Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Community Conversation => Transsexual talk => Female to male transsexual talk (FTM) => Topic started by: Matthew J. F on October 08, 2009, 05:10:47 PM

Title: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Matthew J. F on October 08, 2009, 05:10:47 PM
Hey bros!

I just got this in my mailbox earlier today.

QuoteNo medical society in the world recommends male circumcision - yet newborn circumcision is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S. and carries serious risks, including hemorrhage, infection, surgical mishap and death.

Help prevent a government recommendation of routine newborn male circumcision >>

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is reviewing new health claims about the "benefits" of circumcision - and may recommend this unnecessary surgery for our baby boys based on flawed studies that ignore the risks and ethics of circumcision.

Safer sexual practices and abstinence - not circumcision - prevent sexually transmitted diseases. And we know that there is NO link between infant circumcision and better health.

As a U.S. agency safeguarding public health, the CDC has a responsibility to share the truth about this painful and unnecessary practice. Ask that the CDC not recommend circumcision as a means of preventing HIV/AIDS and formally recognize the risks and harms of the procedure >>

Go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/760537185 (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/760537185) and sign the petition.

Checkout the graphical (weak stomachs should not watch this video!!!) video clip of a circumcision procedure done to this helpless baby... notice how the baby is screaming in pain while the doctor is butchering this baby's most sensitive area without general anesthesia.

Graphical video
Quotehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1482347046642439341 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1482347046642439341)

Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: placeholdername on October 08, 2009, 05:43:26 PM
Didn't watch the video but it was done to me and I don't remember a thing.  I don't think I'm alone in wishing there *had* been a mishap and they'd have switched me back then!  Not that that's good for everyone :P.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Janet_Girl on October 08, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
I started to watch but it became way too technical for me.  But Circumcision is nothing more than a Jewish/Christan tradition that goes back to Abraham.  Medically it is nothing but a doctor or parent forcing their religious view on the child.  And because doctors screw up many a child has been scarred for life.

This barbaric practice must stop as a general rule for baby boys.


Janet
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Flan on October 08, 2009, 06:22:57 PM
a fringe benefit of health insurance companies being cheap is this (male infant circumcision) is covered less and less because of lack of medical necessity :p
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Silver on October 08, 2009, 07:04:10 PM
Signed it. It was a little disturbing to watch, I didn't finish the video.

I stopped at the part where they were poking around inside his foreskin with a pair of scissors.

SilverFang
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Maebh on October 08, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
One can imagine what impact such barbarity has on the mind of a child. No wonder they blot it out of their conciousness, but somewhere this unnecesary traumatic and sadistic experience must have an a lasting effect. I am glad this was never done to me and that I refused for it to be done to my son.

HL&R

Maebh

Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: thestory on October 08, 2009, 07:19:43 PM
It doesn't mention it here but I have heard it also reduces sexual stimulation that is caused by the friction with the skin. Apart from that it is an unnecessary procedure and I have no clue why so many people do it, especially when it is not beneficial to anyones health.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Silver on October 08, 2009, 07:37:15 PM
Quote from: Kamren on October 08, 2009, 07:19:43 PM
It doesn't mention it here but I have heard it also reduces sexual stimulation that is caused by the friction with the skin. Apart from that it is an unnecessary procedure and I have no clue why so many people do it, especially when it is not beneficial to anyones health.

Religion is a funny thing.

At some point I read that they did it in Victorian times to prevent masturbation although I don't know how true it is.

SilverFang
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: thestory on October 08, 2009, 07:48:26 PM
Quote from: SilverFang on October 08, 2009, 07:37:15 PM
Religion is a funny thing.

At some point I read that they did it in Victorian times to prevent masturbation although I don't know how true it is.

SilverFang

The Victorian age was a strange time. Women were sent to the doctors so that they could masturbate them. Apparently to control their madness or whatever....wtf....
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Nero on October 08, 2009, 07:50:23 PM
I hope that the video is not really the norm for routine circumcision. God, the baby's screaming and the dad is becoming alarmed like asking the doc if he's sure he used an anesthetic. Where was this video filmed? Third world? I can't believe the baby isn't given a painkiller of some sort.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: placeholdername on October 08, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
Quote from: Maebh on October 08, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
One can imagine what impact such barbarity has on the mind of a child. No wonder they blot it out of their conciousness, but somewhere this unnecesary traumatic and sadistic experience must have an a lasting effect.

If you've never had it done then what do you know about the effect it has?  It's no different than men giving opinions on PMS or abortions -- they can't possibly know and neither can you.

What's more is that more often the lasting effect is the other way around -- kids who don't get circumsized are often teased by their peers about it.  Now that can be blamed on society's standard for circumcision being the norm, but the fact is that I don't know a single guy who has been 'traumatized' by this 'barbaric' procedure.  Kids are more likely to be 'traumatized' by getting a bad haircut.

I am however open-minded... if there's someone here who HAS been circumcised and feels it had a negative effect then that's a different story and I'd be interested to know more.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alex_C on October 08, 2009, 09:50:12 PM
The US has to stop this, it's nothing more than imposing religious mutilation on boys without their consent. It's been allowed to go on because it's profitable. The backlash is just beginning to build.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Hannah on October 08, 2009, 10:16:34 PM
I rather liked the origin of circumcision as portrayed in the movie "year one". If you can make it through the absolute horribleness of the rest of the film to get that far, it's cute  ^-^
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Silver on October 08, 2009, 10:20:36 PM
So why is this posted in the FTM section if you know, none of us were circumcised? Why not a non-transsexuality focused board?

SilverFand
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alex_C on October 08, 2009, 10:55:21 PM
I think it's because if we take T we're developing foreskins of our own and may be in sympathy of our fellow guys who didn't get the choice to keep theirs. Signing the petition is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Silver on October 08, 2009, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: Alex_C on October 08, 2009, 10:55:21 PM
I think it's because if we take T we're developing foreskins of our own and may be in sympathy of our fellow guys who didn't get the choice to keep theirs. Signing the petition is a no-brainer.

Really? All this time I thought the foreskin/hood stayed the same size through HRT.

Nevermind then.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 09, 2009, 12:48:32 AM
Well I happen to be a roundhead rather than a cavalier.  Not for religious or social reasons but because my foreskin was too small and it caused discomfort (I can't remember it, so I can't say if it hurt or not).  My younger brother had the same problem but they realized by then that there are other solutions that don't require cutting.

My understanding is that there is no medical need for circumcision.

As for sexual stimulation, yes - by virtue of the fact that the foreskin is removed, the underlying flesh of the glans dries out and is not as sensitive.  This hasn't prevented me from having a very enjoyable and fulfilling sex life although, of course, I wouldn't know what (if anything) I'm missing.

I guess a minor advantage is that there's no smegma but that's hardly a supporting justification.

In summary - there's no necessity, so it shouldn't be done.  However, as far as I can tell, it hasn't negatively impacted my life in any way whatsoever.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Lachlann on October 09, 2009, 01:39:11 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 08, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
If you've never had it done then what do you know about the effect it has?  It's no different than men giving opinions on PMS or abortions -- they can't possibly know and neither can you.

What's more is that more often the lasting effect is the other way around -- kids who don't get circumsized are often teased by their peers about it.  Now that can be blamed on society's standard for circumcision being the norm, but the fact is that I don't know a single guy who has been 'traumatized' by this 'barbaric' procedure.  Kids are more likely to be 'traumatized' by getting a bad haircut.

I am however open-minded... if there's someone here who HAS been circumcised and feels it had a negative effect then that's a different story and I'd be interested to know more.

Only in the US. It's more taboo where I live to be circumcised.

People are allowed to have opinions. Just because you were born a certain sex does not mean your opinion does not matter, because there are a lot of women who don't experience PMS or have the chance to be in a situation where abortion is an option. Persons born male who didn't get circumcised can still voice their concerns and still be validated in that.

There are men who are very upset they got circumcised and are looking for treatment while there are ones who don't mind. One person's experience does not equate to a fact, it all depends on the individual. You think there's nothing wrong with it, and that's just fine, but Maebh is completely justified as well.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Radar on October 09, 2009, 07:56:13 AM
Circumcision is barbaric, cruel & unnessasary. >:( It should never be done to an infant who has no say-so. If an uncut adult wants it done fine... but not a baby. My husband & his brother aren't circumcised because of a circumcision mishap that happened to a cousin. The knife slipped and took off half his head. Nothing could be done about it.

It's not difficult taking care of an uncircumcised penis. It's all about personal hygiene and common sense. There are many benefits to being uncircumcised, few being circumcised. Most other countries don't circumcise as a rule. There's a reason for that.

Post Merge: October 09, 2009, 07:03:47 AM

Quote from: Nero on October 08, 2009, 07:50:23 PMI hope that the video is not really the norm for routine circumcision. God, the baby's screaming and the dad is becoming alarmed like asking the doc if he's sure he used an anesthetic. Where was this video filmed? Third world? I can't believe the baby isn't given a painkiller of some sort.
No my friend- that's how they do it in the U.S. They use NO anesthesia because they believe it doesn't hurt and the baby screams just because he's scared. Swear to God. All they put on them is something to sterilise- like iodine in the video.

Post Merge: October 09, 2009, 08:12:06 AM

Quote from: SilverFang on October 08, 2009, 10:58:20 PM
Really? All this time I thought the foreskin/hood stayed the same size through HRT.
Oh no. Quite the opposite. Also, the bigger/longer it gets the more enraged I get about circumcision- and I was very anti-circumcision waaay before that.

FYI there is female circumcision too. It's done in some African cultures when the girl starts going through puberty. The main reason it's done is because it decreases sexual satisfaction for the woman to "help" prevent her from sleeping around. ALL circumcision- male & female- is unacceptable.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Miniar on October 09, 2009, 09:55:45 AM
All circumcision is mutilation in my mind.
In male circumcision they remove a large portion of the surface skin of the penis, with a large amount of nerve endings, and they do it without anesthesia.
They do this without consent!

There are men who're born with foreskin "problems" that can be helped with some trimming of it when they're of age, but they're nowhere near common enough to justify this.

The excuses (and yes, these are excuses, not reasons) used to continue to knowingly force excessive pain as well as mutilation upon a non-consenting infant have all been debunked save for one, and that is "everyone else is doing it".

It makes me angry.
Actually angry.
And very few things make me "actually" angry.

I've dated men who've been robbed of a portion of their penis at birth, and I've dated men who still have their whole penis.
There's a significant difference in function, sensitivity, ability to control, etcetera, and it is considered to affect the man's size into adulthood, negatively.

This is a purely aesthetic and social choice to do something extremely violent to a child that has NO chance to defend itself.
...

..
sorry 'bout ranting.

Anyway, I signed, and posted the link forward to FB, hoping some of my people sign it and post it forward.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Nero on October 09, 2009, 10:09:10 AM
That video changed the way I think about it. Doesn't seem like a big deal, except the kid is wailing in agony and the minutes slowly crawl by as you're watching. And when you think about it, how could some scissor-like thingies and knives on your genitals *not* be agony? I guess the kid doesn't remember it, but...ouch.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 09, 2009, 10:14:04 AM
QuoteThere's a significant difference in function, sensitivity, ability to control, etcetera, and it is considered to affect the man's size into adulthood, negatively.

To be clear, I am firmly opposed to circumcision also but on this specific point, my personal experience and, ahem, "feedback"  does not agree.  And to clarify, I'm not at all debating the veracity of your experiences...just stating that my own falsifies it.

Firstly, I don't know what function you think would have a significant difference. Percy points at the porcelain just fine, can stand and watch me shave and do all the primary functional things an uncut lingham can do.

As for sensitivity, yes that's indeed true due to the "hardening" of the glans surface but that can actually enhance ability to control by helping one last a little longer.  Without meaning to sound immodest, I frequently outlast my female companions (a nice problem to have, frankly).  On the size front, it's hard to say as I don't routinely do a side by side erect comparison ... no complaints so far but maybe they were just protecting my ego, hehe! :)

Finally, though, while the sensitivity issue is true and has a physiological explanation, I have yet to hear any such explanation for the other claimed effects.

Again, I do totally align with you in opposition to the practice of circumcision.  There is no justification for it.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alex_C on October 09, 2009, 02:31:05 PM
Quote from: SilverFang on October 08, 2009, 10:58:20 PM
Really? All this time I thought the foreskin/hood stayed the same size through HRT.

Nevermind then.

Um dude, it all GROWS. We're talking size of a lentil to size of a lima bean, and generally on from there, and the foreskin grows correspondingly. I don't want to get graphic here but there are pictures and videos out there on the net.

I'd long been interested in this issue (dad was uncut bro was cut) but with my new growth, I found myself going to sites about male anatomy to understand some of what was going on with me.

Nature put the foreskin there for a purpose and I think it's best not to mess with it.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: JonasCarminis on October 10, 2009, 02:27:53 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 08, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
If you've never had it done then what do you know about the effect it has?  It's no different than men giving opinions on PMS or abortions -- they can't possibly know and neither can you.

What's more is that more often the lasting effect is the other way around -- kids who don't get circumsized are often teased by their peers about it.  Now that can be blamed on society's standard for circumcision being the norm, but the fact is that I don't know a single guy who has been 'traumatized' by this 'barbaric' procedure.  Kids are more likely to be 'traumatized' by getting a bad haircut.

I am however open-minded... if there's someone here who HAS been circumcised and feels it had a negative effect then that's a different story and I'd be interested to know more.

as FTMs, we all have foreskins.  (unless subjected to female "circumcision")  This automatically makes our opinions "valid".  though i think our opinions would have been valid anyway because were human beings.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Nimetön on October 10, 2009, 03:07:08 AM
Quote from: Josh on October 10, 2009, 02:27:53 AM
as FTMs, we all have foreskins.  (unless subjected to female "circumcision")  This automatically makes our opinions "valid".  though i think our opinions would have been valid anyway because were human beings.

By a very similar argument, the most devout of religious adherents, who also have sexes, genitalia, hormones, and are also human beings, have a "valid" opinions with regard to your transition and your sexual behavior.

Locus standi is a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of any attempt to proscribe private acts, and religious practices, by means of legislation.  I'd recommend providing a somewhat more rigorous foundation than this, lest you unwittingly argue against your own interests.

- N
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 03:35:47 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 08, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
If you've never had it done then what do you know about the effect it has?  It's no different than men giving opinions on PMS or abortions -- they can't possibly know and neither can you.

What's more is that more often the lasting effect is the other way around -- kids who don't get circumsized are often teased by their peers about it.  Now that can be blamed on society's standard for circumcision being the norm, but the fact is that I don't know a single guy who has been 'traumatized' by this 'barbaric' procedure.  Kids are more likely to be 'traumatized' by getting a bad haircut.

I am however open-minded... if there's someone here who HAS been circumcised and feels it had a negative effect then that's a different story and I'd be interested to know more.

You can't change norms by continuing to conform to them.  And just because a child can't remember something, doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on them.

Also, despite the fact that we don't know from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE what it is actually like to go through circumcision, doesn't mean that we can't have sympathy for those who go through it.  I also doesn't mean we can't be educated about what it does.  How does medical or psychological research progress?  All the psychologists publishing studies on bipolar disorder or OCD haven't had the disorders and haven't gone through the treatments.  Sometimes they don't even actually conduct the studies, they just analyze the data.

Kids who have gay parents are often teased about it, but it's not actually worse for them than having straight parents.  You didn't say this, but the effect your words have on me is that you'd rather keep circumcision around because kids will be less likely to get teased?  Or am I miss understanding?

Whether or not we can prove people are traumatized, there are other negative effects that have been repeatedly pointed out.  If circumcision is less common, people won't be stigmatized for it.  Just like, if having gay parents isn't looked negatively upon because everyone is properly educated about the "effects", their children won't be teased as much.  Just like, if people are educated about transpeople and how gender works in conjunction or separate from sex, we will be less likely to be shunned and left unprotected.

Obviously, having skin on your penis vs. not isn't as dire of a situation as being transgender, but the point was made that there might be lasting effects from being teased about it, and I just wanted to make a point that it's not a fixed problem.  It can change.

Quote from: Nimetön on October 10, 2009, 03:07:08 AM
By a very similar argument, the most devout of religious adherents, who also have sexes, genitalia, hormones, and are also human beings, have a "valid" opinions with regard to your transition and your sexual behavior.

Locus standi is a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of any attempt to proscribe private acts, and religious practices, by means of legislation.  I'd recommend providing a somewhat more rigorous foundation than this, lest you unwittingly argue against your own interests.

- N

By the same token, I hope some cispeople have opinions on transgender issues.  We need allies to help make non-discrimination policies that include gender identity.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: JonasCarminis on October 10, 2009, 03:41:22 AM
Quote from: Nimetön on October 10, 2009, 03:07:08 AM
By a very similar argument, the most devout of religious adherents, who also have sexes, genitalia, hormones, and are also human beings, have a "valid" opinions with regard to your transition and your sexual behavior...
im not quite sure what this has to do with anything, but yes, im sure they have opinions on my transition and sexual behavior.  care to enlighten me?
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alex_C on October 10, 2009, 03:59:16 AM
I think they're saying my arguement "Nature made the penis that way for a reason" arguement may not be a good one.

I'll make instead the argument that it's not medically necessary and it's non-consensual.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: JonasCarminis on October 10, 2009, 04:04:56 AM
i never made an argument either way though, which is why i was confused about his/her reply.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: placeholdername on October 10, 2009, 04:08:40 AM
Quote from: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 03:35:47 AM
You can't change norms by continuing to conform to them.  And just because a child can't remember something, doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on them.

Also, despite the fact that we don't know from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE what it is actually like to go through circumcision, doesn't mean that we can't have sympathy for those who go through it.  I also doesn't mean we can't be educated about what it does.  How does medical or psychological research progress?  All the psychologists publishing studies on bipolar disorder or OCD haven't had the disorders and haven't gone through the treatments.  Sometimes they don't even actually conduct the studies, they just analyze the data.

Kids who have gay parents are often teased about it, but it's not actually worse for them than having straight parents.  You didn't say this, but the effect your words have on me is that you'd rather keep circumcision around because kids will be less likely to get teased?  Or am I miss understanding?

Whether or not we can prove people are traumatized, there are other negative effects that have been repeatedly pointed out.  If circumcision is less common, people won't be stigmatized for it.  Just like, if having gay parents isn't looked negatively upon because everyone is properly educated about the "effects", their children won't be teased as much.  Just like, if people are educated about transpeople and how gender works in conjunction or separate from sex, we will be less likely to be shunned and left unprotected.

Obviously, having skin on your penis vs. not isn't as dire of a situation as being transgender, but the point was made that there might be lasting effects from being teased about it, and I just wanted to make a point that it's not a fixed problem.  It can change.

By the same token, I hope some cispeople have opinions on transgender issues.  We need allies to help make non-discrimination policies that include gender identity.

I was responding to the people who were saying 'look how barbaric that is! it must cause long-lasting trauma to those people!'.  As someone who has been circumcised I find it a bit offensive for people to judge whether or not i am traumatized based on an experience they can't have.  It seems a little unbalanced when it's the people who haven't had it done that are railing against it, while I have yet to find someone who has had it done that feels it was traumatizing (not that there aren't any).

There's also a huge difference between male circumcision which has legitimate pro's and con's and both sides, vs female circumcision which (to my limited knowledge) involves cutting off whole organs and is primarily done to enforce a male-dominated social structure.  Now you might think, isn't that hypocritical of me? but my outlook is this: the only reason I have any knowledge of it is from the countless accounts by women who have suffered through that, and I support *them* in their fight to stop that practice.  But I can't say that I would *necessarily* believe it to be traumatizing without their accounts because how could I possibly know?  I mean I think it would be fairly traumatizing to get my tongue pierced but plenty of people do that and seem perfectly fine.

Personally, I'm not for or against male circumcision -- I don't know what I would do if I had a son (would prefer girls), but if the mother/father and I decided for circumcision, we'd definitely have it done with local anesthetic.  But to be honest, that would just be to ease my own conscience -- I didn't have it done with anesthetic and I can't remember the experience whatsoever, nor do I have any irrational fears about sharp things near there or any other evidence of 'trauma'.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 10, 2009, 06:37:59 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 10, 2009, 04:08:40 AM
I was responding to the people who were saying 'look how barbaric that is! it must cause long-lasting trauma to those people!'.  As someone who has been circumcised I find it a bit offensive for people to judge whether or not i am traumatized based on an experience they can't have.  It seems a little unbalanced when it's the people who haven't had it done that are railing against it, while I have yet to find someone who has had it done that feels it was traumatizing (not that there aren't any).
[...]

I understand the sentiment, as a fellow roundhead...but it's not unsual for folks to assert a position as a generalized belief without qualifying it with exceptions etc..  While I do think some could use a little more thought in how they articulate their opinions, I don't take them personally unless it was clearly intended as such (and conversely, we don't want to communicate like lawyers in some tangled forum-esque legalese!)

So yes, I do completely agree that folks shouldn't assert subjective experience that they cannot access as fact...but I welcome opinion sharing (and I know you weren't suggesting otherwise).  It would be hypocritical of me to try and deny them, as I often sling my opinion in on plenty of topics here that I haven't personally experienced (as a non-transitioning cis-gendered person who happens to be an SO).  :)
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 06:54:10 AM
I think, as I understand it, we are arguing that people shouldn't be lead to believe circumcision is beneficial.  I think that if you DO have religious beliefs that require it, I'm not going to stand it your way.  However, if you have a preference to be cut and that is the only reason you want it for your kid, save that talk for puberty or something.

However, people still take part in it "just because" due to the fact that's "how it's done" even when they have no real reason.  Since we have no evidence for trauma and we do know there are benefits for NOT circumcising, I think people need to be more educated about options and doctors need to stop pushing for it.  Patients are generally asked their religious preferences went entering a hospital (at least in the US) so the doctor's should know to offer circumcision or the parents should know to ask for it.

OH AND anesthesia.  Please.  My boyfriend was watching the video of that baby and I couldn't even listen to it for 5 seconds without being sick to my stomach.  I wasn't even looking at it.  I don't know how doctors can assume that is from fear and not pain, since babies have no innate fear of surgical instruments.  True, they are away from their mother, but the crying was much worse during the procedure than before the baby was actually cut.  Being traumatized or not, it's not right to cause them that much pain when it can reasonably be avoided to a degree.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: placeholdername on October 10, 2009, 07:07:26 AM
Minor point -- I'm not sure if this is a myth or not but I do remember from somewhere that getting it done later in life is actually more painful than if you have it done when you're an infant.  I don't know how people would gauge the relative pain exactly, though.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Miniar on October 10, 2009, 07:12:46 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 10, 2009, 07:07:26 AM
Minor point -- I'm not sure if this is a myth or not but I do remember from somewhere that getting it done later in life is actually more painful than if you have it done when you're an infant.  I don't know how people would gauge the relative pain exactly, though.

In all probability it's more about being able to remember the pain or not.
_

On the subject of "you can't comment on the trauma factor of an experience without having experienced it"..
I find that suggestion illogical, if not offensive.

Not possessing a foreskin doesn't mean I can't hear the amount of pain in the infant.

Mind you, I think it doesn't cause lasting trauma to the psyche because it's forgotten. None of us remember anything from the first few months of life. But that doesn't mean that the experience itself isn't traumatic when it happens.

"Trauma" is a part of life and a significant part of growing up, but unnecessarily inflicting copious amounts of pain on an infant for (mostly) an aesthetic reason will always appear immoral to me.

Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 07:13:19 AM
QuoteMinor point -- I'm not sure if this is a myth or not but I do remember from somewhere that getting it done later in life is actually more painful than if you have it done when you're an infant.  I don't know how people would gauge the relative pain exactly, though.

Well, your skin is naturally able to be pulled back to the place they will cut it to when you in puberty.  When you're an infant, it is unable to do this.  They have to ... ug.  I can't describe it without getting squicked.

Anyway, I know it's a common myth that infants "don't feel pain during circumcision," so what you said that may well be rooted in myth as well.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 10, 2009, 07:20:29 AM
A pal of mine had it done at 19 (same reason I did, just that it was done much later).

It was done under anaesthetic and he said it was most uncomfortable post-op but not agonizing.  He also remarked on the impressive (if temporary) swelling :)
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: placeholdername on October 10, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
Quote from: Miniar on October 10, 2009, 07:12:46 AM
In all probability it's more about being able to remember the pain or not.
_

On the subject of "you can't comment on the trauma factor of an experience without having experienced it"..
I find that suggestion illogical, if not offensive.

Not possessing a foreskin doesn't mean I can't hear the amount of pain in the infant.

Mind you, I think it doesn't cause lasting trauma to the psyche because it's forgotten. None of us remember anything from the first few months of life. But that doesn't mean that the experience itself isn't traumatic when it happens.

"Trauma" is a part of life and a significant part of growing up, but unnecessarily inflicting copious amounts of pain on an infant for (mostly) an aesthetic reason will always appear immoral to me.

I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below).  But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?  It's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.

A lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?

It's a complicated issue -- "Circumcision is traumatic and wrong" is not the answer.


Quote from: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 07:13:19 AM
Anyway, I know it's a common myth that infants "don't feel pain during circumcision," so what you said that may well be rooted in myth as well.

I mean, I think that's crazy talk, that they don't feel pain during it,  but there's also the factor that puberty causes numerous changes in that area of the body -- I mean there's a point were the nerves that get stimulated during sex wake up and they're not active before then.  It wouldn't seem illogical to me that there's a legitimate difference in the subjective pain from circumcision pre-puberty vs post-puberty, but it's just speculation on my part based on something half-remembered.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 10, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
I don't think the pain aspect is the fundamental point either.  To my mind, it's more about whether there is any rational necessity or not...and that's the extent of my opposition to the practice.

Some do take a more "militant" stand against male circumcision and, where we talking about female circumcision (or, more accurately, genital mutilation) then I'd be right up there with them.

However, accidents not-withstanding, the "mutilation" of the male organ seems comparatively mild and far from the debilitating intervention it's claimed to be.  So yes, I'm opposed and would, for example, vote against it.  I won't, however, be marching on parliament over it. :)
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Miniar on October 10, 2009, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 10, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below).  But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here correctly.
Every time I read it I see "what the child doesn't remember doesn't harm the child".
Surely you don't mean that. That would mean that as long as the child doesn't remember it, inflicting any kind of pain or abuse on the child is "okay".
Surely you don't mean to imply that an infant screaming in pain is "no biggie cause he'll just forget".
Where do you draw the line? How much damage can be done to an infant without it mattering just cause he/she won't remember?
It brings up images of Peter Connelly (put his name into youtube and watch the video for details) to my mind. An infant that was beaten, treated like a ragdoll, used to train a rottweiler to kill, had his spine snapped and eventually punched until he died all by his stepfather. If the boy had lived he would almost certainly had grown up to forget his ordeal, does that mean that the suffering he lived through was unimportant?

And what about intersexed infants?

The logic eludes me.
Wanting to prevent a child from going through an extreme amount of pain for no good reason what so ever, regardless of whether or not the child actually remembers it in 10 years time, is, to me, about sparing the child the pain. It's not about sparing the parents the indignity of having knowingly allowed their child to be tortured, but about not allowing the torture to start with.

Quote from: KetsyIt's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.
It is a far step.
One is a cosmetic alteration of a bodypart, one that inflicts extreme amounts of physical pain and is done without anaesthesia, and is perfectly avoidable.
The other is not. Being gay/trans/etc is not a choice, circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not something that is done to you (let alone without permission), circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not cosmetic, circumcision is.
See what I'm getting at?
There's quite a leap between telling people "no, you may not consciously choose to inflict extreme damage and pain on your children's genitalia" and suggesting that parents somehow prevent children from growing up to be themselves.
Honestly, the suggestion seems absolutely preposterous.

Quote from: KetsyA lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?
Again.
How much harm is "okay" to do to an infant under the rule of "they won't remember it"?
At what point does "Do Not Harm Your Child!" stop being about the parents and start being about the child to you?

I just got to ask.

Cause I really can't understand the logic behind this reasoning.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 08:57:43 AM
Quote from: Ketsy on October 10, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below).  But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?

Huh.  I didn't remember some of the traumatic things that happened to me in adolescence in an abusive situation.  However, I'm very sure, even before I did recover the memories that they did, in fact, impact me.  I'm not saying that not remembering something as an infant is entirely congruent, but especially after Miniar's example, I really don't want this "If you don't remember it, it won't hurt you" crap to keep going.  It's utter bullsh*t.

I don't see how NOT circumcising the child is acting against their interests.  Most people that aren't circumcised don't choose to be later.  If they ELECT to have that surgery, they aren't going to be traumatized by it.  I wasn't traumatized by my double mastectomy because I wanted it.  Someone who had it because they had cancer and absolutely loved having breasts might indeed be traumatized by the same surgery.  I don't think finewine's friend was traumatized by their circumcision, despite the discomfort.

Quote from: Ketsy
It's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.

I fail to see congruence.  Aside from Miniar's point of circumcision being elective and gender and orientation NOT being elective, I don't like the implication that being gay needs to be avoided.  I don't want to get into trans details because at this point that requires medicine and surgery and is far longer of a debate.  However, having a non-heterosexual orientation is not something that needs to be fixed (which I don't think you're debating, as you're here). As I have stated before in this thread, if people had a general acceptance of it (which will hopefully continue to become more and more prevalent) then there won't NEED to be a wish for a parent to save their child the pain of being born that way.

Quote from: Ketsy
A lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?

What about the people who aren't the parents of said child who HAVE been circumcised and wish they hadn't been?  I know we aren't part of that population, but there are people that are part of this discussion in other spheres that fit this description.

Also, at this age, the child hasn't even reached an age where they can give "assent," where the parent gives consent and the child agrees that they want to do it.  Without at least religion poking in and giving SOMEWHAT of a reason, I don't see how doctor's can advocate for something that SERVES NO MEDICAL PURPOSE, COSTS MONEY, and CAUSES PAIN.  If you don't believe it is necessary for your beliefs, why have your child circumcised at all.  I don't want to get in a religious debate, which is why I'm still including religion as a reason to have your child circumcised.

Quote from: Ketsy
I mean, I think that's crazy talk, that they don't feel pain during it,  but there's also the factor that puberty causes numerous changes in that area of the body -- I mean there's a point were the nerves that get stimulated during sex wake up and they're not active before then.  It wouldn't seem illogical to me that there's a legitimate difference in the subjective pain from circumcision pre-puberty vs post-puberty, but it's just speculation on my part based on something half-remembered.

I know for a fact that prepubescent children can have orgasms.  I'm talking like 3 year olds that masturbate here.  It's well enough known, it was even part of an episode of House once.  So obviously you can be sexually stimulated before puberty.  If a biologically male person got kicked in the goods at age 5 he'd still go down just as though he were 18.  Not the same bit of anatomy as we're talking about for circumcision, but related to your argument.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 10, 2009, 09:03:46 AM
QuoteI don't see how NOT circumcising the child is acting against their interests.

Couldn't agree more - thank you for capturing the point with concise precision! :)
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Kayden on October 10, 2009, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: finewine on October 10, 2009, 09:03:46 AM
Couldn't agree more - thank you for capturing the point with concise precision! :)

I think I shall make a banner for it. :P
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Vancha on October 17, 2009, 04:19:15 AM
This has probably already been stated on this thread numerous times, but I am going to take Freud's standpoint that there are subconscious memories that we all possess that impact our behavior for the rest of our lives; memories of events that took place before we were able to retain conscious memory.  I think this theory speaks for itself; imagine an infant that was in a small cage and fed only with a robotic hand.  The infant would be scarred for life.  Trials with animals of high intelligence have shown that those who are given something to snuggle with, or social interaction when infants grow into far more stable adults; those who do not are neurotic.  I think then, a traumatic experience in infancy has the potential to scar children. 

I don't believe in circumcision myself, you could say, but I know some do.  My opinion is that while I don't think religion should ever dictate that something as irrelevant as that be done, which is purely ritualistic, if it needs to be, or will be regardless of laws or pressure, it should be done with anesthetic.  We give animals anesthetic and perhaps we could argue they won't remember it.  It's simply barbaric not to give a newborn anesthetic when dealing with such sensitive areas of the body.  I do think circumcision is a ritual that reflects religion's hatred and repression of sexuality, and I think that should have no place in modern society.  ...But what I think doesn't really have an impact at all.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: DarkLady on October 17, 2009, 05:17:07 AM
Now the petition has my signature. 
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alyssa M. on October 19, 2009, 06:51:04 PM
That's one decision of my parents I'm happy about. It's not my parent's business to mess with my bits, however I might feel about them. I figure that at least I ended up with more raw material to work with for SRS.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: placeholdername on October 19, 2009, 07:18:25 PM
Quote from: Miniar on October 10, 2009, 08:24:37 AM
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here correctly.
Every time I read it I see "what the child doesn't remember doesn't harm the child".
Surely you don't mean that. That would mean that as long as the child doesn't remember it, inflicting any kind of pain or abuse on the child is "okay".
Surely you don't mean to imply that an infant screaming in pain is "no biggie cause he'll just forget".
Where do you draw the line? How much damage can be done to an infant without it mattering just cause he/she won't remember?

Trying to clarify what my point is because it's a bit tricky: I'm not saying that because the child won't (or likely won't) won't remember the pain, then that means it's okay.  I'm saying: if the child likely won't remember the pain, then let's be very clear about why exactly we want to stop this practice, which clearly includes more than just 'sparing the child pain that probably won't affect them ever'.  Mostly a reaction to the people (not everyone) who were going on about male circumcision being traumatic/sadistic/barbaric/etc.

Quote from: Miniar on October 10, 2009, 08:24:37 AM
And what about intersexed infants?

Actually I made sort of a similar argument in a thread on that subject:  Yes I agree that some intersex children are irrevocably harmed by the 'corrective' surgeries.  And yet a fair number of intersex kids who had those surgeries go on to lead completely normal lives and would be surprised to learn they were ever anything other than what they appear to themselves to be.  In fact, had those children NOT had that surgery, they might have suffered plenty of trauma from being teased and abused and possibly even murdered if a prospective sexual partner experienced so-called 'trans-panic'.

So on the subject of intersex surgery, as with male circumcision, my opinion is not that either is 'definitively right' or 'definitively wrong', but that the answer is complicated and cannot be simply one or the other.

Quote from: Miniar on October 10, 2009, 08:24:37 AM
One is a cosmetic alteration of a bodypart, one that inflicts extreme amounts of physical pain and is done without anaesthesia, and is perfectly avoidable.
The other is not. Being gay/trans/etc is not a choice, circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not something that is done to you (let alone without permission), circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not cosmetic, circumcision is.
See what I'm getting at?
There's quite a leap between telling people "no, you may not consciously choose to inflict extreme damage and pain on your children's genitalia" and suggesting that parents somehow prevent children from growing up to be themselves.

Er, I think you're taking that example opposite of how I meant it.  Parent's have a choice in whether they have their male children undergo circumcision, and part of the logic used against it is to 'spare the child the pain' (as is exemplified in this thread).  Mistakenly or not, many parents have the idea that they can spare their child the 'suffering' (such as societal discrimination and prejudice) of being g/l/b/t.  If there were a pregnancy test for determining your child's sexuality (such as with down's syndrome etc), and there were a genetic treatment which could 'correct' this in the womb so that the child would be born heteronormal, how many parents would choose to make this correction?  A hell of a lot of parents would, no matter how much we on this forum would all agree that that would be wrong, and many would do so on the basis of 'sparing the child the pain'.

My point in making that example is not to compare one to the other objectively, but to point out that arguments based on 'sparing the child the pain' can lead to dangerous thinking.  Pain is not objectively bad, and physical pain especially is the easiest to overcome and in many cases forget entirely (as evidenced by the majority of people who have no regrets about their own circumcision).

So overall, as I stated previously, I'm not really decided for or against male circumcision, but I don't think 'sparing the child the pain' is a valid reason in and of itself.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Nicky on October 19, 2009, 07:57:25 PM
Seems like a totally bizarre thing to do. In many cases it seems to have lost any real cultural significance and is done just because 'that's what you do'.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision)

Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: YoungSoulRebel on October 21, 2009, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: Janet Lynn on October 08, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
I started to watch but it became way too technical for me.  But Circumcision is nothing more than a Jewish/Christan tradition that goes back to Abraham.
Technically, it's not even a Christian one.  Paul specifically noted that it wasn't necessary.

The reason it's so common in the United $tates goes back to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (yes, one of the Corn Flakes guys [his brother actually took the patent for those and ran]), who... was pretty messed-up in the head.  While he had a few good ideas (he was one of the first doctors to advocate vegetarianism for health benefits), he was vehemently anti-masturbation and in his personal life, was anti-sex to the point that all his children were adopted.  He advocated circumcision to a Victorian anti-sex society as a means of preventing masturbation (and for infant girls, he recommended burning off the clitoris with carbolic acid).  By the time people who weren't Kellogg (cos he lived well into his nineties) realised that circumcised boys masturbate anyway, the U$ medical community somehow had somehow lost all knowledge of how to clean intact penises, so they started making up reasons to keep doing it -- the most prevalent being "it's cleaner / you'll get smegma, otherwise", which completely ignores the fact that the average vulva produces far more smegma than the vast majority of intact penises.

In short, there is no reason to circumcise, en masse, in the United $tates.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alex_C on October 22, 2009, 01:29:45 PM
Ask the man who owns one  ;D

I like my little developing foreskin! And I've been looking like crazy for smegma and that's just not a problem.

Yes, there was a HUGE anti-masturbation and anti-sex movement in the US, there was some of this in England too (the Boy Scouts were started in England and the idea was to basically keep boys busy enough hiking etc that they'd be too tired to masturbate at night) but we in the US really took it to the Nth degree.

Apparently little kids like to hump stuff, mostly boys do it but some girls too, and parents are often startled (if they're living in a nuclear family where there are no aunts, uncles, grandparents etc around to tell 'em it's normal) to see their teeny kids humping blankets, the vacuum cleaner, each other..... it passes in time and it just part of "learning play" that kids do. Parents get all freaked out that their kids are "sinning" and yell at them, etc getting them started on the whole sex = bad thing that's a fundamental belief here in the Empire.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: childofwinter on October 22, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
Circumcision of any child (or adult without consent) is wrong. It is mutilating the body.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: YoungSoulRebel on October 22, 2009, 03:33:18 PM
Quote from: Alex_C on October 22, 2009, 01:29:45 PM
Ask the man who owns one  ;D

I like my little developing foreskin! And I've been looking like crazy for smegma and that's just not a problem.
Well, the circumcision racket in the U$ has actually seriously confused people as to what smegma actually is.  Basically smegma is the lubricating film that keeps the glans of the penis, as well as the folds of the labia minora and clitoris moist -- the word comes from the ancient Greek for "soap" because it has that filmy-soapy sort of texture.  Trust me, barring some bizarre medical condition, you're producing it, but you don't even really notice it because (I'm guessing) you shower or bathe daily.

If you don't bathe yourself regularly, smegma can build up quite thick and produce a kind of pungent odour similar to certain cheeses -- but my room-mate, who is a natal man, is circumcised and his pyjama shorts get that same kind of funk if he goes two weeks without washing them.  Basically, it's just a natural sort of musk that morphs into a "cheesey" sort of smell when allowed to build up and kind of "go stale".
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Alex_C on October 22, 2009, 11:40:44 PM
Haha yes well I know a little about not bathing for a few days, and yeah, it's a cheesy smell.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Myself on October 23, 2009, 02:23:43 AM
Personally I didn't even know how one should *really* look like before seeing my boyfriend's.

I think mine looks prettier (I hate mine :/)

I don't think it had any effect at all, some people said it has loss of sexual sensation but I won't know that even if I tried, and I don't really use it so..

To only real loss I can imagine is for people doing GRS (genital, not gender), to lose a bit of material.
But reading on sites like suporn, who really needs 8.5 inch deep vagina when the average is maybe like 5 inch?
And it;s only a bit of material loss.

I find the outside look and sensations be be more important than how deep it is, I don't think that tyhe surgery is only so people can change from "mine is longer" to "mine is deeper" :D

The only reason I find against it is that parents do it without the child's agreement.
I might be able to say "there is a sexual sensation loss too" but I dunno..

The only other reason (I find only to be so incorrectly used in this post [only :D]) is that people do it because of some silly fairy tale just seems.. where are the guys with the white outfits? oh! I know! they are too busy "taking care" of people with actual biological disorders rather than people who believe in fairy tales :D
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Jay on October 23, 2009, 09:14:47 AM
To be honest, I haven't posted in this topic.. simply because I don't really care.

Heartless?? Maybe meh..

Jay
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
Am I the only one who is bugged by the deliberately misleading title of this post? Nobody is recommending mandatory circumcision for all boys.  Please, leave the fear-mongering sensationalism to the right-wing idiots and keep to the actual facts.

Now, that being said, I agree that forcing circumcision on infants is wrong, especially if they really do do it without anesthetic.  That's just cruel. 

However, studies have shown that circumcision does reduce the chances for acquiring an STD, especially AIDS, because the foreskin is more fragile, and therefore more likely to be torn and create a route into the body.  Circumcision also greatly reduces the number of UTIs that boys suffer from.  And further research, focusing on men who have been circumcised as adults, has shown that little if any sensation is lost due to circumcision.  (I suspect it's very much like for FTMs when the little guy outgrows the hood.  It's over-sensitive, and therefore less pleasurable for a while, but once it gets used to being out in the open, it goes back to normal.)

Plus, circumcised penises just look so much better.  Uncut dicks are just ... ick. 

Still, as a parent, I think I would choose to let the boy make that decision when he is grown, rather than to make it for him.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: YoungSoulRebel on October 24, 2009, 01:46:53 AM
Quote from: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
Now, that being said, I agree that forcing circumcision on infants is wrong, especially if they really do do it without anesthetic.  That's just cruel.
It is does without anesthetioc because anesthetising infants can be dangerous -- of course, it's very rare, but sometimes the pain from circumcisision can cause shock and that can be fatal in infants.

Quote from: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
However, studies have shown that circumcision does reduce the chances for acquiring an STD, especially AIDS, because the foreskin is more fragile, and therefore more likely to be torn and create a route into the body.
No, that's not how it works.

Basically, the way that circumcision has proved a somewhat effective preventative measure against the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and against HIV alone, interestingly -- there have been no scientific studies concerning other STIs) is because the way HIV "works" as a virus is by attacking immunity cells.  The purpose of the foreskin is to keep the mucus membrane of the glans and a portion of the shaft moist and prevent kertanisation (hardening and dulling) of this membrane; this is an important mucus membrane because when minor infectious cells such as bacteria or lesser vira become folded into it, the foreskin actually keeps loads of immunity cells within it.  So basically the forskin, by doing its job, can make men more susceptible to HIV transmission -- but this is not at all an excuse for circumcising infants in the developed world with excellent education on HIV and STI prevention.

Quote from: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
Circumcision also greatly reduces the number of UTIs that boys suffer from.
No, it does not.  The reason many intact boys get UTIs is because a paediatrician who has no idea how to care advise parents on foreskin care tells them that the foreskin has to be forced back in infancy -- but the foreskin does not retract naturally until the boy is between three and five years old.  Forcing back the foreskin causes tears, making the child more susceptible to infection.  Infant boys with UTIs aren't all that common at all in Europe and the UK -- where compulsory infant circumcision has been all but banned in most countries (save Sweden -- where it IS banned) since the 1940s.  I grew up part-time in the UK -- trust me, I know this is fact.

Quote from: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
And further research, focusing on men who have been circumcised as adults, has shown that little if any sensation is lost due to circumcision.  (I suspect it's very much like for FTMs when the little guy outgrows the hood.  It's over-sensitive, and therefore less pleasurable for a while, but once it gets used to being out in the open, it goes back to normal.)
Considering that a circumcised penis is basically a form of callus from the scar down, this makes no sense to anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology.

Quote from: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
Plus, circumcised penises just look so much better.  Uncut dicks are just ... ick.
This is your opinion -- and my opinion is that cut penises are weird-looking.  But then again, erect, cut and intact penises look almost the same.  The only difference is that cut men have those horrid ring-around-the-willy scars.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Jamie-o on October 24, 2009, 04:59:23 AM
Quote from: YoungSoulRebel on October 24, 2009, 01:46:53 AM
It is does without anesthetioc because anesthetising infants can be dangerous -- of course, it's very rare, but sometimes the pain from circumcisision can cause shock and that can be fatal in infants.

They can use topical, local anesthetics.  But in any case, I agree with you.  It's cruel and not worth the risks. 

Quote
No, that's not how it works.

Basically, the way that circumcision has proved a somewhat effective preventative measure against the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and against HIV alone, interestingly -- there have been no scientific studies concerning other STIs) is because the way HIV "works" as a virus is by attacking immunity cells.  The purpose of the foreskin is to keep the mucus membrane of the glans and a portion of the shaft moist and prevent kertanisation (hardening and dulling) of this membrane; this is an important mucus membrane because when minor infectious cells such as bacteria or lesser vira become folded into it, the foreskin actually keeps loads of immunity cells within it.  So basically the forskin, by doing its job, can make men more susceptible to HIV transmission -- but this is not at all an excuse for circumcising infants in the developed world with excellent education on HIV and STI prevention.

You obviously know more about biology than I.  I was only going with what I read in a few articles several years ago.  The comment about the fragility of the foreskin was actually in an article specifically dealing with the possibility of contracting AIDS from oral sex.  At the time the only known cases of men getting AIDS from oral were linked to times when the foreskin tore during particularly vigorous, ah... activity.  But this quote from a recent article in the Boston Globe supports that statement in other situations: 

"Foreskin is more subject to inflammation than a circumcised penis, making it easier for germs to enter. The sensitive skin also contains certain cells that link easily with the AIDS virus."

The same article also mentions findings that circumcised men are also less susceptible to syphilis and chancroid, and other articles have mentioned gonorrhea and chlamydia.

But your point about the availability of education and healthcare in developed nations is a good one.  STD prevention in the western world is not a good enough excuse, at least not on its own.

Quote
No, it does not.  The reason many intact boys get UTIs is because a paediatrician who has no idea how to care advise parents on foreskin care tells them that the foreskin has to be forced back in infancy -- but the foreskin does not retract naturally until the boy is between three and five years old.  Forcing back the foreskin causes tears, making the child more susceptible to infection.  Infant boys with UTIs aren't all that common at all in Europe and the UK -- where compulsory infant circumcision has been all but banned in most countries (save Sweden -- where it IS banned) since the 1940s.  I grew up part-time in the UK -- trust me, I know this is fact.

Another excerpt from the same article:

Repeated medical studies have demonstrated that circumcised infants have a significantly lower risk of contracting a urinary tract infection, with some reports estimating that uncircumcised boys are 10 times more likely to suffer a urinary tract infection before their first birthday.

``With the foreskin there, there's nothing really to rub the bacteria off, and so they have a nice environment for multiplication," said Dr. George Klauber , chief of pediatric urology at Tufts-New England Medical Center .


That being the case, it also goes on to say:

Still, even in uncircumcised infants, the incidence of urinary tract infections is low -- about 1 percent -- and usually they can be treated with antibiotics.

Again, clearly not a good enough reason on its own to do it.  I agree.


QuoteConsidering that a circumcised penis is basically a form of callus from the scar down, this makes no sense to anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense, and certainly the results of studies have been mixed.  But by far the largest study - consisting of 4456 males age 15-45, none of whom had been circumcised up to that point - found that:

Adult male circumcision does not adversely  affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.

You can read the entire study here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119420541/PDFSTART (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119420541/PDFSTART)

Quote
This is your opinion -- and my opinion is that cut penises are weird-looking.  But then again, erect, cut and intact penises look almost the same.  The only difference is that cut men have those horrid ring-around-the-willy scars.

Yes, it is my opinion.  Though I actually meant it to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but I forgot to put in the emoticon.  Sorry.


In the end, the fact is I agree with you.  Infant circumcision is an unnecessary risk for little reward, unless there are other circumstances to recommend it.   It just really puts my back up when people use sensationalism to push their view points.  It makes me want to challenge them, even if I more or less agree.  It's probably childish of me, but there it is. 
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: finewine on October 24, 2009, 11:32:17 AM
Unfortunately the circumcision & HIV area has been an area of poor scientific work in some quarters - a lot of noise has been made about studies that were inconclusive or abandoned early.  The oft referenced studies (excluding the abandoned African one that always gets referenced alas) actually show that there is a statistical possibility that circumcision can affect the penetration of the HIV virus but that possibility does nowhere near a probability - in other words, for the general population it makes no significant difference at all.

Circumcision is about as proportionate a response to HIV as beheading is to dandruff (although at least the latter can claim to be an effective preventative measure).
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Radar on October 24, 2009, 07:05:06 PM
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."

I've never completely understood this. How do you measure pleasure? An intact man doesn't know how sex feels to a cut man (unless he got circumcised as an adult) and a cut man doesn't know what sex feels like to an intact man. If we want to say the pleasure is from sensory nerves there's more in the foreskin... alot more. Plus, how can you truly measure pleasure in a person? Someone may outwardly show alot of pleasure, but someone else might feel more pleasure but are more inward and shows less. I think that whole argument is very flawed.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: YoungSoulRebel on October 24, 2009, 07:12:42 PM
Quote from: finewine on October 24, 2009, 11:32:17 AM
Unfortunately the circumcision & HIV area has been an area of poor scientific work in some quarters - a lot of noise has been made about studies that were inconclusive or abandoned early.  The oft referenced studies (excluding the abandoned African one that always gets referenced alas) actually show that there is a statistical possibility that circumcision can affect the penetration of the HIV virus but that possibility does nowhere near a probability - in other words, for the general population it makes no significant difference at all.

Circumcision is about as proportionate a response to HIV as beheading is to dandruff (although at least the latter can claim to be an effective preventative measure).

Very true.  The more generalised the population, the more ineffective circumcision would be as any sort of preventitive measure.  The study referenced in Africa was on specific populations where HIV infection rates are much higher than other populations, and it is both relevant and odd that, as you rightly point out, earlier such studies produced inconclusive results.  On the other hand, I've taken the time to leaf through my room-mate's old biology texts (he has a master's in biology and took two years off due to PTSD, basically, then found himself unable to afford going back to finish his Phd, and he also maintains subscriptions to peer-review journals -- so while my own education is primarily in art and history, I'm constantly pouring through these things out of boredom and interest), so I do know that the male prepuce (as well as the labia minora) do house a slightly-higher population of these cells than many other areas of the body, so the theory on how these results come from certain concentrated populations in Africa at least makes sense.

Ultimately, though, the problem in Africa with HIV infection rates is more due to local superstition, socialisation, and education issues.  This can't (nor should it) replace education, and if people were truly acting in the best interests of Africa, they'd promote HIV prevention education rather than just across-the-board male circumcision.
Title: Re: Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon
Post by: Jamie-o on November 07, 2009, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Radar on October 24, 2009, 07:05:06 PM
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."

I've never completely understood this. How do you measure pleasure? An intact man doesn't know how sex feels to a cut man (unless he got circumcised as an adult) and a cut man doesn't know what sex feels like to an intact man. If we want to say the pleasure is from sensory nerves there's more in the foreskin... alot more. Plus, how can you truly measure pleasure in a person? Someone may outwardly show alot of pleasure, but someone else might feel more pleasure but are more inward and shows less. I think that whole argument is very flawed.

Well, in the study mentioned above, they took 4500(ish) uncircumcised men and circumcised half of them.  Then they asked them if they noticed a difference.  But yes, among men who have experienced both, some report no difference, some report less pleasure, some report more pleasure.  That's the thing with being human.  We're so damned variable.  ;)