Debate and Discussion

Circumcision, is it right or not?
Aurora Moon at 7:34AM, Feb. 26, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
So in the fluoride thread, product placement brought up another common practice in the USA. I thought it merited it own discussion thread, since I can easily see this derailing the other topic. :P
So here's the topic–
product placement
This also reminds me of something else. I learned few years ago that it's a standard procedure to circumcise male newborns in America. This is something that has been going on since the turn of the 20th century and as a result, majority of all men living in the states are circumcised. Reasons given to support it was to improve cleanliness, reduce risk of STD's (a claim yet to be proven) and to curb masturbation. One of the people spearheading the start of this practice was John Kellogg (yes, the guy who invented the breakfast cereal) a man who designed a penis cage and poured chemicals on woman's clitoris to “allay any abnormal excitement”. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I hardly think a newborn is in any position to argue whether or not he wants this procedure. It kinda makes me glad I was not born there.

I responded with:

My post
Not every hospital in the USA actually performs circumcision, P.P.

More than often they're usually only performed by opinionated doctors or doctors asked by equally opinionated parents.

Doctors can't do that without parents' consent anymore…. especially since how they got sued by some parents a very long while back. apparently in two states, those separate set of parents were rather upset to learn that their doctors had done this to their sons without even asking them if they preferred that their son have everything that they were born with intact. So of course they sued for a lot of money and won.

It's true that it's an common practice, though… simply because of this cultural thing about circumstanced weenies being more “atheistically pleasing”, and such.

It's gotten to the point where there's now more women who say they'll only do it with circumstanced males… because they don't want men who has wangs that looks like armadillos, etc. never mind that there's actually circumstanced males who has penises who look just like the circumstanced ones… especially when erect.

it's true that excess foreskin can lead to difficulties cleaning it, and thus lead to infections. I haven't heard of excess foreskins taking in more STDs than any other penises though…but I guess it could happen if it wasn't cleaned at all.


So a few extra thoughts I had on this topic:

while excess foreskin can certainly lead to infections… I have to wonder how many men were actually born with a HEALTHY amount of foreskin as opposed to being born with too much foreskin?

Because in my Google searches for research into this subject, I've actually seen penises with foreskins that looked no different than any circumcised ones… both erect and unerect. The only difference was that it was often slightly thicker than the avenge circumcised penis in width.

Of course, I've also seen ones where it was certainly A LOT of foreskin to the point where it gathered a lot of skin around the head and thus got coined as the “armadillo look”.

In the cases of excess foreskin, I could see that happening… But somehow I get the feeling that by far the majority of the cases are more for aesthetic reasons more than it's actually for health reasons. After all, surely not THAT many babies are born with excess foreskin?

And, somehow it doesn't just sit well with me if a person purposely alters thier children's bodies like that if it's not for a good reason… like an medical reason.

Thoughts on this?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Polkster at 7:48AM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
I guess it's a matter of taste


*ba-dump*
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
ipokino at 9:25AM, Feb. 26, 2009
(offline)
posts: 161
joined: 2-25-2007
I guess female circumcision as practiced by Muslims (especially in Africa) is far more abhorrent to me. However, there is a medical connection to circumcision and the occurance of cervical cancer in women. The glans of the penis secrets a hormone which is generally wiped away from circumcized penises by clothing, ect, but is usually left to build up on unC'd penises. This hormone when deposited on the female cervix appears to facilitate a certain type of cancerous growth. Just the facts as I have read.
Is the practice of parents choosing this procedure fair…no way…and I should know! Am I missing something…I have no way to know, but I wish I'd been left alone to be able to decide that myself!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
Product Placement at 12:07PM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
It was never meant to derail the topic. I mentioned this because it was brought up that people have fluoride in their drinking water whether they like it or not and that they should be able to get water that isn't medicated. It reminded me of this because I feel like that circumcisions are being done against the will of the children.

Anyways, As it's been already mentioned, I posted what Aurora has quoted above. What I knew for the longest time is that circumcision has been practiced for the longest time throughout the human history and according to Judaism it is considered a commandment from god and thus it is practiced among the Jewish. I always felt sorry for those children who were put through a bris but I thought nothing more of it since it's part of their religion.

Now throughout various comedy sketches of various films and shows and other media that streams in great quantities from America, I've noticed three fundamental ingredients required for male masturbation. A dirty magazine, tissue and lotion. Lotion? Why on earth would they be throwing lotion into that? Well, one faithful Sex and the City episode, watched with my wife, explained that to me when one of those girls dated an “gasp” uncircumcised man. She was so shocked that she actually convinced him to have his Johnson trimmed. My wife explained the significance of the episode and I researched into it.

As I mentioned before this practice started to become common around the turn of the 20th century. Around that time, poor hygiene was blamed for every ailment in the world. Genitals are often consider to be a very unclean part of our body so naturally some attention is placed on it when it comes to cleanliness. Then we have people like Kellogg. There have always been people who devoted large amounts of their time in discouraging sexual activities but Kellogg was a man unlike others. He held this belief that any form of sexual activities caused a wide range of illnesses all the way from urinary track disease, mental disorders and cancer. He proposed diets that he hoped would lower your libido. Nothing stimulating was allowed, hardly any meat, keep it healthy but plain. The reason why he worked on creating breakfast cereal is because he wanted to create the most unstimulating breakfast that you could possibly eat (although he didn't take into the equation the latter day sugary brands ^^). He claimed that sex was extremely unhealthy and that masturbation was worse than any war or plague that has ever affected man. The fact that married couples had sex was horrible to him and it's widely believed that he never had sex throughout his entire life despite marrying. Men like him got the idea into the American public that circumcision was necessary for all purposes. As he proposed the idea that every hospital should circumcise all newborns he offered the extra cleanliness as one of the pros but he never hid that the main reason behind his motives was to prevent male masturbation.

There is no study that I have ever seen that proved that foreskin helps in spreading STDs. However, Infections related to poor hygiene are common. The head of a penis has a layer of mucous membrane an outer layer of skin that excretes mucus that keeps the penis constantly lubricated. Now I know the word mucus makes it sound horrible and if allowed to accumulate it becomes as disgusting as it sounds. Mucus attracts bacteria but contains antiseptic enzymes and is thus produced in and around every orifice we have, mouth, ears, respiratory system, anus, genitals and such. Our orifices normally get rid of the mucus it produces easily via dumping it into the stomach, or out of our body. It's a bit harder for the penis to remove it's excess mucus and if left uncleaned it can build up and become growth centers for bacteria once the enzymes in it stops working. An early symptom where that starts to happen is when a foul smell starts emitting from your penis. Anyone who's stupid enough to not notice that smell and clean his penis will later on experience swelling and urinary infection. When a penis is circumcised the membrane dries up and stops working. Many have argued that drying up the membrane makes the penis more vulnerable to outside infections. However studies have shown that the amounts of infections related to a unprotected penis is less common than the amounts of infections related to uncleaned penis with foreskin.

Well this sounds like circumcision is good for you then, right? Well when it became a law among the Jewish people it was harder to keep yourself clean. That and eating no pork made lots of sense back then because it was dangerous. We live in a world were personal hygiene is so much easier to practice. If you can bother to lift up your foreskin for five seconds while showering, you never need to fear any infections.

Now when it comes to sex, that is when the foreskin gets to shine. After all, the genitals were specifically made for just that function. Specifically, it helps with the penetration. The excess skin helps the penis to glide into the vagina without chafing as it enters. This makes the sex more comfortable for the woman. This same gliding action is what makes it possible for men to masturbate without lubrication (I suppose you understand now why I never understood the lotion).

Now I guess there's nothing wrong with circumcision. If you really dislike the idea of having to regularly clean your penis then by all means go for it. But this is as an important part of our body. The decision should be ours.

I notice the mentioning of female circumcision. While it's not a Muslim tradition, it is commonly practiced by some tribes in Africa. The purpose of that treatment is to remove all parts that are considered erogenous zones on the female genitals to prevent her from receiving any pleasure from sex. It's equivalent of removing the entire head of the penis. It's barbaric and wrong and at that point I don't care if it's part of religion and tradition.

I apologize for the lengthy speech. I tend to do that from time to time.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
kyupol at 12:22PM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
I know this is a debatable issue.

Whether you're for it or against it, the point is that one needs to have it done with FULL CONSENT.

If you really believe in it and honestly think that its pleasing to God to have yourself circumsized, by all means, do it.

But circumsizing babies… FUCK NO.

At least let them grow at a certain age before making them make an informed choice regarding the matter.



If I had a choice to make an intelligent and informed decision, I won't be circumsized.

But too bad. I was born into a culture that circumsizes its males and ridicules those who don't conform to the norm of being circumsized.

You're a supot if you're not circumsized. The word “supot” is also hurled as an insult that implies weakness or inadequacy of some sort.

Ex:
"Mga supot mga taga skul na yan sa basketbol!!!“
(Those guys from that school suck in basketball!!!”)

"Supot ka naman pala. Wala ka naman binatbat"
(You're a loser. You're no match.)

You have to be a tuli (someone who is circumsized) to be accepted. lol!
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Orin J Master at 1:52PM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
cultural momentum. people are told it's a good thing, so they continue to do this “good thing” because somehow failing to would be bad, and trying to understand whyit's a good thing as opposed to just being stupid marks you as a heathen/imbacile/dissident.

odds are it doesn't really matter either way, but tell people their long-held beliefs are flawed and they'd sooner bite your neck open than admit they've been duped so long.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
imshard at 2:32PM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Let me tell you about my friend. He had a circumcision later in life. It was the biggest mistake ever made.

It now chafes all the time, its uncomfortable, he does not get the same stimulation, his partner enjoys it less, he actually starting contracting infections without the hood to shield it. etc, etc, etc.

It was a religious decision but it had widespread practical effects as well as psychological, and physical repercussions.

Here's a tip if you have a choice about circumcision: Don't.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
megan_rose at 5:48PM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
I've seen some parents pierce their kids' ears when they're newborns. Get it all out of the way early on and such. I think it's kind of crazy. But at least those kids can later in life decide they don't want pierced ears and let the holes fill back in. You can't grow back a foreskin.

I don't know much about penises, or appreciating them, but from what I've heard from most straight American females, they think uncut men look weird. But it's only because the majority of men here are cut, and it's very rare to see one uncut. So it only looks “weird” because it's unusual. But still, women think it's weird, and parents want their sons to grow up and not have their kid's genitals grossing out girls, so they keep on the tradition.

I think if given a choice, most guys wouldn't want a knife anywhere near their penis. I think it's pretty mean to make that choice for babies who have no say in it.


And as for female circumcision, there's actually several kinds.

Some remove the labia, which is a lot like removing the foreskin, in that, while labia do have lots of wonderful nerve endings, they aren't entirely required for sexual satisfaction, and the whole thing is purely aesthetic. (Though removal of labia removes the barrier than keeps out a lot of infections.)

Then there's the cutting of the clitoral hood. It doesn't remove the clitoris itself, but the hood is there for a reason. The clitoris is just way to sensitive to hang out unprotected all the time. Probably should go leaving it naked.

And lastly, there's the clitorectomy, which is an evil thing designed to keep women from having any sort of sexual satisfaction at all. Often done without anesthetic, too. These are also the same bastards who think vaginal lubrication is gross and women should be dry during sex. Basically, if it doesn't hurt her, the sex is wrong.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
ozoneocean at 7:05PM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Product Placement
There is no study that I have ever seen that proved that foreskin helps in spreading STDs.
Actually there are severl studies that prove it helps drastically reduce the spread of the very worst STD that there is: AIDS. Haven't done your research have you? ;)

So in quite a large sense, it's a very positive thing :)

On the negative side, in various European war situations like WW2 and the Balkans conflict of the 90's various factions used the fact that Jewish (in WW2) and mulsim (in the balkans) men were circumsised as a way of identifying them and so therefore seperating out them and their families for torture and death. :(

I've abanoned the Fluoride thread due to the silliness of the debate, it seems like this might promise to go exactly the same way.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Product Placement at 12:30AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ozoneocean
Actually there are severl studies that prove it helps drastically reduce the spread of the very worst STD that there is: AIDS. Haven't done your research have you? ;)
No Oz. Unlike some people, I actually DO my research.

The study you are referring to is flawed. It was claimed in 2000 that the foreskin contains lymph node cells (called Langerhans cells) that help spread the infection of HIV virus (AIDS is the resulting illness). Further studies have disproved these finding when it was discovered that these very same cells function like a natural barrier and has the potential to block sexual transmission of HIV.


Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
bravo1102 at 3:35AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,224
joined: 1-21-2008
Iif I remember correctly, or if the historians got the story right, there is a condiditon involving the foreskin that keeps a man from having a full erection and/or ejaculating. An excessively tight foreskin? (at least according to the most recent biography of Catherine the Great)

This condition supposedly was responsible for marital probelms once upon a time and was supposedly what keep Catherine of Russia and Marie Antoinette from having children by their husbands for such a long period of time and even been considered to have not consummated their marriage.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 7:54AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Product Placement
No Oz. Unlike some people, I actually DO my research.
Excuse me? lol!

I'm talking long after 2000 man. Because of the proven efficacy of circumcision in preventing the spread of AIDS it is one of the main methods endorsed in current World Health Organisation and UN programs in Africa, along with condom usage. Field studies have proved that it simply results in less chance of men contracting and spreading the disease. Not because of any exotic cells with amazing and silly properties, but because (as I understand it) it toughens up the skin on the end of the penis- makes it less prone to small skin tears which act as vectors for the virus.

A simple Google search turned up a lot of stuff about it…

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20070329/circumcision-new-weapon-against-aids

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/60938.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html

An amazing 60% decrease in the risk of transmission!
…So you might very well do your research, but is it up to date…? :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Product Placement at 1:06PM, Feb. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
My study is published 2007 so it's reasonably up to date.

Here, I'll give you some links.
http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/177/1/5a
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/abs/nm1541.html

However this one makes exelent points as well since the drying of the mucous membrane results in a tougher skin (an argument point claiming that it reduces the sensation of sex). However, I'd be inclined to believe that an unsurcumsised penis would increase the risk of HIV transmission from male to woman since it results in more chafing on her end. The study at least points out that it offers no evidence whether or not it protects woman.

I guess people are paying allot of attention in this area at the moment so I expect to see more publications related to this at future date.

Whether or not circumcision can offer protection it is important to take heed these important words: “Male Circumcision Does Not Replace Safe Sex”. I surly hope that anyone circumcised will not consider these studies as an imunity flag.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
ozoneocean at 6:44PM, Feb. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Well you did say
Product Placement
It was claimed in 2000
;)
Product Placement
Whether or not circumcision can offer protection it is important to take heed these important words: “Male Circumcision Does Not Replace Safe Sex”. I surly hope that anyone circumcised will not consider these studies as an imunity flag.
The results I'm talking about are the result of 3 separate randomised studies in Africa, so it's safe to assume they'r the main authority on the matter.
The World Health Organisation is using the results as part of a world wide initiative to combat the the spread of HIV. Of course they do not use it in isolation but as part of a wider program involving education of the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and free condoms. But together those factors are powerful weapons in combating the spread of the virus. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
BffSatan at 8:07PM, Feb. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
ozoneocean
it toughens up the skin on the end of the penis- makes it less prone to small skin tears which act as vectors for the virus.
You do know we don't live in third world Africa right?

In the western world AIDS spreads mostly between homosexuals because of anal sex, so theese tears on the foreskin really only matter in hetrosexual sex.

Circumsision is wrong, it's no different from giving a baby plastic surgeory.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:20AM
ozoneocean at 1:18AM, March 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
BffSatan
You do know we don't live in third world Africa right?
That's utterly irrelevant.
The point was that there was no proven protective medical reason for circumcision.

I proved that to be completely false.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
imshard at 2:52AM, March 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
A disease respects no nation, a plague knows no race, an illness stops at no borders. Certain STDs are always transmittable, and no measure short of abstinence guarantees protection. In high risk areas circumcision can help your odds considerably though.

That said, greater access to medical care, higher standards of living and better access to public sanitation mean that First world nations enjoy a lower overall risk making circumcision more of a lifestyle choice than a medical precaution.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
megan_rose at 4:55PM, March 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
BffSatan
In the western world AIDS spreads mostly between homosexuals because of anal sex, so theese tears on the foreskin really only matter in hetrosexual sex.


Um, actually, by this point, straight people are spreading it a LOT more. It's no longer a “gay” disease. Sure, engaging in male-on-male sex is more risky, but there are a lot more straight people with HIV than gay people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
Skullbie at 8:10PM, March 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 4,709
joined: 12-9-2007
Well I'll share my opinion on it, keep in mind this is only an opinion;

un-cut penises seriously creep me out, I've only seen pics of them, but it's like there's some skin worm covering them. And on top of that according to some of my guy friends- something called ‘dick cheese’ forms under that skin worm. I literally retched.

dick.cheese.

If girls had like crotch cheese naturally i'd certainly wish was girl circumcised


Plus the only ones complaining about circumcision being bad are men with uncut dings. I have never heard of a guy hating his parents because they got him circumcised, but i've read of many guys with uncut penises regretting that they never got it done. (i mainly hear this on places like /r9k/ but whatever)

dick.cheese.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:47PM
Skullbie at 8:16PM, March 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 4,709
joined: 12-9-2007
megan_rose
but there are a lot more straight people with HIV than gay people.
Straight people outnumber gays by a lot, but gay males actually do have a higher rate of HIV than straights on a percentage base(saying the gay population is only 10% and even then) the rate of HIV in gay men is still higher.


http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/hiv-rates-among-gay-men-straight-people-not-fully-explained-sexual-behavior-14204.html
Someone
in 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive.
Someone
The results showed that for the straight US population to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as great as that of gay men, they would need to average almost five unprotected sexual partners every year.
But this is mainly because unprotected anal sex has such a high rate of spreading it, not because gay men are deviants that have sex a lot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:47PM
Senshuu at 8:57PM, March 1, 2009
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 5-23-2006
I had my ears pierced as a baby. In retrospect it doesn't make sense, but I'm actually kinda glad for it. I want a second pair of piercings now, but not yet since it's expensive/hurts. :B

ON TOPIC!! The first time I saw an uncircumcised penis (on the internets, research woo) I was a little freaked out. But it's all-natural, and I respect that. If someone's comfortable with what they have down there I certainly wouldn't want to make them change it.

It sounds like if anyone would want circumcision it would be best actually if they had it as a baby, because any time after that and you're going to remember it. And you're going to know the difference. And that just doesn't sound nice. It's like my wussing out about a second ear piercing. *sensitive*

And all types of female circumcision just sound absolutely stupid.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:27PM
BffSatan at 12:00AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
Wow skulbie, dick cheese? You seriously believe that shit? There is no such thing, I would know.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:20AM
Aurora Moon at 12:06AM, March 2, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I've read a few stories where some incompetent doctors actually took off too much skin when the men were just babies. and then later on the men actually wound up having deformed penises because their penises didn't have enough skin on it for it to stretch and grow properly. I've seen the pictures… it was enough to give me nightmares for weeks… and I'm not even a guy!

and in a few cases, the babies even got injured badly during that.

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/hubler.html

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/index9.html
While the majority of neonatal circumcisions go “well”, the few complications that do occur are not simple. The most common complication is excessive bleeding, and after that is local infection. (Technically, one could say the circumcised penis itself is a “complication”, as it is a raw wound for a week or two afterward and the way it functions is drastically changed forever.) Other complications include penile adhesions- the remaining foreskin reattaches and forms scar tissue- and infection. Also, pretty common is meatal stenosis, a narrowing of the urinary opening which occurs in about 10% of circumcised males.

In 1998, there was a big news story about a boy who died following his newborn circumcision; includes seven other new stories on circumcision complications, as well. In fact, deaths from circumcision are rarely recorded as such, but rather, cited as “hemorrhage”, or some other issue which would not have happened, had the circumcision not taken place. The rate of complications is quoted as “1-2%”. Out of a million+ newborn circumcisions every year in the U.S., there are more than just “a few” boys this is happening to.

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html (has the photos of how deformed or how unhealthy a penis can be if the process went wrong somehow. VERY graphic!)

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/botch.htm
A six month old died when he bled to death after being circumcised. “It's something I'll never get over. This was my last child,” the mother said. The child was circumcised in the doctor's office which is something that occurs quite often. Once home, the mother saw he was bleeding from the incision. She called the doctor several times and was instructed to “put Vaseline around the penis area to stop the bleeding.” Finally paramedics were called, but the child was pronounced dead at the hospital.

The autopsy “revealed a seemly normal circumcision.” The doctor who performed the surgery said the circumcision had gone well and said that he would not have let him go home if he didn't think so.

In 1990, a three year old boy was circumcised at the Brook Plaza Surgical Ambulatory Center in Brooklyn. The clinic, a doctor and the rabbi who performed the operation were sued for causing “permanent shortening and disfigurement of the penis.” It was also alleged that the boy lost part of his penis during the procedure. The case was settled for $1.2 million.

Experts testified that when the boy reaches maturity, the mutilation would make sexual intercourse difficult.

Same Hospital, Same Day

An infant at Northside Hospital in Atlanta was severely injured in a circumcision accident in August, 1985, the day of his birth. The child, who is now 5 years old, had his penis severely burned during the mishap. It is believed that he “will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists.”

The case, at least at the time of the article in 3/91, was one of the the largest settlements ever even in a medical malpractice case, with Northside agreeing to pay in excess of $22.8 million.

“Attorneys alleged violations of hospital protocol and the use of inappropriate equipment for the circumcision. The hospital's usual equipment for circumcision was out of service the day the infant was born, and doctors instead used an electrosurgical unit ”that was contraindicated for use“ in infant circumcisions, the lawsuit alleged.”

As of 1991, the child had undergone several operations, including a series of reconstructive operations which are expected to continue until he is 15 years old.

ANOTHER INFANT at the same hospital on the very same day was so severely injured that the child, known as “Baby Doe”, underwent a sex-change operation. The lawsuit filed on his behalf was settled for an undisclosed amount.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3360954,00.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ (another page with pictures showing what can go wrong if you choose to do this for your son).

That sort of stuff is why I believe this shouldn't be forced on an infant. Sure it can help cut down the spread of disease, but do you honestly want to take the chance that your babies might bleed to death, or grow into an adult that ends up having an infected/deformed penis?
plus, to prevent any spread of diseases, all you have to do is educate your kids on how to wash their junk properly… and not be promiscuous, as well as practicing safe sex.

Heh. If I have kids, I'm leaving it up to them to choose whenever they want it or not.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
DAJB at 12:09AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
Seems to me, our bodies are the way they are for a reason. Why cut pieces off, if you don't have to?

Removing the foreskin seems to fly in the face of both the argument that God made us in his image (if you happen to believe in a God) and the argument that evolution has made us fit for the world around us.

The foreskin is there to protect a very vulnerable and sensitive piece of equipment. Remove it, if there's a problem with it. Leave it where it is, if there isn't!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
Skullbie at 1:02AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 4,709
joined: 12-9-2007
BffSatan
Wow skulbie, dick cheese? You seriously believe that shit? There is no such thing, I would know.
It's called ‘smegma’ in non-slang, and it does exist :'[

aurora
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html

gwaddwfdds why am i clicking these *closes*
Okay, these are certainly 10x worse than dick cheese, but is it common to have things go wrong with circumcision? I find that highly doubtful or we wouldn't do it so often.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:47PM
BffSatan at 4:05AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
Skullbie
It's called ‘smegma’ in non-slang, and it does exist :'[
Smegma can be prevented easily through washing, smegma also occours in women, circumsision does not necasairily prevent it. The wikipedia page on this is not very fun at all.

Skullbie
gwaddwfdds why am i clicking these *closes*
Okay, these are certainly 10x worse than dick cheese, but is it common to have things go wrong with circumcision? I find that highly doubtful or we wouldn't do it so often.
Except that's the point, there is a higher risk of permanent damage compared to no risk of permanent damage if it is left the way it's supposed to be. It's wrong to put anyone in a risky and superficial operation like this when they can not consent. You might as well just give an infant a nose job.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:20AM
Product Placement at 4:19AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Skullbie
dick.cheese.
If you read my lengthy post up at the top, I cover that subject. It's a lubricating, antiseptic fluid that the penis produces. It contains a high amount of carbon (otherwise known as fat) and gives that cheesy look if allowed to accumulate. A sane man would clean that away since accumulation could lead to an infection.

Your claim that only uncut men complain about circumcision is wrong because there are two examples of it right here on this topic (assuming they're telling the truth).
ipokino
Is the practice of parents choosing this procedure fair…no way…and I should know! Am I missing something…I have no way to know, but I wish I'd been left alone to be able to decide that myself!
imshard
Let me tell you about my friend. He had a circumcision later in life. It was the biggest mistake ever made.

It now chafes all the time, its uncomfortable, he does not get the same stimulation, his partner enjoys it less, he actually starting contracting infections without the hood to shield it. etc, etc, etc.

It was a religious decision but it had widespread practical effects as well as psychological, and physical repercussions.

Here's a tip if you have a choice about circumcision: Don't.
Now, since you're so grossed out about the look, it is only because you're used to the alternative. In areas where that's not the case, there's no phobia what so ever.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
Aurora Moon at 5:56AM, March 2, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Skullbie
gwaddwfdds why am i clicking these *closes*
Okay, these are certainly 10x worse than dick cheese, but is it common to have things go wrong with circumcision? I find that highly doubtful or we wouldn't do it so often.

it's because people are not really educated about what can actually happen.

it seems that most parents in America got it for their kids just because:

1)they had only seen cut penises before, and were SO USED to them that they found uncut ones ugly. to the point of actually having a phobia about uncut penises, regardless of what could happen if the cutting process went wrong.

2)The same goes for the women of America… and that's why they often say that they'd prefer cut over uncut. When parents hear those sort of studies about what women prefer when it comes to penises, they get their little boys cut because they don't want their little boys to be “outcasts”. After all, heaven forbid if their teenage boys doesn't get some loving from the teenage girls! :p Never mind that if it was really such a problem when it came to their love lives, they could had chosen to do it themselves instead of having their parents do it when they were babies.

3) the information about what can go wrong during cumicstion isn't very widely spread expect online. So that's why parents and such often get it, not really knowing the dangers. They only know That it apparently make things “easier” to clean, even though that's not really true…. unless you're living in a third world country where it's difficult to keep yourself clean on a regular basis.

4)They believe all the myths about uncut penises, even the “dick cheese” part.
Truth is, Just because the male bits can secrete that sort of stuff doesn't mean that it instantly acclimates an massive amount. And like P.P here said, Any sane man would clean that. Just stand there under a shower, and then there would be no problems with that. it's just that easy to wash.
It's true that women often get that “cheese” too if they don't wash down there regularly. So really, the whole “cheese” thing only becomes reality if the said person doesn't wash herself/himself on a regular basis.

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
be sure to read the whole sites. it's rather informative. they have a myth section somewhere about what people mistakenly believe about uncut penises.

so basically when most parents in America do it, they don't really actually make a informed choice. They just do it to go along with the crowd.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Skullbie at 7:00AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 4,709
joined: 12-9-2007


And from looking at sites on the net that aren't going ‘if it ain’t broke dont' fix it here look at some mutilated wiener' circumcision does have benefits:
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
Someone
1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

On top of this cut is a social norm in america as was addressed, and boys can have body image issues and wish they were cut when younger, but now fear the operation to do so with it being ‘painful’. Cutting is the responsibility of the parents to make, whether it's just because they want him to look like dad or because women really do prefer cut(looked around in many different forums the majority like cut) I hope they'll make it without being scared by anti-circumcision sites.

Either way I've spent way to much time discussing penis, i still think cut penises are better looking despite any assumptions i'm just used to them.
lol u thought i was gonna say it
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:47PM
DAJB at 8:16AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
I've learned one thing from this thread:
majority of all men living in the states are circumcised.
If that's true (and I'm not doubting it!), I find it astonishing. I wonder what other body parts we could make a case for cutting off “just in case” they get an infection in later life?

It's also explained one of the perennial mysteries of US teen comedies for me. I've never understood why it's always assumed that a teenage boy's bedroom would be equipped with a lifetime's supply of vaseline. If the poor guys have all been mutilated at birth, it suddenly makes so much more sense!

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved