Male Circumcision

[Haggis_McMutton]

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

You don't see any other reasons why placing a tiny hole in your earlobe is slightly different that cutting off the foreskin?

I thought you guys were all up in arms about the mutilation of kids without their consent? So I guess because ear rings are cute, it's ok?

Yes, it's bad.

However, as a general guide: ear piercing < foreskin removal < amputating limbs
Not all mutilations are equal.

[saxitoxin]

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

You don't see any other reasons why placing a tiny hole in your earlobe is slightly different that cutting off the foreskin?

I thought you guys were all up in arms about the mutilation of kids without their consent? So I guess because ear rings are cute, it's ok?

mutilation - to make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilation?s=t

[Woodruff]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?

I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

No, not because it's a religious thing. Honestly, your comment strikes me as pandering to religion - just because something is done in the name of religion doesn't mean it should be impervious to criticism.

I'm pandering to nothing. I'm talking about consistency. Lacking that consistency strikes me as anti-religion.

Ear holes aren't permanent. If you don't like them, you can just take off the ear jewelry and the holes will grow shut in a few weeks, months at top.

Does the fact that it's not permanent make it less painful at the time?

Comparing the two is like comparing a haircut to a limb amputation.

Particularly when you're already predisposed to hating religion.

[saxitoxin]

Does the fact that it's not permanent make it less painful at the time?

Murder and assault are both painful. Murder and assault are both punished. Why is murder punished more harshly than assault? Murder is permanent.

Natty has been perfectly consistent.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?

I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

For the reasons which I already stated (see: underlined).

Then, the issue of lack of consent comes to mind. Whatever the reasons of parents in favor of NMC may be, it doesn't matter because the long-term costs don't offset the benefits. From the first link of that poll I posted previously (or the 2nd poll), the predominant reason why people get circumcision was (1) reduce chance of AIDS/disease, (2) hygiene, and (3) cuz it looks good. Religious reasons weighed in at a slim 5%.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?

I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

for once, i actually completely agree with woodruff. this thread is just a place to hate on the religious. Its kinda scary how much hatred you seem to have pent up inside.

things that could vent some of that sexual frustration are: circumcision, getting fixed, sex, participating in the pain olympics, putting your dick in the blender, more masturbation, or getting yourself sent to prison. all of those things will make relieve much of your sexual tension, and probably make you care less about circumcision. try at least one of them.

You're completely mistaken and have become emotionally invested in this debate without considering the logical standpoints against NMC.

[GBU56]

Woodruff, get over the anti-religion b.s.

This is about mutilating a boy's body without consent. This is a human right thing. You got religious extremists who want to harm children [girls and boys] for some religious ritual.

We're in the 21st Century and we need to make sure everyone is protected from being scarred physically and mentally by religious institutions. If you believe this is a attack on religious institutions, then I say you're attacking the medical and scientific fields!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

Don't fear the ant-eater!

Cum on, baby
(Don't fear the ant-eater)
Baby take my foreskin
(Don't fear the ant-eater)
We'll be able to fly
(Don't fear the ant-eater)
Baby I'm your man

-TG

[saxitoxin]

We'll be able to fly

I do not believe most foreskin is of sufficient quantity to allow sustained human flight.

I'm not 100% sure about that, though. It could be similar to some squirrel species in which additional quantities of skin can be used to achieve airborne momentum for short periods of time.

[patrickaa317]

We'll be able to fly

I do not believe most foreskin is of sufficient quantity to allow sustained human flight.

I'm not 100% sure about that, though. It could be similar to some squirrel species in which additional quantities of skin can be used to achieve airborne momentum for short periods of time.

[natty dread]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?

I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

No, not because it's a religious thing. Honestly, your comment strikes me as pandering to religion - just because something is done in the name of religion doesn't mean it should be impervious to criticism.

I'm pandering to nothing. I'm talking about consistency. Lacking that consistency strikes me as anti-religion.

Ear holes aren't permanent. If you don't like them, you can just take off the ear jewelry and the holes will grow shut in a few weeks, months at top.

Does the fact that it's not permanent make it less painful at the time?

Comparing the two is like comparing a haircut to a limb amputation.

Particularly when you're already predisposed to hating religion.

Phatscotty, is that you? What are you doing on Woodruff's account?

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="natty dread Male genital mutilation, ie. circumcision, is irreversible and results in a permanent physical handicap, loss of up to 75% of penile sensitivity, which can permanently cripple the victim's sex life and cause psychological problems.
.[/quote]
You have data on this.. aside from medical/practitioner error, that is? I am genuinely interested.. I do have sons. Neither my male relatives nor my husband have noted any such thing.

[natty dread]

Question to Woodruff:

What is your stand on clitoridectomy? Should it be allowed in the name of religious freedom?

[natty dread]

Male genital mutilation, ie. circumcision, is irreversible and results in a permanent physical handicap, loss of up to 75% of penile sensitivity, which can permanently cripple the victim's sex life and cause psychological problems.
.

You have data on this.. aside from medical/practitioner error, that is? I am genuinely interested.. I do have sons. Neither my male relatives nor my husband have noted any such thing.

I posted it in the previous dick-chopping thread.

If this is true I'm going to be really pissed at my parents.

Start getting pissed:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

OBJECTIVE

To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS

The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.
CONCLUSIONS

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

[PLAYER57832]

Woodruff, get over the anti-religion b.s.

This is about mutilating a boy's body without consent. This is a human right thing. You got religious extremists who want to harm children [girls and boys] for some religious ritual.

Uh.. completely seperate male circumcision, which is generally recognized as benign. (most of those wanting this are men who feel it gave them a benefit). There are medical/hygenic reasons, though many of those no longer apply with today's cleanliness standards. (suposedly it can reduce chance of AIDS, but generally as long as you are reasonably clean, there is no harm from not being circumcised).

So-called "female cIrcumcision", to contrast, has absolutely no medical purpose. Its sole purpose is to specifically reduce female sexual pleasure. In the "mildest" form, it involves amputating the clitorus. I nthe most harsh forms, it may involve sewing up the vagina, sometimes leaving just a tiny opening for "fluids". That extreme form is particularly harmful... just imagine such a girl attempting to give birth (sometimes not even understanding that she is actually giving birth, never mind how it happened).

BUT.. I don't want to divert this thread. That can be another topic.

[PLAYER57832]

Male genital mutilation, ie. circumcision, is irreversible and results in a permanent physical handicap, loss of up to 75% of penile sensitivity, which can permanently cripple the victim's sex life and cause psychological problems.
.

You have data on this.. aside from medical/practitioner error, that is? I am genuinely interested.. I do have sons. Neither my male relatives nor my husband have noted any such thing.

I posted it in the previous dick-chopping thread.

If this is true I'm going to be really pissed at my parents.

Start getting pissed:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

OBJECTIVE

To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS

The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.
CONCLUSIONS

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

[/quote]
Going to look into this.. the methodology, etc. It runs contrary to what many men have specifically stated, other data. In fact, it is often said that one reason for male circumcision is increased sensation. (though it would make sense that an unprotected organ would lose sensation).


Offhand, this seems to dispute a variety of evidence elsewhere. (here is a partial listing, just as an example: http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/circum_n.htm ) However, the BJU is apparently a decent journal.


Even reading the journal, it seems that the loss is not considered significant. Still, I have not heard of any harm from normal procedures prior, so I will investigate more.

[natty dread]

Uh.. completely seperate male circumcision, which is generally recognized as benign.

Recognized by whom?

(most of those wanting this are men who feel it gave them a benefit). There are medical/hygenic reasons, though many of those no longer apply with today's cleanliness standards. (suposedly it can reduce chance of AIDS, but generally as long as you are reasonably clean, there is no harm from not being circumcised).

The studies claiming MGM can reduce AIDS were severely flawed in methodology and the results have never been confirmed. It is considered pretty much debunked today.

So-called "female cercumcision", by contrast has absolutely no medical purpose.

As opposed to what? Neither does Male Genital Mutilation.

Its sole purpose is to specifically reduce female sexual pleasure.

And MGM achieves the same for male sexual pleasure. Arugably it also reduces female sexual pleasure, since men with mutilated penises have to engage in more aggressive sex in order to be able to achieve orgasm, due to reduced sensitivity.

Male genital mutilation is perfectly comparable with female genital mutilation. Neither have any medical benefits, both are harmful, and both are performed for religious reasons. Both have "milder" and more extreme forms - some religious sects practice a form of MGM where the entire area of skin between the penis and navel is removed, and some forms of FGM do not remove all sexual functionality.

[saxitoxin]

Woodruff, get over the anti-religion b.s.

This is about mutilating a boy's body without consent. This is a human right thing. You got religious extremists who want to harm children [girls and boys] for some religious ritual.

Uh.. completely seperate male circumcision, which is generally recognized as benign.

It is not "generally recognized as benign" by any medical establishment outside of the U.S. and Israel.

There is a reason only 3-4 countries in the developed world (U.S., Israel and ... Australia, Canada?) practice routine circumcision. There is a reason the AAP has recommended against routine circumcision. There is a reason there are efforts to ban it by progressives in California. There is a reason the Westfalian court of cassation has declared it illegal in religious cases. There is a reason the Danish medical association is petitioning parliament for a national ban on religious circumcision. Circumcision is medically acceptable for treatment of severe phimosis and that's about it.

Did you read any of this thread before you posted in it?

The severe disruption in normal psychological processes of circumcised males - and their increased propensity to anti-social violence - which I outlined in the studies I posted above, are not restricted to males. It is difficult for mothers to acknowledge they have subjected their children to permanent injury. They will steadfastly refuse to believe what they've done.

Player's comments are actually a wonderful demonstration of this latter point. She denounces the U.S. health system in every thread except when it comes to circumcision. Then she's on the side of a $400-per-procedure for-profit insurance scam and denouncing European medicine.

[natty dread]

Circumcision is medically acceptable for treatment of severe phimosis and that's about it.

"Severe" being the key word here - most cases of phimosis can be treated without resorting to circumcision

[saxitoxin]

The history of circumcision in the U.S. is actually quite fascinating. No U.S. men were circumcised prior to 1917. It was originally introduced by radical religious conservatives in the 1890s in a belief that the decreased ease of masturbation would eliminate that practice altogether. Still, the idea of surgical deformation of the penis was considered so bizarre that it didn't gain much acceptance.

A few years later a pussy doctor (gynea..?-however you spell it) invented the first circumcision clamp and hired a NY ad agency to help market it to doctors. They came up with a campaign to tout the now discredited medical benefits of the practice to hospitals. It gained some traction on the east coast but most Americans in the west were still being born outside hospitals. But U.S. Army thought it was a good idea and during WWI most of the, heretofore uncircumcised, U.S. male population were circumcised as adults by military order as part of the conscription process.

The study I posted in the last page - regarding the "Denial of Loss" psychosis of circumcised males - probably contributed to these men, in turn, calling for the practice to be applied against their own children. Fast forward 80 years and it's (decreasingly) commonplace.

[natty dread]

Sensitivity in graph form:





Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/03/prweb513003.htm

[saxitoxin]

Circumcision is medically acceptable for treatment of severe phimosis and that's about it.

"Severe" being the key word here - most cases of phimosis can be treated without resorting to circumcision

OK, I'll take your word for it. I wouldn't have much problem with someone being circumcised for that if other treatments were exhausted. Though, it's probably important anyone undergoing circumcision before puberty be watched for signs like girlfriend/spousal abuse or cruelty to animals later in life. But if it's an unusual practice it should be easy for that kind of monitoring and support to occur for a few hundred people versus 60 million.

[natty dread]

OK, I'll take your word for it.

But saxi, you don't have to. I just looked this up from wikipedia:

Management

Phimosis in infancy is nearly always physiological, and needs to be treated only if it is causing obvious problems such as urinary discomfort or obstruction. In older children and men, phimosis should be distinguished from frenulum breve, which more often requires surgery, though the two conditions can occur together.

If phimosis in older children or adults is not causing acute and severe problems, nonsurgical measures may be effective. Choice of treatment is often determined by whether the patient (or doctor) views circumcision as an option of last resort to be avoided or as the preferred course. Some men with non-retractile foreskins have no difficulties and see no need for correction.

Non surgical methods include:

Application of topical steroid cream, such as betamethasone, for 4–6 weeks to the narrow part of the foreskin is relatively simple, less expensive than surgical treatments and highly effective.[23][29][30] It has replaced circumcision as the preferred treatment method for some physicians in the British National Health Service.[31][32]
Recently, a trial of treatment with betamethasone dipropionate (0.05%) for 2 weeks is advocated in all children with phimosis before undertaking surgery. This steroid therapy demonstrated a success rate of 77%.[33]
Stretching of the foreskin can be accomplished manually, with balloons[34] or with other tools. Skin that is under tension expands by growing additional cells. A permanent increase in size occurs by gentle stretching over a period of time. The treatment is non-traumatic and non-destructive. Manual stretching may be carried out without the aid of a medical doctor. The tissue expansion promotes the growth of new skin cells to permanently expand the narrow preputial ring that prevents retraction. Beaugé treated several hundred adolescents by advising them to change their masturbation habits to closing their hand over their penis and moving it back and forth. Retraction of the foreskin was generally achieved after four weeks and he stated that he never had to refer one for surgery.[10][25]

Betamethasone dipropionate

[saxitoxin]

OK, I'll take your word for it.

But saxi, you don't have to. I just looked this up from wikipedia:

Management

Phimosis in infancy is nearly always physiological, and needs to be treated only if it is causing obvious problems such as urinary discomfort or obstruction. In older children and men, phimosis should be distinguished from frenulum breve, which more often requires surgery, though the two conditions can occur together.

If phimosis in older children or adults is not causing acute and severe problems, nonsurgical measures may be effective. Choice of treatment is often determined by whether the patient (or doctor) views circumcision as an option of last resort to be avoided or as the preferred course. Some men with non-retractile foreskins have no difficulties and see no need for correction.

Non surgical methods include:

Application of topical steroid cream, such as betamethasone, for 4–6 weeks to the narrow part of the foreskin is relatively simple, less expensive than surgical treatments and highly effective.[23][29][30] It has replaced circumcision as the preferred treatment method for some physicians in the British National Health Service.[31][32]
Recently, a trial of treatment with betamethasone dipropionate (0.05%) for 2 weeks is advocated in all children with phimosis before undertaking surgery. This steroid therapy demonstrated a success rate of 77%.[33]
Stretching of the foreskin can be accomplished manually, with balloons[34] or with other tools. Skin that is under tension expands by growing additional cells. A permanent increase in size occurs by gentle stretching over a period of time. The treatment is non-traumatic and non-destructive. Manual stretching may be carried out without the aid of a medical doctor. The tissue expansion promotes the growth of new skin cells to permanently expand the narrow preputial ring that prevents retraction. Beaugé treated several hundred adolescents by advising them to change their masturbation habits to closing their hand over their penis and moving it back and forth. Retraction of the foreskin was generally achieved after four weeks and he stated that he never had to refer one for surgery.[10][25]

Betamethasone dipropionate

OK, very well, this all seems believable.

Now, in reference to my previous question - can you fly? Also, being a Finnman, can you advise us if this is the more rational, scientific explanation as the source of Santa Claus' supposed power of flight?

[MeDeFe]

Santa Clauses reindeers have wings fashioned out of the foreskins of circumcised elves. It's that simple.