well, it is not an easy decision to make!!Why, what is so hard about it? And remember, however hard it may be for the parent to decide, it is the child who has to live with the results.
I'm cut. I don't feel I was harmed by it.
ouch!
:( :(
well, it is not an easy decision to make!!
:laugh: :laugh:
not a lot of skinnydipping at your house? My hubby and son sport all over tans all summer
::)
Leslie, could you tell us if there is any kind of "anesthesia" involved?
Okay, I'll ad my 2 cents, and I sure do miss that cent symbol.
I was circumcised at birth because the doctors told parents it was the thing to do and most of them went along with it. I have never know any different so I can say it has never had any effect on me until I started reading about it and got to wondering about the effect it has on the newborn. Have seen pictures of their reaction to it. Also the child has just gone thru a very difficult time being born and once things have finally settled down, pow.
Leslie, could you tell us if there is any kind of "anesthesia" involved?
Now, let me throw this in, and I do not have cooberating documentation, I heard this in the news a few years ago: women whose husbands are uncircumcised are apparently more likely to have cervical cancer. Still I think that with that connection known steps could be taken to reduce the HPV transmission.
So bottom line: I am against it.
Honey, we're Lutherans. ... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
also some evidence say that uncircumcised men are less likely to contract VD...in particular HIV. There are organizations in Africa that are encouraging men to get circumcised because of these findings.
Four years ago, an analysis of 38 studies by the U.S. Agency for International Development, mostly in Africa, concluded that circumcised men were less than half as likely as uncircumcised men to get HIV, apparently because of the susceptibility of foreskin. Last fall, reporting on a randomized controlled trial in South Africa, scientists found that circumcision reduced female-to-male transmission by 60 percent. "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved," they wrote. It was, they observed, "the first experimental study demonstrating that surgery can be used to prevent an infectious disease."
Of the 79 men who'd experienced sex snipped and unsnipped, 43 said sex improved (55 percent) after their circumcisions, 23 said it went downhill (29 percent), and 13 said there was no change or a mix of pros and cons (16 percent). Click here to read women and gay men compare sex with snipped and unsnipped partners.
My numbers don't differ much from the latest research: Based on a sample of 84 men who'd been circumcised as adults for medical reasons, a 2005 article in Urologia Internationalis found a 61 percent satisfaction rate, with 38 percent saying that penile sensation improved after the procedure, 18 percent saying it got worse, and the rest reporting no change. "No consensus exists regarding the role of the foreskin in sexual performance and satisfaction," the article's urologist authors wrote.
Nor, I think, is a consensus likely to emerge. A couple of readers wrote in to argue that my survey and others like it inevitably tilt positive, because anyone snipped as an adult would want to think the ordeal had a purpose. Maybe so. On the other hand, as Australian doctor and circumcision researcher Robin Willcourt pointed out to me, men who decide they've suffered a loss may be all the more vocal.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about bias. My own sense is that as much as nerve endings, friction, or any other physical factor, what matters for feelings about sex are the reasons a man decides to undergo circumcision, his attitude toward his penis before the procedure, and the reaction of his partners afterward. I'm not sure how much light data can shed on this personal realm.
Leslie, that resource you posted starts by calling it "male genital mutilation": not exactly unbiased!
And there is some discrimination too. I know some cut guys who won't have sex with an uncut guy.
For some it is just a preference.
I have talked to some friends about it. Some circumcized guys expressed jealousy of uncut guys because they say being cut reduces their sensativity during sex.
And there is some discrimination too. I know some cut guys who won't have sex with an uncut guy.
For some it is just a preference.
Just how is this discrimination? I've never heard of equal opportinity sexual activity, and if it did exist, I would be celibate.
LOL, true, but there is a difference between "preference" and "Discrimination".
I've heard some guys say they would never date an uncut guy because they heard it was unsanitary. Which is different than say a visual preference.
But...my preference was born from less than pleasant personal experience. It's not like this type of activity is something you can "give another shot". I mean...if I did that...holy crap.
According to the latest policy statement on circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the potential medical benefits of snipping aren't great enough to recommend it routinely.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but the foreskin can be restored through plastic surgery.
Ok...bluntly put...I've enjoyed (sort of) the company of men who were not circumcized. I found the experience less than fullfilling, for mostly hygenic reasons. Now I can't go out and "try them again"...unless I want an even worse rep than the one I have.
It's interesting that people are pooh-poohing the importance of boys looking like their fathers, when what brought us all here in the first place is a movie based on a story about guy who, as a kid, found out he didn't look like his father and was traumatized by the discovery.
Just to throw this into the mix, there are some body parts that aren't necessary. Appendixes, for one. And I think tonsils perform some minor function, but obviously aren't crucial. Both those body parts cause more problems than they solve.
Of course you are right that they are not crucial. But the same is true for earlobes (just the bottom part). But you wouldn't let it be cut off.
Well, I did let my earlobes be mutilated -- three times, on one side. That's because my culture considers that particular form of mutilation attractive. If the culture deemed earlobe removal attractive, who knows, maybe I'd have done that.
I think, health questions aside, that's a lot of what this discussion is about.
But in some cases where people have large tonsils, they can cause more problems. Increased occurances of Strep throat, etc.
ROFLOL!!!!!!!! :laugh:
I guess you have to be another Lutheran to really appreciate that comment!
I hear ya Jeff!
I personally am against Circumcision. But I didn't vote yet, since I find the wording of "barbaric and inhumane" too strong (guess I'll probably take this option still).
I think I need to look into the Lutheran Church a little closer! :D
It's interesting that people are pooh-poohing the importance of boys looking like their fathers, when what brought us all here in the first place is a movie based on a story about guy who, as a kid, found out he didn't look like his father and was traumatized by the discovery.
Kids traumatized by not looking like their parents? ::) Yeah, OK. But hey, some people were traumatized because Coke changed its flavor.
It was a dark time in our country.
I still light a candle on the anniversary of the return of Classic Coke...
;D ;D ;)
Yes, Jack was traumatized by not looking like his father, but you know as well as I, that different looking dicks were the least of Jack's problems in that household. It may have simply been something Jack fixated on and thus associated with other more troubling events in his childhood and later was symbolic to him (and we readers) as a difference in sexuality.
I put male circumcision in the precise same category as female circumcision.
The procedure, when performed without any anesthetic, can lead to death through shock from immense pain or excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections.
Other serious long term health effects are also common. These include urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility. The first time having sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful, and infibulated women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the husband with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.
... According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC (female genital cutting) were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.
... Whether or not a woman who has undergone FGC can achieve an orgasm, especially those who have had their clitoris excised, is a question that tends to have more than one answer. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein traveled throughout The Sudan (where Type III is the prevalent form of FGC, ~90%) in the early 1980s asking women who had FGC this very question: "How often do you experience orgasm?" following sexual intercourse with their husband.[41] Many of the women had no idea what an orgasm was, but others interviewed (especially if the surgery excised less tissue) not only insisted that they did achieve orgasm, ranging from 90% of the time when they were young to 10% of the time once they had children, but were open to talking about their experiences. They were able to describe in great detail exactly what an orgasm meant to them. ...About one-third of women interviewed said they experience some sexual sensitivity at the area of their scar as well as internally, whilst others reported only internally or only externally. ... There were also women who did not enjoy sex at all, as it was too painful or did not leave them with any feelings.
Lumping them together in some large, vague category of bodily mutilation (along with piercings and appendectomies and plastic surgery and whatever else) is one thing. But a direct comparison between the two isn't appropriate. To do so means being either overly alarmed about male circumcision or underly alarmed about female circumcision, which IMO is less like male circumcision than it is like castration.
Can I borrow a Kidney later if I need one? :laugh:
It's like, you pull back the wrapping, and there's a nice surprise inside!
And if they haven't been as clean as they should be, yeah, it'll be a big surprise alright.
Yeah... wouldn't going down on an uncut one be, uh, tastier? And not in a good way?
And if they haven't been as clean as they should be, yeah, it'll be a big surprise alright. :laugh:
So now the ability to draw your own conclusion is being either stupid or uptight. I disagree with that.
I never resort to name calling when talking about these issues. So maybe we are now reverting to name calling and
spiteful words, instead of talk and discussion. Thats unfortunate.. If i chose to make choices on the best information
I have available at the time...then I am stupid.......?? And have issues with bodily functions, and smells..TAL. I had four
babies to take care of. And train, never mind the grandchildren..I am personally very well aware of those things, and
I am not at all afraid of them.
I would never say anyones choice was wrong. I would like the same respect, and regard. I know that everyone
who has had to make this decision did not make it, without serious thought. It is a thing of private decision and deep
caring involved. It is everyones personal right to choose..and certainly not my right to denegrate or talk hatefully
to people that have opposing ideas.
We have some abrupt and opinionated folks around here who often speak their mind in a blunt manner without thinking about how it sounds to others. If we expect to be treated with respect than we must give respect as well.
Why do you say that? It implies that uncircumsized men are less hygienic, or that keeping an uncirc-ed penis clean is much more difficult. Frankly, I don't think that's true, based on my experience with my son. We taught him what to do when he was little (just like we taught him how to blow his nose and wipe his ass). When he got older, his (male) pediatrician reinforced the teaching...and conveyed to me that my son was doing what he needed to do. No big deal....
This cleanliness issue is one of the "circumcision YES!" myths, IMHO.
L
Why do you say that? It implies that uncircumsized men are less hygienic, or that keeping an uncirc-ed penis clean is much more difficult . . .
This cleanliness issue is one of the "circumcision YES!" myths, IMHO.
smegma
Jesus, no need to jump on my case. I was just ASKING.
You didn't mention how young the boys were, but the one who can't retract his foreskin yet will need to eventually. Otherwise you'll hear him scream when he gets his first erection. When flacid, it should be possible to retract for warshing.
Smegma has been brought up here, and, while admitting that I've had no experience with that (in a sexual context or otherwise), I have read accounts of some men finding it erotic on their partners. The late Boyd McDonald's Straight to Hell chapbooks have many references to guys getting turned on by smegma (or "cheese", as many of them fondly referred to it). So just keep in mind...different strokes for different folks.
Though I don't feel a babe shoudl be put through it, I bear no ill will toward my mother for having it done to me...so...I feel fine about my circumcision. Looks good, feels great, no worries. Well some worries, but that's another thread. ;D :laugh:
Anything over six inches ... oh, never mind. ... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I never supported the notion that more than a mouthful was waste.
COME ON! Ya know ya want to!!::)
Okey Dokey................ I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days ! :)
Boy, it's a good thing I didn't bring up Roman showers! ;D :P :-X (Actually, I don't know of any famous folks who were into this, though performance artist Annie Sprinkle has performed a variation of the act using uneaten soup).
I read recently that circumcision removes much of the most sensitive skin and nerve endings that contribute to pleasurable feelings and leave a guy practically numb!
Hey, no fair having this great poll while I was gone on vacation and then locking it! But I'll weigh in anyway. I'm no medical expert, but I read recently that circumcision removes much of the most sensitive skin and nerve endings that contribute to pleasurable feelings and leave a guy practically numb! I believe this whole hygeine issue is a smokescreen for what circumcision really is. It is the same as circumcision in baby girls: denying them lifelong sexual pleasure.
It is the same as circumcision in baby girls
I'm with you, Lee!
Most cultures that practice female circumcision do it on older girls, not infants. But there are other differences.I had no idea how brutal female circumcision is! I thank you for that information, even though it was painful to read. Now, it seems to me that this horrible procedure is more akin to foot binding than the male equivalent. But, I still think male circumcision is a bad idea, overall.
Female circumcision definitely does generally deny girls lifelong sexual pleasure, literally and almost totally -- in fact, that is largely its purpose. It also inhibits all sorts of normal genital functioning. The procedure can cause severe bleeding, shock, death, infection. The consequences can include pain during sexual intercourse, lifelong problems with urination and menstruation, birth complications often leading fatalities. In some cases it leaves an opening the size of a straw; the husband upon marriage is given a knife to cut it open, and the opening is sewn up again if he is going to be away for a while. Female genital cutting is considered a human rights violation, is opposed by Amnesty International and other human-rights groups, is outlawed in many countries including the U.S. as well as some in which it is traditionally practiced, and in the U.S. is considered a valid basis for granting refugee status.
I don't think it's fair to compare female "cirumcision" -- better known as mutilation or female genital cutting -- with male circumcision. Males who are circumcised do not seem to feel similarly sexually deprived, nor are other functions impeded. It has no larger negative health consequences. In fact, whether one believes this is a valid basis for circumcision or not, studies do suggest some health benefits.
Lee, if you compare what was done to your son to female circumcision, I think you may be suffering more than you need to.
I had no idea how brutal female circumcision is!
You didn't know that, Lee? Heck yeah. It's basically the female equivalent of removal of the penis. At least male circumcision is done in a sanitary manner by qualified professionals. Female "circumcision" is largely performed by an older female relative with a razor blade (which may or may not be dirty or rusty). No anesthesia. No joke.
How many women and girls in the world have been affected by FGC? In the United States?
It is estimated that 130 million girls and women have undergone FGC.Approximately 2 million are subjected to this practice each year worldwide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an estimated 168,000 women and girls in the United States had either undergone FGC or were at risk for FGC in 1990. Of these, 48,000 were girls younger than 18 years old.
We have just had this father petition the court to have his son circumcised. He has recently
converted to Judaeism. The mother is not wanting it to happen. So far the father who has
custody, has won in court. \
Oh by the way the young boy is 12 yrs old....I think that is barbaric.. At that age it should be
purely the choice of the young man...
it is not generally done to infants...it is done in the preteen years....
I am sure Katherine has the ages but the ones I have heard of have been from nine to twelve...
As Lee said, it's a lot like foot binding, in that people in those cultures view unmutilated female genitals as ugly and consider girls who don't have it done to be "unmarriagable."