Page 1 of 5
Circumcision
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:11 amby btownmeggy
Will you, would you, or did you circumcise your sons? There's a lot of difficult and sometimes conflicting information about circumcision. Where do you stand?
Some background info:
Between 1950 and 1985, 80-90% of American male babies were circumcised shortly after birth. Today the number is only about 55%.
The idea that many Americans have about what a normal penis looks like is based on the scarring and mutilation that are so common in our country. (
http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm)
After WWII, circumcision became more common in the United States in large part due to medical beliefs that it would improve hygiene. However, circumcision has also caused sometimes deadly infections, especially since the implementation of the now-commonly-used Plastibell(TM), which circumcises through necrosis. (
http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm)
Where's the worth in circumcision beyond religious reasons or "looking like daddy"? Well, a 1995 WHO study found that circumcision increases one's likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, but a 2005 study by French university researchers on South African and Ugandan males found that circumcision reduced the likelihood by 50-70%. In fact, their findings were so stark that they stopped the study after only 9 months to allow the uncircumcised control group the opportunity to be circumcised in light of the evidence.
Here's a WHO pamphlet about the world-wide prevalence of circumcision, including a map:
http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_2.pdf
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:12 amby darvlay
I voted no.
Another archaic meaningless procedure. Like marriage.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:41 amby nagerous
People should only be circumcised for medical reasons, like I had to be when I was 10 after a long period when I was in agonising pain when I had to pee as I peed blood. Religious purposes for circumcision are just silly and as a man called darvlay was once heard to have said, circumcision is just "another archaic meaningless procedure"
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:44 amby darvlay
nagerous wrote:People should only be circumcised for medical reasons, like I had to be when I was 10 after a long period when I was in agonising pain when I had to pee as I peed blood.
The f*ck?
How did circumcision help to heal that horrible affliction?
God, that sounds horrid.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:55 amby nagerous
Not quite sure, I was only 10. I had to have a few months off school at the time when it happened.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:14 pmby heavycola
No. Way.
My own foreskin is very important and precious to me. I may consider having my child branded, however, in case he or she wanders over to a neighbouring ranch.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:22 pmby Neoteny
The HIV/AIDS thing is probably one of the biggest pros for circumcision. I'm not sure what it's like being uncircumcised but I can say that my life is happy without my foreskin. Who knows if it would be better or worse at this point. However, foreskin is also used for transplantations and also for biological experimentation, so at least they are put to good use. I'll vote a tentative pro-circumcision for now... but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to avoid having kids anyway. They're like walking, talking STDs...
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:43 pmby vtmarik
I'm against it. Completely.
First off, the glans of the penis is supposed to be an internal organ. It's very sensitive and when a penis is circumcised it undergoes what I believe is called keratinization, where it becomes less sensitive and more protected from the elements.
Secondly, the foreskin contains thousands of nerve endings and causes a baby great pain when it's removed.
Thirdly, the action of the foreskin sliding over the glans during intercourse heightens sexual pleasure for both partners.
I think that's three good reasons to vote No.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:21 pmby wicked
I actually started a thread about this long ago. Was quite comical talking about it in chat.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:31 pmby autoload
I vote we should reattach removed foreskins immediately!
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:35 pmby riggable
autoload wrote:I vote we should reattach removed foreskins immediately!
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:36 pmby darvlay
autoload wrote:I vote we should reattach removed foreskins immediately!
This begs the question: who's saving that shit?
*Shudder*
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:54 pmby Guiscard
In the UK I don't think circumcision is that common other than for medical or religious reasons. Might be somewhere between 10-20%. I certainly would never contemplate it for my own children. Indeed, I find it amusing how many American parents (I know at least three couples) have had their children circumcised at birth but wouldn't let their daughters get ears pierced until they were at least 16!
Re: Circumcision
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:52 pmby hecter
btownmeggy wrote:Where's the worth in circumcision beyond religious reasons or "looking like daddy"? Well, a 1995 WHO study found that circumcision increases one's likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, but a 2005 study by French university researchers on South African and Ugandan males found that circumcision reduced the likelihood by 50-70%. In fact, their findings were so stark that they stopped the study after only 9 months to allow the uncircumcised control group the opportunity to be circumcised in light of the evidence.
I really think that using circumcision as a way of reducing AIDS is really only practical in countries where there is a high rate of the HIV/AIDS virus (eg Africa). Over here in the first world, we should be teaching kids who to put those little latex thingies over their wankers, not cutting off their foreskin.
no
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:00 pmby brooksieb
i would only remove my foreskin if it was hurting so bad, because it was put there in the first place why not use it?
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:08 pmby ignotus
I voted no. It has its purposes but here in old Europe it is not an option (in the hospitals).
Hmmm, maybe if I was a Jew...
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:13 pmby Anarkistsdream
My response is yes... I am circumcised and my cock is beautiful.
Re: no
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:15 pmby Anarkistsdream
brooksieb wrote:i would only remove my foreskin if it was hurting so bad, because it was put there in the first place why not use it?
What about the appendix...? Or earlobes?
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:49 pmby vtmarik
Anarkistsdream wrote:My response is yes... I am circumcised and my cock is beautiful.
*marvels* Ooooh....
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:51 pmby ignotus
vtmarik wrote:Anarkistsdream wrote:My response is yes... I am circumcised and my cock is beautiful.
*marvels* Ooooh....
When you say that out loud it makes me wonder.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:54 pmby Fieryo
darvlay wrote:autoload wrote:I vote we should reattach removed foreskins immediately!
This begs the question: who's saving that shit?
*Shudder*
Aren't foreskins used in anti-aging cream? (I don't know if human ones are used)
*repeat shudder*
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:48 pmby Frigidus
Fieryo wrote:darvlay wrote:autoload wrote:I vote we should reattach removed foreskins immediately!
This begs the question: who's saving that shit?
*Shudder*
Aren't foreskins used in anti-aging cream? (I don't know if human ones are used)
*repeat shudder*
I'll take wrinkles.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:53 pmby Lucky Se7en
Anarkistsdream wrote:My response is yes... I am circumcised and my cock is beautiful.
L
L
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:58 pmby Dancing Mustard
I'm not circumcised myself, but my opinion on the subject is this:
Circumcision is all well and good as an option for males, however in a society where safe-sex is well publicised and easily practicable its infection-rate merits don't seem particularly pressing; certainly not pressing enough to warrant non-consensual surgery. Basically, what I'm saying is I wouldn't have wanted my parents to decree that a chunk of my wing-wang be amputated before I was old enough to agree to the idea. Should I ever have a male child then I'll leave him unmodified until he's old enough to elect whether he does or doesn't want to have a qualified physician lop off a chunk of his knob, regardless of the STI implications.
I'm not having a dig at pro-circumcision people here, I'm just saying that I find it hard to get down with parents authorising what is (in Western Society) essentialy cosmetic surgery on their powerless offspring simply because it happened to them.
Posted:
Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:03 pmby Fieryo
It's kind of like baptism.Why not wait till the guy is old enough to make the choice on his own instead of forcing this "mutilation" (not my word) upon him?