non theraputic circumcision (1 Viewer)

FallingPianos · Nov 2, 2006

routine circumcision of newborns is one of the most barbaric medical practices still performed in the United States.

The foreskin is not just a piece of skin, but an important sexual organ. its functions include protection from infections, friction reduction during intercourse, lubrication, protection from chafing, and sexual response.

http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm
microscopic examination reveals that the foreskin is more than just penile skin necessary for a natural erection; it is specialized tissue [especially the "ridged bands" described in research by Taylor], richly supplied with blood vessels, highly innervated, and uniquely endowed with stretch receptors. These attributes of the foreskin contribute significantly to the sexual response of the intact male. The complex tissue of the foreskin responds to stimulation during sexual activity. Stretching of the foreskin over the glans penis activates preputial nerve endings, enhances sexual excitability, and contributes to the male ejaculatory reflex.

there have been some studies suggesting that circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV amoung other health benefits. These studies have not had consistent results, and many contain methodical flaws.

but suppose those benefits are real. circumcision is no substitute for condoms and monogomy in reducing the spread of HIV. People who engage in highrisk sex are likely to get an STD regardless of whether or not they are circumcised.

removing part of a persons body without their consent for a mild health benefit is not justified.

others have said that a circumcised penis is more hygienic. not wanting to teach ones children hygienic practices is no excuse for removing a part of their body.

not to meantion, the procedure is painful! because anaethetics carry their own risks, most infants are circumcised without them. This page explains how neonatal circumcisions are done - for those of you that can stomach the images.

taxedout · Nov 2, 2006

wouldn't want little johnny to grow up and look different would we.
In the name of individualism he should look like everyone else.

Real Korimyr #9 · Nov 3, 2006

star2589 said:
routine circumcision of newborns is one of the most barbaric medical practices still performed in the United States.

Wholly agreed. I find it amusing that people get so morally indignant about FGM-- which is admittedly far worse-- but then just as morally indignant about defending this atrocity.

talloulou · Nov 3, 2006

Korimyr they made you a mod! :shock: Do they know you are lawful evil???

I'm just kidding. Congratz. I just called someone a f-ucker in the off topic forum if you'd like to try out your powers.... :rofl

FallingPianos · Nov 5, 2006

FallingPianos · Nov 5, 2006

Korimyr the Rat said:
Wholly agreed. I find it amusing that people get so morally indignant about FGM-- which is admittedly far worse-- but then just as morally indignant about defending this atrocity.

sometimes I wonder how much worse it actually is. I've heard that the foreskin is the most erogenous part of the male body, which wouldnt make it that incomperable to a clitoridectomy, especially a partial clitoridectomy. no one even talks about clitoridotomy's which are the equivelent of male circumcision.

most of the hype is about infilbulation, which is the most severe form of FGC. what a lot of people aren't aware of, is that its the women who inflict these on their daughters, and the practice is defended as medically necessary.

these are often done in unsteril conditions, but thats simply because getting it down under good conditions isnt possible for most people. male circumcisions in the same area are done just as unprofessionally.

Kandahar · Nov 5, 2006

star2589 said:
sometimes I wonder how much worse it actually is. I've heard that the foreskin is the most erogenous part of the male body

/disagree

.

FallingPianos · Nov 5, 2006

Kandahar said:
/disagree

.

lol, cant argue with that. :lol:

maybe I should make a poll... I'm sure there's got to be some variation between individuals.

Cessen · Nov 5, 2006

Kandahar said:
/disagree

A few points to make.

First:

From the little bit of foreskin that I have left, I'd say that it is. I've been able to achieve orgasm from only stimulation of my vestige of foreskin, but never from glans-only stimulation (and these attempts were made long before I was aware of what circumcision was, much less my opposition to it). And it is definitely sensitive tissue--more so than the shaft skin by a large margin (again, I noticed this before my awareness of circumcision, so it's not placebo).
I can only imagine what it would be like had my foreskin not been robbed of me.

I do imagine it varies some from guy to guy, of course (I've heard varying things from intact men). But I am absolutely certain of at least one case--me--where the foreskin would definitely have been the most erogenous part of the genitals.
Even just the tiny bit that's left is still probably the most erogenous part of my penis.

So the fact that it is at the very least possible for the foreskin to be the most erogenous part of the genitals--depending on the guy--makes the issue much more severe.

Second:

The foreskin contains the highest concentration of--and variety of types of--nerve endings of any part of the male genitals (and if I recall correctly--which I might not--of any part of the male body, period). That is one of those facts that's not debated. The only debate in that area is about perceptual sensitivity. So perceptual sensitivity aside, all boys that are circumcised do lose the most highly innervated part of their genitals.

Third:

The "clitoris" that is excised in female circumcision is really only the tip of the clitoris (most analogous to the glans of the penis). The other structures of the clitoris remain, as they are internal and difficult to remove. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris

I don't know what that means in terms of sexual stimulation, but it is worth keeping in mind.

Fourth:

There are lesser forms of female genital cutting that are comparable, or are even less severe than male circumcision (such as removing the labia minora).
I bet you dollars to donuts that people would be appalled at those, proclaiming them human rights violations, and yet they would still continue to defend male circumcision. It's that sort of hypocrisy that bothers me to no end.

Fifth:

The human rights issues involved aren't just about severity.
You don't hear Amnesty International saying it's okay to cut off people's pinky fingers because that isn't as bad as cutting off a person's whole hand. They're both atrocities, and they're both human rights violations.

In the end it's about a person's right to decide for themselves. It's about a person's right to their own body.

FallingPianos · Nov 5, 2006

Cessen said:
Second:

The foreskin contains the highest concentration of--and variety of types of--nerve endings of any part of the male genitals (and if I recall correctly--which I might not--of any part of the male body, period). That is one of those facts that's not debated. The only debate in that area is about perceptual sensitivity. So perceptual sensitivity aside, all boys that are circumcised do lose the most highly innervated part of their genitals.

one thing to keep in mind is that the concentration of nerves is not the only factor. the lips and finger tips have the highest concentration of nerves on the body, but that doesnt mean that stimulation of them will give you brain shattering orgasms. but it does mean that these parts of the body can be used for things that require feeling in minute detail such as reading brail. is that what you meant by "perceptural sensitivity"?

Cessen · Nov 5, 2006

star2589 said:
one thing to keep in mind is that the concentration of nerves is not the only factor.

Indeed. Hence why the sensitivity could vary from guy to guy despite all guys have highly innervated foreskins.

And when I spoke of perceptual sensitivity, I suppose I was referring to both intensity and subtlety, as that has been my experience. But as you pointed out, fingers and lips have the latter but not so much the former, so they are independent factors.

FallingPianos · Nov 5, 2006

a better response to bandaidwoman:

Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection against penile cancer.

there arent any good studies on this, but the one I have found indicated uncircumcised men are 3 times as likely as uncircumcised men to get penile cancer. given the rarity of penile cancer in the first place, it would take approximately 100,000 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of penile cancer.

penile cancer overwhelmingly takes place during old age when a person is old enough to consent to a circumcision. infants are not at risk.

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

again, there are no good studies on this, but lets suppose you are right. about 1 in 12,500 women get it in England each year. circumcising every man in the England would bring this down to 1 in 15,625. if we assume about 10% of men are already circumcised, then that requires circumcising 22,500,000 more. this would prevent 400 cases of cervical cancer. or 56,250 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of cervical cancer.

as above, infacts are not at risk of HPV. Men are not at risk until they become sexually active which usually happens in their teen years when they are old enough (or should be old enough) to give or withhold consent to a circumcision.

HPV is also harmless for men. amputating part of someone body without their informed consent for someone else's medical benefit is never justified.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.

lots of flawed studies out there, but again lets suppose you are right. the estimate of the current number of males in the US with HIV is 865,050. .5% of the male population. circumcise the remaining half of the male population (75,000,000) and this goes down to 108,131.25 or .07% of the male population. 756,918.75 cases of HIV prevented. 99 circumcisions to prevent 1 case.

and course, exactly as before, infants are not at risk for contracting HIV. Men arent at risk until they are old enough to give informed consent to a circumcision.

Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

then they can elect to get a circumcision as an adult. its a myth that uncircumcised penis's are unhygeinic. The idea that it should be done against their will to please their future partners is barbaric. if a man thought that the clitoral hood and/or labia were unnattractive, would that be a good enough reason to have them surgically removed from their daughters in infancy?

Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

I'm having trouble finding information on this, but I found somthing indicating that the risk is 4% for uncircumcised boys. no idea if its good information or not. I havent found anything on the rate for circumcised boys. but if the 4% number is correct, the benefit does not outweight the loss.

Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

this is the information I found. I'll just use the graph.

again, very little benefit, and UTIs are treatable.

so, even if all these benefits actually exist, they are blown way out of proportion, most don't even effect children. circumcisions have an estimated short term complication rate of 2 to 10 percent. these include infections, hemorrhage, surgical mishap, and complications from anaethetics if used.

there are also long term complications such as:

* Meatal stenosis
* Urinary retention
* The slowing down of venous blood flow (venous stasis)
* Concealed penis
* Adhesions
* Skin bridge
* Painful erections

this isnt even counting the loss of an important organ

taxedout · Nov 6, 2006

What is the incidence of vulvar cancer ? Could this risk not be reduced by a simple operation to remove the offending skin folds at birth ?

Catching HPV through sexual contact with an infected penis is likely, circ or no circ. Given the fact that it is transmitted through sexual contact, the likelihood of exposure and contraction is high when your lifestyle causes you to engage in certain repetitive behaviors.

balanitis ? Wash and dry ?

Cleanliness and odor ? This complaint coming from a woman. Give me a break The female sex organs have a much larger surface area of redundant skin folds to collect moisture, an opening that continually discharges secretions, and a urinary tract that soaks the area with urine. How does a woman control this odor causing process ? She washes it. Many males find this area to be more aesthetically pleasing when the woman washes hers too.
Go figure.

The arguements for, are weak at best. It is purely cultural.

FallingPianos · Nov 6, 2006

taxedout said:
What is the incidence of vulvar cancer ? Could this risk not be reduced by a simple operation to remove the offending skin folds at birth ?

its higher than penile cancer. :lol: also, men are more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. maybe we should amputate their breasts at birth.

taxedout said:
Cleanliness and odor ? This complaint coming from a woman. Give me a break The female sex organs have a much larger surface area of redundant skin folds to collect moisture, an opening that continually discharges secretions, and a urinary tract that soaks the area with urine. How does a woman control this odor causing process ? She washes it. Many males find this area to be more aesthetically pleasing when the woman washes hers too.
Go figure.

circumcised penises are not odor free, I'm sorry. genitals smell. thats life. get over it.

taxedout said:
The arguements for, are weak at best. It is purely cultural.

yup.

FallingPianos · Nov 12, 2006

la la la la la....

http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm
the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand have all collectively stated:

"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision"

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm
the Canadian Paediatric Society has stated that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/manitoba/
the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba has stated: "Specific medical indications for the performance of circumcision in the neonate are rare. There may be benefits to circumcision in the prevention of phimosis, the prevention of urinary tract infection, reduction in the spread of the papillovirus, and the protection of men from infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The degree of benefit is small, however, and does not support a recommendation to circumcise neonates."

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/
the British Medical Association has stated: "The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/
the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

in other words: There might be some medical benefits to circumcision, but they do not outweight the risks and losses of circumcision.

Willow · Nov 20, 2006

None of the men in my family including my son have been circumcised, not one of them have ever had problems.
Circumcision is disgusting.

taxedout · Nov 22, 2006

A nation of "individuals", succumbing to a religious ritual, with
no benefit, and risk of significant disability, because they are afraid to be different.
Now that's courageous.

hipsterdufus · Dec 3, 2006

taxedout said:
A nation of "individuals", succumbing to a religious ritual, with
no benefit, and risk of significant disability, because they are afraid to be different.
Now that's courageous.

Sheople would be a good word to describe it. Actually, I think most people don't think about it too deeply, they just go and have the operation performed on their child.

How many adults decide to get circumcised? I would venture a guess that it's very few.

As for the penile cancer benefit - it's akin to the propholactic removal of female breasts. i.e. if doctors removed all breasts, there would be less breast cancer.

taxedout · Dec 3, 2006

Exactly.

Insurance benefits should be withheld for this purely elective cosmetic procedure. Paying the pediatrician or OB the $500 out of your own pocket will cause one to give the whole idea a little thought.

Rhapsody1447 · Dec 5, 2006

Army Helmet > Anteater. No questions asked.

taxedout · Dec 16, 2006

If that's how you prefer your penises, more power to ya .

non theraputic circumcision (1 Viewer)

FallingPianos

taxedout

NONE

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

talloulou

FallingPianos

FallingPianos

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

FallingPianos

Cessen

New member

FallingPianos

Cessen

New member

FallingPianos

taxedout

NONE

FallingPianos

FallingPianos

Willow

Active member

taxedout

NONE

hipsterdufus

taxedout

NONE

Rhapsody1447

Skeptical Optimist

taxedout

NONE

Users who are viewing this thread