circumcision

[Tiay]

"I have problems sucking my mother's tits and bonding because I had excess skin cut off of my dick and now it looks cleaner."

What kind of pussy would say that? ****, don't even answer that. Just bring them before me so I can beat the shit out of them--free of charge.

I meant in babies, obviously. btw, babies can't speak... You'd beat babies, dono? you sicko!

seriously tho;

Traumatic events seem to increase the risk of developing social anxiety disorder. People with social anxiety disorder are twice as likely to have experienced trauma as a child.
[url]http://socialanxiety.factsforhealth.org/pop_up/whatfaq_p09.html[/url]

Traumatic events, even for newborns, do change behaviour.

For many years the mainstream medical orthodoxy, put forth after it was no longer acceptable to torture children in the name of ”moral hygiene,” was that babies don’t feel pain. It wasn’t until 1978 that researchers even suggested using anesthetic during circumcision, and even today, most medical circumcisions are performed without anesthesia, according to the AMA.[73] This is in stark contrast to what is known about infant pain perception and its profound and lasting effects on the victim, as well as the plainly obvious reaction of the infant boy, who forcefully communicates his torment to anyone who will look and listen. Choking and breathing problems arise due to the continuous screaming. Surges in adrenaline and cortisol and large increases in heart rate, all established physiological indicators of torture, have been measured.[74] Some babies appear to go into shock.[75] Later, problems with sleep, mother-child bonding and breastfeeding, and increased sensitivity to stress and pain are all commonly seen after MGM.[76, 77, 78] To all appearances, the infant is left in a state of post-traumatic stress. Sometimes older boys have recurring flashbacks of their circumcision, a classic sign of PTS. Impaired bonding at this critical stage is well correlated with social dysfunction and even criminality later in life,[79]

go here for references: [url]http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.pdf[/url]

[vashti]

I love how extremely rare circumstances are being made to sound typical. ::rolling eyes:: At least when I post about circumcision, I am honest in representing the risks of avoiding it and don't try to inflate their significance.

Tiay, I will address what I percieve is the difference between male and female circumcision: after males are done, they are overwhelmingly still able to reach orgasm. This is not true for women. You *really* don't think there is a difference?

Anyway, my position is STILL that it is a matter of individual choice, whether it be for religious or medical reasons. You might not LIKE that there is a medical advantage to this procedure, but scientifically, there apparently is. Whether or not one percieves it to be a significant enough advantage to have it done is a matter of personal choice.

[Junket]

This thread is a big deal made of nothing.

Tiay, your argument for the most part, is worthless.

You're speaking on behalf of such a small minority of individuals who have been circumsized.

It's like trying to incite a riot among people who quite frankly, aren't disgruntled.

What is disgruntling is your tendency to spout your ideology as fact.

**** dude, you don't even have a dick.

Go cry about toddler ear piercings or something, least that would make some sense...

[dono]

This thread is a big deal made of nothing.

Tiay, your argument for the most part, is worthless.

You're speaking on behalf of such a small minority of individuals who have been circumsized.

It's like trying to incite a riot among people who quite frankly, aren't disgruntled.

What is disgruntling is your tendency to spout your ideology as fact.

**** dude, you don't even have a dick.

Go cry about toddler ear piercings or something, least that would make some sense...

I'm glad somebody said it.

[anachronistic]

Yes, I believe that people should be able to choose. Cutting of the genitals is very disturbing to me now.

Case closed

[TDurden]

This thread is a big deal made of nothing.

Tiay, your argument for the most part, is worthless.

You're speaking on behalf of such a small minority of individuals who have been circumsized.

It's like trying to incite a riot among people who quite frankly, aren't disgruntled.

What is disgruntling is your tendency to spout your ideology as fact.

**** dude, you don't even have a dick.

Go cry about toddler ear piercings or something, least that would make some sense...

Hell Yeah. That pretty much sums it all up

[TDurden]

Yes, I believe that people should be able to choose. Cutting of the genitals is very disturbing to me now.

Circumcision does not equate cutting off your penis

[Gigabitch]

No, it's only part of your penis. Apparently, most guys don't even miss it. I've yet to hear a guy who still has his foreskin offer to cut it off, though, so maybe there's something to it after all...

[anachronistic]

Circumcision does not equate cutting off your penis

cutting OF 1 "f" not two. incase you thought that was a typo.

[TDurden]

cutting OF 1 "f" not two. incase you thought that was a typo.

My bad.

Stupid ten character rule

[Tiay]

I love how extremely rare circumstances are being made to sound typical. ::rolling eyes:: At least when I post about circumcision, I am honest in representing the risks of avoiding it and don't try to inflate their significance.

the risks of avoiding circumcision that have been pointed out to me so far are as follows:
UTI, Phimosis, and Penile Cancer and HIV/AIDS

so here goes:

1. UTI:
antibiotics. you knew that though.

2. Phimosis:
rare. if it does happen, you can always circumcise. ALSO; in 70% of the cases in a study on the treatment of phimosis, surgery was avoided by use of cream, without side effects.

3. Penile cancer:
extremely rare. Studies that seemed to show a correlation had not been corrected for age; penile cancer is a disease of old men, and the old men with cancer in the studies had simply been born at a time when circumcision was less customary than when the younger men without cancer were born. When men of the same ages were compared, the correlation vanished.

4. HIV/AIDS:
as i've pointed out exhaustively, countries in which men are uncut have HIV/AIDS rates lower than countries where men are cut, with the exception of third world countries. The correlation clearly depends on the development of the country in question, not the circumcision status.
However I do not dispute that this benefit of circumcision is extremely relevant and worthwhile- in countries like zambia and swaziland, etc.


I've addressed all of the mentioned disadvantages that are supposedly associated with avoiding circumcision. nobody has actually yet debated me on the above.

Tiay, your argument for the most part, is worthless.

do you really think so? I agree it got a bit silly with the post traumatic stress syndrome. but for the most part I think i've made very relevant valid points.

on average, more than one infant dies in the US each year due to circumcision complications. My question to you is: How can you justify this when circumcision isn't even recommended by your academy of paediatrics, nor by many studies that show no medical benefit from routine circumcision?

you guys, however, have not clearly disputed any of the disadvantages of circumcision that I have pointed out. Instead you've accused me of a bunch of things. If you all think it is so easy to cherry-pick information from the web to suit your own opinion, then why don't you find some counterfacts out there that I can debate with?
I'm not particularly doing this to speak for anybody. I just enjoy debate. I try to be factual but I admit my opinion does come into it- I think this is true for most people. c'mon!

Tiay, I will address what I percieve is the difference between male and female circumcision: after males are done, they are overwhelmingly still able to reach orgasm. This is not true for women. You *really* don't think there is a difference?

thank you vash. this is the kind of conversation I love. Type I of FGC/M (female genital circumcision/mutliation) only removes the hood and/or part of the clit tip. I think it's reasonable to assume that women with most of the clit intact wouldn't have too much difficulty reaching orgasm. This would establish at least type I FGM as comparable to MGM.

Wikipedia says: ...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.[29] Most of the women she interviewed 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 very open to talking about their experiences and thought it was amusing"

hm, okay, wikipedia had an bias warning on that info. how about this study?

[url]http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.html[/url]

it claims that circumcised women can orgasm and that it does reduce the risk of UTI. in fact, it says that in some regions, it is the women themselves who must be persuaded the practice is undesirable.


"In Dr. Barakat's study, in which 97.6% of those interviewed had excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora, 72.8% of the women experienced orgasms ... some of the sensitive tissue at the base of the clitoris, along the inner lips and around the floor of vulva, are still intact and will give sensory sexual messages if properly stimulated."

(edit:I'd strongly guess that way more than 72.8% of cut guys can climax. However, female circumcisions are mostly done in horrible conditions that are not comparable to sterile hospital circumcisions.)

how to measure feeling and climax and arousal, though? these are tricky things to measure and maybe these women aren't climaxing at all? Studies contradict each other, so i'll assume it's somewhere in the middle. So to sum up, research does seem to show that circumcised women can climax, but less often and requiring more stimulation.

However, it is really impossible to know exactly what it feels like, short of going under the knife myself, that is. Male and Female sexual functions could work in such different ways that removing 50 to 80% of erogenous sexual tissue on a both genders could still yield different results. An overwhelming sense of logic tells me though that cutting away that much is just not beneficial for sexual enjoyment, no matter to what grade it reduces enjoyment. I never claimed the comparison to be exact, but i'm convinced it is relevant.

Anyway, my position is STILL that it is a matter of individual choice, whether it be for religious or medical reasons. You might not LIKE that there is a medical advantage to this procedure, but scientifically, there apparently is. Whether or not one percieves it to be a significant enough advantage to have it done is a matter of personal choice.

I don't see any valid medical reasons, as I've said before, and I don't think i'm wearing blinders either- if I am, please tear them off me. It's not long ago I that I was in favour of circumcision- before I did research.

I agree it is personal choice, a choice that should not be made for infants, it should be made by adults, for their own bodies. I would guess that most guys who get adult circumcisions are happy with them, as are men who do reconstruction. Of course, all this shows is that adults who make decisions for themselves are generally happy with those decisions.

[Charlie Boy]

Good on you Tiay. I'm in your corner.

And aesthetics? wtf? Cut or not cut dicks are still ****ing ugly.

[dono]

the risks of avoiding circumcision that have been pointed out to me so far are as follows:
UTI, Phimosis, and Penile Cancer and HIV/AIDS

so here goes:

1. UTI:
antibiotics. you knew that though.

2. Phimosis:
rare. if it does happen, you can always circumcise. ALSO; in 70% of the cases in a study on the treatment of phimosis, surgery was avoided by use of cream, without side effects.

3. Penile cancer:
extremely rare. Studies that seemed to show a correlation had not been corrected for age; penile cancer is a disease of old men, and the old men with cancer in the studies had simply been born at a time when circumcision was less customary than when the younger men without cancer were born. When men of the same ages were compared, the correlation vanished.

4. HIV/AIDS:
as i've pointed out exhaustively, countries in which men are uncut have HIV/AIDS rates lower than countries where men are cut, with the exception of third world countries. The correlation clearly depends on the development of the country in question, not the circumcision status.
However I do not dispute that this benefit of circumcision is extremely relevant and worthwhile- in countries like zambia and swaziland, etc.


I've addressed all of the mentioned disadvantages that are supposedly associated with avoiding circumcision. nobody has actually yet debated me on the above.


do you really think so? I agree it got a bit silly with the post traumatic stress syndrome. but for the most part I think i've made very relevant valid points.

on average, more than one infant dies in the US each year due to circumcision complications. My question to you is: How can you justify this when circumcision isn't even recommended by your academy of paediatrics, nor by many studies that show no medical benefit from routine circumcision?

you guys, however, have not clearly disputed any of the disadvantages of circumcision that I have pointed out. Instead you've accused me of a bunch of things. If you all think it is so easy to cherry-pick information from the web to suit your own opinion, then why don't you find some counterfacts out there that I can debate with?
I'm not particularly doing this to speak for anybody. I just enjoy debate. I try to be factual but I admit my opinion does come into it- I think this is true for most people. c'mon!



thank you vash. this is the kind of conversation I love. Type I of FGC/M (female genital circumcision/mutliation) only removes the hood and/or part of the clit tip. I think it's reasonable to assume that women with most of the clit intact wouldn't have too much difficulty reaching orgasm. This would establish at least type I FGM as comparable to MGM.

Wikipedia says: ...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.[29] Most of the women she interviewed 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 very open to talking about their experiences and thought it was amusing"

hm, okay, wikipedia had an bias warning on that info. how about this study?

[url]http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.html[/url]

it claims that circumcised women can orgasm and that it does reduce the risk of UTI. in fact, it says that in some regions, it is the women themselves who must be persuaded the practice is undesirable.


"In Dr. Barakat's study, in which 97.6% of those interviewed had excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora, 72.8% of the women experienced orgasms ... some of the sensitive tissue at the base of the clitoris, along the inner lips and around the floor of vulva, are still intact and will give sensory sexual messages if properly stimulated."

(edit:I'd strongly guess that way more than 72.8% of cut guys can climax. However, female circumcisions are mostly done in horrible conditions that are not comparable to sterile hospital circumcisions.)

how to measure feeling and climax and arousal, though? these are tricky things to measure and maybe these women aren't climaxing at all? Studies contradict each other, so i'll assume it's somewhere in the middle. So to sum up, research does seem to show that circumcised women can climax, but less often and requiring more stimulation.

However, it is really impossible to know exactly what it feels like, short of going under the knife myself, that is. Male and Female sexual functions could work in such different ways that removing 50 to 80% of erogenous sexual tissue on a both genders could still yield different results. An overwhelming sense of logic tells me though that cutting away that much is just not beneficial for sexual enjoyment, no matter to what grade it reduces enjoyment. I never claimed the comparison to be exact, but i'm convinced it is relevant.




I don't see any valid medical reasons, as I've said before, and I don't think i'm wearing blinders either- if I am, please tear them off me. It's not long ago I that I was in favour of circumcision- before I did research.

I agree it is personal choice, a choice that should not be made for infants, it should be made by adults, for their own bodies. I would guess that most guys who get adult circumcisions are happy with them, as are men who do reconstruction. Of course, all this shows is that adults who make decisions for themselves are generally happy with those decisions.

Wrong.

Good on you Tiay. I'm in your corner.

And aesthetics? wtf? Cut or not cut dicks are still ****ing ugly.

You're a disgrace.

---

SHUT UP TIAY!

[The Great OV!!!]

Whatever. I'm ridiculously happy that I don't have my foreskin.

I hope you are not one of those dudes that actually believes that there is more pleasure with the skin missing...cause there is not. Actually there is no difference other then an annoying visit to the cuttery for the parents of the infant so I don't get the big deal of the thread.

If I did, I'd rip it off and shove it down someone's throat.

I still have mine.......open your mouth.

No, it's only part of your penis. Apparently, most guys don't even miss it. I've yet to hear a guy who still has his foreskin offer to cut it off, though, so maybe there's something to it after all...

Acutally see, that is the thing.. that there is NOTHING to it...thats why..if you are NOT cut..then you dont care...if you ARE cut..then you dont care...you just go on living.
















Oh and PS...TIAY! WTF BBQ! you typed so much! I can't believe you care so much about such a pointless topic.

[Tiay]

Good on you Tiay. I'm in your corner.

And aesthetics? wtf? Cut or not cut dicks are still ****ing ugly.

thanks hm, neither genders genitals are particularly aesthetically pleasing to me. What makes them beautiful is what you do with them

Wrong.

wimp, you're just afraid of real debate.

I hope you are not one of those dudes that actually believes that there is more pleasure with the skin missing...cause there is not.

if anything, there's less sensation, or rather, you can get the same level of sensation, but probably require more stimulation to get there. *rant rant*..

I still have mine.......open your mouth

ahah I wish I could give you rep.

Acutally see, that is the thing.. that there is NOTHING to it...thats why..if you are NOT cut..then you dont care...if you ARE cut..then you dont care...you just go on living.

some people do care, a lot. Obviously you can cut but not uncut, so my point is that there's no reason for that choice to be taken away; especially since it's not medically recommended.
notice that I haven't argued against circumcision for religious/cultural reasons. I don't agree with it, but I can't argue with the reason.

However, in general I agree with you- consider how adaptive the human body is to living normal happy lives with much worse mutilations. In general, people accept what they have and don't worry about it, whatever that is. But just because it is possible for a population to live normally and happily with all their left pinky fingers amputated, that doesn't make an argument to support finger amputating.
also, Often people don't even know that their sexual problems may be caused by MGC, and the woman is blamed for lack of natural lube, etc, so people don't even realise what percentage of these problems are caused by MGC. I don't know either, I can only speculate. Quite possibly, the body adjusts to the missing nerves, re-learning sexual response from the remaining 50 to 20% or erogenous nerves. still, there's no reason to go there in the first place!

Oh and PS...TIAY! WTF BBQ! you typed so much! I can't believe you care so much about such a pointless topic.

I really don't- I just like debating.