Male Circumcision

[Haggis_McMutton]

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

This conversation is incredible.

You guys are debating the benefits and risks of removing bodyparts off of infants.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? ... really?

Maybe, just maybe, humans should have a fundamental right not to have their bodyparts chopped off without their consent? Or am I just being wacky?

[Neoteny]

I chop off parts of children in my spare time. I don't see what the fuss is about it.

[bedub1]

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

This conversation is incredible.

You guys are debating the benefits and risks of removing bodyparts off of infants.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? ... really?

Maybe, just maybe, humans should have a fundamental right not to have their bodyparts chopped off without their consent? Or am I just being wacky?

Exactly! It's barbaric!

Get real. There is NO true comparison between the so-called "female circumcision", which removes active parts of women's genitalia and the male circumcision, which removes a bit of skin covering.

A bit of skin covering? Oh but hey, the clitoris is just a lump of meat. What's the difference between removing a lump of meat and a bit of skin?
..

Biology. You should study it sometime.

So should you, as you obviously have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[natty dread]

Get real. There is NO true comparison between the so-called "female circumcision", which removes active parts of women's genitalia and the male circumcision, which removes a bit of skin covering.

A bit of skin covering? Oh but hey, the clitoris is just a lump of meat. What's the difference between removing a lump of meat and a bit of skin?
..

Biology. You should study it sometime.

I study biology pretty intensively with my gf, on a regular basis.

But hey, don't let the facts hinder your prejudices.

[saxitoxin]

This is a lost cause. Player has already had to acknowledge, in another thread, she sent her children to a camp operated by a child rapist. You're not going to also get her to acknowledge she had them surgically made inferior and left unable to experience the full range of normal human functions because a doctor who was getting a $400 insurance kickback wanted to upgrade to the CD-changer from the single-disc player in his new car.

Denial is the most human of reactions when faced with uncomfortable truths about ourselves and the evils we've committed.

She's been unwilling to answer why no developed nations outside of North America (where it gets rarer annually) and Israel do this discredited procedure originally introduced to the non-Judaic world by religious zealots in the 1890s and popularized by a New York ad agency - just leave it at that.

[bedub1]

This is a lost cause. Player has already had to acknowledge, in another thread, she sent her children to a camp operated by a child rapist. You're not going to also get her to acknowledge she had them surgically made inferior and left unable to experience the full range of normal human functions because a doctor who was getting a $400 insurance kickback wanted to upgrade to the CD-changer from the single-disc player in his new car.

Denial is the most human of reactions when faced with uncomfortable truths about ourselves and the evils we've committed.

She's been unwilling to answer why no developed nations outside of North America (where it gets rarer annually) and Israel do this discredited procedure originally introduced to the non-Judaic world by religious zealots in the 1890s and popularized by a New York ad agency - just leave it at that.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It's okay to admit you made a mistake and mutilated your children. It's a very common error people make. Hopefully though you can learn from your mistakes so as to not re-live them.

[saxitoxin]

How many circumcisions do you think the galaxy's most brilliant doctor performed?

Zero. Fact.

Most people aren't aware of the literary significance of the Daleks and the doctor fighting them. But it's pretty freakin' obvious - the whole show was a treatise against circumcision -




ed.: spelling

[saxitoxin]

This is a lost cause. Player has already had to acknowledge, in another thread, she sent her children to a camp operated by a child rapist. You're not going to also get her to acknowledge she had them surgically made inferior and left unable to experience the full range of normal human functions because a doctor who was getting a $400 insurance kickback wanted to upgrade to the CD-changer from the single-disc player in his new car.

Denial is the most human of reactions when faced with uncomfortable truths about ourselves and the evils we've committed.

She's been unwilling to answer why no developed nations outside of North America (where it gets rarer annually) and Israel do this discredited procedure originally introduced to the non-Judaic world by religious zealots in the 1890s and popularized by a New York ad agency - just leave it at that.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It's okay to admit you made a mistake and mutilated your children. It's a very common error people make. Hopefully though you can learn from your mistakes so as to not re-live them.

I'm sad to say it, because it's best when we can give people a second chance, but this is pretty unforgivable. Second chances exist when errors can be corrected. The physical damage of this error can't be fixed at this stage in medical science. The psychological damage (PTSD) to the children can only be mitigated.

Further, there's been an abundance of evidence widely available for awhile now for parents who thoughtfully and consciously approach the obligations of parenting and living as humans as opposed to just crapping out kids because their breeding instinct has kicked in.

[BigBallinStalin]

Get real. There is NO true comparison between the so-called "female circumcision", which removes active parts of women's genitalia and the male circumcision, which removes a bit of skin covering.

A bit of skin covering? Oh but hey, the clitoris is just a lump of meat. What's the difference between removing a lump of meat and a bit of skin?

Maybe you should stop spewing these dishonest arguments, and ignoring the evidence. The foreskin is not just "a bit of skin", it has tons of nerve endings, and removing it reduces the sensitivity of the penis by up to 75%.

Player, you always do this - when ever there's an issue that concerns men, some injustice which men have to suffer from, you always argue "oh, but women have everything WORSE because x and y and stuff"... as if the suffering of one part of population negates the suffering of another. Look up the term "oppression olympics" because you're a world-class athlete there.

Haha, I'm gonna use that one for later.

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

This conversation is incredible.

You guys are debating the benefits and risks of removing bodyparts off of infants.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? ... really?

Maybe, just maybe, humans should have a fundamental right not to have their bodyparts chopped off without their consent? Or am I just being wacky?

You crazy, Haggis. Jus' crazy!

They have to debate about the risks because people use that to justify chopping off bodyparts.

The risks really gloss over the details. If I'm 18, and I love getting drunk almost every day and having sex without condoms with many women, men, and dogs, then the risks for my getting AIDS and whatever is much higher than the normal person--circumcised or not.

So, I find the risks of getting HIV or whatever at time=0 for any human being really is overlooking the influence of later decision-making. In other words, if the issue is risk of getting HIV and whatever, then this should be dealt with in a more humane way: better parenting, enacting policies that inform people, etc., but not chopping off bodyparts to marginally reduce this risk.

[MeDeFe]

So, I find the risks of getting HIV or whatever at time=0 for any human being really is overlooking the influence of later decision-making. In other words, if the issue is risk of getting HIV and whatever, then this should be dealt with in a more humane way: better parenting, enacting policies that inform people, etc., but not chopping off bodyparts to marginally reduce this risk.

Especially since the WHO has found that adults who were circumcised in Africa precisely to reduce their risk of contracting STDs (including AIDS) are more likely to engage in behaviour that puts them at a greater risk of contracting such diseases. I'd have to search for the source, though, I'm paraphrasing a user from a German discussion board. As I mentioned earlier, MGM became a pretty big topic here recently.

For shits and giggles I'm going to appeal to authority like there's no tomorrow. Player, run the following through Google translations, it's an open letter to the German government and parliament signed by a crapload of medical professionals, representatives from human rights organisations, psychologists, and jurists.
Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 should be of particular interest to you.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inla ... 27590.html

[Woodruff]

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

This conversation is incredible.

You guys are debating the benefits and risks of removing bodyparts off of infants.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? ... really?

Maybe, just maybe, humans should have a fundamental right not to have their bodyparts chopped off without their consent? Or am I just being wacky?

You anti-Christian socialist tree-hugger types are all alike.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, I find the risks of getting HIV or whatever at time=0 for any human being really is overlooking the influence of later decision-making. In other words, if the issue is risk of getting HIV and whatever, then this should be dealt with in a more humane way: better parenting, enacting policies that inform people, etc., but not chopping off bodyparts to marginally reduce this risk.

Especially since the WHO has found that adults who were circumcised in Africa precisely to reduce their risk of contracting STDs (including AIDS) are more likely to engage in behaviour that puts them at a greater risk of contracting such diseases. I'd have to search for the source, though, I'm paraphrasing a user from a German discussion board. As I mentioned earlier, MGM became a pretty big topic here recently.

For shits and giggles I'm going to appeal to authority like there's no tomorrow. Player, run the following through Google translations, it's an open letter to the German government and parliament signed by a crapload of medical professionals, representatives from human rights organisations, psychologists, and jurists.
Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 should be of particular interest to you.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inla ... 27590.html

That's a great example of an unintended consequence. If people perceive that their risks are reduced, then they're more likely engage in that action. Another example is Prius owners. They perceive that their mileage is exceptionally great (which it is); however, they'll actually consume more gas then they did with previous cars of lesser gas mileage.

According to this news article on that Prius research, "Prius drivers only drive, on average, about 0.5 percent more per year." That's a very small increase, yet you don't see a decrease in consumption.

Likewise, if the rebound effect is occurring with circumcision and AIDS, then with a decrease in the risk of AIDS from circumcision, engaging in sex becomes more efficient (perceived costs are reduced from a reduction in perceived risks). Therefore, the policymakers shouldn't be surprised that consumption (i.e. engagement in sex) stays relatively the same or increases when sex becomes more efficient through circumcision.

[bedub1]

So, I find the risks of getting HIV or whatever at time=0 for any human being really is overlooking the influence of later decision-making. In other words, if the issue is risk of getting HIV and whatever, then this should be dealt with in a more humane way: better parenting, enacting policies that inform people, etc., but not chopping off bodyparts to marginally reduce this risk.

Especially since the WHO has found that adults who were circumcised in Africa precisely to reduce their risk of contracting STDs (including AIDS) are more likely to engage in behaviour that puts them at a greater risk of contracting such diseases. I'd have to search for the source, though, I'm paraphrasing a user from a German discussion board. As I mentioned earlier, MGM became a pretty big topic here recently.

For shits and giggles I'm going to appeal to authority like there's no tomorrow. Player, run the following through Google translations, it's an open letter to the German government and parliament signed by a crapload of medical professionals, representatives from human rights organisations, psychologists, and jurists.
Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 should be of particular interest to you.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inla ... 27590.html

Germany and it's law is what made me start thinking of this.

This is a lost cause. Player has already had to acknowledge, in another thread, she sent her children to a camp operated by a child rapist. You're not going to also get her to acknowledge she had them surgically made inferior and left unable to experience the full range of normal human functions because a doctor who was getting a $400 insurance kickback wanted to upgrade to the CD-changer from the single-disc player in his new car.

Denial is the most human of reactions when faced with uncomfortable truths about ourselves and the evils we've committed.

She's been unwilling to answer why no developed nations outside of North America (where it gets rarer annually) and Israel do this discredited procedure originally introduced to the non-Judaic world by religious zealots in the 1890s and popularized by a New York ad agency - just leave it at that.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It's okay to admit you made a mistake and mutilated your children. It's a very common error people make. Hopefully though you can learn from your mistakes so as to not re-live them.

I'm sad to say it, because it's best when we can give people a second chance, but this is pretty unforgivable. Second chances exist when errors can be corrected. The physical damage of this error can't be fixed at this stage in medical science. The psychological damage (PTSD) to the children can only be mitigated.

Further, there's been an abundance of evidence widely available for awhile now for parents who thoughtfully and consciously approach the obligations of parenting and living as humans as opposed to just crapping out kids because their breeding instinct has kicked in.

All it takes for a second chance is to have another child. If you learn from your mistakes and don't repeat them then you are forgiven. Not the action, but the person. A cut child can't become un-cut, which is why you have to forgive your parents otherwise you will live in resentment forever.

I think doctors/priests/etc that perform circumcisions are far more unforgivable than doctors that perform abortions. Killing an unborn child is one thing, but mutilating their genitals is just barbaric.

[bedub1]

Found a great article:

Mothers against Circumcisions:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

[natty dread]

Oh well, I was on the fence about this issue, but now that I see there are MOTHERS against it I'm totally against it as well! Mothers know best, you know?

[bedub1]

Oh well, I was on the fence about this issue, but now that I see there are MOTHERS against it I'm totally against it as well! Mothers know best, you know?

Fathers against abortion?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh well, I was on the fence about this issue, but now that I see there are MOTHERS against it I'm totally against it as well! Mothers know best, you know?

Fathers against abortion?

A bush in the needle stack?

[Dukasaur]

Found a great article:

Mothers against Circumcisions:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

Interesting article.

Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. (...)

In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.

How has that worked out, by the way?

Has masturbation ceased in America?

[bedub1]

Found a great article:

Mothers against Circumcisions:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

Interesting article.

Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. (...)

In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.

How has that worked out, by the way?

Has masturbation ceased in America?

I don't think it's worked at all. On a related note there have been more recent announcements:

The American Heart Association is now recommending that all children have their hearts removed right after birth and replaced with an artificial heart. This will lesson the likelihood of having heart related diseases, heart attacks etc.

The American Lung Association is now recommending that all children have 1 lung removed. This will cut their chances of having lung cancer in half.

The National Breast Cancer Foundation is now recommending that all women have their breasts removed right after birth. This will help reduce back problems, keep them cleaner, reduce their risk of breast cancer, and reduce the violent competition for women with huge jugs.

[PLAYER57832]

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

This conversation is incredible.

You guys are debating the benefits and risks of removing bodyparts off of infants.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? ... really?

Maybe, just maybe, humans should have a fundamental right not to have their bodyparts chopped off without their consent? Or am I just being wacky?

So are you against cutting fingernails, then? Shaving? or plucking eyebrows? Those, too, are body parts.

I am not terribly in favor of male circumcision, but while male circumcision's harm is debated even by the men who have had it done, the procedure put forward as a "woman's equivalent" has NO purpose other than reduction in female sexual pleasure for religious or social justification. That was my point.

I don't particularly like or dislike male circumcision. I have 2 brothers. One was circumcized (the hospital did not ask my parents) and the other was not. So, I have heard some from their perspectives. From a woman's perspective, the assertion of circumcized men causing women harm is ridiculous. Some men don't know how to please a woman... circumcision has nothing to do with it.

For my own kids, I felt my husband's opinion mattered and let him decide.

[natty dread]

So are you against cutting fingernails, then? Shaving? or plucking eyebrows? Those, too, are body parts.

Excuse me, I wasn't aware that foreskin grew back after mutilation.

Or do you admit you just made a false equivalency?

I am not terribly in favor of male circumcision, but while male circumcision's harm is debated even by the men who have had it done, the procedure put forward as a "woman's equivalent" has NO purpose other than reduction in female sexual pleasure for religious or social justification. That was my point.

Neither has male circumcision. You're a typical second-wave feminist, Player, in that you see every injustice when it is committed against women as a crime, while you see the same injustice committed against men as business as usual - or worse, as something they "deserve"...

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you agree with the thesis that sex-based discrimination hurts both sexes, then logically it applies both ways - discrimination against men also harms women, and discrimination against women also harms men. Although I use the word "discrimination" here, it also applies to all kinds of harm inflicted on people on the basis of them being born with a certain set of genitals.

[Symmetry]

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

This conversation is incredible.

You guys are debating the benefits and risks of removing bodyparts off of infants.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? ... really?

Maybe, just maybe, humans should have a fundamental right not to have their bodyparts chopped off without their consent? Or am I just being wacky?

So are you against cutting fingernails, then? Shaving? or plucking eyebrows? Those, too, are body parts.

I am not terribly in favor of male circumcision, but while male circumcision's harm is debated even by the men who have had it done, the procedure put forward as a "woman's equivalent" has NO purpose other than reduction in female sexual pleasure for religious or social justification. That was my point.

I don't particularly like or dislike male circumcision. I have 2 brothers. One was circumcized (the hospital did not ask my parents) and the other was not. So, I have heard some from their perspectives. From a woman's perspective, the assertion of circumcized men causing women harm is ridiculous. Some men don't know how to please a woman... circumcision has nothing to do with it.

For my own kids, I felt my husband's opinion mattered and let him decide.

Female circumcision isn't quite as clear cut (no pun intended) as you might think. You're likely thinking of the the removal of the clitoris, but there are a lot of other methods.

Removal of the clitoral hood, for example, or the notable Seattle compromise- a symbolic small cut to appease religious and cultural views (yes, female cicumcision can also be religious and cultural, just as many of the modern arguments in favour of male circumcision focus on sexual hygiene and behaviour).

Anyway, here's a Duke law journal article comparing the basic stance of male vs female infant genital circumcision:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... promise%22

[saxitoxin]

or the notable Seattle compromise- a symbolic small cut to appease religious and cultural views

That is interesting. I was aware blood letting had been used as an alternative to Jewish circumcision but had not heard of it being used for female. IIRC (this number could be wrong), a rabbi at Emanu-El or one of those other big synagogues in NY said that 75% of Jewish circumcisions in North America haven't been correctly done and are ritually invalid anyway. Maybe I'll see if I can find where I read that. Probably I won't, though.

I've wondered if some Amerinadians just have it done to make sure all their bases are covered (like Christians who keep kosher just to be safe).

[Symmetry]

or the notable Seattle compromise- a symbolic small cut to appease religious and cultural views

That is interesting. I was aware blood letting had been used as an alternative to Jewish circumcision but had not heard of it being used for female. IIRC (this number could be wrong), a rabbinical survey found that something like 75% of Jewish circumcisions in North America haven't been correctly done and are ritually invalid anyway. Maybe I'll see if I can find where I read that. Probably I won't, though.

The link in the above post describes the compromise, if you're interested. It was deemed illegal anyway.

[saxitoxin]

or the notable Seattle compromise- a symbolic small cut to appease religious and cultural views

That is interesting. I was aware blood letting had been used as an alternative to Jewish circumcision but had not heard of it being used for female. IIRC (this number could be wrong), a rabbinical survey found that something like 75% of Jewish circumcisions in North America haven't been correctly done and are ritually invalid anyway. Maybe I'll see if I can find where I read that. Probably I won't, though.

The link in the above post describes the compromise, if you're interested. It was deemed illegal anyway.

your summary was sufficiently detailed to satiate my interest