Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.[W:301]

[Gathomas88]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Really now? :lamo

Sources or GTFO, newb.

Care to provide me an argument that says that would be the case?

Gladly.

The Nature of Human Orgasm: A Critical Review of Major Trends
Kenneth Maha, Yitzchak M Binika,
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada


They concluded they following.

The amount of time of sexual arousal needed to reach orgasm is variable – and usually much longer – in women than in men; thus, only 20–30% of women attain a coital climax. b. Many women (70–80%) require manual clitoral stimulation.

This is what is commonly known as providing evidence to back up one's arguments. I hope you took notes concerning how it was accomplished. :roll:

Say what? Do you care to make up anything else?

You're almost as bad as Sangha with this crap. You know that?

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

You haven't done any internet research into the possible medical benefits?

You're not even the least bit curious as to the opposing side of this discussion?

Wow.

No, I have, but I want you to give me at least one.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Sources or GTFO, newb.

Towards what, newb.

Gladly.

The Nature of Human Orgasm: A Critical Review of Major Trends
Kenneth Maha, Yitzchak M Binika,
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada


They concluded they following.
This is what is commonly known as providing evidence to back up one's arguments. I hope you took notes concerning how it was accomplished. :roll:

How does that answer my question? :lamo I didn't ask you about the nature of orgasm. Jesus dude.

You're almost as bad as Sangha with this crap. You know that?

Yes, you lied claiming I looked only at one study and I'm the bad party here. :lamo

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

No, I have, but I want you to give me at least one.

There is lots of evidence that it reduces transmission rates for STDs.

There is lots of evidence that it reduces frequency of UTI.

There is no evidence that it prevents sexual pleasure or reduces the chances of ejaculation.

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Yes, you lied claiming I looked only at one study and I'm the bad party here. :lamo

I looked it up. There has only been one study on the subject of any real note, which involved all of about 200 women.

Feel free to prove me wrong if you are able. I already know that you won't because you aren't. :roll:

EDIT:

As much as I hate to do Herin's homework for him, I will go ahead and provide a link to the study below just so everyone else can verify my claims.

The Effect of Male Circumcision on The Sexual Enjoyment of The Female Partner
K. O’HARA and J. O’HARA (1999)

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

So... Why? From what I can tell this should be borderline abuse. I mean, after doing my research I've discovered that circumcision doesn't offer any major boons to a person's health, while also lowering a person's ability to feel physical pleasure during intimacy, putting their child though surgery, as well as pain. That being said it's also disfiguring, and the equivalent of ritualistic disfigurement. People are doing this because they think it looks better, and or religious reasons. If lobbing off your arm was a show of religious devotion would your parents be allowed to do this? I know an arm is more important than foreskin, but regardless it's a part of your body. I'm under the impression that as a human I have a right to my body, and my parents shouldn't be allowed to mutilate it because they think it'll look nice, and GAWD wants it. Your not even giving the person the right to make the choice either. Your forcing it upon them, and they are people. Your doing a permanent change to a human being's body that's not needed and actually has lasting effects on them due to someone else's preferences. Explain to me why a person cannot wait until their older, then let their child make the choice? Why does someone's parents get to force this upon someone and literally rob them of intimate pleasure? Why are we allowing people to disfigure their children at birth?

It's done for health reasons at the choice of the parents. Don't tell me that there are no health reasons.
As a parent , I'd opt for an appendectomy too if it was half as simple as a circumcision. Humans have enough problems so every one you potentially eliminate is a plus.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

There is lots of evidence that it reduces transmission rates for STDs.

And there is the HIV argument. There is three studies that show this and even the people that did the studies say the findings are inconclusive. Interestingly, there has also been studies that say the foreskin plays a protective role in shielding the rest of the penis from common sexually transmitted diseases. Regardless, condom usage and regular testing is still seen as the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs. There is no need to remove a body part to do this.

There is lots of evidence that it reduces frequency of UTI.

Not really, no. For one, the foreskin supports beneficial bacteria to fight harmful bacteria. These beneficial bacteria that live in the inside of the foreskin are similar to the bacteria found in the mouth, nose, and yes, the female genitalia. Without these friendly bacteria, the urethra would become an easy point of entry for harmful stains of bacteria that can cause infection and of course disease.

There is no evidence that it prevents sexual pleasure or reduces the chances of ejaculation.

Really now? I went into a few examples already. Do you really need more? It's interesting to note on Gathomas88's point of manual clitoral stimulation that the foreskin stimulates the clitoral tissue and once again like all the other examples I have offered for women raises her pleasure. I doubt he cares that his argument is bull**** though.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

More than a few medical associations in the Western world attest to the possible medical benefits of infant male circumcision.

And the ones that don't, argue that the choice should be left to parents.

We're not talking about removing an arm, leg, or lung here. We're talking about an extremely small piece of skin.

The Cons argue like this is about removing 1/5th of the human body.

Get a grip guys, its just a teeny weeny piece of skin.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

All the research I read extensively before having my son indicated that in the modern world this is an unnecessary procedure. The claim that it reduces risk of infection and STIs is negligible, and only seems to be touted at the UN by countries like Israel and the U.S. where circumcision is rooted in cultural superstition. In the United States it's mainly cosmetic because people don't want their sons being made fun of in the locker room, or feeling like they are abnormal. I think it's sad and misguided that our culture is so disconnected from what a normal penis looks like that we have come to fetishize the mutilated version; not only that, we impose this version on newborns without their consent.

Parents are free to do what they want but if I were a lawmaker I would try my best to have medically unnecessarily circumcision banned. It serves no one, least of all the newborn. If there is an abnormality in the foreskin that requires it to be done, then fine, but apart from that there is no excuse. It's also puzzling that people gawk at the tradition of cutting off the clitoral hood in young girls in Africa. We call them backward, primitive and cruel for doing it, yet the equivalent procedure of circumcision in men is deemed acceptable here in the west.

But... :shrug: humans have many delusions, and they'll do what they do. My son will be given the choice when he gets older, and I'm assuming he won't want it done.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

All the research I read extensively before having my son indicated that in the modern world this is an unnecessary procedure. The claim that it reduces risk of infection and STIs is negligible, and only seems to be touted at the UN by countries like Israel and the U.S. where circumcision is rooted in cultural superstition. In the United States it's mainly cosmetic because people don't want their sons being made fun of in the locker room, or feeling like they are abnormal. I think it's sad and misguided that our culture is so disconnected from what a normal penis looks like that we have come to fetishize the mutilated version; not only that, we impose this version on newborns without their consent.

Parents are free to do what they want but if I were a lawmaker I would try my best to have medically unnecessarily circumcision banned. It serves no one, least of all the newborn. If there is an abnormality in the foreskin that requires it to be done, then fine, but apart from that there is no excuse. It's also puzzling that people gawk at the tradition of cutting off the clitoral hood in young girls in Africa. We call them backward, primitive and cruel for doing it, yet the equivalent procedure of circumcision in men is deemed acceptable here in the west.

But... :shrug: humans have many delusions, and they'll do what they do. My son will be given the choice when he gets older, and I'm assuming he won't want it done.

Adult male circumcision is a much more painful and complicated process and recovery period.

If its going to be done its best to do it as early as possible.

Again, we're talking about a teen weeny piece of skin here, not an eye or arm or leg.

Get a grip folks.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Adult male circumcision is a much more painful and complicated process and recovery period.

If there's an abnormality in the foreskin, it will be discovered long before the boy becomes an adult.

If its going to be done its best to do it as early as possible.

I agree, if it's medically necessary. If a parent has a fetish with how their boy's **** should look, then they should be made to wait until such time that their son can determine whether or not he shares said fetish.

Again, we're talking about a teen weeny piece of skin here, not an eye or arm or leg.

Get a grip folks.

Typical ignorance. Circumcision has its risks. There are many botched circumcisions every year. Some are incomplete, some cut too deeply, and some are so tight that when the adult male gets an erection he can experience pain. In my research, I came across support forums where adult men talked about this. They now have to get cosmetic surgery to correct the mistakes that the original surgeon made when they were a baby, which only ends up inflicting genital pain to adults anyway.

For cosmetic procedures, informed consent should be required. I bet if you ask most young boys if they want their **** cut into with a knife, they will say no way. The fact that we do this when they are helpless newborns only demonstrates the unconscious understanding that this is a questionable procedure that most sane people would not consent to.

 

[Leo]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

The only areas in the world where neo-natal circumcision is routinely practiced are the Jewish and Islamic worlds, and to a much lesser degree, the United States. This means that the vast majority of human males are not circumcised, and seemingly do not suffer any medical disadvantage.

It is, in my view, a primitive and barbaric practice (as is tattoos or piercing), but one which should be legally available to those who wish it for themselves. Where I depart from this live and let live philosophy, is the area of neo-natal circumcision. No one has the right to impose the amputation of perfectly healthy tissue upon an infant far too young to communicate in any form, let alone make his wishes in this matter known. IMO, it should be an offence carrying serious penalties to circumcise a healthy infant. The rights of the child are enshrined in international law (despite the fact that the USA refuses to ratify the convention) and neonatal circumcision comprises mutilation and abuse.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

If there's an abnormality in the foreskin, it will be discovered long before the boy becomes an adult.

I agree, if it's medically necessary. If a parent has a fetish with how their boy's **** should look, then they should be made to wait until such time that their son can determine whether or not he shares said fetish.

Typical ignorance. Circumcision has its risks. There are many botched circumcisions every year. Some are incomplete, some cut too deeply, and some are so tight that when the adult male gets an erection he can experience pain. In my research, I came across support forums where adult men talked about this. They now have to get cosmetic surgery to correct the mistakes that the original surgeon made when they were a baby, which only ends up inflicting genital pain to adults anyway.

For cosmetic procedures, informed consent should be required. I bet if you ask most young boys if they want their **** cut into with a knife, they will say no way. The fact that we do this when they are helpless newborns only demonstrates the unconscious understanding that this is a questionable procedure that most sane people would not consent to.

Fetish? Are you saying parents who circumcise their sons get some sort of sexual enjoyment and satisfaction from the process?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

...The claim that it reduces risk of infection and STIs is negligible, and only seems to be touted at the UN by countries like Israel and the U.S. where circumcision is rooted in cultural superstition. In the United States it's mainly cosmetic because people don't want their sons being made fun of in the locker room, or feeling like they are abnormal. I think it's sad and misguided that our culture is so disconnected from what a normal penis looks like that we have come to fetishize the mutilated version; not only that, we impose this version on newborns without their consent.

Strange...ALL the evidence? Apparently not since there IS medical evidence (which I and other members have provided in other prior posts) which disputes your absolute negation. The rest is just your personal opinion.

Funny, in MY opinion it is the European view, which looks on the procedure with such distaste that seems based upon cultural bias. History has shown that prior to it's medical usage in the USA, it was a sure fire way to identify a Jew during the many pogroms that occurred there. I found it somewhat funny that during WWII in Nazi Germany, they did allow that you might be a visiting American if you failed this test, but you'd better have your passport ready.

...Parents are free to do what they want but if I were a lawmaker I would try my best to have medically unnecessarily circumcision banned. It serves no one, least of all the newborn. But... :shrug: humans have many delusions, and they'll do what they do. My son will be given the choice when he gets older, and I'm assuming he won't want it done.

All I can say to this is, thank God you are NOT a lawmaker. Parental rights are already infringed enough for my tastes.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Something tells me the author of "Foreskin Man" is posting in this thread.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Fetish? Are you saying parents who circumcise their sons get some sort of sexual enjoyment and satisfaction from the process?

No, I'm referring to a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment. (Google: "define: fetish" for more info.)

Over the years the benefits of circumcision have been repeatedly downgraded by scientific evidence, until finally it was no longer a procedure covered by most public health care or insurance plans in the western world. People are attached to making boys' genitals look a certain way, and those still clinging to scant justifications are irrational, plain and simple.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

No, I'm referring to a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment. (Google: "define: fetish" for more info.)

Over the years the benefits of circumcision have been repeatedly downgraded by scientific evidence, until finally it was no longer a procedure covered by most public health care or insurance plans in the western world. People are attached to making boys' genitals look a certain way, and those still clinging to scant justifications are irrational, plain and simple.

First they have a fetish and now they are irrational.

Got any more insults you want to toss?

Will accusations of child abuse be arriving soon?

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Strange...ALL the evidence? Apparently not since there IS medical evidence (which I and other members have provided in other prior posts) which disputes your absolute negation. The rest is just your personal opinion.

Every piece of medical evidence that still exists can be countered with: wear a condom, or use soap and water.

Unless there is a foreskin malfunction (like an occlusion) that requires it to be cut, there is no reason for it other than people's desire to have penises look a certain way.

Funny, in MY opinion it is the European view, which looks on the procedure with such distaste that seems based upon cultural bias. History has shown that prior to it's medical usage in the USA, it was a sure fire way to identify a Jew during the many pogroms that occurred there. I found it somewhat funny that during WWII in Nazi Germany, they did allow that you might be a visiting American if you failed this test, but you'd better have your passport ready.

Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks for that interesting anecdote!

Nonetheless, I have to disagree with your assertion that the dislike of it is a cultural bias. The vast majority of the world's male population are not circumcised and it has been that way since the dawn of humanity. Therefore, according to occam's razor, you can't infer that all of that is due to cultural bias. Europe may have its own unique biases against circumcision but there's also the rest of the world to consider.

All I can say to this is, thank God you are NOT a lawmaker. Parental rights are already infringed enough for my tastes.

I'm actually fairly libertarian, but I don't think a parent should have the right to violate the bodily sovereignty of a newborn with permanent genital modification purely for cosmetic purposes. There is no medical reason for it.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

More than a few medical associations in the Western world attest to the possible medical benefits of infant male circumcision.

And the ones that don't, argue that the choice should be left to parents.

We're not talking about removing an arm, leg, or lung here. We're talking about an extremely small piece of skin.

The Cons argue like this is about removing 1/5th of the human body.

Get a grip guys, its just a teeny weeny piece of skin.

Not true and worse dumb yet a myth. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a tiny piece of skin.. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires a blunt probe shoved between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis.

Please stop parroting myths.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

First they have a fetish and now they are irrational.

Got any more insults you want to toss?

Will accusations of child abuse be arriving soon?

The majority of circumcisions happen for two reasons: 1) It looks good. 2) Religious doctrine.

Both are irrational and not based in scientific or medical evidence.

The only evidentiary reason to get a child cut is if there's a foreskin malfunction that could compromise their development or cause physical pain as they grow.

If you feel insulted by this factual information then that's your problem. I don't think parents are intentionally abusing their children but their desire to have the procedure done is not rational.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a tiny piece of skin.. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Try again?

What percent of the baby's skin, is the foreskin?

1%? 5%?

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

The majority of circumcisions happen for two reasons: 1) It looks good. 2) Religious doctrine.

Both are irrational and not based in scientific or medical evidence.

The only evidentiary reason to get a child cut is if there's a foreskin malfunction that could compromise their development or cause physical pain as they grow.

If you feel insulted by this factual information then that's your problem. I don't think parents are intentionally abusing their children but their desire to have the procedure done is not rational.

Your argument went to hell when you accused parents of having a penis fetish.

No doubt you will soon suggest a American Jewish medical conspiracy to make infant male circumcision as widespread as possible.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

What percent of the baby's skin, is the foreskin?

1%? 5%?

The whole baby? What kind of question is that?

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Piercing ears is cruel as well. Braces hurt a lot. Sucks to get wisdom teeth pulled.

Where do you draw the line? How about we ban procedures that have no evidence for any medical benefit whatsoever.

Like piercing ears.

And how many of those are done while children are infants and cannot voice their opinion on the subject? Oh right, none.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

And how many of those are done while children are infants and cannot voice their opinion on the subject? Oh right, none.

Young kids also often don't want their hair cut, because it hurts.

Parents still get their hair cut.