Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

[Bells]

Um. I can jack off dry. In fact, I've had to pull a quiet one once-or-twice when I was in bed with my boyfriend and I had to avoid waking him up.

~String

Ermm, I don't think Gustav's post and visualisation was in regards to 'jacking off'. I think the "vaseline" (which is really bad by the way) comment and the visual display was more about penetrative sex..

Not the handshake variety.

[Asguard]

Sorry but i really have to ask Why would anyone use Vaseline as a lubricant? It's not lubricating. There are water based and even silicon based sold in supermarkets so why would you use that?????? Even massage oil would be better (though it's not recommended because it destroys condoms)

[Gustav]

Um. I can jack off dry. In fact, I've had to pull a quiet one once-or-twice when I was in bed with my boyfriend and I had to avoid waking him up.

~String

of course. grip is a known variable

Ermm, I don't think Gustav's post and visualisation was in regards to 'jacking off'. I think the "vaseline" (which is really bad by the way) comment and the visual display was more about penetrative sex..

Not the handshake variety.

it is
the "pocket money" indicates youth which in turn implies jacking off

[superstring01]

Ermm, I don't think Gustav's post and visualisation was in regards to 'jacking off'. I think the "vaseline" (which is really bad by the way) comment and the visual display was more about penetrative sex..

Not the handshake variety.

Well, sure if you are one of those lucky few who have the penetrative kind.

Also, please note: Vick's Vap-O Rub should not be used for wanking.

[Gustav]

haha
did it burn, string?
did some go in the phole?

[iceaura]

Must be an American thing. Doctors here literally discourage it if it is not medically necessary, you cannot do it in any public hospital at all if it is not medically necessary. To put it into some perspective, it is unusual to see a circumcised penis here..

Possibly because parents here are educated and aware that it is not necessary to remove bits of their children's bodies if there is no medical need to actually do so.

Or they have a different judgment of medical need. Or in the Australian medical care system, the judgment in a situation of uncertainty is to reduce costs when possible even at the long term risk of the child's health - wouldn't be the first time.

Obviously in the US, parents think it is acceptable to remove their kid's body parts, even when the medical profession deems it unnecessary.. To each their own.

Which brings us back to the topic of banning "their own" from some of the "each".

"Clearly no attempt was made to separate out the medically critical circumcisions. The possibility that these would have a higher death rate - from, say, anesthesia, which is commonly local or even absent (inexcusably) in truly elective circumcisions, or hemorrhage and infection and stroke, which would be presumed more common in more serious and difficult procedures such as medically critical circumcisions are likely to be - seems not to have occurred to these professional researchers. At least, they don't mention it or correct for it. It means we have no real way of evaluating the number in the context of this thread.

The declaration that all circumcisions are elective was probably just carelessness and overstatement, rather than agenda driven dishonesty, right?"

And you know no attempt was made to separate out medically necessary circumcisions because of how?

Because of reading the abstract and methods as described by the researchers.

The guy went through hospital records, I would imagine they would be detailing if it was medically necessary or not.

Indeed. And such circumstances could easily screw up his stats, and invalidate his conclusions. So his not considering them, separating them out, is a bit startling. So is his explicit claim that all circumcisions are elective. I am unable to come up with exculpation for that.

I would be interested to know the time frame of the SIDS deaths.

The ones on the study were within 28 days of birth, according to the researchers who counted them. The ones in the larger world take place over the first year or so, the rate peaking three and four months after birth (during the transition from ape like to adult human larynx and esophageal morphology), according to links I have provided above.

However, regardless, the numbers should give some pause for concern. If the circumcision related deaths are from solely elective circumcisions, then I would find that an appalling figure, wouldn't you?

I would compare the rates of premature death circumcised and uncircumcised, lifetime, before becoming appalled.

Maybe I am strange in the sense that I don't think deliberately placing babies at risk of death for religious reasons or for cosmetic reasons is a practice that should be supported or encouraged.

I too find the aesthetic argument ethically bankrupt, and the religious aspect of it repugnant. But it's not the only one on the table.

"I think it's reasonable, on seeing that invalid comparison in the article, to presume active dishonesty in the author and researcher - a deliberate rhetorical attempt to deceive the reader, as Asguard was apparently deceived."

And yet you say nothing of the African studies which were deliberately flawed and misleading which give rise to supporting circumcision?

I haven't seen the deliberate flaws in the researchers's reports, of those studies. And I haven't seen an argument resting on them alone - they are not centrally important here.

Depends. What about the circumcisions for prophylactic health reasons, on the judgment of the parents? Waiting until adulthood clearly wouldn't be fair or sensible in that case - most benefits lost, much greater costs incurred."

More girls contract or come down with UTI's than boys and UTI's is rare in baby boys anyway if the parents practice some level of hygiene. The HIV studies regarding circumcisions were deliberately flawed. Penile cancer is very very rare in the West, because we have clean running water and the facilities to maintain good hygiene and it can also occur in circumcised men. The best way to prevent the spread of any STD is to use a condom or not have sex with multiple partners or to abstain from sex.

So you deflect and obfuscate and avoid dealing with the matter - why?

[Syzygys]

This just in:

"Religious groups breathed a sigh of relief on Friday as Germany's government promised to protect the ritual circumcision of young boys. The controversy was sparked this summer by a court in Cologne, which ruled against parents seeking to perform the ancient ritual on their babies. A child's "fundamental right to physical integrity" was more important, the court said. The president of the Conference of European Rabbis called the decision the "worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust." By pledging to protect the practice, Angela Merkel's government is sending a message: "We want Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany," said her spokesman."

[superstring01]

haha
did it burn, string?
did some go in the phole?

I don't have phole sensitivity issues, though presumably had Vap-O-Rub gotten in there, such a sensitivity would have manifested.

I don't remember the thinking process (I was like XIV years old), but the wonderful "cooling sensation" seemed to be appealing in a sexual way . . . until it actually happened and felt like pepper spray mixed with vaseline.

~String

[Tiassa]

I don't remember the thinking process ....

I ... I ... I ....

Right.

Of course, I'm the one who learned the hard way why chemical depilatories should not be used on ... ahem! ... "personal luggage".

All I can say about my thought process on that one is that I had done it successfully before without sustaining chemical burns.

[spidergoat]

This just in:

"Religious groups breathed a sigh of relief on Friday as Germany's government promised to protect the ritual circumcision of young boys. The controversy was sparked this summer by a court in Cologne, which ruled against parents seeking to perform the ancient ritual on their babies. A child's "fundamental right to physical integrity" was more important, the court said. The president of the Conference of European Rabbis called the decision the "worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust." By pledging to protect the practice, Angela Merkel's government is sending a message: "We want Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany," said her spokesman."

That sucks.

[quadraphonics]

I too find the aesthetic argument ethically bankrupt,

I'm not so sure.

That is, I assume that what you refer to as "the aesthetic argument" is something callow like "I think circumcised penis looks better." Which, yeah, that's pretty silly. This is not a choice of paint colors we're talking about.

But my impression is that, in the real world, parents who opt to circumcise children for "aesthetic" reasons are thinking something like "I want my son's penis to resemble that of his father/brothers/other significant models of masculinity he is likely to encounter early in his development, so he doesn't get some idea that he is abnormal or deformed or something." Which, maybe that's a bunch of Freudian pap or paranoia, but it is a genuine ethical consideration about the best interests of the child on its face. This kind of thinking is what led circumcision to become widespread in the USA, and also why it is problematic to reverse that trend - and especially, why rhetoric about how circumcision is a "mutilation" or "deformity" or whatever is counterproductive. Any rhetorical strategy centered on deeming a vast number of males as having "wrong" or "bad" genitalia is going to generate massive resistance, right off the bat.