Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Fascination]

Oh, yeah, and most of us have no problem admitting it. Most have no problem accepting a change in attitude that would have resulted in a different outcome, had we only changed our attitudes in time. Most of us get that people live and learn, with any luck at all.

But on this topic, even when your reasons are understandable and you've since changed your mind, you still get the enraged contingent that calls you "child abusing mutilator."

Just ignore it sweetie. How's your sims coming along?

 

[slingblade]

Just ignore it sweetie. How's your sims coming along?

Well, the game's advanced...but not to the point that you can tell your Sim to "go pee, now go eat, now go do the tube-steak boogie solo in the bathroom..."

 

[Fascination]

You say 'more friction' like it's a good thing, lol. Maybe I'm just super-sensitve?

But yeah, I can't really think of a place more prone to collect secretions than the labial folds, yet no one suggests cutting those away at birth for cleanliness reasons. I've never had so much as a yeast infection or a UTI.

Still, I'm glad that being childfree means I never had to make this decision. I see both sides; the ethical reasoning, and that around here, it's still considered 'normal'. When I go to pick up my niece after (grade) school, there's one car absolutely covered with anti-circ bumperstickers. And I cringe for that little boy. Way to tell the world what your kid's wang looks like, lady.

I'm not sure if it's more friction. That was just a guess, lol. It's been awhile since I've gotten to experience the "anteater" because my husband is circumcised.

 

[Fascination]

Well, the game's advanced...but not to the point that you can tell your Sim to "go pee, now go eat, now go do the tube-steak boogie solo in the bathroom..."

Hee...I didn't mean to derail the thread. Maybe I'll start a gaming thread. That way we can talk about Skyrim when it's released in 6 days!

 

[Leumas]

This could in fact be the case especially if the circumcision results in some degree of buried penis. As an aside, and I can't recall where I saw this, I do remember reading that circumcised penises where on average some small value (a CM or two) smaller.

RUBBISH.....

Then I know a man who would be grateful he was cut, as he is so long that it tends to drive women away.

I know it will come as a shock to many of you, but really, most women don't get all that happy at the prospect of some 10 inches of engorged flesh being shoved into them, repeatedly and with force.

Go figure, eh?

Is that all....

 

[Leumas]

Thanks mom and dad for giving me a Helmet, i used to paint a little face on it and make my girlfriends giggle, i don't have to pull it back to pee, i never got any infections or cruddy stuff, And best of all ! i can put moist sugar around the rim and have my wife pretend it's a margarita.

Your wife is a keeper then....

Just wouldn't get me anywhere: "Put it away you randy sod" etc.

I know.....

 

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post




Respectfully, sirs, I submit that your female partners are the ones already providing the lubrication, that's why you don't 'need' it, regardless of cut or not.

(if we are talking about male partners, then )

 

[Leumas]

Indeed.

Another shocking note--sorry, I know I'm blasting apart some pretty cherished notions here--some guys have a partner, and healthy sex life with that partner, and it's still not enough for them. So they go solo. A lot. A very lot.

Different strokes....oh, god.....

Sometimes it is a lot easier than all that foreplay stuff and cuddling afterwards. Sometimes all a man wants is just a "wham bam thank you ma’am" despite how much he loves his wife.... and Palma can be quite understanding, accommodating and not very demanding (no drinks flowers, diamond rings or n^th honeymoon).

 

[RedRatSnake]

Your wife is a keeper then....

30 Years and still going ~ Thanks Bud

 

[jdp]

This could in fact be the case especially if the circumcision results in some degree of buried penis. As an aside, and I can't recall where I saw this, I do remember reading that circumcised penises where on average some small value (a CM or two) smaller.

RUBBISH.....

Average erect penis length was 16.0 cm (95% CI 12.2-19.8) in 156 White men aged 18-55 years (mean 33) in Sydney, Australia. Length in the 102 who were circumcised was 0.8 cm (5% or 1/20th) less than length in the 43 who were uncircumcised.

see Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? A method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995; 8: 77-81.

Leumas, I wouldn't have posted such a thing had I not read it. I admit the sample size is small in this case but I've seen similar data elsewhere. I'll add that in most cases the researchers suggest the results could depend on how the group involved were circumcised, some techniques are more aggressive than others. In such cases, a tight circumcision, it could cause the shaft skin to pull the penis in just a bit; we know that a very tight circumcision does lead to a potentially buried penis. Think of this result as a mild manifestation of that complication.

 

[Ryokan]

Google Hidden Penis or Buried Penis, and you'll see one of the wonderful things that can happen to your penis because of circumcision. I'm sure this reduces the average length of circumcised penises at least a little bit.

Many of the Google hits were for plastic surgeons offering to fix it, so while rare it certainly happens enough times for there to be people out to make a buck on your circumcised micro-penis.

 

[jdp]

As someone going through school to work in the medical field, ( pharmacy) i can say i dont blame the doctors. The problem is that if people want it, you have to provide the care. As an example if i were to be asked about homeopathic medications after i become a pharmacist, even if i don't want to dispense them i am required to give the person an alternative pharmacist who will.

So the doctor's hands are tied, so to speak.

That's always what they say when I've discussed the matter with them but I disagree. On the matter of proxy consent the AAP committee on bio-ethics noted in 1995 that,

Such [medical] providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. [...] the pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent."

I posit that where the circumcision being performed on a minor is non-therapeutic and non-consensual that the doctors are not meeting their ethical obligations as outlined above.

ETA: I think a more appropriate analogy for you (as a pharmacist) would be if a customer came to your pharmacy without a prescription but asked you for a drug based on what they felt they wanted.

 

[slingblade]

Sometimes it is a lot easier than all that foreplay stuff and cuddling afterwards. Sometimes all a man wants is just a "wham bam thank you ma’am" despite how much he loves his wife.... and Palma can be quite understanding, accommodating and not very demanding (no drinks flowers, diamond rings or n^th honeymoon).

Um...you know you just dumped me into some really crappy and totally untrue stereotype, right?

 

[Leumas]

Um...you know you just dumped me into some really crappy and totally untrue stereotype, right?

.... It was a joke I hope you knew that...right?...maybe I should have put a

 

[Leumas]

see Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? A method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995; 8: 77-81.

Leumas, I wouldn't have posted such a thing had I not read it. I admit the sample size is small in this case but I've seen similar data elsewhere. I'll add that in most cases the researchers suggest the results could depend on how the group involved were circumcised, some techniques are more aggressive than others. In such cases, a tight circumcision, it could cause the shaft skin to pull the penis in just a bit; we know that a very tight circumcision does lead to a potentially buried penis. Think of this result as a mild manifestation of that complication.

Google Hidden Penis or Buried Penis, and you'll see one of the wonderful things that can happen to your penis because of circumcision. I'm sure this reduces the average length of circumcised penises at least a little bit.

Many of the Google hits were for plastic surgeons offering to fix it, so while rare it certainly happens enough times for there to be people out to make a buck on your circumcised micro-penis.

Oh yes...there are many possible problems that CAN happen....but they are the exception not the norm.

So one of the things that CAN go wrong causes a problem that can prevent the victim from having a full erection….some even have the whole thing get cut off.

But a "normal" circumcision without complications does not cause a shorter penis than it would have been if it were not circumcised. Just look at the biology of it.

 

[jdp]

Oh yes...there are many possible problems that CAN happen....but they are the exception not the norm.

So one of the things that CAN go wrong causes a problem that can prevent the victim from having a full erection….some even have the whole thing get cut off.

But a "normal" circumcision without complications does not cause a shorter penis than it would have been if it were not circumcised. Just look at the biology of it.

Depends on how you define a "normal" circumcision. As I said, some techniques are more aggressive than others so their "normal" result could remove all the foreskin and go past that to the shaft skin. In the case of this particular article, the Australian participants born in the late sixties to early seventies were mostly circumcised by one of these more aggressive methods as were many Americans into the early nineties. So the "normal" result could be very mild buried penis. Keep in mind that there is no dotted line on which to cut.

 

[Leumas]

Depends on how you define a "normal" circumcision. As I said, some techniques are more aggressive than others so their "normal" result could remove all the foreskin and go past that to the shaft skin. In the case of this particular article, the Australian participants born in the late sixties to early seventies were mostly circumcised by one of these more aggressive methods as were many Americans into the early nineties. So the "normal" result could be very mild buried penis. Keep in mind that there is no dotted line on which to cut.

That is why these bloody Goyim should not be doing it...they should consult a Mohel...having sucked the blood off of so many little boys' penises they developed the ability to see the dotted line you know...

So a "normal" circumcision is one done by Mohels who know what to do.

 

[slingblade]

.... It was a joke I hope you knew that...right?...maybe I should have put a

Several.

 

[zooterkin]

It appears that in Holland there are plans to ban circumcision, at least for non-medical reasons. At a conference of European rabbis, discussing the banning of ritual slaughter, one of the delegates mentioned:

"The Royal Dutch Medical Association is coming up with a suggestion to ban circumcision -- something we Jews have been doing for the last 3,500 years," [Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis] said.

"They come and say you're not only inhuman towards animals, you're inhumane towards your own children. So basically it robs us of our religious and human dignity," he said.

ETA: More on this, which suggests that a ban is not being sought.

Although there are good reasons for a ban, advocates at the KNMG are not advocating for this. The fear is that banning the procedure will force it underground, and would be performed by unskilled people under unsanitary conditions. Thus, the number of complications can greatly increase.

The statement in full is here.
The conclusion:

Conclusion

• There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms
  of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise
  during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic
  grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly
  reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the
  age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the
  intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
• Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and
  psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding,
  infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or
  complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions
  have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the
  circumcision.
• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors
  may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present,
  or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the
  interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to
  autonomy and physical integrity.
• The KNMG calls on (referring) doctors to explicitly inform parents/carers who
  are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of
  complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits. The fact that this is
  a medically non-essential intervention with a real risk of complications makes
  the quality of this advice particularly important. The doctor must then record the
  informed consent in the medical file.
• The KNMG respects the deep religious, symbolic and cultural feelings that surround
  the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision. The KNMG calls for a dialogue between
  doctors’ organisations, experts and the religious groups concerned in order to
  put the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors on the agenda and
  ultimately restrict it as much as possible.
• There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of
  male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears
  that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by
  non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the
  intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious
  complications than is currently the case.

 

[Naive1000]

Oh, yeah, and most of us have no problem admitting it. Most have no problem accepting a change in attitude that would have resulted in a different outcome, had we only changed our attitudes in time. Most of us get that people live and learn, with any luck at all.

But on this topic, even when your reasons are understandable and you've since changed your mind, you still get the enraged contingent that calls you "child abusing mutilator."

While I do think of circumcision as abuse, I do not think of all the parents who've had their children circumcised as bad or evil abusers. I think most of us who do think of it that way (sorry for the broad sweeping generalization here) accept that parents and most of society have been fooled into thinking of circumcision as okay. I think it's like how I feel on spanking. I don't feel it's abuse but looking at the effects, the problems, and the science I'm willing to accept it as such. Does that mean that my parents were abusers, no I don't think so. But, by labeling it as abuse, recognizing it as such, it helps move people into really looking into the subject, to consider the practice in a different light. Moving past social norms is difficult and sometimes requires extreme rhetoric and relabeling of accepted practices to even get them noticed. And while I know I feel circumcision is abuse, I do not feel that those who have had it done to there children were abusers.

Society and those in authority told us at the time that it was perfectly okay. Our biology moves us to trust authority, even when we know a practice is wrong we still trust it, so how can we even try to refute a practice when we have no idea that it's wrong. Right and wrong are social constructs and the times dictate our acceptance of practices and social rituals. We have to accept that the people of those times were not evil, but products of their society. But it does show us that we must all question our practices and teach our children to question them too if we wish to have a better future and a more just society.