Male Circumcision

[TA1LGUNN3R]

-TG

You go, girl.

Circumcision...I don't mind having been circumcised as a baby, but that's because I don't remember the pain. I imagine it was excruciating.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

How do you even...what?

-rd

I'm a supporter of H.O.O.P.

-TG

[saxitoxin]

Circumcision may have been performed by Jews in antiquity to create aggressive warriors better equipped to fight against the dire odds they faced. Circumcised armies may perform better in battle as they are more likely to be predisposed to violence and disinclined to mercy. Circumcision should be common in empire-building nations or nations in siege. It helps mold effective soldiers.

Perinatal trauma. Circumcision is a form of perinatal (birth) trauma. Cansever tested boys before and after circumcision and found that the trauma causes severe disturbance of normal psychological functions.

Taddio and others have documented behavioral changes at six months of age, suggestive of PTSD in circumcised boys. Yilmaz et al. have demonstrated PTSD in boys in the phallic period who are undergoing circumcision for phimosis. Rhinehart has documented posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from the perinatal trauma of circumcision in middle-aged males. substantial evidence that perinatal trauma and/or deprivation of pleasure contribute to later aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour. Anand and Scalzo suggest that early trauma predisposes to altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, ADD/hyperactivity, and self-destructive disorders. Van der Kolk identified a compulsion in traumatized persons to repeat the trauma. Goldman reports that the performance of circumcision by a circumcised male doctor may be a reenactment of one's own circumcision trauma.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/

However, circumcised persons who support circumcision are suffering from circumcision-induced insanity so their opinions should not be considered in the debate. The will rationalize any scrap of evidence, no matter how thin, to support the procedure. Only the opinions of circumcised persons who oppose circumcision and uncircumcised persons should be considered.

Denial of loss. Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss. The first stage of grief is denial of the loss. Fitzgerald and Parkes state that "Anything that seriously impairs sensory or cognitive function is bound to have profound psychological effects, not only on the person who is affected but also on family, friends, workmates, and caregivers." The thought of permanent loss of sensory function is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial may minimize their loss. Circumcision causes the loss of a body part and all of its functions including a drastic loss of erogenous sensory function, so denial of loss is not uncommon in circumcised males. Circumcised males may experience the full range of distress and emotional dysfunction resulting from loss. This frequently results in circumcised fathers adamantly insisting that a son be circumcised.

Fathers are frequently unable to vocalize their feelings. They will say that "I want my son to look like me," even though the child may be different in eye color, hair color, and other aspects. In fact, what the father really may be feeling is, "I don't want a son with an intact penis to remind me of what I have lost."

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/

[Woodruff]

I feel the same way regarding ear piercings for infants. It's really quite ridiculous.

[GBU56]

Circumcision should only be performed when there's a medical need or after the male has reached adulthood and requests it.

To those of you who have been circumcised at birth you really don't know the pleasures of having a foreskin during masterbation and sex.

Why would any parent alllow their son to be brutalized at birth and reduce his pleasures in the future? This should be declared a "Crime against Humanity" at the United Nations!

[Woodruff]

I feel the same way regarding ear piercings for infants. It's really quite ridiculous.

Why is there no outcry about this? It's becoming a national plague.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.


Here's some links to polls:


http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/112014/results




http://www.circlist.com/surveys/opiniondotcom-01.html
(see Poll number 6357 - Child circumcision, which reveals a shift in attitudes (2008-2010) away from pro-infant circumcision.


ANd wiki:

"The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2011 that rates decreased in the United States in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM).[14]"

Incidence of NMC decreased from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 in NHDS (AAPC = -1.4%; p<0.001), from 63.5% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2008 in NIS (AAPC = -1.2%; p<0.001), and from 58.4% in 2001 to 54.7% in 2010 in CDM (AAPC = -0.75%; p<0.001)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

[patrickaa317]

Then be in favour of gay men getting circumcisions, if that's the issue. How one can predict that a newborn boy will grow up to be a gay man is beyond me. It's simply not an argument in favour of infant circumcision.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

Perhaps your gaydar is more sensitive than my own, and is particularly correlated towards infants. A remarkable talent, but more than a little disturbing when applied to infants you claim to be protecting from sexually transmitted diseases as if they were the same as fully adult gay men.

A. My gaydar is about as poor as they come since I frankly don't care who is gay and who isn't.

B. This would be detectable by the gay gene that is supposedly out there and hasn't been found yet. You do believe people don't simply chose to be gay, correct?

C. I'm not claiming to be protecting anyone, nor have I took a stance on whether circumcision should be done at any age, adult, child, or infant.

D. I don't understand how circumcision would reduce the risk of any STD, if it is true then while schools are handing out condoms, perhaps they should snip the tip at the same time. But frankly, if people are looking to reduce the risk of STDs, there is only one proven method to that and I don't think circumcision for that reason alone is justifiable.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

How do you even...what?

-rd

Refer to point B above.

[MeDeFe]

Good to hear the rates are slowly declining on your side of the pond, BBS.

Meanwhile in Germany, the Bundestag (comparable to US congress) has tasked the government with coming up with a proposal for a law that would allow circumcision in males for religious reasons. This was prompted because the district court in Cologne decreed circumcision of minors for non-medical reasons to be bodily harm after a 4-year old was brought to a hospital because the wound had reopened and needed additional treatment, the doctor who performed the foreskin amputation as well as the boy's parents were acquitted for mostly technical reasons, though.

They're going to have a metric fuckton of problems in formulating such a law.

The German constitution guarantees that noone is discriminated against based on their sex. The mental gymnastics necessary to allow circumcising boys and prohibiting circumcising girls will surely be astounding to behold.

Do you allow any old preacher to perform it or does the person in question have to be a medical professional? Possibly a medical professional with experience in surgeries. What happens if medical professionals refuse? Can you force them to do it anyway or will the parents have to take their child to the hospital in the next town, or the next next town?

What about anaesthesia? The procedure is extremely painful, but infants are notoriously bad at handling anaesthetics I hear. So a minimum age then? Some Jewish groups will be pissed off about that since they insist on circumcising asap, and some really weird orthodox sects where the rabbi uses his teeth to remove the foreskin have been mentioned, I find it hard to imagine such a thing taking place and I haven't seen anything I'd call "reliable sources" for it yet either, but humans have disgusted me before...

How do you restrict this to only certain religions? If circumcision is part of Judaism (though some Jewish groups have eschewed it) it should be in the OT, too, but practically no Christian here is circumcised. Yet, it's in the bible. On the other hand I have read that there is nothing in the Quran that proscribes circumcision, yet it's quite common among some Muslim groups.

And if circumcision gets its own special law, every last religious group will be clamoring to get their own special law that allows them to do something which would otherwise land them in jail.

Personally I think any law that is proposed and passed will get challenged before and struck down by the German constitutional court. The non-discrimination clause in the constitution alone is probably enough to bring it down unless circumcision of girls is allowed as well, and Germany has been lobbying against that taking place in other countries, so I find it unlikely they will include it. Throw in the right to life and physical integrity which has to be weighed against the freedom of opinion and conscience (into which freedom of religious beliefs is integrated), and I'm cautiously optimistic that the court will find that it's more important not to chop off pieces of other humans.

This will probably go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights before it's definitely settled, and that can take years. Maybe in a decade we'll have a final decision.

[saxitoxin]

Those are interesting stats, BBS.

Is circumcision considered a necessary medical procedure under insurance? If the U.S. has dropped to a 50% rate that means that half of parents must be proactively requesting it not be performed. If it were considered a cosmetic procedure would it drop further? If it's already an optional procedure, would it increase if it were covered by insurance?

edit - I kind of answered my own question -

Researchers found that at hospitals in the 16 states where the procedure is not covered, circumcision rates were 24 percentage points lower than at hospitals in other states, with lower rates particularly prevalent among Hispanics.

The 16 states without Medicaid coverage for male circumcision are California, Oregon, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Washington, Missouri, Arizona, North Carolina, Montana, Utah, Florida, Maine, Louisiana, Idaho and Minnesota.

The study authors estimate that if all states' Medicaid plans paid for male circumcision, the national rates for the procedure would increase to 62.6 percent. If all states dropped the coverage, the rate would fall to about 38.5 percent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092346.htm

[BigBallinStalin]

Those are interesting stats, BBS.

Is circumcision considered a necessary medical procedure under insurance? If the U.S. has dropped to a 50% rate that means that half of parents must be proactively requesting it not be performed. If it were considered a cosmetic procedure would it drop further? If it's already an optional procedure, would it increase if it were covered by insurance?

edit - I kind of answered my own question -

Researchers found that at hospitals in the 16 states where the procedure is not covered, circumcision rates were 24 percentage points lower than at hospitals in other states, with lower rates particularly prevalent among Hispanics.

The 16 states without Medicaid coverage for male circumcision are California, Oregon, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Washington, Missouri, Arizona, North Carolina, Montana, Utah, Florida, Maine, Louisiana, Idaho and Minnesota.

The study authors estimate that if all states' Medicaid plans paid for male circumcision, the national rates for the procedure would increase to 62.6 percent. If all states dropped the coverage, the rate would fall to about 38.5 percent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092346.htm

Well, if you subsidize something, you tend to get more of it.

[Woodruff]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?


I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

[saxitoxin]

Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak.

Wait ... I don't think that's how circumcision works. But I'm not 100% sure.

[GabonX]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

[patrickaa317]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

Don't fear the ant-eater!

[natty dread]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

Yeah, obviously your daughter/mother/sister/wife's opinion doesn't count at all, right? I mean, as the One Who Was Born With Testicles it's obviously your prerogative to dictate how the Non-Testicled members of your family handle their sex life...

Ps. I'm being sarcastic, you sexist f*ck

[GBU56]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

Incest is best, heh? My GOD! you should be decapitated!

[Woodruff]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?

I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

[Woodruff]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

Why would you care?

[vodean]

I'd say it's gaining traction, Woodruff.

What's gaining traction? Those links don't have anything at all to do with the child deformation I'm speaking of.

Oh, ear piercings? This is the male circumcision thread.

Why not make a neonatal ear piercing thread and see how much traction that gets?

I'm sorry for being so caustic, but ear piercings? Really? Baby penises are being chopped off as we speak. Significant future loss of additional sensual pleasure is occurring on a global scale, and you feel the same way about neonatal ear piercings?

I don't condone ear piercings for babies, but still, I can't feel the same way about it compared to NMC.

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

for once, i actually completely agree with woodruff. this thread is just a place to hate on the religious. Its kinda scary how much hatred you seem to have pent up inside.

things that could vent some of that sexual frustration are: circumcision, getting fixed, sex, participating in the pain olympics, putting your dick in the blender, more masturbation, or getting yourself sent to prison. all of those things will make relieve much of your sexual tension, and probably make you care less about circumcision. try at least one of them.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

You don't see any other reasons why placing a tiny hole in your earlobe is slightly different that cutting off the foreskin?

[Haggis_McMutton]

for once, i actually completely agree with woodruff. this thread is just a place to hate on the religious. Its kinda scary how much hatred you seem to have pent up inside.

things that could vent some of that sexual frustration are: circumcision, getting fixed, sex, participating in the pain olympics, putting your dick in the blender, more masturbation, or getting yourself sent to prison. all of those things will make relieve much of your sexual tension, and probably make you care less about circumcision. try at least one of them.

Nah, what's scary is how easily people accept social conditioning and convenience in the face of what clearly are barbaric iron age rituals.

But then again we've seen that most people will attempt to give deadly electric shocks to a test subject as long as there's a dude in a labcoat telling them it's ok, so it's not really surprising or anything.

[PLAYER57832]

Why? Because it's a religious thing? Honestly, this thread strikes me as more anti-religion than anything else.

You don't see any other reasons why placing a tiny hole in your earlobe is slightly different that cutting off the foreskin?

Neither one is particularly harmful. This subject has actually come up becuase I have male relatives who are and who are not circumcized.

There is a very slight chance of injury if either procedure is not done properly. That is a risk worth considering, but "loss of pleasure" -- apparently not.

I suppose the best answer would be from someone who had this done as an adult, who could give a comparison. Except, well, it might be different if you had it done as a baby. I could see a later procedure as being very painful and perhaps more harmful.

[chang50]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

That has to be most bizarre post I've ever come across,I never ever think about my female relatives sexual activity.

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my daughter/mother/sister/wife having sex with a non circumcised male...

That has to be most bizarre post I've ever come across,I never ever think about my female relatives sexual activity.

Don't worry chang50, I think about your female relatives sexual activity quite often.