Need Insight On: The Anti-Circumcision Movement ??

[elfwitch]

In the past few weeks I have seen a T-shirt on a guy and a bumper sticker that were for the Anti-Circumcision movement. The bumper sticker said: "Circumcised Men aren't playing with a full dick!".

This movement confuses me. My first reaction was to be really pissed. I mean, there are two world religions that require male children to be circumcised. Of what I have been able to find out so far, the people in this movement feel that it is a barbaric custom that should be stopped all together. If that were the case, they would be implying that I, as a Jewish mother, am barbaric and cruel for having my son circumcised on his 8th day of life. So you can see why that got me a little irritated.

Can anybody tell me more about this? It is truly as an intrusive and none-of-your business movement as it sounds like, OR is there more to it that I am not getting?

Thanks in advance!!

[av8rdave]

1. Geez...I have no idea there was such a movement...

All I know is that I had it done when I was born....and I couldn't walk for a year! I wouldn't recommend it.

av8rdave

Incidentally, it wasn't done for religeous reasons at all. In those days, the hard sell was that it was for hygenic reasons. The same push at the military hospital where my son was born.

[elfwitch]

3. that part I know...

I know that it was VERY common practice during the 60s through the 80s to do it autmatically. From what I understand, a parent had to make a special request if they DID NOT want it done.

It is just that I've seen two "advertisements" now and it has got me wondering.

[7th_Sephiroth]

46. i was circumsised

and if i had know what that doctor was gonna do at the time, i'd have torn his throat out

[RedEarth]

11. LOL.............."couldn't walk for a year"

Damn...........the same thing happened to me. It took me at least 12 months before I could walk.

[regularguy]

21. Forget walking. I couldn't have sex for almost 20 years!

.

[northzax]

26. aren't you glad it was done at birth then?

with te healing powers of youth, otherwise you'd still be waiting!

[BurtWorm]

72. I was a bawling mess, myself.

Constantly spitting up. Crawling across the floor like an animal. Sleeping in my own feces. I think I lost hair, too.

Such inhumanity!

[RedEarth]

87. Come to think of it, I couldn't talk for at least a year and my

hair starting falling out too. Hell of a mess...no hair, not being able to talk or walk.

[izzie]

33. Well that is sound reason to stop this now.

I did not know that there was a group but why not. A lobbist is needed as I am sure Hatch would take this up.

[wtmusic]

2. It's called Christianity

After Jesus' death Christianity was little more than a Jewish sect. Paul helped win followers by not requiring that little mutilation ritual.

[elfwitch]

5. mutilation ritual?

So you would be coming down on the side against?
Just curious as to why, more than your mutilation ritual comment...

Not picking a fight here, I am just curious about what the big deal is?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. yeah

people are really losing their heads over this one. Sorry, I couldnt resist.

[brainshrub]

6. What I want to say might not me appropriate for the kiddies:

So, I'm gonna PM you in a few minutes.

[Jacobin]

7. Apparently, the medical literature is leaning in the direction

that there is no good reason to whack off the skin on the end of your dick.

I've had four sons and agonized over putting them through it....they don't use anesthesia (since I guess they can't complain, only scream in pain). However, we did it each time so they wouldn't be looked on as "weird" in the locker room. No religious overtones in it for me.
I still cringe remembering the screaming.

BTW, they whack off infant girls' clitoris in some parts of Africa for religious reasons. They figure if a woman can't enjoy sex, she is less likely to be promiscuous.

People are very strange creatures.

[elfwitch]

10. from my experience...

Because I am Jewish, our son had his bris on the 8th day of his life. They only used a little numbing cream that we put on him about 20 minutes before the ceremony. He didn't cry at all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

65. Regarding Female Genital Mutilation

Jacobin said; they whack off infant girls' clitoris in some parts of Africa for religious reasons. They figure if a woman can't enjoy sex, she is less likely to be promiscuous.

It is RARELY infant girls and it is a barbaric tradition/ritual promulgated by men. Jacobin makes the point; "They figure if a woman can't enjoy sex, she is less likely to be promiscuous.

yeah...thats the way to do it. Make it so sex for the woman is not only unpleasurable, but PAINFUL. That way, the guy can still get laid and she wont boink anyone else.

As George Carlin said (paraphrasing) "God just HAD to be a man, cause no woman would EVER fuck this planet up this bad!"




http://www.fgmnetwork.org/

[Terran]

83. Problem is, the anti-circumcision "movement"...

often tries to equate clitorectomy with circumcision, but that is utter bullshit--just self-indulgence by men who are pissed at the world because they got circumcised as a child. Circumcision does nothing to interfere with sex or any other male or human function. Clitorectomy is mutilation, period.

I've seen this bullshit in action. Once in the Castro theater in SF, after a documentary on clitorectomy had been shown, some queen in the audience had the audacity to get up and bellow 'what about circumcision? it's just as bad blah blah blah', but he was shouted down by the rest of the audience.

[MountainLaurel]

8. A couple theories

From what I've read=

First, there's the objection that circumcision is not medically necessary in most cases. Uncut fellas are no more likely than the foreskin-free to get infections, the creeping crud, etc. For this reason, it's considered a waste of millions of dollars in medical costs (typically paid for through insurance).

Second, for many years, it was thought that infants could not feel the cut and thus no anesthesia was used. That has since been disproven as well (actually, infrants are more sensitive). And let's face it, would you want someone cutting off a slab of skin?

Here are a couple sources I found through a quick google:

http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/

http://www.cirp.org/

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

[izzie]

34. Most of the things done for religion were really for other reasons.

They just tack it on to religion so it gets done.If you can hide it in 'God said 'it gets done.

[JewelDigger]

9. Anatomy of the Penis, Mechanics of Intercourse

This page presents information that most parents are not aware of at the time they make the circumcision decision. Doctors usually do not provide this information.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

[CanuckAmok]

12. As someone who had to insist on being circumcised as an adult...

...I object to this. Sex was uncomfortable for me prior to my circumcision. Furthermore, it's easier to keep a 'cut' penis clean, which is nice.

I had to insist my doctor arrange it for me. He, too, was convinced it was barbaric and uneccessary. I had to threaten to go elsewhere before he deigned to perform the operation for me.

This 'movement' is just as fundamentalist as the religious doctrines it opposes. Let the individual decide.

[elfwitch]

15. adult circumcision...

I know that adult men that are uncircumcised and are converting to Judaism are expected to get the procedure done.

On a side note: as a woman I prefer the "look" of a circumcised penis.

[JewelDigger]

17. Object to what?

It's just information. It's up to an individual (like yourself) or in the case of a child for the parents to decide.

There isn't any right/wrong answer here. But one can't make a good decision or hold a good discussion without having good information. That's all I was providing there.

[CanuckAmok]

19. Sorry, I get a little knee-jerk about this.

I have seen many people, on DU and other forums, get so carried away with this 'barbarism' idea.

My personal feeling is that, if we had male children, I'd have them circumcised (in a modern medical environment) without a second thought.

1) it's more comfortable

2) it's nore hygeinic

3) it's less odd-looking (I know it's not as natural as an uncut one, but that doean't matter when you're the odd one out in Grade 4 gym class--talk about trauma!)

4) most partners I know perfer a cut one (even the woman I was with before and after the procedure).

[JewelDigger]

20. No problem

I'm glad that you're happy with the decision you made for yourself.

[CanuckAmok]

22. And I told the urologist to keep the tip! n/t

[TexasMexican]

28. ???

Not that I really feel like arguing on the internet about some other guy's penis but...

1)how could it posibly be more comfortable?
2)I suppose if you are to lazy to properly wash your penis it would be more hygenic.
3)how is it less odd looking? Uncut is the way it naturally looks, and if your women likes the look of it being cut just retract the foreskin its like a convertable. Also I dont remember showing off my penis or inspecting the penises of other students in gym class so I dont know what thats about.
4)I cant see how that would be. I doubt a little flap of skin that naturally retracts when you are having sex can make much of a difference.

[CanuckAmok]

31. okay...since you asked

1) when I was uncircumcised, the foreskin would often tear during sex. Not always visibly, but on an unseen level. Unseen but stingy! Receiving oral sex is about a million times more enjoyable with a circumcised penis. How can I make that comparison? Because I was with the same partner before and after my procedure. Unless she rented a self-help video while I was in the hospital, I think I have the procedure to thank.

2) Not to (sic) lazy, but that's two more seconds in my day now, in which I can do anything I want.

3) I think I made it pretty clear. If everyone has a modified one, the natural one looks odd. It's relative.

4) So, I'm lying? If the maximum elasticity of the flap pf skin is less than the diameter of the penis, it takes a certain amount of force to retract it. That force can tear the skin. Imagine a papercut. Now imagine that papercut on your dick.

[A HERETIC I AM]

67. now THIS is funny

sorry..but this part of the above post made me laugh;

4) So, I'm lying? If the maximum elasticity of the flap pf skin is less than the diameter of the penis, it takes a certain amount of force to retract it. That force can tear the skin. Imagine a papercut. Now imagine that papercut on your dick.



I'll pass!...i think circumcision is an outdated, barbaric procedure that might have been neccessary when a daily bath of clean, fresh water was a luxury, i STILL DONT WANT A PAPER CUT ON MY DICK!!! too funny. BTW...i am and i would never get any son of mine done.
So what the fuck do i know?

[CanuckAmok]

70. the 'papercut' was PRE-procedure... n/t

[sexybomber]

18. Dammit!

If my jimmy was intact, sex would be more pleasurable than it already is! GRRRRRGH! Stupid parents! I want my friggin foreskin back!

[BiggJawn]

23. Who told you sex would be "better"?

So if jimmy had his hood, you'd last 2 minutes instead of 20. You'd be real popular with the girls, wouldn't you?

A maniac in the White House, our young men are gonna be snatched from their studies next year to fill the grist hopper of Mars, and we're gonna be eating cat food in our old age, and you all worried about your jimmy hoods....

[Meshuga]

13. Don't feel bad...

I'm not religious and I am not jewish and my son was circumcised. I don't have an excuse to do it and I allowed it to happen to my son. I guess I am more of a monster than you are! :-)

[populistmom]

14. Here's a link...

http://www.nocirc.org/

They've got lots of info.

[radwriter0555]

16. Circumcision is the freakiest human activity on the planet willingly under

taken by parents.

I mean come ON. Mutilating, no, cutting off part of your newborn infant's penis so that he's somehow "more" socially acceptable within a minute part of civilization? Literally so that a maybe a total of 10 other males can feel better about themselves?

How brainwashed, idiotic, moronic and non-thinking CAN humans get? Oh right, clitorectomies.

Gosh, all the more reason to propegate the great society that is human, eh?

[TexasMexican]

24. Its Mutilation.

I'm glad I wasnt circumsiced.

People shouldnt do that to thier children. Let them decide if thats what they want.

[tishaLA]

25. It's worse than mutilation

It's UGLY. I think they look better natural. But I don't think it's barbaric....just dumb.

[rexcat]

63. I agree, its male sexual mutilation.

Our twin boys were not circumcised for that very reason. There is no medical benefit to this procedure. My I repeat, there is no medical benefit what so ever! We were very fortunate that our Pediatrician was supportive of our discission. The odd thing where we live (Cincinnati metro area) is the OB does the procedure, not the pediatrician. No one has given me a rational explanaiton as to why the OB doc would do the deed but, hey it's Cincinnati.

Having previously worked in hospitals I can say the procedure is brutal. At least now they use anesthetics. It was not that many years ago that they did not use anesthetics while doing the procedure.

[absyntheNsugar]

99. Yes!!!!

I agree - circumcision is no different than female genital mutilation. The only difference is that male mutilation is done at an age when they can't complain - oh and they use anesthetics.

[BurtWorm]

101. Oh, and they don't remove the whole penis.

Oh, and circumcised men can actually enjoy sex.

Oh, and very few boys die from circumcision.

Oh, and...

[absyntheNsugar]

105. I Counter:

Circumsized men can enjoy sex, but over 2/3 of the nerve endings are removed. Since it is impossible to do a compare contrast on this one, lets just agree that removal of 2/3 of the nerve endings will result in less stimulation.

And few boys die (in fact I would argue none have died ) is true, but this is because it is done with an anesthetic and proper sterilization. If the same was done to women during female genital mutliation, fewer girls would die.

This does not detract from the fact that you are mutliating a sexual organ.

[ajacobson]

27. That brings to mind that old joke

that Jews are the world's most optimistic people. They cut off some before they know how long its going to get.

I know, I'm mashugnah for even telling that joke. Oy.

[Ellen Forradalom]

29. Anti-circs believe it's a form of mutilation

thus barbaric. They compare it to the female genital mutilation practiced in parts of Africa. They point out that it hurts the infant for no compelling reason.

There is a lot of feeling against it in 'natural' and 'attachment' parenting circles, to the point where Jewish attachment parents are made to feel uncomfortable. (Some have started up a magazine, Natural Jewish Parenting, which takes many of the stances of Mothering magazine, but also covers Jewish issues, including articles defending circumcision.)

My problem with the anti-circ crowd is that they overstate their case (circumcision is NOT the same as clitoridectomy) and they are unaware of the anti-Semitic overtones of their attitudes. As one-half of an interfaith household, raising our son Jewish, I am disturbed by this.

Incidentally, my mother was very supportive of our decision to have a bris. According to her, my father had to be circumcised at 60 for medical reasons and it was dreadful. (No, I did not ask why. The mental image is disturbing enough. Thanks Mom.)

[elfwitch]

30. thanks...

The only crying done at my son's brit milah was by me. We were running a bit behind that day and my Rabbi scolded me for being late. Not the thing to do to a lady still in that post-partum phase. The bris ceremony is beautiful, and I have read in a few places that the 8th day is the optimal time to have it done, for various reasons including healing time.

The whole thing was striking me as a bit anti-Jewish, but I wasn't sure, that is why I posted this question.

[blondeatlast]

38. I got the same feeling somehow, even though I'm Christian.

Some people get worked up if religion plays any part in something; nothing better to do, I guess.

Moms and dads need all the support they can get on nearly ANY issue; I'm on your side, mom!

[av8rdave]

35. I don' think you can really compare it to female genital mutilation

Circumcision, if done correctly and hygenically, at least doesn't impair sexual function. It is my understanding that "female circumcision" or genital mutilation often causes sex to be very unpleasant. In fact, I believe that is the justification (twisted as it is) behind the custom in some parts of the world.

av8rdave

[absyntheNsugar]

98. Hate to argue with you

but you can. In both cases, the genital organ is being mutilated. The only difference is that with circumcision, anesthetic is more readily available and they might use a local anesthetic. But either way you slice it (I couldn't help let that one slip) - it is the mutilation of an organ. And if you think for a minute there are no nerves in the foreskin, think again.

[geniph]

100. I do not agree

in female "circumcision" the entire organ is removed. In male circumcision, they do not excise the penis altogether. They are no more the same than losing a fingernail is the same as amputating the finger.

[elfwitch]

102. and then there is the reason...

In many cases female circumcision is for the purpose of eliminating a woman's ability to have an orgasm. It is designed for female opression, plain and simple.

I can tell you that my circimcised husband has abosolutely NO PROBLEM having an orgasm. Call it mutilation if you will but trimmed winkies still work just fine. A "Circimcised" clitoris will never produce a BIG-O.

[absyntheNsugar]

106. A trimmed winkie will work fine but....

...as I mentioned in an earlier rebuttal, you are removing 2/3 of the nerve endings. This will cause a huge decrease in the amount of stimulation. Although it is true we can never do a compare contrast on this issue (who of us is willing to cut off our foreskin at this age? And reattaching a foreskin will not add the nerve endings back) I think it's safe to assume that there is an amount of decreased pleasure here.

I agree that female genital mulitation is designed for female opression, and it is also a barbaric practice - but we have no idea what circumcision was designed for. It could, obstensibly, be designed for male opression.

This is where things get very fuzzy. The practice of circumcision predates the Jewish people, and goes back to the Semites, the precursors to the Jews. Cultural Anthropoligists beleive that the Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel tales are artifacts of this tribe as well. This culture was pre-Agricultural revolution - and some beleive that the Cain and Abel myth tells the story of the rift between the hunter-gatherers and those pushing agricultural practices.

But I digress...many beleive that the Semites were in fact a matriarchical society, in which the women held the seat of power as they stayed back and ran the tribe, while the men were merely hunters. This is all stictly theoretical, and has as many holes as any theory where there are no artifacts does.

But the nagging thought I have is: if circumcision is a practice of this culture, and if indeed they were matriarchial - could this be evidence of male opression? (if so it would be the first of its kind, since never before has anyone found evidence of it.)

But if not, why the practice of circumcision?

Anyway, I also thought the bumper sticker was insensitive - especially those of us who where circumcized and don't like that fact.

[happyslug]

32. The only reports I have heard on Circumsicions

Is that women whose husbands are circumcised are less likely to have Ovarian Cancer AND heterosexual males who are circumcised are less likely to be infected by AIDS.

As to the AIDS issue why that seemed to be the case was unknown for a decade after it was first observed in Africa (Men of different tribes in the same area with the same number of sexual partners had different rates of AIDS infections if they were circumcised or not). No one knew WHY circumcised were less likely to get AIDS than un-circumcised men. A few years ago they found out why, the AIDS virus has a hard time entering the penis except in the folds of the flesh the surrounds the head of the penis (i.e. the part that is cut off in circumcision). In these areas th flesh had solid tissue AND thin folds that had micro-breaks in them that permitted the virus to enter the body.

As to Ovarian and Cervical Cancers see:

http://health-science-report.com/cervical-dysplasia/cervical-cancer/cervical-cancer-circumcision.html

http://www.stopgettingsick.com/Conditions/condition_template.cfm/5338/83/1

http://womens-health.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2002/605/1
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/Sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1921837.stm

For an opposing view see:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
Please note this report relies on older reports than the reports mentioned above, and then brings in penile cancer to which no one is claiming a relationship with circumcision. In my opinion very bias, to show NO relationship compared to the other reports which indicate a relationship through more to do with penile hygiene and the number of sexual partner of the male than just being circumcised


For AIDs see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,37479,00.html
http://www.circinfo.net/
http://www.dawn.com/2000/03/29/int8.htm

Please note, none of the researchers claim Circumcision is a cure for AIDs, just that circumcised men are less likely to get AIDS and less likely to pass it off to their female partners.

[blondeatlast]

36. FWIW. my hubby isn't circumcized, but he wanted our son to be.

I was open to either, but my Asian Indian hubby wanted our son to be. Apparently, one of his family members had an unpleasant adult experience which necessitated the procedure.

[TrogL]

37. I know someone who's going through the reverse circumcision procedure

who immediately got an infection.

Lovely.

[mitchum]

52. that infection is called "the wages of foolishness"

[Book Lover]

39. It's a very emotional discussion...

and one that I believe I've seen here on DU before...

I first came across the organized anti-circ folks while working for an adult entertainment weekly about a decade ago; this was before the attachment paretning folks got involved. Back then, it was all about how bad and wrong it was that "the establishment" forced parents to circ their sons with no compelling health reason. Oh, and by the way, sex was better with the foreskin, of course. At the time I thought it was a way for middle-aged white guys to get together and bitch. Then the attachement parenting people embraced the idea, because to not circ was natural, with absolutely no thought given to those men who are better off circumcised, due to the structure of their bodies. I have seen very cruel (and, yes, anti-jewish) remarks from these people.

Elfwitch, if you want to get upset, yet become more informed about what people are saying about this topic, I recommend babycenter.com.

I personally would not circ my son. But I would never, ever, ever condemn the family that choses to, as long as it was an informed choice.

[elfwitch]

40. attachement parenting ?

What is this? It came up in another post as well. What does it mean? What is it all about? The only source I really consult in parenting, beyond my own gut feeling, is Dr. Spock. The nutty vulcan hasn't steered me wrong yet!

[geniph]

41. There's good information about attachment parenting

here:

http://www.attachmentparenting.org/faq.shtml

Like any such philosophy, there's people that take it to ridiculous extremes (continuing to let near-pubescent children sleep with their parents, for example) who give the whole thing a bad name. But some of the basic philosophies - keeping very young infants in constant physical contact - have a solid basis in human psychology and physiology (babies need skin-to-skin contact when they're very young).

I recently heard about a movement that holds that coercing children to do anything they don't want to do - going to the doctor, brushing their teeth, wearing clothes, taking a test, eating their food - is child abuse akin to a beating. Now, that idea raises the hair on my neck. I can't imagine what kind of adults will result from such a philosophy - presuming any of them survive to adulthood, of course.

[MountainLaurel]

42. Think more baby-centered parenting

And less of the Western tradition of parenting an infant. Babies are carried in a sling for more physical contact and bonding with adults, breastfeeding is encouraged as is feeding on demand, families sleeping in the same bed (particularly in infancy) is encouraged. I think the idea is that when babies needs' are met, they cry less, are more secure as children, healthier, and so on.

A few resources:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316778095/qid=1068679758/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7875900-6998516?v=glance&s=books">The Sears'

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067102762X/qid=1068679879/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7875900-6998516?v=glance&s=books">Katie Granju

[Ellen Forradalom]

43. Both the Sears and Katie Granju get on my nerves a bit

Katie hangs on AP mailing lists. I once answered a email interview regarding our circumcising our son. The questions were leading (e.g. do you see the parallel between circumcision and female genital mutilation) and I did not appreciate that.

The Sears have a big axe to grind about working mothers. They advise you to stay home for at least the first year, then adopt a pitying tone towards those who are forced to work by circumstance. Thanks, guys, why do you think I got a college education? Also, their science is shoddy. I can tolerate their books if I use them as a practical reference (how to use a baby sling, the under-two-years Tylenol dose chart) and throw out the advice.

[MountainLaurel]

50. I've heard similar sort of things

About their preachiness. I think this is one of those situations where you have to take what you want from it and ignore the rest, especially the value judgments and preachiness. (Such an approach worked wonders for me in dealing with religion and faith issues.) :hi:

[Book Lover]

49. I Grok Spock!

Dr Spock, that is... Although I have consulted other books regarding nutrition because we are omnivores, and I needed useful info about meat and dairy. I went to the Sears books for that and never came across the anti-working mother stuff, though. And being a working mom, I would have been highly torqued off if I had. I have yet to find authors discussing the mother-who-works-and-father-who-stays-at-home scenario....

[populistmom]

69. I'm an "attachment parent"

But to be honest, at this point I'm a bit burnt out. I used to be on parenting e-mails list and go to parent boards, but I have logged so many sling, breastfeeding, and co-sleeping hours that I have nothing left to say about it anymore. That's why I am here happily talking about more grown-up things now, but I had to chime in on this subject.
I guess I just wanted to say that it worked for me anyway. My older children all excel in school (well my youngest is 2&1/2, so I don't know yet) and are very adjusted, good children. Not perfect, but decent people who get along with others. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have parented when they were little any other way. That being said, I'm not judgemental of working moms (I've worked part-time or have being in school for most of my momly years), so it bothers me when I see those self-rightous types too. Well, I suppose it didn't always work for me, but it worked for them. I have my body back to myself now and they have the lasting benefits.

By the way, three boys, 1st two are circed, youngest isn't. I wished I hadn't circumsized my older two because one had problems with his circ for a long time, but I wouldn't want to be called a mutilator either. I made the best decision at the time with what I knew. And I respect religious traditions. Everything I have heard explains the 8th day is the best time to do it when it is done. I don't think most babies are ready the day after they are born anyway.

[4_Legs_Good]

44. Why is it that female circumcision is barbaric but male is not? (curious)

Personally I'm not anti-circumcision at all. I and my son are both circumcised. It's been fine by me.

What I don't really understand, though, is why folks who might consider themselves ultra-liberal crusaders will say something like (I just heard this somewhere, so that's why it pops to mind), "I would travel the world fighting against female genital mutilation" (as a badge of "goodness" or something), and it seems perfectly obvious that they're right. But nobody goes crusading against male genital mutilation.

I absolutely understand that it's required (male) by at least 2 major religions, but what if female circumcision is required by a tribal religion? Is there something more sinister at work behind female circumcision or something that I don't know about? Am I totally clueless? If so I'd love to be clued in.

Thanks!

david

[KCDem]

54. do you like sex?

My guess is that that was a stupid question. Circ-ing a guy doesn't affect his sexual ability or enjoyment.

FGM cuts OFF the clit, which is the primary source of orgasm for most women. Some women do orgasm due to penetration, but, sorry guys, we appreciate your tongues more than your members. :evilgrin:

So that's why one's barbaric and the other is not. FGM takes pleasure away from women in a way that circumcision does not for men.

[4_Legs_Good]

73. Thank you!

for explaining it. Stupid question maybe, but I simply did not understand what female circumcision consisted of (though I guess I guessed). Just as a male circumcision doesn't hack off the whole thing, I wasn't certain that whole clitorus was removed, or for what reason it was done. Now that I know, I'm more appaled than ever.

Thanks for clearing that up!

david

[Philostopher]

55. Well, my thought would be that

circumcision of the penis doesn't prevent a man from being sexually functional unless it goes really awry; the very intention of female 'circumcision' is to take all the pleasure and comfort out of sex for women. Its primary purpose is to render a woman practically insensate, or even to cause her pain when she has sex -- and some women die in childbirth because of excessive bleeding due to the female 'circumcision' process.

Here's an article about it from a religious tolerance online page:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

I don't think male circumcision is intended to take the pleasure out of sex for men. I don't really have an opinion on male circumcision either way, in fact -- most of the men I've known have been 'cut,' and all the men I've been intimate with have been. It was only circumstance, and the low number of sexual partners I've had -- I don't think it would have mattered to me, either way, as long as he was comfortable.

[4_Legs_Good]

74. Thanks...

... for the reply and the explanation. I just didn't understand completely exactly what female circumcision consisted of. Now I'm better educated (and appaled!).

david

[Cheswick2.0]

57. well, if they were cutting off the whole penis during Circumcision

then you would have something to talk about. I have "known" almost exclusively circumcised men. None of them was circumsized to stop them from having and/or enjoying sex.

[4_Legs_Good]

75. ...and thank you!

for the explanation. As I mentioned to the two above respondees, I simply didn't understand the extent of the damage done, and the purpose behind it. Now I do, and now I'm on board for stopping it!!!

Thanks again everyone!

david

[Padraig18]

45. I take the middle view.

If there is either a valid medical or religious reason to have the child circumcised, all well and good; that said, there is not good medical evidence that it is more 'hygenic', etc., which support more of the 'conventional' arguments favoring circumcision.

A normal, uncircumcised penis can be kept just as clean as a circumcised penis can--- soap and water work on and under the foreskin just like they do on any other skin.

:hi:

[HEyHEY]

47. I don't get this movement

WHy because I can't get back what I don't have...I've never felt disabled because of it...no sexual complaint. So what's the point?

[slinkerwink]

48. well, because....

when they take the foreskin away----it has 10,000 nerve endings, and the foreskin is alway scraped away from the frenelum, where the underside of the head of your penis is-----that's the most sensitive spot for men, and taking the foreskin away from that takes away those nerve endings, so you'll never know if the sex would have been better for you because you weren't given the choice to make that decision.

[mitchum]

51. It's sensitive enough for me clipped

I have no complaints

[CanuckAmok]

59. I do, because I've had it both ways as a sexually active adult.

I can say, with absolute surety, that you don't know what you're talking about, and never will.

[Touchdown]

61. So, one size fits all, huh?

You know with absolute certainty that all cocks are EXACTLY the same, with the same nerve endings in exactly the same places, and that all men's foreskins are as tight as yours was, and would have razor tears like yours did? That everybody would be better off without it, because you are better off now? And if we try and speculate about what life would be like if we weren't violated without our consent, well then, we just don't know what we're talking about, and we should trust you, because we never will. All those other men I've heard from who deeply regret their adult circumcisions must also be full of shit too.

[CanuckAmok]

64. Nope, but people keep pointing out the loss of nerve endings,

and how pleasure is reduced as a result. Many of those people are women, so they can't really speak from experience.

I can.

In my case, there was absolutely NO reduction in sexual pleasure, and comford during sex increased dramatically. Your mileage may vary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of ritual genital mutilation.

I'm against sweeping generalizations about what is considered "genital mutilation". Having one's foreskin surgically removed can hardly be compared to having a clitoris hacked off, but people keep drawing those comparisons.

Get over yourselves...it's a little flap of skin, already.

[Undemcided]

53. I didn't get a say in the matter.

Apparently it was a medical necessity when I was an infant.

As for everyone else, well it's no skin off my nose what you do. :D

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. The anticircumcision movement is a little nuts.

But undertaking a surgical procedure for religious reasons it a little nuts too. Or, rather, imposing a surgical procedure for religious reasons on an infant incapable of giving consent. Suppose since it's for religious reasons, that makes female circumcision as practised by certain Islamic fundamentalis sects okay? If not, you should examine your logic.

[gate of the sun]

58. genital mutilation

is what it is......what does it say about a culture or a religion for that matter that condones and encourages genital mutilation in a helpless infant often time in the past at least without any anestesia at all. It says alot and as a mother it wasn't what I wanted to say.....I have 3 sons 1 was circumsized because his father thought it should be done.....his second son wasn't because I wouldn't allow it my third son who has a different father wouldn't consider it either.

People get all in an uproar about female genital mutilation around the globe but think nothing about the " boys" in the USA.

[Touchdown]

62. That's because...

some of the "girls" in the USA think it's prettier that way. See some of the responses above. Now, genital mutilation and destroying sensitive nerve endings is a fashion statement. Truly a religious experience there.:eyes:

Who's the first to complain when we can't get it up? Maybe with those nerves intact, we could.

[WeirdSceneGoldmine]

79. Back in my younger years

After many after-hours parties the more hungry people flocked to the circumsized before the hooded when the going got going. I never (and still don't) have any problem releasing junior's payload when it's wanted.

I have found (anecdotal, I know...) that during superficial gratification those with exposed form tend to get the most attention
from those that enjoy such activities.

[Touchdown]

60. An observation about this thread.

It seems that it's ok to have a double standard when it comes to male bodies here.

Most of the remarks about how it "looks", or that it's not barbaric like clitoral mutilation, or that man can still have sex, that it's not really necessary, or the accusations of anti-semitism have come from women. If the tables were turned, and the subject comes to whether or not men had any right to make opinions on abortion, and little barbs were exchanged like these here, then all these men would be instantly labelled sexist pigs, and this thread would've been closed earlier this afternoon.

But I guess it's just fine for women to decide what we men do with our own bodies now, isn't it? I never had that choice. I might have done what the Canuck did as an adult, but I stilll wanted that choice. And as far as you guys thinking that teasing in the Jr. High showers is traumatic, try growing up gay, then call me with your fears.

Whatever the religious doctrines say about circumcision, one fact remains. GOD gave us this forskin! I have to trust he knew what he was doing when he designed it. Men are the ones who took it off. I am not being anti-islam, or anti-semitic when I say this.

Oh' and regardless of how nice you want to put it, it is mutilation. The removal of any body part is mutilation. You got a problem with the term, then blame the english language.

mu·ti·late    ( P )  
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

[BurtWorm]

78. Mutilate?!

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

Circumcised men are not crippled, for chrissake. The foreskin is not a limb and is not essential in any way.



2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.


Disfigurement is in the eye of the beholder. (So to speak.)



3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


Circumcised penises are not "imperfect." Screw anyone (you should pardon the expression) who says they are.

[Touchdown]

82. Oh' really?

"Circumcised men are not crippled, for chrissake. The foreskin is not a limb and is not essential in any way."

How do you know that, unless you know what feelings you've lost?

"Disfigurement is in the eye of the beholder. (So to speak.)

So disfiguring God's gift to a baby boy without his consent is now a fashion statement? What a worthy cause you have.:eyes:

Circumcised penises are not "imperfect." Screw anyone (you should pardon the expression) who says they are.

Again, how do you know this? Either you're cut or not. Unles you had it done in mid-life by your own choice, such as The Canuck up there, but as I pointed out to him, you're experience would hardly be universal of ALL men. Also...inperfection is also in the eye of the beholder.

[BurtWorm]

85. What is the foreskin essential for?

Making head cheese. I can do without that particular essentiality.

Your god argument doesn't wash with me. I'm an atheist.

If imperfection is on the eye of the beholder, as you concede, then so is mutilation. I've never considered myself mutilated.

Clitorectomies are performed on fully sentient girls as a rite of passage into puberty. An entire organ is removed. Death is a risk. Equating circumcision with clitorectomies is an injustice.

[mitchum]

90. Burt, some people just reach really far for "victim" status

[BurtWorm]

92. And they call us fanatics!

This is clearly a religion to them. Totally faith-based.

(Excuse me, gotta run. The ghost of my foreskin is calling me from the Beyond.)

[sam sarrha]

66. you want to remove half the nerve endings on your sons penis???

as a sacrifice to benevolent god... and what about the African women who are circumcised to the tune of removing the clitoris and fusing the Labia Majora so that the woman wont cheat when the husband is gone.. and is unsewed to get pregnant then sewed back up... and the husband can have sex with hookers because his wifes vagina is sewed up all the time...

[gate of the sun]

68. well said

see people don't see it this way because most of the men in their family if not all and all the men they sleep with etc etc etc have their foreskins cut off so somehow it has become normal. It is a barbaric practice and I don't care what anyone has to say about it.

[CanuckAmok]

71. yes, don't let facts stand in your way. n/t

[BurtWorm]

76. Can we talk about smegma?

It's just a rumor to me. Thank the scissors!

[BurtWorm]

No one seems to want to talk about smegma.

Wonder why...

[BurtWorm]

96. Enough about smegma.

Even for me!

[WeirdSceneGoldmine]

77. It's a matter of taste

I think junior is more attractive with his hat off. More texture, less animalistic form and the impromptu odor at odd times is more pleasant.

All that and he is less premature.

[Loonman]

80. Sock cock

Fucking nasty.

[vi5]

81. Not for nothing but the last thing I need is...

MORE sensitivity and MORE feeling down there. This snipped male is a-ok with it.

[dpbrown]

84. It's mutilation like piercing and people should choose it for themselves

For whatever reason, if men want to have their penis hacked, they should choose it for themselves, either because their religion tells them they have to do it, or for aesthetic or self-proclaimed hygienic reasons.

Little babies who've done no one any harm shouldn't be cut so early in life. Along with the obvious foreskin scar, some may carry an emotional scar from being mistreated so soon after being born.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[geniph]

86. I'm very torn on doing anything not strictly medically necessary

to a kid too young to give informed consent. It sort of smacks of piercing a baby's ears to me, except that this won't heal back the way it was if they don't like it later. It's irrevocable. It's essentially benign in most cases, but I'd still be more comfortable with it if the person whose body was being altered was the one making the decision.

I have a couple of acquaintances who actually requested circumcision in their teens, because it was important to them to look like the other males they saw in locker rooms. That's their decision, and they should be allowed to do it. But I wish, overall, that fewer of us made decisions like this based on aesthetics.

I understand that religious tradition plays a role, too, but sometimes traditions need to bend a bit with the times; one has to sometimes question the origin of the tradition and whether the circumstances have changed.

I'm just not entirely comfortable with permanent body modification decisions being made by someone other than the person whose body it is. That being said, I don't call it mutilation or apostrophize those who do choose it. Everyone's circumstances and reasoning is different, and frankly, it's none of my business. I just don't think anyone should do it without thinking about the pros and cons; it IS permanent.

Oh, and as a female who's had close personal acquaintance with both hooded and unhooded fellas - I have no preference for either. They both have their place.

[phaseolus]

88. Father of two sons ... a comparison on the pain issue

I was leaning towards non-circumcision when they were born (under the theory of avoiding unnecessary cutting or pain,) but not a strong preference. My wife insisted they be circumcised, though. So they were.

First son, no apparent pain or discomfort. Second son, a little discomfort for a few days, but still much less than he had from the healing umbilical cord.

I realize this is a small sample size to extrapolate from but I gotta believe that what babies experience from circumcision is on average less painful than the discomfort of the healing umbilical scar while the stub of the cord is still semi-attached & wiggling around.

Yes, I realize that the umbilical thing is unavoidable and circumcision isn't. I just have sincere doubts that circumcision pain is some sort of lasting psychological trauma.

[CanuckAmok]

94. No, don't clean up the umbilical remnants, that's God's job!

To remove it would be to mutilate the baby.

Just drawing a comparison... :shrug:

As far as the right and wrong of removing the foreskin...

"...The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind..."

Or flapping, as the case may be.

[Loonman]

89. Psycho-babble

Circumcision causes psychological problems later in life....

What a load of malarkey.


Babies get a bunch of innoculations shortly after birth as well, does that cause trauma that will surface later in life?

[elfwitch]

91. baby shots...

I'd have to say that my son cried a whole lot during all his shots and is now petrified of going to the doctor's office because of it. He didn't even squeek when they did his bris.

[Loonman]

93. Every kid is petrified of the doctor

I hate shots and needles because I hate pain, not because of some "repressed memory".

[elfwitch]

95. I don't think it is repressed....

When we take him in for an appointment, he won't let them get near him with even a Q-Tip. He quite vividly remembers the shots.

But, I'll grant you the pain in shots thing...
Nobody likes those.

[absyntheNsugar]

97. I didn't know there was a movment

but when my little dude was born, I swore I would never circumsize. No offense to those who keep the covenant, but I think its a barbaric practice, akin to Female Genital Mutilation (after all, you are mutilating a male genital.)

[Ilsa]

103. I believe the American Academy of Pediatrics

no longer recommends circumcision for any health reason.

Since my husband was the one who insisted our second son be circ'ed, I made him go to the nursery to stand by, watch, and then pick up and comfort our baby. He almost passed out, and wasn't very happy about seeing our son restrained and bound for the procedure.

[BurtWorm]

104. Circumcision is vastly more of an issue for parents than for male infants.

It seems to be a question of whether you can endure your child's physical discomfort for a few compelling reasons--including tradition, potential health, and just plain aesthetics. The child is not going to care about the reasons for the decision, or even the consequences of it for very long.