Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by madanthonywayne, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Circumcision consists of three actions: milah — cutting the foreskin with a knife, peri'ah — ripping the membrane with a fingernail, and mezizah — applying the mouth to the baby's bleeding penis and sucking blood from the wound.

    Any Jew who has been circumcised himself can perform circumcision on another, but usually the task is reserved for an individual specially trained in the act (Mohel).

    The practice was not straightway put in question during the early years of Christianity, but Paul, anxious to facilitate conversions, decided to relax certain rules (observance of the Sabbath, dietary laws and circumcision). Circumcision became worthless for Christians as a means of integrating members into the community. It was replaced by baptism, while the blood covenant with God was succeeded by Communion with Christ. It should be noted that the circumcision of Christ, which has inspired numerous paintings, notably from the Renaissance, is celebrated by Christians every year on January 1st.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States is unique among Western countries in its practice of routine circumcision.[45] From 1.2 to 1.8 million little Americans are circumcised annually, representing from 60% to 90% of newborn boys.

    Routine circumcision was introduced to the United States in stages beginning in the 1870s for one basic purpose: to deprive the male of a prepuce considered essential for masturbation, a practice thought to be the cause of multiple physical and mental pathologies. From Europe, where masturbation was seen as an indication for circumcision,[12] the fear of masturbation spread to North America, where emphasis was placed on its psychological effects.[41]

    Routine circumcision made its initial appearance in the United States on February 9, 1870.[37] Lewis Sayre, first professor of orthopedic surgery in the United States, president of the American Medical Association and founder of J.A.M.A., noticed that a 5-year-old boy with multiple tendon contracture of unknown etiology suffered from very painful phimosis and priapism, which Sayre attributed to excessive masturbation
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    The question of preventing sexually transmitted infections (STI) was also the subject of numerous studies, notably because of the implications for AIDS prevention. A study of 300 heterosexual men by Donovan, Bassett and Bodsworth [16] found that circumcision offered no protection against genital herpes, genital warts or non-gonococcal urethritis. Elsewhere, studies conducted in Africa seemed??????!!!!! to indicate that heterosexually transmitted HIV was more common in men who had not been circumcised.[40]

    http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=81

    In point of fact, most authors note the multiple methodological flaws in the largely retrospective studies, especially the assumption that circumcision is risk-free. The studies depend heavily on the socio-economic status of parents, suggesting that the sexual behaviour of circumcised and non-circumcised men may not be the same. This hypothesis was confirmed by Laumann.[28] Due to the bias inherent in these studies, the results in most cases are difficult or impossible to interpret.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    It is astonishing that circumcision and excision are not more often put on the same plane. In English, excision is called “female circumcision”, which clearly shows the relationship. A recent legal case in which a woman received a jail sentence for performing excision effectively demonstrated the universal media opposition to these practices, yet failed to spark any debate over circumcision. This is probably due to the fact that excision is more or less limited to African countries automatically considered culturally underdeveloped, the inheritors of barbaric practices. The photos accompanying this article effectively show the inadmissible character of certain practices. But where exactly does the barbarism begin?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Circumcision in the USA: A social marker
    Circumcised men are more likely to be white and socio-economically advantaged. Among blacks, circumcision is half as common. The study conducted by Laumann [28] on a representative sample of about 1500 Americans aged 18 to 59 found that the circumcision rate is higher among whites than among blacks or Hispanics, a finding that was confirmed by Wilkes and Blum.[47] Of the reasons given by parents to justify a request for circumcision, most are social in character, the parents effectively not wanting their sons to have a physical difference that would set them apart from most Americans and hinder their social integration. Moreover the decision to circumcise or not circumcise a newborn is strongly correlated with the circumcision status of the father, illustrating the attraction of circumcision as a physical mark of social identity.[6]

    The circumcision decision also depends to a significant extent on the social status of the mother. The circumcision rate was 2.5 times higher in boys whose mother had a university education. Finally, in contrast to the situation in Europe, circumcision in the United States is not generally correlated with the practice of a religion. Thus circumcision reflects social rather than religious differences. The request for circumcision on the part of parents seems to reflect a desire for membership in an elite, and parents belonging to less favoured classes are not as strongly committed to circumcision.

    http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=81
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,467
    They are confounded and misrepresented for similar procedures far too often by people who should know better.

    The purpose is usually to belittle the female mutilation, by comparing it with the far less damaging or traumatic circumcision. Not even the Australian ritual mutilations of the penis are as severe as the ordinary female mutilations of excision.
    According to the rest of your post, it is membership in an elite, not desire for that membership, that governs. The better educated and those with money or means favor the operation, the ignorant and poor do not.

    In that context, it's worth noting that circumcision is not free - the cost is significant, for the poor in the US.
    The protection against certain other causes of lesions - especially fungal, STD and otherwise - is so marked that entire tribal groups in Africa have undertaken circumcision as adults, based on their observations of the different rates of AIDS in neighboring tribes.
    That's not how it's done in the hospitals in the US.
     
  9. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Then whole Europe is ignorant and poor. Circumcision regardless of its historical origins become an American thing. Both desire to move up the social ladder and desire to underline one's belonging to certain level play its role.

    It's Roughly $2000/foreskin. Only 16 states creating restrictions on Medicaid-covered circumcisions unless it is determined to be medically necessary.

    Don't be ridiculous, since when tribal hearsay become an equivalent of a semi-scientific study? The very same people hold strong belief, based on their observation, that sleeping with a virgin would cure all kins of ailments. And of course there is magic efficacy of which is also supported with countless years of observations

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Trajkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    48
    Circumcision should be up to the individual in question. Parents should refrain from slicing the skin of their kid's dick, until said kid is old enough to give informed consent.

    Personally, I find it bizarre that people in the 21st century are still supporting surgery on infants to (purportedly) reduce the risk of obtaining sexually transmittable diseases.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,467
    It was your argument and evidence.
    Or the desire of bigoted, anti-Semitic Europeans to avoid looking like Jews.

    If we are going to pretend to read minds here.
    Since people like you started pretending to have scientific understandings they do not possess, and ignoring the likely origins and consequences of a five thousand year old persistent and very wide-spread custom.
    If you are going to do it all, far better to do it young. Those african men trying to avoid AIDS are going to suffer and risk.
     
  12. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    So, you want to say the human males have natural urges to slice off their foreskin and only wicked anti-Antisemitism stand in their way? As a pro - Semitic kind of a guy you should know why circumcision was imposed on the American males, what they have done to you?

    Likely origins are like barbaric if not disgusting, it's quite possible that origins of circumcision lie in the unstoppable desire of ancient Jewish holy men to have a take of blood in their mouth, sucking dick could be on their minds too. Taboo on pork was most likely related to the taboo on cannibalism, taste of pork (according to New Guineans) reminds taste of the human flesh. In this way, rabies in the charge of taboos could allow themselves a few drops of sinful pleasure.

    Oh, you are such a great humanitarian. You may consider suggesting those wise African men not to stick their dicks around in the areas where 20% are infected. Yet, you shall not mix hard data with tribal hearsay. If you'll accept one hearsay you shall accept them all as a fact of an ancient wisdom.
     
  13. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    According to that article, that 79% is including aged men like yourself. According to the facts, by 2001 only around 55% of American male births werefollowed up by circumcision. Most other data I've seen puts the numbers at only half. Since that was eight years ago, there is a strong liklihood that less than half are being cut now. Check it out:

    http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2003/

    Clearly circumcision is going out of vogue, as more and more Americans are accepting the normal and natural anatomy that nature has blessed them with.


    The reason you are seeing more circumcision in the Northeast is because most Jewish-Americans are concentrated in the Northeast, especially in and around NYC. As I said, circumcision truly only became popular in the USA because of Jewish doctors who surreptitiously urged young couples to have the procedure done in the sake of hygiene. The same result is achieved by rinsing for 4 extra seconds in the shower. And that way, you don't have to suffer the permanent loss of sensitive nerve endings.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
  14. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Removing a woman's vaginia would drastically reduce the rates of STD transmission too .
    I find it worrisome that people advocate circumcision as a way to reduce HIV or AIDS . We all know that HIV is easily transmitted through unprotected sex .
     
  15. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    so would removing a man's penis. :shrug: Is that what circumcision does?
     
  16. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Please refer to Post # 05 of this thread by Trajvoc .
    My reply was both sarcasm to what he said and my worry.....etc .
     
  17. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    Circumcision is on a serious decline where I live. I can't say for the older boys that I look after because I don't dress them, but as far as the little ones go, uncut boys heavily outnumber the ones who are cut. I don't know the exact number, but from what I've seen I'd say about 30% of the boys I look after are circumcised.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    This is a terrible barbaric practice. It prevents AIDS only for those idiots who don't know how to use a condom.
     
  19. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    In fact it does NOT prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS .
     
  20. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    But if it really did such a good job preventing HIV, then why does the US have such a high rate of sexually transmitted HIV and a country with low circumcision rates, I think Japan (its been a while since I wrote my paper on it) have such a low rate of HIV transmission? That always perplexed me. The evidence doesn't really seem to hold water anywhere except some place in Kenya.
     
  21. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    The Jews and the Muslims circumcise their kids but they still have HIV and AIDS .
     
  22. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    It's incomprehensible to me why anyone would think it makes sense to remove part of a person's penis without their consent in order to achieve a marginal reduction in the odds of getting AIDS.

    Either using condoms or being in a monogamous relationship will already reduce your odds of getting AIDS to nearly zero, and there's no need to surgically modify your genitals.
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Not completely of course.
     

Share This Page