Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders

[Noomi]

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

--snipped--

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.

Now, here's where you're not so correct. Circumcision has been around for a VERY long time and was brought about as a religious ritual. It had two purposes, one as a flesh offering to God and one in which a person's (male OR female) attention was not turned away from God even in the sexual act itself. The modern day "reasons" for circumcision were a way to perpetuate the underlying reasoning using "science" to explain why it's better to mutilate a child. You're correct that removing the clitoris is not EXACTLY the same as removing foreskin, but the reasons for doing so are. Sexual enjoyment is frowned upon by nearly all the world's organized religious beliefs. Christianity itself says that sex is ONLY for procreation in accordance with God's wishes, a belief that is widely held even today.

We who have been circumcised as children aren't "unhappy". We actually have no idea what we're missing except as described by others who have remained intact. But that argument is most like seeing a child who was born with no arms - she can do most everything a "normal" person can do, except she uses her feet to do it. Does she hate the fact that she has no arms, or is she content with the fact that she doesn't have to wear shoes?

Your last comment needs to be examined a bit. It's the "within reason" part that gets me. To some parents it's reasonable to softly paddle a bottom to get across to a child what "no" means. Some parents use a belt or a wooden spoon to get that same point across. Some use a closed fist. Who makes the determination of what is "within reason"? If a parent, who was "within reason" at the time, harms a child using these techniques, society says the parent can go to jail. Is it reasonable to ignore every major medical organization's studies on circumcision in favor of "common knowledge"?

Male or female, mutilation is still mutilation.

Good post, thanks for the response.

Now, I am not religious, so circumcision for me has nothing to do with God or anything like that. Its because I think it is cleaner, and healthier, easier to look after, and lets face it, more attractive, because women probably do prefer a man who is cut to one who isn't.

As for 'within reason', you raise a good point again. I don't think that parents should be allowed to spank their children, or instil their religious beliefs upon them (although that is a discussion for another time) but I do think that they should be able to choose to have the child circumcised - provided it is done as soon as possible after the birth to prevent the child from being traumatised. I also believe that, if possible, the baby should be put to sleep before the procedure, to prevent pain.

I think that if circumcision is made illegal, parents will simply get it done anyway - and that put the child at risk because the people performing the circumcision may not be trained in this procedure, so that is an important thing to consider also.

 

[MHunterB]

Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.

I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.

Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.

it shouldn't be... one can't compare female circumcision with male circumcision. and i always wonder about why anyone would make that comparison other than the use of the word circumcision. the effects on the individual are not comparable.

also, historically, one of the first ways in which tyrannical and anti-semetic regimes isolated and made jews alien was to outlaw circumcision. they would then use the fact that someone was circumcised as a way of identifying and outing jews who were singled out for persecution.

this is a very dangerous road to walk... if you don't want to circumcise your child, don't...

in my world, it's normal and not "abuse"... it's a cause for celebration... and it's an identifying ritual.

thank G-d for the first amendment.

Oh Geez Fucking Louise ! everything isn't anti-semitic.

How about for this reason?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...rpes-after-circumcision-and-oral-suction.html

The 'oral suction' part isn't a standard or a common part of the ritual. In fact it's not a part of the circumcision at all. So it's basically irrelevant, as male circumcision can certainly be performed without any such risk.

 

[Unkotare]

Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.

This is the problem with your type that latches so desperately to an 'identity' that you abandon the will or ability to think.


You make decisions for your children, don't you?

We covered this already.

Then why do you keep posting as if it were a foreign concept? Also, you never really answered directly...

 

[oldernwiser]

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

--snipped--

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.

Now, here's where you're not so correct. Circumcision has been around for a VERY long time and was brought about as a religious ritual. It had two purposes, one as a flesh offering to God and one in which a person's (male OR female) attention was not turned away from God even in the sexual act itself. The modern day "reasons" for circumcision were a way to perpetuate the underlying reasoning using "science" to explain why it's better to mutilate a child. You're correct that removing the clitoris is not EXACTLY the same as removing foreskin, but the reasons for doing so are. Sexual enjoyment is frowned upon by nearly all the world's organized religious beliefs. Christianity itself says that sex is ONLY for procreation in accordance with God's wishes, a belief that is widely held even today.

We who have been circumcised as children aren't "unhappy". We actually have no idea what we're missing except as described by others who have remained intact. But that argument is most like seeing a child who was born with no arms - she can do most everything a "normal" person can do, except she uses her feet to do it. Does she hate the fact that she has no arms, or is she content with the fact that she doesn't have to wear shoes?

Your last comment needs to be examined a bit. It's the "within reason" part that gets me. To some parents it's reasonable to softly paddle a bottom to get across to a child what "no" means. Some parents use a belt or a wooden spoon to get that same point across. Some use a closed fist. Who makes the determination of what is "within reason"? If a parent, who was "within reason" at the time, harms a child using these techniques, society says the parent can go to jail. Is it reasonable to ignore every major medical organization's studies on circumcision in favor of "common knowledge"?

Male or female, mutilation is still mutilation.

Good post, thanks for the response.

Now, I am not religious, so circumcision for me has nothing to do with God or anything like that. Its because I think it is cleaner, and healthier, easier to look after, and lets face it, more attractive, because women probably do prefer a man who is cut to one who isn't.

As for 'within reason', you raise a good point again. I don't think that parents should be allowed to spank their children, or instil their religious beliefs upon them (although that is a discussion for another time) but I do think that they should be able to choose to have the child circumcised - provided it is done as soon as possible after the birth to prevent the child from being traumatised. I also believe that, if possible, the baby should be put to sleep before the procedure, to prevent pain.

I think that if circumcision is made illegal, parents will simply get it done anyway - and that put the child at risk because the people performing the circumcision may not be trained in this procedure, so that is an important thing to consider also.

You've made up your mind despite the reams of documentation that says that cleanliness isn't an issue, there are no known health benefits, and it's no harder to look after than the back of your ear. The last part of your response is probably the closest to the truth - your assumption that most women prefer the cleaner look.

Talk to your family doctor about the downside of circumcision - things like having a shorter erection time and the possibility of impotence later in life. To me, the small amount of trauma a child may experience is nothing compared to what that child, as a man, will face for many years. Why rob your child of an extremely happy sex life simply on the grounds that it "looks better" to you?

 

[Vidi]

This is the problem with your type that latches so desperately to an 'identity' that you abandon the will or ability to think.


You make decisions for your children, don't you?

We covered this already.

Then why do you keep posting as if it were a foreign concept? Also, you never really answered directly...

Yes I did answer it directly. Youve chosen either not to accept that answer because it didnt lead into whatever your next question is in exactly the way you want it to or chosen to simply ignore it and reask the same question again hoping this time youll get a different answer. My answer is the same. Dont like it? Dont accept it? Your problem, not mine.

 

[Unkotare]

there are no known health benefits

And once again the many, many links provided that show otherwise are ignored.

 

[Unkotare]

We covered this already.

Then why do you keep posting as if it were a foreign concept? Also, you never really answered directly...

Yes I did answer it directly. .

Ok, quote your answer here.

 

[oldernwiser]

there are no known health benefits

And once again the many, many links provided that show otherwise are ignored.

And once again, you believe what you read on the internet.

Have you ever asked a Dr directly?
I have.

 

[Unkotare]

there are no known health benefits

And once again the many, many links provided that show otherwise are ignored.

And once again, you believe what you read on the internet.

Have you ever asked a Dr directly?
I have.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. And once again the many, many links provided are ignored.

 

[jillian]

there are no known health benefits

And once again the many, many links provided that show otherwise are ignored.

And once again, you believe what you read on the internet.

Have you ever asked a Dr directly?
I have.

i don't believe you have.

i do believe you believe what you read on the internet... spiced with a little of whatever it is that makes you think this is an issue.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm not reading this whole thread......but I stand with those who stand against mutilating the genitals of newborn baby boys.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

--snipped--

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.

Now, here's where you're not so correct. Circumcision has been around f
r a VERY long time and was brought about as a religious ritual. It had two purposes, one as a flesh offering to God and one in which a person's (male OR female) attention was not turned away from God even in the sexual act itself. The modern day "reasons" for circumcision were a way to perpetuate the underlying reasoning using "science" to explain why it's better to mutilate a child. You're correct that removing the clitoris is not EXACTLY the same as removing foreskin, but the reasons for doing so are. Sexual enjoyment is frowned upon by nearly all the world's organized religious beliefs. Christianity itself says that sex is ONLY for procreation in accordance with God's wishes, a belief that is widely held even today.

We who have been circumcised as children aren't "unhappy". We actually have no idea what we're missing except as described by others who have remained intact. But that argument is most like seeing a child who was born with no arms - she can do most everything a "normal" person can do, except she uses her feet to do it. Does she hate the fact that she has no arms, or is she content with the fact that she doesn't have to wear shoes?

Your last comment needs to be examined a bit. It's the "within reason" part that gets me. To some parents it's reasonable to softly paddle a bottom to get across to a child what "no" means. Some parents use a belt or a wooden spoon to get that same point across. Some use a closed fist. Who makes the determination of what is "within reason"? If a parent, who was "within reason" at the time, harms a child using these techniques, society says the parent can go to jail. Is it reasonable to ignore every major medical organization's studies on circumcision in favor of "common knowledge"?

Male or female, mutilation is still mutilation.

Good post, thanks for the response.

Now, I am not religious, so circumcision for me has nothing to do with God or anything like that. Its because I think it is cleaner, and healthier, easier to look after, and lets face it, more attractive, because women probably do prefer a man who is cut to one who isn't.

As for 'within reason', you raise a good point again. I don't think that parents should be allowed to spank their children, or instil their religious beliefs upon them (although that is a discussion for another time) but I do think that they should be able to choose to have the child circumcised - provided it is done as soon as possible after the birth to prevent the child from being traumatised. I also believe that, if possible, the baby should be put to sleep before the procedure, to prevent pain.

I think that if circumcision is made illegal, parents will simply get it done anyway - and that put the child at risk because the people performing the circumcision may not be trained in this procedure, so that is an important thing to consider also.

And........there it is.

 

[Si modo]

Didn't the Third Reich do this, too?

Hmmmmmm.

 

[oldernwiser]

And once again the many, many links provided that show otherwise are ignored.

And once again, you believe what you read on the internet.

Have you ever asked a Dr directly?
I have.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. And once again the many, many links provided are ignored.

Not ignored, just discounted in the light of many more recent findings which offer more than just anecdotal evidence.

 

[Unkotare]

You didn't read the links if you think they had anything to do with anecdotal evidence.

 

[oldernwiser]

You didn't read the links if you think they had anything to do with anecdotal evidence.

OK... let's play with this a bit.

Your JAMA link, which is based on the CDC report you also linked, which in turn was based on 3 randomized trials held in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda which was published as "Male circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving 11 050 men" reported the findings of E Mills, C Cooper, A Anema, and G Guyatt. (There is a link for the HTML version of this report if you need it.)

They extrapolated a 44% benefit in favor of circumcision. However, their data in the 3 clinical trials included in their report showed that circumcision was effective in 1% (and in Uganda, less than 1%) of those studied. They further stated that 72 circumcisions would be required to prevent 1 HIV infection.

There are a few issues that cause some doubt as to the accuracy of the study.

The authors state in their report:

Limitations of our review include our inability to conduct sensitivity analysis because of the low number of trials included.

In other words, did their participants simply stop having sex? That would surely have a downward effect on the chance of contracting HIV.

Participants in these trials received education to reduce their likelihood of infection, including safe-sex counselling and the recommendation of abstinence during the healing period. It is possible that this education will impact the generalizability of the trials because it may reduce the number of exposures that participants have in comparison to the general population.

The question of counseling also brings up the issue of whether abstinence after the fact could have had a contributing role. Again, less sexual contact = less HIV.

In addition, circumcised men may have an exaggerated sense of protection from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV that could influence their behaviour. Currently, we do not know how circumcision will impact upon behaviours; however, a modelling study from Uganda indicated that an increased number of sexual partners will counteract the beneficial impact of circumcision

The underlined part of that is interesting. If circumcision was actually beneficial, would multiple partners make that much of an impact?

The data showed that there was about a 3% incidence rate of HIV infection in uncircumcised males, and 1% infection rate among circumcised males. The study stopped short of a life history of those circumcised to determine if there were any other determining factors. In short, there wasn't enough data to do more than guess at a causal relationship.

It did get written up in JAMA though.
JAMA also published reports that coffee:

• Presents a risk of myocardial infarction
• May cause Type 2 diabetes (in 2 separate reports)
• May lead to Parkinson disease
• May lead to symptomatic gallstone disease in men

JAMA is a great read. It gives doctors something to take to the bathroom in the morning. It's NOT the final authority.

The CDC report is interesting in that they used an interpretation of the aforementioned report re-written by Weiss HA, Quigley MA, and Hayes RJ. These authors chose to embellish what the original authors presented. They state:

The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision

where the original study says:

Limitations of our review include our inability to conduct sensitivity analysis because of the low number of trials included.

Seeing that, their motives should immediately become suspect. Clearly, they are arguing that there IS a direct cause and effect between circumcision and HIV and they don't care what the data really says.

So, yes, I have read many many links on the subject. I actually understood them too.

 

[Vidi]

Then why do you keep posting as if it were a foreign concept? Also, you never really answered directly...

Yes I did answer it directly. .

Ok, quote your answer here.

It's in the thread. I see no need to jump through your hoops. I have presented my argument. You are simply repeating what you have already stated and attempting the same already failed tactic in the hope you'll get a different result.

Your next tactic will be throwing insults trying to force me to do your work for you. Not gonna happen. Go back and retread the thread because , as a matter of fact, I've already directly answered that question TWICE. Maybe you really do have a retention problem.

 

[Unkotare]

If you want to split hairs with the CDC and question professional studies and procedures that's up to you. You might at least be honest enough to admit that is hardly the same as dismissively declaring that there is nothing to suggest a medical benefit as if it were a settled matter because you (not, I assume, a medical researcher by trade) dispute professional studies and procedures, and I certainly don't see what you refer to as "anecdotal evidence."

 

[Unkotare]

Yes I did answer it directly. .

Ok, quote your answer here.

It's in the thread.

I'm not asking you to rewrite anything, just quote your own post. That shouldn't be too much to ask if it's really there, should it?

 

[oldernwiser]

If you want to split hairs with the CDC and question professional studies and procedures that's up to you. You might at least be honest enough to admit that is hardly the same as dismissively declaring that there is nothing to suggest a medical benefit as if it were a settled matter because you (not, I assume, a medical researcher by trade) dispute professional studies and procedures, and I certainly don't see what you refer to as "anecdotal evidence."

Still not seeing the big picture?

The AMA (THE authority to reference, IMO) had this to say in Neonatal Circumcision (CSA Rep. 10, I-99) back in 1999:

Data Synthesis. A majority of boys born in the United States continue to receive nonritual circumcisions. Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. However, the low incidence of these conditions minimizes the potential medical benefits compared to risks of circumcision. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases, but behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin.

Neonates experience pain during the circumcision procedure, which can be blocked or minimized through the use of several local anesthetic techniques. Ring block or dorsal penile blocks using lidocaine are most effective. EMLA cream has more limited utility but has not been sufficiently investigated with regard to dose-response effects.

Conclusions. Although potential medical benefits are associated with newborn male circumcision, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine performance of this procedure on medical grounds. However, in the United States, parental decision-making appears to be based on social and cultural rather than medical concerns. When the decision is made to proceed with circumcision, local anesthesia should be provided for the procedure.

Notice the use of the words "may be" and "potential". The AMA is hedging, but if this practice was actually any good for a child I think they'd come right out and say so. Don't you?