have the right to permanently alter another person’s body without their permission?”

At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”
Depending on how tough your stomach is, here are a couple of video clips. The first is a rather tame video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CC9Y-Us210) of doctors discussing the practice.

The second is much more graphic, and I warn you that it contains video of the operation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=XmX6RdRNoqk). It's rough stuff; I'm only including it for the sake of those Orgahs who will someday have male children. For Gah's sake, don't cut your boys. The only way to end this madness is to choose the right thing when the time comes.

[HoreTore]

Unnecessary operations should always be avoided IMO. If my appendix starts causing trouble, I'll cut it out. However, I wont do it until that time. Circumcision are in my mind just as pointless as cutting out an appendix before it starts causing trouble.

[Whacker]

Oh boy, here we go again. Self righteous pro-circumcision camp on one side vs. self righteous anti-circumcision camp on the other.

Round 1328492!

:rolleyes:

[KafirChobee]

Is more about this on the .net than I could have imagined - gah!

Regardless, for health reasons circumcision is a good idea.

Recall when I was in Korea a friend coming down with a rather unique infection that almost cost him his manhood. The Docs' said it was due to his not being circumcised. He spent like a week in the hospital and almost caused a courtmartial (which would have been absurd - we blackmailed the commanding General ... long story ... to assure it was dropped). ["we", btw were members of the Finance Corp - friends in the Medics told us about something left off the Generals records. Documented just the same.]

It does seem a brutal act, but not if done shortly after birth - waiting 8 days seems antiquated. Still, for Jews it is part of their religion and coventant with Jehovah. What ya'gonna do? Change something accepted for a few thousand years?

I like the part that supposes it is a down play from when Jews were Pagans and sacrificed kids - atleast they don't do that any more. Unlike Bushy's religion. :beam:

[Csargo]

Unnecessary operations should always be avoided IMO. If my appendix starts causing trouble, I'll cut it out. However, I wont do it until that time. Circumcision are in my mind just as pointless as cutting out an appendix before it starts causing trouble.

Wooooooo comparing your penis to you appendix never seen anything like that before.

[Strike For The South]

Lemur I love you but you really need to shake this whole circumscison thing. Its getting werid

[HoreTore]

Wooooooo comparing your penis to you appendix never seen anything like that before.

Uhm, the point was unnecessary surgery... :whip:

Anyway, as for the AIDS-argument, there's really only one thing to say:

WEAR A FREAKIN' CONDOM! GEEZ!!

It's not hard, you open the pack, rip one off, open it as the package says, put it on the tip of the penis and roll it back. Then you squeeze out the air of the air bubble at the tip. That wasn't so hard, now was it? Oh, and do remember to stop humping once it's filled.

I don't really see how circumcision will work against HIV, as a condom(used correctly) is near 100% secure. Circumcision is only safer than not using a condom.

[Lemur]

Lemur I love you but you really need to shake this whole circumscison thing. Its getting werid
What, I'm not allowed to add another fixation to the Backroom? Not every thread can be about abortion, religion, gun control, politics and the evil of Micronesia. Somebody's gotta stand up for the wang.

[Lemur]

Anyway, as for the AIDS-argument, there's really only one thing to say:

WEAR A FREAKIN' CONDOM! GEEZ!!
It's also worth noting that the studies showing that circumcision helps stop the spread of AIDS were all conducted in places where dry sex (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/baleta1/) is popular. I would be much more convinced by a study conducted in a first world nation.

[Csargo]

Uhm, the point was unnecessary surgery... :whip:

Anyway, as for the AIDS-argument, there's really only one thing to say:

WEAR A FREAKIN' CONDOM! GEEZ!!

It's not hard, you open the pack, rip one off, open it as the package says, put it on the tip of the penis and roll it back. Then you squeeze out the air of the air bubble at the tip. That wasn't so hard, now was it? Oh, and do remember to stop humping once it's filled.

I don't really see how circumcision will work against HIV, as a condom(used correctly) is near 100% secure. Circumcision is only safer than not using a condom.

Just joking around.


<Whacker> it apparently does reduce the risk of cancer in some cases

:sweatdrop:

[HoreTore]

What, I'm not allowed to add another fixation to the Backroom? Not every thread can be about abortion, religion, gun control, politics and the evil of Micronesia. Somebody's gotta stand up for the wang.

I'll take a snip thread over a gun thread any day...

@Ichigo: Yeah, I kinda understood that... I contemplated a joke in response, but they were all to manly for me... :laugh4:

[Csargo]

I'll take a snip thread over a gun thread any day...

@Ichigo: Yeah, I kinda understood that... I contemplated a joke in response, but they were all to manly for me... :laugh4:

:laugh4:

[Reverend Joe]

Lemur. Stop.

This topic is like radiation. It may not bring as much "badness" to the backroom as many other topics, but any addition of "badness" can universally be considered bad. So stop it.

[Kadagar_AV]

My point of view... as an atheist.

I believe anyone who feels like cutting in their penis should be allowed to do so.

However, doing it on someone who is newly born and doesnt have a say is in my view considered to be torture and should be prosecuted.

i have a friend whos parents are jewish... he however doesnt really fall for teh godstuff, and he kind of hate them for having cut his penis to shreds.

Mainly because the girls go "wtf is that" when they see it...

And of course, it makes the penis less sensitive, and I and probably any other man kind of likes a sensitive penis, for various reasons;)

So feel free to cut away, but forcing it on someone should be illegal.

EDIT: For me the question boils down to: who does the penis belong to? The child or the parents? For me the answer is simple.

[KukriKhan]

I haven't posted on penis-chopping in a while, so...


It's been at least (gasp) 34 days (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87283) !!


For Gah's sake, don't cut your boys. The only way to end this madness is to choose the right thing when the time comes.


So this is now an advocacy thread vs an info/opinion-gathering thread. np.

I'm all for "Leave the body alone, as it was born and grows. Modifications can be done later, when the mind in that body can decide on its own."

I caught plenty o' hell for that stance with my first wife and our 2 daughters. They lobbied-pleaded-demanded-begged for pierced ears for the girls. I firmly refused, citing our mutually-agreed stance (as above).

10 days after our divorce, by phonecall, I was informed that both girls (age 7 and 2) had pierced ears. I sent solid gold, hypoallergenic earrings in response.

So much for memory lane. IMHO: if it were more advantageous to cut the foreskin, boys would by now be born without one. Let it be.

Full disclosure: I'm circumsized. My depression-era parents were big on the hygiene aspect.

[Gregoshi]

Oh boy, here we go again. Self righteous pro-circumcision camp on one side vs. self righteous anti-circumcision camp on the other.

Round 1328492!

:rolleyes:
Are you keeping a tally Whacker?

[KukriKhan]

Are you keeping a tally Whacker?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

and

:laugh4:

[Whacker]

Are you keeping a tally Whacker?

Was trying to, but then got cut off awhile back. :no:

:balloon2:

[Devastatin Dave]

Is more about this on the .net than I could have imagined - gah!

Regardless, for health reasons circumcision is a good idea.

Recall when I was in Korea a friend coming down with a rather unique infection that almost cost him his manhood. The Docs' said it was due to his not being circumcised. He spent like a week in the hospital and almost caused a courtmartial (which would have been absurd - we blackmailed the commanding General ... long story ... to assure it was dropped). ["we", btw were members of the Finance Corp - friends in the Medics told us about something left off the Generals records. Documented just the same.]

It does seem a brutal act, but not if done shortly after birth - waiting 8 days seems antiquated. Still, for Jews it is part of their religion and coventant with Jehovah. What ya'gonna do? Change something accepted for a few thousand years?

I like the part that supposes it is a down play from when Jews were Pagans and sacrificed kids - atleast they don't do that any more. Unlike Bushy's religion. :beam:
Right on, I like my mushroom. I personally like drawing eyes on him and pretend he's singing opera. Unfortunately he usually throws up after his performance, then I take a nap...

[Samurai Waki]

I guess I really don't see the big deal. I mean honestly, cut or uncut, most people will never know the difference, unless they weren't cut prior to having their first adult Sexual experience. Plus as I firmly remember being a teenager, I really didn't care so much about what kind of stimulation my female partner at the time was receiving, all I knew was that I was having a pretty good time. Now imagine to my dismay, that years later I'm hearing my wife's friends wishing their male partners had gotten the chop, to increase their pleasure..

[CountArach]

Lemur I love you but you really need to shake this whole circumscison thing. Its getting werid
:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

What, has no one mentioned the secret handshake, the blood sacrifices and the protocols of Zion yet?
:coffeenews:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was born with a foreskin, cleaning the whole area is part of my daily hygine ritual, to be honest I can't imagine being comfortable in pants without it.

Besides, next time I have to dive out of a window naked and run down the street I have a funny feeling it will elicit fewer screams in it's current state. It also won't get so damb cold.

As far as cancer, well if a woman has her breasts and nipples removed that removes the chance of cancer completely.

Sound like a good idea? I mean, it's not like women need them in the modern age, is it?

[Bijo]

My short response follows:

I see no gain in removing the male genital foreskin nor do I see gain in a general belief, religion, or habitude, in doing so. One advantage I detect is possible increased easiness of cleaning. And perhaps there is the possibility of less sensitivity? If true, this could be regarded as some kind of advantage in certain situations.

Circumcision, disregarding Jews, Christians, or whomever applicable... why? Good day.

[Cowhead418]

I haven't posted on penis-chopping in a while, so I thought I'd give the Orgahs an update.

First off, Jewish activists (http://www.forward.com/articles/11192/) are finally getting uppity about the unkind cut.

Activists Up Efforts To Cut Circumcision Out of Bris Ritual

Jacob Victor | Wed. Jul 18, 2007

A few months before his son was born, Thomas Wolfe of Wheeling, W.Va., consulted the rabbi of his Reform congregation to discuss plans for the baby’s circumcision. “I had the perception that a circumcision was just an innocuous procedure, with no risk,” he later told the Forward. After the rabbi had recommended that Wolfe find a ritual circumciser, or mohel, to perform the newborn’s bris, Wolfe did a little Internet research. “It wasn’t really until that time that I became aware of all the controversies,” he said.

While the United States is one of the few industrialized countries in which a majority of newborn boys are circumcised, recent surveys show that the American circumcision rate, which was close to 90% in the 1960s, is now at only 57%. But even though the national rate has declined, circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations; most newborn Jewish boys have either a traditional brit milah or have the procedure performed at a hospital. Nevertheless, a small but vocal minority of Jewish activists have begun to question the importance, and even the morality, of circumcision. Some have even begun using alternative “bris-less” brisses to welcome their sons into the world.

The Internet is full of Web sites sponsored by circumcision opponents, who often call themselves proponents of “genital integrity” or “intactivism.” After conducting his research, Wolfe decided to forgo circumcising his son. Instead, he arranged a so-called brit shalom ceremony, a newly created ritual that celebrates birth while omitting circumcision.

His own son’s case behind him, Wolfe is now pressing for broader change. This past May, he began circulating a petition calling on Reform rabbis and congregations to reconsider a 1982 rabbinic edict affirming the centrality of circumcision in Reform Judaism. As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatories. But despite — or perhaps because of — their small numbers, Jewish anti-circumcision activists remain vocal in demanding that Jews change the way they view circumcision. Mark Reiss, a retired diagnostic radiologist, is executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a strong advocate of the brit shalom ceremony. Reiss, who is a member of a Conservative congregation in San Francisco, believes that the time has come for Jews to abandon the practice. “A lot of scholars feel that circumcision was an atavistic cultural remnant from the days when pagans sacrificed their boys to the gods,” he told the Forward. Reiss has been active in creating a database of rabbis and laypeople who will officiate at brit shalom ceremonies. There are no restrictions on the content of the ceremony, according to Reiss. Some parents simply use it as a naming ceremony, some celebrate the “intactness” of their child and some design versions all their own.

Moshe Rothenberg of Brooklyn officiates at around six or seven brit shalom ceremonies a year. He preserves many of the traditional aspects of the bris, including a blessing over wine, a festive meal and a sandak (a person close to the family designated to hold the newborn during the ceremony). Instead of a circumcision, however, Rothenberg incorporates unconventional rituals. “One time we gathered stones and cast them into water to remember all the living people in the child’s life in one bowl and all the people who aren’t there in another bowl,” Rothenberg told the Forward. “Sometimes we do a ritual involving nature, often consecrating a plant or tree on behalf of the baby.” At the brit shalom of his own son, Rothenberg retold the biblical story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming angels disguised as travelers into their home. It was these angels who told Sarah she would give birth to Isaac. After the story was told, the baby’s feet were washed. This symbolically linked him to Abraham and Sarah, who washed their guests’ feet as a sign of hospitality and respect.

Many brit shalom proponents have based their stance on medical grounds. Reiss and other anti-circumcision activists claim that there are several medical reasons to abandon the practice. These include the possible pain experienced by a child during the procedure, the risk of infection and the theory that the foreskin provides sexual sensation that circumcised men can never experience. Reiss also argues that many of the perceived benefits of circumcision are in fact spurious. “Circumcision has always been related to whatever the disease of the decade was,” he said.

For some doctors, however, recent studies showing that circumcised heterosexual African men are around half as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to contract HIV simply back up what they have claimed all along: that circumcision is not only harmless but also beneficial. Edgar Schoen, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision, claims that there at least 10 known medical benefits provided by circumcision. For example, there is some evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of infant kidney infection early in life and helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Still, the official position of the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision is equivocal: “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” Schoen argues that this decision was reached because of the influence of what he calls “anti-circ” activists. “These people are very good with the sound bites, and they get on all the talk shows and all over the Internet,” he said, adding that such activists are especially effective in convincing young liberal Jews not to circumcise their sons. “For young, trendy Jewish parents, everything has to be natural and organic. ‘Why would the foreskin be there if it wasn’t good?’ That resonates with a lot of young Jewish parents.”

Jewish critics of circumcision have not limited their arguments to the medical realm, with some contending that the central issue is one of volition. Eli Ungar-Sargon, a Chicago-based filmmaker, recently released the documentary “Cut,” an exploration of circumcision from religious, scientific and ethical perspectives. Ungar-Sargon, who was raised Orthodox but no longer identifies with a specific denomination, told the Forward that he views circumcision “as gross violation of human rights.” He said, “I think the real central ethical issue here is one of autonomy. Do we have the right to permanently alter another person’s body without their permission?”

At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”
Depending on how tough your stomach is, here are a couple of video clips. The first is a rather tame video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CC9Y-Us210) of doctors discussing the practice.

The second is much more graphic, and I warn you that it contains video of the operation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=XmX6RdRNoqk). It's rough stuff; I'm only including it for the sake of those Orgahs who will someday have male children. For Gah's sake, don't cut your boys. The only way to end this madness is to choose the right thing when the time comes.I tried watching that video but I couldn't sit through it. That is brutal. I'm circumcised but all this talk about circumcision is making me wonder what life could have been like with a foreskin. It sucks that so much pleasure is lost and I was given no choice in the matter. Ah well, it's a moot point for me anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:devilish: Took me a while to read this thread.

I had trouble getting over "Axeing" and "circumcision" in the same title. :shocked2:

Loved the line about tally whacker....viscious punning!

[Tuuvi]

I have a question...How do we know that uncircumcised men get more pleasure than circumcised ones?

[Lemur]

I have a question...How do we know that uncircumcised men get more pleasure than circumcised ones?
Pleasure is unquantifiable, so we have no way of knowing anything. However, sensitivity is measurable, and tests have shown (http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html) that removing the foreskin wreaks havoc on the sensitivity of your Johnson.

[Samurai Waki]

Does removing the foreskin in any way limit an average male's ability to perform and/or enjoy sex less than an uncut male?

[Lemur]

Unknown. The only thing I can think of would be to conduct a large statistical study comparing the incidence of sexual dysfunction among circumcised and uncircumcised men. But even that would be problematic, since you're depending on honest answers from guys about their sexual performance.

Maybe a breakdown of Viagra prescriptions, controlling for size of each population? That would be a little less subjective. Interesting question, and hard to answer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seems to me cutting something off is removing that part from the eqasion completely, if less to work with means less stymulisation.

Yeah, you get my drift.

Like I said, I can't imagine my little man being in my underwear and being comfortable without my foreskin to protect him. If that doesn't bother guys without foreskins I'm inclined to think the snip has a negative impact.

Although, that might translate into a positive impact on your lovemaking.

[Gregoshi]

There is no comparable frame of reference between the cut and uncut, at least for us Joes on the street. So short of us asking each other "how can you live like that?", there's naught we can do but wonder or read medical journals. :book:

Heaven forbid this ever become an issue for presidential politics. :surrender:

[Goofball]

I believe anyone who feels like cutting in their penis should be allowed to do so.

However, doing it on someone who is newly born and doesnt have a say is in my view considered to be torture and should be prosecuted.

Really?

There are those among us (myself included) who believe that the medical and social benefits of circumcision are real and outweight any downside. For that reason, I had my son circumcised after he was born. I am not Jewish, so religion had nothing to do with my decision.

I was present during the whole process and quite frankly, my son seemed to go through less discomfort during the circumcision than he did when undergoing another medical process that his criminal father subjected him to against his will: vaccinations.

Still think I should be prosecuted?


i have a friend whos parents are jewish... he however doesnt really fall for teh godstuff, and he kind of hate them for having cut his penis to shreds.

Mainly because the girls go "wtf is that" when they see it...

Hmmm. Anecdotal, I know, but most women I know find uncircumcised penises to be unsightly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really?

There are those among us (myself included) who believe that the medical and social benefits of circumcision are real and outweight any downside. For that reason, I had my son circumcised after he was born. I am not Jewish, so religion had nothing to do with my decision.

Why didn't you wait until he was old enough to decide for himself? As to social benefits I really see none, it's like getting a piercing in that respect.


I was present during the whole process and quite frankly, my son seemed to go through less discomfort during the circumcision than he did when undergoing another medical process that his criminal father subjected him to against his will: vaccinations.

Well you do get an anacetic during, and anyway, I'm betting he was a lot younger and basically unable to protest when chopped.


Still think I should be prosecuted?

No, I just think you're wrong.


Hmmm. Anecdotal, I know, but most women I know find uncircumcised penises to be unsightly.

Funny, isn't it? Over here I think it's generally considered to be mutilation now, so women find it a bit sad. Opinion does seem to vary quite a bit though.

[Lemur]

There are those among us (myself included) who believe that the medical and social benefits of circumcision are real and outweight any downside. For that reason, I had my son circumcised after he was born.
You know your feelings on the matter. Excellent. But shouldn't the decision have been left up to your boy? If he wants to snip, he can do so when he's older. Remember, you can always take away, but you can never give back.

[Strike For The South]

Guys it really doesnt matter. Its not like any of us get laid anyway

[Kadagar_AV]

goofball, so you think that you, as his father, has the right to decide over your sons body?

I have absolutely nothing against people who themselves decide they want soemthing done, piercings, circumcisionor, whatever.... What I do object against is forcing your belief/fashion taste/ whatever on someone who cant decide themselves.

IF it's such a cool thing, why dont you let him decide for himself when he is old enough to do so?

As mentioned, you can take but never give back. What if your son in X years regrets having it done? I'm not saying he will be, but what if? Are you gonna give it back?



:wall:

[Whacker]

You know your feelings on the matter. Excellent. But shouldn't the decision have been left up to your boy? If he wants to snip, he can do so when he's older. Remember, you can always take away, but you can never give back.

You should be able to answer this yourself Lemur, you already have two little Lemurlings. As a father (and your wife), don't you make a number of decisions for them already? Things that involve their physical and mental health? If you and others believe that this is something you want to let them decide on later in life, that's your own deal and we can respect that, but the you all need to get off your high horses about how some of us are "mutilating our boys" and this is "child abuse", and all the other :rolleyes: nonsense flying around about this.

Goofball couldn't have said it better, my thoughts are exactly the same as his, if/when in the near future I end up with boys, they will be circumcized as well, because we believe the benefits vastly outstrip the potential negatives. This is an informed decision that we have made as future parents, and that's that.

[Kadagar_AV]

ehm.... what are the benefits?

[TinCow]

Somebody's gotta stand up for the wang.

Doesn't the wang stand up for itself?

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week.

[Whacker]

Doesn't the wang stand up for itself?

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week.

Oh noes! He's channeling Gregoshi! Someone get him the antidote quick before the puns get worse!!

:smash:
:clown:

:balloon2:

[Gregoshi]

Doesn't the wang stand up for itself?

Thank you! Thank you!

Just what this thread needs - a stand up comic...


I'll be here all week.

...apparently on Viagra.

[Samurai Waki]

But with the rise of new Technology, in twenty or so years the damage done by circumcision may not be so much of a big deal. You can have your cake and eat it too (though I suggest against that).

[Goofball]

Why didn't you wait until he was old enough to decide for himself?

Getting circumcized as an infant is about a 15 minute procedure that involves very little pain and is completely healed in about 3-5 days.

Getting circumcized as an adult involves quite a bit of pain and has a much longer recovery time with more possibilities of complication.



I was present during the whole process and quite frankly, my son seemed to go through less discomfort during the circumcision than he did when undergoing another medical process that his criminal father subjected him to against his will: vaccinations.Well you do get an anacetic during, and anyway, I'm betting he was a lot younger and basically unable to protest when chopped.

You don't have children do you? Believe me: infants are more than capable of "protesting" when something is being done to them that they don't like. My son made very little fuss when he was circumcised. He cried when he was put down on the table because it was cold, and that's about it.

The circumcision process, when done on an infant in a proper clinical environment, is not nearly as traumatic and painful as the anti circumcision camp try to make it out to be.



Still think I should be prosecuted?No, I just think you're wrong.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. You can think I'm wrong all day long. I just take exception to people suggesting that I'm a criminal because of a parenting decision I've made that they disagree with (yes, I know that wasn't you originally, but you did "pick up the ball," so to speak).



There are those among us (myself included) who believe that the medical and social benefits of circumcision are real and outweight any downside. For that reason, I had my son circumcised after he was born.You know your feelings on the matter. Excellent. But shouldn't the decision have been left up to your boy? If he wants to snip, he can do so when he's older. Remember, you can always take away, but you can never give back.

As has been said by Whacker, you as a parent should realize that by the time your children reach their majority, you will have made hundreds, if not thousands of important decisions on their behalf, all in the belief that you are doing what is best for them. We make these decisions based on our analysis of the information that is available to us at the time.

What I have noted about this discussion is that none of us who believe in the benefits of circumcision have mentioned trying to force circumcision on other parents' children, or have even really gone out of our way to try to convince you that it is something you should do.

On the other hand, the anti-circumcision camp seems adamant in their belief that they are right and want to (at best) exert pressure on other parents not to circumcise and (at worst) criminalise the idea of infant circumcision.

Just saying, is all...

:yes:

As far as "you can't give it back," goes, yes I did weigh that up when making my decision. But it also works the other way. Given the pain, recovery time, and complications that can arise when being circumcised as an adult vs as a child, by not circumcising my son, I felt I would be removing that choice for him. So either way I was taking away an option.

I am very glad that I am circumcised, but having seen what the results of adult circumcision are first hand I would never have opted to have it done as an adult. Because at that point, I don't believe the benefits outweigh to pain and suffering an adult goes through after being circumcised.

[Blodrast]

But with the rise of new Technology, in twenty or so years the damage done by circumcision may not be so much of a big deal. You can have your cake and eat it too (though I suggest against that).

Saaaay, what do you know that the rest of us don't ? I sure hope that this Technology you speak of is not in the same boat with the one hinted at in all the emails for enlarging my manhood that I've been getting...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Getting circumcized as an infant is about a 15 minute procedure that involves very little pain and is completely healed in about 3-5 days.

Getting circumcized as an adult involves quite a bit of pain and has a much longer recovery time with more possibilities of complication.

At the endo of the day that answer boils down to "convenience" I don't believe that circumcision as a child is near as damaging as an adult, nor do I see any prupose behind it in our modern world beyond the cosmetic while I can see plenty of problems and potentional problems.

I'm 20 and everything works fine, most of the guys I know are uncut and none of them have had it drop off either. Throughout history most European men have not had the chop and we didn't die out as a civilisation.

It seems like circumsision is only an advantage if you're lazy.

[Goofball]

At the endo of the day that answer boils down to "convenience" I don't believe that circumcision as a child is near as damaging as an adult, nor do I see any prupose behind it in our modern world beyond the cosmetic while I can see plenty of problems and potentional problems.

I'm 20 and everything works fine, most of the guys I know are uncut and none of them have had it drop off either. Throughout history most European men have not had the chop and we didn't die out as a civilisation.

It seems like circumsision is only an advantage if you're lazy.

You've hit the nail on the head. I'm a lazy guy who just can't be bothered with washing my penis.

:juggle2:

[Lemur]

As a father (and your wife), don't you make a number of decisions for them already? Things that involve their physical and mental health?
Yup. And my rule of thumb is, "First do no harm."


If you and others believe that this is something you want to let them decide on later in life, that's your own deal and we can respect that, but the you all need to get off your high horses about how some of us are "mutilating our boys" and this is "child abuse", and all the other :rolleyes: nonsense flying around about this.
I've never said any such thing. My goal is persuasion, not to demonize you or call you names. I'm sorry others have done so.


Goofball couldn't have said it better, my thoughts are exactly the same as his, if/when in the near future I end up with boys, they will be circumcized as well, because we believe the benefits vastly outstrip the potential negatives.
What are the benefits?


What I have noted about this discussion is that none of us who believe in the benefits of circumcision have mentioned trying to force circumcision on other parents' children, or have even really gone out of our way to try to convince you that it is something you should do.

On the other hand, the anti-circumcision camp seems adamant in their belief that they are right and want to (at best) exert pressure on other parents not to circumcise and (at worst) criminalise the idea of infant circumcision.
Who has talked about criminalization? Is it helpful to portray those who disagree with you as fanatics?

The reason I've posted about it is that I made the decision myself not too long ago, and I did a gah-load of reading and studying before I made up my mind. I didn't exactly walk into this with a preconceived notion.

Children, like animals, are dependent on us to make good decisions and not mess them up. They have very few rights. So why do people like me advocate that you treat them differently? Well, at least party it's because they can't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, I'm really curius about this alos, what benefits, decreased sensativity might equate to a longer fuse, so to speak, but that again seems rather like a convient excuse for not putting any real effort in.

[Lemur]

It's good to be suspicious about any fixed goal for which the rationale is constantly shifting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I recall the original claim of health benefits was based on the lower incidence of STDs in the Jewish community, ignoring the fact that at that time the Jewish community was essentially closed so if no one had an STD no one was going to catch one.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What are the benefits?




Reducing the chance of urinary tract infection by a factor of 10, reducing the risk of getting hpv, reducing the chance of transmitting hpv and thus of the female getting cervical cancer...need I go on? Where did you do your research?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You get hpv from having unprotected sex with someone who has HPV and how dirty do you have to be to get an infected urinary tract in any case.

They're both simple hygine issues.

[Goofball]

What I have noted about this discussion is that none of us who believe in the benefits of circumcision have mentioned trying to force circumcision on other parents' children, or have even really gone out of our way to try to convince you that it is something you should do.

On the other hand, the anti-circumcision camp seems adamant in their belief that they are right and want to (at best) exert pressure on other parents not to circumcise and (at worst) criminalise the idea of infant circumcision.
Who has talked about criminalization? Is it helpful to portray those who disagree with you as fanatics?

Lemur, believe me, I would not have made the statement had it not happened. See below:


My point of view... as an atheist.

I believe anyone who feels like cutting in their penis should be allowed to do so.

However, doing it on someone who is newly born and doesnt have a say is in my view considered to be torture and should be prosecuted.

i have a friend whos parents are jewish... he however doesnt really fall for teh godstuff, and he kind of hate them for having cut his penis to shreds.

Mainly because the girls go "wtf is that" when they see it...

And of course, it makes the penis less sensitive, and I and probably any other man kind of likes a sensitive penis, for various reasons;)

So feel free to cut away, but forcing it on someone should be illegal.

EDIT: For me the question boils down to: who does the penis belong to? The child or the parents? For me the answer is simple.

Still think I am just trying to portray those who disagree with me as fanatics?


What are the benefits?

As I have said before, some are medical, and some are social/esthetic:

1) Reduced risk of STDs
2) Women (in my experience) find it more attractive and are more willing to perform certain "services"
3) Easier maintenance
4) Reduced risk of cancer
5) (In my son's case) Looking the same as his father and hence feeling "normal" (that was my wife's main reason for supporting the decision, along with the esthetic issue)

So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?


It's good to be suspicious about any fixed goal for which the rationale is constantly shifting.

I am not the one with a fixed goal Lemur, you are. I am not trying to convince you to circumcise your children; I couldn't care less what you do with your kids. In fact, if you're not circumcised, I think it's probably a better decision not to circumcise your own kids (see #5 above). On the other hand, you have been doing your best this thread to convince everybody else how evil circumcision is backed up by only vague references to how "it's bad for the childrens."

My rationale has not been shifting. I have maintained the same reasoning the entire thread.

[drone]

I worked with a guy who had to get whacked. He was in his twenties, and in his words "broke his banjo string" during intercourse. :fainting: Circumcision was the only realistic solution. Took him a couple of weeks before he could walk without discomfort, but he was fine after that.

I imagine, with the end result being the same, he would have preferred having the operation as a baby.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What, you mean the, oh what's it called, begins with a F, that bit?

That thing breaks on guys all tyhe time, most docters tell you to put a paper towl on it, you can get it cauterised.

Having the snip seems really extreme for that.

[Whacker]

Yup. And my rule of thumb is, "First do no harm."
I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. The difference here is that I do not see this as harmful at all, the exact opposite in fact.


I've never said any such thing. My goal is persuasion, not to demonize you or call you names. I'm sorry others have done so.
My statement was more directed at some of the other Backroomers here, but you were getting a bit ... well... preachy there. :sweatdrop:


What are the benefits?
See Sasaki's post above please.


Who has talked about criminalization? Is it helpful to portray those who disagree with you as fanatics?
A few people have mentioned it in passing or hinted at criminalization. And Goofball has hit the nail on the head to be honest. Several posts in here have been 'fanatical' in claiming circumcision should be forced on everyone, and those who don't should be criminalized and/or treated as child abusers.

Also Lemur-san, while I agree it's good to be skeptical of things where the logic and reasoning keeps changing, we should also consider the reasoning behind the reasoning and take into account our own perceptions and prejudices as well. For example, consider that even though you did do a lot of research, perhaps you were just around and/or exposed to a large number of ignorant people who blindly espoused the concept without any background, and that soured you to it conciously or unconciously? Further, you have to consider also that this is a medical issue, and our understanding of the medical world is constantly changing, almost daily as we figure out new things and discard old, incorrect ones.


They're both simple hygine issues.
It's not remotely as simple as you try to make it out to be. Some people are just dirtier and more prone to disease and infection than others are. Some people are lazy or ignorant. I hope my children will be none of these, but we won't have to worry about that because of the decision we've made.

[TinCow]

I provide the following information for statistical purposes only, since personal experience seems far more valuable to this discussion than reading an internet article.

I was circumcised when I was an infant. I do not know if it hurt or was otherwise unpleasant because I do not remember it in any way. Personally, I take that to be sign that it wasn't very painful. In contrast, my earliest memory is getting vaccination shots at about the same time. To this day I am terrified of needles.

I have never had any difficulties being circumcised nor have I, nor any of partners, ever had any complaints about my abilities. I can only speak for myself, but trust me, I have no decrease in sensitivity. I do not know much at all about health benefits, but I am personally extremely happy that I am circumcised simply for cosmetic reasons. Being happy with how you look is a very important thing and my wife and I both prefer the snipped appearance to the non-snipped.

So, as I see it, it is a procedure that is less traumatic for an infant than getting injections, plus it improves his physical appearance later in life. That's a good enough reason for me. If there are health benefits on top of it, that's even better, but even if there were not, it wouldn't change my opinion. My wife and I both agree that any son we have will be circumcised for these reasons.

[Xiahou]

As I have said before, some are medical, and some are social/esthetic:

1) Reduced risk of STDs
2) Women (in my experience) find it more attractive and are more willing to perform certain "services"
3) Easier maintenance
4) Reduced risk of cancer
5) (In my son's case) Looking the same as his father and hence feeling "normal" (that was my wife's main reason for supporting the decision, along with the esthetic issue)

So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?Interestingly enough, I just came across this news (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSYD18190020070724) piece:Millions of new HIV infections in Africa could be avoided if more men were circumcised, an International AIDS Society conference was told on Tuesday.

Studies in Africa have found that male circumcision, the world's oldest surgical procedure dating back to 2300 BC, reduces HIV transmission from females to males by 60 percent.

Universal circumcision could avert 2 million new infections and 300,000 deaths in sub-Saharan Africa over 10 years, said Professor Robert Bailey from the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

"If we had a vaccine that was 60 percent protective we would be very happy and rolling it out as fast as possible," Bailey told the IAS conference in Sydney.

"But no one stands to profit from male circumcision -- no one but the 4,000 in Africa who will be infected tomorrow."

Africa is the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. South Africa has an estimated 5.5 million people with HIV and is struggling to stem the spread of the disease in the general population.

But African nations such as Cameroon and Nigeria, where circumcision is common, have a much lower rate of HIV infection than Zimbabwe and Swaziland where there is little circumcision.

The idea of using circumcision as a weapon against AIDS emerged after studies in Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and the United States found the potential to significantly reduce infections, said Bailey, adding the World Health Organisation has now endorsed circumcision as a disease prevention method.

"The challenge ahead for us is how to roll out circumcision safely ... and to persuade leaders in countries that it is going to help their populations," Bailey told a news conference.
There are many benefits to circumcision. Don't want one for yourself or your children? Fine, I could really care less. But this constant denial of any benefit is borderline delusional imo. Recent studies have actually had to terminate early because it was unethical to continue to deny men the procedure in the face of obvious benefits.

I for one, am glad I had it done as a newborn where it was a simple procedure that I don't even remember, as opposed having to choose later when it would be much more traumatic. If I ever have a son, I'll have it done without hesitation.

People here can make there own decisions, but in third world countries, where millions die of HIV and other STDs, circumcision really should be encouraged.


"If we had a vaccine that was 60 percent protective we would be very happy and rolling it out as fast as possible," Bailey told the IAS conference in Sydney.Says it all, really. :yes:

[Ironside]

As I have said before, some are medical, and some are social/esthetic:

1) Reduced risk of STDs
2) Women (in my experience) find it more attractive and are more willing to perform certain "services"
3) Easier maintenance
4) Reduced risk of cancer
5) (In my son's case) Looking the same as his father and hence feeling "normal" (that was my wife's main reason for supporting the decision, along with the esthetic issue)

So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?

Without any particular research:
1) 2 and 5 reversed.
2) Risk of complications during the procedure
3) Increased numbness down there
4) Financial cost

It's fairly certain that the benefit/drawback ratio is pretty much close to 1, minor drawbacks and minor benefits.


I am not the one with a fixed goal Lemur, you are. I am not trying to convince you to circumcise your children; I couldn't care less what you do with your kids. In fact, if you're not circumcised, I think it's probably a better decision not to circumcise your own kids (see #5 above). On the other hand, you have been doing your best this thread to convince everybody else how evil circumcision is backed up by only vague references to how "it's bad for the childrens."

My rationale has not been shifting. I have maintained the same reasoning the entire thread.

Lemur isn't refering to your rationale, he refers to how the public message of why circumcision is good has changed several times since 1900 (when it started to become popular).
It's that he finds suspicious (he had 2 major threads on this before).

Edit: Xiahou is that the same area were dry sex are popular in Africa? It's been talked about in earlier threads.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And this thread, it's also worth noting that in most of those countries personal hygine is low.

[Xiahou]

Edit: Xiahou is that the same area were dry sex are popular in Africa? It's been talked about in earlier threads.
I specifically bolded the the portion about the studies that noted they include the United States because I knew someone would try the "dry sex" dismissal of clear evidence that circumcision reduces transmission rates. :wink:

[Ironside]

I specifically bolded the the portion about the studies that noted they include the United States because I knew someone would try the "dry sex" dismissal of clear evidence that circumcision reduces transmission rates. :wink:

Missed that :shame:

It's odd though that an article focusing entirely on Africa adds the US. Numbers for each nation induvidually could be useful.


Anyway I got the feeling that the thought of circumcision has severe influences that can cloud thinking severly for both sides, namely:

You're not cutting on my Johnson

And:

Of course it's benefitial, it's done on me and I haven't suffered haven't I? Pointless and non-beneficial you say? That would make me... uhm... that can't be true, cicumcision has many benefits, cicumcision has many benfits...

It's interesting that there's a severe dissonance between the old world and the new world on the issue.

[TinCow]

Why is circumcision being viewed any differently than pierced ears or other body jewelry? Those have risks too, yet I regularly see children, and even infants, with pierced ears.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why is circumcision being viewed any differently than pierced ears or other body jewelry? Those have risks too, yet I regularly see children, and even infants, with pierced ears.

Who says it is being treated differently?

Since I think it's mainly cosmetic, or no more beneficial than having your tonsils out, it's the people who tell us we should all get the snip because it's so good for us.

If it was that advantagus we would have evolved lesser forskins by now but ancient art tells us there's been little change.

[TinCow]

Since I think it's mainly cosmetic, or no more beneficial than having your tonsils out, it's the people who tell us we should all get the snip because it's so good for us.

People are arguing that everyone should be snipped? Why?! I was under the impression that it was more of a situation where one side was saying no one should be allowed to do it and the other side wanted it to be an individual choice. Even though I'm a fan of circumcision, I definitely do not think that it should be done on children if their parents do not agree with it.

[Lemur]

Reducing the chance of urinary tract infection by a factor of 10, reducing the risk of getting hpv, reducing the chance of transmitting hpv and thus of the female getting cervical cancer...need I go on? Where did you do your research?
Don't any of you people use condoms? You forgot to mention that removing a body part also means you can't get cancer in it. That's why I chopped my left arm off, to lower my chance of left arm cancer.


So, as I see it, it is a procedure that is less traumatic for an infant than getting injections, plus it improves his physical appearance later in life. That's a good enough reason for me. If there are health benefits on top of it, that's even better, but even if there were not, it wouldn't change my opinion. My wife and I both agree that any son we have will be circumcised for these reasons.
Aesthetic judgments are, by definition, subjective, so there's not much I can say to "it looks better." Villagers who put plates in their lower lips also think it looks better, and who's to say they're wrong?

The health benefits, in countries that have super-advanced technology such as soap and condoms, are arguable.

I'm circumcised, but I decided to end that tradition in my family. I leave it up to my fellow Orgahs to tell me how that warps my views and makes me unfit to comment on the subject.


There are many benefits to circumcision.
And yet you only list one, the STD argument. And the AP article you linked to, interestingly enough, doesn't name or link to any studies, and mentions the U.S.A. at the end of a four-country string of low-hygiene African nations.

Well, thanks for dropping by to declare victory, Xiahou. Mission accomplished!

[Whacker]

This thread is reaching new lows.

Why don't we take a deep breath and try this from another angle?

Lemur-san, I'm going to pick on you because you started the bruhaha this time. You've said you've done some extensive research and reading on this subject which lead you to this conclusion, yes? Why don't you provide several of the resources you've used so the rest of us can read them to start with? I don't mean just a link or two, give us a nice good long list of what you've read.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Don't any of you people use condoms? You forgot to mention that removing a body part also means you can't get cancer in it. That's why I chopped my left arm off, to lower my chance of left arm cancer.


Aesthetic judgments are, by definition, subjective, so there's not much I can say to "it looks better." Villagers who put plates in their lower lips also think it looks better, and who's to say they're wrong?

The health benefits, in countries that have super-advanced technology such as soap and condoms, are arguable.

I'm circumcised, but I decided to end that tradition in my family. I leave it up to my fellow Orgahs to tell me how that warps my views and makes me unfit to comment on the subject.


And yet you only list one, the STD argument. And the AP article you linked to, interestingly enough, doesn't name or link to any studies, and mentions the U.S.A. at the end of a four-country string of low-hygiene African nations.

Well, thanks for dropping by to declare victory, Xiahou. Mission accomplished!

I think you are too emotionally involved in this issue to be objective.

[drone]

When Idaho posted this in the first thread, we all thought he was crazy. Now I think I'm beginning to see his point. :inquisitive:

There is another message board that I frequent and circumcision threads are banned because they always turn into flame wars for some reason.

Just for reference:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67754

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lemur isn't emotional, he's rational. More importantly, he's abolutely right in everything he's written in this thread.

Meh, I can't be arsed to write anything substantial here. I'll just proclaim Lemur my official spokesman in this struggle against infant mutilation in the name of myth.

[HoreTore]

I really, really can't see how "decreased chance of STD's" is an argument these days. We've had condoms for decades, use them already!

The only people getting STD's in industrialized countries, are dumb people. It's as simple as that. If you get an STD these days, I'll bet my money you don't have an IQ(or SIQ - Sexual IQ?) over 70.

[Lemur]

Why don't you provide several of the resources you've used so the rest of us can read them to start with? I don't mean just a link or two, give us a nice good long list of what you've read.
Fair enough. Here's for starters:

A summation of the debate from a father-to-be's perspective. (http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0725,taormino,76996,24.html) "After reading Goldman's exhaustive, passionate book and seeing graphic diagrams and photos of circumcision, I am convinced that if people were well-informed about the foreskin's important functions and actually witnessed a circumcision, they would never subject anyone to it."

Study: Circumcision Removes Most Sensitive Parts (http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html)

Birth As We Know It video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk)

Doctors Against Circumcision HIV Statement (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html)

A very reasonable methodological challenge to the circumcision in Africa study. (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000543) "Our results suggest that male circumcision may be overstated as a means of controlling a national AIDS epidemic."

Here are a couple of stories that highlight the danger of performing unnecessary operations on infants:

Ontario Boy Dies After Botched Circumcision. (http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e6babb2a-2a92-4c8b-bcd2-8278ec64f880&k=89599) "The PlastiBell ring, which is used to hold back the foreskin after circumcision, was removed and drained and the child went into shock."

Woman sues over botched circumcision. (http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/doc469edde7e929a511952004.txt) "Instead of removing only the foreskin, the entire head of the boy’s penis was removed."

And to round out today's menu, here's a tiny bit of evidence that the pro-circumcision camp is fighting the tide:

In Last Four Decades, Circumcision Has Lost Popularity in United States (http://www.theledger.com/article/20070708/NEWS/707080331/1326)

For those who can't get enough, here's a pro-circumcision web site (http://medicirc.org/), and here's an anti-circumcision web site (http://www.nocirc.org/).

I sure am glad I wasn't too emotionally involved to use the Interwebs. Thanks for your concern, Sasaki.

-edit-

And just to forestall Whacker from accusing me of not providing enough reading material, here's a book on the subject. (http://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-Hidden-Trauma-American-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6011319-0230451?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185394728&sr=8-1)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How many of you would give your child a vaccine against hpv?

[HoreTore]

How many of you would give your child a vaccine against hpv?

I'll happily buy him his first pack of condoms.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

...and if there was a west nile vaccine would you buy him some DEET?

[HoreTore]

...and if there was a west nile vaccine would you buy him some DEET?

Ridiculous.

Circumcision is a little more than a simple vaccine. If you had asked whether I would cut off the tip of his ear to prevent the west nile virus, or buy some DEET, then the answer would be the latter. If there was a proper vaccine for it, I'd give it to him, of course.

As for STD's, viewing circumcision as a protection against it is a quite dangerous thing in my mind. It could very easily lead to thinking like "hey, I'm circumcised, that means I can just throw away those condoms, they suck anyway". The condom is the way to prevent STD's. Nothing else even comes close.

[Whacker]

A summation of the debate from a father-to-be's perspective. (http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0725,taormino,76996,24.html)
Lemur, this guy writes OPINIONS. He has 0 medical expertise, and his credentials list him as an editorial writer. He's so obviously biased that I stopped reading halfway through. Next.


Study: Circumcision Removes Most Sensitive Parts (http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html)
This article argues both for and against circumcision, and there's one guy who's speaking out against the tide as the article portrays it. I can buy that there may be some decrease in sensitivity, but let's be honest guys. Anyone else here who's cut have any problems feeling anything? I sure as hell don't, not remotely, don't know about the rest of ya'll.


Birth As We Know It video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk)
Can't watch, don't have a Youtube account, so I can't comment.


Doctors Against Circumcision HIV Statement (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html)
This one I'm going to rip to shreds. There's hardly any 'science' or 'medicine' on that site whatsoever. The so called 'quiz' is a joke, and the links to materials are from articles based on data collected over 15 years ago. Also, did you actually read the article on the HIV? Did you check the references, and see the sample sizes taken? They're basing quite a bit of their claims on statistical data acquired from maybe two or three tiny little bush villages in the backwaters of Africa.

I'm disgusted, there's hardly anything worth checking on that site, half of the conclusions they make they're extrapolating from infinitesimally small studies and sample groups, and medical journal entires that are 15+ years old, hell some of them aren't even medical articles. C'mon. Further I'm really curious to see how big their "membership" is, seeing how they don't mention figures anywhere that I could find.


A very reasonable methodological challenge to the circumcision in Africa study. (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000543)
I don't see anything really wrong here. Keep in mind, they're suggesting a possible overstatement based on their sample sizes, AND it appears they only used data from female sex workers. I'm not saying they're wrong, just consider the data as they present it.


Ontario Boy Dies After Botched Circumcision. (http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e6babb2a-2a92-4c8b-bcd2-8278ec64f880&k=89599)

Woman sues over botched circumcision. (http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/doc469edde7e929a511952004.txt)
It happens, but it's extremely rare when performed by a competent medical doctor. Have you checked and click some of the reference links that quite a few of these sites link to? (I don't know if you have) Half of them aren't making a case clearly for the anti-circumcision argument, in fact the more you read, quite a few of them actually do the opposite and provide very favorable results FOR the procedure.


And to round out today's menu, here's a tiny bit of evidence that the pro-circumcision camp is fighting the tide:

In Last Four Decades, Circumcision Has Lost Popularity in United States (http://www.theledger.com/article/20070708/NEWS/707080331/1326)
Respectfully, so what? Circumcision isn't a fad, it's a serious medical procedure.


And just to forestall Whacker from accusing me of not providing enough reading material, here's a book on the subject. (http://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-Hidden-Trauma-American-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6011319-0230451?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185394728&sr=8-1)
I shall look into that, thank you.

Bottom line.

Is the procedure "necessary"? No, you can live with your foreskin and be perfectly fine. Does it have definite proven benefits? Absolutely (read the articles people, and the medical journal links). Is there risk involved? Absolutely, but the risk of complications drastically drops off when the procedure is done by a qualified doctor, and the post-operative care is attended to diligently by the parents. (this is per those medical journal links from the articles)

I haven't see or read anything in these links, or in other reading I've done, which indicates that there aren't any benefits to the procedure, or that the risks are so great that it would deter me and my wife from having it done on our future boys. If anything Lemur-san, you've convinced me that having the procedure done on my unborn son(s) is the absolute right thing to do, but like anything else with your children it should be done carefully. Thanks for the links and the reading.

:bow:

:balloon2:

[Whacker]

The condom is the way to prevent STD's. Nothing else even comes close.

Complete Bull. Being careful and informed on sexual partners is the way to prevent STD's. Nothing else comes remotely close.

Half of the protection a condom offers depends on proper usage, and even then there's still plenty of risks. It's far from foolproof, and far from being '99.9% effective' which is a number I've heard people throwing around randomly in the past. If you have sex with a person who has (a) STD(s), even with a condom, you are playing chicken with a very large train.

Edit - @ Philipvs - You can still get STDs though non-sexual contact.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is only one way to avaid STDs, don't have sex. If you're going to have sex make sure you both get tested before hand.

[Csargo]

Insert some witty remark

[Whacker]

Insert some witty remark

You should have withdrawn this comment instead of posting it.

[Csargo]

You should have withdrawn this comment instead of posting it.

I'll insert whatever I want.:sweatdrop:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

There is only one way to avaid STDs, don't have sex. If you're going to have sex make sure you both get tested before hand.

This sounds fine in principle, but have you ever tried asking someone on the dancefloor of a club if they have a clean HIV test from within the last three months? It tends to kill the mood.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This sounds fine in principle, but have you ever tried asking someone on the dancefloor of a club if they have a clean HIV test from within the last three months? It tends to kill the mood.

I tend not to pick up girls on dance floors and take them back to my place. Anyone who want's to do that can but they get no sympathy from me when the condom breaks and they get the clap.

[Lemur]

This one I'm going to rip to shreds.
Um, yeah. I thought you asked me to share links and reading to improve the discussion? My misunderstanding.


If anything Lemur-san, you've convinced me that having the procedure done on my unborn son(s) is the absolute right thing to do, but like anything else with your children it should be done carefully. Thanks for the links and the reading.
You're welcome, I guess. I had no idea you were going to be so adversarial about it. Have fun with the kids. I'll be glad to play the "provide me with materials I can attack" game anytime.

[Csargo]

It's a matter of opinion. There are both advantages and disadvantages to circumcision. It's all what you feel is best for your child.

I am for circumcision the pros seem to outweigh the cons.

[Whacker]

Um, yeah. I thought you asked me to share links and reading to improve the discussion? My misunderstanding.

Oh FFS. My intent wasn't to attack YOU, I was attacking the materials provided. If you thought I was attacking you, I apologize, and would also like to see where I was doing so. My comments were all directed at the links and sites, as far as I can see.


You're welcome, I guess. I had no idea you were going to be so adversarial about it. Have fun with the kids. I'll be glad to play the "provide me with materials I can attack" game anytime.

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. Even so, for the record, you haven't exactly been even handed about this either. My intent was to poke some very big holes in logic, not bash people.

[Lemur]

Oh FFS. My intent wasn't to attack YOU, I was attacking the materials provided. If you thought I was attacking you, I apologize, and would also like to see where I was doing so.
No, I didn't feel in the least personally attacked, but I thought you were, I don't know, inquisitive, rather than looking for things to knock down. My bad. If I want to square off against a brick wall, there are other Orgahs I would look to before you.


My intent was to poke some very big holes in logic, not bash people.
And yet you have me at a disadvantage. You asked me to provide you with some reading material, and I did so, much to your glee. Please feel free to make the case for circumcision. Under the same terms you demanded of me, if you please.

And of course some of the links I included made arguments for the procedure. I was trying to give a broad smattering. You didn't even bother commenting on the pro-circumcision web site, which is interesting.

For the record, the reading I did was informative, but the definitive factor for me, as a father, was talking to doctors. Hard to provide a link for that, but you can call them names, if you like.

[Lemur]

How many of you would give your child a vaccine against hpv?
It's definitely an option. (http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm)

[Csargo]

Lemur pwned Whacker. glorious day

Ichi supports Lemur.

I obviously messed up.

[Xiahou]

For the record, the reading I did was informative, but the definitive factor for me, as a father, was talking to doctors. Hard to provide a link for that, but you can call them names, if you like.
Did you ask a urologist (http://www.auanet.org/about/policy/services.cfm#circumcision)?
the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits.

Again, I really don't care whether someone in a developed country wants to have their child circumcised or not. (It probably should be encouraged in developing countries) But let's refrain from referring to it as "madness" (or even more absurdly, abuse), when there are clear and well-documented benefits. If someone doesn't want to have their son circumcised, that's fine- but it's a procedure that does have benefits and has an extremely low risk of complications.

[Whacker]

And yet you have me at a disadvantage. You asked me to provide you with some reading material, and I did so, much to your glee. Please feel free to make the case for circumcision. Under the same terms you demanded of me, if you please.

Fair enough. Don't get your knickers in a wad if it takes me a bit to make the case, I'm not as 'fast' as you are clearly.

[HoreTore]

Complete Bull. Being careful and informed on sexual partners is the way to prevent STD's. Nothing else comes remotely close.

Half of the protection a condom offers depends on proper usage, and even then there's still plenty of risks. It's far from foolproof, and far from being '99.9% effective' which is a number I've heard people throwing around randomly in the past. If you have sex with a person who has (a) STD(s), even with a condom, you are playing chicken with a very large train.

I'll say the same - complete bull. A condom relies on proper usage, that's right. But not using it correctly is like not using it in my mind. I'll make an addition to my idiot list - Only dumb people don't know how to use a condom. If used incorrectly, the protection is low. Used correctly, it IS near complete. The reasons why a condoms bursts are these:

1. People rip it when they open the pack. Idiots.
2. People use way too old condoms who haven't been stored well. Idiots.
3. People use condoms who have laid in the pocket of a pair of pants when it went through the washing machine. Desperate people who haven't had sex in over a month due to military service :laugh4:
4. And then the last one, production failure. But this is very rare.

Of course, the best way is to avoid human contact. After that, it's testing your potential partner. But that does tend to kill the mood(to put it gently), as BKS pointed out. People get STD's from one night stands at a night out. And at that point, the best(and only) protection against STD's is the condom.

Anyway, the point I was arguing against, was that circumcision protected against STD's. I'll make a nice little top 4 list of the best protection against it:

1. Avoid all human contact.
2. Use pick up lines that start with "if you have been tested for STD's in the last 3 months, then..."
3. Condoms
4. Circumcision and various voodoo-cures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Between 1 and 2 should go, "Don't have one night stands with people you just met."

[HoreTore]

Between 1 and 2 should go, "Don't have one night stands with people you just met."

An impossible suggestion... Imagine yourself, drunk, horny not had any for months. Then a STUNNING(well, at least in your drunk eyes) woman appears in front of you and starts hitting on you, before doing some tongue-dancing, and then suggestion that you two go back to your/her place for "breakfast"... Seriously, are you going to say no, being drunk, young and sex-starved? HELL NO!

[seireikhaan]

An impossible suggestion... Imagine yourself, drunk, horny not had any for months. Then a STUNNING(well, at least in your drunk eyes) woman appears in front of you and starts hitting on you, before doing some tongue-dancing, and then suggestion that you two go back to your/her place for "breakfast"... Seriously, are you going to say no, being drunk, young and sex-starved? HELL NO!

No, but that's why you don't put yourself in a position where you're so drunk that you can't make a logical decision. If you're getting that wasted, then you're just dumb.

[HoreTore]

No, but that's why you don't put yourself in a position where you're so drunk that you can't make a logical decision. If you're getting that wasted, then you're just dumb.

What's not logical about it? If you haven't had sex for months, and a hot chick comes by who wants to get kinky, I'd say it's EXTREMELY illogical to say no!

Anyway, if you have little willy wear his raincoat, he'll walk happily home without a limp.

[Xiahou]

What's not logical about it? If you haven't had sex for months, and a hot chick comes by who wants to get kinky, I'd say it's EXTREMELY illogical to say no!
I love how it's now "illogical" to say no to anonymous, casual sex. :laugh4:

I'm pretty sure that logic has little to do with it. There are plenty of good reasons not to, and the reason in favor is.... hormones?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'm sorry, but anyone who would say no to casual sex with a gorgeous woman they've only just met, even when sober, has no heart.

Do you guys drive cars? Or play sports? Or do anything which is fun, but involves risk?

[HoreTore]

I love how it's now "illogical" to say no to anonymous, casual sex. :laugh4:

I'm pretty sure that logic has little to do with it. There are plenty of good reasons not to, and the reason in favor is.... hormones?

Anonymous? I've usually introduced myself.... But I can't really see any reasons against casual sex, the only one coming to mind is if the potential partner is not attractive(in your eyes. If you know said person there might be some problems with it though, with respects to friends and relations and so on...

Btw, my last casual sex resulted in a relationship that has gone on for 2,5 years now... So I must say that it's been very good.

[seireikhaan]

I'm sorry, but anyone who would say no to casual sex with a gorgeous woman they've only just met, even when sober, has no heart.

Do you guys drive cars? Or play sports? Or do anything which is fun, but involves risk?

If she's gorgeous, then that means she's probably been around the block, so to speak. Most likely, it'll end up with just the one night stand, and that's it. Oh, you are sorta right, though. I don't have a heart.:yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An impossible suggestion... Imagine yourself, drunk, horny not had any for months. Then a STUNNING(well, at least in your drunk eyes) woman appears in front of you and starts hitting on you, before doing some tongue-dancing, and then suggestion that you two go back to your/her place for "breakfast"... Seriously, are you going to say no, being drunk, young and sex-starved? HELL NO!

"Remember boys, flies spread disease, so keep yours closed."

If you are beholden to your hormones that's fine, I'm not. Nor do I see the point in getting parraletically drunk. In any case, you're Norwegian so I doubt you have the money to get that drunk.

Unless you're flat broke of course.

[Slyspy]

I'm sorry, but anyone who would say no to casual sex with a gorgeous woman they've only just met, even when sober, has no heart.

No, but he has a brain.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

"Remember boys, flies spread disease, so keep yours closed."

If you are beholden to your hormones that's fine, I'm not. Nor do I see the point in getting parraletically drunk. In any case, you're Norwegian so I doubt you have the money to get that drunk.

Unless you're flat broke of course.


Well from what I've heard alcohol is very expensive up there, but the person I heard that from could have only meant Denmark...Anyway if you want to get drunk you'll find a way, and I think everyone should have at least some experience in that regard. Though I haven't actually gotten very drunk I was pretty well on my way a couple of times.

[Csargo]

I'm sorry, but anyone who would say no to casual sex with a gorgeous woman they've only just met, even when sober, has no heart.

Do you guys drive cars? Or play sports? Or do anything which is fun, but involves risk?

Nice way of putting it BKS, but broken bones can be set, cuts can be stitched. How many STD's can be cured? It was a nice try though, I'll give you that.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Nice way of putting it BKS, but broken bones can be set, cuts can be stitched. How many STD's can be cured? It was a nice try though, I'll give you that.

Erm, quite a few. You're pretty much looking at Genital Herpes and HIV as the properly incurable ones, with HPV being fairly persistant depending on the strain-although there'll be a vaccine for the nastiest ones (IE cervical cancer causing) available soon. As for the others, I'd take a dose of the clap over a cruciate ligament injury any day of the week.

[Csargo]

:bow: that was pretty stupid of me :grin:

[Gregoshi]

Big King Sanctaphrax says:

Clap on! <clap clap>
Clap off! <clap clap>
BK's the Clapper!

[Csargo]

You never cease to amaze Gregoshi.

[HoreTore]

In any case, you're Norwegian so I doubt you have the money to get that drunk.

I think that is the first time I've ever heard Norwegians being called poor. Although it is a welcome change from being accused of wiping our behinds with 100-dollar bills...
And I'd say that crawling around in a ditch on a late saturday night is the backbone of our culture. Yes, alcohol is expensive here, compared to others. But that doesn't stop us from getting stinking drunk in the week-end, it just stops us drinking the rest of the week. Anyway, Sweden is just an hour or three away....

As for the "it'll just be that one time"-comment, my answer is simply: So? That's not a bad thing?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that is the first time I've ever heard Norwegians being called poor. Although it is a welcome change from being accused of wiping our behinds with 100-dollar bills...
And I'd say that crawling around in a ditch on a late saturday night is the backbone of our culture. Yes, alcohol is expensive here, compared to others. But that doesn't stop us from getting stinking drunk in the week-end, it just stops us drinking the rest of the week. Anyway, Sweden is just an hour or three away....

As for the "it'll just be that one time"-comment, my answer is simply: So? That's not a bad thing?

I meant it was crippling expensive, and Sweden isn't exactly cheep, believe me, I know you guys aren't poor.

Any case, you have a Norwegian attitude to sex, which is fine but soot me if I'm not a more emotional guy than you are.

BKS, just a thought, but being as HIV basically ruins your life it's not a risk I'm keen on taking.

[HoreTore]

I meant it was crippling expensive, and Sweden isn't exactly cheep, believe me, I know you guys aren't poor.

Crippling expensive is a bit strong... A bottle of Jack costs around....50 USD or so? I usually drink good scotches though, and they cost around, hmm... 80-100 dollars? One bottle, coupled with beer and various other stuff is usually enough for a weekend for me. And that's not more than I can afford. If you buy it in sweden, it's about 15-20% cheaper, I think. And I live one an hour and a half away...