Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
julian64 said:
I would actually say you are likely to be wrong in this.
Firstly if you think watching a porn film tells you anything about what a woman likes you are somewhat deluded.
Secondly dry penetrative sex is uncomfortable for both parties. Sex worker use a lot of artificial lubrication.
Ridding yourself of a natural lubricant is unlikely to be helping this situation.
And lastly if you ever see visible smegma on a guy then its because there is not only poor personal hygene but no personal hygene.
https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/877.aspx?CategoryID=6...
So pretty much uuuugggghhh, on everything you have posted
Also, one of the most well known porn stars today is an uncircumcised male Brit!Firstly if you think watching a porn film tells you anything about what a woman likes you are somewhat deluded.
Secondly dry penetrative sex is uncomfortable for both parties. Sex worker use a lot of artificial lubrication.
Ridding yourself of a natural lubricant is unlikely to be helping this situation.
And lastly if you ever see visible smegma on a guy then its because there is not only poor personal hygene but no personal hygene.
https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/877.aspx?CategoryID=6...
So pretty much uuuugggghhh, on everything you have posted
JuniorD said:
Is it my imagination, or did the pre edited version of the above say something along the lines of the children are too young anyhow to even remember the pain?
Is there a way to check the original? At the time of first reading my thought was that I’ve just witnessed a statement that was tantamount to saying that it’s ok to abuse a child if they are too young to remember it.
to be fair i can't remember the pain. i can remember the longer stay than usual in the hospital due to infection (and according to my father the ineptitude of the surgeon, it looks like it was done with an axe) and the district nurse coming to the house for a period after the op to clean it with tcp . the smell of tcp turns my stomach to this day. that was a medically required circumcision that took place in hospital . i doubt very much those taking place outside of hospital have a lesser infection rate.Is there a way to check the original? At the time of first reading my thought was that I’ve just witnessed a statement that was tantamount to saying that it’s ok to abuse a child if they are too young to remember it.
I'm now the jewish authority !
I don't know everything, but I'll answer the various questions as best I can
HOWEVER, there are some doctors who are mohels and in theory, you could have a religious ceremony carried out in a clinic, so it's possible to have a doctor (who is a mohel) doing it in a clinic, providing they do the religious element (basically a few prayers) too
I think you have to recognise first that you can't group 'all jews' together just as you can't group 'all muslims' or 'all British people' together (I'm not suggesting you think that way)
There are some ultra orthodox sects whom I understand, from what I read in the press, still carry out this practice
But mainstream orthodox and mainstream reform jewry (which covers the majority of jews in this country) will not and do not carry out that practice, nor do they have a wish to, for all kinds of reasons
As for training, I'm not a great fan of some aspects of the Beth Din (jewish court) but my understanding is that in this respect, it's done very professionally - there are rigorous training programmes, some religious and some medical, the medical ones being taught by medical professionals, which then lead to exams. I understand in America where circumcision is more popular amongst Christians/general population, Mohels are often asked for by the parents on the basis they have so much more practice and experience. I can't give you more specifics about the training because I don't know, but I can assure you (this shouldn't really surprise anyone) that all my jewish friends who are parents make bl**dy sure the person they appoint as the Mohel knows what they are doing and is someone they fully trust, before they hand over the week old baby to have his foreskin cut off !
As for your question about licencing, the Beth Din is in fact a regulatory body who issue a licence for this, just as they issue kashrut (kosher) licences, which require incredible scrutiny (they have someone full time on the premises of say a kosher butcher or caterer, who if not present, means the business cannot operate). Like I say, I don't like some aspects of the Beth Din, but they are a licencing body
I don't know everything, but I'll answer the various questions as best I can
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jonby, if a Jewish family wanted their son circumcised, but wanted it done in a hospital/clinic by an actual doctor, with no religious input at all, would that be acceptable? Is it the end result that's the goal or isn't it valid if prayers and stuff aren't said at the time?
It's not overly relevant to this debate, just interested to know.
If a jewish family want their son circumcised for religious reasons, then there has to be a religious element to the circumcision, which means it can't be done without religious inputIt's not overly relevant to this debate, just interested to know.
HOWEVER, there are some doctors who are mohels and in theory, you could have a religious ceremony carried out in a clinic, so it's possible to have a doctor (who is a mohel) doing it in a clinic, providing they do the religious element (basically a few prayers) too
Sway said:
Thanks Jonby.
On the 'medical training' a moult required to have, is that delivered 'within the faith' as the licencing seems to be? Are practices such as the sucking of the blood still permitted?
No interrogation, as said, I find it really odd that a tattooist operating for money must be licensed and premises audited, yet there seem to be exceptions purely based on religious mores - again, something I just find really strange logically.
So a couple of people have asked about the 'sucking of blood' practiceOn the 'medical training' a moult required to have, is that delivered 'within the faith' as the licencing seems to be? Are practices such as the sucking of the blood still permitted?
No interrogation, as said, I find it really odd that a tattooist operating for money must be licensed and premises audited, yet there seem to be exceptions purely based on religious mores - again, something I just find really strange logically.
I think you have to recognise first that you can't group 'all jews' together just as you can't group 'all muslims' or 'all British people' together (I'm not suggesting you think that way)
There are some ultra orthodox sects whom I understand, from what I read in the press, still carry out this practice
But mainstream orthodox and mainstream reform jewry (which covers the majority of jews in this country) will not and do not carry out that practice, nor do they have a wish to, for all kinds of reasons
As for training, I'm not a great fan of some aspects of the Beth Din (jewish court) but my understanding is that in this respect, it's done very professionally - there are rigorous training programmes, some religious and some medical, the medical ones being taught by medical professionals, which then lead to exams. I understand in America where circumcision is more popular amongst Christians/general population, Mohels are often asked for by the parents on the basis they have so much more practice and experience. I can't give you more specifics about the training because I don't know, but I can assure you (this shouldn't really surprise anyone) that all my jewish friends who are parents make bl**dy sure the person they appoint as the Mohel knows what they are doing and is someone they fully trust, before they hand over the week old baby to have his foreskin cut off !
As for your question about licencing, the Beth Din is in fact a regulatory body who issue a licence for this, just as they issue kashrut (kosher) licences, which require incredible scrutiny (they have someone full time on the premises of say a kosher butcher or caterer, who if not present, means the business cannot operate). Like I say, I don't like some aspects of the Beth Din, but they are a licencing body
jonby said:
I'm now the jewish authority !
I don't know everything, but I'll answer the various questions as best I can
HOWEVER, there are some doctors who are mohels and in theory, you could have a religious ceremony carried out in a clinic, so it's possible to have a doctor (who is a mohel) doing it in a clinic, providing they do the religious element (basically a few prayers) too
Thanks for the info. I don't know everything, but I'll answer the various questions as best I can
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jonby, if a Jewish family wanted their son circumcised, but wanted it done in a hospital/clinic by an actual doctor, with no religious input at all, would that be acceptable? Is it the end result that's the goal or isn't it valid if prayers and stuff aren't said at the time?
It's not overly relevant to this debate, just interested to know.
If a jewish family want their son circumcised for religious reasons, then there has to be a religious element to the circumcision, which means it can't be done without religious inputIt's not overly relevant to this debate, just interested to know.
HOWEVER, there are some doctors who are mohels and in theory, you could have a religious ceremony carried out in a clinic, so it's possible to have a doctor (who is a mohel) doing it in a clinic, providing they do the religious element (basically a few prayers) too
So the arguments for:
1) God made me do it
2) There may be some undefined but medically relevant health benefits during adulthood to a small subset of males on the planet in specific circumstances
3) I had it done to me, I've done it to my kids, I'm a nice person therefore it must alright. Here are my retrospective arguments at self justification (see points 1 and 2)
4) Tackling the scale of childhood circumcision is too hard so we should ignore it
Not the most convincing of arguments, given that having a foreskin must confer some small survival or reproductive advantage for it to be have been maintained by natural selection. At worst having a foreskin does no harm, so why the rush to chop it off? I honestly can't see a single non-medical reason why allowing someone to make their own mind up when they are old enough is in any way a problem.
Well done on Iceland for making a stand, I hope some of the less enlightened Western democracies take a similar stand.
1) God made me do it
2) There may be some undefined but medically relevant health benefits during adulthood to a small subset of males on the planet in specific circumstances
3) I had it done to me, I've done it to my kids, I'm a nice person therefore it must alright. Here are my retrospective arguments at self justification (see points 1 and 2)
4) Tackling the scale of childhood circumcision is too hard so we should ignore it
Not the most convincing of arguments, given that having a foreskin must confer some small survival or reproductive advantage for it to be have been maintained by natural selection. At worst having a foreskin does no harm, so why the rush to chop it off? I honestly can't see a single non-medical reason why allowing someone to make their own mind up when they are old enough is in any way a problem.
Well done on Iceland for making a stand, I hope some of the less enlightened Western democracies take a similar stand.
gooner1 said:
The Surveyor said:
And why would you assume that somebody who supports the rights to continue with a tradition which is completely legal in the UK, would also support something that is rightly illegal.
So if tomorrow circumcision was made illegal, then your supportfor it would disolve, yes?
DurianIceCream said:
djc206 said:
Yes, prophylactic surgery refers to removal of bits at risk of cancer. Is foreskin cancer a thing?
Penile cancer is a thing, and being circumcised is associated with a lower risk of penile cancer. Not much lower, so I wouldn't get circumcised in order to avoid cancer DurianIceCream said:
Penile cancer is a thing, and being circumcised is associated with a lower risk of penile cancer. Not much lower, so I wouldn't get circumcised in order to avoid cancer
Nope. Here's a citation from the British Medical Journal disproving that notion. I know how you always demand sources yourself, except of course for your assertion above you didn't post anything.NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
EDITOR,—Although Morten Frisch and colleagues have made a valuable contribution to the study of penile cancer, they mistakenly repeat the myth that neonatal circumcision renders the subject immune to penile cancer.1 The reference given for this statement is not an epidemiological study but an opinion article by the American circumcisionist Abraham L. Wolbarst in 1932.2 Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a unbridled missionary zeal. It was not based on valid scientific and epidemiological research.
All subsequent repetions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation. Circumcisionists such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic to increase the rate of neonatal circumcision. It is surprising that sober scientists such as Frisch and colleagues could have relied on such a reference in their research.
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,0003 - somewhat higher than the rate of 0.82 per 100,000 found by Frisch and colleagues. Maden et al reported penile cancer among a fifth of elderly patients from rural areas who had been circumcised neonatally and had been born at a time when the rate of neonatal circumcision was about 20% in rural populations.4 Their study also shows that the rate of penile cancer among men circumcised neonatally has risen in the United States relative to the rise in the rate of neonatal circumcision.
Science must look beyond normal human anatomy to discover the true risk factors for penile cancer. Current investigations into risks posed by infection with human papillomavirus (circumcised males have been shown to have an increased rate of such infection) and use of tobacco have been instructive.5 Frisch and his colleagues have otherwise injected a welcome note of scientific rationalism into the debate over circumcision, which, despite the active participation of medical staff, is in essence an issue not of medical science but of human rights.
PAUL M FLEISS
Assistant clinical professor of pediatrics
8124 North Hillhurst Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
USA
FREDERICK HODGES
Medical Historian
PO Box 5456
Berkeley, CA 94507
USA
Frisch M, Friis S, Kruger Kjaer S, Melbye M. Falling incidence of penis cancer in an uncircumcised population. BMJ 1995; 311:1471 (2 December.)
Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3.
Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr. Third national cancer survey: incidence data. Bethesda, Md. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975
Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, et al. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. JNCI 1993;85:19-24
Cook LS, Koutsky LA, Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic. Genitourin Med 1993;69:262-4
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (London), Volume 312 Number 7033: Pages 779-780,
March 23, 1996.
Nanook said:
franki68 said:
I’m sorry but if you need a foreskin to lubricate a woman naturally then you are doing something wrong.
I'm sorry but if you need your foreskin removed to keep your cock clean, then you are doing something wrong.Or, if you think removing your foreskin is a good way to not catch AIDS or other STDs, then you are doing something wrong.
Or, if you believe removing your foreskin is a good way to please your God, who gave you it in the first place, then you are doing something wrong.
I could go on.
eldar said:
Dromedary66 said:
Good for Iceland. I hope they succeed where Denmark failed. It should be outlawed globally and be condemned in the same way that ritualistic female genital mutilation is.
I
Ban it, certainly. Putting male circumcision in the same class as FGM is completely wrong. The results of the two are not comparable in the degree of barbarity.I
I don't think either are acceptable and this is an excellent step forward by Iceland.
I accept the outcome of FGM is worse, but the intent is the same, and I have no problem in condemning it in the same way as FGM.
wc98 said:
to be fair i can't remember the pain. i can remember the longer stay than usual in the hospital due to infection (and according to my father the ineptitude of the surgeon, it looks like it was done with an axe) and the district nurse coming to the house for a period after the op to clean it with tcp . the smell of tcp turns my stomach to this day. that was a medically required circumcision that took place in hospital . i doubt very much those taking place outside of hospital have a lesser infection rate.
I can remember the pain - and the pain of infection afterwards (ward was pretty manky in those days). If I could of got it done when I was too young to remember I would definitely have picked that option. Jinx said:
I can remember the pain - and the pain of infection afterwards (ward was pretty manky in those days). If I could of got it done when I was too young to remember I would definitely have picked that option.
So I guess the question to that would be, is it more acceptable to cause infants pain providing they won't remember it in later life? DurianIceCream said:
djc206 said:
Yes, prophylactic surgery refers to removal of bits at risk of cancer. Is foreskin cancer a thing?
Penile cancer is a thing, and being circumcised is associated with a lower risk of penile cancer. Not much lower, so I wouldn't get circumcised in order to avoid cancer RTB said:
So I guess the question to that would be, is it more acceptable to cause infants pain providing they won't remember it in later life?
If there is sufficient medical evidence that there is a good chance they would need the op later in life then yes. Vaccinations cause pain now, to avoid worse pain (and possible death) in the future - some even leave permanent scarring (BCG anyone?) should we be so fearful of causing pain now that we avoid our responsibilities for improving their future? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff