U.S. Circumcision Rate Falls to 33%

[ReverendHellh0und]

It does the opposite for a man, why would it be different for a woman? Yes, the area would be extremely sensitive for awhile (painfully so, I would imagine), but then the skin would become toughened and would decrease sensitivity, same as for a man.

Do we have people who later in life had these proceedures confirm this?

LOL You want to cut off part of the body of your kid because you don't feel like washing it well enough to prevent infection? The prevention is BATHING. Properly cleaning. We don't cut off parts of our body to prevent some possible future infection that can be easily prevented by something as mundane as soap and water.

Actually, We did it because it seemed the social norm. The hysterics over the practice to me, seems well just hysterics.

 

[rivrrat]

Do we have people who later in life had these proceedures confirm this?

Do you really need confirmation that exposed skin becomes toughened? That skin that is protected and lubricated is going to be far more delicate and sensitive than skin that is constantly rubbing against something?

Actually, We did it because it seemed the social norm. The hysterics over the practice to me, seems well just hysterics.

And it's considered the social norm to circumcise women in some countries. Yet most people here would call it mutilation and demand the act be legally prevented.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Do you really need confirmation that exposed skin becomes toughened? That skin that is protected and lubricated is going to be far more delicate and sensitive than skin that is constantly rubbing against something?

Yes, yes I do....

And it's considered the social norm to circumcise women in some countries. Yet most people here would call it mutilation and demand the act be legally prevented.

female circumscision as performed by savages is a far cry different than male circumscision here in the US. There is no logical comparison.

 

[rivrrat]

Yes, yes I do....

Okay. Keep your tongue outside your mouth for a few weeks and keep rubbing it against some coarse fabric.

female circumscision as performed by savages is a far cry different than male circumscision here in the US. There is no logical comparison.

Cutting off the clitoral hood is the same thing as male circumcision. Why would you consider that savage?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Okay. Keep your tongue outside your mouth for a few weeks and keep rubbing it against some coarse fabric.

Ok. I will let you know how that goes....

Cutting off the clitoral hood is the same thing as male circumcision. Why would you consider that savage?

Is that whats the norm?


I thought it was a more sinister operation to retard sensation or remove it all together.

 

[rivrrat]

Is that whats the norm?

Yes, that's one of the forms of female circumcision.

I thought it was a more sinister operation to retard sensation or remove it all together.

Some of them do that too. But when people say "Female Genital Mutilation", they are speaking of ALL forms of it, which includes the removal of the clitoral hood (which WOULD retard sensation). Of course, some of the procedures are horrible - removing the entire labia, removing the clitoris, and sewing the whole area shut. But that is the most drastic one. The least drastic one (which is still considered "mutilation") is removing the clitoral hood and is identical to male circumcision.

 

[Tucker Case]

I thought it was a more sinister operation to retard sensation....

From what I've read on the subject, that was a major factor in male circumcision becoming the norm in the US.

To decrease sensitivity in an effort to prevent masturbation, which was viewed as "injurious".

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yes, that's one of the forms of female circumcision.

You answered a question I did not ask....

Some of them do that too. But when people say "Female Genital Mutilation", they are speaking of ALL forms of it, which includes the removal of the clitoral hood (which WOULD retard sensation). Of course, some of the procedures are horrible - removing the entire labia, removing the clitoris, and sewing the whole area shut. But that is the most drastic one. The least drastic one (which is still considered "mutilation") is removing the clitoral hood and is identical to male circumcision.

Are they?? what percentage of these circumscisions are the hood and not the latter?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

From what I've read on the subject, that was a major factor in male circumcision becoming the norm in the US.

To decrease sensitivity in an effort to prevent masturbation, which was viewed as "injurious".

well.... i think they failed. ;O)

 

[Tucker Case]

well.... i think they failed. ;O)

It does retard sensation as it was intended to do, though. If that is the requisite for being labeled a "more sinister operation", then male cicumcision fits that label.

 

[rivrrat]

You answered a question I did not ask....

You asked if it was the norm, I said yes. It is the norm in some countries, along with other forms of FGM. It is one of the forms of FGM.

Are they?? what percentage of these circumscisions are the hood and not the latter?

Does it matter? Is it mutilation and savage, or not?

 

[Orion]

In the absence of the foreskin, the glans (head) undergoes keratinization, which happens due to loss of moisture. In other words, the glans forms a hardened layer of cells that normally wouldn't be there, thus creating an additional sheath of thickened cells over the nerves. It reduces sensation, you can't argue it doesn't. This happens because the glans was never meant to be exposed 24/7; it is meant to be protected and lubricated by the epithelium of the foreskin and its secretions.

Secondly, the foreskin itself and all of its delicate connections to the penis contain a lot of nerves that have to be cut in order to remove it. The keratinization is part of the secondary loss of sensation; the primary loss is from the foreskin itself being taken off.

Balanitis and all other infections under the foreskin are simply due to lack of proper hygiene, and circumcised men can still get it. The sweat glans around your genitals are adipose sweat glans, meaning that they don't just secrete sweat but also fat, which bacteria feed on. If you don't bathe properly in general, you can get fungal infections. It doesn't matter if you're cut or not. These same sweat glans exist in your arm pits, which is why they stink, and if you don't clean the area regularly, you can develop skin infections from the buildup.

Simple hygiene is all that's required to prevent these kinds of infections. There are real reasons to get circumcision, like the foreskin is too tight and it restricts an erection, or the opening so small that cleaning is made impossible; but these cases are RARE. Again, the so-called preventative reasons for circumcision are a flimsy excuse, especially to anyone familiar with medicine.

It's a person's choice if they want circumcision, but let's call it what it is: a cultural choice. Stop abusing medicine to hide the real reason.

Circumcision is not medically necessary. It's just a cultural norm... and it's one that will fade with time. The majority of the world is uncircumcised and they do just fine.

 

[mac]

I've known three guys that opted to get circumcised as adults. In comparison to what they went through and what my two sons went through, I'd say it's much less painful as an infant. Neither of my sons seemed to even notice it.

The three guys I know did it under the recommendations of their doctors (three separate doctors) as result of medical problems they were having.

As far as the sensitivity issue: I'm circumcised and if I were any more sensitive, my wife would probably leave me.....just sayin.

 

[VanceMack]

I cant believe this thread is still going! It is kinda funny!

I think people that are so adamant against it are carrying a little chip on their shoulder. Maybe the feel like society judges them...I dont know. I read a few of the articles about men that were trying to 'regrow' foreskin...Im bettin money they have greater issues than a lack of foreskin...probably starting with a little dick.

If my junk is 'less sensitive' due to a lack of foreskin, then I say thank Goodness! I dont know that I could handle anymore sensation! Its funny though...you never see any pro-circumcision crusades to slash the foreskins from the unwashed masses...but you do see a lot of people trying to convince the circumcised world why THEY are superior...

 

[VanceMack]

I've known three guys that opted to get circumcised as adults. In comparison to what they went through and what my two sons went through, I'd say it's much less painful as an infant. Neither of my sons seemed to even notice it.

The three guys I know did it under the recommendations of their doctors (three separate doctors) as result of medical problems they were having.

As far as the sensitivity issue: I'm circumcised and if I were any more sensitive, my wife would probably leave me.....just sayin.

Ive only known one. HE was a very very unhappy camper for about two weeks. Last I heard...and we dont bring it up unless someone is trash talking during basketball games (damn dude...I think they cut off more than just your foreskin-I think they got your balls too!)...is that he was happier without it. Ah...anecdotes...

 

[Orion]

I've known three guys that opted to get circumcised as adults. In comparison to what they went through and what my two sons went through, I'd say it's much less painful as an infant. Neither of my sons seemed to even notice it.

The three guys I know did it under the recommendations of their doctors (three separate doctors) as result of medical problems they were having.

As far as the sensitivity issue: I'm circumcised and if I were any more sensitive, my wife would probably leave me.....just sayin.

Thanks for the anecdote, but from a policy perspective, more than anecdotes are needed. The AMA does not endorse circumcision as a preventative, and with good reason.

 

[Orion]

I cant believe this thread is still going! It is kinda funny!

Why are you posting then?

I think people that are so adamant against it are carrying a little chip on their shoulder. Maybe the feel like society judges them...I dont know. I read a few of the articles about men that were trying to 'regrow' foreskin...Im bettin money they have greater issues than a lack of foreskin...probably starting with a little dick.

Please back up this claim with scientific evidence. Thanks.

If my junk is 'less sensitive' due to a lack of foreskin, then I say thank Goodness! I dont know that I could handle anymore sensation!

If you grew up circumcised, then of course you'd say that.

Its funny though...you never see any pro-circumcision crusades to slash the foreskins from the unwashed masses

The crusade was public policy for the better part of 100 years. I still hear people say that uncircumcised penises are more unclean, even though there is no real evidence to suggest a difference. Ignorance supports the cultural norm, I suppose.

...but you do see a lot of people trying to convince the circumcised world why THEY are superior...

I didn't start this thread; I just gave my opinion. I think it's mutilation in cases where it's not medically necessary. Everyone else is reacting defensively, probably because they don't like the idea that their penises suffered mutilation. But that's what it is... and it leaves a nice scar to prove it. Our society is so messed up about this issue that they have come to think that the scarred penis looks more attractive and "normal" than one with a foreskin. Just goes to show what years of indoctrination have accomplished, even though the original reasons for it (as Tucker said) were to obstruct the ease of masturbation.

The fact that the circumcision rate is falling in the U.S. shows that the reasons of cultural norming behind it are beginning to break, as they should.

 

[VanceMack]

Thanks for the anecdote, but from a policy perspective, more than anecdotes are needed. The AMA does not endorse circumcision as a preventative, and with good reason.

Last I checked we werent capable of establishing 'policy' here...

 

[VanceMack]

Why are you posting then?

Please back up this claim with scientific evidence. Thanks.

If you grew up circumcised, then of course you'd say that.

The crusade was public policy for the better part of 100 years. I still hear people say that uncircumcised penises are more unclean, even though there is no real evidence to suggest a difference. Ignorance supports the cultural norm, I suppose.
I didn't start this thread; I just gave my opinion. I think it's mutilation in cases where it's not medically necessary. Everyone else is reacting defensively, probably because they don't like the idea that their penises suffered mutilation. But that's what it is... and it leaves a nice scar to prove it. Our society is so messed up about this issue that they have come to think that the scarred penis looks more attractive and "normal" than one with a foreskin. Just goes to show what years of indoctrination have accomplished, even though the original reasons for it (as Tucker said) were to obstruct the ease of masturbation.

The fact that the circumcision rate is falling in the U.S. shows that the reasons of cultural norming behind it are beginning to break, as they should.

See what i mean? Thanks for proving my point!

Im posting because I THINK ITS ****ING FUNNY!!! Did you MISS that line?
What...did you assume I was positing about YOU??? Is that why you dissected every sentence? Your OPINION is fine...because as far as it goes...thats all it is. Everyone ELSE is acting defensively? Seriously? And their penises were 'mutilated'? Really?

 

[Orion]

Last I checked we werent capable of establishing 'policy' here...

What do you mean?

Circumcision was an automatic procedure in hospitals up until the mid-90's when the AMA started to acknowledge the facts of the situation.

 

[LizardofOz]

If I ever have a son I will have it done. Little kids are grimey constantly and the easier it is to clean them the better, and the way I look at it, when your older the easier it is to clean up after the better too. Just my thoughts on it.

 

[VanceMack]

What do you mean?

Circumcision was an automatic procedure in hospitals up until the mid-90's when the AMA started to acknowledge the facts of the situation.

I was unaware the AMA was reviewing our blog for policy and procedures.

BTW...The AMA (like the APA) is a political entity. They make decisions based on current common idiology and seldom on 'right' or 'wrong'. And the cool part...when you are 'the body' you get to dictate what is right or wrong. And dont worry...Im sure no insurance companies or profit considerations are having any impact on their decisions.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's turn down the personal rhetoric a tad shall we?

 

[mac]

Thanks for the anecdote, but from a policy perspective, more than anecdotes are needed. The AMA does not endorse circumcision as a preventative, and with good reason.

Well, when it came down to my youngest, we happened to have a rather good pediatrician. I say good because despite being nationally recognized on pediatric issues he was very neutral emotionally on most issues. What he told us was that while there are benefits in the area of cleanliness and disease prevention due to circumcision, modern society as a whole has improved enough in that general area to make circumcision not entirely necessary. Mainly it boiled down to the fact that circumcision at that stage avoided the possibility of having to do it when older and more sensitive.

We asked a plethora of doctors when it came time to consider it for both our sons, who are 8 years apart, and all doctors said at both times that it was pretty much even in terms of pros and cons for either.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well, when it came down to my youngest, we happened to have a rather good pediatrician. I say good because despite being nationally recognized on pediatric issues he was very neutral emotionally on most issues. What he told us was that while there are benefits in the area of cleanliness and disease prevention due to circumcision, modern society as a whole has improved enough in that general area to make circumcision not entirely necessary. Mainly it boiled down to the fact that circumcision at that stage avoided the possibility of having to do it when older and more sensitive.

We were given the same advice from our pediatrician who is a world renowned medical doctor. We agreed with his assessment.