Germany to ban religious genital mutilation?

[Caulkhead]

Americans circumcise their boys nowadays largely out of tradition, but originally and up until fairly recently it was to discourage masturbation and thus avoid the diseases that were wrongly associated with self-abuse.

[Marf]

Caulkhead said:

Americans circumcise their boys nowadays largely out of tradition, but originally and up until fairly recently it was to discourage masturbation and thus avoid the diseases that were wrongly associated with self-abuse.

Yup goes back to Kellog who recomended it be done without anaesthetic so the pain was associated with sexuality and would diminish libido. He also recomended rubbing acid on the clitoris to achieve the same effect.

Quackery.

[Robb F]

Jimbeaux said:

Hey, we have been pruning our dicks for ages here. If you don't like, don't do. Simple.

That's the point, you don't get a choice if you're a child.

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

Hopefully this will pass in Germany, it's about time that baby boys had equal protection in law from needless mutilation.

SteveJ and Vipers have laid it out pretty well really.

Prophylactic circumcision is quackery, plain and simple.

Studies in the US estimate that more boys die from circumcision complications each year in the US than either cot death or car accidents.

Studies have demonstrated the sensitivity loss, increases of inorgasmia in women with circumcised partners, increased rates of erectile dysfunction amongst other downsides. What you take from the boy you take from the man and all his sexual partners.

The rate over there is dropping fast though. In the late 90s it was over 90%, now its around 30%. Medicaid is defunding it, people are waking up to the harm it does and it's about time. I'd say in less than 10 years the rate will be less than 10%.

Thankfully Jim represents an opinion on the wane in the United States. I've debated many times with people of his opinion and for them ignorance is bliss, they choose not to see the harm done to them and done by them. C'est la vie.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 27th June 20:42

You are quick to call me and others ignorant about something that has a long history. Rather arrogant on your part IMO. Medicaid? You are referring to the charity program. That does not effect the majority of the population. Show me your stats that show the procedure has dropped 60% is 10-15 years time. As you say though, C'est la vie.

[Jimbeaux]

southendpier said:

Jimbeaux said:

From WedMD:

"What are the benefits of circumcision?

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will help prevent STDs and other infections."

Again, make up your own mind. If parents think the above benefits apply, they should do what they feel is best for their children.

mental.

Why is that mental. That is from a website contributed to by the Mayo Clinic and Mt. Sinai Hospital.

[Stevenj214]

Jimbeaux said:

You are quick to call me and others ignorant about something that has a long history. Rather arrogant on your part IMO. Medicaid? You are referring to the charity program. That does not effect the majority of the population. Show me your stats that show the procedure has dropped 60% is 10-15 years time. As you say though, C'est la vie.

Unfortunately, it is not "c'est la vie".

I, and others, and now legislature in at least 2 countries, believe that baby boys should not have their genitals mutilated for an archaic, "cultural" practise which has marginal health benefits and at least the same, if not more, health risks.

[Stevenj214]

Jimbeaux said:

southendpier said:

Jimbeaux said:

From WedMD:

"What are the benefits of circumcision?

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will help prevent STDs and other infections."

Again, make up your own mind. If parents think the above benefits apply, they should do what they feel is best for their children.

mental.

Why is that mental. That is from a website contributed to by the Mayo Clinic and Mt. Sinai Hospital.

It is mental because what you copied and pasted even said the same benefits are given by washing and wearing a condom. Yet you use it as justification for circumcision.

[Robb F]

Jimbeaux said:

Why is that mental. That is from a website contributed to by the Mayo Clinic and Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Even if there were significant health benefits (I don't believe there are), why do you think it is acceptable to do it to children, rather than allow them to make their own decision when they are old enough?

[Marf]

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Hopefully this will pass in Germany, it's about time that baby boys had equal protection in law from needless mutilation.

SteveJ and Vipers have laid it out pretty well really.

Prophylactic circumcision is quackery, plain and simple.

Studies in the US estimate that more boys die from circumcision complications each year in the US than either cot death or car accidents.

Studies have demonstrated the sensitivity loss, increases of inorgasmia in women with circumcised partners, increased rates of erectile dysfunction amongst other downsides. What you take from the boy you take from the man and all his sexual partners.

The rate over there is dropping fast though. In the late 90s it was over 90%, now its around 30%. Medicaid is defunding it, people are waking up to the harm it does and it's about time. I'd say in less than 10 years the rate will be less than 10%.

Thankfully Jim represents an opinion on the wane in the United States. I've debated many times with people of his opinion and for them ignorance is bliss, they choose not to see the harm done to them and done by them. C'est la vie.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 27th June 20:42

You are quick to call me and others ignorant about something that has a long history. Rather arrogant on your part IMO. Medicaid? You are referring to the charity program. That does not effect the majority of the population. Show me your stats that show the procedure has dropped 60% is 10-15 years time. As you say though, C'est la vie.

Defensive

No, Medicaid does not affect the majority, but 18 state programs defunded it nonetheless. Was 19 but Colorado reinstated it.

The numbers I mentioend were presented by a CDC researcher at conference regarding AIDS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/...

Granted, these numbers do not include those babies circumcised after leaving the hospital, and other studies show it as high as 40% in 2010 but the tide is indeed turning on your shores.

Yes, it has a long and illustrious tradition in the United States, I'm not sure what relevance that has. Many things we now view to be bad or distasteful were practiced in history. If we didnt analyse and change our practices for the better we wouldnt be human.

Ultimately one child dying from an elective procedure with negligible benefits is too many, let alone one hundred per year.

I like you Jim, you're forthright and steadfast with your opinion, so please don't take it to heart that I am forthright and steadfast on this topic. If what I'm saying pisses you off then I apologise, but it won't temper my tone on this topic.

Prophylactic circumcision is quackery.

[VinceFox]

Marf said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Hopefully this will pass in Germany, it's about time that baby boys had equal protection in law from needless mutilation.

SteveJ and Vipers have laid it out pretty well really.

Prophylactic circumcision is quackery, plain and simple.

Studies in the US estimate that more boys die from circumcision complications each year in the US than either cot death or car accidents.

Studies have demonstrated the sensitivity loss, increases of inorgasmia in women with circumcised partners, increased rates of erectile dysfunction amongst other downsides. What you take from the boy you take from the man and all his sexual partners.

The rate over there is dropping fast though. In the late 90s it was over 90%, now its around 30%. Medicaid is defunding it, people are waking up to the harm it does and it's about time. I'd say in less than 10 years the rate will be less than 10%.

Thankfully Jim represents an opinion on the wane in the United States. I've debated many times with people of his opinion and for them ignorance is bliss, they choose not to see the harm done to them and done by them. C'est la vie.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 27th June 20:42

You are quick to call me and others ignorant about something that has a long history. Rather arrogant on your part IMO. Medicaid? You are referring to the charity program. That does not effect the majority of the population. Show me your stats that show the procedure has dropped 60% is 10-15 years time. As you say though, C'est la vie.

Defensive

No, Medicaid does not affect the majority, but 18 state programs defunded it nonetheless. Was 19 but Colorado reinstated it.

The numbers I mentioend were presented by a CDC researcher at conference regarding AIDS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/...

Granted, these numbers do not include those babies circumcised after leaving the hospital, and other studies show it as high as 40% in 2010 but the tide is indeed turning on your shores.

Yes, it has a long and illustrious tradition in the United States, I'm not sure what relevance that has. Many things we now view to be bad or distasteful were practiced in history. If we didnt analyse and change our practices for the better we wouldnt be human.

Ultimately one child dying from an elective procedure with negligible benefits is too many, let alone one hundred per year.

I like you Jim, you're forthright and steadfast with your opinion, so please don't take it to heart that I am forthright and steadfast on this topic. If what I'm saying pisses you off then I apologise, but it won't temper my tone on this topic.

Prophylactic circumcision is quackery.

Don't let him talk to you like that Jim, stand up for yourself.

Edited by VinceFox on Wednesday 27th June 21:24

[Caulkhead]

Robb F said:

Jimbeaux said:

Hey, we have been pruning our dicks for ages here. If you don't like, don't do. Simple.

That's the point, you don't get a choice if you're a child.

^This.

By all means do your own, but don't foist your opinion on your babies.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Jimbeaux said:

As stated, it is more of a hygeine issue to have one's pencil sharpened.

Who told you that one?! It's an absolute myth.

I am aware that USA has one of the world's highest rates of circumcision even though it doesn't have a predominantly Moslem or Jewish population. There's no excuse for continuation of this barbaric ritual.

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

It's outdated and ought to stop.

[Willie Dee]

I feel really bad for all the men across the planet who are denied the full sensation of sexual relations due to such barbaric mutilation of their genitals when they are defenceless babies, killing the precious fine-touch receptors that are in place to make sex feel good.

Cue a load of mutilated people saying "Oh but I still enjoy sex, it still feels good!"

Sadly for them, they don't even know what they are missing

[TwigtheWonderkid]

davepoth said:

If it was a hygiene issue it would have been selected out of the breeding population by evolution by now (

Without entering into the pro/anti argument, the bred out by evolution argument doesn't really stand up.

The reason evolution gave us a foreskin was for protection, when we were on all fours. We were on all fours as mammels for around 250 million years. We've been on 2 legs for about 350k yrs, so the foreskin at best is a vestigial appendage, but hasn't had time to be bred out.

Of course, it would only be bred out if having one made it harder to find a mate and produce offspring, which it doesn't. And for thousands of years problems that might occur with the foreskin that would kill you before you could mate have been corrected by circumcision as we became more intelligent. If kids were allowed to die of a tight foreskin, then your argument might work over time. But they don't, a doctor will circumcise them and they go one to have kids, who in turn have a foreskin as the genes have been passed on.

That's why we will never lose our appendix. Because people with a dodgy one who should die don't, thanks to surgery, and go on to reproduce.

Which is why I'm short sighted. Because the gene has been passed on by someone who wouldn't have survived without specs, and my specs have allowed me to survive and have kids, and pass my faulty genes onto them.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Willie Dee said:

I feel really bad for all the men across the planet who are denied the full sensation of sexual relations due to such barbaric mutilation of their genitals when they are defenceless babies, killing the precious fine-touch receptors that are in place to make sex feel good.

Cue a load of mutilated people saying "Oh but I still enjoy sex, it still feels good!"

Sadly for them, they don't even know what they are missing

But over the years thousands of men have been circumsised as adults, for medical reasons, ballinitus or whatever. And by and large they say sex feels just as good. So they do know what they're misssing, and they don't miss it.

A friend of mine was done aged 45. He says it's makes no difference at all. What's your explanation for that?

[VX Foxy]

Jimbeaux said:

Why is that mental. That is from a website contributed to by the Mayo Clinic and Mt. Sinai Hospital.

I used to respect your posts. No more.

You have been brainwashed buddy.

[davepoth]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Without entering into the pro/anti argument, the bred out by evolution argument doesn't really stand up.

The reason evolution gave us a foreskin was for protection, when we were on all fours. We were on all fours as mammels for around 250 million years. We've been on 2 legs for about 350k yrs, so the foreskin at best is a vestigial appendage, but hasn't had time to be bred out.

Of course, it would only be bred out if having one made it harder to find a mate and produce offspring, which it doesn't. And for thousands of years problems that might occur with the foreskin that would kill you before you could mate have been corrected by circumcision as we became more intelligent. If kids were allowed to die of a tight foreskin, then your argument might work over time. But they don't, a doctor will circumcise them and they go one to have kids, who in turn have a foreskin as the genes have been passed on.

You've got my point all twisted up, so to speak.

Foreskins have been present in primates for millions of years with very little change. That usually means that nature has got the basic design pretty right, otherwise something else would have risen to prominence, so to speak.

It's only in the last couple of thousand years that we've decided that chopping it off is a good idea. Now there's a medical reason in certain cases (mine included) that mean it should be removed for medical reasons. But those are fairly rare exceptions, and for everyone else the case for removal is far from conclusive.

[RDMcG]

I think the right term is ciecumcision. The removal of the foreskin has little impact on a man as has been demonstrated many millions of times.

The term "genital mutliation" and not "female circumcision" is properly applied to the barbaric procedure on young girls which has appalling effects on their ability to enjoy sex.

I think we do them a great disservice to use the terms interchangebly when the results are so different. As Jimbeaux said, it was thought to be a hygiene issue in Irelansd where I grew up,and was done universally at the time.

[SlipStream77]

davepoth said:

If it was a hygiene issue it would have been selected out of the breeding population by evolution by now - but it's present in all mammals except platypii and echidnae.

You mean like the appendix and the coccyx?

[Sprouts]

Disgusting, barbaric proccedure. Should be banned worldwide.

Living in Israel, I'm so glad I have daughters, because there's no way a son of mine was having it done. Plus, the robbing rabbi's charge a couple of hundred pound for doing it, when they know they 'shouldn't'. It's hard to find one who will do it for nowt.

And after seeing it done a few times, hearing a nine days old boy in so much pain, while the familly and friends raise a glass, clap their hands and thank and tip the bearded freak who's just done it, adds to the sickness of it all.