routine infant circumcision

[AzurePhoenix]

In the U.S.A, Sex Ed isn't about anything remotely similar to sex, it's all about avoiding it.

[ecoli]

In the U.S.A, Sex Ed isn't about anything remotely similar to sex, it's all about avoiding it.

 

That's only partially true, at least in my Health Class. We learn about different sex organs and glands, birth control and STDs. But, the recurring theme does portray that message. "If you have sex, you will DIE"

[logicBomb]

The fate of the sensory cortex mapped to the prepuce following circumcision[/quote']I'd never considered that before' date=' just guessing it probably attrophies, but good science doesn't come from just assuming and moving on. I wonder if anyone has studied this?[/quote']

 

usually if a body part 'goes missing', the related sensory cortex is remapped to another part of the body. this can happen in strange & confusing ways, such as phantom pain after amputation. if a rat loses a whisker, the total cortex dedicated to whiskers remains constant, but the remaining whiskers get an enlarged sensory map, w/ compensates for the loss to some degree.

if the foreskin was merely a 'flap of skin' it's removal wld probably have little impact, but it isn't is it. it's a complex sensory structure in it's own right. i have to wonder what impact the emotional experience of circ has on the remapping process.

 

BUJ dont know that one but the BMJ has plenty.

sorry, i meant BJU (british jrnl of urology, they did a special issue on circ in ~2000)

[blike]

I just found this:

"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus. "

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

[john5746]

I just found this:

"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus. "

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

 

I was thinking this was probably due to cultural differences, but it appears to be valid, assuming they set up the test correctly

[iglak]

Unless circumcision can be proven to be harmful, by legitimate studies.

 

harmful on what level?

the foreskin of the penis is the most sensitive part. uncircumsized toddlers touch it and play with it often, just because it's so sensitive.

 

religions believe that every time someone masturbates, they learn to love themselves, and love god less. to prevent toddlers and your children from loving god less, they cut off the most sensitive part of the penis, so that they will have no reason to touch themselves there when they don't know what it is.

 

there might be more reasons for circumcision, but that's a big one.

 

 

 

i wasn't circumcised.

i have a question i should probably ask a doctor (or a sex information forum or something), but it applies here. the opening in my foreskin is slightly smaller than the width of the head of my penis. in addition to that, my foreskin is attached by a very sensitive piece of flesh, like a clitoris.

 

yet i've heard of people who hide their foreskins by pulling it back, and sometimes tying it there. i can't do that. it'd hurt, and probably rip the sensitive connecting skin.

is that at all normal?

 

if i was circumcised, i wouldn't have it. i wonder if i had it bck then; in which case, they would have had to cut it if it were circumcised... ouch.

 

 

circumcision would have deprived me of a very improtant part of my sex organ... that can't be an easy thing for the brain to remap.

maybe that's why so many people have weird fetishes, lol.

 

 

 

a regrown foreskin wouldn't have that either. (regrowing the foreskin is a simple matter of stretching it daily. it can be done by hand.)

[Invader_Gir]

i wasn't circumcised.

i have a question i should probably ask a doctor (or a sex information forum or something)' date=' but it applies here. the opening in my foreskin is slightly smaller than the width of the head of my penis. in addition to that, my foreskin is attached by a very sensitive piece of flesh, like a clitoris.[/quote']

 

Phimosis is a condition where the foreskin is tight and cannot be fully retracted over the glans. Circumcision is the recommended way of curing this. A foreskin should be fully retractable by puberty, I believe. The sensitive piece of flesh I am guessing is the frenum/frenulum.

 

PM me if you want a link to a site that details all this better. I would post it, but it has some images pertaining to the subject at hand.

[Dak]

i have a question i should probably ask a doctor (or a sex information forum or something)' date=' but it applies here. the opening in my foreskin is slightly smaller than the width of the head of my penis. in addition to that, my foreskin is attached by a very sensitive piece of flesh, like a clitoris.

 

yet i've heard of people who hide their foreskins by pulling it back, and sometimes tying it there. i can't do that. it'd hurt, and probably rip the sensitive connecting skin.

is that at all normal?[/quote']

 

I assume the piece of skin to which you are referring is the frenum, aks 'banjo strings'; stringy piesces of skin that attach the foreskin to the penus, on the underneath of the helmet, which everyone (who has a foreskin) has.

 

the foreskin being smaller than the head of the penus is not uncommon. It should stretch during sex, but in some individuals doesnt.

 

Mine did this. when forsed to go back, ie during sex, it was so tight that the foreskin became irritated and swelled up quite a bit, which did no favours to my sex life. If i wore my foreskin back for any length of time (as i had to do after i got my penus pierced), the tightness around my penus caused my foreskin to fill with blood and swell up like a baloon (i mean it -- it was about 3/4 of an inch thick!). This happened even when i was flassid, and my penus is impressively small when flaccid.

 

basically, what i did was got two hair clips and bent them at right angles. Everymorning, i would hook them into my foreskin and pull in opposite directions (not too hard, mind), and hold for about five minutes, tugging jently to add pressure. Also, whenever i had an erection i would force the foreskin all the way back and leave it there, bearing the pain for a few minits.

 

After a while, it had streched to the point where i could get two little fingers (aka pinkies) into it, and so could dispence with the hairclips and strech it with my fingers. I also went through a phase where i cellotaped it back, so i could walk around with it pulled back all day.

 

All of this eventually stretched it to the point where it can go back over my erect penus without hurting or swelling up, at which point i realised what all the fuss about sex was about (previously, it had felt like i was wearing 10 condoms, due to the swelling ).

 

after that, repeated sex was a thoroughly enjoyable final stage to the stretching process.

 

The entire process took about two months, and now my foreskin rolls back over my penus easaly (although it wont stay back).

 

So there you have it. You now know a) more than you ever wished to know about my foreskin, and b) how to fix your own foreskin, although as invader gir said, there are conditions which can cause it which require full or partial circumsision. You can be born with these conditions, or they can be aquired, for example from a nasty reaction to air-born fungi.

 

Hope that helps.

 

and despite the inconvieniences, im still glad i have my foreskin.

[YT2095]

I`m dead against it, why remove something that has a perfectly functional reason to be there?

 

now if it was a routine Infant Appendectomy, THEN there may be a valid point!

[logicBomb]

maybe that's why so many people have weird fetishes' date=' lol.

[/quote']

 

yeah, research consistently shows that circed men engage in a broader range of sexual techniques (eg: circed men are more likely to seek heterosexual anal intercourse).

 

i always assumed this was to make up for a sensory deficit, but childhood sexual experience cld be implicated for sure.

[logicBomb]

which require full or partial circumsision

 

there are preputioplasties that resolve these complaints and conserve the foreskin. the reason they are not better known is becos the history of circ has confused its cultural value w/ its medical value. noone needs to get their foreskin removed for medical reasons unless the tissue of the foreskin itself is affected by some untreatable pathology.

[logicBomb]

kicking this thread back into life with a paper from the 'Journal of Medical Ethics' (2005;31:463-469)

 

A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors M Fox and M Thomson

This article offers a critique of the recently revised BMA guidance on routine neonatal male circumcision and seeks to challenge the assumptions underpinning the guidance which construe this procedure as a matter of parental choice. Our aim is to problematise continued professional willingness to tolerate the non-therapeutic, non-consensual excision of healthy tissue, arguing that in this context both professional guidance and law are uncharacteristically tolerant of risks inflicted on young children, given the absence of clear medical benefits. By interrogating historical medical explanations for this practice, which continue to surface in contemporary justifications of non-consensual male circumcision, we demonstrate how circumcision has long existed as a procedure in need of a justification. We conclude that it is ethically inappropriate to subject children—male or female—to the acknowledged risks of circumcision and contend that there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful.

 

basically, male circumcision is not justifiable.

any comments?

[Mayflower]

One of the big problems I have with mutilation is the after effects. Is the actual pain of the experience that big of a deal? It might be a big deal if it left long term physical problems, or worse, mental issues.

 

I'm glad they chopped off my fireman when I was a baby.

[logicBomb]

long term cortisol sensitivity (post traumatic stress) is one common consequence of painful neonatal procedures.

 

as for mental issues, well its all to do w/ perception, isnt it. my perception is that an ideology i revile is behind the vandalism of my naturally perfected anatomy -- in a manner specifically intended to impact on my emotional & sexual autonomy.

 

anyway, why glad?

[lurscher]

I was circumcised at age 22 (now i'm 30) not because i wanted for some strange reason, but due to a phimosis-like skin problem that i developed (balanitis xerotica obliterans), which required removal of most of my frenulum (yes, ouch). People that have been circumsized at birth hardly can realize what they are missing since they have nothing to compare against. I have and i can assure all of you, you're missing a whole lot.

 

Even if my post-surgery sex life is still gratifying, is quite far from the experience i had pre-surgery. The only way i can make a fair comparison is with having a plaster cast, but not 4 or 6 months, but for life, and with an ever-increasing itch on the phantom frenulum. I'm not afraid to confess that at points i thought i was going insane, and considered suicide several times as the only way out. If a skin graft would have a chance of improving my situation i would consider it without a glitch, even if it meant take immunosuppresant drugs for life.

 

I hope this gives you a rough idea how healthy these procedures can be.

[ecoli]

I hope this gives you a rough idea how healthy these procedures can be.

 

New-born circumcisions don't have that problem, though. So, you can't really compare it.

[mooeypoo]

Is there actually anything in the jewish holy texts which commands circumsision? Is it analogouse to christian baptism? or is it just a convention?

 

Well, yes it has a very specific command in the holy texts and specifically in the bible, but it grew to be more than that, since today it is being practiced even with non-religious jews as preserving the tradition of the nation.

 

I found a site that explain this simply here: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Here's an excerpt:

Judaism completely rejects the notion of original sin. According to Judaism' date=' a child is born pure, completely free from sin. We pray daily "Oh G-d, the soul which you gave me is pure. You created it, you fashioned it, you breathed it into me."

 

....

 

Of all of the commandments in Judaism, the brit milah (literally, Covenant of Circumcision) is probably the one most universally observed. It is commonly referred to as a bris (covenant, using the Ashkenazic pronunciation). Even the most secular of Jews, who observe no other part of Judaism, almost always observe these laws. Of course, until quite recently, the majority of males in the United States were routinely circumcised, so this doesn't seem very surprising. But keep in mind that there is more to the ritual of the brit milah than merely the process of physically removing the foreskin, and many otherwise non-observant Jews observe the entire ritual.

 

The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.

 

....

 

Like so many Jewish commandments, the brit milah is commonly perceived to be a hygienic measure; however the biblical text states the reason for this commandment quite clearly: circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man. The health benefits of this practice are merely incidental. It is worth noting, however, that circumcised males have a lower risk of certain cancers, and the sexual partners of circumcised males also have a lower risk of certain cancers.

[/quote']

Also, this site is quite informative as to the link between practice and historical religious belief: http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/What_is_Circumcision$.asp

 

It always interrested me, however, where this custom came from initially. Many of the jewish customs actually did come from health reasons (like the restriction from eating pork came from the lack of refrigeration and the fact that pork spoils quickly, and so on), and since this practice's health reprecussions are still being debated, it always interrested me to find out how this started in the first place. But I guess it's for another debate

 

As for the health issue, there are many sites that are completely FOR circumcision for health properties, and some statistics claim that it is in fact health benefitial. Many non-jews go through this operation.

 

About ethics: I don't see anything unethical about this ritual, if done correctly. I do see it as wrong to have a non-medical Rabbi perform this operation, and my own child (if happens to be a boy, of course) will go through this with a doctor, not a rabbi.

 

Even if this operation is not health benefitial, but just "not harmful to one's health", I don't see any difference between this and pircing a child's ears for earings at a very very young age (I know in many cultures in eastern europe, girls have earings since they're a year or two old).

 

In my view (and yes, I might be biased, as a jewish person, though extremely non religious), there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between having your little girl ear-pierced without her "concent" and having your boy go through circumcision. Also, take into acount that within jewish communities it is SO accustomed, that a person who did not go through one is concidered "outcast" (as amusing as it may be).

 

So when you are recieving an education that this is a natural - or a practiced thing - to do and have, it is not as unethical as it may be for someone old enough to "know" that this will "cut down" his weewee. Oki? ;-)

 

There was a very good Southpark episode about that, by the way, where Kyle tries to save his adopted brother from having his circumcision. Good laugh, and nice point at the end

 

 

~moo

[ecoli]

Well, yes it has a very specific command in the holy texts and specifically in the bible, but it grew to be more than that, since today it is being practiced even with non-religious jews as preserving the tradition of the nation.

 

Yep. It's a requirement even for converts.

[Dak]

About ethics: I don't see anything unethical about this ritual' date=' if done correctly. I do see it as wrong to have a non-medical Rabbi perform this operation, and my own child (if happens to be a boy, of course) will go through this with a doctor, not a rabbi.

 

Even if this operation is not health benefitial, but just "not harmful to one's health", I don't see any difference between this and pircing a child's ears for earings at a very very young age (I know in many cultures in eastern europe, girls have earings since they're a year or two old).[/quote']

 

the difference is that an ear piercing can heal over, whereas a foreskin cannot grow back.

 

and, if it's supposed to be a sign of the bond between the person and g*d, shouldn't it be made willingly?

 

as in, "i give myself to g*d" rather than "I was given to g*d"?

[mooeypoo]

the difference is that an ear piercing can heal over, whereas a foreskin cannot grow back.

 

I'm sorry but if a baby girl has her ears pierced, within a few years, those holes will not heal. So on that term it IS the same.

 

About the religious term of being given to god - you're right. I won't argue with that, however - I'm not religious, so I'm probably the WRONG person to ask

 

~moo

[lurscher]

In my view (and yes, I might be biased, as a jewish person, though extremely non religious), there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between having your little girl ear-pierced without her "concent" and having your boy go through circumcision.

 

LOL! so, since when the ear is a sex organ? i know that ear is an erogenous zone for some people, but the comparison is completely ridiculous

 

I would better try to compare it with clitoris ablation in some african tribes. In that case however, sexual function is COMPLETELY REMOVED, instead of simply partially crippled, so i wouldn't dare the comparison either.

[mooeypoo]

It's so nice to see someone get pissed off with one detail in a long forum thread, and spills his rants without thinking what is relevant and what isn't.

 

My dear friend. If you've read my post, you would see that I didn't compare sex organs. If you've read the THREAD, you'd see that your point, put a bit more to the point and a bit less cynical-non-debatable than you put it, was already discussed.

 

I didnt compare the ear to a sex organ, I compared the PIERCING of a non-consenting-young-girl to the circumcision of a non-consenting-young-boy.

 

How 'bout you READ what I write, try to process it, think a bit about it, and only THEN you post a reply.

 

Unlike the removal of a clitoris, the circumcision is harmless and does not hurt the function or the enjoyment during sex. The removal of a clitoris DOES.

And if you've read through the posts, you'd see that this was discussed, only not quite as cynically as you put it.

 

 

~moo

[ecoli]

I would better try to compare it with clitoris ablation in some african tribes. In that case however' date=' sexual function is [b']COMPLETELY REMOVED[/b], instead of simply partially crippled, so i wouldn't dare the comparison either.

 

Good... don't do it then.

[holly_2009]

being a chick i can only say that i have no idea what to compare that to but i do know it would probably be like..........having a breast removed and that would be really awefull experiance.... i am truelly sorry and i agree that you couldnt compare it to a nwborn they never really got the chance to experiance being with it

[dirtyamerica]

I think it's a fair tradeoff. We have to suffer through childbirth, and in exchange, you get your willy carved.

 

So you and soooo many other women think we men should suffer just because you do? It's not like the male gender invented childbirth to happen to females. If we did then OK, you have a justified point, but, come on! really!?