BS: Circumcision: pros and cons

Subject: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 06:55 PM

(In USA) A coworker of mine has a new baby boy. When he mentioned he's planning to have him cirumcised, my reaction was "People still go for that barbaric nonsense?"

Having been born in Europe, I am uncircumcised; so are my stepson and grandson. It's never caused any of us any problem. I believe there are no medical reasons for circumcision, but there are good reasons not to do it.

Anyone care to comment?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM

I've never missed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:02 PM

What are the good reason not to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: open mike
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:26 PM

any one dare to comment?

here are some comments pro and con

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/2-ch/412-circumcision.htm

and Mothering magazine is primarily against circumcision.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Organizations
If your physician or healthcare provider ever recommends that your child be circumcised, get another opinion from a physician who understands the important functions of the foreskin, no matter how "urgent" the situation may be. For help finding one in your area, contact:

National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC). PO Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512. 415-488-9883. Fax: [phone]. www.nocirc.org/

Doctors are encouraged to contact and join:
Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC). 2442 NW Market Street #42, Seattle, WA 98107. 360-385-1882. Fax: [phone]. faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/

Another resource especially for nurses:
Nurses for the Rights of the Child. 369 Montezuma #354, Santa Fe, NM 87501. 505-989-7377. www.cirp.org/nrc/

For information about alternative bris for Jewish parents:
Circumcision Resource Center. Ronald Goldman, PhD. PO Box 232, Boston, MA 02133. 617-523-0088. www.circumcision.org/

One of the best sources of information on the Internet:
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages. www.cirp.org/

rganizations
Doctor's Opposing Circumcision (Doc) 2442 N.W. Market Street, Suite 42 Seattle, WA 98107 206-368-8358 weber.u.washington.edu/-gcd/DOC/

The National Organization of Circumcision information Resource Center's (NOCIRC) PO Box 2512 San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512 415-488-9883 www.nocirc.org

The National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) PO Box 460795 San Francisco, CA 94146-0795 415-826-9351 www.noharmm.org

Nurses for the Rights of the Child 369 Montezuma, Suite 354 Santa Fe, NM 87501 505-989-7377 www.cirp.org/nrc/

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:41 PM

A common error made by those who want to justify infant male circumcision on the basis of medical benefits is that they believe that as long as some such benefits are present, circumcision can be justified as therapeutic, in the sense of preventive health care. This is not correct. A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires that overall the medical benefits sought outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them, that this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits, and that these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child. None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision. If we view a child's foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child's body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment.

From Margaret Somerville, director of McGill University's Mcgill centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM

I had no choice in 1939, when 'most' boys in the US had it done....I did have a say when my son was born in 1983, and he was spared. There are VERY few cases where there is a medical reason for the procedure, and that can usually be put off for a few years.

I am told that uncircumcised means 'higher sensitivity' and thus occasionl premature ejaculation, and requires greater care in washing....but circumcision seems like a pretty strong cure for minor problems.

I have never really heard who invented it and why it was started in the first place.

But...this is the internet, and I suppose a 3 minute search would tell me.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:19 PM

I heard a report recently on a news broadcast that said non circumcised men are more likely to contract HIV. The broadcaster just announced that "finding" and gave no further information.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:30 PM

What are the good reason not to do it?

Seems pretty obvious that unless there is a pretty good reason for it you don't go cutting off bits of your baby's anatomy just for fun of it.

I've never understood why people who are horrified at the idea of genital mutilation for girls seem so unperturbed about circumcision for boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:30 PM

open mike -- thanks for those links! Just what I needed to present my coworker some food for thought.

gnu -- check out this link to find answers to your question.

Don't mutilate your children!

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bbc
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 09:41 PM

I didn't have either of my sons circumcised (now 20 & 23) & both are quite happy about it. My husband was circumcised; my dad was not.

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 09:57 PM

I understand where and when and who started it but will never understand why it became standard procedure in the U.S. How did this happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 09:58 PM

While there might not be medical reasons, there certainly are religious ones. Both Islam and Judaism ordain circumsion for male infants, and other religions may do so as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joybell
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:07 PM

Another point worth mentioning - Having worked as a nurse during the time circumcision was more popular, I can say that it is most surely an extremely painful proceedure. I've held babies down while it was done. I never could come to terms with the idea that "it's quick and he'll forget all about it." Also for what it's worth, I worked for 30 years in surgical hospitals and came across only 2 adult men (no young boys) who needed circumcision for medical reasons. They, of course, had the operation under general anesthetic.
Cheers, Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:36 PM

Another rationalization I can give to my therapist for the general malaise that is my life ...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:46 PM

All is not lost guest foreskin restoration

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:59 PM

During WW2, both my wife and I served in the Medical Corps. Many servicemen coming back from the South Pacific and Asia after jungle fighting had horrid hard-to-treat infections in the genital area. Infections were far less serious on men who had been circumcised.

We had our male children circumcised and made sure their male children also were circumcised. I doubt that a nurse who served in WW2 (or Vietnam), who dealt with jungle rot and other infections contracted in the South Pacific, would ever argue against circumcision. In WW2 there were only the rather unpredictable sulfa drugs. Treatments and antibiotics may be much better now, but because of our hospital service at that time, we would be hard to convince.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:02 AM

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

My daughter is uncircumcised, and I am uncircumsized. My son, like his father, are uncircumcised. It seems only fair!

We recognize female circumcision as barbarous and cruel, yet male circumcision has continued to the present day in this "enlightened" nation.

I heard a program on NPR quite a number of years ago now in which a fellow who had been circumsized went through the skin stretching process to restore his foreskin. He was very happy with the results.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:03 AM

Joybell, things have changed. Most doctors who do circumcisions these days use a local anesthetic or some other method of pain control.

Personally I have mixed feelings about it, and I was very glad my daughter was a daughter so I didn't have to face that decision. (Since I'm Jewish, there would have been a very strong expectation--both from outside and from my own beliefs--that it would be done, but I also would have had strong reservations.) I was also glad that for most of my career as a general pediatrician I practiced in an area where the pediatricians did not do circumcisions...because I didn't like doing the procedure.

Basically, some form of ritual mutilation has been part of human culture for thousands and perhaps millions of years. In many cultures it's done at puberty as part of a rite of passage. Many anthropologists believe that the ritual represents a symbolic death and rebirth. (Read the book "Transitions" by William Bridges for a helpful discussion.) In other cultures, the mutilation, without the ritual, is done as a personal or fashion statement...witness all the tattoos and piercings that are currently so popular among young (and not so young) people these days--or, if you prefer, try to find a pair of clip-on earrings in a jewelry store.

Circumcision is generally considered not to be medically necessary. On the other hand, it clearly does protect against urinary tract infection in infant boys, which is much less common than in girls. That can lead to kidney failure or death if not treated adequately, and that's not trivial, though I'm not sure it's enough of a justification for the procedure. Also, I've treated more than a few uncircumcised boys for infections caused by lack of careful hygiene. Those problems don't exist in circumcised boys. On the other hand, we don't pull out everybody's teeth because some people get bad tooth decay.

An interesting sidelight is that when doctors do circumcisions, it's sometimes obstetricians and sometimes pediatricians. Which one does it depends completely on the tradition in the local community. The fact that obstetricians sometimes do this surgical procedure on babies, when they don't provide any other care to the baby, is a throwback to the old days when the newborn nursery was considered part of the obstetric service, and the mother and baby were both the obstetrician's patients until they went home.

Whether or not babies are circumcised mostly depends on the history and culture of a particular community. I've been in places where nearly all the boy babies were circumcised, and in others where the percentage was much lower. The numbers also change over time, as "what everybody does" goes in and out of fashion.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,ghost
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:13 AM

I thought the reasons for and against were cut and dried.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Art
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:11 AM

My old uncle, who I like to quote here every so often, was out plowing with his prize bulls one day. Pretty amazed, I yelled, "Uncle, uncle, why are ya plowing with your two prize bulls?"
He answered, "Well, I don't want 'em to start thinking that life is all fun and games!"

Extrapolating, I've always figured that a little early pain might be a good instructive lesson for the kids!! ;-)

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:59 AM

Speaking as one who had to be circumcised in my early fifties due to thinning of the skin and being thus prone to infection...I wish I had had it done when much younger. That way the scars would have been gone years ago and I would not have had the problem.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 04:03 AM

'Failure to protect' a child from injury is why so many mothers are blamed for their children's misery in adult life. This holds true whether or not the mother is even aware that the child has been assaulted. 'Failure to protect' might also be the reason for many men's hostility to women in general.

If a mother allows her son to be sexually assaulted, wouldn't it follow that the son would feel anger toward his mother and generalize that feeling to all women?

Aside from the fact that it is not a medical necessity, I think that there are many psychological and emotional considerations. In fact, I think it should be considered a crime. I don't think too many men ever gave their consent to be circumsised.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 04:51 AM

How can I miss what I don't remember having? I'm just glad they stopped at the foreskin.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 04:58 AM

dianavan,
         WHAT are you on about?? My and all my mates were circumised at birth in the 1950's. It was routine in my part of the world for "health" reasons. None us turned out "damaged/abusive to women" etc etc We just got on with life in the real world!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:01 AM

Ah.... there would be some who say they threw the wrong bit away..... *BG*

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:01 AM

Apparently though, my mother told me much later, that the Hospital had told her that in my case, the circumcision had been a BIG job!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:10 AM

Mine's in a jam jar - I can take it or leave it, I some times wear it in winter.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:23 AM

A pal of mine had his son circumcised and they used the piece of skin to repair a damaged eyelid. His dad thjought it might give him greater foresight, but his mother was worried it might make him cock-eyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:33 AM

Does he wink whenever...?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,andy
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:43 AM

I don't care, it's no skin off my nose!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Sooz
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:29 AM

Grooooan

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:31 AM

I know who you mean SJ and he's a right "winker"
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:49 AM

Sort of peripherally relevant:

God was just about done creating man, but he had two things left over in his bag and He couldn't quite decide how to split them between Adam and Eve. He thought He might just as well ask them. He told them one of the things He had left was a thing-a-mabob that would allow the owner to pee while standing up. "It's a very handy thing," God told them, "and I was wondering if either one of you had a preference for it."


Well, Adam jumped up and down and begged, "Oh, please give that to me! I'd love to be able to do that! It seems like just the sort of thing a man should have. Please! Pleeease! Give it to me!" On and on he went like an excited little boy.

Eve just smiled and told God that if Adam really wanted it so badly, he could have it.

So God gave Adam the thing that allowed him to pee standing up. Adam was so excited he just started whizzing all over the place -- first on the side of a rock, then he wrote his name in the sand, and then he tried to see if he could hit a stump ten feet away -- laughing with delight all the while.

God and Eve watched him with amusement and then God said to Eve, "Well, I guess you're kind of stuck with the last thing I have left"

"What's it called?" asked Eve.

"Brains," said God.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:24 AM

Those of you going on about how barabric it is and comparing to female circumsion, it sounds like you haven't a clue. The latter truly is barbaric, inflicting great pain and agony whilst presenting no benefits, with the former, you get it over and done with, it hurts for a few days and then is gone. Never given me any touble in 22 years.
Of course, if you do it in adulthood, hurts like blazes. That's why Judaism says eight days. I'm not really sure why Muslims do it in later childhood, but it's still better than having it done as an adult.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:44 AM

let me correct you on that Scaramouche : with a general anaesthetic it doesn't hurt hardly at all . I had to have the operation last year and was absolutely petrified at the thoughts of the pain ;I thought I'd be in agony for weeks afterwards ,but that wasn't the case.On the scale of pain from one to ten with a terrible toothache at ten and the discomfiture of a mild cold ranked at one , I'd rank the pain of circumcision at one and a half.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:57 AM

Scaramouche, who are you accusing of being clueless? You think female circumcision is considered to have "no benefits" by the cultures that practice it? You think wrong. They think there is a benefit, but unfortunately the "they" who do the deciding are males (with adult females as proxy) who are practicing superstition and maintaining control over the women who are altered in this way. The point of that example was that what one culture approves another might not, and it is perspective and knowledge that temper the choice to mutilate a sex organ or not. So why do you think that a practice in the Western world of circumcising boys shouldn't be held to the same gaze, and found wanting? Because it hurts a little less?

It is unnecessary. And if small boys aren't taught how to keep it clean, then there is the problem. Teach the parents how to teach the child, don't just cut off the flap of skin because it is expedient.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:59 AM

Circumcision was almost unknown among the non- Jewish community in Salford in the 50s and 60s. So much so, that when our old-maid teacher, Miss Daly, had to explain the meaning of the Feast of the Circumcision (Catholic January 1st) to us as 7 year olds, she told us that circumcision meant that they cut a circle of skin- from his ARM.

This is what Jesus thought about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,redhorse
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:19 AM

Maybe we should think of it in terms of Evolution. If you beliieve in ID, God put the foreskin there, so cutting it off is tantamount to blasphemy. If on the other hand you believe in Darwinian evolution, its presence must have conferred an evolutionary advantage otherwise it would have disappeared; why deny the child that advantage?
Either way, Woodman spare that tree!

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Allan C.
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:25 AM

A man walked into a small shop that had hundreds of watches and clocks in the front window. He produced a wristwatch from his pocket and placed it on the counter in front of the shopkeeper.

"I'd like to have this repaired, please."

The shopkeeper looked at him oddly and said, "We don't repair watches here."

Surprised, the man asked, "If you don't repair watches, do you sell them?"

"No." The shopkeeper replied.

"Well!" The man said with a growl. "Why, then do you have so many timepieces hanging in your front window?"

The shopkeeper answered, "I do circumcisions. What would you put in the window?"

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:35 AM

Did you hear the one about the zoo employee whose job was circumcising the elephants?

It didn't pay much but the tips were huge.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:56 AM

There was a joke about a wallet made from an elephant foreskin. Need more room? Just rub it a little and it expands into a full-size suitcase.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 11:57 AM

"You think female circumcision is considered to have "no benefits" by the cultures that practice it? You think wrong."

No, I said it presents no benefits!

Redhorse, if one believes in God (or that of the Bible), there is nothing blasphemous about circumcision. Have a look at Genesis 17.

Joe, glad to hear, but I've known several people who had it done in their 30s. They were in agony for weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 11:58 AM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: JennyO
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:02 PM

Crossposting is a bugger, isn't it!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:30 PM

"there certainly are religious ones"
Another good reason to ban the idiocy of religion!

"how barabric it is and comparing to female circumsion(sic.), it sounds like you haven't a clue."
Sorry... you're the one without a clue... it's mutilation... for NO good reason... In either sex

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:12 PM

But if everyone stops doing it, you won't be able to get those little bags of what they sell as "pork rinds" anymore...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:45 PM

My brother's wife was previously married to a Jew and had a son who was circumcised. My brother always told me the boy could never... enjoy himself in the bathroom.

Is it true circumcised males can't... because there's nothing to ... back and forth?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:52 PM

"Is it true circumcised males can't"

Not remotely

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:55 PM

There was a rumor floating around that the barstools on Aristotle Onassis's yacht were covered with whale foreskins. This engendered a lot of the kind of jokes one might expect, such as "If you rub them just right, they, turn into couches." I heard this some time ago and assumed it was an urban legend, but I couldn't find anything on it on Snopes.

But it turns out that apparently there actually is a fair amount of trading in whale foreskins. This is thoroughly explained in a book by someone who makes his living harvesting whale foreskins. I can't recall the title of the book, but oddly enough, it does contain the word, "Dick."

The opening line reads, "Call me Ishmohel."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:58 PM

'The opening line reads, "Call me Ishmohel."'

THAT is good.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:04 PM

It is no more mutilation than having ones tonsils removed. It causes no pain, discomfiture or complications in later life.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:34 PM

" It causes no pain?

Bull and shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM

Perhaps you ought to read first, as I said no pain in later life.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:05 PM

Well, in that case, it's a spurious argument at best... If I punch you in the face today, later in life it won't cause you pain either... Doesn't make it O.K. to punch you in the face, does it?

Seems to be a pretty scummy thing to do... to be arguing in FAVOUR of mutilation...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:17 PM

Love your new tactic.
I don't accept that it is mutilation, anymore than most operations are. It causes no harm and has plenty of benefits for boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:29 PM

Le Scaramouche

In regards to your statement of "plenty of benefits for boys" please read my post of 13-OCT-2005 @ 7:41. This quote is taken from a book (The Ethical Canary) written by this lady with whom I've had the privilege of working. She has degrees in both medicine and law and directs the McGill Centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:29 PM

Benefits my arse... The biggest problem 98% of men have with fore-skin is a little smegma... and if he neglects his hygiene that badly, he's probably got bigger problems anyway...

They might have ta wipe their bums someday, so maybe it'd be better to cut those off of infants too eh.....

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM

Doesn't say no benefits. I live in a country where most males are circumcised and the only ones I know who've suffered any ill effects, are as a result of malpractice, something which occurs enough in all fields of medicine.
So no, I don't think one is justified in calling it mutilation or barbarism.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 04:02 PM

Circumcision: pros and cons / Home made mouse traps

Nooooooooo!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 04:20 PM

"I live in a country where most males are circumcised"
You've checked them have you?

"the only ones I know who've suffered any ill effects"
I could take a small child and cut the end of their little finger off and they'd grow up to suffer no 'ill effects' except for occasional malpractice accidents.... doesn't make it right to do does it...

Oh... wait... I asked this question before... and you couldn't put a good answer to it then either...

You also chose not to respond to bobad post... So I'm gonna quote it here so you have no excuse except being out to sea....

----------------------------------------------------------------------
A common error made by those who want to justify infant male circumcision on the basis of medical benefits is that they believe that as long as some such benefits are present, circumcision can be justified as therapeutic, in the sense of preventive health care. This is not correct. A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires that overall the medical benefits sought outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them, that this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits, and that these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child. None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision. If we view a child's foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child's body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment.

From Margaret Somerville, director of McGill University's Mcgill centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll wager you're still gonna be out to sea...

You keep talking about benefits... like???

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:20 PM

I knew a guy who claimed he'd done it to himself on purpose with a buck knife at the age of twenty-five.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM

No need to check, most Israelis are. Jews are and Muslims too, there's most of the populace for you.
As to not responding to Bobad's post, I did. If you like the answer or not, that's your problem.
What benefits, more hygenic for one.
"I could take a small child and cut the end of their little finger off and they'd grow up to suffer no 'ill effects' except for occasional malpractice accidents...."
This pretty much shows you either don't know how or don't care to read what people actualy said. Those who suffer any ill effects are because of accidents caused during the procedure, which are quite rare and happen in all fields of medicine.
There are millions of people in the world who are none the worse for circumsion and would resent your assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:36 PM

Circumcision, of either sex, in the name of "GHAD" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard...

"What benefits, more hygenic(sic.) for one."
Already shown in this thread to be erroneous... So, got any other supposed benefits?

" There are millions of people in the world"
There are millions of people in the world who think it's o.k. to leave first-born daughters out in the elements to die...
There are millions of people in the world who think women and children are property...
There are millions of people in the world who think it's o.k. to kill in the name of some mything being...

Are they as right as the millions who think that mutiliation for NO good reason is o.k.???

"would resent your assertions"
F&*k 'em...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:40 PM

http://www.cirp.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Shmuckie
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:48 PM

Clinton Hammond sez "Circumcision, of either sex, in the name of "GHAD" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard..."

The stupidest thing I ever heard of was slow suicide by cigarette smoking.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:51 PM

No, what has been shown is that the benefits aren't enough to justify terming it theraputic. Not that there aren't any. For all I know that's only one opinion. Find me a medical issue where opinions aren't divided or as plentiful as there are doctors.
To return to my original point, it is quite fatuous to compare male and female circumcision, simply because snipping a piece of skin off is distasteful to you. It downplays one (which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies) and to overstate another.
The difference between what I was saying and the examples given in your post above is that they are done unto others. Circumcision occurs to YOU, if it's that awful, you won't do it to your son. I suspect there's more than a little cultural arrogance in your opinnions.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:53 PM

Oh, Clinton, I must ask, what do you think of tattoos and body-piercing?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 05:54 PM

I ain't Clinton but I wanna answer the last question. The idea of getting my navel pierced makes me want to puke. Tattoos wouldn't bother me a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:07 PM

Oh, right, I happen to disagree with tattooing, so you must be a barbaric scumbag!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:11 PM

" The stupidest thing I ever heard of was slow suicide by cigarette smoking."
I'm not likely to disagree... The difference is, I'm not FORCING MY smoking on a helpless infant.... Slow suicide? So what... all living is slow suicide...   Ya wanna live forever?

"what do you think of tattoos and body-piercing"
You talking about doing it to yourself, or FORCING it on somebody else?    It's your body, and if you wanna cram broken glass up yer butt, I don't give a tinkers cuss... If you wanna claim that "GHAD" or TRADITION or whatver tells you you should cram it up yer childs back-side... That I have a problem with....

"I suspect there's more than a little cultural arrogance in your opinnions"
A little?!?! Try a LOT... I'll yell it from the roof-tops "I'm a better human being than ANYONE who elects to mutilate their children! Especially the ones who do it while hiding behind mythology!!!"

"I ain't Clinton"
You're SOOOOO lucky mate! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:20 PM

"so you must be a barbaric scumbag!!!"

Funny, that's what I have tattooed on me arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:30 PM

Alright, Clinton, fair enough. Shall we call it quits, as don't think either has something to say that hasn't been said already.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:31 PM

Absolutely fascinating discussion. . . .

I once heard about a guy who had a propellor tattooed on each buttock.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:35 PM

I can understand that a lot of people now feel that male circumcision is unnecessary and inappropriate. But I have a hard time understanding anything remotely like the outrage over it that we're seeing here. If you could get an accurate survey of circumcised males, nationally or worldwide, you would look far and wide for any male outside a mental institution who gives any thought, in any given five year period, to whether or not he is circumcised. (Apart, that is, from any religious significance it has for him.)
To equate the significance of male circumcision and female circumcision is as unrealistic as to equate having a child's ears pierced (which I personally wouldn't do) with the crippling practice of foot binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:35 PM

And he would sing, "Anchors Away" when he shat, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:36 PM

Above post for Don Firth.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

I live in a country where most males are circumcised and the only ones I know who've suffered any ill effects, are as a result of malpractice, something which occurs enough in all fields of medicine.
So no, I don't think one is justified in calling it mutilation or barbarism.

There is no logical connection between those two sentences. Putting "So" at the start of the second does seem to seek to imply that there is.

It doesn't hurt if you have it done to you as a child, but it would hurt a great deal if it were done to you as an adult? How convenient. Isn't it possible that it hurts in both cases, but our memories of what happens to us as babies are not normally accessible to us in later life?

The strange thing is how this rather odd cultural idiosyncracy became common practice in the USA in a secular context, whereas in most parts of the world it has been more or less confined to the field of religious ritual.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:59 PM

Or something.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:08 PM

"
To equate the significance of male circumcision and female circumcision is as unrealistic as to equate having a child's ears pierced"

Why? I don't get your analogy. Both involve the unnecessary removal of a portion of anatomy for ritualistic purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:32 PM

Read the rest of my sentence, Boab.
"To equate the significance of male circumcision and female circumcision is as unrealistic as to equate having a child's ears pierced (which I personally wouldn't do) with the crippling practice of foot binding."
Even if one grants that male circumcision is indefensible, it is just such a minor, inconsequential, "indefensible" thing in comparision to female circumcision, which drastically, tragically, affects the quality of the females life forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:36 PM

'Scuse me, Bobab

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:38 PM

oh, never mind...
(Bobad; Bobad; Bobad: Bobad......)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:49 PM

Male circumcision also affects the quality of the male's life forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:57 PM

Clinton does a much better job of arguing this than I do.

Its really a matter of whether you are willing to inflict pain on an infant.


Just because you can't remember it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. We know that often children who are sexually abused cannot remember the event because of the trauma. This is what I mean by the 'failure to protect' syndrome, ie: I don't know why I am so angry with my mother. She has never been anything but kind and loving. (Its because she failed to protect you).


McGrath - I have the same question as you do - "The strange thing is how this rather odd cultural idiosyncracy became common practice in the USA in a secular context, whereas in most parts of the world it has been more or less confined to the field of religious ritual."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:38 PM

The information I had when my son was born was that it reduced the risk of cervical cancer in his eventual partner. With the new treatment for this maybe it is no longer aplicable

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Joe_F
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:41 PM

I know an adult who recently had himself circumcised and was greatly pleased. I took care to remind him he owed a cock to Aesclepius.

--- Joe Fineman    [e-mail]

||: Suck, squeeze, bang, blow. Internal combustion makes it go. :||

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 12:47 AM

In most instances, it would be better applied to the nose.

One will then know, in advance, the type of service being rendered and the nurture to the nature of the resiplicant... with advance warning... a greater fee can be decreed.

And as previous threads in the past 24 hours indicate - heaven help the sucorer of a syphlitic, lepor, requesting suplication.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Terry K
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:18 AM

Mate of mine got circumcised. Paid the bill - and he left a tip.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 03:19 AM

I think one of the ancestors must have been pretty bored sitting around the campfire when he came up with the idea. "Hey, lets cut a chunk off of that kids dick! It might make God happy, nothing else has."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 04:38 AM

Of course, there was the guy who went to his doctor and said he wanted to be castrated. The doc argued and argued but to no avail, the guy was adamant. So he did the operation. The guy woke up in the recovery room next to a man who had bandages in the same spot.
He asked, "So, what did they do to you?"
His neighbor said, "I was circumcised."
The man paused, then slapped his forehead and said, "THAT'S the word!"

And where do all the mohels in Philadelphia live?











On Juniper Street.

Aloha,
Mark

PS, Yes, there are medical benefits to circumcision, and yes, measures are now taken to make it a painless procedure for babies as well. Does that make it right? Not necessarily, but it makes some of the issues a bit less black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:05 AM

In a way uit's a bit like docking puppies. Some people still seem to think they've got the right to do that. The dogs rarely complain about it in later life, after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:52 AM

Mark

Could you please enlighten us about the medical benefits to which you refer.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 12:36 PM

Male circumcision also affects the quality of the male's life forever.

That's exactly it. According to findings published by the British Society of Urologists, the foreskin contains a large number of nerve endings, while the glans contains relatively few. You lop it off, you lose sensation.

Dianavan's point, although apparently not yet researched by the scientific community, also makes sense. Such trauma experienced by an infant may well lead to sexual anger and violence in the adult.

Check the research at www.noharmm.org.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 12:48 PM

Dianavan's point, although apparently not yet researched by the scientific community, also makes sense. Such trauma experienced by an infant may well lead to sexual anger and violence in the adult.

You are so right about that. It's well known that anti-Semitism throughout history was brought on by the fact that circumcised Jews have been raping decent white women en masse.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 01:31 PM

This isn't about anti-Semitism, GUEST.

This is about the rights of the child and, possibly, a cycle of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 01:41 PM

Gee... I haven't been following this thread and haven't read most of it but 95 posts? Wow... seems like a big flap over a small tissue.

Minds me... wife comes home and gives her husband a wallet but forgets the price tag is in the box. He sees it and goes nuts! "$95? You paid $95 bucks fer a wallet? Are you crazy?" She says, "But, it's made of elephant foreskin." He asks her, "So what?" She replies, "Rub it a bit and it turns into a set of luggage." Smart shopper.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,feeling slightly queasy
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:04 PM

look, to those still comparing male & female circumcision & saying they are both as bad as each other - you do know what they both entail, right?
Male circumcision - removing a flap of skin. Causing reduced sensation, so I'm told. Female circumcision - removing the whole lot. I.e. no sensation at all cos there's nothing left to sense with. The male equivalent of that would actually be chopping a large chunk of flesh off the end, not just a flap of skin.

Yes, they are both mutilation. But different degrees of it.

Not that I'm advocating either sort, I hasten to add.

There's a book by Alice Walker (author of The Color Purple) which I can't remember the name of right now, which deals very sensitively with this issue amongst africans. Worth a read if you're interested and have a strong stomach.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:04 PM

michaelr - That link is very educational and will hopefully make people stop and think before mindlessly following tradition.

I would hope that men would educate themselves and spare their sons needless pain. I am so glad to see that this issue is finally getting the attention it deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:32 PM

"There's a book by Alice Walker (author of The Color Purple) which I can't remember the name of right now"

The book title is "Warrior Marks".

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM

The issue of male circumcision is one thing. The aspects of it to do with male 'sensitivity' during sex, cleanliness, whether males who are or aren't circumcized will last longer during coitus, etc. In reality, there are sites dedicated to 'both' sides of that equation. Many sites. Mostly, you are who you are, and that's that.

Female circumcision is barbaric. Suggesting that there are social customs in place and therefore it's gotta be done is nothing more or less than bullshit. Read Jackson's "The Lottery" and watch rituals/traditions at work.

The differences between male and female circumcision are massive both in their pain to the recipient and in their end results.

"Genital alteration in the female includes infibulation, clitoridectomy, clitoral circumcision and piercing. The World Health Organization had a conference in February 1979 in Khartoum, Sudan, and unanimously condemned the mutilations as disastrous to women's health and as indefensible on medical as well as humane grounds."

The above is from

here.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM

Hmmm... I guess my next question might be better asked of a doctor practicing in this area, but, I'll ask it anyway. Can the "uncut" penis of an infant be easily fully exposed for washing?

I apologize for my ignorance here, but, it would seem to me that herein lies the crux of the biscuit. (Seriously, I don't remember... and, I got a member. I just don't remember.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

The mom or dad or both have to wash junior all over anyway. Pulling back the foreskin on his pecker is no more a task than washing under the arms, the bum or the tootsies.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 02:58 PM

There are a whole range of different procedures that can be termed "female circuncision", including some which are relately analogous to male circumcision, and others which are far more drastic.

While in some cultures they have becomne customary, fortunately they are not actually prescribed by any significant religion - the pity is that that isn't the case with male circumcision. (Which also comes in a number of varieties, some much worse than others.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 04:48 PM

..."Can the "uncut" penis of an infant be easily fully exposed for washing?"...

I can only speak for myself, but I had difficulty for years as a young boy in pulling the foreskin back to wash.

Constant practice made it easier ...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 04:55 PM

It's yours, and you can wash it as fast as you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 05:09 PM

GUEST at 04:48PM... Ummmm... that's what I am getting at... ah, getting to... ah, well, okay... can the foreskin be easily "rolled back" to completely expose ALL surfaces for washing? GUEST may be on to something here which may be of great significance in this "debate". That is, until well into puberty, many males CANNOT roll out the wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 05:09 PM

Let's get back to the topic, shall we?

I think we can all agree that female circumcision is a cruel, senseless form of mutilation, and that it is doubtless much worse than malecircumcision.

It is also not the issue here. I started this thread for a discussion about male circumcision as practiced in the US.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 05:12 PM

Oh, and we've all heard the joke about the luggage/couch/whatever. Several times, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 05:15 PM

michaelr

There are scads of sites that address the issue of which you speak. Don't castigate people because they have some fun while addressing things on YOUR thread. I am outta here. Y'all have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,GUEST 4:48
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 05:23 PM

Gnu's question is a very valid and important one.

Does any uncircumcised male reading this have difficulty retracting the foreskin, or is it something that all men are able to accomplish in time?

In particular, are they able to retract fully while having an erection ? The reason I ask is because I would imagine that there would be no bigger turn-off for a woman than an unretractable foreskin on their partner's penis.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bbc
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 05:58 PM

Difficulty retracting the foreskin varies, but it's not usually a problem. One of my son's had an easily retractable foreskin fairly early on & one didn't until into puberty. He's had sex as a young man w/ no problem & both of my sons are glad they weren't circumcised. One is convinced it will make sex more fun for him & his partner, which some sources seems to agree w/. He's the one who hasn't had sex yet, so we can't be sure. You are not supposed to force the foreskin back--just retract it gently. Cleanliness was never an issue w/ my sons. When they were small, I cleaned all of their body parts. As they got older--what do you know!--they did it themselves. Duh. I made the decision not to circumcise my firstborn when he had to, unexpectedly, start his life in neonatal intensive care. I didn't see why he needed more trauma. I was leaning that way, anyway, the procedure being medically unnecessary. Once one of my sons was uncircumcised, it seemed silly to circumcise the younger.

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 06:09 PM

"The strange thing is how this rather odd cultural idiosyncracy became common practice in the USA in a secular context, whereas in most parts of the world it has been more or less confined to the field of religious ritual."

Ah, but then for a significant segment of the population in the U.S. of A. being an Ahmerikun IS a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 07:06 PM

Michael, here's an interesting study showing how male circumcision enhances sexual performance and satisfaction

"CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."

This increase in "ejaculatory latency time" is due to What is Lost in Circumcision

"1. The frenar band of soft ridges--the single most pleasure producing zone on the male body. Loss of this densely innervated and reactive belt of tissue reduces the sensitivity of the remaining penis to about that of ordinary skin."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 07:36 PM

So how come the cult of Americanism apparently adopted this rather uncomfortable ritual?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM

"Yes, there are medical benefits to circumcision"

Some keep saying that but have yet to provide a SINGLE example...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM

There are medical benefits. Some doctors charge $400 for the procedure.


Info available here.


Other views.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

My banjo string went when I was 15,with a young lady at the time. It scared hell out of me. Nobody told he it could happen, very sore may I add. Then again a good Irish Catholic boy shouldn't have known !

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 08:33 PM

Circumcision provides for a lifetime of enhanced sexual function and satisfaction, because removal of hte foreskin causes a significant "increase in ejaculatory latency time". (See the link I just posted above).

In addition, here are some of the medical benefits of male circumcision:

"...a boy circumcised as a newborn has multiple lifetime health advantages compared to one with an �intact� foreskin. These include protection against serious kidney infections in infancy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including human immunodeficiency (HIV) infections and human papilloma virus (HPV) in young men, and invasive cancer of the penis in middle and old age.

In addition, all through life uncircumcised males are more susceptible to penile infections (balanoposthitis) and a variety of skin disorders of the penis such as eczema and psoriasis, as well as more difficulty maintaining good hygiene.

About 1% of boys are born with only a pinpoint opening at the tip of the foreskin (phimosis) preventing retraction, leading to painful erections, and requiring future circumcision, at a time when the procedure is more difficult, risky and costly.

Further, women sexual partners of uncircumcised men with HPV infection are at significantly greater risk of developing cervical cancer."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 08:55 PM

I may be wrong but I can't think of any other medical procedure where a portion of the anatomy is removed, without the consent of the patient, as a preventitive against the possibility of some future complication.

An equivalent of this would be removing the labia of a female to prevent the possibility of labial cancer or reducing the risk of urinary tract infection.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 09:18 PM

WEll, I rather doubt removal of the labia enhances sexual function/satisfication. And for many people(s), male circumcision affords significant social (ie family, religious, cultural) and psychological benefit, in addition to better health/hygiene.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:28 PM

"WEll, I rather doubt removal of the labia enhances sexual function/satisfication."

I didn't see anyone making that claim but I suspect you are inferring from the opinion that removal of the foreskin increases "ejaculatory latency time" whatever that is supposed to mean.

The foreskin and the labia are rich in nerve endings which promote sexual response so to say that the removal of either enhances sexual function/satisfaction is a specious argument at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:39 PM

Today (Oct. 15, 2005) The New York Times published an editorial titled "Preventing the Spread of AIDS."

The editorial promotes circumcision as a powerful protector against AIDS. The results of a new study in South Africa are summarized. It is suggested that the penis's foreskin has cells that are particularly receptive to the AIDS virus.

Preventing the Spread of AIDS

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:48 PM

Wouldn't it just be easier to wear a condom?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:51 PM

Having a foreskin does not make one susceptible to HIV, high risk sexual behaviour, among other activities, does.

It's like saying women should have their cervixes or vaginas removed as that would reduce the risk of HPV.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:55 PM

Removal of the vagina or the cervix would be a better contraceptive, though ...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Ladies: Does It Matter?
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 11:07 PM

Okay, has a woman here had sex with a "clad" gentleman and one that was "skinned"? Could you tell the difference? Was one "better" than the other?

We need the sexual "skinney" on the subject.

Skinned Alive (as a babe)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 11:23 PM

Or is a dildo or a vibrator or the middle finger more effective?
Ho Hum.
Or let Fido do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 11:43 PM

Again - its the rights of the child the matter.

If an adult chooses cirmumcision - for whatever reason - it is a personal decision and is based on informed consent. A child does not have that choice therefore, circumcision is sexual assault of a child.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,The Ridged Band
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 11:53 PM

The Inside Skinney (or, Know Thy Prepuce

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 12:49 AM

Clinton, the medical benefits have already mentioned above, but here they are again. One is a documented decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer in the partners of circumcised men. The other is a documented decrease in the incidence of urinary tract infections (including pyelonephritis, or infection of the kidney, and urosepsis, or bloodstream infection starting in the urinary tract, both of which can be fatal) in circumcised male infants under one year of age. Again, does that justify circumcision? Not necessarily. Would it justify it in the mind of someone whose child had a severe or even fatal urinary tract infection? You bet your bippy, but that's not how public policy is made.

To answer the question about bathing baby: In a small number of boys, the foreskin is retractable at birth. In most, it's firmly attached to the glans--removing these adhesions to loosen the foreskin is half of the circumcision procedure in a newborn. It becomes retractable in most boys some time between infancy and puberty--yes, that's a very wide window. Until it is easily retractable, it should not be forcibly pulled back. Once it is easily retractable, it should be pulled back and the glans cleaned on a regular basis.

There will be a short quiz next week.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Terry K
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:39 AM

There are no pros, it's all a con.

Everyone associated has been conned by the generation before them. It's all to do with superstition and the mindless perpetuation of a mythology that no thinking person could ever subscribe to.

I would advocate that the perpetrators stop mutilating children.

Other than that, I don't really hold any strong views on the issue.

cheers, Terry

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:11 AM

Mark

If the cervixes of females were removed that would reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in them also.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 09:36 AM

Sorry folks, you do sound quite convincing, but your arguments against male circumsion just doesn't hold up (hee hee!) in real life.

I've yet to meet a hoodless male who harboured any "issues" whatsoever around his long-lost foreskin, or considered himself "abused", "mutilated", or otherwise inconvenienced in any way.

In fact, they seem quite proud, not to mention fond of their aesthetically pleasing, smegma-free, well-sculpted appendages.

Likewise, the hooded males I've known seem equally pleased with their parts and prowess. However, I've heard a more than a few complaints about being afflicted with occasional-to-regular bouts of itchy, over-sensitive "sticky dicky" (also known, in some intimate circles, as "stinky-dinky").

As for sexual function and satisfaction, I think there IS something to to be said for that increase in "latent ejaculatory time". It's a case of one partner's loss becoming both partner's gain. However, since human sexual performance/satisfaction are a function of so much more than nerve endings, it's nothing to write home to mama about imo.

And as for circumcision being "sexual assault of a child", I suppose that depends on personal opinion + prevailing family/community/religious/cultural norms and laws. There are many instances where neglecting to circumcise a child constitutes real social, psychological, and yes sexual abuse. For one example, check out these ancient, lavish social traditions:

Traditional Anatolian (Turkish) Marriage and Circumcision Rituals

Circumcision is an operation in which the foreskin of the penis is removed. It is a practice of great religious significance. Circumcision is known to have been practiced in ancient Egypt even before it was introduced to the Jews as part of Allah's covenant with Abraham. In Islam, however, the authority for circumcision came not from the Qur'an but from the example of the Prophet Mohammed. In Islam, whatever the prophet does or says is called sunnet; therefore this word stands for circumcision in modern Turkish.

Urologists claim that circumcised males have far fewer urinary tract infections and are less at risk for catching sexually transmitted diseases than are uncircumcised males.

As an Islamic country, in Turkey all Moslem boys are circumcised between the ages 2-14 by licensed circumcising surgeons. From the social point of view, the most prominent feature of circumcision is the introduction of a child to his religious society as a new member. This explains the reason for circumcision of people who convert into Moslems as a first step. It is impressed on a boy at a very early age that circumcision is a step for transition to manhood. As long as they are accepted as very important events in people's lives, circumcisions are generally made with big ceremonies in festive atmosphere...

Interesting, too, that the 2002 study I posted suggesting functional and satisfaction benefits of circumcision was carried out in a Turkish university.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 09:40 AM

I wrote in a previous thread that circumcision causes very little pain - at least that was my experience a year ago. That's not to say it's ok to cut babies who have no choice in the matter. The "preventing problems in later life" argument doesn't hold up . Nobody talks about removing a kid's appendix so why a foreskin? The only reasons for the circumcision of minors can be religious or cultural ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 09:40 AM

A woman expert/authority on male circumcision.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:15 AM

"The only reasons for the circumcision of minors can be religious or cultural ones."

I agree with the above statement and question why most societies readily accept this rationale for males but are horrified when it is applied to females.

The reasons presented in this forum have been predicated on the degree of mutilation. What is the standard for an acceptable degree of non-consensual mutilation?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:52 AM

Good point, bobad. I don't think it would be frivilous to bring in pierced ears at this juncture. Many kids--mostly girl kids--have their ears pierced before they reach the age of majority.

Mutilation is mutilation is mutilation . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,'Cat protecting her family's privacy
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:54 AM

My immediate family features exclusively hoodless males. None consider themselves mutilated or abused. All are potent, virile, fully functional, happy and healthy.

And stinky-dinky? Whassat??

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 11:03 AM

" the medical benefits have already mentioned above"
And they're all dismissed by reams and reams of reputable medical opinion and research...

"The only reasons for the circumcision of minors can be religious or cultural ones."
And those reasons are wrong... plain and simple...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 11:05 AM

OK, and . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 11:21 AM

Well, bobad, I'd consider this mutilation. But I bet he doesn't!

Prolonged, patient, well-intentioned "education" and/or ridicule would most likely cure him, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 11:44 AM

PS if you're hoodless, and feeling victimized or bereft for the first time in your life after persuing this thread, you might find this comforting. (WARNING - not for the faint-hearted)

J: Story of a Subincision

Scroll down the bottom of the page for rationale, commentary and photos.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 11:53 AM

Pretty pics, but I don't see what point you are trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 12:02 PM

PS if you're hoodless, and feeling victimized or bereft for the first time in your life after persuing this thread, you might find this comforting. (WARNING - not for the faint-hearted)

Shes more interested in the subject than I

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 12:37 PM

Much better to leave such procedures until the people concerned have grown up and can decide for themselves, leaving aside the rare cases where there is some genuine abnormality that needs to be corrected.

One thing I hadn't realised until looking something up for this thread is that there is nothing in the Koran requiring circumcision of male Muslims. In a way it's more of a cultural tradition than a formal requirement. There are some Muslims who are opposed to circumcision of children and babies, on religious and ethical grounds. (See here).

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 12:45 PM

Peace, I posted those links to illustrate the HUGE individual and cultural differences in what is considered to be physically beautiful and desirable - or horrific and abusive.   

What Brazilian natives do to their lips, or other people(s) do to their genitals may be judged as horrific or abusive by Westerners raised with a very different set of cultural biases - but not by the people themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 02:12 PM

What people do to themselves is one thing. What things they do to their children or their babies is another thing. Whether it's a matter or surgery or sex, the same kind of principle applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 02:24 PM

Hey, you know what? I have a suspicion that we're not going to come to an agreement on this. Still, that's not likely to stop everybody from beating each other over the head about it (so to speak). Oh, well...

Aloha,
Mark

PS, Clinton, since reading medical literature is part of what I do for a living, I'd be interested in seeing some specific references to the "reams and reams of reputable medical literature" that dismisses those two very limited claims. I'm not familiar with any, but would be happy to know about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,nameless guest #5766
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM

According to McGrath of Harlow (16 Oct 05 - 12:37 PM): One thing I hadn't realised until looking something up for this thread is that there is nothing in the Koran requiring circumcision of male Muslims.

I'm no expert on Islam, but I do know that male circumcision is required in Judaism. I also know that in McGrath of Harlow has said in Middle East threads that Judaism and Islam are essentially the same religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 03:01 PM

As usual McGrath, you have linked us to a most informative article.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Skinned Alive
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 03:20 PM

Thanks for the bold comments daylia.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 04:08 PM

"I posted those links to illustrate the HUGE individual and cultural differences in what is considered to be physically beautiful and desirable - or horrific and abusive."

Gottcha. Thanks, Daylia.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:10 PM

I finally found the information I was looking for in regards to how this practice spread to the U.S.

"Circumcision gained in importance in the USA only after allopathic medical doctors, playing upon prevailing sexual anxieties, urged it as a "cure" for a long list of childhood diseases and "disorders, "to include polio, tuberculosis, bedwetting, and a new syndrome which appeared widely in the medical literature known as "masturbatory insanity." Circumcision was then advocated along with a host of exceedingly harsh, pain-inducing devices and practices designed to thwart any vestige of genital pleasure in children (Paige 1978)."

So although it probably started long before 2300 B.C., as a shamanistic ritual, the reasons for doing it have changed throughout time. It seems that it originated as a sacrifice.

It was also interesting to read that it was not always practiced by Jews. Apparently Moses outlawed the practice at one point in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:17 PM

Excellent!

That's about as rational as today's justifications.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:36 PM

The clerical tonsure can be seen as a kind of symbolic circumcision. It'd be good if it could be adopted as a substitute in cultures where circumcision is seen as a significant ritual of inclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Terry K
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 02:09 AM

It'd be even better if all the people who need this kind of symbolic nonsense could be educated into a state of enlightenment.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:32 AM

"A state of enlightenment" - now that's the kind of talk that fundamentalists of all types tend to use, religious or secular. Brave New World...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:24 PM

I grieve to think of all the nights when I've lain there soaked with sweat, trying to catch my breath, and thinking, "If only my parents hadn't had me mutilated as a child, that might have been enjoyable "

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:26 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:26 PM

You can't know what you are missing if you've never had it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 09:41 PM

And that is how I can see that there is possibly beauty and validity to the traditions around La Corrida--bullfights.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 11:01 PM

Ummm...not sure what you're getting at with that comment, Art. Are you referring to the bull's ears? Or an unlucky matador's cojones?

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:35 PM

The evolutionary--may I use that term?--reason for the foreskin is to protect the sensitve head from the whipping of the tall grass as one ran through it naked. I suggest that all circumcision survivors who might have been planning to run through tall grass naked could be upset with their parents. All others should be grateful that their parents cared enough about their health to have it done.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:58 PM

"All others should be grateful that their parents cared enough..."

To have them mutilated???
Hardly...   What an ignorant, barbaric concept...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:31 PM

How about judging/condemning your neighbour's appearance, choices and cultural traditions according to your own personal preferences, standards and biases - instead of according to theirs? Doesn't that just reek of ignorance and bigotry?

Want a more accurate measure of other people, when they differ from yourself?

Better use the right yardstick then.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:51 PM

"The evolutionary--may I use that term?--reason for the foreskin is to protect the sensitve "

Then what the hell am I doin' in a paved city?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:03 PM

"How about judging/condemning your neighbour's appearance... Doesn't that just reek of ignorance and bigotry?"

If you want to call me a bigot because I think people who use religion as a rational to justify mutilating their children, you go right a head... it says more about you than it does about me...

This isn't about wearing a turban, or having to face a certain direction when you pray... this isn't about what you think some invisible man in the sky said about what you can and cannot eat on certain days of the week.... This is child abuse... plain and simple...

If your religion said it was o.k. for a man to beat his wife, I'd be JUST as condemning and condescending of that practice as well....

Oh... wait... That's already been done...

I don't know why I'm surprised to find such prevalent attitudes here, I really don't....

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:07 PM

oh, brother ...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bill kennedy
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM

circumcision is mutilation period
as a circumcised male whom Daylia has not met, let me say yes, I regret having been circumcised

as to how it started in the US on non religious grounds let me suggest what was merely alluded to in a post above

a doctor could charge a couple of hundred dollars or whatever (I know it has fluctuated and increased over the years, so whatever it is today 2000 or so) for a normal delivery of a boy child.

Add a circumcision, quick snip and a little more work for the nurses but who cares now the doctor can bill for an additional surgical procedure. a money machine, pure and simple, though no doubt there may well have been dodctors who actually believed there might be some therapeutic reason for the procedure, most did it for the bucks. not for any good reason. mutilation not as severe as female circumcision, but no less wrong. can;t believe it still goes on, and can't accept the feeble argument from some men I know that they allowed thier sons to be circumcised so they wouldn't 'look different' then the fathers. how many of you had fathers that compared thier penises with you? or you ever accidentally got a look at? long ago time to put an end to this barbaric practice in secular society leave it to the tribal religions if they so choose, but I would even argue that there is no placve for genital mutilation of others in a humane society. If you are lucky enough to reach the age of reason or manhood or adulthood and decide that you want to be circumcised as a mark of your covenant with some god or other, or as a lark, or as a test, or for whatever other lamne reason you might think of that is your right, pay for it or do it yourself, but no one has the right to do that to a child. IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM

Right freakin' ON, Clinton! I got one simple message for the pro-circumcision crowd...(buncha stinkin' child-abusin' perverts)

TOUCH MY BANANA WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND YOU DIE!!!!!

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM

So, what are the moral implications of cutting children's fingernails, toenails or hair? Wicked infringement of rights? Sensible medical/hygeinic procedure? Cultural practise which we should respect, even though we may disagree? Your comments, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:19 PM

"cutting children's fingernails, toenails or hair"

D'uh..... That's basic hygiene.... Circumcision isn't... Circumcision is like cutting off the last knuckle of a childs FINGERS so you don't HAVE to trim their nails...

"oh, brother ..."
Ya... that's the sort of cogent, insightful, expressive kind of response I'd expected to get from the likes of you.....

*singing*
"On the Big Rock Candy Mountain"

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:20 PM

Peace and I have both mentioned ear-piercing along the way, and I think he asked, at least in effect, if those who are strongly opposed to circumcision are strongly opposed to the piercing of children's ears. I don't think anyone has answered.

Don't say "ear piercing isn't mutilation, nothing is removed". It's obviously possible to mutilate someone severely, by cutting or piercing, without removing anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:23 PM

All these posts and no verses? True, this thread is below the line so to speak. But here's a verse we used to sing when we were three sheets to the wind, so to speak. It has utterly no redeeming social value:

Columbus had a cabin boy,
The dirty little nipper,
He lined his arse with broken glass
And circumcized the skipper.

Cheerily,
Charley Ignoble

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:26 PM

The evolutionary reason for the foreskin is to protect the sensitve head from the whipping of the tall grass as one ran through it naked.

Saul, do you have any documentation for that claim?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:34 PM

bill, thanks for expanding my world-view. I'm so sorry to hear about your grief and pain, and I hope any help you may require to deal with it is readily available in your locale.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:35 PM

I'm glad to live in a country in which this is not even a point of debate.

As for circumcision and the Muslim faith it doesn't matter if it is mentioned in the Koran or not as long as it is part of the Sunnah.

MALE CIRCUMCISION: a Muslim perspective

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bill kennedy
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:54 PM

Daylia - one can have regrets without needing therapy, I'm not obsessed by it, though I think it is something that should be discussed openly. a kiss every now and then does make it all better, though the scars remain!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:00 PM

;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:07 PM

as a parable, for Bill:

Holmes: "Watson, what did the doctor say about the snakebite?"

Watson: "I'm sorry, Holmes; he said you're going to die".

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:58 PM

Cutting hair and fingernails doesn't actually hurt; and they grow back.
Not really analogous. Pulling out fingernails, (like declawing cats, which I believe is still legal in some countries), now that would be analogous, but I think most people would draw the line as that.

So far as religious requirements go, well, most religions accumulate stuff that they need to get rid off from time to time, and that kind of reform has to come from inside the communities involved. Can't be pushed on them from outside, and attempts to do that just reinforce resistance to the change.

As I understand it both Jewish and Islamic tradition accepts that where there are serious reasons to avoid circumcision, such as haemophilia, a man can be a full member of these religions without beng ciurcumcised. That means that there is no absolute requirement even within the existing traditions, and that implies that there is room for movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Big Richard
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:11 PM

Circumcision. I think they should cut it out! There may be loads'a women who agree with that too. Cut it out completely. Not just the end bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:17 PM

Circumcision is a weird, arbitrary, archaic, totally unnecessary mutilation of a male infant's body. (Some) people support the notion for the same reason they support most things: they're accustomed to it. If questioned about it, they make up strange reasons to justify it....reasons which they have heard from someone else who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else who...

"If there's an orginal thought out there, I could use it right now" - Bob Dylan

If they were accustomed to killing all their female firstborn at birth, they'd support that too. (and they do, in some places)

Oh, and the North American medical establishment supports it because it's lucrative, of course... Why would they discontinue an existing source of income?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:26 PM

Well, vets can get money for docking dogs tails, and that doesn't stop vets as an organised body being wholly opposed to it. (And the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals outlaws the practice, even though it lingers on.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 08:39 PM

RE docking dog's tails - I had a pup once, a doberman-hound cross.   Very cute, when she was tiny. And her tail and ears had been left as is.

Well, the ears were no problem, but the tail? By the time she was about 6 months old, that dog - or rather, it's tail - had become a real hazard. When the poor thing was happy to see you, it would clear off the table(s) in one swipe. It could knock a 6 year old off their feet. And if you got thwacked, WOW - you wore the welts for the rest of the day.

Ended up having to take the dog to the SPCA before it was a year old, to protect myself, my toddlers, my furnishings and my students from that incredible tail. IT was quite the sorry day. :-(   BUt at least by then I understood, very well, the logic behind docking a doberman's tail, if it's meant to be kept as a housepet anyway. Had her tail been docked before she was weaned, I might still have her company today.   :-(

So sometimes, a bit of "mutilation" is in a creature's best interests - and in the best interests of everything in it's immediate vicinty too.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:17 PM

Man, I had a long and thoughtful post to this thread, that isn't here any more. Wonder what happened to it. Anybody read it?

Anyway - I have sons whom I did not have circumsized at birth because 10 years ago, the data really showed no medical benefit. Not to mention that they have holocaust-survivor maternal relatives and I didn't want any new Nazis to be able to claim that they (the twins, that is, not the Nazis) were Jewish.

However, the medical data have now changed. The shape of the AIDS belt in Africa follows the territories with uncircumsized males to a T. Also, uncirc'd males are much more likely to catch AIDS from vaginal (normal heterosexual) sex than are circum'd males - usually it's hard to catch from a woman, or even many women. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that without *very* good hygiene, which is difficult unless you happen to be rich by world standards (par for this forum, at a guess), the area under the foreskin becomes inflamed and even slight inflammation leaves that area susceptible to transmission of all kinds of fun stuff, of which AIDS is the worst as least curable. And it does take VERY good hygiene - a daily bath in hot water and soap isn't enough. This gets into why the puritanical US was/is so into circumsision - otherwise you really have to "play with it" to clean "down there" and all that. My dad wasn't circumsized but he did say once that if I had sons I should have it done for hygiene reasons (we lived for 15 years in Africa while I was growing up, but we had hot running water most of the time). And now that my twins are 10, one of them is fine and cleans well and stays fine, but the other has a lot of fine motor deficits, very soft and un-bony fingers, and has a lot of trouble retracting to pee, and is now too old for me to wash his willie but he doesn't/can't do it well himself, so he is always inflamed under his foreskin. As a result of my not having him circ'd at birth, he is running the risk of having to have it done at puberty, because I'm not going to let him develop into a sexually active person with inflammation under his foreskin, for his sake. He has to learn to keep it clean or get its hood lopped off, I will absolutely tell him. Why aren't people all up in arms about parents who pierce their babies' ears? Because it's no big deal, is why. Had this been done at birth, it would have been no big deal. Having it done later is going to be a huge hairy deal, and I feel bad for him. I'm hoping that the threat/promise will enable him to be able to keep it clean, but what about when he leaves home? How many male college freshman have excellent hygiene or don't sleep with anybody? I'd want him to be able to not take a bath AND get laid, and not worry about what bugs are crawling around under his hood. Nor should the woman worry, or man if that's where he goes. Not a risk I'm up for (I know, easy for me to say, it isn't MY willie...)!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:31 PM

And it's just incredible, to me, how the surgical removal of a miniscule flap of skin from the tip of a newborn's penis could be considered the equivalent of beating a woman, or removing her cervix or vagina. Hey, according to some of the views presented here, there's no difference between foreskin removal and infanticide! So a couple square mm of skin from a neonatal penis = the whole female infant.

Wow ... looks llike phallus worship is still alive and well and 'politically correct' in Western culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:36 PM

Keeeeriste!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:37 PM

Okay, well, that's worth thinking about.

The thing that strikes me is, we have had any number of highly successful and lasting civilizations on this planet that did not practice circumcision, and they appear to have somehow managed fine without it.

Did they know something we don't?

What do the Chinese and Japanese do about it? How high are their Aids rates?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:41 PM

"a bit of "mutilation" is in a creature's best interests"
We're not talking about dogs here... Nor are we talking about phallus worship... we're talking about not mutilating someone without their consent...

"The shape of the AIDS belt in Africa follows the territories with uncircumsized males to a T."
I suspect that has a LOT more to do with factors OTHER than circumcision...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:50 PM

It probably has a great deal to do with poverty, prostitution, and a promiscuous lifestyle among transient, underemployed workers.

As I said, what about the Chinese, the Japanese, and various other populations? Who practices circumcision and who doesn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:52 PM

Anecdotal re Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:55 PM

Circumcision around the world (no pun intended).

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:02 PM

It is an easily observable fact that most people will defend what they are already accustomed to with the tenacity of a mother bear defending her cubs. Why? Because it is part of their conscious identity. Egos fight for their maintenance and survival just like animals do.

This is why you can find people vociferously defending any damn thing whatsoever, as long as it's already customary to them. Depend on it. Evidence be damned, because they will find evidence that appears to support their established view.

I say, give circumcision to them that wants it...when they reach an age to make the decision themselves. We have aneasthetics, don't we? It's done to infants without any aneasthetics. That must be quite an experience! Would anyone consent to it, I wonder, if given the choice? But hey, babies scream a lot anyway, right? So who cares? You can't really interpret what they're screaming about, cos they don't have the words. Easy to ignore, really...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:25 PM

LOL and thanks for the link, Peace

Easy to ignore, really...

LOL   For the record, how long have you ever lived, 24/7, right up close and personal with a screaming infant?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:33 PM

Links to everyfrigginthing y'ever wanted to know about peckers and circumcision.

I figure by the time the folks here have read all those links my pecker and its circumcised or noncircumcised condition will have stopped working for anything buts pissing.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:37 PM

Enough already - CUT!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:39 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:07 PM

Heh! Heh! Well, that's enough for me for one day. It's a moot point, anyway, in my case. Part of the great subliminal past at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:07 PM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:09 PM

One reaction to the Japan-based "anecdote"; how many males do any of you know who remember all the penises they've seen in that kind of detail?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:30 PM

I don't want to speak for Littlehawk, but I took his comment to mean that when a baby cries during circumcision it would be easy to attribute the crying to something other than the pain, since the baby cannot speak.

I too, wonder how parents can listen to their child cry as a result of a mutilation that they sanction. Anyone who says that it doesn't hurt the baby is in denial.

As far as AIDS being related to the uncircumcised, why aren't the older generation effected? They aren't circumcised. You'll have to come up with better evidence than a map to prove a link to AIDS.

The facts are on the table and people can choose according to their own conscience at this point. In the future, I am sure we will outlaw circumcision as a barbaric tradition. Until then, you can soothe your conscience any way you want.

Personally, I think it is personal choice that should be made by the individual and nobody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:33 PM

"In the future, I am sure we will outlaw circumcision as a barbaric tradition."

Holy crap on a cracker I HOPE so!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Reactionary
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 06:49 AM

I've heard about some angry uprisings, where disaffected gangs of circumcised youths in Brooklyn are wreaking violent revenge on their circumcisers.There is a film about this - 'Boyz With No Hood'.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 07:36 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 07:45 AM

PS - from the link about male circumsion in Japan, where the surgery (oh yeah ... there is a difference between surgery and mutilation) is becoming more and more sought after- not only to curb the spread of diseases but because women are disgusted and repulsed by stinky-dinky. Plain and simple.

There are astonishingly often essays (but no pictures!) on "tight foreskin" or "covered penis" (hokei) with the message that this is a problem for hygiene and the women detest the dirtyness

Hear hear!

And thank you for sharing your experiences, Mrzzy. All the best to you and your sons.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 08:02 AM

ANd re infant crying after circumcision: infants scream for a minute or two at the hospital during the surgery.   The area is still tender for a day or so afterwards, but not enough to cause excessive crying. And after that, the only "pain" is suffered by the person changing the baby's diaper, who must learn how to wrap a tiny bit of medicated gauze around a slippery area about half the size of your smallest fingernail, tight enough so it won't rub off and loose enough so it doesn't cause pain. THe incision heals completely in about two weeks.

And after that, the only related "pains" can avoided completely by ignoring the rants of misinformed third parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 11:57 AM

Is Michelangelo's David circumsized? Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:34 PM

Looks kinda hard to tell

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:43 PM

I don't think so; and he would have a helluva time peeling that back to wash it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Judge Mental
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:56 PM

Is Michelangelo's David circumsized? Enough said.

Whether or not the representation of the penis on the statue is circumcized says more about Michelangelo than it does about David.

The biblical King David would most certainly have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:57 PM

Good point, Judge. (no pun intended *G*)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:13 PM

Most pros are circumcised. Most cons aren't. That's it in a nutshell.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 10:42 PM

What about those who are half cut?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:05 AM

Half cut guys have to give it a bit more time and effort too.

Aw.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM

William Shakespeare:
Drink...provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him and it mars him; it sets him on and it takes him off.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Visitor
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Visitor
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 03:31 PM

That dog of daylia was lucky not to get docked as a puppy, even aside from still having a tail to wag. After all, what dog would want to be living with someone who couldn't put up with a dog wagging its tail?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,allie kiwi sans cookie
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 06:54 AM

I think if you live in a country/society where circumcision is considered the norm, then it may be quite difficult to see that others don't see why it should be the norm.

New Zealand, where I live, had a 'bell curve' for circumcisions: prior to WW1 there were virtually none, and then post WW1 the number of cicumcisions rose dramatically (the tale is that the men in the desert furing the war had problems with sand where no man should have sand. Whether this is true or not I have no idea), so that by the 1960s approx 98% of men and boys were circumcised. Just as suddenly the rate of circumcision dropped.

Now less than 5% of new born boys are circumcised. Doctors over here virtually won't do it unless there is a religious reason, or medical reason.

I don't believe that 'I want him circumcised so he's like his father' is enough of a reason to cut it off.

As the mother of a son who has a foreskin this poses a little bit of a problem. I never had one, my hubby is of the age where virtually everyone was circumcised so he doesn't have a foreskin (we have the reciept for when it was done - it cost £3 pounds). So... every so often I ponder when are you supposed to be able to pull it back to clean? Should it even pull back if you are only 6 years old? will it hurt if you attempt it at that age? And all that stuff that my husband can't answer.

Anyway, I understand that there are still quite a number of cicumcisions done in Australia - in fact friends of mine have all had their sons circumcised and were puzzled when I was amazed that such a thing could be done in this day and age. So I suppose if you're having trouble tell a New Zealand from an Australia, you really only need to get him to drop his trousers and check.

Allie

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Pussy
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 07:56 AM

Yeah Visitor, you're right. She's such a bitch. Now she wants to get rid of me too! Said something about shedding. Or was it fleas? Or how I love jumping on her bed and licking her face after drinking from the toilet? And after all those half-digested bunnies I've left, just for her, right there in her boudoir too!

Oh well. I won't miss that bitch either.

Meow.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:06 PM

Allie Kiwi, reread the thread. Your question about pulling it back to clean was answered quite a while ago. (Yes you can and should in most cases).

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:24 PM

Ah, but if it were being done to female infants!!!! (and it is in some places...) Then you would hear the same voices here who approve it being done to males raising quite a hue and cry about it. Yes indeedy.

It seems that there is a strong prejudice around these days in favour of seeing women as victims, but not men...

Strange, isn't it? Must be an over-reaction to the past few thousand years of patriarchal rule, methinks.

The most ironical part, as far as I'm concerned, is that we've probably all BEEN both male and female in various of our past incarnations...so why waste energy now on being prejudiced against either gender, just because you're stuck in one of them at the moment?

* (those who do not believe in such stuff please just ignore that last paragraph...it'll save us both a lot of hot air if you do) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:37 PM

Littlehawk - Regardless of sex, ts easy to villify African customs and traditions but not as easy to condemn our own abusive customs and traditions.

It seems to be a little easier to point the finger at others.

Maybe. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:44 PM

You betcha, Dianavan. ;-) It's always those filthy foreigners who do awful and capricious things, isn't it? We need to send over some Christian missionaries...and a whole lot of well-armed soldiers...and get those bloody heathens straightened out right quick. Tally ho, chaps!

They'll thank us for it in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:36 AM

Toque or Helmet?

I had a girlfriend once who said she was glad I was circed because she didn't like giving head to an uncut dink.

And women never lie to their men about anything involving sex, do they?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 07:24 AM

During a private moment yesterday, I decided to take the bull by the ba ... get right down to the heart of the matter. Summoned up all my courage and asked one of my young sons if, as a man, he had any regrets about being 'sculpted' as a helpless infant.

Heart in mouth, I nervously watched as this little shadow passed over his features. THe seconds ticked by like hours, and then he finally said "Well, I haven't got anything to compare it to now, do I? So I can't really say ..."   

That IS the one thing I'd regret about it, if I were a man ... stab stab stab ... my heart sank ... and the Inner Accusers struck up this triumphant chorus "You ABUSER! Mutilator! Ignorant Savage!" and my motherly soul started wilting in grief ...

till my son's voice broke the spell, and he finished his thought "... but girls like it better. I know that. A couple of my girlfriends have been with - you know, both kinds - and they told me they prefer it, uh, my way."

Oh praise be! I asked if they told him why, and he said "Something about making it easier to, uh, you know ... OH FORGET IT, sMother! Enough!!"

Yup, it was. Thank you sweet girlies, oh thank you .... eight years ago I'da had your pretty little heads but today? Thank you thank you ... and I do know EXACTLY where you're coming from! (no pun intended)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:05 AM

Now there's a great reason to mutilate your babies, ladies.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:59 AM

WOrks for me!   ;-)

There are vast differences in the biological and temporal "costs" of sex and reproduction for males and females in all but very few species of mammals. Simply put, Mother Nature's design is that females 'pay' maximum, males 'pay' minimum to pass on their genes.

Click here for more info re natural gender differences in the "costs of sex"

"In terms of time and energy, the male expends virtually nothing in sexual contact compared to the female (Trivers 1972; Dewsbury, 1981): a few tens to a few thousand calories per contact, depending on body size, and from as low as 2-3 seconds (the bluewhale) to a few hours (the giant tree sloth) (both figures are time from intromission to ejaculation; we won't count foreplay).(4)

Females, on the other hand, have a far greater physical, physiological and temporal stake in the production of offspring, particularly among the mammals (Trivers 1972). In mammals the female must carry the fetus within her body, nourishing it with her own body tissues. She must withstand the not insubstantial rigors of birth. She must then continue to nourish and protect the offspring until it can support itself, often to puberty. All this can take a lot of time, from weeks to years, and burn millions of calories.(5)

The difference in the amount of time and energy males and females must devote to reproduction leads to a difference in how they regard sex. (Bell, 1980; Calow, 1979; Daly, 1978, 1983; Ghiselin, 1974) This in turn leads to a difference in their reproductive strategies ...

Most males are promiscuous (Bateman 1948; Leakey, 1978).(6) Genetically, it is the most practical course of action. The more females with which a male mates, the greater number of offspring containing his genes are possible. In addition, the cost of sex in terms of time and energy is considerably lower for the male than the female. It is therefore in the male's (and thus the male's genes') best interest for the male to mate with as many females as he can.

In most species, females bear the brunt of the cost of sex in both time and energy: up to millions of calories and years of time. Among mammals, she must not only produce the young, she must rear them to the point of self-sufficiency. Thus, unlike the male, she doesn't have the choice of promiscuity, of creating as many offspring as possible as quickly as possible; she cannot abandon offspring as soon as they are born, or her genes die with the infant (Daly 1983)."

Biologically speaking, men are 'designed' in a way that not only presents problems for hygiene, but makes promiscuity - and therefore spreading of deadly STD's - much more likely. So anything that helps make the experience safer, cleaner, and more pleasurable / satisfying for her - (and ultimately for him, too) - is well worth the aggravation imo.

Quite possibly, the traditional 'sacrifice' made by men via circumcision (which does, imo, parallel in a very small way the physical sacrifices demanded of women simply through their biology) - was an important step forward in the social/sexual evolution of this species.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 12:11 PM

I don't doubt that most girls prefer the circumsized variety... ;-)

If they had never heard of such a thing, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

I mean, hell, in a culture where people are as afraid of "dirt" and "germs" as they are in this one it's inevitable, isn't it? Besides, they are accustomed to the idea of circumsized penises. Naturally they prefer them. For similar reasons, people prefer women to have shaven legs and shaven armpits. They think the hair looks coarse, dirty...whatever. Is that rational? No, it's culturally induced thinking.

Anyway, Daylia, I wouldn't go around carrying a load of guilt about your sons being circumsized if I were you. There's absolutely NO use carrying guilt about things that can't be changed, so why bother?

But you already knew that, right?

You state that most males are promiscous. True. But it's all a bit annoying to hear that for those males who are not, specially when they have acquired some girlfriends in the past who ARE promiscuous! Then it's damned annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:01 PM

Most women I know prefer the uncircumcized one, if they've had both.

And about comments that the shape of the AIDS belt in Africa "probably has a great deal to do with poverty, prostitution, and a promiscuous lifestyle among transient, underemployed workers" rather than circumcision, that's just it - proportions of poverty and prostitution and all that fun stuff has a completely different shape than the AIDS belt. The non-circumcision shape matches it exactly. I will try to find the reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:06 PM

Then they should have the good sense to stay with the uncircumcized ones, shouldn't they. What a classless remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 09:06 PM

To the tune of "I wish I was a mole in the ground":

I wish I was a mohel at your bris
I wish I was a mohel at your bris
If I was a mohel at your bris,
I'd cut it off like this
I wish I was a mohel at your bris

Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl
Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl
Put in on his lap,
In case the baby crawl
Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl

I cannot believe that the Mudcat has actually provided a thread that gives me the opportunity to post this parody, which I never thought I'd get a chance to share in public.

Glossary:
Bris or Brith milah is the Jewish circumcision ceremony, held when the male child is eight days old.
Sandek is the person who holds the baby in his lap (or on the table, these days) during the bris.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 11:52 PM

Opinions. There's nothin' else like 'em! They cling like barnacles, they WILL not give up, and they won't change for nothin'. They are ruthless, unforgiving, and impervious. Everybody's got a few and they won't part with 'em for love or money or if their life depended on it. They would much rather be "right" than be happy. They would much rather be "right" than be kind or merciful or understanding or loving or patient or helpful or any other given virtue.

Find me a man or woman with no opinions. It would be so refreshing for a change.

Such a person would either have to be totally innocent and free of all cultural brainwashing...or be a spiritual Master.

I used to love it when they'd ask Mother Teresa her opinion on all kinds of political hassles and stuff (the kind of controversies that drive the news and employ legions of lawyers), and she'd shrug and say,

"I don't know anything about that."

And she'd get back to talking about what really matters. I'm not gonna try to tell you what that is. Go read about her yourself and find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 05:27 AM

Mother Teresa had opinions too, ie

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 07:50 AM

PS I was just enjoying the drama there, LH, so not to worry about "guilt". Might be rewarding to bear the weight of thousands of years of tradition on these little shoulders though ... (not!)

If they had never heard of such a thing, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

??? People suffer diseases and dysfunctions whether they've heard of them or not, LH.

WHy do men shave their faces? IS that a form of 'abuse' too? Self-inflicted every day because they've been conned into believing it looks better??

RE removing unwanted hair from legs and underarms - it seems silly to people with different customs or those who've never tried, but those who do soon discover they're more comfortable, less itchy, much less stinky, as well as more pleasing to the eye and to the touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:10 AM

And I just can't resist this ...

The Holy Prepuce

The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium) is one of several relics purported to be associated with Jesus. At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess it, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have been ascribed to it...

There was also some theological dispute as to whether Jesus can really be said to have ascended wholly into Heaven if this part of his body was actually missing. This was resolved by noting that his foreskin was no more an obstacle to this than the hair and fingernails that he had cut throughout his life or the blood he shed...

A related theological issue questions whether Jesus' foreskin was restored to him in his resurrected body ... According to 17th century theologian Leo Allatius, the Foreskin may have divinely ascended to become the rings of Saturn.

Ah.

Gives "around the world" a whole new meaning, don't it!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM

I'm not saying Mother Teresa had NO opinions, I'm just saying she had fewer opinions on fewer things than most people do. ;-) Most people have an opinion on every f**king thing under the sun. Just ask 'em...

(and then be sorry you did...)

Since it is more comfortable and less smelly to shave the hairy areas of the body, I am now recommending that we ALL shave our heads nice and clean too! Yes indeed. Just like Jean-Luc Picard. No more dandruff or greasy, smelly hair. No more money spent uselessly on shampoo. You first, Daylia! I am going to see if I can talk Chongo Chimp into shaving himself all over. Think how much cleaner and nicer he will be then.

What about Adam? (assuming the existence of such a being in the first place) Did Adam have a foreskin? Hmmmm. If not, where did it go? If so, did Eve find it objectionable? Did Eve shave those smelly, itchy legs and armpits???? Do I really care? Bigger "hmmmm". Ummm, well, no I guess not! LOL!

Daylia, the fact is...almost everything we do is arbitrary...socially conditioned...and we make up a million reasons and excuses afterward for why it's such a good idea. Men's habit of shaving the face is definitely among such arbitrary customs. I do it simply because I am culturally accustomed TO doing it, and for no other reason whatsoever. It costs me money, it's not necessary, it's 100% arbitrary, and I KNOW it. I like it because I'm used to the idea. For the same reason, I wear trousers rather than a skirt or a kilt or a Roman toga or a zippered jumpsuit. For the same reason, I am willing to bare the upper half of my torso in public (in the right setting), but not the lower. For the same reason, I usually eat with cutlery...when it's clearly not necessary to do so. In India, people usually eat with their hands (well, one hand to be exact), and it is considered perfectly normal to do so.

Almost none of this stuff actually MATTERS. People defend customs because it is customary to do so, and because those customs are a part of their own conscious (or unconscious) identity. To know this is to laugh at the pretentiousness and self-importance of the human mind in the face of the Great Mystery of Life, which it does not comprehend at all.

We are playing games here. Kid's games. The pity of it is that everybody takes those games (and themselves) so damned seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:52 PM

"WHy do men shave their faces? IS that a form of 'abuse' too? Self-inflicted every day because they've been conned into believing it looks better??"

1) I look like shit with facial hair.
2) Beards interfere with breathing apparatus masks.
3) Very often parts of our faces are exposed to tremendous heat, and hair goes up in a flash.
4) I have worn a beard and it bugged me because it itched and required almost as much time as shaving.

FYI

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:59 PM

I tried wearing one once too. It didn't look that great, it itched, and it bugged me as well. If I'd grown up as a traditional Sikh or Afghan tribesman, though, I would no doubt be wearing a full beard right now (scruffy in my case) and loving it. That's culture for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:31 PM

Estimate the temperature at about 2000 degrees F.


If that had happened with the guys inside, it would have killed them. The guys in the picture all made it out alive and unscathed. I imagine the bunker gear for two of them had to be replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:44 PM

Also, the ladder is not positioned correctly--the angle is wrong. The angle at the foot of the ladder should be 75 degrees. It looks more like 40 degrees to me.

"The phenomenon of flashover, in its generic sense, is a significant killer of firefighters. In the USA, for example, NFPA statistics recorded between 1985 and 1994 demonstrated a total of 47 US firefighters lost their lives to flashover."

Sorry to have got off topic here.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:46 PM

Also, the mind is a funny thing. For years I had accepted that our gear with air tanks weighed about 50 pounds. I found out recently that it really weighs between 65 and 72 pounds (depending on the type of air tank a guy uses). All of a sudden I feel weighed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:06 PM

"All of a sudden I feel weighed down."

You still have your foreskin, Bruce?   ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM

I donated it to medical science--they were looking for a faster way to make politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM

Mom always liked you best.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:18 PM

Serious for a second: (whether or not I am circumcized is something I don't discuss):

How the hell come I could manage two tanks in a row--once did three--yet after finding out the gear weighed more than I thought it did now makes the gear fell heavier?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:56 PM

So, Clinton, I'm still waiting for those references to the "reams and reams of medical opinion and research" that contradicts what I said about the medical benefits of circumcision. If you're going to make a statement like that, it would be helpful if you could back it up.

By the way, Peace, your comment about the ladder reminds me of the summer job I had while I was in medical school, teaching CPR to firemen and running with the rescue squads--this was in 1974, when there was only one MICU and half a dozen paramedics in the entire city of Philadelphia. I spent a lot of time in firehouses that summer. One of the firemen's favorite TV shows was "Emergency!", later renamed "Emergency 911." I'd be watching the show with them, and would be saying things like, "Hey, you can't give that medication intramuscularly, it has to be given IV." And the firemen would say things like, "Hey, you'd never go into a building that size with a 2 1/2 inch hose...gotta be at least a 3 1/2!"

Aloha,
Mark

(PS Note that I'm not saying that those medical benefits justify the procedure, only that they exist.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:02 PM

Yeah, Mark. We watch "Backdraft" every few years just to have a good laugh. Hollywood does misrepresent the true nature of emergencies, both in and out of the ER. Thanks for saying that. Got a kick out of it. True, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:11 PM

No offense, but that was probably 1 1/2" and 2 1/2". LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:13 PM

However, I have never started an IV and I have no idea about needle sizes. Was only ever an EMR--like a low-level EMT in the US. (Advanced First Aid is comparable.) But, I liked your tale about the firehall. Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:15 PM

Mark

At the risk of beating a dead horse......why is it that we never hear about the medical benefits of prophylactic hysterectomies or mastectomies yet there is still controversy about the prophylactic removal of a perfectly healthy and functional portion of the male anatomy?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 12:23 AM

Well, um, er. I once had a beau who was uncircumcised. (Kaleea sheepishly admits she was not always the most prim & proper of ladies.) He was a wonderfully satisfying man. He entered the service, & for some reason decided to get circumsied. When we reunited, he had grown, but was not as satisfying.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 02:17 AM

Actually, bobad, there are some women who are undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, at their own request, because of a strongly unfavorable genetic predisposition to breast cancer. (one article, and another article.) It's still controversial.

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of circumcision, just in favor of backing up arguments with facts.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:17 AM

Not so long ago, surgeons regularly removed and tossed the appendix, when doing other abdominal surgery, just in case the patient might get appendicitus some time in the future.

Apparently that does not happen now if the appendix is healthy. As it turns out, the appendix is a very useful part to have about, because it can be used in future reconstructive surgery of the bladder and other related parts in the patient. Perhaps the jokes about using foreskins in reconstructive surgery are not that far fetched. LOL

Also it has been discovered recently, that the appendix also serves a very important function during fetal development and in young adults, with regard to the immune system. So much for vistigial or superfluous bits. I'm certain we haven't quite learrned all there is to know about the wonderous design of the human body.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: alison
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:24 AM

well as a midwife I talk to mums each week going through the "should I or shouldn't I?" questions......

back in Ireland we didn't do circs on babies - they were only done for medical reasons on older kids (2-5 years) & under general anaesthetic........so it was a bit of a shock when I came to Oz and found it was done regularly.... & even more when they said "its your job to hold the bub down while the baby does it" - 14 years later and I can say I still haven't had to do that!

the reason parents give for doing it which really annoys me is "I'm going to have it done so he looks like his dad" - I've got pubes & boobs..... doesn't seem to worry my daughter at all that we look different!! *grin*

as to the question of what do women prefer?........ don't care as long as he knows what to do with it!!! but I will say that circ-ed in my experience aren't so sensitive & tend to last longer........ mind you on those occasions when you just want to get to sleep......... hahaha


slainte

alison

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:28 AM

Interesting, Kaleea. Can't find the webpage right now, but I was reading yesterday how circumcision was often performed on ancient Egyptian, African, and Middle Eastern armies just prior to battle, to protect the men from diseases. Apparently certain painful penile infections were quite a problem in those dry, hot, desert countries - sometimes to the point of taking out whole armies. And to this day, American soldiers line up for circumcision before being sent overseas (the Gulf War, Vietnam).

Someone mentioned that the foreskin evolved in apes and early hominids to protect the glans while running through tall grasses. Found a couple references to that, including this one

    "The foreskin is a remnant of earlier stages of evolution (much as the appendix is) where it was necessary to protect the glans from abrasion from undergrowth and tree branches. Now that man travels on 2 legs rather than 4 and is generally clothed the foreskin serves no further purpose.
      
    The presence of a foreskin can lead to phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, urethritis, retained smegma, a higher risk for penile and cervical cancer, and a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS."

Other 'experts' claim that once humans learned to make clothing, the foreskin became redundant. Hmmm .... while I have no doubt about hygiene and protection against disease, I question the long grasses bit - not only because of what Mark just said about recently-discovered purposes of the appendix (thanks, Mark! Very cool!) but if that's the case, why then do elephants and horses have foreskins? Must be some mighty tall grasses in those locales!

There's some pretty ridiculous claims on both pro and anti-circumcision sites ie circumcision reduces "bathroom splatter"!?!
HA! :-D After living in an all-male household for almost 30 years, I can tell you without doubt that scuplted guys splatter all over too. Especially very young little sculpted guys.

Peace, that's some pic! :-O   I do see why you shave your beard! ANd let it hereby be known that notwithstanding all the evidence that women sacrifice so much more than men to pass on their genes, men's sacrifices in so many other areas of community life (and death) have been duly noted and are very much appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 08:11 AM

Mark

One big difference there - those women who have prophylactic mastectomies make that decision themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:01 AM

bobad, circumcision is much easier and less risky in infancy than it is later in life. And the foreskin presents problems for hygiene and disease in infancy too. So if it were my own body, I'd much rather have it done sooner than later. Even if this meant that my parents made the decision on my behalf.

The procedure is much cheaper in infancy as well ... although in Canada that's not a concern.   Circumcision is covered by the gov't, like most other forms of surgery.

Apparently, for a few decades after WWII, neonatal circumcisions were performed routinely on all boys in Canadian hospitals. That's why most people I know are circumcised. Things changed in 1982 though - the same year my youngest sons were born - when the Canadian Paediatric Society declared The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Click here for more info from the Canadian Paediatric Society re male circumcision; including these conclusions:

"We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following.

* There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%.
   
* The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision.
   
* Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required.
   
* More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed.
   
* Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood.
   
* There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases.
   
* When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief.
   
* The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed.
   
* When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:18 AM

Gypsies, tramps and thieves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:21 AM

Pardon me, I just read that circumcisions - as well as eye examinations, wart removal and a number of other procedures - were "delisted" from OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) in 1994. And in 2005, even more health services have been delisted, including physiotherapy and chiropractic. Patients must now pay 100% of these costs out of their own pockets.

WOw - I wonder what the dollar value of a circumcision is these days. If I'd had to fork out a thousand bucks X 3 way back in those less enlightened times, it would have presented quite the obstacle ....

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:25 AM

"Circumcision is covered by the gov't, like most other forms of surgery."

Medicare covers only circumcisions required for medical reasons, the most common one being a treatment for phimosis, or a tight foreskin.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:28 AM

" WOw - I wonder what the dollar value of a circumcision is these days."

In the 1970's, a series of studies persuaded most health-care practitioners that there is no medical indication for circumcision. Those studies moved British Columbia in 1984 to remove infant circumcision from its list of eligible procedures under its medicare plan. Quebec and Alberta followed suit in 1987, and Ontario last October. Most clinics and hospitals in those four provinces now charge between $80 and $135 for an infant circumcision.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:36 AM

Vaginas: pros and cons. Tell us which YOU prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Dosanjh
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:41 AM

"Medicare covers only circumcisions required for medical reasons, the most common one being a treatment for phimosis, or a tight foreskin."

If you're speaking about the Canadian system, then what Medicare covers varies from province to province.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM

GUEST, in my inexpert opinion and quite limited experience, there's an important difference between a vagina and a prepuce. To the best of my knowledge, the one is still a prerequisite for sexual intercourse, while the other is not.

I'm sure you can figure out which is which.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:24 AM

Lerts talk about who prefers which kind of vagina. Types, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 12:25 PM

Ok, lerts. Fill yer boots, GUEST!

You'll attract more attention on a new thread, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM

As usual, dianavan shows how complete of a Jew hater she is. That, and a feminist pig.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM

Thank you for sharing your insights with us, Martin Gibson.

It's obvious to all that when you were circumcised, the moyl threw away the wrong part.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,9999
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:08 PM

Judging by some posts from both males and females, the best parts of a few went either down their father's pants or out the window after the cut.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:10 PM

FROM RITUAL TO SCIENCE: THE MEDICAL TRANSFORMATION OF CIRCUMCISION IN AMERICA

The article provides a historical view. You'll find that circumcision once was recommended for epilepsy, lunacy, chorea, hernia, orthopedic problems, cancer,...

BTW, the article is a decade old which doesn't matter for the medical history part. But the remarks on the contemporary state of the art are to be read with that in mind. For instance, he complains that the AIDS studies done were only retrospective studies and therefore methodologically flawed. Meanwhile there are also prospective studies (for instance SCIENCE, Vol 309, Issue 5736, 860 , 5 August 2005).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:51 PM

The only beneficial outcome of circumcism I am aware of is the slicing and culturing of discarded foreskins to produce temporary skin for burn victims. One foreskin can grow up to a couple hundred sq. yards of skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM

Well, the papers today are full of research which appears to show that circumcision is remarkably effective at stopping you getting HIV/Aids, at least from heterosexual sex. That sounds like a significant benefit in anybody's book. Mind you, I'm not totally convinced: I believe the research was done on adults who had been circumcised, and covered a couple of years after the operation. Maybe they were just a bit sore, so didn't bother about much activity for a while?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:46 PM

Circumcision is no guarantee of not getting heterosexual HIV/AIDS. It is foolish for anyone, male or female, circumcised or not, to have unprotected sex (sex without a condom) with multiple partners.

Promoting the idea that being circumcised protects people from getting (and more importantly, transmitting) HIV/AIDS is incredibly irresponsible. My advice to my son, from the time he was old enough to understand, has been, don't have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and don't have unprotected sex with anyone who has had any other partners besides him. This means, of course, don't have unprotected sex with anyone with whom you are not in a long term committed relationship.

And if he follows this advice, whether or not he is circumcised becomes completely irrelevant from the standpoint of contracting and/or transmitting HIV/AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

Body piercing wimps, burn design wankers and self inflicted bullet wound wierdos stand aside, make way for men with real guts...

Men with EXTREME circumcisions.
EC - the ultimate in self mutillation is only surpassed by the Ultra EC...yet not to be outdone a rare few have opted for the yearly UCH aka YUEC.

Getting a yearly UEC every hour would be a YEUCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM

Nobody is seriously claiming that circumcision prevents getting AIDS. The claims are about a risk reduction, not more and not less.

In that recent study in SCIENCE I have referenced above 3274 South African men considering circumcision were split in two equally large groups, one was then circumcised, the other not. At a follow up after two years, 20 in the circumcised group tested positive for HIV, and 49 in the uncircumcised group. The self reported sex patterns were comparable.

Now, if you want to make this difference of 29 look big you report the relative risk reduction for it is 61 %. If you want to make this difference look small you report the absolute risk reduction which is close to but less than 1 %.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:00 PM

Risk for contracting/transmitting HIV/AIDS should not be linked in any way to someone's decision about whether or not to be circumcised. There just shouldn't be any connection there whatever. If someone is thinking along those lines, it means that they are thinking about having unprotected sex with multiple partners. People should not be encouraged in any way to do this. Anyone who sponsors such a study and allows it to be used as a part of trying to promote the practice of circumcision is behaving very irresponsibly. If people are going to consider circumcision as an option, they should be doing it for other reasons. HIV/AIDS should not be one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:21 PM

Risk for contracting/transmitting HIV/AIDS should not be linked in any way to someone's decision about whether or not to be circumcised. There just shouldn't be any connection there whatever. (Carol)

Carol, you are talking nonsense. Whether the relative risk is related to circumcision or not is an empirical question and not a question of political expedience or personal preferences. Facts (if they are corroborated, for up til now it's just one prospective study) and evaluation should never be muddled.

I always prefer knowledge to a state of not knowing. What I make of the facts and the knowledge is something entirely different.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:40 PM

You're the one who is talking nonesense, Wolfgang. People use that kind of information as justification for things all the time. Just look at this thread as an example. There are several posts on this thread by people suggesting that prevention of HIV/AIDS is a good justification for circumcision. Prevention of HIV/AIDS should NEVER be used as justification for circumcision, but we see people right here in this thread who are using it that way.

And that is the only thing I am disagreeing with. I don't disagree with the results of the studies. But I do disagree with anyone who uses the results of the studies to suggest that people can use prevention of HIV/AIDS as a justification for circumcision. To do that is highly irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM

280 posts! WOW! That's a lot of dickering around.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM

CarolC: if uncircumcised sex is being shown to lead to the spread of HIV/Aids, it seems to me an incredibly sensible thing to consider encouraging circumcision. You call that irresponsible...I really can't see why. It is just the same with condoms: their use prevents the spread of infection, so use them. Pretty obvious isn't it? Of course, in some idealised world, people wouldn't be having sex with the wrong people....but we are dealing with human beings here.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

The only thing that should be taught about preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is that nothing can guarantee that it won't be contracted and spread except the use of condoms and/or sex with only one long-term partner. Anything else is completely irresponsible, and encourages irresponsible behavior.

The only reason someone would get circumcised for the purpose of preventing HIV/AIDS would be if they intended to have unprotected sex with multiple partners. Otherwise they would have zero risk of contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual contact. If you suggest that they get circumcised for that purpose, you are encouraging them to have unprotected sex with multiple partners (otherwise circumcision for that reason would be irrelevant).

That's just stupid. You and Wolfgang really ought to know better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 04:54 PM

Agreed CarolC

Sort of like saying, "I think I'll deliberately poke my eye out with a sharp stick. If I wear my sunglasses I might miss."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:23 PM

Yes, and it's also like putting a six shooter with only one bullet in it up to your sexual parners' heads and saying, "if I pull the trigger, there's only a one in six chance that I'll kill you".

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:32 PM

Better analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:56 PM

Having unprotected sex means you not only 'sleep' with that person, but with every other person that individual has slept with, and they have slept with, etc. Basically, it's a really stupid idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:26 PM

Eat you heart out Mr. Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:56 PM

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Till it's gone
They take off a little slice
And you miss out on a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:57 PM

The cabin boy, the cabin boy, the dirty little nipper...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:34 AM

CarolC: I'm afraid you haven't understood what's going on here medically. You absolutely do not get HIV by having sex with mutiple partners. You get it on the occasion you have sex with one partner, who is infected himself/herself. and they transmit the infection to you. You may then, of course, pass it on if you go on to have sex with someone else. But when you get it, you get it from sex with one partner. If you use a condom on that occasion you reduce the risk. Likewise, this modern research is suggesting you may reduce the risk if you are circumcised. It is not at all irresponsible to do this kind of research, or to publicise and discuss the results. It would, of course, be grossly irresponsible to recommend getting circumcised as a reliable means of avoiding getting, or passing on, any sexually transmitted disease: because it's not very effective!.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Tasteless
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:17 AM

PHEWWW! Be a man, be a reeeaaal man ... and I'll clean you up a bit, bobad

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:09 PM

Greg, you are not understanding what I am saying. Either that, or you are deliberately missing the point.

If you are going to have multiple partners, you should always use a condom.

If you are in a long term committed relationship, and if you have had any sexual partners prior to the one with whom you are sexually involved currently, you (and your partner, if he or she has also been sexually involved with anyone prior to you) should be immediately tested for HIV/AIDS, and again in about six to nine months (incubation time). You should use a condom until both tests come back negative for both of you. Then, as long as both you and your partner remain only sexually active with each other, and no one else, you can safely have unprotected sex (assuming neither of you uses injectible drugs or has received any tainted blood through a blood transfusion, or has been accidently pricked with a contaminated needle, or has engaged in any other kinds of non-sexual high risk (for HIV/AIDS) behavior.

Aside from complete abstinance, this is the ONLY way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS through sexual contact. Everything else is just a stupid game of Russian roulette.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:15 PM

...but regardless of which of the above things you do, getting circumcised (or not getting circumcised) is completely irrelevant, unless you plan to have unprotected sex with anyone you are not in a committed relationship with (and whom you are confident has not cheated on you). If you are sexually active and not in a long term committed relationship, it can be safely assumed that you are having sex with multiple partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

One last point on your post, Greg...

While you only need one partner to contract HIV/AIDS, the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS (once you have contracted it) requires that you have sex with more than one partner (multiple partners). First, the person from whom you got it, and then the one to whom you give it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM

You are repeating precisely the point I made, Carol. You get it from ONE person. You may then pass it on to several, if you misbehave appropriately. I repeat, you get it from contact with one person, and only one person. Condoms are very good for preventing this. Circumcision, not too good at all, but significantly so statistically, according to the latest research. There is nothin whatsoever responsible in drawing people's attentions tot hese basic facts of life. Quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:09 PM

I never suggested otherwise, Greg. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I mention both contracting as well as TRANSMITTING the desease in reference to multiple partners.

But all of this has nothing whatever to do with the actual point I am trying to make, which is and has been the FACT that circumcision (being circumcised or not being circumcised) is totally irrelevant to the issue of preventing the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS, and the question of whether or not to circumsize should NEVER be linked to the issue of preventing the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS, because it gives people a false sense of security and encourages risky behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:16 PM

This part...

I never suggested otherwise, Greg. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I mention both contracting as well as TRANSMITTING the desease in reference to multiple partners.

Is in reference to your suggestion that one only gets HIV/AIDS from one person... NOT in reference to your suggestion that it is responsible behavior to make connections between getting circumcised and spreading HIV/AIDS.

I repeat... it is highly irresponsible to give anyone the idea that they are protected from contracting (and tranmsmitting) HIV/AIDS by getting circumcised because it is completely untrue that being circumcised protects anyone from contracting and transmitting HIV/AIDS. It may reduce your chances, but it doesn NOT protect you.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:54 PM

I agree with the points you are making CarolC but I have one teeny tiny nit to pick, and that is in regards to this statement "assuming neither of you uses injectible drugs". The risk is not in injecting drugs but in the sharing of the paraphernalia used in their injectiion.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:41 PM

A good point, bobad, but one that I think would be lost on the sexual partner of someone who contracted HIV/AIDS in that way. I understand the need for accuracy, but I also think we can get too bogged down with the nit picking and lose sight of the mose important message, which is that our behavior can have very serious consequenses for other people as well as ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Ian UK
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM

Well I`ve not been done, and it seems perfectly natural to me. I was born with it and I still have it.

Now I could argue that teeth really are "a design fault" that need improving upon, but what the hell, I believe in evolution, so I`m sure over the following centuries teeth will improve, and willies will change. (Grow bigger and have more staying power..says the wife!)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:39 PM

CarolC just might have AIDS. She sure seems to know a lot about it.

Me, I'm glad I'm circumcised. I wouldn't want to have a dog dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:44 PM

CarolC just might have AIDS. She sure seems to know a lot about it.

I'm going to respond to this one because this is a very serious subject, and it should not be taken lightly.

No, I don't have AIDS. I have a son whom I love very much. And as someone who takes my job as a parent very seriously, I made sure to educate myself as much as possible on this subject so that I could give my son the tools and information he would need to protect himself from this terrible disease. And if you love your children, you'll make sure you do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:56 AM

It would seem that this "barbaric practice" is advocated in the Bible as a covenant between God and Abraham. Now I am no Bible expert, but if my memory serves me right God used to entertain himself by messing with Abraham's mind.
"KILL YOUR FIRST BORN SON!"
....as Abraham prepares to comply........
      "WHOA ABRAHAM, I WAS ONLY JOKING! HERE'S A GOAT. KILL IT INSTEAD!"
   From such wonderful exchanges some our religious traditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:23 AM

GUEST Obie: I think you'll find it was sheep, not a goat. Though it often hard to tell them apart, proverbially so in fact. otherwise, you're on the button. It does seem a little on the sadistic side, scaring Abraham like that. God's advice seems very very patchy. Thou shalt not kill, not a bad one. Don't eat pork or shellfish, quite sensible in a warm climate in pre-refrigerator days. But banning the eating of chameleons, and stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Saturday seems to me to verge on the eccentric.
   Male circumcision seems to me to be one of the cleverer ideas, though, and not at all barbaric. Research suggests that it prevents the transmission of the viruses that cause cancer of the womb, HIV/Aids and possibly a variety of other infections, seems pretty sound to me. And various males have attested the fact that it is still possible to manage to have a modicum of fun in the rumpy-pumpy department, even minus foreskin. So why not give it a whirl?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:56 AM

"Research suggests that it prevents the transmission of the viruses that cause cancer of the womb, HIV/Aids and possibly a variety of other infections,"

Erroneous and potentially dangerous information.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:38 PM

There's this situation to consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Louie
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:45 PM

AAAA----AAUUUA----AAARGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:47 PM

Don't you just hate when that happens ?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:46 AM

AIDS risk lower than thought for circumcised

What was rather a working hypothesis two years ago seems to be found true according to new articles in THE LANCET.

But the final data from the trials, to be published Friday in the British medical journal The Lancet, suggest circumcision reduces a man's risk by as much as 65 percent.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: jaze
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:52 AM

I always thought it rather odd that God would even suggest circumcision. What he do, decide he'd made a mistake?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:14 AM

"...circumcision reduces a man's risk by as much as 65 percent."

Seems quite reasonable to me...less place for the virus to hide and be retained. But obviously, it's still behavior that makes the risk...mass circumcision would only slow the spread, and is sure not likely...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:18 PM

And circumcising infants is child abuse, unless it's to relieve an existing medical condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:20 PM

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM

fewer than 7% of the procedures get botched but generally only end with disfigurment or stunted organ growth. The risk of death from infection is insignificant.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:57 PM

fewer than 7%, huh? Wow....that many unhappy disfigured and stunted men could account for much of the war and crime in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: folk1e
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

I'm definately keeping mine!
I've had no complaints eather!
If most of the medical benefits are realized after puberty why not let everyone decide for themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:58 PM

...While there might not be medical reasons, there certainly are religious ones.....

If a religion demands genital mutilation, then the religion is wrong.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:11 PM

I have not heard of anyone volunteering to have it done again once they reached adulthood...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM

Hey even Yo Yo Ma had a botched job.
Maybe you've seen penis' that take a dogleg left or right.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Pete
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 05:38 PM

"Pros and cons"?????????

Sorry, what cons are there?!!!!!

I am so glad I'm circumcised. I saw a foreskin this evening and, as always, it looked so uncomfortable. I feel sorry for someone who is doomed to have to go through life with one!! It ust be almost as bad as a vulva!!!

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 05:50 PM

So now we get the same shit all over again?

"Here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice."

Gospel of Bob.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 06:49 PM

don't you wonder how folks stumble into these threads?

"Here I am in folk music forum....I think I'll search and see if they debate circumcision."

Maybe 'Pete' just wanted to be one lonely voice in the tide of those opposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Becca72
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 06:54 PM

"I saw a foreskin this evening"

LOL Was it at the pub?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 10:40 PM

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was a con.

Doctors do it to helpless babies, but you notice that they don't let anyone else do something similar to them...

Nor do vets like it one bit when an animal snips their balls off!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 10:57 PM

What in the world!? A doglegged penis or a botched 7%!? What?

A normal circumcision - and I don't believe for a moment that botched circumcisions amount to 7% - does not involve 'meat'. It takes off only the sheath that can be pulled forward over the organ.

Freud had it SO wrong- I don't know any woman who has ever had 'penis envy'; observing most men's reactions to any perceived danger in the area my guess is that not one woman in a hundred would trade with any man.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Mr Insecure
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 10:59 PM

can it be cut off and grafted under the tip of the helmet

to give a bloke an extra milimetre or two..???

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:02 PM

Collect them. When you have about a hundred or so, get a leather smith to make a wallet for you. A wallet you say? Yes, a wallet. But a special wallet. Rub it and it turns into a suitcase.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Sorcha
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:02 PM

Oh dear gods and goddesses. Close please?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:03 PM

Frued was crackers as far as I'm concerned. The man had serious problems. He should have had his head examined. ;-D

The only people who experience penis envy, as far as I've ever seen, are men! They tend to worry that some other man is more gifted than themselves.

Most women just aren't stupid enough to worry about something as dang silly as that...!

And did it never occur to Freud that men might envy women their sexual abilites when it comes to things like multiple orgasms?

Like I say, he must have been crackers.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:10 PM

Next, the usuals come into the thread to say which they prefer as though anyone really gives a shit about which they prefer. Read the fuckin' thread. It's all been said before.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:22 PM

Who has time to read the whole fuckin' thread (again)??? Will I be better off if I do?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:27 PM

Listen up, Little Hawk, don't misunderestimate the poewr of a member posting as a guest to renew this here thread and start all kinds of shit.

I'm waiting for the self-named guest to give permission on this thread for Joe to declare that he or she is

1) really a guest Dunno. -Joe-
2) really a member Dunno - but certainly not a "regular." "Just a troll" is probably the best description. -Joe-

But that ain't gonna happen because the dumb fuck enjoys discord. These types of Guest things are the reason Guests should not be allowed to post to BS. Here we fuckin' go again.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Greg B
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:51 PM

Heh heh. Peace said 'member.' Heh heh.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:54 PM

LOL

Good one Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Greg B
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:06 AM

"The first cut is the deepest, Baby I know —
The first cut is the deepest..."

(And I *do* know, for those of you who're curious)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:17 AM

Hey Peace, if you misunderestimate something are you really overestimating it? LOL ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:33 AM

I'll check with Dick and get back to you on that. (That's for my ol' bud, Greg. Cue cameras.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:36 AM

For my buddy, John:
Check the 11:13 PM post by Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 01:02 AM

"that ain't gonna happen because the dumb fuck enjoys discord"

Yeah, it's the cheapest form of entertainment...

Hey, Peace? Listen up, bro! Don't disunderempower me by misunderestimating me when I guesstimate, because at the end of the day I always give it 110 per cent, know what I mean? Can we run that one up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes? Do you capiche? Now I have to go spend some quality time with my significant other. Chill, brother. It's all good. (evil grin...)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 01:04 AM

Hey, it wasn't me. I asked for
Close it Please.

---

I've received requests to close this thread, but I'm not inclined to at the moment. If you object to something somebody posts, don't respond.
If the thread continues on its vitriolic path, contact me by personal message and tell me which particular posts are objectionable, and why.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 07:01 PM

There used to be a fashion for routinely removing children's tonsils. Fortunately that never became part of any religious tradition, so the practice just stopped being fashionable, and faded away.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,poncewatch
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:08 PM

..any excuse for some grown men to touch little boys peepees........

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,poncewatch
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:11 PM

..and under the convenient sanctified pretext

of health & hygene

and religion............................

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:18 PM

The authorities are now telling us that circumcision can lower the HIV rate it Africa. Believe it or Not!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:27 PM

You know, there has been a serious belief among many medical professionals that circumcision has a number of health benefits. That belief may be incorrect, but I have seen no evidence of any malice on the part of anyone who performs circumcision. Therefore, I question the good will of those who condemn people who perform circumcision as if they were monsters or something. Circumcison may or may not be unhealthful, but I think we're prejudiced if we automatically consider it to be malicious.

This is yet another sterling example of the self-righteous bigotry that seems to be so fashionable these days. It sure seems that liberals can be every bit as bigoted as conservatives. Maybe it's time for moderation and tolerance.

-Joe Offer, who was circumcised at birth and doesn't hate my parents or my doctor because of it-

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:50 PM

"This is yet another sterling example of the self-righteous bigotry that seems to be so fashionable these days. It sure seems that liberals can be every bit as bigoted as conservatives."

Oh, you are so right, Joe. ;-) There's an epidemic of self-righteous bigotry of the very kind you describe. People are always looking around for something they can huff and puff about and express indignation about on behalf of a suffering humanity, and I enjoy pointing it out (the self-righteous bigotry) now and then too...although I do have a somewhat negative opinion of the practice of circumcision...if asked for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:58 PM

Well, my ex and I followed the doctors' advice and had our boys circumcised when they were born in the 1970s. Would we do it now? Probably not.
I don't think my sons hate us for having them circumcised. At least, I hope not.
By the way, it should be noted that the most bigoted comments come from "poncewatch," who has never posted under that name and IP before. Makes a person think that old "poncewatch" may be trolling, hey?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 10:05 PM

I wouldn't think so. I don't hate my parents for having done so.

If I had a male child, and was faced with the question of what to do about that, it would be a tough one to answer. On the one hand, I don't see any real reason to have it done. On the other hand, in a society where most males customarily are circumsized, it could perhaps become a source of embarrassment for the boy at a later date.

A bit of a puzzle for a parent...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,old "poncewatch"
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 10:42 PM

hmmm... something touched a raw nerve end....

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 10:56 PM

Yeah, "poncewatch," I suppose you're right. I dislike politically correct bigots even more than I dislike the traditional kind - perhaps because I think they've betrayed the sense of fairness and tolerance that liberals ought to have. If you happen to have some evidence to show that male circumcision has been practiced in the western world with malicious intent, then perhaps it might be worth listening to you.

Otherwise, my guess is that you're just a damn troll.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,poncewatch
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 10:58 PM

well.. fair enough..
as long as you you don't let it
get under your skin.....

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:04 PM

A woman from the Midwest was visiting New York City for the first time. She was curious about Judaism (there being no Jews in the small town she called home) so she took a walk through a Jewish part of the city.

Well, while she was there she noticed that her watch had broken. She looked around for a place to get it repaired. All of the signs were in Yiddish, but then she saw a store with a bunch of clocks and watches in the window, so she went in.

She said to the distinguished old man behind the counter, "Could you fix my watch for me, please?"

The man said "I don't fix watches. I'm a moile; I perform circumcisions."

The lady said, "Then why do you have all of those clocks and watches in your store window?"

The moile said, "So? what should I have in my window, then?"

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,poncewatch
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:15 PM

btw.. I just googled 'malicious circumcision'

and picking one out at random..


cant even be botherd reading it to see if its pro or anti..


http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html


just bemused to see what level of rationalising madness


is accepted by society

when discussing pure simple infant mutilation.



and another btw..


mines intact.. my parents were not religious,

and in Europe.. us blokes are allowed to avoid the cruel chop
and keep ours by default..

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:16 PM

Oh, dear...! (chuckling to myself)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:22 PM

"If you happen to have some evidence to show that male circumcision has been practiced in the western world with malicious intent,"

          In most cases, I think most people would agree that it has been done with the best of intentions. They might have been wrong, but the jury is still out, I think most people would agree. A lot of it depends on where the child is born, but...

          Many of us might be curious, though, about "female circumcision." The western world seems to consider it to be barbaric in nature, but in some parts of the world, it seems to be conducted with the best of intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,poncewatch
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:29 PM

if I don't die before I wake


I pray the Lord


no bad boogiemen with scissors will pop out from under the bed

and my foreskin do take..


amen and goodnight

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:37 PM

All these silly things are done with the best of intentions. My tonsils were removed at an early age with the best of intentions. I've been missing them ever since.

There were a bunch of dentists who wanted to relieve me of my wisdom teeth too, with the best of intentions, I'm sure...but they didn't, because I was old enough to say "no".

And I still have them at age 58, and they've been no trouble at all to me. Some poor dentist lost several hundred or maybe 1,000 bucks on the basis of that decision of mine to leave well enough alone.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Joeknowswatch
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:50 AM

.. oh and another final before I drag myself to bed
and now I come to think of it BTW

Joe.. "I know your IP" kinda intimidation tactics
are surely a bit below your privileged power position here at mudchat..??

innit !!!???


..well.. time to pull the hood over my head and go to sleep..

godnight..................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 03:56 AM

Circumcision...A means to an end....or is it and end to a means ..........or is it just and end to an end?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 09:13 AM

theres no end to the problem

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:03 AM

I'm sure "female circumcision" is accompanied by the best of intenntions. That's not the point.

Fortunately the forms of infant male circumcision carried out in most places are relatively benign, though I wouldn't fancy them for myself, or for any child I had responsibility for. There are some versions in some cultures that are pretty savage, more typically when they are carried out as part of a transition to adulthood.

I'm just grateful my tradition substituted the ritual of pouring a few drops of water on the head of the baby instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:17 AM

Okay, but is there any truth to the news stories that have been circulating in the last week or so to indicate that circumcision can be used as a tool to stop the spread of HIV AIDS?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:22 AM

some discussion on the studies here

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:26 AM

Is there anyone who can demonstrate "good intentions" here?

female genital mutilation

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Alice
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:26 AM

Female circumcision is not done with the best of intentions. It is done with the intent to control women,
when really it results in mutilation and many health problems such as
hemorrhage, infection, urinary problems and septicaemia.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:36 AM

Exactly...as Alice says!!!

'Almost' all of the practice is done with the goal of reducing or eliminating pleasure in women, in hopes of ensuring fidelity. Sexual pleasure seems, in some cultures, to be restricted to men only.

I flatly do not understand in ANY culture which professes belief in a God, how they can justify mutilating what God has given them.....but as we see, there's a lot of pain & sadness in this world 'justified' by humans 'interpreting' what God wishes to suit their own desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Alice
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:44 AM

The World Health Organization is trying to educate people to eliminate FGM,
Female Genital Mutilation or "female Circumcision". There is absolutely
NO reason it should be done. It causes death, pain and suffering.
Here is the WHO web site
Click here W.H.O. fact sheet

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:01 PM

"It is done with the intent to control women" - and that is seen by the people involved as what is best for them and for society. As the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I'm sure far more harm is done in this world by people who believe what they are doing is than by people who believe what they are doing is wrong.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do what is right - but just because it feels right or we've been told it's right, that doesn't mean that's the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,sawnoff
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:04 PM

I got done later in life after a lovebite went bad.

I had general anaesthetic for op but hellish pain for days followed by infection, bleeding, more pain and suffering.

Perhaps it would've been better if done when small.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

'"It is done with the intent to control women" - and that is seen by the people involved as what is best for them and for society."'


             Wouldn't they agrue that they are simply trying to please goD?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:43 PM

Please read the links folks

Female genital mutilation is performed …"In cultures where it is an accepted norm, female genital mutilation is practiced by followers of all religious beliefs as well as animists and non believers. FGM is usually performed by a traditional practitioner with crude instruments and without anaesthetic….. . . .
The practice, predates Islam."

These are the amongst the reasons given for this appalling practice -

psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure;

hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal

I don't see God in this!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Alice
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:07 PM

McGrath, with your moral relativism view, Hitler had the best of intentions.
It is insulting to use the phrase "best of intentions" when it comes to torture and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:28 PM

McGrath is not saying he's in favour of it, people, he's simply stating that in that culture it is thought to be "a good thing" to do by a lot of people. And that IS what they think, otherwise they wouldn't DO it! Therefore, they have what they imagine to be "good intentions"...as is always the case, for heaven's sake. (Even that maniac Pol Pot thought he was doing a good thing for Cambodia by killing 1/3 of the population.)

To say that is not to excuse a practice or to condone it in any way as one speaking from the perspective of another culture.

So what I am saying is that your righteous anger at McGrath is misplaced. He's simply stating the truth about another culture and its beliefs, he is not supporting or sympathizing with the practice of female circumcision in any way whatsoever.

So why would you be mad at him? If you want to get mad, get mad at the people who are supporting and sympathizing with mutilating those women in those other cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:08 PM

"...and increase male sexual pleasure;"

             I can't see how this figures into the equation.

             I'll have to take your word for it that all religions to it, but I've been told it was an Islam thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:18 PM

"Fatwas published:
Fatwas are published opinions by Muslim religious scholars. They are non-binding in law. But Muslim believers are expected to follow them. In Egypt, a number of Fatwas have been issued by the influential Egyptian Fatwa Committee on FGM:

1949-MAY-28: They decided that it is not a sin to reject female circumcision.
1951-JUN-23: They stated that female circumcision is desirable because it curbs "nature" (i.e. sexual drive among women). It stated that medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant.
1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised."

The custom is barbaric.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM

Actually "moral relativism" is more or less the reverse of how I see the world. All kinds of evil things are seen as good things by the people who do them, and may be seen as good things by the people around them as well, and by whole societies for that matter.

A moral relativist would say that this meant that it'd be wrong to call such things "evil". I wouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily feel entitled to call the people involved "evil", but that's a very different matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:25 PM

"Bans on FGM:
During 2007, FGM was banned in Eritrea. The Egyptian Health Ministry is seeking a law banning FGM in that country. That would leave Somolia, which lacks a central government, and Sudan as the two main countries where the practice will remain legal."

I get real irritated when people use "it's a cultural/social custom" to justify something so friggin' bad. Jaysus, that isn't being politically correct, it's being spineless. Any of you guys who support this kinda shit try cutting off the tip of your dink maybe 1/2" below the opening just about where the white line is pointing. Let us know how it feels. If it's great, hell, the rest of us can get it done. Because THAT is basically what is being done to the clitoris of females. Fu#k custom. It's barbaric.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:26 PM

The pic is from Wikipedia, btw.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:41 PM

"Circumcision began as a tribal custom which later became associated with religion. Mutilation of the genitals was quite common across North Africa and the Middle East, it is not a practice that began with Joshua or Abraham. Of course the Jews (outside of Ethiopia) were relatively fortunate, they only mutilated the genitals of their males. The infinitely more barbarous practices of female genital mutilation were also carried out by other tribes and still continue to this day, often under the quite specious argument that it is sanctioned or even required by Islam. This is not true, it exists across north eastern Africa including in Christian Kenya and Ethiopia. I hardly need mention that surgical removal of the clitoris is hardly comparable to male circumcision, apart from the fact that both are culturally sanctioned genital mutilations with no justification."

from this site

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:45 PM

There is a distinction. Male circumcision leaves the penis intact but missing some skin. Female circumcision cuts out a chunk of the female. Keriste. I need a vacation. BFN.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 05:52 PM

I recommend the guillotine for the most effective circumcision.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM

Peace, you and McGrath and I ALL think it is an evil thing to do. And yes, it is absolutely barbaric. It stems from a barbaric attitude toward women and toward sexuality in general, stemming from an archaic religion. That doesn't mean that the Muslim clerics who passed those fatwas did not, however, think they were going "a good thing". That was precisely the error in their thinking...they definitely thought they were doing a good thing, and they had ancient traditions to back them up on that.

I think they were wrong to do it, you think they were wrong to do it, everyone here thinks they were wrong to do it. Everybody here thinks it's evil.

McGrath's post of 05 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM sums up the matter perfectly, and with clarity:

"Actually "moral relativism" is more or less the reverse of how I see the world. All kinds of evil things are seen as good things by the people who do them, and may be seen as good things by the people around them as well, and by whole societies for that matter.

A moral relativist would say that this meant that it'd be wrong to call such things "evil". I wouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily feel entitled to call the people involved "evil", but that's a very different matter."

You see, McGrath is quite ready to call the custom of female circumcision "evil"...but at the same time he recognizes that the people who support that custom are not, by definition, "evil people". They are ordinary people...ignorant people who imagine themselves to be doing "the right thing", "as God requires it", as tradition has taught them, as their parents and grandparents did before them. Ignorance is not evil...but it can certainly lead to a great many evil acts.

Our common medical western customs of removing a child's tonsils (now out of style), the infant male's foreskin, and an adolescent's wisdom teeth may also be based primarily on ignorance...and the overpowring weight of social tradition. I still have my wisdom teeth, though, and they aren't causing me any trouble at all. Because I questioned tradition, some dentist is short $1,000 and I still have all my teeth.

But what cultural group, what nation will EVER admit to or even be aware of their own ignorance, when they feel much better ranting about someone else's?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:22 PM

Glad we all agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:31 PM

There are a whole range of procedures of genital mutilation for both sexes which tend to get - not always accurately - called "circumcision". Fortunately the one for males which is officially sanctioned by both Jewish and Islamic authorities is at the relatively mild end of the spectrum.

As for the kind of barbarities that get referred to as "female circumcision", it's not really any fairer to call it Islamic than it would be to call it Christian, on the basis that Christians in some parts of Ethiopia also go in for it. And we should remember that there are to be found clerics in pretty well all religions who are liable to come up with the daftest pronouncements. Generally speaking you'll find some other cleric who tries to balance things out by saying something more sensible, but that doesn't always get picked up.

There are branches of Christianity which reject Infant Baptism, and think this should be reserved for adults. I've sometimes wondered whether there are varieties of Judaism or Islam which take the same attitude towards circumcision.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM

Yeah. Christians used to cut the nuts off young boys to keep their voices fit for the choir.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:43 PM

Hence the term "castrato"...a male with a permanently high and pure singing voice, ideal for warbling medieval love ballads and such...

The weight of tradition is an incredible thing. Believe me, if the last 27 generations in our entire collective society had taken it for granted that the left testicle and the left hand fingernails of every male should be surgically removed shortly after birth, there would be any number of people here willing to defend those practices tenaciously....and they would somehow come up with all kinds of wonderful and rational-sounding reasons for so doing. ;-)

It is that utter tenacity of acquired custom and tradition that you are dealing with when you try to get traditional people in various parts of Africa and Asia to stop mutilating females.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM

"It stems from a barbaric attitude toward women and toward sexuality in general, stemming from an archaic religion."


             Aren't all religions archaic?

          But more to the point, you can understand their barbaric attitude toward sexuality. Before birth control, everytime they engaged in it they had children.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:28 PM

PLEASE read the WHO report - the proceedure is supposed to enhance fertility! and is NOT based in any religion!!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:33 PM

From a WHO site:

"Female genital mutilation
This page provides links to descriptions of activities, reports, news and events, as well as contacts and cooperating partners in the various WHO programmes and offices working on this topic. Also shown are links to related web sites and topics.

FGM, often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: MaineDog
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:51 PM

God made us male and female, therefore sex is ok.
God made us perfect, therefore , we don't "need" to be circumcised (or tattooed!}. The early Israelites did this to distance themselves from "the others" .
Male circumcision may have health benefits for those who don't wash properly. Female "circumcision is clearly evil.
AIDS drugs may have health benefits for those who mismanage their sex lives.
Go Figure.
(Don't believe anything you read on-line)
Peace,
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:55 PM

Please note that hardly anyone here approves of either male or female mutilation. What I question is the demonization of those who perform the procedure. Demonization is another tradition that needs to be abandoned. Too often, our self-righteous demonization translates into this:

• he is doing an evil thing
• therefore, he is evil
• therefore, it is just for me to hate him
• therefore, I must destroy or conquer him and force him to do what is good

You're not going to change tradition by telling people how evil they are, for doing something they've done for generations.

I suggest tolerance, patience, understanding, and good example may be a better remedy.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM

I'm sorry Joe but I suggest making all forms of child abuse illegal and subject to prosecution as they are now in the UK

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:29 PM

Precisely my point, Joe, and I believe that is McGrath's point as well. It contributes nothing useful to a debate to start labelling other people as "evil".

You can judge their actions, but you cannot judge their worth as a human being. (in my opinion) You aren't morally equipped to pass judgement on the intrinsic value of another human being, only on his or her actions.

(If anyone were ever to call you "evil" for whatever it is that you believe in, you would realize immediately how awful it is to be tarred with that label...and your sense of outrage would tell you what had really been done to you in that moment by the one who presumed they could judge your worth as a human being.)

Thus laws are designed specifically to proscribe illegal actions by people, actions that are deemed unacceptable. Laws are not designed to decide who is "good" and who is "evil", at least not laws in any place where I ever want to live.

One of the worst things about organized religion is its frequent tendency to label large numbers of people as "evil", those being usually the people who don't follow the rules and dictates of that religion.

It's also one of the worst things about political demagogues. Remember, it was George Bush who decided to label 3 countries as an "Axis of Evil". That's caveman-level thinking. It is designed to incite people to violence and to sanction slaughter. It is a preparation for war.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 09:17 PM

...and by rights, we Americans should have been annihilated 150 years ago for practicing slavery. I'm sure we can find a reason to exterminate the British, too. Self-righteous imperialism is probably good grounds for doing in both nations.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:47 PM

"George Bush who decided to label 3 countries as an "Axis of Evil".


                   That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard an American president say.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:14 AM

"That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard an American president say."


Hold on, I don't think he's finished yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:26 AM

(chuckle) Yes! Further pearls are yet to drop, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Al Arrack-Barr
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:45 AM

Peace, you missed out one fatwa, I hope not deliberately:

November 24, 2006

A Egyptian conference of Muslim scholars from around the world declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women, and called today for those who practice it to be punished.

"The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being," the participants said in their final statement.

Egypt's two top Islamic clerics, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, the foremost theological institute in the Sunni Muslim world, and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, attended the conference, which drew scholars from as far afield as Russia.

Tantawi's and Gomaa's edicts are considered binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:52 AM

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 05:22 PM

"Peace, you missed out one fatwa, I hope not deliberately:"

1) No, it wasn't deliberate.

2) Post under your member nmae and not some guest name, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:43 PM

"...I suggest making all forms of child abuse illegal and subject to prosecution as they are now in the UK..."


               It's not working. They still send children to church.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 10:09 PM

But what do you define as child abuse.

I'd nominate just about all the programming on these so-called kids channels on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:27 PM

Then there is smacking, male circumcision, junk food...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:33 PM

My point being, when things need to get banned that has to be in a specific manner, and on the basis that they are harmful enough to justify a legal ban, not because they fall under some nebulous term like "child abuse" where the definition is going to vary in the opinion of different people.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:53 PM

Yeah. Besides, if everything that some bunch of loudmouthed, soreheaded, prejudiced people don't like got banned in this world...nothing would be legal. Absolutely nothing. We do not need more laws to restrict peopl'es choices.

I mention that not in defence of circumcision, but in response to Rinslinger's last comment. I make it in defence of all human beings' right to decide for themselves what they like and what they believe in...and their responsibility to leave other people alone so that they can made a similar decision on their own part, rather than clamoring for laws that will force everyone else to be like them and do only what they think is the right thing to do!

A society that legally banned people from attending the church of their choice would be just as despicable and dictatorial as one that made it a legal offense NOT to go to church. Societies that ban all religion have existed. Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge regime was one of them. Mao's initial experiments in extreme authoritarianism in China were another.

p.s. I don't go to church. That's my choice. I don't metaphorically spit on people who do either.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:56 PM

"...We do not need more laws to restrict people's choices..."

Amen. Especially where common sense, maturity, and taking responsibility for own's own actions and decisions is supposed to take over.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:16 PM

Child Abuse is not a "nebulous" term. It is the term used in the UK to describe when an adult harms a child or a young person under the age of 18.

Child abuse can take four forms, all of which can cause long term damage to a child: physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and child sexual abuse.

Prosecutions for child abuse are heard in court and therefore subject to legal definitions and proof.

"Physical abuse includes hitting, shaking, kicking, punching, scalding, suffocating and other ways of inflicting pain or injury to a child. It also includes giving a child harmful substances, such as drugs, alcohol or poison. If a parent or carer reports non-existent symptoms of illness in a child, or deliberately causes illness in a child, this is also a form of physical abuse"

Might I remind you McGrath that you were the person to bring up the concept of "evil" Those people working to protect children from abuse also work with and aim to help the abusers too!

Now you folks who argue that we don't need more laws to restrict personal choice may I suggest you read some of the comments on the smoking threads!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:34 PM

"...and their responsibility to leave other people alone so that they can made a similar decision on their own part..."


                  That's exactly my point. Church goers should leave children alone and let them decide for themselves if they want to be brain washed.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:17 PM

By "nebulous" I mean that it is not always clear what it includes and what it doesn't include, and that this is liable to change over time. The relevant question should always be whether something does sufficient harm to children to justify legal sanction, not whether it can be characterised as in some sense constituting a kind of child abuse.

So, in this context, I would see it as wholly right for "female circumcision" to be illegal, but wrong for such a ban to extend to cover male circumcision as practiced by Jews and Moslems. That's based on a judgement about the balance of harm and good that such a ban would produce. (There are some forms of "male circumcision" for which a ban would certainly be appropriate.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

What "forms of male circumcision" should be banned, McGrath? Surely you are not referring to castration.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:33 PM

No. Look up incision and skinstripping on this site The Geography of Genital Mutilations

Human beings are sometimes pretty weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

Emma, I have never suggesting making smoking illegal. I have merely suggested moving it outdoors where the smoke can disperse into the open air. That does not interfere with a person's choice to smoke or not to smoke. I have a good friend who is a smoker by choice, and she asks visitors to smoke outside, as she does, so that her own house won't smell like an ashtray.

I am also in favor of legalizing the smoking of marijuana, although I don't wish to smoke it, but I would likewise suggest that it be done outdoors, not inside buildings....because inside a building it affects everyone there not just the smoker.

I do not intend to take away anyone's right to suck smoke into their own lungs.

It is people's violent or destructive behaviour against others that we need laws against, and we already have all those laws. We have laws against theft, murder, assault, rape, property destruction, fraud, embezzlement, slander, arson....all of those are cases of a direct attack of some kind on another human being or their property...or an attack on society in general. Those are the laws we need, and we have them.

We do not need more laws that restrict people's free choice in matters that are NOT an attack on another human being or on society.

Rinslinger: If, as you say, "churchgoers should leave children alone and let them decide for themselves if they want to be brain washed"....Well, HEY.....then so should capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, atheists, heterosexuals, gays, conseratives, liberals, and everyone else who does anything that in any way influences the future thoughts and beliefs of their own children in such a way as to superimpose those thoughts and beliefs UPON their children...ahem! To brainwash them, in other words.

How are we going to achieve that? How are we going to end ALL brainwashing of children by people who, like all people, naturally want to bring their kids up in their own minset?   ;-) We AREN'T going to achieve it. And we shouldn't, because we have no right to. Therefore, forget it. Your beliefs, your philosophy, and your prejudices are no more sacrosanct than anyone else's....and your children may one day resent having had some of those beliefs and prejudices foisted on them when they were young and impressionable.

You never know...

(I say that because my parents foisted a lot of their beliefs and prejudices on me when I was a child. Naturally! That's what parents do to their children. They almost can't help it. It just happens. I later completely rejected some of their attitudes and beliefs, while I retained others. I developed independent beliefs of my own. Give young people the benefit of the doubt! Give them credit for having some brains of their own. Whatever their parents brainwashed them into when they were young, chances are that they will take a fesh look at it at some point as they move into adolescence or adulthood. If they do, fine. If they don't, it is no one else's business to pass a law forcing them to.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:50 PM

And don't go singing those folksongs in the presence of your children, they might grow up liking them.

Though it might work the other way. And so might a refusal to allow your children to attend church. You can't avoid influencing your children, one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:14 PM

Yes! The pernicious influence of folksongs, foisted on innocent young minds, led millions of young people into horrible fates! ;-) I witnessed the human wreckage all around me in the 1970s. Matter of fact, I was part OF that human wreckage.

LOOOOONG hair! Cruddly old blue jeans with bell bottoms and holes in the knees! Belts so wide you could hardly handle them! BO and dirty bare feet! A pathological desire to avoid work! Deep and abiding prejudice against "straights", "suits", cops, older people! Rampant drug use! Tie-died shirts! Lining up for hours to watch the midnight screening of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show". My God, man, my blood runs cold when I think about it........

All this happened because our parents were allowed to brainwash us with their folksongs and their liberal humanistic propaganda.

There oughta have been a law... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:25 PM

"All this happened because our parents were allowed to brainwash us with their folksongs and their liberal humanistic propaganda."


                  And it had nothing to do with going to church?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM

Riginslinger, I was babtized and educated in the High Anglican faith. Brought up by an evangelical grandmother and entered a left wing organization by my own choice in my teens. I decided to train for Social Work in later life in order to help my fellow man after a career in chemical research.
I don't think I'm "special" in making my own decisions in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:05 PM

Emma - It looks like you saw the light!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:46 PM

Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics and religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM

Screaming Lord Sutch used to have a banana in his stage act. He would hold it up and peel back a quarter of the skin and yell "one skin" another and yell "two skins, the third and yell "three skins", the last and yell "four skins", he would then let out a deafening scream and yell "circumcision", whereupon his band, the Savages who were dressed in leopard skins would come crashing in!!Just to get things in context among the religeous pontificatones!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

No, Rinslinger, it had nothing whatsoever to do with going to church, at least not in my case... My parents were atheists, and so was I. I was a militant atheist, as a matter of fact, and very proud of myself for being so brilliant, too. ;-) Like most people of that youthful age, I knew everything there was to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:55 PM

"Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics and religion?"

For some people there is...for some there isn't. It all depends on whom you talk to about it. The Left is not, by definition, a movement espoused only by atheists, although some leftists will swear up and down that it is. That's their presumption. It says something about them, not about socialism. Some of the most inspired socialists in history have also been people with strong spiritual beliefs, and Jesus' teachings, to me, sound a lot like radical socialism. (this in spite of the fact that rabid anti-socialists can be found among conservative Christians...big deal...doesn't mean a thing as far as I'm concerned. Anyone, no matter what their political beliefs, may or may not be inclined to belong to a religion or to have spiritual beliefs.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:19 PM

"Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics?"

Coulda written it like that, ya know!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:32 PM

Okay, back to the original thread...

I always figured (once I started thinking about it) that male circumcision as a cultural practice (USA, 1950s & '60s) was the medical industry's way of saying, "Do you want fries with that?" And came up with "medical" reasons to get the insurance companies to pay for it. By the way, when I was born in 1949, the hospital bill was $80.

As far as the religious use of male circumcision, it seemed to me to be ritual token sacrifice. And I wondered at its use by Christians since Christianity had thrown out the Jewish dietary laws, and other ritual legal requirements.

I've had both circumcised and uncircumcised lovers (before my marriage to Curmudgeon 25 years ago) -- and I really never noticed the difference. And circumcised and uncircumcised seemed to get the same amount of pleasure.

If I had had children, the males would not have been circumcised if I had anything to say about it. I never saw the point of a surgical procedure that seemed to serve no useful purpose but to enrich those who performed it.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:39 PM

"the medical industry's way of saying, "Do you want fries with that?"


LOL!!! Right on, Linn. That's my key objection to it right there. Ditto with my objection to yanking out every kid's tonsils (once very fashionable) and yanking out every young adult's wisdom teeth.

They aren't things that are normally done because they need doing, they are industry add-ons, and lucrative ones at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:52 PM

Many of the old Jewish practices were based on sound health and hygiene principles at the time. Unfortunately, many of them (particularly the dietry requirements and those relating to contact with the deceased) no longer apply but nevertheless male circumcision does seem to have a correlation with prevention both of AIDS HIV and cervical cancers.

I don't think I ever suggested that left wing principles were in any way inconsistent with Christian principles, at least those that advocated loving thy neighbour as thyself.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,banjostring
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:29 PM

well, by that logic..

surely the most effective worldwide prevention for AIDS HIV and cervical cancers.

would be to take every single [& married] todger in the world

and chop it off at the balls...!!!!!!????????


nah.. I think sensible educated employment of soap & water and condoms

should be sufficient.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: robinia
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:41 AM

I thought about this a lot some forty years ago when my son was born and circumcision (in the US) was standard procedure. It was also assumed to be done -- and to have been done from time immemorial--for health reasons, something I had great difficulty in believing when I saw the bandaged penis and tried to imagine watching my son cut. Surely, I thought, the prople who first practised circumcision were motivated by more than a vague belief in the child's statistically improved future health. Surely, it MEANT something to them: an offering to God, a commitment . . . And what did it mean to me? That I'd gone along with what everyone else did.
   To be sure, that "everybody did it" was what my husband said; he never questioned the procedure; in fact, he thought that looking like other boys was quite sufficient reason for it (and of course looking like him). And I only belatedly questioned it--belatedly felt a coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 07:51 AM

There do seem to be health benefits, probably a lot more in the ancient world than now. Of course, there are studies that indicate an significant lower incindence of HIV AIDS in circumcised males in Africa than in non-circumcised populations.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:45 AM

The answer for STIs and STDs that are contracted through coitus is condoms. Circumcision is a different issue. There is statistical evidence regarding c vs non-c; however, it ain't much of a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,banjostring
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:13 PM

..so basically its accepted social & health planning..


that its preferable to predict


that millions of male babies
are so likely to grow up to be too stupid and unhygenic
to be allowed to keep the foreskins
that nature/god so foolishly trusted them with..!!!??????


ehhh..!!!!?????

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:21 PM

Basically, yes. Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

GUEST,banjostring, the answer is really very simple. You don't want that done to your son, then don't have it done.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

One advantage of our NHS is that there is no financial advantage for the medical profession in stuff like tonsillectomy and circumcision, so there is no incentive to encourage such procedures where there is no medical justification.

The evidence about circumcision reducing the risk of getting Aids is interesting - but it's worth noting that it's a statistical reduction, it appears to reduce the danger, but still leave the risk very high indeed for unprotected sex with strangers. Not a risk any sensible person would run. A bit like taking an extra bullet out of the gun when playing Russian Roulette, but leaving a couple in there - improves the odds of surviving a bit longer, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:21 PM

"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine."

Ok I accept that a 70% reduction is "statistical" but it's an interesting statistic and worth not simply dismissing!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:28 PM

Mastectomies would also reduce the incidence of breast cancer significantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM

Of course not to be dismissed from a public health point of view - but not worth relying on for an individual. Anyone who said "I've been circumcised, I needn't worry about getting Aids" would have to be completely off their trolley.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 05:55 PM

'"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus."'


                   I read that too. What am I missing? If they found it was successful, why would they call off the study?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:04 PM

"If they found it was successful, why would they call off the study?"

The study was designed to see if circumcision resulted in a reduced rate of infection by the AIDS virus. Since the data showed overwhelming evidence that it did there was no need to continue it. This is common practice where studies are undertaken to test the efficacy of a drug or treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

Ethics! - they couldn't justify having a "control" group.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

I think that the world doesn not care a damn about AIDS in Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:10 PM

There is certainly a lot of negative stigma attached to that disease. Some idiots out there still think it's "God's Judgement" on bad people.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:12 PM

Hell Cluin - someone preached our recent floods were an indictment on civil partnerships!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM

And some actually think God tells them to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM

It's no accident that Ronald Reagan and AIDS came upon the world stage at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:37 AM

And I'm listening to Screaming Lord Sutch (RIP)!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 09:13 PM

"And some actually think God tells them to start a war."


                      But given his credibility problem, why would they listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM

That's just them conveniently assuming that God is marching to the beat of their particular drum. What hubris! ;-)

Why blame such self-serving opportunism on "God"? Blame it on those who do it in God's name.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 08:17 AM

I think it's important to get the sequence of events right. First they invent goD, then they do something in his name.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 07:59 PM

Yeah, that's true. They invent a God of their choosing and their design and their supposition. But that's not "God's" fault, is it? It's their fault.

Something that doesn't exist, Rinslinger, cannot be assigned blame. ;-)

Your quarrel is with other people, not with God.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:50 AM

Okay! I'll try not to quarrel with windmills either.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Rog Peek
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 06:25 PM

I have not read the whole thread in detail, (nor by the way had you Bill D, that joke had already been told), but I am ammazed that so much discussion some of it quite heated could have been generated by a small piece of skin.

Anyway, on a lighter note, how in the hell could the village idiot have passed his time if he had been circumcised:

The village idiot he was there,
Up to his usual trick,
Pulling his foreskin over his head
And whistling through his prick.

Sorry, couldn't resist it!

Subject: : Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,jordon
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 02:54 PM

Having circumcision done in my twenties, I can tell you that it is MUCH cleaner and doesn't have that disgusting smell. I get so irritated with people who say just make sure you clean it properly. Seems to me that's all I did and if it was warm out that smell would return within an hour.....yes an hour. So much for keeping it clean. I am VERY HAPPY I had this done in my twenties, although would have preferred to have it done as an infant. I have come to the conclusion that some uncircumsized men are immune to that stentch.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 05:00 PM

Or, maybe some just don't have it? I don't know!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 07:19 PM

Quite right jordon, all body parts that have an odour should be excised.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 07:23 PM

Fu#kin' good thing my farts don't have any odor.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,James
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 04:51 PM

When my sons were born, over thirty years ago, I didn't even think of it till the doctor asked about circumcision. My ex-wife and I talked it over and couldn't come to a decision, so we started asking men friends if they were or were not circumcised and what recommendations they had. I found no one who regretted being circumcised, but found many, my father included who regretted not having it done. One co-worker of my ex-wife had, like GUEST,Jordan, had his circumcision done as an adult for medical reasons. He strongly suggested that we have it done while they were infants. It wasn't till after it was done that we ever met any males who had regretted having it done.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 02:53 PM

it is all parents duty to have their sons circumcised. my parents neglected to do that for me and have had problems with it for my youger years. i had several painful infections and the girls hated the smell and look. i was always made fun off in the locker room also. i had to be circumcised at age 18 and since then my sex life improved along with the feeling for my partners. since then my two sons were both circumcised at birth and i was present at both of them and they barely fussed at all during the procedure. we never noticed any discomfort. SO TO ALL PARENTS GET YOUR SONS CIRCUMCISED THEY WILL THANK U LATER

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 10:45 AM

I didn't have the choice as I was circumcised as an infant, as was my brother.

I don't know about him, but I've never been turned down for a blowjob by women who previously had only seen the full monty, and might give a wank but not fellatio.

I remember getting into a drunken debate yonks ago between two men, I being one, who had been , and two men who hadn't.

The conclusions seemed to me that with a foreskin you get a longer slide, and without one you don't come as quickly.

As to there 'being nothing to draw back' just think banjo string.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 02:40 PM

WHO recommendations regarding male circumcision (2007)

...Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men....
Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV infection....
The message that male circumcision is very different from female genital mutilation also needs to be emphasized....

BTW, male circumcision reduces the male's probability to get AIDS from an infected female, but most likely not vice versa

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:35 PM

Mine was dome when I was 8 days old. The mohel did a fine job as did the mohels who did my two sons and three grandsons when they were each 8 days old.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:41 PM

L'chaim!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 05:48 PM

We decided not to have our two sons circumsized; they're now 24 and 27 respectively, no infections and no complaints. I have no regrets.

I myself was circumsized as an infant, like almost all male children born at that time (immediately post-WWII) in the US.

I see billboards all the time advertising vasectomy reversal. Can you get a circumcision reversal?

Just kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:55 PM

You need to find a source of good tips, Poppa.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 08:22 PM

PoppaGator--you may be kidding, but it can be done and it has been done.
During the Greco-Roman period in Israel (Judea), many assimilationist Jews did have foreskin enhancement performed.

Not too long ago (which could be as long as a couple of years ago) I read in a newspaper that some men were having circumcision revisions performed. What some folks will do for beauty!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:05 PM

ObSongs: "A Little Bit Off the Top" is in the DT.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:27 PM

Foreskin restoration a growing concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 09:55 AM

Nice link; here's an excerpt:

What is non-surgical foreskin restoration?

Non-surgical foreskin restoration is the re-covering of the glans penis by tissue expansion. Tape and weights, elastic straps, a traction device, or even manual stretching can be used to exert a gentle outward tension on the shaft of the penis to induce the skin to grow, to make the most of what was left after the circumcision. ... "Tugging" is a common term for non-surgical foreskin restoration.

None for me, thanks. Tape and weights? Traction device? Are we sure that all that "outward tension" will really be "gentle"? And how many hours a day, for how long, must one devote to standing still and staying at home, hooked up to your traction device or weights or whatever?

And that's just the non-surgical alternative. I don't even want to think about the other...

I think a fellow would need a big nasty chip on his shoulder ~ that is, to be excessively obsessed with "taking his body back from the mutilaters" ~ before he'd put up with all that mess...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 10:01 AM

I ain't even gonna comment on PG's post.

Uh, lemme rephrase that. I ain't even gonna comment on what PG said in his last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 05:48 PM

"I'm swingin' 16 pounds, from my hips on down..."