male genital mutilation on the NHS

[Reuben]

In an article released earlier this week Edinburgh University's Professor Aziz Sheikh called, amongst other things, for male circumsision to be provided free on the NHS. Quite disturbingly he noted that a number of trusts ALREADY provide such a service.

This is something that i find atrocious on a number of levels. Most obviously as a secularist i think the NHS should be there to provide healthcare - to look after people's physical and mental well being - not to carry out religious ceremonies. Perhaps more significantly i think that the NHS trusts that are carrying out circumsisions are implicated in a gross violation of childrens rights. Although there may be some potential medical benefits from circumsision,(I believe similar arguments have been put forward about female genital mutilation),it is not, for most people, a medical operation. That is to say that for most people the potential medical risks of remaining uncircumsized do not justify the pain, the risk, and the loss of tissue/function involved in circumsision.

This is significant. If a child is at risk of physical harm then it might be reasonable for doctors to interfere with their body regardless of their lack of/inability to consent. This does not apply to Jewish/Muslim circumsision.There is no justification for deciding on behalf a child that he should experience pain and risk, and - for the duration of his life - sacrifice potential for sexual pleasure - simply because his parents believe that god said he should. An interesting comparison might be made here with Tattoos. Nobody is allowed to get a tattoo until they are 18 - regardless of parental consent. Tattoos may look silly and may be hard to remove but they do not involve removing a piece of the human body.They do not alter fundamental physical experiences. If people must wait until they're 18 to get inked then surely circumsision should be a matter for consenting adults.

Right now circumsisions are being carried out, with public money, on people who are not consenting adults . Unless we actively take a stand, we are all implicated in this gross violation of children's rights.

Reuben

[razboz]

Circumsition makes me cringe.

Mutilating children for no obvious reason is the symptom of a mental disease. the people who do this and who decide this should eb done should be placed in mental institutions to be cared for and so they do not harm anyone else.

Once they are adults though they can do whatever they want to themselves.

Why is this in discrimination by the way?

[Reuben]

i agree completely. It is in discrimination because it is a matter of children's rights. In the case of babies and very young children who are circumsized they are having something done to them which if they are adults they woudl need to consent to and probably wouldnt. As such they are being discriminated against on account of age. In the case of older children their ability to consent to something, in particular given their dependence on their pro circumsision parents is limited. By not giving such people special protection we are effectively discriminating against them on grounds of age.

Reuben

[razboz]

Ah right thanks.

Circumsition should be made only legal for medical reasons that cannot be treated in any other way.


we are effectively discriminating against them on grounds of age.


We descriminate against people on account of age all the time though. Drinking Laws, Driving Laws, Marriage Laws all discriminate against children, and children can do nothing about it because they are dependent individuals.

I thinkits tacitly agreed that children do not have the same rights as adults. Whether or not this is moral is another question.

[Vargha Poralli]

There is Nothing wrong in Male Circumcision IMO.Here in India too almost all Govt Hospitals and Private Clinics/Hospitals do it.I am a Hindu and even though my religion doesn't require it I had done it(For some other reasons though). There is nothing wrong/Harmful in it.

[Jazzratt]

I agree with the people here that support people having circumcision as reasoned, informed and consenting adults. However when you are too young to understand the effects of irreperably mutilating your foreskin then you should not be able to do it or have it done to you.

We discrimate on the grounds of age for a reason. The idea of "ageism" pisses me off, people who are young are clearly not fully capable, physically and mentally of acting as an adult. Admitedly there are exceptions as with everything, but legislating for the exception rather than the rule is complete non-pragmatic.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:37 pm
I agree with the people here that support people having circumcision as reasoned, informed and consenting adults. However when you are too young to understand the effects of irreperably mutilating your foreskin then you should not be able to do it or have it done to you.

We discrimate on the grounds of age for a reason. The idea of "ageism" pisses me off, people who are young are clearly not fully capable, physically and mentally of acting as an adult. Admitedly there are exceptions as with everything, but legislating for the exception rather than the rule is complete non-pragmatic.
The fact that we alter laws to accomodate to the particular needs/abilities aof the young does not mean we accept discrimination/ageism any more than disabled parking/special needs classes amount to discrimination in realtion to ability/disability. Of course we make exceptions in cases when ones age actually makes the universal application of a law unviable - but the general assumption behind law making in a modern society is that - unless otherwise stated - laws are universal.

Razboz gave the example of drinking laws and driving laws. Here of course society makes an exception for children regarding the right to drink/drive because of the plausible [although not necessarily valid] feeling that allowing them to do so would result in an unacceptable level of risk of physical harm to themselves or others. Similarly we do not allow very young children to refuse conset to have medical operations carried out on them - giving them this right would expose them to physical harm. The point about circumsision is that - unlike the issues discussed above - there is no plausible sense in which childreen are being entitled to not have their foreskin chopped off would expose them to physical harm any more than every adult who does have that right.

[TC]

Originally posted by razboz+--> (razboz)We descriminate against people on account of age all the time though. Drinking Laws, Driving Laws, Marriage Laws all discriminate against children, and children can do nothing about it because they are dependent individuals.

I thinkits tacitly agreed that children do not have the same rights as adults. Whether or not this is moral is another question.[/b]

Right, this is because the bourgeois is in power and because the bourgeois benefit from maintaining patriarchal family relations, relations that Marxists unilaterally reject,

All laws that discriminate against children are simply a means of the bourgeois to control the production and indoctrination of the next generation of wage slaves. Any control of access to dangerous things (like driving) would be done strictly on the grounds of competence (i.e. passing a standard driving test) were it not an attempt to control children for purposes not their own.


Originally posted by [email protected]


We discrimate on the grounds of age for a reason. The idea of "ageism" pisses me off, people who are young are clearly not fully capable, physically and mentally of acting as an adult. Admitedly there are exceptions as with everything, but legislating for the exception rather than the rule is complete non-pragmatic.


That people under the age of legal majority are not capable of exercising the rights of adults is clearly not established. Keep in mind how irresponsible, immature, helpless and incompetent many adults are and yet our legal rights are not curtailed for it.

If anything however i think genital mutilation is the exception not the rule to this in that prepubescent children are truly not capable of informed consent because its not obvious why they'd want all of those parts until they reach a level of physical development when they'd uh, want to make use of them. Its an exceptional case where they lack the specific experience required to understand the issues around it whereas virtually all teenagers and adults would not... But the vast majority of instances where children are deprived of their human and civil liberties do not rely on a lack of specific knowledge but a general contempt for their mental capacities.

What is really clear, is that in Bourgeois morality and Bourgeois ideology designed as the superstructural support for the Bourgeois system it is presented as reasonable to deprive children of their human rights on the basis of weak claims that they need be protected, are incapable of making decisions for themselves, etc, exactly the same logic used to justify legal discrimination against women and black people when that was useful to them.


Reuben
Similarly we do not allow very young children to refuse conset to have medical operations carried out on them - giving them this right would expose them to physical harm.

Thats a rather absurd justification given that when adults refuse to have (medically needed) operations it also exposes them to physical harm. The result is the same and the fact that it may (or even necessarily) harm them is irrelevant, the right to refuse invasive treatment is considered absolute as violating it would be a violation of someone's personal bodily integrity. The reason why this right isn't extended to children is simply because adults with bourgeois ideology believe that their children's bodies are their property rather than the child's. The same way reactionary patriarchal husbands think of their wives.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It should also be pointed out that we aren't actually talking about children but infants, and infants unlike children are actually physically incapable of making decisions for themselves because they're unable to express preference or consent as they can't talk. Even if minimum age for voting, drinking, making medical decisions, etc were abolished as i think it should be, infants and very young children wouldn't be doing any of those things because they can't express themselves.

[chimx]

Studies show that circumcision acts as a deterrent to the spread of HIV.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:13 pm
Studies show that circumcision acts as a deterrent to the spread of HIV.
True.... , but hiv is very hard to get in first world countries unless your start having un-protected sex left right and center with strangers so i see no point in circumcisison

wouldnt it be alot easier to use a condom ?

[YSR]

True.... , but hiv is very hard to get in first world countries unless your start having un-protected sex left right and center with strangers so i see no point in circumcisison

Crazy false.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:13 pm
Studies show that circumcision acts as a deterrent to the spread of HIV.
:lol: studies also show sexual abstinence, male heterosexuality, and lesbianism and moving to Saudi Arabia all reduce the rate of HIV infection but i wouldn't recommend doing any of them on that basis.



Crazy false.

the fact is that infection rates in europe, east asia and most of america are low enough that its actually pretty unlikely to get HIV from unprotected sex if you're not in a demographic and location that has elevated infection rates...it makes sense to be more worried about getting a lot of other things.

[Red October]

this is what i have picked up: circumcision does not cause the baby pain and getting circumcised later in life can really damage your penis. this is just what i have picked up from a variety of sources, none of it is confirmed. and given that circumcision does have health benefits, why shouldnt we do it? we immunize children to diseases, whats the difference?

[wtfm8lol]

this is what i have picked up: circumcision does not cause the baby pain

Well..you're almost right. It causes them pain for a little while, but then they go into shock so they stop crying.


getting circumcised later in life can really damage your penis.

Wrong. If you get circumcised later in life, they know how much skin to cut away, whereas when you're a baby, they have no idea how much, so often the penis is left with too little skin which causes painful erections.


and given that circumcision does have health benefits,

Name them.


we immunize children to diseases, whats the difference?

That circumcision has no health benefits and is a purely religious ceremony. Circumcision is occasionally necessary later in life, such as if it gets infected, but then again, your thumb can get infected too but I don't see anyone chopping those off of babies.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am

True.... , but hiv is very hard to get in first world countries unless your start having un-protected sex left right and center with strangers so i see no point in circumcisison

Crazy false.
no its not crazy false. in britain 0.1 per cent of people have HIV. If a man has penetrative sex with an HIV+ woman the chances of getting HIV from her are less than 0.1 per cent. As such the chances of getting HIV from a one night stand without protection (with somebody whose status you dont know) are 1 in a million - make that 1 in 200K if its a good one night stand.

Please do not read this and go out and shag some random bird without protection - aside from the fact that im not 100% sure on the stats, there are many more common and easily transferrable STDs.

[Taboo Tongue]

I was circumcised, and maybe my eyes are still closed, but I don't see what's oppressive about it. As far as I can tell, most (though of course not all) seem to like it more, it's 'cleaner'. And call me lazy but I don't want to have to clean the inside of foreskin.
I have heard that QuanArching (peeing up and have it land in the toliet) is easier with it. And I think that cumming is more pleasurable with it.. (source: Man who was not circumsized until he was in his 20's I beleive)
But I'm fine with my penis :engles:

[wtfm8lol]

I was circumcised, and maybe my eyes are still closed, but I don't see what's oppressive about it.

What's oppressive is that an irreversible decision is made for someone who will have to live with that decision for the rest of his life. It doesn't matter if he wants it or not; it's done and there's nothing he can do about it. It would be understandable if the procedure was in any way necessary, but it's not. It's entirely social and religious. What I mean is that people in a society where circumcision is the norm prefer it, whereas those in a society where is it not the norm do not prefer it. However, it is barbaric to think that societies preference should determine whether a mostly cosmetic surgical procedure is forced upon someone or not. It is religious in that it would absolutely not be allowed if it had not started out as a religious ceremony.


And call me lazy but I don't want to have to clean the inside of foreskin.

No one I have ever talked to with a foreskin said it was any hassle whatsoever to clean it.


But I'm fine with my penis

And if you hadn't been, as certainly isn't rare among circumcised men, you would probably be pretty angry and feel rather violated.

[Black Dagger]

Are there any circumcised men on this board who wish they werent circumcised? It seems like many of the people coming out to say stuff like 'eh, i dont think its so bad', are people who were actually circumcised themselves.

I was circumcised, its' great :P


Originally posted by Indigo
I don't know if it's a good idea to call it penis mutilation. It's more of a modification. Seems to me, most circumcized men have the same sexual ability, disabilities and responses as uncircumcized men. And less sensitive to pleasure? if premature ejaculation is any gauge.. than it runs acrossed the board!
ha ha ha! Poor things.

True true! And as far as 'modification' goes, i think for some people it can be an improvement, coz lots of foreskin is a thumbs down from me.

[KC]

I don't know anyone that would prefer getting a circumcision when they're grown up as opposed to when you're a baby. Why would you want anyone to slice up your dick when you're developed enough to know what's happening and have to deal with the recovery? I'm grateful for getting circumcized when I was a baby, because it saved me the trouble with doing it when I'm grown up.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15, 2007 06:42 am
Are there any circumcised men on this board who wish they werent circumcised?

im chopped - by a fucking rabbi and all.

Indigo isnt even worth responding to. If this were a thread about female genital mutilation and saomebody started contemtuous comments about women's sexual abilities this would not be on. Before anybody jumps down my throat i realise that jokes about men do carry the same political significance as jokes about women, yet - insofar as we are talking about social oppression here, indigp's response raises some of the same issues.

Reuben

[Vanguard1917]

Whether parents want their sons to be circumcised or not is a matter for parents to decide. It's not a matter for the state. I support NHS funding. To be honest, i had assumed that the NHS already funded it.


Mutilating children for no obvious reason is the symptom of a mental disease. the people who do this and who decide this should eb done should be placed in mental institutions to be cared for and so they do not harm anyone else.

Right, because all Muslim and Jewish parents - along with many others (like my atheist parents) - are mentally diseased and should not be allowed around children.

Pull yourselves together. There are very few things in this world more trivial than whether or not one should circumcise one's son.

[YSR]

Yeah, I guess I don't get what this whole outrage is about. Parents tell their children things that radically shape their existence. Every action by a parent to their young children is incredibly important in determining their life and is done without their consent (as they are incapable of making consenting decisions at, say, 4.)

So my parents chopped off a bit of my penis? I'm not crying and I don't really see the problem.

[Demogorgon]

Most circumcision done in Britain is done for medical reasons anyway I think. (Damaged foreskin etc).

Personally I do not see male circumcision as being a huge problem, unlike thee disgusting practice of female circumcision. Removing the foreskin probably helps with hygiene anyway. In some cultures (not Britain) many children even get angry with their parents for NOT having them circumcised. Providing the service on the NHS is not something I would be wholly adverse to.

[chimx]

I literally love the mutilation that was done to my genitalia as an infant. I am extremely happy that my parents chose to do it to me.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

how about if your dad had his name tattoo'd to your cock as a baby, i suppose you would love that too?

[TC]

I'm sorry but if cutting off an infant female's prepuce is 'female genital mutilation' than cutting off an infant male's prepuce is 'male genital mutilation'. The later probably has more functional implications, the only reason why the former is considered more disgusting to our western sensibilities is because white people typically don't do it (it is btw a myth that female circumcision eliminates any sexual response, it just reduces it, as does male circumcision). Both sexually violate non-consenting individuals in an irreversible way.


For the guys who are saying how pleased they are that their parents cut up their genitals without asking, i think its really quite irrelevant to the question of infant genital mutilation. Consent or lack of consent is what distinguishes sex from rape, cosmetic modifications from disfigurement, and the fact that some men would have consented does not detract from the violation and sexual degradation to those who wouldn't. In part i would guess bourgeois notions of masculinity probably obscure this for what it is; i think when it comes to women and the issue of female genital mutilation its a lot easier to be politically clear on the issue because theres less cultural baggage.

[wtfm8lol]

Are there any circumcised men on this board who wish they werent circumcised? It seems like many of the people coming out to say stuff like 'eh, i dont think its so bad', are people who were actually circumcised themselves.

I was circumcised as a newborn and wish I hadn't been. At the very least, I wish I was allowed to make such a decision for myself.


Why would you want anyone to slice up your dick when you're developed enough to know what's happening and have to deal with the recovery?

Because at least then you are able to decide if you want it or not.


Whether parents want their sons to be circumcised or not is a matter for parents to decide.

Fuck you. It's a matter for the son to decide when he's old enough to make the decision.


Pull yourselves together. There are very few things in this world more trivial than whether or not one should circumcise one's son.

Ya, as soon as you start realizing that your position is retarded, cover your loss by saying it isn't important anyway. Seriously, fuck off.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:42 am
I'm sorry but if cutting off an infant female's prepuce is 'female genital mutilation' than cutting off an infant male's prepuce is 'male genital mutilation'. The later probably has more functional implications, the only reason why the former is considered more disgusting to our western sensibilities is because white people typically don't do it (it is btw a myth that female circumcision eliminates any sexual response, it just reduces it, as does male circumcision). Both sexually violate non-consenting individuals in an irreversible way.


For the guys who are saying how pleased they are that their parents cut up their genitals without asking, i think its really quite irrelevant to the question of infant genital mutilation. Consent or lack of consent is what distinguishes sex from rape, cosmetic modifications from disfigurement, and the fact that some men would have consented does not detract from the violation and sexual degradation to those who wouldn't. In part i would guess bourgeois notions of masculinity probably obscure this for what it is; i think when it comes to women and the issue of female genital mutilation its a lot easier to be politically clear on the issue because theres less cultural baggage.
You are brilliant Ms Clown.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:42 am
For the guys who are saying how pleased they are that their parents cut up their genitals without asking, i think its really quite irrelevant to the question of infant genital mutilation. Consent or lack of consent is what distinguishes sex from rape, cosmetic modifications from disfigurement, and the fact that some men would have consented does not detract from the violation and sexual degradation to those who wouldn't. In part i would guess bourgeois notions of masculinity probably obscure this for what it is; i think when it comes to women and the issue of female genital mutilation its a lot easier to be politically clear on the issue because theres less cultural baggage.
Let me be more specific then. I am happy that my parents chose to mutilate my genitalia as an infant because I sincerely doubt I would opt for the procedure as an adult.

73% of pediatricians use anesthesia when doing the procedure. link (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/101/6/e5.pdf)

To compare male and female circumcision is as asinine as comparing a vasectomy to a hysterectomy. They are different surgical procedures. Further, the cultural nuances of female circumcisions in the world are often different than male circumcision in the west. specifically: age and anesthesia.

I don't know how you can associate this with bourgeois culture, considering that it has been practiced on boys for thousands of years.

[KC]

how about if your dad had his name tattoo'd to your cock as a baby, i suppose you would love that too?

The fact that you attempt to equate this with male circumcision shows that you have absolutely no credible argument to provide.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 15, 2007 07:56 am
I'm grateful for getting circumcized when I was a baby, because it saved me the trouble with doing it when I'm grown up.
Why?

[Vanguard1917]

Both sexually violate non-consenting individuals in an irreversible way.

So hundreds of millions of parents around the world are quilty of 'sexually violating' their children? How am i ever going to be able to look my parents in the eyes in the light of that revelation? Now all my inadequacies as an adult are excused: i was a victim of sexual abuse as a boy.

Somehow, that doesn't sound right to me. Furthermore, i see it as an insult - not only to my parents, but to the hundreds of millions of parents all over the world - that you would equate circumcision with sexual abuse.

In reality it's just a bit of foreskin. Nothing more, nothing less. All the crazed Western psychotherapists (and Eastern theologians) in the world can attach whatever 'deeper meaning' they like to it. But foreskin will always remain just a bit of pretty useless loose skin at the end of a man's penis.

And that's why male circumcision is an extremely trivial matter.


Consent or lack of consent is what distinguishes...cosmetic modifications from disfigurement

What about the fact that my parents chose to pierce the ears of my baby sister? That too is a cosmetic modification. Who were they to decide whether my sister would want little holes in her ears as an adult?

[chimx]

But foreskin will always remain just a bit of pretty useless loose skin at the end of a man's penis.

Its not only useless, but potentially harmful, which is why people started cutting it off in the first place. It became culturally ingrained with Judea-Christian thought, and has been apart of our cultural despite revolutions in science. Even with our knowledge of bacteria, it is still useful in deterring the spread of HIV as well as HPV.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:59 am

But foreskin will always remain just a bit of pretty useless loose skin at the end of a man's penis.

Its not only useless, but potentially harmful, which is why people started cutting it off in the first place. It became culturally ingrained with Judea-Christian thought, and has been apart of our cultural despite revolutions in science. Even with our knowledge of bacteria, it is still useful in deterring the spread of HIV as well as HPV.
First of all let's make this clear. The circumcision industry in America is worth billions of dollars. Secondly the British Medical council unanimously agreed that circumcision was not only unnecessary but totally unethical.

Thirdly, for this wonderful piece of American medical propaganda; the foreskin does have very specific purposes. Not only is it an integral part of the pleasure mechanism it's primary purpose is to ensure semen has maximum possibility of getting to where it needs to go; it provides suction while inside the vagina in order to push the head of the penis further inside and creates a barrier to ensure that semen does not escape.

If the foreskin was harmful where are these endless statistics of men needing medical attention because of it? Britain is made up of about THIRTY MILLION MEN and we don't seem to be having a problem - not to mention the 70 million men on mainland Europe!

Of all the things you've ever said, this has to be singularly the most ill-informed and stupid of them all


Even with our knowledge of bacteria, it is still useful in deterring the spread of HIV as well as HPV.

That's a total myth and is not supported by any credible scientist or doctor. Even for anyone who has studied HIV even slightly will know that the HI virus cannot live outside the body.

People like you spread dangerous lies and should fucking stop!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:12 pm
In an article released earlier this week Edinburgh University's Professor Aziz Sheikh called, amongst other things, for male circumsision to be provided free on the NHS.
The General Medical Council have claimed that it is unnecessary and unethical, so it is highly unlikely that it will happen.

[wtfm8lol]

Its not only useless, but potentially harmful,

If it were really useless and potentially harmful, why would we have evolved it?

[Reuben]

RESPONDING TO INDIGO

an orgasm is an orgasm and they are all relative. Is there a measuring device to measure orgasm? So, I gotta think the whole end of THAT argument is a bunch of bull!

No we do not have an orgasm measuring machine - however we do know from science that like with the clitoris especially sensitive nerve endings are contained within the foreskin - which contribute to sexual pleasure.

the parent or guardian decides all kinds of things for their infants.

yes but almost all societies draw a line somewhere. A parent may determine how a child dresses or what food they eat or what values to impart to them. Parents do not have a general right to determine that a part of their childs body should be chopped off simply for aesthetic or superstitious reasons.

The whole circ. thing is so much like those nutty purist moms who assail other mothers sitting in parks and in public places, accusing them of child abuse for not breast feeding, and not having home births

These are crap analogies. The notion that mothers should have home births or breast feed their children is based on primitivist anti-scuientific garbage. It has no objective effect on the child. The same cannot be said for circumsision which results in:

Significant pain
Unnecessary physical risk
A decline in the objective potential for sexual pleasure
as explained above

Female circumcisions that are performed specifically to suppress female sexuality removes the whole of the clitoris and also sometimes sews shut the labia-- done without anesthetic.

Male circumsision was popularised in the US to repress men's desire to masturbate. Like female mutilation it involves removing a part of the genitalia which is a significant agent of sexual pleasure. Meanwhile the jewish variety IS done without aneasthetic.


I think that is really psychologically debilitating thinking to adopt for the millions of circumcized men walking around, especially when there really is nothing physically, functionally, or aesthetically wrong with them and have happy satisfying sex lives and sex partners. I certainly won't be telling anyone they are mutilated or inadequate or lacking because they've been circumcized.

Maybe we shouldn't raise questions about the chinese practice of binding girls' feet since it might make them feel uncomfortable. Rather than worrying about the psycological damage that might be done by talking critically about circumsision i think the priority is to talk about the very real physical damage that is bieng done to people unable to consent

VANGUARD:razed Western psychotherapists (and Eastern theologians) in the world can attach whatever 'deeper meaning' they like to it.

As far as i can tell nobody is attaching 'deeper meaning' to the foreskin on the basis of psycotherapy or eastern philosophy. Instead people are talking about the genuine physical consequences of the practice. Their is nothing about asserting that a a human being has the general right to keep their body intact.

[ZeroPain]

Simple everyday benefits of being natural and uncut the way evolution intended it.

1. Stimulation is more enjoyable because the penis is constantly protected.
(Most circumcised men lose sensitivity at a young age due to friction with underwear.)
2. Masturbation is easy and requires no lubricant.


Not to mention circumcisions are botched all the time causing partial loss of member.



Its very easy to say that circumcision is fine when you have never experienced what it is like to have a foreskin. Its like trying to explain to a woman exactly how it feels to have testicals.

[chimx]

Of all the things you've ever said, this has to be singularly the most ill-informed and stupid of them all

I said potentially, in that it had caused irritation in the past from the buildup of 'smegma'. this is why ancient egyptians started the practice, why judea-christian society continued the practice, and how it got culturally ingrained into western thought.

Now, of course, we know about soap, making this a non-issue, except for the few smelly anarchists on this board that refuse to shower on a regular basis (fawkes: im look at you bud)


That's a total myth and is not supported by any credible scientist or doctor. Even for anyone who has studied HIV even slightly will know that the HI virus cannot live outside the body.

o rly? here is a journal article on HPV:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/7/1710.pdf

Here is what the world health organization says, those fuckin' quacks!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statem...8/en/index.html (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2006/s18/en/index.html)

Oh, and looky here. Here's an article on HIV and circumcision by the BBC for all your un-cut Brits out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm



If I were playing counter strike, this is where I would say "pwn"

[TC]

Originally posted by Chimx+--> (Chimx)73% of pediatricians use anesthesia when doing the procedure. link
[/b]

thats an extremely dishonest quotation of that article Chimx, did you actually read it or did you find it referenced on another website:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...nt/101/6/e5.pdf (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/101/6/e5.pdf)

The article actually reads:

"Of the physicians performing circumcisions, 45% use anesthesia"

It then says that 71% (not 73%) of pediatricians use anesthesia whereas only 25% of obstetricians do.

Moreover, of those 45% who used anesthesia a significant portion of them are only using topical anesthesia like emla (like, the sort that people get for mild burn relief or to reduce the pain from drawing blood).

so, clearly its normally being done with no anesthesia.


Originally posted by Chimx+--> (Chimx)
To compare male and female circumcision is as asinine as comparing a vasectomy to a hysterectomy. They are different surgical procedures.[/b]

No actually the comparison you just drew is totally asinine; a hysterectomy is in-patient abdominal surgery requiring general anesthesia removing an organ, a vasectomy is fast, superficial outpatient surgery on local anesthesia that just make two narrow incisions, big difference there.

On the other hand, male circumcision and female circumcision are both removing external, anatomically analogous sections of genital skin. The similarity there is obvious thats why they're both called 'circumcision.'


Originally posted by Chimx
Further, the cultural nuances of female circumcisions in the world are often different than male circumcision in the west. specifically: age and anesthesia.

Err, okay, forgetting for a moment that male circumcision is usually carried out without anesthesia according to the source you provided, do you really think it would be okay for parents to chop off their daughters clitoral hoods provided they did it when they were infants and used anesthesia?


Originally posted by Chimx

I don't know how you can associate this with bourgeois culture, considering that it has been practiced on boys for thousands of years.

It was not a feature of feudal western culture actually, secular circumcision originated in the mid 19th century as a way to reduce masturbation in childrenlink (http://www.circumstitions.com/Chronology.html#masturbation)

the entire point of it was, as with female circumcision in africa, is to reduce children's sexual enjoyment.


Originally posted by Indigo
right. and female circumcision is more comparable to male castration.

err not really


Originally posted by Indigo
The prepuce of a female is the clitoral hood -- the skin covering the clitoris, which is the important errogenous organ.

Right...male foreskins cover the glans of the penis which is the important erogenous organ in males...thats why the comparison makes perfect sense.


Originally posted by Indigo
Female circumcisions that are performed specifically to suppress female sexuality
Right...as are male circumcisions...see The Lancet (vol. 1: pp. 344-345), Athol A. W. Johnson


Originally posted by Indigo
removes the whole of the clitoris and also sometimes sews shut the labia-- done without anesthetic.

What you're describing is a more extreme type of female genital mutilation, there are also more extreme types of male genital mutilation practiced in the same areas that do those types of things; it doesn't mean that the more common milder type is acceptable.


Originally posted by Indigo

What do you want Reuben.. to agree that you are horribly mutilated? I think that is really psychologically debilitating thinking to adopt for the millions of circumcized men walking around, especially when there really is nothing physically, functionally, or aesthetically wrong with them and have happy satisfying sex lives and sex partners. I certainly won't be telling anyone they are mutilated or inadequate or lacking because they've been circumcized.


I'm sorry but i really think that protecting millions of infants from being sexually exploited by their parents is more important than preserving the egos of all the men who were circumcised. I'm sure that a lot of african women who have had lots of disgusting stuff done to their genitals might psychologically benefit from thinking they look better that way but when it comes to making sure that governments enforce laws preventing them from doing the same to their daughters i don't think leftists should really care if they get their egos a little hurt.



Originally posted by Vanguard1917
So hundreds of millions of parents around the world are quilty of 'sexually violating' their children?

Yes.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
How am i ever going to be able to look my parents in the eyes in the light of that revelation?

Thats up to you.


Originally posted by Vanguad1917
Now all my inadequacies as an adult are excused: i was a victim of sexual abuse as a boy.

I'm not sure how the one follows from the other.

I think, one of the cultural myths about sexual abuse is that, rape victims for instance, specifically female rape victims, are utterly and totally destroyed and ruined to the point that being the victim of sexual abuse is equal to being psychologically debilitated. Just look at how its talked about in the news and media: "her life is ruined." Well, as much as sexual abuse sucks i don't think an episode of humiliation can typically explain all of someone's inadequacies as an adult and i think the myth that it can has a lot to do with victorian holdovers about female sexual purity and virgin innocence where a woman's sexual purity was her measure as a human being.

This is obviously an extremely dehumanizing, insulting and emasculating view of someone's sexuality so its really not surprizing that men in the culture and media reject it. And look at social attitudes to male victims of sexual abuse vs female victims; its socially acceptable to make jokes about prison rape and choir boys; make jokes about female rape and no ones laughing in a darkly ironic way, they're offended.

Likewise i think, the reaction to male circumcision as opposed to female circumcision is in part a reflection of the cultures attitude towards masculinity as lacking the sort of sexual vulnerability that it also exaggerates in women...


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Furthermore, i see it as an insult - not only to my parents, but to the hundreds of millions of parents all over the world

I'm sorry but marxist political analysis has never restricted itself to positions that wouldn't be insulting to millions of paents.

I would guess that when Marx said:

"Abolition of the family!..Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty...The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor."

" a social system which degrades the working man into a mere instrument for the accumulation of capital, and transforms parents by their necessities into slave-holders, sellers of their own children. The right of children and juvenile persons must be vindicated."

He might have come off as insulting to millions of parents as well. He was also insulting to million of husbands when he repeatedly accused them of exploiting and oppressing their wives.

Marxists do not regard the family as a sacred institution, we are against family values. There is no room for "parental rights" that you seem to advocate in communism.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
What about the fact that my parents chose to pierce the ears of my baby sister? That too is a cosmetic modification. Who were they to decide whether my sister would want little holes in her ears as an adult?


They were clearly no one to decide that for your sister and should not have been allowed to do so. Its not nearly as bad though since it doesn't decrease sexual function and its easily reversible but its still wong. It should be the child's responsibility to decide what aesthetic modifications they want done to their bodies when they're capable of doing so.


[email protected]

Its not only useless, but potentially harmful, which is why people started cutting it off in the first place. It became culturally ingrained with Judea-Christian thought, and has been apart of our cultural despite revolutions in science.

As stated, it was never practiced by western christians en mass until the late 19th century and they did it, initially, for the same reason why non-westerners chop up their daughters genitals: to reduce sexual sensation (or more specifically masturbation).


Chimx
Even with our knowledge of bacteria, it is still useful in deterring the spread of HIV as well as HPV.

lol maybe parents should chop off the whole thing; that would definitely deter the spread of HIV and HPV.

[chimx]

so, clearly its normally being done with no anesthesia.

Pediatricians are the baby doctors, which is why I quoted them. I would prefer that all surgical circumcisions be done with anesthesia.


do you really think it would be okay for parents to chop off their daughters clitoral hoods provided they did it when they were infants and used anesthesia?

Well first of all, no. Nor do I think it would be responsible for parents to chop off their sons foreskin on their own. It is a medical procedure and folk that went to medical school should be present.

Should it be okay to chop off the clitoral hood? I ain't no anatomy expert and I don't know the physiological consequences. The penis and vulva are, in cause you didn't know, slightly different organs and I would need to know if the nerve loss would be more severe (ie. will a woman be able to orgasm with relative ease circumcised?) , or if it is comparable to the male's nerve loss.

If it is comparable to the nerve loss faced by circumcised men, and there is a cultural history of the surgical procedure, then I don't see what the big deal is.


It was not a feature of feudal western culture actually, secular circumcision originated in the mid 19th century as a way to reduce masturbation in children

lolz. yeah, my parents opted to cut me out of fear of me j-ing it to internet pron.


lol maybe parents should chop off the whole thing; that would definitely deter the spread of HIV and HPV.

that would make sex far harder.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:59 am


Its not only useless, but potentially harmful, which is why people started cutting it off in the first place. It became culturally ingrained with Judea-Christian thought,
I'm not at all sure that is correct. My reading of the old testament (mainly 'Kings' - havent got the reference cos it was a while ago) was that there was an old testament equivalent of scalping whereby victorious warriors collected foreskins as evidence of kills. To prevent this, Jewish warriors gave their foreskins to God so Goliath & Co couldnt get them.

[ZeroPain]

I'm not at all sure that is correct. My reading of the old testament (mainly 'Kings' - havent got the reference cos it was a while ago) was that there was an old testament equivalent of scalping whereby victorious warriors collected foreskins as evidence of kills. To prevent this, Jewish warriors gave their foreskins to God so Goliath & Co couldnt get them.

It never fails to surprise me how fucked up the bible is...


lolz. yeah, my parents opted to cut me out of fear of me j-ing it to internet pron.


Its institutionalized tradition based on the fear of masturbation but has now gained a life of its own.



Well first of all, no. Nor do I think it would be responsible for parents to chop off their sons foreskin on their own. It is a medical procedure and folk that went to medical school should be present.

Should it be okay to chop off the clitoral hood? I ain't no anatomy expert and I don't know the physiological consequences. The penis and vulva are, in cause you didn't know, slightly different organs and I would need to know if the nerve loss would be more severe (ie. will a woman be able to orgasm with relative ease circumcised?) , or if it is comparable to the male's nerve loss.

If it is comparable to the nerve loss faced by circumcised men, and there is a cultural history of the surgical procedure, then I don't see what the big deal is.


But should it be institutionalized and paraded as a legitimate medical practice despite having dubious benefits.

[chimx]

But should it be institutionalized and paraded as a legitimate medical practice despite having dubious benefits.

Why not? We do lots of stupid shit because of our cultural heritage. Humans are social creatures, and our cultural heritage is the mortar to our communities.

And despite that, as I have already shown, there are benefits, such as HPV and HIV deterrence.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm sorry but marxist political analysis has never restricted itself to positions that wouldn't be insulting to millions of paents.

Fair point about we shouldn't restrict our analysis in fear of insulting people. But we need to put things into a bit of perspective. We're talking about the removal of a child's foreskin. It's a triviality. It in no way gives you the right to accuse hundreds of millions of parents of sexual abuse - i.e. a very serious assault on a child's body.


I would guess that when Marx said:

"Abolition of the family!..Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty...The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor."

" a social system which degrades the working man into a mere instrument for the accumulation of capital, and transforms parents by their necessities into slave-holders, sellers of their own children. The right of children and juvenile persons must be vindicated."

He might have come off as insulting to millions of parents as well. He was also insulting to million of husbands when he repeatedly accused them of exploiting and oppressing their wives.

Marxists do not regard the family as a sacred institution, we are against family values. There is no room for "parental rights" that you seem to advocate in communism.

This is exactly what i suspected this debate was actually about: it's about giving the bourgeois state more rights of regulation of how the masses raise their children.

When Marx is talking about the parental exploitation of children, he's refering to a situation of such poverty and desperation - created by capitalist society - that parents are forced to send their young children out to sell their labour power in order to increase the income of the family - a family which he says is being 'torn asunder' by capitalism.

He's not talking about a triviality such as parents deciding to circumcise their kids. He's talking about the degradation of proletarians by capitalism; he isn't degrading them himself by calling them child abusers with no justification whatsoever.

Parents are there to decide what's best for their children. In capitalist society, we fight for the right of the masses to self-determination. That includes determining for themselves how they raise their kids - free from the clutch of the bourgeois state.


They were clearly no one to decide that for your sister and should not have been allowed to do so. Its not nearly as bad though since it doesn't decrease sexual function and its easily reversible but its still wong. It should be the child's responsibility to decide what aesthetic modifications they want done to their bodies when they're capable of doing so.

Let me get this straight: parents 'should not be allowed' to do something as harmless and innocent as having their children's ears pierced? And the state should intervene to stop this...?

:) Well, they don't call us the 'loony left' for nothing!

What about taking a child to the barbers? A haircut is an 'aesthetic modification'. It doesn't 'decrease sexual function and its easily reversible' but is it 'still wrong' just like the ear piercing?

Incidentally, it's debatable whether male circumcision decreases 'sexual function' or not. If it does, then we have entire populations of men throughout Asia (who were all sexually violated by their parents according to you) with decreased 'sexual functions'. But the complaints aren't coming from them! They're coming from silly Westerners with wild imaginations who like to make non-issues into issues - especially when it allows them to take the patronising moral highground with parents.

So where do you stand: would you support state laws outlawing infant circumcision and ear-piercing?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:23 pm
o rly? here is a journal article on HPV:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/7/1710.pdf

Here is what the world health organization says, those fuckin' quacks!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statem...8/en/index.html (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2006/s18/en/index.html)

Oh, and looky here. Here's an article on HIV and circumcision by the BBC for all your un-cut Brits out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm



If I were playing counter strike, this is where I would say "pwn"
Erm, Chimx...Those articles do nothing but "suggest" that it is a deterrant. They have no idea whether it's true, that's why they have started studies that wont be available until 2008.

Like I said, no credible scientist or doctor has ever said that is true. They may "think" it is and they might "suggest" it is, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports that assertion.

Furthermore, all of the articles echo the opinion that it is in fact not a deterrant and should never replace existing methods of prevention.

Oh yeah, I seriously feel like your btich now :rolleyes:

[Fawkes]

Now, of course, we know about soap, making this a non-issue, except for the few smelly anarchists on this board that refuse to shower on a regular basis (fawkes: im look at you bud)
Where the hell'd you get that one from? I shower quite regularly thank you very much and I'm happy to say that I don't smell at all.

[Guerrilla22]

Its a barbaric practice that needs to end.

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 16, 2007 10:24 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 07:23 pm
o rly? here is a journal article on HPV:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/7/1710.pdf

Here is what the world health organization says, those fuckin' quacks!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statem...8/en/index.html (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2006/s18/en/index.html)

Oh, and looky here. Here's an article on HIV and circumcision by the BBC for all your un-cut Brits out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm



If I were playing counter strike, this is where I would say "pwn"
Erm, Chimx...Those articles do nothing but "suggest" that it is a deterrant. They have no idea whether it's true, that's why they have started studies that wont be available until 2008.

Like I said, no credible scientist or doctor has ever said that is true. They may "think" it is and they might "suggest" it is, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports that assertion.

Furthermore, all of the articles echo the opinion that it is in fact not a deterrant and should never replace existing methods of prevention.

Oh yeah, I seriously feel like your btich now :rolleyes: [/b]
So now we have gone from being a "total myth" to it being "suggested" as possibly useful by the scientific community? Interesting development...

Also, I choose my words carefully TAT. I purposefully said derrent over that of being preventative. Obviously circumcision isn't useful on a case-by-case basis, but as far as general community health, studies are pointing us towards its usefullness.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:36 am
So now we have gone from being a "total myth" to it being "suggested" as possibly useful by the scientific community?
Well of course! You've just provided links that disprove the assertion that it's a myth. Why would I continue that train of argument...? :blink:


Interesting development...

Maybe in your world, but in my world when someone proves something that you've said wrong with facts, that usually indicates what you said wasn't right...

:wacko:


as far as general community health, studies are pointing us towards its usefullness.

The scientific community that studies HIV/AIDS will obviously exhaust every avenue available to them. It's not at all surprising that they have these studies, I'm sure they have studies in pretty much every area they can think of.

The usefulness of circumcising everyone won't be known until 2008 apparently, but I suspect that circumcising babies will be one of the more extreme things suggested. I wouldn't be surprised if the usefulness of circumcision turns out to be practically negligible.

[chimx]

I'm sorry, i didn't realize you were recanting your previous statements. If I was being excessively sardonic, bare in mind I was replying to:

"People like you spread dangerous lies and should fucking stop!"

;)

Personally I'm hopeful that more studies show that it can act as an effective deterrent, as that would mean theoretically an increase in male circumcision would result in a drop in the spreading of HIV/AIDS.

Still, I'm predominately into circumcision for the aesthetics. I have such a pretty weiner thanks to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:20 am
Personally I'm hopeful that more studies show that it can act as an effective deterrent, as that would mean theoretically an increase in male circumcision would result in a drop in the spreading of HIV/AIDS.
Regardless, circumcising a baby is unethical.


Still, I'm predominately into circumcision for the aesthetics. I have such a pretty weiner thanks to it.

I find circumcised penis' to be very ugly.

[chimx]

Regardless, circumcising a baby is unethical.

I have yet to hear how.


I find circumcised penis' to be very ugly.

Pity... cause I presently posses the prettiest penis past the Prime meridian.

[ZeroPain]

I have yet to hear how.

Because its removing part of their body, retarding their ability to experience sexual pleasure, and violating their right to choice.

[Fawkes]

Hey chimx, wanna tell me why you think I smell.

BTW, uncircumcised penis' aren't that gross.

[ZeroPain]

Male circumcision, the man's pupice is removed and penis is left intact that he can still receive sexual pleasure.

But never to the same extent that he would if his genitals were protected from becoming less sensitive.


They aren't complaining in big numbers about their "mangled deformed" penises because they work JUST FINE! maybe even better. basically it's just Rueben with the help of TC's genius contribution to the positive reinforcement of body dysmorphic disorders. Please Spare us all.


Mainly because they never have and never will understand what they are missing out on by having a foreskin.

[TC]

you know indigo i normally respect your opinions and posts quite a lot; i don't know why you have to be so hypercompetitive as to deliberately misread and misrepresent what i wrote. This is a political debate not a personal argument okay and unlike some people posting here i don't think we have anything personally invested in it.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:01 am



I have yet to hear how.

Because its removing part of their body, retarding their ability to experience sexual pleasure, and violating their right to choice.
I've never had problems experiencing sexual pleasure, what are you getting from sex that im not?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+January 17, 2007 10:38 am--> (Black Dagger @ January 17, 2007 10:38 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 11:01 am



I have yet to hear how.

Because its removing part of their body, retarding their ability to experience sexual pleasure, and violating their right to choice.
I've never had problems experiencing sexual pleasure, what are you getting from sex that im not? [/b]
Heightened sensitivity and the ability to propel the penis further into the vagina etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

The fact that people keep putting up medical statistics and arguments about the dangers of having a foreskin is akin to scare mongering.

The fact is, any medical problems that occur due to having a foreskin are pretty negligible and although I am sure there may be heightened risks of this and of that the national health services across the world are not being inundated with men who are being murdered by the evil foreskin. Eating certain peanuts can increase the risk of cancer, for crying out load!

This is yet another example of American cultural imperialism; imposing misinformation and prejudice on a natural occurance in order to justify an industry that's worth billions of dollars. It's a pitty that even the most radical of Americans seem to think they can force their "cultural/medical/social remedy" on the rest of the world.

We've been doing fine for the last 2000 years!

Freaks!

[chimx]

Are you sure this isn't an example of Egyptian cultural imperialism, since they are the ones that started it like 4000 years ago?

edit add: i think the real reason for all this penile animosity is from penis envy. y'all are jealous of our proudly exposed penis heads that seem to shout: "look at me, i'm beautiful", while yours are like an old wrinkly snail slowly coming out of his shell who is too busy looking for his dentures to say anything snappy and clever.

penis envy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:08 am
Are you sure this isn't an example of Egyptian cultural imperialism, since they are the ones that started it like 4000 years ago?
Don't be stupid!

[Vargha Poralli]

This thread is rather is becoming stupider and stupider. Both sides are never giving up. For fucks sake Removal of foreskin does not cause any problems sexually. And this thread is about children's rights. Please focus on that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:31 am
This thread is rather is becoming stupider and stupider. Both sides are never giving up. For fucks sake Removal of foreskin does not cause any problems sexually. And this thread is about children's rights. Please focus on that.
Sorry, who the fuck are you?

No one is claiming that circumcised cocks stop you from having pleasure, just that by having your foreskin removed decreases the amount of pleasure you can receive.

Removing a babies foreskin has been deemed unethical by the General Medical Council in Britain. Forcibly removing a part of someones body that disfigures them for absolutely no reason whatsoever is unethical.

[Vargha Poralli]

Removing a babies foreskin has been deemed unethical by the General Medical Council in Britain. Forcibly removing a part of someones body that disfigures them for absolutely no reason whatsoever is unethical.

I don't know which country/culture practices this shit. Here in India Muslims boys are usually circumcised around their teenage not while they are infants. (No Indian Govt didn't put any rule regarding this). And that is done with their consent not forcibly removed(Most of the time done by non-Muslim doctors).And there are a number of reasons for it.Just because you don't like it don't decry about it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:57 am
I don't know which country/culture practices this shit. Here in India Muslims boys are usually circumcised around their teenage not while they are infants. (No Indian Govt didn't put any rule regarding this). And that is done with their consent not forcibly removed(Most of the time done by non-Muslim doctors).And there are a number of reasons for it.Just because you don't like it don't decry about it.
Is it?

I'd actually suspect that it's not. I saw a documentary on female circumcision in Africa and some of the scenes from that were harrowing. I would be totally and absolutely gob-smacked if the majority of teenage boys and girls go to this procedure willingly.


And there are a number of reasons for it.Just because you don't like it don't decry about it.

What reasons?

[Vargha Poralli]

Is it? I'd actually suspect that it's not. I saw a documentary on female circumcision in Africa and some of the scenes from that were harrowing. I would be totally and absolutely gob-smacked if the majority of teenager boys and girls would go to this procedure willingly.

I don't know about female circumcision any way. Given the widespread illiteracy in Africa I would not be surprised if it is carried out in a brutal manner.


What reasons?

Prevention against prostrate,penile cancers,HPV to list a few.

Edit: I have circumscised for Urinary tract infection.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:12 pm

Is it? I'd actually suspect that it's not. I saw a documentary on female circumcision in Africa and some of the scenes from that were harrowing. I would be totally and absolutely gob-smacked if the majority of teenager boys and girls would go to this procedure willingly.

I don't know about female circumcision any way. Given the widespread illiteracy in Africa I would not be surprised if it is carried out in a brutal manner.
I don't think it has anything to do with literacy.



What reasons?

Prevention against prostrate,penile cancers,HPV to list a few.

It doesn't prevent any of those things. It may slightly decrease the risk, but it does not prevent.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:12 pm
Prevention against prostrate cancer.
Since regular masturbation reduces the risk of prostrate cancer, and being circumcised makes it harder to choke the chicken, you would think that not being circumcised (and regularly whacking your one-eyed wonder weasel) would reduce prostrate cancer. Just a though.

[Hate Is Art]

Cancer is essentially a bingo affair, you're unlucky or you aren't. A circumcised penis isn't a magical cure, prostate is one of many types of cancers and even if you have it done anything you do in your life is more then likely to negate any bonus given by this frankly pointless religious opperation.

It's irreversible, and what we are talking about mainly is the fact that this being done on the NHS. Would you support other female circumcision done by the government? If so you're need to get you're head sorted out, if not, why do you support male circumcision?


Forcibly removing a part of someones body that disfigures them for absolutely no reason whatsoever is unethical.

100%

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 17, 2007 07:58 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 17, 2007 07:58 pm)
Originally posted by Black Dagger+January 17, 2007 10:38 am--> (Black Dagger @ January 17, 2007 10:38 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 11:01 am



I have yet to hear how.

Because its removing part of their body, retarding their ability to experience sexual pleasure, and violating their right to choice.
I've never had problems experiencing sexual pleasure, what are you getting from sex that im not? [/b]
Heightened sensitivity and the ability to propel the penis further into the vagina etc. [/b]
My penis is very sensitive, i dont think id want it to be more sensitive than it already is. As for the second one, to what end? For contraception purposes? If so, i really dont think being circumcised significantly reduces the ability of someone to reproduce. If not, i dont think ive ever heard of anyone having problems with not being able to 'propel' their penis inside someone else to their satisfaction, again, this seems insignificant, or rather irrelevant.


skinz
and being circumcised makes it harder to choke the chicken

No it doesn't, my chicken is fine.

[KC]

My penis is very sensitive, i dont think id want it to be more sensitive than it already is. As for the second one, to what end? For contraception purposes? If so, i really dont think being circumcised significantly reduces the ability of someone to reproduce. If not, i dont think ive ever heard of anyone having problems with not being able to 'propel' their penis inside someone else to their satisfaction, again, this seems insignificant, or rather irrelevant.


Who the hell wants increased fertility anyways?

[Black Dagger]

Where's the evidence that circumcision significantly reduces fertility?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 17, 2007 02:52 pm
My penis is very sensitive, i dont think id want it to be more sensitive than it already is.
That's neither here nor there. If you don't want your penis to have more sensitivity then that's fine - that's your choice. It certainly isn't a justification for forcably removing apart of someones body.


If not, i dont think ive ever heard of anyone having problems with not being able to 'propel' their penis inside someone else to their satisfaction, again, this seems insignificant, or rather irrelevant.

That's besides the point. I'm simply highlighting the uses of the foreskin. Anyway I'd always thought getting your penis further inside someone is surely more pleasurable than not...

[KC]

How does having foreskin make you able to get it in deeper?

[ZeroPain]

How does having foreskin make you able to get it in deeper?

Has to do with the vagina sucking up the penis into itself.


Heres an article on the role of the foreskin in sexual function.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

[Hate Is Art]

Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function.

Sourced from the article. Bosh.

[KC]

Has to do with the vagina sucking up the penis into itself.


Heres an article on the role of the foreskin in sexual function.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

I don't understand how you can get it in deeper if you can already get it all the way down to the base. Moreover, I don't see why any of this matters.

[chimx]

given this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61156), i'm going to call bullshit on that.

[Hate Is Art]

Call BS on what exactly?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)That's neither here nor there. If you don't want your penis to have more sensitivity then that's fine - that's your choice. It certainly isn't a justification for forcably removing apart of someones body.[/b]

Of course it doesn't, but my point is i dont buy this 'sensitivity' argument, have there been tests down on men with circumcised penises and men without to measure whos' penis 'feels' more sensitive? Also, regardless of circumcision wouldn't there been variation between individuals anyway?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Anyway I'd always thought getting your penis further inside someone is surely more pleasurable than not...


I dont have any problems getting my penis inside anything, you don't need foreskin to do that all the way, though it might 'help', it's completely uncessary and thus an irrelevant criticism!


lazar
I don't understand how you can get it in deeper if you can already get it all the way down to the base. Moreover, I don't see why any of this matters.

Exactly!!!

[chimx]

Anyway I'd always thought getting your penis further inside someone is surely more pleasurable than not...

A million women's cervix's are simultaneously crying out, "thank god he is gay!"

[fashbash]

If young jewish lads are going to be 'mutilated' against their will, surely it's better for it to be done by a healthcare proffessional who knows what they're doing?

Incidentally, why should you never get a blind Rabbi to do a circumsicion? Cos it's a rip-off! :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 07:03 pm
So my parents chopped off a bit of my penis? I'm not crying and I don't really see the problem.
Whether you approved or not is totally irrelevant. Removing a part of someones body without their permission is force - It's totally unethical, unnecessary and perpetuates a billion dollar industry.

If you want your foreskin removed when you're an adult, fine. but that is not a justification for this practice. Circumcision is unethical and should not happen.

It's as simple as that!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+January 18, 2007 06:17 am--> (Black Dagger @ January 18, 2007 06:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]
That's neither here nor there. If you don't want your penis to have more sensitivity then that's fine - that's your choice. It certainly isn't a justification for forcably removing apart of someones body.

Of course it doesn't, but my point is i dont buy this 'sensitivity' argument, have there been tests down on men with circumcised penises and men without to measure whos' penis 'feels' more sensitive? Also, regardless of circumcision wouldn't there been variation between individuals anyway?


TAT
Anyway I'd always thought getting your penis further inside someone is surely more pleasurable than not...


I dont have any problems getting my penis inside anything, you don't need foreskin to do that all the way, though it might 'help', it's completely uncessary and thus an irrelevant criticism! [/b]
I've totally lost sight of the argument here.

Someone said that foreskin was unnecessary. It is a medical and biological fact that this isn't the case.

Penis' with foreskin are more senstive and foreskin helps propel the penis further into the vagine while ensuring semen doesn't escape.

Whether or not your penis is sensitive or whether you can get it inside someone is totally irrelevant as I've never claimed that it isn't or you can't. I'm simply asserting that the foreskin does have a purpose.

I'm not criticising your penis or any penis that has been circumcised. Quite frankly, I don't give two shits whether your cock is circumcised or not - the facts remain that there is a purpose for the foreskin and ultimately removing apart of someone's body by force is unethical.

I have nothing more to say on this.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:47 am
Heres an article on the role of the foreskin in sexual function.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Sexual behaviour. The alteration to the sexual organ causes many circumcised males to change their sexual behavior. Foley reported that circumcised males are more likely to masturbate.10 Hooykaas et al. (1991) reported that immigrant (mostly circumcised) males have a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior with prostitutes as compared with Dutch (mostly normal intact) males.23 The U. S. National Health and Social Life Survey found that circumcised males have a "more elaborated" set of sexual practices, including more masturbation, and more heterosexual oral sex.30 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (2000) reported that circumcised males were more likely to report having a homosexual partner and more likely to have partners from abroad as compared with normal intact males.56 Circumcised men are significantly less likely to use condoms.38 50

I find that paragraph very questionable. The author seems to have thrown together a bunch of random insignificant coincidences to make a point. Is the point circumcision makes men sexual degenerates?.

The whole article is questionable. In an earlier paragraph the examples for sexual paterns were Korean men, now they compare immigrans, who are "mostly circumcised", with Dutch males. I suppose that is what you get when you throw together random sources with no critical analysis. Though I find the above paragraph to be funny.

[che's long lost daughter]

I haven't read the whole thread so I am anot sure if anyone has mentioned what i will say here. In the country where I live, circumcision is customary for males. Boys here have it between the time they were born until adolescence, but generally, it is done during the puberty years. It is more like a rite of passage-- from childhood to manhood. If you haven't had it by the time you reach highschool, you will be ridiculed and be called names like "supot". I don't exactly know where that came from and why uncircumsized men are called as such. But circumcision is a big deal here.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TAT
I'm simply asserting that the foreskin does have a purpose.

I understand, and what im saying is that purpose is really neither here nor there, you're circumcised, you're not, it's not a meaningful disadvantage either way. I agree on the ethics issue.

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:13 pm
Studies show that circumcision acts as a deterrent to the spread of HIV.
:lol: I'm pretty sure if you cut the whole penis off the risk for HIV will be 0%.

[chimx]

that's not true. you can still spread HIV through blood and breast milk.

But that isn't really the point. The down side of having your foreskin cut off is negligible compared to wiener-removal, especially considering the advantages, both medical and cultural.

edit add: I would like you all to know, that I am 10 times more excited about chopping off my future son's foreskin having had this conversation.

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:38 pm
that's not true. you can still spread HIV through blood and breast milk.
You missed the point. My point is we don't have to mutilate our children for the sake of cutting HIV by a small percentage. It's ridiculous.

Circumcision is a religious practice. Why not leave it as that?

[Reuben]

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 18, 2007 07:48 pm


Circumcision is a religious practice. Why not leave it as that?
no lets not leave it at that. Lets not allow people to mutilate their children just because they are unenlightened enough to believe 'god' told them to

[chimx]

You missed the point. My point is we don't have to mutilate our children for the sake of cutting HIV by a small percentage. It's ridiculous.

I didn't miss the point. I specifically said, "but that's not the point."

Since when is 50% a small percentage?

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by chimx+January 19, 2007 12:08 am--> (chimx @ January 19, 2007 12:08 am)
You missed the point. My point is we don't have to mutilate our children for the sake of cutting HIV by a small percentage. It's ridiculous.

I didn't miss the point. I specifically said, "but that's not the point."

Since when is 50% a small percentage?[/b]
I'm not doubting you but I'd like to see a source.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:15 pm

A SCANNER [email protected] 18, 2007 07:48 pm


Circumcision is a religious practice. Why not leave it as that?
no lets not leave it at that. Lets not allow people to mutilate their children just because they are unenlightened enough to believe 'god' told them to
Very well said, I completely agree.

[KC]

Circumcision isn't solely a religious practice. I'm circumsized and my parent's aren't religious.

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 19, 2007 02:03 am
Circumcision isn't solely a religious practice. I'm circumsized and my parent's aren't religious.
If I may ask, why did they circumsize you?

[apathy maybe]

I have read most (all?) of the thread and find that I agree that it should not happen. Generally. I recall however, (though am too lazy to find a source), that in a small minority the foreskin leads to some disease or another. Or perhaps it was not having the foreskin that lead to the prevention of something or another. I can't remember, it may even have been the other way around having the foreskin is essential in some circumstances.

Shit. I'm not contributing much to the debate am I.

[The Feral Underclass]

I thought this was interesting and mildly funny.

Short Answers on Circumcision (http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html)

[chimx]

Short? Speak for yourself buddy.

[MissLeftistRevolutionary]

I think circumcision is wrong. It could be considered abuse ,at least to me it would be. How do parents think that its a good thing? I understand about the health thing but still, its wrong. its disgusting that parents would even think about doing something as horrible as circumcision.

[Comrade_Scott]

you guys realize a study released said that circumsised men stood a significantly less chance of getting std's dont you? anyway that shits up to the parents so hey :D

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:08 pm

You missed the point. My point is we don't have to mutilate our children for the sake of cutting HIV by a small percentage. It's ridiculous.

I didn't miss the point. I specifically said, "but that's not the point."

Since when is 50% a small percentage?
hey chimx here is a site to back u up i think http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-1...umcisions_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-11-05-circumcisions_x.htm)

[coda]

Hey, thanks for digging this back up, cause I wouldn't have done it. :blink:

then there's this--- just out today!


Studies Confirm Circumcision Reduces Chance of Catching HIV by Up to 60 Percent

By MARIA CHENG
AP Medical Writer
(AP) 03:39:01 AM (ET), Friday, February 23, 2007 (LONDON)

In an "extraordinary development" in the fight against AIDS, a medical journal article published Friday says that conclusive data shows there is no question circumcision reduces men's chances of catching HIV by up to 60 percent.

The question now is how to put that fact to work to combat AIDS across Africa.

The findings were first announced in December, when initial results from two major trials _ in Kenya and Uganda _ showed promising links between circumcision and HIV transmission. However, those trials were deemed so definitive that the tests were halted early.

The full data from the trials, carried out by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, were published Friday in The Lancet.

"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."

Circumcision has long been suspected of reducing men's susceptibility to HIV infection because the cells in the foreskin of the penis are especially vulnerable to the virus.

A modeling study last year projected that in the next decade, male circumcision could prevent 2 million AIDS infections and 300,000 deaths. Last year, 2.8 million people in sub-Saharan Africa became infected with HIV, and 2.1 million people died.

Experts say the breakthrough's significance is on par with the identification of the virus and the use of lifesaving combination drug therapy.

The two U.S. studies confirm similar results from an earlier trial in South Africa.

But experts warn that solid evidence is not justification for mass circumcisions, noting that African health systems are already overburdened, and circumcision requires more planning than, for example, an immunization campaign.

"It's a tricky one, but it's something we're going to have to move on," said Dr. Catherine Hankins, a scientific adviser at UNAIDS. "Male circumcision is such a sensitive religious and cultural issue that we need to be careful."

Several African countries have met with U.N. agencies to explore strategies for increasing circumcision.

Together with the United Nations AIDS agency, WHO is convening a meeting in Switzerland in March to evaluate the data and decide the next steps in slowing the AIDS pandemic.

In the Kenyan study, 1,391 circumcised men were compared to 1,393 who were not. And in Uganda, 2,474 circumcised men were compared to 2,522 men who were not. Scientists tracked the men for two years and found that those who were circumcised were 51-60 percent less likely to contract HIV.

[chimx]

I saw this today too. It certainly is good news, and I rest happy knowing that thanks to my parents foresight, I am 60% less likely to get HIV!

[apathy maybe]

They could have course have waited until you were sexually active to cut a bit of your dick off.

Or you could have chosen to do it yourself.

Who cares if it reduces the risk of getting HIV or any other virus. The point is that the child can't choice. If you claim to be "free choice" about abortion, then you should be here as well.

(BTW: I hate written English. Fuck it.)

[chimx]

abortion? how does killing a fetus even compare?

[apathy maybe]

Choice people say that it is the women's choice. I'm saying it is the child's choice.

So if you believe that the women has the right to choice (her body and all that), then the same logic would apply here. The kid's body, the kid's choice.

[coda]

hello apathy maybe, good point, but not quite.

Does this logic extend to young girl's rights of getting vaccinated against STD related cervical cancer and all the other routine vaccines for children that they don't consent to, nor would understand the intracacies of why they are consenting or refusing anyway.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:43 pm
you guys realize a study released said that circumsised men stood a significantly less chance of getting std's dont you?
And? That's an irrelevance until the child is old enough to have sex (and therefore choose whether or not to mutilate their own genitals), so this doesn't mean we should go around cutting up penises.


anyway that shits up to the parents so hey :D Why is it up to the parents? What logical justification can you give for leaving it up to the parents?


Does this logic extend to young girl's rights of getting vaccinated against STD related cervical cancer and all the other routine vaccines for children that they don't consent to, nor would understand the intracacies of why they are consenting or refusing anyway. I'm quite clearly not apathy_maybe, but I think is is a stupid counter argument. Can you tell me what the downside of a vaccination is, what permanent damage it does to the body for example or any kind of psychological harm in later life. In short how does a vaccine compare with an archaic mutilation ritual?

[coda]

<<I&#39;m quite clearly not apathy_maybe, but I think is is a stupid counter argument. Can you tell me what the downside of a vaccination is, what permanent damage it does to the body for example or any kind of psychological harm in later life. In short how does a vaccine compare with an archaic mutilation ritual?>>

They compare as to questions of violating the body, choice and violating the right of informed consent per se, subordinate to parental consent. They all involve some degree of risk. Whether any of them cause "permanent damage" and "psychological harm" attributed to later life is at best arguable and subjective. Seems that line of thought should be consistent rather than selective.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:22 pm
They compare as to questions of violating the body,
How is a vaccine &#39;violating&#39; the body, exactly?


choice and violating the right of informed consent per se, subordinate to parental consent. They all involve some degree of risk. Whether any of them cause "permanent damage" and "psychological harm" attributed to later life is at best arguable and subjective. Seems that line of thought should be consistent rather than selective. I&#39;d say having party of one&#39;s body (in this case the foreskin) removed is a form of permanent damage as it is damage to the body and it is permanent. Vaccines do not necessitate this kind of primitive and brutal approach and therefore can be counted as a different category of action - along the same lines as tattooing or piercing the child.

[Ol' Dirty]

All in the name of "cleanliness".

It&#39;s called washing, mofo&#39;s.

[Pirate Utopian]

i was circumsized but that was because i pissed blood for a while, my penis is not mutilated&#33;

as for circumision wich are not in the intrest of the person in question should be avoided

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:22 pm
All in the name of "cleanliness".

It&#39;s called washing, mofo&#39;s.
Seriously, you&#39;d think people would have thought of this before going for the "chop it off" option.

[Folk The System]

i didn&#39;t read every post in this thread so i&#39;m not sure if its been stated before... but the ONLY people at risk for penile cancer is uncircumcised people. if i wasnt circumcised already that alone would make me do it.

[apathy maybe]

Got a reference for that?

[chimx]

http://www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.c...at=04&topic=138 (http://www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.cfm?cat=04&topic=138)