Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

[ElectricFetus]

It's not my job to pander to you. Go back and read it or move on.

Read what?

 

[WillNever]

The OP's premise doesn't hold water

Pretty much. That OP has gone on record as being an aged, partially Hebrew male who was circumcised. Therefore, he feels obligated (desperately so) to toy with his children's genitals in order the validate the same procedure that was performed on him. How biblical.

Often, when somebody has something that was done to them without their choice, they try to get everyone else to have the same thing done to them. Or, in order to promote it further, they pretend as though official bodies are also promoting it... even when there isn't any evidence of that taking place. The whole thread is really just an exercise in trolling and intellectual dishonesty and should quite honestly be cesspooled for verifiably being a hoax.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Pretty much. That OP has gone on record as being an aged, partially Hebrew male who was circumcised. Therefore, he feels obligated (desperately so) to toy with his children's genitals in order the validate the same procedure that was performed on him. How biblical.

Often, when somebody has something that was done to them without their choice, they try to get everyone else to have the same thing done to them. Or, in order to promote it further, they pretend as though official bodies are also promoting it... even when there isn't any evidence of that taking place. The whole thread is really just an exercise in trolling and intellectual dishonesty and should quite honestly be cesspooled for verifiably being a hoax.

And just think of how many babies have been needlessly cut based on an erroneous notion of supposed health. I do think there are religious reasons for why this was being pushed as a social norm...better for some not to look obviously out of line.

 

[Yellow Jacket]

Well the reasons people advocate cutting the foreskin are beginning to wear thin:


In the new study, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looked at HIV infection rates among nearly 4,900 men in the U.S., Canada and the Netherlands who took part in a clinical trial of an HIV vaccine.

They found that circumcised and uncircumcised men showed no difference in the risk of HIV infection over three years.

Moreover, while having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner increased a man's risk of infection, there was no evidence that circumcision altered that risk.

The findings, reported in the journal AIDS, come as the CDC is developing new recommendations on circumcision for reducing HIV transmission. The agency says it is considering whether to recommend circumcision for heterosexual men at elevated risk of HIV, and whether there is enough evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men.

With regards to infant circumcision, the CDC says on its Web site, "many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6283Z820100309

Study: Circumcision Rates Falling Fast In U.S.

August 22, 2010
New research about a steep drop in circumcisions made headlines this past week. According to one federal researcher, circumcision rates in U.S. hospitals slid from 56 percent in 2006 to fewer than a third of boys born last year.

Doctors caution that those numbers aren't definitive — for instance, they don't include circumcisions not covered by insurance policies or circumcisions performed in religious settings.

But Dr. Douglas Diekema, a pediatrics bioethicist at the University of Washington, tells NPR's Audie Cornish there's no doubt about the overall trend.

"I think all of us agree there probably is a decrease in the number of circumcisions over time, and that's probably a result of a number of factors," Diekema says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129362160

The OP's premise doesn't hold water


Massachusetts Lawmakers Asked to Ban Infant Male Circumcision

Published March 03, 2010 | AP
BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers are being asked to outlaw infant male circumcision.
Supporters of the proposed ban describe the procedure as "unnecessary, painful and risky."
Georganne Chapin, executive director of the group Intact America, an organization formed to change how Americans think about neonatal male circumcision, said the procedure is also unethical because the infant cannot give his consent.

Religious groups oppose the bill, which has no religious exemption.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lawmakers-asked-ban-infant-male-circumcision/

Hmmmm, this is what I read here...
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

And you know what? I'm sorry. But after reading what the CDC said, how it has shown that there is a lower rate of circumcised males with HIV & STD's....I am thankful for taking the chance and getting my boys circumcised. Oh did I cringe and feel for them? Yeah. But I do know a grown man, who has HIV, married a woman who was negative and decided to get circumcised at the age of 45. Just so he lowered the risk of passing it along in case of an accident while having sex. He says it was the most painful thing he has ever experienced and wished he had it done as a child.

It is a personal choice as an adult, but then again, must be like having your tonsils out. They say it's better to do it as a youngster. Although, I think I'd rather have my tonsils out then get the extra skin on my penis chopped off. OUCH. BUT....I'd rather give my children that extra tiny possibility of a slight protection from STD's. I've seen how that guy's life was. The stigma, the meds, and so on. Not an easy life. Nor do I wish it upon my kids. So CHOP! THANKS MA!

 

[adoucette]

I found this interesting in the CDC study referenced.

Compared with infants of self-pay parents, those covered by private insurance were 2.5 times as likely to be circumcised

Arthur

 

[SilentLi89]

It is a personal choice as an adult, but then again, must be like having your tonsils out. They say it's better to do it as a youngster. Although, I think I'd rather have my tonsils out then get the extra skin on my penis chopped off. OUCH. BUT....I'd rather give my children that extra tiny possibility of a slight protection from STD's. I've seen how that guy's life was. The stigma, the meds, and so on. Not an easy life. Nor do I wish it upon my kids. So CHOP! THANKS MA!

But what happened to the man that you know has nothing to do with circumcision, right? He would have gotten HIV whether he had been circumcised as a baby or not. I have a friend with HIV too and he was circumcised as a baby, but he's homosexual so all of the good it did him. It's only viable for men who have relations with infected women. The amount of men who contract HIV through heterosexual contact is relatively small. Good advice one can give their sons is not to have risky sex with numerous women, but even better than that tell them to always have a condom handy. Then it doesn't matter, what their sexual preferences or how much skin they have or don't have on their penis. The chances of getting HIV are much much smaller. I can really only see having my son circumcised for aesthetic reasons, because the minor medical benefits don't seem like they are really worth the pain to me.

 

[Yellow Jacket]

But what happened to the man that you know has nothing to do with circumcision, right? He would have gotten HIV whether he had been circumcised as a baby or not. I have a friend with HIV too and he was circumcised as a baby, but he's homosexual so all of the good it did him. It's only viable for men who have relations with infected women. The amount of men who contract HIV through heterosexual contact is relatively small. Good advice one can give their sons is not to have risky sex with numerous women, but even better than that tell them to always have a condom handy. Then it doesn't matter, what their sexual preferences or how much skin they have or don't have on their penis. The chances of getting HIV are much much smaller. I can really only see having my son circumcised for aesthetic reasons, because the minor medical benefits don't seem like they are really worth the pain to me.

OK, the reason for mentioning him is because he went ahead as an adult and was circumcisized, the point was that it was extremely painful. He said that it would have been better to have had it done as a child where he remembers nothing. He did it to lesson the chance of his wife becoming infected if there was an accident.

It is not only viable with a man having sex with an infected woman. It is because of the chance of microtears, opening up a greater chance of passing along the virus through blood. Also, it doesn't really matter what sex they are, a tear is a tear through sex, micro or not. Sex with whom ever sexual partner they chose to have. There does seem to be a benefit, if you scroll back up and read the link that i provided from the CDC. For me personally, i am happy to give whatever small minute chance of benefit there may be from circumcision to prevent std's. That is only because my own life has been affected indirectly from it and wouldn't want to see my kids struggle through something like that. Or go through the pain when they are older of deciding to do it. Like my brother in law did.

 

[adoucette]

OK, the reason for mentioning him is because he went ahead as an adult and was circumcisized,

Except as the CDC report suggests,

A clinical trial in Uganda to assess the impact of circumcision on male-to-female transmission reported that its first interim safety analysis showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of HIV acquisition in women partners of HIV-seropositive men in couples who had resumed sex prior to certified postsurgical wound healing and did not detect a reduction in HIV acquisition by female partners engaging in sex after wound healing was complete

.

You really can't extrapolate these studies done in Kenya and Uganda to people living in the US.

Hetrosexual transmission of HIV is quite low in the US and most HIV transmission in the US is via Anal Intercourse, and the person most likely to get it that way is the person getting the penis inserted into them. The status of their penis isn't an issue at all.

Arthur

 

[visceral_instinct]

It's mutilation, period. Unless it is genuinely necessary for health reasons. That kid CAN'T CONSENT.

Thank you WillNever for having some sense.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

Never met a circumcised guy. Did I miss out on something?

 

[SilentLi89]

OK, the reason for mentioning him is because he went ahead as an adult and was circumcisized, the point was that it was extremely painful. He said that it would have been better to have had it done as a child where he remembers nothing. He did it to lesson the chance of his wife becoming infected if there was an accident.

Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't agonizing. I remember that when I broke my leg I was in terrible pain, but now 8 years later I can't really remember the intensity of the pain itself (that doesn't mean I want to do it again even though I know I won't remember the pain in a few years) Our memory of pain is fleeting, otherwise women would never have more than one child. But the fact that it is painful should make sure you have your convictions straight. Not many men are willing to be circumcised for a cause they don't really believe in. It shows that your brother in law truly cared about his wife.

 

[Neverfly]

Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't agonizing. I remember that when I broke my leg I was in terrible pain, but now 8 years later I can't really remember the intensity of the pain itself (that doesn't mean I want to do it again even though I know I won't remember the pain in a few years) Our memory of pain is fleeting, otherwise women would never have more than one child. But the fact that it is painful should make sure you have your convictions straight.

This is so true.
To some, they figure that the baby won't remember not only the pain, but having experienced it at all.

I remember some aspects from back then... Irony is, the guy that referred me to this site, MugAliens (Whom I've never actually seen post here) also has a documented birth memory. (As in independently verified).
Although it's RARE, some people do remember.
That in itself is not a strong case to suggest that it's wrong to circumcise. I'm just sayin'...

Not many men are willing to be circumcised for a cause they don't really believe in. It shows that your brother in law truly cared about his wife.

Having some familiarity with that- Yeah.

Actually I know another guy that did the same- purely out of Aesthetic reasons. Really- he had the procedure done solely because his wife preferred it (Emphatically.)

He hated her for it after.

But then... that's what love is.

 

[SilentLi89]

Having some familiarity with that- Yeah.

Actually I know another guy that did the same- purely out of Aesthetic reasons. Really- he had the procedure done solely because his wife preferred it (Emphatically.)

He hated her for it after.

But then... that's what love is.

That is like tattooing your lover's name on your chest; probably not the best idea you've ever had.

 

[Neverfly]

That is like tattooing your lover's name on your chest; probably not the best idea you've ever had.

I agree. But that's on him and to be honest... they make a good couple. I'm confident they will last.

Me on the other hand... I'm a ruthless bastard. I wouldn't do that.

 

[SilentLi89]

I agree. But that's on him and to be honest... they make a good couple. I'm confident they will last.

Me on the other hand... I'm a ruthless bastard. I wouldn't do that.

I don't have a penis, but I probably wouldn't do that either. I know I wouldn't get a "boob job" just because my partner may like big breasted women. I mean... I kind of like myself the way I am already. But if it somehow involved his life or well-being in someway, I'd consider it.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Never met a circumcised guy. Did I miss out on something?

he last longer and thrusts harder No, actually most studies find no change in sexual performance, they take the same time to reach orgasm, etc, so no your missing nothing... but I have heard rumors that its not as nasty to suck on a cut one, if your into that sort of thing. Honestly I would never let a women on my junk, that teeth near my junk, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! I'll lick carpet, have many times, nothing against it, but not the reverse, totally not comfortable with that.

It's mutilation, period. Unless it is genuinely necessary for health reasons. That kid CAN'T CONSENT.

Thank you WillNever for having some sense.

What about ear piercing of babies, is that mutilation?

 

[Neverfly]

I don't have a penis, but I probably wouldn't do that either. I know I wouldn't get a "boob job" just because my partner may like big breasted women. I mean... I kind of like myself the way I am already. But if it somehow involved his life or well-being in someway, I'd consider it.

That's actually a good example.

In fact, I've never understood such surgery as the potential for harm from it is pretty high (Stuff leaking and solidifying and such.)

Kinda gets to the point where shallowness has limits.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Hmmmm, this is what I read here...
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Hmmm. You know what? You're CDC report is from 2008, the other new 2010 report is a revised opinion based on further research which makes sense to me. I mean no one was really able to explain how HIV in Europe was always lower than what it was in the US when males in Europe are not systematically circumcised.

Its a case of keeping up with the information.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

he last longer and thrusts harder No, actually most studies find no change in sexual performance, they take the same time to reach orgasm, etc, so no your missing nothing... but I have heard rumors that its not as nasty to suck on a cut one, if your into that sort of thing. Honestly I would never let a women on my junk, that teeth near my junk, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! I'll lick carpet, have many times, nothing against it, but not the reverse, totally not comfortable with that.

Interesting most uncircumcised penises I've met seem to look almost as if they were circumcised when in erected state.

____

The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.

So it seems to have a purpose after all...

 

[ElectricFetus]

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.

And any repeated statistical studies showing that this is a good thing?

to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.

Yeah that why babies with foreskin have a higher chance of UTI, makes total sense!

3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.

Sure that makes sense, but cotton underwear could do that too.

4.to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.

And any repeated statistical studies showing that this is a good thing?

5.to lubricate the glans.

Lubricates for what? Sex? There are other mechanism lubricating the glans for and during sex.

6.to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.

Oh you mean smegma, that stinky crude made out of dead skin cells and bacteria? Any repeated statistical studies showing that this is actually a good thing?

7.to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.

There are all kinds of dicks out there an I can assure you many can't be kept covered by their foreskin fully erect.

8.to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.

First of all guys don't need foreplay, average man takes 5 minutes to reach orgasm, average women takes 20 minutes, in a fair world foreplay is something a man does to a women to try to level the playing field. Second I know of the old belief circumcision hinders masturbation, any repeated statistical evidence for this?

9. to serve as an aid to penetration.

How?

10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.

And any repeated statistical studies showing that this is true?

11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.

So it would enhance sexual function right? Any repeated statistical studies showing that this is true?

12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.

So then women would find uncircumcised partners better, any repeated statistical studies showing that this is true?

All you have stated is hypothetical not proof of any function or benefit!

Have a look at this table of studies and tell me which functions are statistically verified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings