Discussion
TheHeretic said:
That is all very well, but if you think that any of that is the reason that people circumcise newborn babies, you are sadly deluded.
Well that's why my lads were circumcised. I was circumcised and growing up a couple of mates had to be circumcised as adults which wasn't very pleasant. Another friend suffers with balinitus and is envious of anyone circumcised as a baby.When my lads were born I found a doctor locally who did it privately using the plastibell method for £60. Both my boys were done before they were a month old. My wife was all in favour, saying from a womans point of view a circumcised member is far more desirable.
By the way, I am a commited atheist.
Actually there are many problems with male circumcision (although I agree it is nothing compared to FGM) - up to and including DEATH in some cases - but the most important argument is very simple and that is that there is nothing stopping the child from chosing later in life to get circumcised if he wants to. Do it "for" him and you prevent him from taking that choice. Curiously enough, very few adult men decide to get circumcised. Why do you think that is?
Almost all the supposed health benefits from circumcision are actually benefits from good hygiene, and I would hope parents would teach this as a matter of course.
Incidentally, for anyone who wants to waste their entire life, you can get involved in perennial arguments about this on the wikipedia talk page. At present the article is basically controlled by a guy called Jake who is a circumcision fetishist, so it is not a fair overview of the real pros and cons.
That is not hyperbole on my part either, look at http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._W...
Almost all the supposed health benefits from circumcision are actually benefits from good hygiene, and I would hope parents would teach this as a matter of course.
Incidentally, for anyone who wants to waste their entire life, you can get involved in perennial arguments about this on the wikipedia talk page. At present the article is basically controlled by a guy called Jake who is a circumcision fetishist, so it is not a fair overview of the real pros and cons.
That is not hyperbole on my part either, look at http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._W...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Male circumcision is an accepted medical procedure, that can be carried out for a variety of reasons, and will not have any negative effects, and has been shown to have quite a few positive ones (more difficult to catch Aids, unlikely to suffer from premature ejaculation, women in countries where men a circumcised have much lower rates of cervical cancer).
The foreskin is a vestigial feature, it was useful when our ancestors walked on all fours, to protect from damage, but it is of no use now.
There is no such thing as female circumcision. They call it that to give it an air of respectability. It's proper name is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Do not fall into the trap of calling it anything else. It's only purpose is to subjigate women.
typical hypocrisy of those who support male genital mutilations The foreskin is a vestigial feature, it was useful when our ancestors walked on all fours, to protect from damage, but it is of no use now.
There is no such thing as female circumcision. They call it that to give it an air of respectability. It's proper name is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Do not fall into the trap of calling it anything else. It's only purpose is to subjigate women.
'unlikely to suffer from premature ejaculation' = nerve damage and/or desnsitiation
at least you have trotted out some of the spurious hygiene reasons to justify male genital mutilation
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Errr. maybe becasue as an adult it's a far more difficult and painful procedure than it is for a baby. Christ...regardless of your view, that's an idiotic question.
That is not correct.delicious copypasta said:
A common misperception is that infant circumcision is preferable to adult circumcision because it spares a man pain and trauma. Many physicians however say the opposite and critics admit that most of their objections to infant circumcision cannot be applied to the adult procedure. Here's why:
More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.
Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.
Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.
Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.
Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.
Even though the facts do not support the claim that adult circumcision is "worse" than infant circumcision, some pro-circumcision advocates contend that adult circumcision is painful, traumatic and dangerous, and that for this reason most adult men who are intact choose to remain uncircumcised. But when intact men are asked about the idea of being circumcised, most say that they have no desire to give up this part of their body - there is no reason to even consider it. Their foreskin gives them no more trouble than their eyelids, lips or testicles. Instead it affords them pleasure and comfort. Anti-circumcision advocates say that it is ridiculous to presume that the idea would even cross an uncircumcised man's mind. To them, it is the same as asking why intact women don't think about having the clitoral foreskin removed.
The only "advantage" of infant circumcision regarding cruelty is that no one remembers being a baby, so the cruelty ain't recalled.More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.
Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.
Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.
Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.
Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.
Even though the facts do not support the claim that adult circumcision is "worse" than infant circumcision, some pro-circumcision advocates contend that adult circumcision is painful, traumatic and dangerous, and that for this reason most adult men who are intact choose to remain uncircumcised. But when intact men are asked about the idea of being circumcised, most say that they have no desire to give up this part of their body - there is no reason to even consider it. Their foreskin gives them no more trouble than their eyelids, lips or testicles. Instead it affords them pleasure and comfort. Anti-circumcision advocates say that it is ridiculous to presume that the idea would even cross an uncircumcised man's mind. To them, it is the same as asking why intact women don't think about having the clitoral foreskin removed.
smegmore said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Male circumcision is an accepted medical procedure, that can be carried out for a variety of reasons, and will not have any negative effects, and has been shown to have quite a few positive ones (more difficult to catch Aids, unlikely to suffer from premature ejaculation, women in countries where men a circumcised have much lower rates of cervical cancer).
The foreskin is a vestigial feature, it was useful when our ancestors walked on all fours, to protect from damage, but it is of no use now.
There is no such thing as female circumcision. They call it that to give it an air of respectability. It's proper name is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Do not fall into the trap of calling it anything else. It's only purpose is to subjigate women.
You are correct, of course.The foreskin is a vestigial feature, it was useful when our ancestors walked on all fours, to protect from damage, but it is of no use now.
There is no such thing as female circumcision. They call it that to give it an air of respectability. It's proper name is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Do not fall into the trap of calling it anything else. It's only purpose is to subjigate women.
I stand corrected, thanks.
Somewhatfoolish said:
The only "advantage" of infant circumcision regarding cruelty is that no one remembers being a baby, so the cruelty ain't recalled.
Odd then that one of my lads was asleep and didn't even wake up during the procedure. The other did cry, but he used to go ballistic when we got his hair cut.A friends son was done when he was about 6, and was riding his bike the next day. But the adult I know who had it done, he definitely wasn't riding his bike for weeks.
Anyone can pull anything of t'internet to back up their view, I'll just stick to personal experience.
Are there any other parts of your kids' bodies you consider it your right to get rid of? The only thing nipples are good for on men (like the foreskin) is sexual stimulation, so is there any particular reason you didn't chop them off at the same time? No-reason infant circumcision I'm pretty sure isn't avaliable on the NHS so you might have been able to get a discount at the time if you'd done them together.
Somewhatfoolish said:
Are there any other parts of your kids' bodies you consider it your right to get rid of?
Yes, didn't you read my reply. I got their hair cut. And used to trim their fingernails and toe nails. A couple of milk teeth had to be taken out too. Oh, and an appendix on one of them.Any objections to that lot?
Both my sons were circumcised, both for medical reasons ( which I share, but not to the same degree which is why I am not ). If they had not had a problem I would not have agreed to them having the procedure - though following the operation my eldest did gain some notoriety at primary school as being the only under 8 who could piss over a 6 foot high wall :-)
As for the original post - I really do despair at what stupidity some people are capable of under the influence of religion. Health & Safety is tasked with eliminating various stupidities, but their remit seems to fall short at the excesses committed in the name of religion - maybe that should change ( though difficult to enforce in countries like Mexico )
As for the original post - I really do despair at what stupidity some people are capable of under the influence of religion. Health & Safety is tasked with eliminating various stupidities, but their remit seems to fall short at the excesses committed in the name of religion - maybe that should change ( though difficult to enforce in countries like Mexico )
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There is no such thing as female circumcision. They call it that to give it an air of respectability. It's proper name is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Do not fall into the trap of calling it anything else. It's only purpose is to subjigate women.
Totally agree. i feel sorry for any fella who has had the chop. Its there for a reason, if you can't wash your cock properly you don't need to cut the old roll neck off, you need a lesson in personal hygiene. Any other reasons are just mindless sheep bleatings trotted out by followers of various religious insanities!
SkinnyBoy said:
i feel sorry for any fella who has had the chop. Its there for a reason, if you can't wash your cock properly you don't need to cut the old roll neck off, you need a lesson in personal hygiene. Any other reasons are just mindless sheep bleatings trotted out by followers of various religious insanities!
there are other reasons for it. there was a feature on radio 4 not long ago.one reason is it can tighten causing loss of blood and permanent damage however that is very rare.
its not so rare for it to go wrong on babies. nerve damage and scars causing issues later in life.
should never be performed on a child for religeous reasons until the child is old enough to consent to it.
Edited by Pesty on Sunday 27th May 09:53
Somewhatfoolish said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Errr. maybe becasue as an adult it's a far more difficult and painful procedure than it is for a baby. Christ...regardless of your view, that's an idiotic question.
That is not correct.delicious copypasta said:
A common misperception is that infant circumcision is preferable to adult circumcision because it spares a man pain and trauma. Many physicians however say the opposite and critics admit that most of their objections to infant circumcision cannot be applied to the adult procedure. Here's why:
More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.
Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.
Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.
Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.
Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.
Even though the facts do not support the claim that adult circumcision is "worse" than infant circumcision, some pro-circumcision advocates contend that adult circumcision is painful, traumatic and dangerous, and that for this reason most adult men who are intact choose to remain uncircumcised. But when intact men are asked about the idea of being circumcised, most say that they have no desire to give up this part of their body - there is no reason to even consider it. Their foreskin gives them no more trouble than their eyelids, lips or testicles. Instead it affords them pleasure and comfort. Anti-circumcision advocates say that it is ridiculous to presume that the idea would even cross an uncircumcised man's mind. To them, it is the same as asking why intact women don't think about having the clitoral foreskin removed.
The only "advantage" of infant circumcision regarding cruelty is that no one remembers being a baby, so the cruelty ain't recalled.More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.
Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.
Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.
Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.
Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.
Even though the facts do not support the claim that adult circumcision is "worse" than infant circumcision, some pro-circumcision advocates contend that adult circumcision is painful, traumatic and dangerous, and that for this reason most adult men who are intact choose to remain uncircumcised. But when intact men are asked about the idea of being circumcised, most say that they have no desire to give up this part of their body - there is no reason to even consider it. Their foreskin gives them no more trouble than their eyelids, lips or testicles. Instead it affords them pleasure and comfort. Anti-circumcision advocates say that it is ridiculous to presume that the idea would even cross an uncircumcised man's mind. To them, it is the same as asking why intact women don't think about having the clitoral foreskin removed.
I have cringed slightly in this thread, and the thought of having to be erect whilst the 'procedure' occurs is the worst bit.
Interesting discussion as to whether the foreskin is really vestigial or not.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/11/14...
Somewhatfoolish said:
Are there any other parts of your kids' bodies you consider it your right to get rid of? The only thing nipples are good for on men (like the foreskin) is sexual stimulation, so is there any particular reason you didn't chop them off at the same time? No-reason infant circumcision I'm pretty sure isn't avaliable on the NHS so you might have been able to get a discount at the time if you'd done them together.
Exactly! This concept of slicing bits off simply because it is a little hard to wash them properly, or because they are not really needed, is BS! If that were the case then western women would be sliced when they were babies to save washing so much.
Male circumcision is done purely for religious reasons, or because the parents know no better so follow somebody else advice. If there is a specific medical reason, all well and good, but doing it 'just in case' is b
ks. smegmore said:
TheHeretic said:
smegmore said:
Are you talikng about male circumcision? I won't go into female mutilation, that's a different discussion.
Both.Male circumcision can be carried out for a variety of reasons, religious, medical or cultural. I was circumcised at an early age due to medical reasons, as was my son, allbeit he was much older.
Female circumcision is a barbaric practice carried out in accordance with stone age traditions mainly by people who have no real right to walk this earth in this day and age. I'll leave you to fill in the gaps there.
HTH.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff