Doctor calls for cut to curb HIV

[depakid]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

IT HAS been labelled the cruellest cut of all but HIV experts are calling for a return to routine male circumcision in Australia to help curb transmission of the virus into the future.

Alex Wodak, a physician who has worked on HIV since it was identified in the 1980s, has called for parents to be educated about the benefits of circumcision after research showed it reduced the likelihood of transmission between heterosexuals in Africa.

"This is an intervention which is effective, inexpensive, lifelong, safe and could dramatically alter the course of an epidemic," said Dr Wodak, who is also director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney.

"It's been estimated by mathematical modelling that if the whole of Africa had high levels of male circumcision at the start of the AIDS epidemic, there would have been 5.7 million fewer cases of HIV alone."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/doctor-calls-for-cut-to-curb-hiv/2009/01/23/1232471590816.html

[struggle4progress]

1. Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions: Implications

for the United States
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

[Devil_Fish]

129. Here is the list of what Circumcision removes:

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Why not wack the whole thing off, that will stop STD's 99.9%

[Taverner]

135. Exactly - why follow a barbaric tradition?

Especially when you can do a million things OTHER THAN CHOPPING YOUR DICK OFF

[struggle4progress]

2. Male circumcision for HIV prevention (WHO)

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

[struggle4progress]

3. Circumcision : A Surgical Strategy for HIV Prevention in Africa (NEJM 4 Dec 08)

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/23/2412

<edit subj line html>

[nomorenomore08]

4. "Cruellest cut of all?" Hyperbole much? I assume they're talking about circumcising newborns...

For the record, I was circumcised at birth, and I'm glad I was. Makes proper hygiene easier, eliminates the risk of certain injuries (think foreskin caught in zipper - sorry for the graphic image). One can have any opinion they want on the subject, but to treat it as some kind of atrocity is ludicrous.

[Devil_Fish]

7. I strongly disagree.

I too was circumcised at birth, and I resent my parents. I would like to sue the Doc that did it. To see all that you lost take a look at www.norm.org

How about we institute FGM (female genital mutilation) too? after all an FGM Woman is more hygienic with all that excess skin removed. much less likely to engage in Sexual activity since the clitoris is removed.

I got it, How about we just chop off the whole darn thing. No chance of STD's then right? well perhaps, but I'm sure greatly reduced.

My first child is due in August. My child will remain intact just as nature intended. It seems very extreme to remove body parts to avoid the possibility of getting a disease.

occasionally I suffer from athletes foot. Once I got it so bad on my pinky toe, I though about chopping it off. did I? no.

talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face.

If there is lung cancer in your family, should we cut your lungs out before you get lung cancer? How about heart disease?

I can get AIDS just as easy as an intact male if I poke around where I shouldn't.

Just as we can chose an abortion, we should be able to choose circumcision. I was never given the choice, and I am very resentful. I can never regain what was lost. There was nothing wrong with the parts that were removed from my body before I could even talk. It is un-necessary surgery.

Just as FGM is considered child abuse in this country, so should be circumcision of a child that can't even vocalize the word "NO"

It is an atrocity. just like FGM.

oh and one more thing: When I was pre-teen I had a zipper snag. So the removal of my foreskin didn't prevent that either.

[nomorenomore08]

9. Yeah, because being so sensitive down there that you ejaculate at the drop of a hat

really works wonders for a young man's sex life. :sarcasm:

Okay, fine, I get it, you have a totally different view on this subject than I do, and if you want your own son to remain "intact," then that's your right. As for myself, I don't plan on having kids (and have even considered a vasectomy - ACK! More mutilation!), but I sure am damn glad I didn't have to get myself circumcised later in life, when I would have fully experienced and remembered the pain. My "equipment" is perfectly fine sans foreskin, thank you very much.

[Devil_Fish]

12. We can agree to disagree.

No problem there.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Is this a reality that you actually experienced?

Or are you simply speculating about what something would be like that you've never actually had?

[Touchdown]

52. He admitted to a birth circ. We know what his answer is already.

The World of Pure Imagination isn't just for Willy Wonka any more.

[bitchkitty]

99. Had a friend who got Pedro hemmed up when he was in his 30s.

He was in agony when he wasn't knocked out on heavy painkillers.

[customerserviceguy]

159. I have been where your friend was

I was 18 at the time, and it took quite a while for everything to heal adequately. I had a medical condition requiring it, so I made sure that my sons were done in infancy.

I've read through the list of all that I'm supposedly missing, but I don't feel all that deprived.

[Devil_Fish]

211. Perhaps you do not feel deprived because you were not deprived

of the ability to make the choice for your self. And you were also not deprived of the ability to make the choice for your sons. It is too bad that they are now deprived of that basic human right.

I'm sorry that you had a medical condition that required a painfull surgical procedure. I wounder what the chances are of your sons, had they been left intact, developing that same medical condition.

I hope you were in the room when they were circumsized. and their mother too.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. Do NOT compare male circumscision with FGM

You'd have a point if they removed the head of your penis along with the foreskin, but they didn't.

[Devil_Fish]

15. I read an article here on DU about a botched Circumcision

where that is exactly what happened.

Further more, there are different degrees of FGM, some where the Clitoris is not removed. Does that make that method right?

You can save time reading and put me on ignore now if you like. I don't care.

Lets compare Circumcision with FGM.

Sensitive tissue removed... check
No chance of regaining what was lost... check
Un-nessasary.....check
Done with out consent of the victim... check
lessens sexual plesure... check

It's the consent issue that really bugs me.

I agree with you that FGM is an atrocity, but why is MGM acceptable?

I would be perfectly fine with being circumcised if it was me who made the choice. If a female wants to do it, what she does with her body is non of my business either.

The fact that it is imposed on children before they are old enough to say yes or no is why I am so bothered. If my child says to me "why is mine different then yours?" I will gladly take the time to explain that in 1975 the Doctors and my parents thought it was the right thing to do. I will explain Why it is still done, and I will allow my child to make an informed decision. That, at least, would be more then what I had.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. I find your use of the acronym MGM to compare circumcision

To the atrocity of what is done to genitals of girls to be offensive, callous, and incredibly oblivious. Furthermore, you are minimizing the effects of FGM while exaggerating the effects of circumcision.

[Devil_Fish]

25. So sorry I offended you.

Are you implying that Circumcision is not Genital mutilation?

Edit: Because I feel mutilated.

[Evergreen Emerald]

115. it is not the same.

With your penis, you can procreate and have normal sexual relations. A mutilated female can do neither.

[whopis01]

122. The majority of FGM

does not interfere with procreation.

[Devil_Fish]

145. Procreation is still possible with both FGM and MGM.

Regarding sexual relations, what do you consider normal? In the tribes you mention where FGM is practiced, the sexual relations there are considered normal, and in fact an intact female would be considered ab-normal.

Un-necessary surgery on children of either sex should be illegal.

[Bake]

Sounds like you have issues ...

You might want to talk to someone about them.

Bake

[Devil_Fish]

212. I do, and I am. NT

[Touchdown]

33. This one?

http://www.wlky.com/health/17550187/detail.html

According to the lawsuit, Philip Seaton, 61, went to have a circumcision last Octoberas part of treatment for a medical condition. Seaton said when he woke up from the procedure, he realized his penis had been amputated.

Seaton has suffered mental anguish, pain, and has lost the enjoyment of life, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in Shelby County court last week against Dr. John Patterson, who performed the procedure, Dr. Oliver James, who administered anesthesia, and Commonwealth Urology, PSC.

The lawsuit states that Patterson received consent to perform a circumcision and only a circumcision, and that Seaton did not consent to his penis being removed.

[Devil_Fish]

39. I had a different one in mind, but thanks for proving my point with a link. NT

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. Yes, sometimes they are botched.

As are nearly every other medical procedure. What does that have to do with making absurd and offensive comparisons to female genital mutilation?

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Most likely this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

[Devil_Fish]

151. thats the one I was thinking of.

and it happends more often then just once in a wile.

[quakerboy]

95. Wow. Thats a little misleading

There was no mistake there, no tragic accident. The mans (cancerous) penis was deliberately removed by an apparently over eager Dr. Thats a little different than what has been presented here, ya?

[Touchdown]

16. So you say American butchery of boys is honorable, and African butchery

of girls is barbaric. Is that right?

Ok.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. I'm saying they are not comparable. nt

[Devil_Fish]

24. If there not comparable, then what is the diffrence? NT

[mrreowwr_kittty]

34. One is like a vaccination shot. The other is like being stabbed with a knife.

I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.

[Touchdown]

38. Vaccinations don't lop off 4 sq. inches worth of skin.

Your analogy is a non-sequitur, and a total cliche. The least you can do is come up with an original argument

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. The least you can do is stop minimizing misogyny-based torture so you can play victim and martyr

Of all the bullshit MRA whines, the one about circumcision is by far the most obnoxious and ridiculous.

[Devil_Fish]

45. I think TD agrees with you that FGM is horrible and torture as do I,

however it seems to be you who is minimizing the suffering imposed on baby boys to young to even know what is happening. You are also discounting the effects later in life. The resentment I feel for my parents is real. As is the fact that I will never experience natural sex.

I think it is wrong to do it to any person male or female against their will.

You have yet to answer my question: How are they different? I do not intend to Minimize FGM at all. Why are you minimizing MGM? (oh sorry that offends you, I mean circumcision.)

Doesn't matter, I'm probably on your ignore list by now any way. perhaps TD will ask you for me.

[Touchdown]

46. Oh' but misandry is just A-OK with you, right?

And FGM is all about "religious freedom" and "The health of the girl", according to the butchers in those tribes that do it.

It's about you feeling more enlightened that them, and you don't like the fact that I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. "Misandry"

I had you pegged from the get-go.

[Touchdown]

57. My name isn't Peg, but thank you anyhow.

And don't condescend to assume to know me, when you have no clue who I am, or what I stand for.

While clitorectomies are butchery and are right fully a crime, there is a religious argument for the practice, as is foreskin amputation.

The facts are that the clitoris and the foreskin are the same exact tissue, only separated by the x and y chromosomes. In that argument, both practices are much closer than what you would find comfortable. Add to that fact the religious ritual aspect, and the correlation becomes even closer.

The after-effects of sexual function of both surgeries may be different for most, but not for all, and only different up to a certain age for the male. Studies and personal anecdotes strongly suggest that the sensitivity drops precipitously in circumcised men starting in their early 40s.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

70. The clitoris and foreskin are NOT analogous

Removal of the foreskin is anatomically closer to removal of the clitoral hood, not the entire clitoris (which is what MOST FGM involves, in addition to oftentimes sewing the labia shut).

The entire purpose of clitoredectomy is to deprive females of sexual pleasure. That is not the case with circumcision. You may have reasonable arguments against it but I must insist that you stop conflating circumcision with FGM.

The after-effects of sexual function of both surgeries may be different for most, but not for all, and only different up to a certain age for the male. Studies and personal anecdotes strongly suggest that the sensitivity drops precipitously in circumcised men starting in their early 40s.

This is what I'm talking about. Sensitivity drops, and "precipitous" is an understatement as a description, IMMEDIATELY upon the removal of a girl's clitoris. Despite Freud's insistence that vaginal orgasms are a hallmark of maturity, the practical reality is that the majority of women need clitoral stimulation to climax and when that organ is removed, probably 95% of women subjected to it will never experience sexual pleasure.

[Touchdown]

75. Again. I ask how you know this?

Where did you get your medical degree?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

79. Where did you get yours?

Where do you get the basis for your contention that removing foreskin is the equivalent of removing the clitoris?

[Touchdown]

82. Here And.. I asked you first

FGM MGM
Cutting? YES YES
Of the genitals? YES YES
Of babies? YES YES
Of children? YES YES
Without consent? YES YES
At parents' behest? YES YES
Removing erogenous tissue? YES YES
Supposedly beneficial? YES YES
Justified by aesthetics? YES YES
Justified by supposed health benefits? YES YES
Justified by religion? YES YES
Justified by sexual effects? YES YES
Justified by custom? YES YES
Justified by conformity? YES YES
Effects minimised by its supporters? YES YES
Performed by its adult victims? YES YES
Extremely painful? YES YES
Can cause harm? YES YES
Very severe damage? USUALLY SOMETIMES
Can cause death? YES YES
Legal in Western countries? NO YES

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

And I'm an American male. I know a helluva lot more about my body than you do. If your are male too, than you may be younger than me, and have yet to get diminishing returns. If you are an American female, than you still have all of your body intact, and have no right to diminish what a society of doctors has taken from me without my permission.

EDIT: Oh yeah... Where did you get your credentials?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

85. Well gosh darn, as a female, I know a helluva lot more about my body than you do.

And I can tell you that the removal of my clitoris would affect me a helluva a lot more than than the removal of your foreskin affected you.

Oh yeah, where did you get your credentials?

Again, I am not "dimininishing what a society of doctors" has taken from you. I am questioning why you are diminishing a barbaric and misogynistic practice that mutilates the genitals of girls (solely) in order to deprive them of sexual gratification out of some misguided desire to advance your agenda and get some cheap attention.

[Touchdown]

87. How do you know unless it's done?

Have the procedure and publish your study. Of course, you would also have to have a penis to really know what you're talking about.

"Cheap attention". Yeah. so much for not diminishing. I get butchered and you cry misogyny because I have a problem with it.

Yes. I'm advancing an agenda. I want baby boys to have the same value and respect as baby girls get right now. and as long as callous people like you exist, I will continue to get under your skin.

Don't bother answering my question you haven't so far. Everybody now sees you for who you really are.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

92. "I want baby boys to have the same value and respect as baby girls get right now"

:wtf: You seriously did not just go there!

[Scout]

106. sounds like you have daddy issues....

"I get butchered"

why did your father let this happen to you?

[Touchdown]

108. He probably didn't have a choice. It was just done in the 60s

There was a 95% hospital birth circ rate in the US during the 60s. Parental consent wasn't really honored, for the most part until the 80s. Today, that number is about 52%.

I know you were being an ass, but I thought I'd be reasonable.

[No Elephants]

132. Yes, it was the default, unless the parents were going to have a rabbi do it. Parents

thought it was modern medicine, period.

[Touchdown]

110. Sounds like you're a dime store psychologist.

Bored with X-Box today?

[Scout]

118. what's X-box?

why did your dad let them circumcise you?

[Scout]

119. "I know you were being an ass, but I thought I'd be reasonable."

uh huh, sure you were

[Touchdown]

133. Eh' I changed my mind.

Pick up the pieces of your shattered existence and move on.

[Scout]

202. you are too funny....

"Pick up the pieces of your shattered existence and move on"

i'm not the one complaining about what my parents did to me when i was an infant.

i think you are the one who needs to move on.

[dionysus]

201. dude, you're making a fool out of yourself here...

keep going it's funny :hi:

[Devil_Fish]

90. As a female you can not possibly know how MGM has affected us.

Be glad that you have every thing you were born with. that is more then a lot of American male baby's got.

this is not an attention issue. It is a legal issue involving disparity between the sexes. something common in this country.

I.E. why is it that I can walk around with no top on, and you can't? that seems stupid and discriminatory to me. I say all or nothing. either you get the option to go topless or I don't. that is how it should be.

Like wise if you have the right to not have your genitals altered as a baby, I should also have that right. Anything else is sexual discrimination.

Last word:

I'm sorry for brining FGM into this topic. Please stop diminishing my loss and claiming I was not wronged when I was cut against my will.

[FedUpWithIt All]

98. Let me start by saying that I am opposed to circumcision for my own children.

We did not circumcise our 1 yr old son when he was born. We felt that our son should have the option to make that decision for himself. We would not be able to put it back and the option remains for him to remove it if he wishes. My SO is happily circumcised but we felt that it was not something that we could decide for our son. The idea that he might one day resent us for making that decision, as some men do resent their parents, or that he may one day feel that his sexuality is negatively affected (which would ultimately have a further affect on his sexuality and possibly self esteem) struck us as too great a risk.

That said, the female clitoris is not comparable tissue to the foreskin. It simply isn't. It is similar to the glans in sensation. The foreskin is more comparable to the clitoral hood. It serves a sensory protective function essentially. In the case of the OP it seems that function has backfired.

FGM is brutally performed and is intended to remove sexual satisfaction, emotionally as well as physically. That is NOT the usual intent of male circumcision. The intent does matter when human sexuality and the human rights issues involved are being discussed.

Loss of healthy sexual function is a possibility in some cases with circumcision (again, not usually intended but tragic nontheless). In the cases where this does occur, i doubt any of the discussions commonly used to justify circumcision carry any weight when scaled against such an extreme loss. Suddenly, wanting Junior to look like dad just doesn't seem as pressing when Junior's future is dimmed by the social and emotional ramifications of a life without normal sexual function. But this is a rather rare scenario so the typical reasoning often wins out over the possibilities of the slim risks.

There are occasional risks with leaving a male intact such as phimosis and reoccurring urinary infections but these are often treatable. If they occur and if they are un treatable, a medically justified circumcision will correct the issues.

[Touchdown]

101. Thanks for the info on FGM, you seem to have some knowledge on it.

However, there is a few misconceptions about the foreskin. It is a protective hood, to be sure, but it is also an erogenous zone in itself. There are over 70,000 nerve endings in the foreskin alone. How it attaches to the glans is with the frenelum, another erogenous zone that also acts as a spring to snap the foreskin back into during sex, which causes sensations as well. Circumcision removes the foreskin's nerve endings, and also severs the frenelum, which is like a tendon.

Also the glans is supposed to be an internal organ, no different than an eye ball. When it is protected and kept moist, the nerves are fully functional and do their job well. When it is exposed permanently, to protect itself, it keratinizes. It grows more skin and thus dulls the sensations that nature provided. If your eyelids were removed, your eyeballs would do the same thing to protect themselves. And when an eye grows more skin, the vision has to be diminished so greatly that sharpness and contrast of natural sight would be impossible, but one could still see and make out detail enough to function. There just wouldn't be good eyesight.

That list I posted up above is by medical doctors who know the foreskin and it's function. It isn't just something I slapped together for oohs and ahs.

While you are absolutely correct that clitorectomies are intended to deaden sensation, keep in mind that the original intent of circumcision, and the main reason it began as a widespread operation was to curb masturbation, and deaden the senses, so that sex would be for procreation only, and not enjoyable. Only since has this procedure supposedly cured dozens, and then hundreds of diseases to justify it's continued practice.

Phimosis and UTIs re very much less than occasional, UTIs occur in less than 1% of newborns and antibiotics are available. Phimosis occurs later in childhood, but again, the occurrence rate for this is also less than 1%. Drs. in the US greatly overstate this risk to justify the continued practice.

My problem with the "don't dare go there- they're not the same" arguments is that it leaves this modern, technological and rich society off the hook. It allows us to continue a barbaric practice, while continuing dubious research to find the latest health scare that it can cure, to ensure that the practice continues. All the while allowing us to look upon those primitive and barbaric African tribes/muslim cultures that practice FGM with disdain, derision, and horror. There is a certain smug hypocrisy involved in the American medical establishment and human rights orgs to see what we do, and what they do as somehow night and day differences. I'm not much of a Christian, but I do remember the passage about removing the log from one's own eye, before they attempt to take the splinter from another.

I did not even get into the practice of foreskin organ harvesting by the stem cell research and cosmetics industries, because that's another outrage for another post.

EDIT: You don't need my approval, but I applaud you for respecting your son's integrity enough to bring him home whole.

[FedUpWithIt All]

103. I agree with you about the foreskin and will still suggest it is similar to the clitoral hood

The tissue of the clitoral hood lubricates, protects, moves and is quite sensitive. Neither a clitoral hood or a foreskin is as sensitive as the clitoris glans or glans penis.

"clitorectomies are intended to deaden sensation"

This statement is not quite accurate. A clitorectomy is the removal of the clitoris glans and IS equivalent to a male losing the entire glans of his penis. So the use of the word deadening is not exactly the correct term (as i am sure you would agree if you imagined having your glans cut off).

The following is how wikipedia explains the comparison between the clitoris glans and the glans penis...

The head or glans of the clitoris is roughly the size and shape of a pea, although it can be significantly larger or smaller. The clitoral glans is highly sensitive, containing as many nerve endings as the analogous organ in males, the glans penis, making it particularly well-suited for sexual stimulation. During arousal, the glans becomes engorged with blood and retracts into the clitoral hood.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_glans

And about the clitoral hood and the foreskin...

In female human anatomy, the clitoral hood, (also called preputium clitoridis and clitoral prepuce), is a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoral glans. It develops as part of the labia minora and is homologous with the foreskin (equally called prepuce) in male genitals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood
The structure and function of the genitalia is quite similar in spite of the obvious visual differences.

"Phimosis occurs later in childhood, but again, the occurrence rate for this is also less than 1%. Drs. in the US greatly overstate this risk to justify the continued practice."

I mentioned this condition because i believe it may be MORE common than people believe. 50% of the uncircumcised adults that i know personally have this condition. I think it is under reported. It can usually be prevented by teaching a child to retract properly (i would imagine such personal discussions might be difficult for some parents) when a child is old enough. And when it does occur it can usually be treated with a steroid cream, rarely circumcision.

"My problem with the "don't dare go there- they're not the same" arguments is that it leaves this modern, technological and rich society off the hook. It allows us to continue a barbaric practice, while continuing dubious research to find the latest health scare that it can cure, to ensure that the practice continues. All the while allowing us to look upon those primitive and barbaric African tribes/muslim cultures that practice FGM with disdain, derision, and horror. There is a certain smug hypocrisy involved in the American medical establishment and human rights orgs to see what we do, and what they do as somehow night and day differences. I'm not much of a Christian, but I do remember the passage about removing the log from one's own eye, before they attempt to take the splinter from another.
I did not even get into the practice of foreskin organ harvesting by the stem cell research and cosmetics industries, because that's another outrage for another post."

I agree with your overall opinion. We are hypocritical on a great number things. But an understanding of the basic body parts and their function shows a clear MALICE in the FGM that is not currently attached to the more common circumcision discussion. This is where it becomes a touchy issue for many woman. The intent or malice. Does this make sense?



:shrug:

[Devil_Fish]

127. Thank you so much for saving your son from MGM here is a list of what you saved:

From: http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Foreskin
The foreskin comprises roughly 50% (and sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches - the size of a three-by-five index card. This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (also called keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds

Frenar Band, or
Ridged Band
The frenar band is a group of soft ridges near the junction of the inner and outer foreskin. This region is the primary erogenous zone of the intact male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response.
There is no known method of restoring the frenar band.

Gliding Action
The foreskin's gliding action is a hallmark feature of the normal, natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of its own shaft skin facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, making artificial lubricants necessary for comfortable intercourse.

Meissner's Corpuscles
Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture.

Frenulum
The frenulum is a highly erogenous V-shaped structure on the underside of the glans that tethers the foreskin. During circumcision it is frequently either amputated with the foreskin or severed, which destroys or diminishes its sexual and physiological functions.

Dartos Fascia
Circumcision removes approximately half of this temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the corpus cavernosa.

Immunological System
The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.

Lymphatic Vessels
The loss of these vessels due to circumcision reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.

Estrogen Receptors
The presence of estrogen receptors within the foreskin has only recently been discovered. Their purpose is not yet understood and needs further study.

Apocrine Glands
These glands of the inner foreskin produce pheromones - nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been studied.

Sebaceous Glands
The sebaceous glands may lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, which is normally a protected internal organ. Not all men have sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin.

Langerhans Cells
These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system in the penis.

Natural Glans Coloration
The natural coloration of the glans and inner foreskin (usually hidden and only visible to others when sexually aroused) is considerably more intense than the permanently exposed and keratinized coloration of a circumcised penis. The socio-biological function of this visual stimulus has never been studied.
The glans ranges from pink to red to dark purple among intact men of Northern European ancestry, and from pinkish to mahagony to dark brown among intact men of Color. If circumcision is performed on an infant or young boy, the connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together is ripped apart. This leaves the glans raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. Over a period of years the glans becomes keratinized, adding additional layers of tissue in order to adequately protect itself, which further contributes to discoloration.

Length and Circumference
Circumcision removes some of the length and girth of the penis - its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is removed. A circumcised penis is truncated and thinner than it would have been if left intact.

Blood Vessels
Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, are removed in circumcision. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.

Dorsal Nerves
The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision. If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be almost completely without sensation.

Other Losses • Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development. Additionally, an infant's self-confidence and hardiness is diminished by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of "learned helplessness" or
"acquired passivity" to cope with the excruciating pain which he can
neither fight nor flee. The trauma of this early pain lowers a circumcised boy's pain threshold below that of intact boys and girls

[FedUpWithIt All]

219. Don't thank me. My son and his health have nothing to do with your agenda.

In fact i am so repulsed by your self centered attitude here that i am glad i did not meet you before i had to decide. It would have made a very contented and easy decision feel tainted somehow.

My son's (very happily circumcised) father and i made our decision out of pure love for our son's well being. Your cause is clearly about YOU and your own penis. Leave us out of it. Thank you.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quakerboy]

96. Umm

My finger and my wifes ear are the same tissue, only seperated by the x and y chromosomes. Genetics

[Touchdown]

102. Well then, we must remove your fingernail.

After all, it does nothing but harbor bacteria and fungus, and serves no real purpose. You wouldn't want axle grease in your wife's ear when you stick it in.;)

[quakerboy]

117. I do remove my fingernail, on a regular basis.

Otherwise I am accused of having Talons.

[Touchdown]

140. You clip them you mean.

If you removed them you would never have to clip again.

There is a surgical procedure for fingernail removal. It's very simple. They use a local anesthetic, and give you Tylenol afterwords. Nail removal is an outpatient procedure and very quick. There are no debilitating after effects. You would be happy if your parents made that decision for you as an infant.

[quakerboy]

142. I have contemplated similar things

I don't think I would be offended if it had been done to me, but I am pretty sure that I am too much of a baby to do it as a pain averse adult. I do strong consider various forms of permanent hair removal on a nearly daily basis, though. Not having to shave ones face... If I had the money to do it, it would be done.

In regards to the rest of this argument, I am personally very happy that I was circumcised as a child. I could care less about any religious aspect, I like the hygiene made easy factor. My brother is uncut, and has had issues in that regard. He has also mentioned that it gets in the way and reduces sensitivity. Something that I have heard from others in my peer group as well.

Much as with the fingernail thing, theres little to no way I could convince myself to do it as an adult. Pain sucks, and I am adverse to having my integument compromised, with the sole exception of red cross blood donations. So, unlike others, I am very grateful to my parents that they had this done for me.

[Scout]

105. removed due to redundancy!

[Jamastiene]

174. Uhm, I'm against circumcision, but you don't know jack about anatomy if you think that

"the clitoris and the foreskin are the same exact tissue"

:eyes:

[Devil_Fish]

42. It's actually a bit more then 4 square inches, and it's more then just skin. For a list norm.org

BTW I don't think its comparable to a vaccination at all. Given the choice I would keep my skin and get the shot.

Just like I would use an anti fungal on my athletes foot rather then chop off my toes.

[prayin4rain]

125. Are you serious???

The clitoris is not skin. Look at an anatmoy book if you want to know the difference.

[Devil_Fish]

153. The fore skin is more then just skin too.

After watching video of both FM and MGM I have concluded that aside from the un-sanitary conditions where FGM takes place and the age of the child, the two procedures are comparable and barbaric. To say circumcision is comparable to a tetanus shot, I'm sorry watch this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8212662920114237112&hl=en and tell me you have had a shot like this.

[Touchdown]

29. What's your medical credentials?

What makes you an authority on the comparability? Where did you get your Doctorate?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. **edited to remove the name I called you - though I'm still thinking it**

Aside from a few attention-seeking crybabies, no one honestly believes that circumcision is comparable to FGM.

[Touchdown]

36. Like no one believed the Earth was round.

I get it.:eyes:

So what are your medical credentials?

[Crunchy Frog]

55. How about just labiaplasty then?

Currently a very popular surgery among American women. If it were being done on infants rather than on consenting adults?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. I actually consider that to be a more valid comparison

Since one of the motivations for circumcision is aesthetics.

Let me state for the record that I am neither pro- nor anti-circumcision. I don't have any children and can appreciate the arguments of both sides. I am simply asking people not to equate the procedure with the much more brutal acts of genital mutilation performed on girls, often in the most unsanitary conditions for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with health or hygeine. I am asking people to stop minimizing the horror of FGM and distracting from it to push their own agenda.

[Touchdown]

68. 2 years ago there was an FGM thread

Where The OP preemptively excoriated anyone who would bring, umm Metro Goldwyn Mayer into her thread. Some ignored it, but I honored that, because it's serious butchery and FGM should be banned world wide as criminal.

You popped into this thread, and hijacked the subject by inserting FGM into male circumcision. All I'm asking for is a little respect for the OP here. Talking about males and the ethics of penile surgeries is not in any stretch exclusionary to women, butchery of girls and FGM.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

71. Uh, excuse me, but I did not insert FGM into this thread.

Someone else did. As always happens. If it's a discussion about FGM, some MRA-type will bring up circumcision. If it's a discussion about circumcision, some MRA-type will bring up FGM. Never fails.

If you want to argue the merits of circumcision, then argue them. I'm not stopping you.

[Touchdown]

73. He made a correlation, and you ran with it.

Don't deny your part in this.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

80. "He made a correlation"

Thank you for admitting that it was not I who raised the issue. Now, if you want to be taken seriously, then argue against the practice of circumcision based on the ramifications of circumcision, not FGM.

[Devil_Fish]

86. I'll claim it. I related the two so fine lets drop FGM. I still consider my self Mutilated.

I see no reason why. cut the whole thing off I will be even less likely to get an STD. Is that justification?

My acronym stands circumcision = Male Genital Mutilation.

I have no problem taking FGM out of the equation. I apologies for mentioning FGM in this thread as it is about MGM rather then FGM.

I will say that I consider both practices just as wrong as pedophilia and rape, and perhaps more so as pedophilia and rape does not necessarily leave physical scars.

[Touchdown]

88. Oh' your just trying to get cheap attention!

You man! Having a pitty party, and being a misogynist pig for not bowing to the inherent superiority of female victimization. You sexist of you!

She didn't say that EXACTLY in post #85, but I think it's close.:D

[mrreowwr_kittty]

93. Oh the poor, poor menz!

Dear God, what about the menz!!1!eleventy

[FedUpWithIt All]

100. I can see both arguments here.

You are saying that the intent in FGM is not only the removal a part as it is the deliberate attempt to remove a woman's sensation, pleasure and general sexual gratification and as a result her most basic human rights. This is completely true.

Some others here seem to be saying that occasionally circumcision removes a male's sensation, pleasure and general sexual gratification and that this is traumatic (understandably) to them emotionally, physically and is a disregard of their basic human rights. These things are true.

There is obvious misinformation in the claims that the removal of a clitoris is comparable to the removal of foreskin, UNLESS the removal of foreskin has complications that also affects the glans sensitivity or general penis function, which CAN happen. If too much skin is removed, if there is excessive scarring, if are an excess of "skin bridges"...Generalized sexual dysfunction can occur.

If a male lives a life without the option of sexual gratification he may feel as if his rather significant loss is being minimized by accusations of whining when he expresses dismay at the procedure he feels caused that loss.

The truth is that NOBODY should have to live with having their sexuality taken from them either deliberately or through error. The end result it traumatic in both cases. GFM is widespread in some areas and needs to be stopped. The occasional complications with circumcisions and the consequences a man faces as a result need to be taken more seriously when considering the sometimes unnecessary circumcision procedure.

[Devil_Fish]

146. Every Circ has "complications that also affects the glans sensitivity or general penis function"

from: http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Many people think circumcision removes nothing more than a little extra skin. The truth is that circumcision removes several critical components of male sexual anatomy. This list enumerates everything currently known to be lost when one is circumcised.

(Snip) (what irony)

The foreskin comprises roughly 50% (and sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches - the size of a three-by-five index card. This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (also called keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds.

(So yes, ever circ affects the sensitivity of the glan not just a few)

Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development. Additionally, an infant's self-confidence and hardiness is diminished by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of "learned helplessness" or
"acquired passivity" to cope with the excruciating pain which he can
neither fight nor flee. The trauma of this early pain lowers a circumcised boy's pain threshold below that of intact boys and girls.

Every year some boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infections. They are then "sexually reassigned" by castration and transgender surgery, and are expected to live their lives as females.




• Every year many boys in the United States and elsewhere lose their lives as a result of circumcision - a fact that is routinely ignored or obscured.


This from: http://www.norm.org/lost.html

[FedUpWithIt All]

150. You are preaching to the choir. I did a lot of research when my son was born.

But we need to be honest here, the foreskin is NOT in most cases necessary for sexual response or function. This is necessary to point out since you are responding to my post which was dealing with the the differences between FGM and circ. FMG is NOT, i repeat NOT the same thing as a circumcision. The PHYSICAL outcome (inability to have normal sexual response) can be found in a few cases after a circumcision, whereas it is eliminated in all FGM cases. That is the point of FGM.

I was in a long term relationship with someone who was uncircumcised. I am AWARE of the function or a foreskin. I am now in a relationship with someone who is uncircumcised. Both men were/are very content with the state of their bodies. Both men have healthy sexual function. Neither one of these men is less responsive, if you will, due to the presence or lack of a foreskin. This would lead one to the conclusion that the foreskin (keep in mind that i do NOT support the cutting of infants) is not contributing to a large sensory difference in MOST circumstances.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107101013.htm

There are differing opinions about the sensitivity benefits and drawbacks of circumcision. Frankly i don't think anyone will ever be able to say with certainty whether one state or another is preferable as people only know what their own body feels like. I can guess at what it might feel like to have a penis but i would be disingenuous if i said i know for certain. It is the same with the circ. debate. Those with a foreskin either like it or not. Those without are either content with being cut or they are not. Those who are unhappy being uncut are the only ones who would or COULD change their situation. And even their experience is not a valid "voice or experience from both sides of the fence" because the hypersensitivity of late in life circ. is not consistent with the experience of infant circs.

We need to be realistic regarding the function of the foreskin if we want serious discussion about the subject. A foreskin does have a large number of nerve endings but they are a different kind of nerve than that in the penis glans. A man can have a very satisfactory sex life without a foreskin. Whether they should have a choice in the matter is an altogether different subject.

[Devil_Fish]

155. Again, thank you for giving your son the choice. That is more then most American men got.

It is not my comparison, but the notion that circumcision is "no big deal" that diminishes my argument.

[Doremus]

111. When they start performing circumcisions on 10yos by tying them down,

spreading their legs and cutting off their penis with a dirty razor then sewing their anus nearly shut,

THEN we can compare it with FGM.

Until such is the case, I'm glad to see you (somewhat reluctantly) admit there is no such comparison.

Thank you.

[Devil_Fish]

128. I never said there is no comparison. In fact think they are equally crewel

Please see the list:

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

It's a quite extensive list.

I only said I am willing to remove FGM from the argument.

I didn't Say there is no comparison. I question the legality of what can only be viewed as sexual discrimination.

Why is is legal to disfigure your child if it is a boy, but not a girl? I call sexual discrimination on this one.

Un-necessary surgery on infants should be illegal.

[Doremus]

136. Equally cruel? I'll say this as plainly as I can: You are full of it.

Your argument would have more credibility if you didn't try to make the ridiculous assertion that a procedure performed under anesthesia by trained, licensed professionals in a sterile setting on an infant who will retain neither 1) any memory of the event, nor 2) any debilitating after effects

is "equally cruel" to

A procedure performed on an older child laying on the dirty ground WITHOUT ANESTHESIA, under duress, with filthy razors wielded by an untrained, unlicensed hack which will subject the child to a lifetime of debilitating pain and dysfunction, physically and emotionally.


In fact, the assertion is so ridiculous as to diminish your entire premise to little more than the latest histrionic outburst from the neighborhood drama queen.

[Touchdown]

138. "Any debilitating after effects"

So you think. You can easily find out what is lost in this thread alone, so I won't bother repeating what you refuse to believe.

Sterile or not, cutting off a healthy part of anyone's sexual organs is cruel. Yes, one is more, MUCH more dangerous to life that the other, and MUCH more demeaning to the victim, but just because one is performed asceptically in the modern "Greatest country in the world" doesn't make it any less barbaric. Amputation of healthy tissue is a human rights violation, whether you think it's "for his own good" or not.

[Devil_Fish]

143. I assume you have intact genitalia (lucky you). I do not. Your assumption that I don't remember,

and clams that it is fine to mutilate a male's genitals with out consent but not a females is completely hypocritical.

If FGM was done under anesthesia with a clean razor by a doctor, and the clitoris was not completely removed, would that make it ok as long as it was an infant?

All or nothing. If it can be legally done to a boy baby, why not a girl baby? freedom of religion right? what if a tribal African girl moves to this country before she can be mutilated, then the parents want the procedure done before she is say two years old (not old enough to remember it)Would FGM then be ok with you?

I'll go out on a limb and assume you said no. so then I ask why is it ok for a baby boy to be physically and emotionally scared for the rest of his life.

they are both un-necessary surgery preformed with out the consent of the victim. They should both be a crime, or neither should. Any thing else is sexist.

[FedUpWithIt All]

152. You are NOT speaking of comparable anatomical parts.

You seem to refuse to accept this point and frankly it lessens the validity of your argument. There IS an argument to be made against circumcision but you are going about it the WRONG WAY. There is no need to try and manipulate an apples and oranges comparison in an effort to attach circumcision to a heinous act (FGM) as a way to garner support for the anticirc. argument. It is proving counterproductive and your insistence in continuing it is upsetting even those of us who might otherwise see your point of view.

I am against circumcision. PERIOD. But i am beginning to take GREAT offense to your repeated insistence that FGM and circumcision are comparable while you completely disregard the evidence to the contrary.

For a female to physically have a similar surgery to a circ. she would have her clitoral hood or labia removed.

For a male to have a physically similar surgery to FGM he would have to have the foreskin removed and THEN the entire tip of his penis cut off. In some cases he would also have to have an orifice (the lips on the mouth would be the most comparable tissue) sewed shut so that another can later tear out the stitches with a thrusting action of a solid object.

For a woman to have an emotionally similar procedure to a common male circ. she would have her clitoral hood/labia removed as an infant under sterile conditions by a medical professional because her parents think it is cosmetically more appealing or hygienic.

For a male to have an emotionally similar experience to a common FGM he would have a non-sterile surgery forcefully done in a non-medical setting by various shouting family and non-family members, at pre-puberty because the parents do not want him to enjoy sex.

[Devil_Fish]

154. So would it be ok to have the clitoral hood/labia removed from your infant? NT

[FedUpWithIt All]

158. OMG! Do you read? I did not have the foreskin removed from my son because i am against it.

Get a grip, for real.

Because i am against it, i would not have the labia/hood removed from my daughters.

Now if you would like to frame this same question to those in support of circumcision you would have a stronger argument than the ones you have been making for days comparing FGM and circ because this current question actually points out a legitimate comparison.

[Devil_Fish]

214. Watch the video at www.nocirc.org

there is a video at www.nocirc.org

in the video there is an woman from Somalia who is a victim of FGM. she says that when she came to the states and related what was done to her people were appalled, as they should be. she was shocked to find out that MGM on infants was commonplace and said that the procedure was comparable. I am willing to accept the word of an FGM victim that the two procedures are comparable.

[FedUpWithIt All]

217. It is clear that you are too self consumed for me to be able to communicate with you any further.

I am sorry that you feel that your "suffering" allows you to disregard anything (facts) that does not further your claims to said suffering. I am not quite sure if you are more angry you had been circumcised or that woman have the gall to consider their sexual anatomy comparable in value and function to that of a male.

Good luck to you and your "cause", whatever that may be.

[Devil_Fish]

221. I'm upset that the choice was not mine.

I am not quite sure if you are more angry HGM occurs with out concent of the victim, or that a man has the gall to consider their sexual anatomy comparable in value and function to that of a female.

[Jamastiene]

176. I think you missed the point.

That poster is against circumcision.

[Eryemil]

188. It's not quite that simple

From my very long post below:

"Male circumcision does NOT simply equate to the removal of the clitoral hood in females. The foreskin is comprised of 15 Square Inches of erogenous tissue, containing 20,000 nerve endings. (the glans has around 4000 while the clitoris has 8000) Tit for tat, both the clitoris and clitoral hood along with the labia could be amputated and still not remove as much as is lost when a male is circumcised in terms of nerve endings and surface area. In the practical sense of course, the fact that females have so much less erogenous tissue actually makes it so that the removal of the clitoris has a higher impact on female sexuality."

[FedUpWithIt All]

194. The tissue in the foreskin does not have the same type of nerve endings as

the glans. Ask ANY uncut man which they would prefer having removed. The tip of their penis or their foreskin. I would wager you would never get the foreskin answer...EVER.

"Tit for tat, both the clitoris and clitoral hood along with the labia could be amputated and still not remove as much as is lost when a male is circumcised in terms of nerve endings and surface area."

This is disingenuous. That is like saying that removing the surface skin of a person's stomach is comparable to removing a man's whole penis because spread out they may equal the same size and therefore nerve endings. Not quite. But it matters little. Men will continue to insist that woman in some way are inferior to them sexually.

Just so we are clear....

The clitoral glans is highly sensitive, containing

as many nerve endings

as the analogous organ in males, the glans penis

as per Masters, Johnson, William and Virginia (1988)

In this case SIZE doesn't matter. There are just as many nerve endings in the small visible TIP of the clitoris.

The clitoris is a 1 to 2 inch long organ that internally splits and is just below the surface of the skin below the labia. The commonly understood part of the clitoris is the head or glans of the clitoris and is the most sexually responsive part. The length of tissue below the surface is responsive to the movement of the labia, which is in it's own right highly sensitive tissue, and the clitoral hood.

[Eryemil]

209. Now who's being disingenuous ?

"That is like saying that removing the surface skin of a person's stomach is comparable to removing a man's whole penis because spread out they may equal the same size and therefore nerve endings."

Except that the foreskin is not just 'skin'. The 20,000 nerve endings in it are very much sexually responsive, specially those around the ridged band and frenulum. In fact, the frenulum is the single most sensitive part of the penis to the point that even when removed during circumcision the area remains the most sensitive in a cut man.

You are very much right by the way, without taking into account the clitoral hood both the glans penis and glans clitoris have about the same amount of sexually receptive nerve endings. The whole organ actually comes out ahead over the circumcised glans.

"Ask ANY uncut man which they would prefer having removed. The tip of their penis or their foreskin."
Without taking into account that removing the glans would structurally destroy the penis; (which you obviously didn't) if the choice was between two glandes, the one we are born with and one fashioned to have the very same nerves as the foreskin and frenulum there would be no difference. In fact, given the way nerves are arranged on the glans it might actually be advantageous.

You've also, from what I've read so far in your posts fail to make a distinction between all the forms of FMG.
Guess what? Not all of them include the amputation of the clitoris itself. Yet as I keep saying over and over they are all illegal in the US and here in Canada, just as long as they are performed on girls of course. Any sort of harmful procedure upon a girls genitals is illegal and you are bitching about male sexual privilege? Get a little perspective please.
Why the fuck are daughters entitled to healthy genitals and not sons?

[FedUpWithIt All]

216. Of course you have read where i state that my soon to be one year old son's foreskin IS INTACT.

I think ALL children should have their sexual organs left intact. I am completely against infant circ...PERIOD. How many sons do you have? Have you been handed the decision over the sexual future of another human being? I am content with my decision to allow him to decide what is best for himself regarding such an important aspect of his life....
And i will still call bullshit on anyone who tries to disparage the incredible abuse done to females when any form of FGM is performed.

I also have three daughters. I can tell you as a woman and as a responsible parent that i would be just as opposed to infant surgery on them for any cosmetic reason as i was when faced with circ. for my son.

I do not give a rat's ass if you are only capable of caring about the females in the US and Canada. The female children in ALL parts of the world should not suffer the outrageous abuse that goes along with ANY form of FGM. I do NOT think any MALE child should either. I realize we are speaking about the almighty penis on this board but it should not prevent basic reading comprehension.

I will fight the insinuation that the genitals of females are some generic throw away, useless tissue compared to the (angels singing)

foreskin

I realize that it is difficult for SOME people to see past themselves (penis) and the things that affect them (penis) so i will withdraw myself now.

Good luck to all here who think they are changing ANYTHING regarding infant male circumcision with their insistence that all suffering is secondary to their own. The rest of us will simply change the minds of those around us by living what we believe. We realize this battle can be fought without diminishing the worth or suffering of others.

[Devil_Fish]

149. Watch this video and tell me at what point anesthesia is administered

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8212662920114237112&hl=en

Tell me if you sense any duress on the part of the victim.

I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply.

[Devil_Fish]

156. answering my own question...

It was a topical anesthesia. applied before the Clamps are applied. Notice how effective this anesthesia is as the first clamp is applied...

[Crunchy Frog]

163. To be fair, I'm pretty sure the doctor was lying,

and that there was no anesthetic at all.

[motocicleta]

223. Anesthesia?

Are you high? They don't use anesthesia when they chop off some amount of penis, ranging from hood to the big lebowski. For nothing. It's not FGM, but it's damn sure mutilation. For nothing.

Thanks for supporting the status quo. Sheep.

[Touchdown]

134. They do that in S. Africa all the time. With Machetes.

Some die because of it. Where's your outrage and crying for them?

[Jamastiene]

175. Mother Nature put that skin there for a reason.

That is the basic bottom line. On that, we agree.

Let's not go there on the pedophilia and rape though. Children have had their pelvis broken and many other horrible physical scars due to rape/pedophilia. The other analogies you made (toes, lungs) were fine, but the rape comparison is out of line and not a good example to back up your point.

[Devil_Fish]

215. What about Sexual assault of a minor? I am considering pressing this charge against the doc that

circumcised me. And if my new born is some how "accidental" circumcised, I will press those charges against the perpetrator and the medical establishment along with malpractice.

[Crunchy Frog]

224. If my soon to be born twins are "accidentally" circumcised

the perpetrator will be nursing a bullet wound to the crotch. Unfortunately, the medical system in this country seems to be such that they can pretty much get away with any form of assault.

[RCinBrooklyn]

43. Why the hell not? Society is advocating male gential mutilation. Get off your high horse.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

72. Get off yours.

Surely you can argue against circumcision without resorting to comparing it to a far more brutal and invasive procedure, can't you?

Perhaps a sort of Godwin's Law covering this issue is in order. :shrug:

[Touchdown]

89. So it's a contest with you.

Women have to be bigger victims than men, and that universal truth cannot be derailed.

What a load of bullshit.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

94. More MRA claptrap. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

97. Interesting comment from a veterinarian on another site:

As a veterinarian, I don't have to deal with this issue at all, but it is interesting that I almost never have anyone object to spaying their female dog, but I do have occasional clients who will refuse to have their male dog neutered. These are not people who want to breed their male dogs, they just think castrating a male dog is "cruel" while they do not blink at a more painful and invasive spay on their female dog. I have no intention of asking what these people think about circumcision, but it makes me wonder if I am seeing another facet of the same piece of society that is horrified by male circumcision. There is not really any way to predict who these clients are-I have had people of both sexes and mutiple races/economic classes object to neutering in this way.

:shrug:

[Scout]

107. probably these are the guys who hang the fake balls from their trucks! ;) n/t

[Jamastiene]

177. There are also prosthetic balls available to owners

of neutered male dogs. I shit you not. I saw it on DU, a long time ago, if I am not mistaken.

[Devil_Fish]

148. This is not about dogs. NT

[Scout]

197. interesting to explore men's attitudes about "down there" even when

"down there" is on their dog...

;)

[Eryemil]

171. There are many things that fall under the label of 'FGM'

There are four types of injury that wall into what is classified as "FGM". Some are roughly equivalent to male circumcision, some are much worse and some are less severe. They are ALL illegal in the United States.

Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).

Type II — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision).

Type III — Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation).

Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

Even the milder forms are all illegal in the US and here in Canada. Why do we not protect your baby boys as we protect your girls?

Also:

Circumcised Male Penis: 4,000 nerve endings
Female Clitoris: 8,000 nerve endings
Male Foreskin: 20,000 nerve endings
Intact Male Penis: 24,000 nerve endings

[Devil_Fish]

213. I just watched a video at www.nocirc.org

I just watched a video at www.nocirc.org In this video, which I recomend any one expecting a new born watch, there is a woman from Solmalia who is a victim of FGM. She states that when she came to this country and related what was done to her, people were appaled, as they rightly should be, however she witnissed a Circ procedure on an infant and found the two procedures comparible. So I think I'll take the word of another GM victim over yours. You attempt to diminish the pain I went through at one day old and the suffering that I have and will go through the rest of my life by compairing it to a vacination and saying I am just trying to get attention is heartless.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Foreskin envy?

[Touchdown]

66. huh huh! Your name is Stubbs!

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. You resent your parents for doing something that was commonplace and medically suggested, really?

Please tell me you resent them for something other than this. They probably gave you your vaccines also. If this is the only thing that you have to resent your parents for then you seriously need to get some counseling.

David

[Scout]

196. agree with you

may be the first/only time, but you are spot on here!

:hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

218. Thanks.

You'll be surprised how many times you'll agree with me. Nice to find some common ground on something though, eh.

David

[No Elephants]

131. Please don't resent your parents. At one point, no one was even talking about

alternatives to circumcision.

For better or worse, my son was not circumcised routinely at birth only bc he weighed on 5 lb 6 oz at birth and the blood loss was too risky. Otherwise, the ob/gyn would have snipped him as the default birthing procedures of a male.

When my son got heavier, the pediatrician gave me an article about leaving the foreskin intact. Quite revolutionary at the time. As I tried to decide, my FIL begged me to have it done before my son got any older. He had been in the military and had to have it done as an adult. (And he was a TOUGH guy who complained about nothing.) I also met a boy around 8 who had just had a circumcision and he went white as he talked about it.

Eventually, with much fear about the future, I decided against the circumcision, but it was not an easy choice.

For a time, I thought I was in the clear. Then, my son fell in love with a traditional Jewish woman and was going to convert, which would have required adult circumcision, albeit a lesser version than the baby bris. Oy vey! It seemed I'd done the wrong thing yet again and the guilt set in again.

Fortnately for me, and maybe for him, she went to Israel for a summer and met someone else there, which she told my son when he picked her up at the airport.

But, it's only bc he was born a few weeks early that any of this happened. Otherwise, it would have been done before I woke up.

[Devil_Fish]

147. Thank you so much for letting your son make the choice.

weather he does it or not should be up to him regardless of age.

[No Elephants]

184. Yes, but I could not have let him make the choice unless I first had the choice. I got the

choice purely by accident, namely, a combo of my son's low birth weight, followed by stumbling on a highly unconventional pediatrician (for his day).

Also, it was a very hard decision for me. I worried A LOT that I might be dooming my son to very painful adult circumcision, as my FIL had to have in the military. My FIL was begging me to have it done to protect my infant son in the future. And my FIL was drafted when he was almost 30, so he had known both alternatives.

I am trying to say that your parents may not have had a choice. And, if they did, they were probably totally convinced that they were doing the only medically correct thing. That was what almost everyone was saying back then.

I am sorry about what happened to you, but please don't resent your parents. Lord knows, we want the best for our kids. We try so hard, and we feel guilty about everything anyway.

The medical profession of those days would probably be a much more accurate target than your parents.

[Jamastiene]

173. If I ever have a baby boy, I plan on leaving him intact too.

My aunt and I have already had huge arguments about it. She believes circumcision should be mandatory. I don't. She knows how I feel about it.

[Devil_Fish]

222. The choice should be his to make. NT

[Touchdown]

14. Hygiene? You have a problem playing with your cock in the shower?

How sad.

[closeupready]

40. Yeah, I've never understood that. Just pull the freaking foreskin back and wash the oil/sweat off.

What is so fucking hard about that???

[Fearless]

56. Well... sometimes it's "fucking hard"

:+


:rofl:


EDIT: Wow, is there an immaturity bug going around? Certainly I have it tonight. :rofl:

[closeupready]

59. True.

lol

[emilyg]

172. This nurse applauds you.

[Warpy]

5. Parents need to know the facts

about risks as well as benefits and decide for themselves, bearing in mind that little boys want to look like Daddy.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Has it actually been documented that little boys want to look like daddy?

I've seen that claim tossed around alot, but never seen any actual evidence supporting the claim. A couple of generations ago in this country, there were a whole lot of cut boys whose fathers were intact, and I'm wondering if there has been documented any long term trauma from that phenomenon.

In any event, my upcoming twins father is California Cryobank, so there shouldn't be any problems there. :)

[Devil_Fish]

8. The choice should belong to the child.

If my child is a girl should I get to decide what her body looks like, and what parts she gets to keep?

On edit: What if Daddy is un-cut?

[depakid]

10. My bet is that by the age of majority, most guys will be pleased to have had the decision made

Not sure many would want to go through what aboriginal men in Australia do-

http://www.ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_init_top/index.htm

States vary in the age of majority for medical decision making. In some cases, kids are sexually active and potentialy exposed to STD's well before then.

[Devil_Fish]

31. Specific age will not stop me from educating my child and honoring his choice. NT

[Radical Activist]

162. Or upset that the decision was made.

Once I became an adult and learned about it I was not at all happy to have the decision made for me and there's nothing I can do to change it now.

[Warpy]

78. The operation on infants is not a drastic one

It is on adults.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. This video gives some idea of how non-drastic it is.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8212662920114237112&hl=en

[Warpy]

113. Thanks, sweetie, but I was a nurse for many years

and I know all about it. Your little video comes with suitably hysterical commentary, I'm sure, but I'll skip it.

The bottom line is that it's not your choice or mine. It's up to parents to decide whether or not to have this done.

[Crunchy Frog]

114. Yeah, but most of the people on here haven't been.

I was posting it more for their benefit.

And actually, it is my choice, as I'm about to have twin boys. I've personally found this type of material very helpful in making my decision.

[GinaMaria]

109. I saw an infant pass out from the pain

It was the only circ I've ever witnessed. As an after thought the doc said 'give him some tylenol'. It really made me think about circ. More and more parents are thinking about it and making more thoughtful decisions, either way they decide.

I think the misunderstanding about Children's pain is a carry over from long ago held beliefs about neuro function not being fully developed. We also know a bit more about pain control and pediatric patients now.

At this same hospital I saw a mother pass out from pain when the doc didn't want to wait for the anesthesia to kick in before cutting a woman open for a c-section.

Both of these were part of my nurses training. I still can't shake the images 25 years later.

[Warpy]

112. First, they're now using topical anesthesia

mostly as a result of having nurses like me get up in their faces about it.

Second, pain transmission in infants is not the same as it is in adults. See: cephalocaudal myelin development to find out why.

Any doc who doesn't assess anesthesia before cutting anything should be written up. I did it. Did you?

[GinaMaria]

120. I was student and brought it to my instructor

both incidents... Those were some of my first clinical experiences. While practicing, I never saw anything like that, but I was careful where I worked.

[Nikia]

116. My infant son was circumcised on his second day

He cried when his legs were restrained, but not from the procedure. They used a topical anestetic. My husband, who is happy to be circumcised, thought that he should have it done.

[GinaMaria]

121. Glad they are using topical anesthetic

I've never seen a circ since that one... no reason to.

[Touchdown]

139. So what? It's his body. His property. His basic human right.

Parental decisions on taking pinking shears to a healthy body part "so he can look like Daddy" or any other BS reason, including hygene, should be outlawed. Parents are only the stewards of the boy until he reaches the age on maturity. Not the owners.

Whether it's less painful on an infant than an adult (and how would you know that, unless the infant can write and speak of his experience), is beside the point. It shouldn't be done on a healthy foreskin in the first place. The procedure should only be done if the foreskin is diseased, damaged, or cancerous. Any other reason, and the doctors that perform circ are violating their oaths of "First, do no harm", and the nurses who assist are aiding and abetting butchers.

[Radical Activist]

205. The affects on adults are permanent and drastic

even if it's performed as an infant.

[Touchdown]

18. I've never seen my Daddy's dick. What was your home life like?

:crazy:

[Kittycat]

61. ...

:rofl:
Apparently the poster thinks everyone grows up in nudist colonies.

[Warpy]

77. About like everybody else's

plus I bathed him during his final illness.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hvn_nbr_2]

210. Well, I saw my Dad's dick a couple times and my home life wasn't perverted.

We changed clothes into swim trunks in a locker room at the shore. Being a curious boy, I glanced. No big deal. I saw lots of dicks in locker rooms at high school and dormitory bathrooms at college. Seeing a dick is not a strange or alien or perverted experience.

[Kittycat]

60. Wow, someone should tell my little boys that - because I'm pretty sure they could care less

when it comes to penis similarities. Because you know - my husband just wanders around the house let the pony swing free in front of my kids. :eyes:

[shanti]

81. actually

the little boys have no say in the matter. it's the daddies wanting their sons to look like them.

[Radical Activist]

160. I don't remember ever looking at my dad's penis.

Ever. I wonder about those who have. In what context?

[Crunchy Frog]

165. I think it's a James Dobson thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4307241&mesg_id=4307241

[Radical Activist]

168. holeee sheeet

the guy is nuts.

[Scout]

198. 'cuz boy children never bathe or shower with their dad, and they never see him

in the bathroom taking a pee.....

:eyes:

[originalpckelly]

13. PICARD FACEPALM

[Devil_Fish]

19. That made me LOL

Thanks

[Radical Activist]

161. awesome

[Fearless]

17. Curbing HIV? How about free condoms?

[depakid]

20. No question that's an important public health measure, too

and perhaps one that's been made just a bit easier with the repeal of the global gag rule.

Even so, you're still going to run into all sorts of resistence- not just from people who ought to be using them- but also from religous institutions and other moralizers, who seem to think its the equivalent of needle exchange (which is another important, yet under utilized public health measure)

[Fearless]

21. The only problem I have is that circumcision does not prevent HIV infection.

It may be self-defeating.

[depakid]

26. No, but extensive research shows efficacy rates not too far below some vaccines

so there's a very strong protective effect associated with male circumcision.

So strong in fact, that at least one of the major studies had to be discontinued, because it was no longer ethical not to treat the control groups.

[Devil_Fish]

27. At least they were given the choice.

If they choose it, great. to impose it on a baby is what I have a problem with.

[depakid]

30. Sounds a lot like an anti-vaccine sort of rationalization

[Devil_Fish]

37. It does as a matter of fact. Why give expencive vaccine when you can just chop some skin off. NT

[Kittycat]

62. Sure - who needs a truly functional penis anyway. Right?

:crazy:

[Fearless]

54. No, it sounds like involuntary mutilation.

[Fearless]

53. HIV vaccines?? WTF?

[Touchdown]

28. And yet, that much touted Africa study is being seriously questioned.

More confounding evidence weakens conclusions of African circumcision RCTs

tatistics were collected on circumcision status in men because "cell-mediated" refers to immunity responses at the cellular level where HIV first challenges or enters the body. Foreskins or lack of them clearly are implicated.

It has been pointed out that whatever the objective of this study, certain characteristics of the subjects point to a couple of important points. Table 4 appears to show uncircumcised men in the placebo arm were significantly LESS likely to contract incident HIV infections (1.4% to 4.2% per year). Whereas, in vaccine recipients, uncircumcised men had modestly (non-significantly) higher HIV incidence.

Also, people who were uncircumcised were significantly more likely to have higher immune response to Ad5 (see table 1). Does this suggest that circumcision has an impact on immune response to Ad5 and maybe to other pathogens? If so, this might point to some immune benefits with an intact foreskin -- for responding to HIV as well as other pathogens.

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2008/12/more-confounding-evidence-weakens-conclusions-of-african-circumcision-rcts.html

Statistically...

HIV diagnoses in Israel climb; new cases among gays up sharply

Data from the Israel AIDS Taskforce indicates that at the end of 2007 the number of HIV positive people in Israel was about 5,300, according to Health Ministry data. The non-profit organization believes that there is an equal number of undiagnosed cases. It says that most new infections in Israel appear to result from HIV positive people who are unaware they are infected and are not receiving treatment.

The Taskforce also says the number of HIV cases in Israel has increased about 50 percent since 2004 and that the state's NIS 40,000 annual budget for education and prevention of AIDS is insufficient. It says most public-awareness efforts are handled by the Taskforce itself.

Health Ministry officials yesterday rejected the claims, saying that the Taskforce refuses to cooperate "for non-germane reasons," and that the ministry allocates substantial funds for the war on AIDS.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996706.html

...and these "Doctors" are racially targeting American black men.


Usual circumcision suspects hone in on new target: US minorities

In a renewed effort to justify routine neonatal circumcision in the US, American circumcisionist Lee Warner, and colleagues at the CDC, examined the clinical records of more than 40,000 African American attendees at a Baltimore STD clinic who were tested between 1993 and 2000. Of those 40,000, about 400 were identified as being at high risk for contracting HIV because they were known or believed to have had sex with an HIV+ partner. Based on this highly selective subset of subjects, the researchers found that intact men were roughly 50% more likely to carry HIV. The study is to be published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome The Journal of Infectious Diseases.

However, in what is sure to be the greatest story never told, across the entire cohort of 40,000, no significant difference was found between intact and circumcised men. The two groups carried HIV at the rate of 3.3% vs 2.5%, respectively, a non-statistically meaningful difference. In a separate editorial, another notorious promoter of circumcision, Ronald Gray, stated his hopes that the American Academy of Pediatrics might reconsider its neutral position on neonatal circumcision based on this research.

Medicaid currently does not provide coverage for this practice in at least 16 states (AZ, CA, FL, ID, LA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NV, OR, UT, WA). According to Gray, poor minorities, who are most at risk and least able to afford private circumcision, are losing out although numerically poor whites make up the majority of Medicaid recipients in the United States.

The ethical path would exclude neonatal circumcision because neonates are not at risk sexually. Adults can decide for themselves, of course, based on their own review of the evidence and with their informed consent. Obviously, the only danger in this is that if you give a man a choice after he's had a chance to use it, he may choose to keep his foreskin, and take other precautions against STDs, including HIV.


http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2008/12/and-here-we-go-again.html

[depakid]

48. Most objective public health researchers and officials accept the results

of the various studies- which along with the clinical pathways of infection, have been reveiwed and critically analyzed for several years.

Whether adult circumcision is practical in terms of large scale interventions is another matter- and subject to a bit more argument.

[Touchdown]

65. And where are the followups?

See my post below. Auvert has moved on to HPV, for which a vaccine has already on the market, but that doesn't stop him from advocating circumcision.

This study took place and was hastily halted, presumably for ethical reasons, but it's also assumed that they just got the results they wanted, more than 3 years ago. However, as with any RCT study, it is essential that follow ups to the subject are made, so that these conclusions can be confirmed long term.

To date, none has been made public.

You should've changed you username. I recognize you from the numerous other threads you and I sparred on this issue, and this increasingly discredited study. I have to say science, and your proclaimed love of it, is very suspect, when cutting apart penises seems to be the extent of your scientific interest.;)

And as we've seen with Bush's appointments, Public health researchers and officials are anything but objective. Especially when they would have to admit that what was done to them on such a personal, and manliness-questioning procedure, colors their opinions. Bottom line, It's hard to admit you've been diminished sexually.

[depakid]

67. Run a search on pub med

using search terms like "HIV" AND "circumcision"

551 peer reviewed results worldwide.

btw: studies show evidence for a protective effect against other STD's as well.

[Touchdown]

69. I did and they don't. No follow ups at all.

Now, you do a search on the biography of Bertran Auvert. The leader of this Africa RCT study. If you think his motives are not suspect, then you should also believe Bill O'Reilly always tells the truth.

Also Google "Auvert Study+Questions", "Auvert Study+ethics", and Auvert Study+critiques. Many of his peers disagree with him, quite a bit.

And those studies on other STDs are inconclusive. You must be getting your data from only pro-circumcision sources.

[depakid]

74. I'll stick with the science

and avoid the emotional involvement or the conspiracy theories- as the World Health Organization does.

http://search.who.int/search?ie=utf8&site=default_collection&client=WHO&proxystylesheet=WHO&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8&q=circumcision&Search=Search

[Touchdown]

76. I bet you will

Whatever you call science.:eyes:

You couldn't think of any different way to call me names than what you already called me 2 years ago? "Conspriacy Theorist" is so November 2004. Come on. A scientifically interested "objective" bag full of impartial integrity like you can be more creative in his name calling.;)

[Devil_Fish]

84. Chop off the whole thing and you will see a drop in STD's as well. NT

[erebusman]

35. that dr might want to read this study then

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/


Circumcision and HIV infection: review of
the literature and meta-analysis
R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic, Lakeland Center, USA

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

Keywords: Circumcision, HIV, risk factors for HIV infection, meta-analysis

[depakid]

64. January 1999. at least 5 years before results from the current set of studies was published.

Misconceptions die hard....

[Touchdown]

44. This worldwide conjecture is based on the Auvert Africa Study.

Since DU has a long history of holding suspect any story that purports to push an agenda, when these things are written by people who are known right wing propagandists, it's only fair to take a close look at what motivates such a doctor, and the history of his rather questionable studies. With that in mind, I now present...

Professor Bertran Auvert.
Professor of Public Health. He studied mathematics before becoming a medical doctor and has a PhD. He lectures on epidemiology, biostatistics and information science at the Paris - Ile-de-France - Ouest medical school of the University of Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines (France).

He's since moved on...


Monday, 19 January 2009 Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University of Versailles, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité 687, France.
National Institute for Communicable Diseases and Progressus, Johannesburg, South Africa.
A causal association links high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) and cervical cancer, which is a major public health problem. The objective of the present study was to investigate the association between male circumcision (MC) and the prevalence of HR-HPV among young men.
We used data from a MC trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa, among men aged 18-24 years. Urethral swab samples were collected during a period of 262 consecutive days from participants in the intervention (circumcised) and control (uncircumcised) groups who were reporting for a scheduled follow-up visit. Swab samples were analyzed using polymerase chain reaction. HR-HPV prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) were assessed using univariate and multivariate log Poisson regression.
In an intention-to-treat analysis, the prevalences of HR-HPV among the intervention and control groups were 14.8% (94/637) and 22.3% (140/627), respectively, with a PRR of 0.66 (0.51-0.86) (). Controlling for propensity score and confounders (ethnic group, age, education, sexual behavior , marital status, and human immunodeficiency virus status) had no effect on the results.
This is the first randomized controlled trial to show a reduction in the prevalence of urethral HR-HPV infection after MC. This finding explains why women with circumcised partners are at a lower risk of cervical cancer than other women. Trial registration.
Written by:
Auvert B, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Cutler E, Nieuwoudt M, Lissouba P, Puren A, Taljaard D.

The man's an advocate, and automatically suspect in any "research" he does where the only conclusion he can come to is the same...Universal neo-natal circumcision.

[ikri]

104. I'll give you my foreskin when you take it from my cold, dead hands!

There's no non-medical reason to cut off any part of your anatomy.

I never understood the whole "wants to look like daddy" bit either. My father is circumcised, I'm not. I can't say I ever even thought about it.

Want to help prevent the spread of HIV? Try educating people to use condoms instead, rumour has it that it can reduce pregnancy rates too!

[Lucian]

167. No shit.

Want to prevent the spread of AIDS? Throw on a fucking condom or practice abstinence. Don't hack off a part of the male anatomy.

[and-justice-for-all]

123. This sounds like junk science to me...

there are no proven health benefits to being circumcised nor will is make one less prone to STDs.

[depakid]

124. The evidence is compelling

if you bother to read it....

[TLCTugger]

126. The evidence is VERY weak

The evidence is VERY weak if you bother to read it.

However it hardly matters. The most important thing to know is that infants are not at risk of sexually transmited HIV.

Also, most of the half-million US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.

Even if the non-double-blinded non-placebo-controlled widely-criticized Africa reports by long-time circumcision justifiers are true, circumcision INCREASED a woman's risk of contracting HIV, and condoms are 95 times as cost effective as circumcising at fighting AIDS in Africa.

I invite anyone who feels protected by circumcising to plunge a circumcised member bareback into a known HIV+ partner and let me know how you're doing in a year.

-Ron

[Touchdown]

137. It's important for people to know what this study actually concludes.

The Auvert study done in Africa measured only this...

The likelihood of a male contracting HIV from a female. It does not measure the other way around. No females, or male passive partners are protected, even somewhat, from contracting HIV from circumcised men. This does nothing to protect women, or passive role gay men.

The 51% statistic bandied about is misleading. Here is the actual numbers.
Circ'd men had a 1.6% (16 in 1000%) chance of contracting HIV from women. Normal men had a 3.4% chance, or a 34 in 1000 chance.

There are also problems with the study itself.
To date, there have been no follow ups to the original study subjects. Have the numbers changed? Are they closer 3 years later than they were in 2005? Nobody knows, because there's no follow up. A good question for anyone who is interested in the science is to ask why.

The study was stopped early. Was the reason given the real reason? Do you believe the 9/11 commission report? The stated reason was it was "dangerous to continue" considering the "compelling evidence". Another possibility is that they got the results they wanted, and stopped it early in case the full study results proved nothing, and so they could be famous by marketing this "breakthrough" research with an unprecedented lobbying effort, which is exactly what they did.

As this and other discussions on just this board have shown, this is a highly emotional issue, colored with religious traditions, political, and profit motive justifications as well. Any science or pseudo science is bound to make good news copy. So a discovery such as this one, whether it gets debunked or not is bound to get overplayed by the media, and by others with a political or religious reason for touting it. Circumcisions supposed cures medical "breakthroughs" are always the blonde missing girl, or shark attack stories in the scientific press. While others, such as the HPV vaccine, are relegated to the level of The Downing Street Memos.

[CB2009]

141. About 7% of males who get AIDS get it from hetero sex in the U.S.

According to the CDC only about 7% of males who gets AIDS in the U.S. get it from hetero sex. Most get it from drug needles and homo sex. So circumcisions couldn't possibly make much of a difference in AIDS rates in the U.S. because the vast majority of males who get AIDS don't get it from hetero sex.

According to the CDC the U.S. has the highest rates of STD's of any industrialized country in the world. Also the U.S. has the highest AIDS rate of any industrialized country in the world. But in most industrialized countries near 0% of males are circumcised. So if circumcisions decrease the number of males getting AIDS then why does the U.S. have the highest AIDS rate of any industrialized country in the world?

Studies showing that circumcisions decrease the likelihood of males getting AIDS don't prove anything because there are also many studies that show circumcisions increase the likelihood of males getting AIDS or that circumcisions neither decrease or increase the likelihood of males getting AIDS. For example a couple years ago the CDC did an AIDS-circumcision study in the U.S., the CDC reported that according to their study U.S. men are just as likely to become HIV infected if they are circumcised or not.

[depakid]

144. Of course- there is more than one study and data set

and as mentioned before- many 100's of peer reviewed articles from objective sources around the world analyzing them.

Not that any of that will be persuasive to someone so obsessed- but that's what physicians, public health researchers and officials around the world- as well as NGO's in the field consider in formulating their strategies and responses to HIV and other STD's.

[Chan790]

164. You're ignoring or unaware...

that there is no consensus for this conclusion among public health officials domestically or internationally and the issue is so muddied that even the WHO, based on their own studies, refused to take a position.

Let me say that again for you...there is no consensus for this conclusion among the people you've cited as proving your conclusion.

[Touchdown]

225. So obsessed? Project much?

You are the crusader here. You have a history of pro-circ activism on this board. You have a shorn penis fetish here, not me. I want them to be left alone and that's all I want.

Saying your sources are objective doesn't mean they are.

[Lucian]

166. Circumcision is barbaric.

Nuff said.

I would love to sue the doctor that hacked off part of my penis. :grr:

[Writer]

169. OH MY FUCKING GOD! OH MY GODDAMNED FUCKING HELL!!! AAAAAAHHHHHH!

Wait...

Wait a minute, what's this argument about?

:shrug:

[mcctatas]

170. It might have something to do with the Olive Garden or Breast Feeding

it's hard to tell with all the yelling :P

[Jamastiene]

179. There be lots o' snipping going on in this thread

and I ain't talking about foreskins either. :P

:hide:

[Jamastiene]

178. According to one person upthread claiming to be a doctor or

some kind of medical "expert", the foreskin of a man is the same exact thing as a woman's clitoris.

Methinks somebody missed a few weeks of anatomy classes in college. :beer:

In any case, what a train wreck of a thread.
:popcorn:

[TZ]

200. I can sum up the anti-circ arguments here...

DON'T TOUCH MY PENIS!!!ACK!
Its not the same as female circumcision. Its a simple operation for a child. It DOES NOT affect sensation one way or another. And there is EVIDENCE that it can slow the spread of AIDS. That said its a choice up to individual people to make and I don't think screaming MUTILATION MUTILATION is gonna help. FWIW, all the men I know are circumcised and I've never heard them complain once about it..:shrug:

[Eryemil]

180. It is tragic how social conditioning can blind people to the obvious

Note: I'll be quoting some of my previous writing on the subject throughout the post.

Mu·ti·late
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Circumcised males and parents that circumcise their children balk at the use of the word 'mutilation' word to describe the procedure and with good reason. The implications of even considering the word are too distressing to even think about. I've seen it time and time again every time the subject of circumcision comes up among Americans. What man wants to even consider the fact that their parents might have done them irreparable harm, ignorantly or with the best of intentions? What parents wants to be confronted with the idea that they've done such a horrible thing to their child?

Nonetheless, the definition is spot on.


First of all, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to perform COSMETIC surgery of this kind on a newborn. Because that is all it is; medical reasons, despite decades of apologists trying to find proof otherwise remain scarce. Circumcision was first introduced in the US to prevent masturbation and from then on was used to treat everything from syphilis, bed-wetting, epilepsy, hernias, acne, and pretty much anything you can think of. The proverbial panacea.

Assuming these findings about AIDS are accurate (and I have many reasons to think they aren't: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html) circumcision would prove to be a good tool in curving the spread of HIV in places like Africa. This is of course, wholly irrelevant to us in the West.

First of all, if one looks at any map that indicates HIV prevalence:


Do you notice any patterns? The US has some of the highest rates of circumcision in the developed world and is more or less unique among western nations in this regard.
Yet HIV infection rates are actually higher than in Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Australia where circumcision is either negligible or nonexistent.
I would personally say that GPD per capita, wealth distribution, sex education, all which influence the use of condoms, are the actual relevant factors.

Wrap your cock; that's it. Whatever help circumcision might provide it would not make a difference in the developed world in terms of the current rate of infection.


Cleanliness is also not a valid reason, to even suggest such a thing is laughable.
One of the reasons advocates for female circumcision (more on this later) give to excuse the act is that it is cleaner; and it probably is. Females produce just as much smegma as males and have even more folds and flaps for stuff to fester in. I think the same applies to more or less any other part of body with similar properties. Bad breath mostly comes from the back of the tongue, where bacteria thrive and hygienic procedures do not reach as effectively; removing the tongue completely would greatly reduce bad breath.

Yet we do not resort to amputation to fix either female odours or bad breath. Instead we rely on modern sanitation practices.
Removing a part of of the body to keep it from becoming smelly is the proverbial case of cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

The same applies to infections. Yeast infections are suffered by the overwhelming majority of women at some point in their lives. We in the civilized West don't sew up their vaginas as babies to prevent this.


As I wrote in an earlier post: "There are four types of injury that wall into what is classified as "FGM". Some are roughly equivalent to male circumcision, some are much worse and some are less severe. They are ALL illegal in both the US and Canada"

Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).

Type II — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision).

Type III — Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation).

Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

Male circumcision does NOT simply equate to the removal of the clitoral hood in females. The foreskin is comprised of 15 Square Inches of erogenous tissue, containing 20,000 nerve endings. (the glans has around 4000 while the clitoris has 8000) Tit for tat, both the clitoris and clitoral hood along with the labia could be amputated and still not remove as much as is lost when a male is circumcised in terms of nerve endings and surface area. In the practical sense of course, the fact that females have so much less erogenous tissue actually makes it so that the removal of the clitoris has a higher impact on female sexuality.

Either way, under all fair assumptions males would still qualify for protection under two of those definitions. Why is it not given?
Is the health of our daughters somehow more important than that of our sons. Is their body more 'sacred' and worthy of protection?


So I have given a clue of what is actually lost during circumcision. What does this translate to?
From the British journal of Urology, some rather interesting data about penile sensitivity:






Men that get circumcised to treat phimosis (where the foreskin will not retract) will most likely experience more pleasure after being circumcised simply because the healthy gliding movement that exposes the sensitive inner mucosa and glans...



...is not present. Keep in mind also, that circumcision is not actually required to fix phimosis most of the time. In the majority of cases the foreskin can just be stretched gradually.


So why does a civilized nation insist on such a barbaric practice? A practice that can lead to death. That leaves so many men with scarred, dry, keritanized members with barely any mobile skin at all. That makes some unable to even achieve orgasm during oral sex and actual intercourse. That results in complications like skin bridges, adhesions, perforated urethae, and even bisection of the glans and actual loss of the penis itself? A procedure that is completely and utterly irreversible.
An intact child can grow up and choose to modify his genitals as he pleases, a circumcised one has no choice.


That animated image above shows function of a healthy penis. It requires no modifications, frills or whistles. The overwhelming majority of the time it is ready to go as is. It is not a cancer that must be removed or a vestigial organ.
It is part of our mammalian heritage. A feature we share with ALL other mammals. In this case, nature simply does not need to be improved upon.

[Guava Jelly]

181. And it makes'um purtier too

[Eryemil]

182. To whom?

Americans?

For the rest of us the glossy, healthy bubble-gum pink of an intact penis glans comes well ahead over the scarred, discolored and keratinized mess of a circumcised one.
Not to mention one actually tastes, smell and feels like an actual sexual organ instead of a sterile rubber toy.

[Guava Jelly]

183. To me.

I think uncircumcised doinks are ugly.
I would hate my parents if they didn't do it to me.
And I love my pretty cropped majestic schlong.

I don't buy the mutilation thing. I have lived 42 years without a pee pee beanie on and I am perfectly fine.
I don't wake up nightly in a puddle of urine screaming WHY!!!!! oh gawd MY pee pee!! sniff sniff.
Some people like it,some people don't.
If I was a gay man I certainly wouldn't step up to a covered mike.

[Eryemil]

185. You better like it, you're stuck with it!

You would have no choice about it even if you didn't like it so saying that you like it when wouldn't be able to change it doesn't mean much.
Therein lies the great difference between the two camps; choice.

The percentage of intact men, even in a culture that glorifies circumcision like the United States, that choose to to have themselves circumcised is very small. In Europe it is practically unheard of except in certain religious minorities, likewise in my country of birth. (Except we didn't even have the religious minorities)
I was horrified when I was first confronted with the concept as a child going to the US. All I could do is ask why, and here nine years later I am still asking why.

Oh and if you were a gay man you'd probably be all over the foreskin too, I'm afraid. American guys are obsessed with foreskin, they even have a porno niche for it. What to the rest of the world is business as usual the yank boys go crazy for.
As I've said I personally prefer intact men. They are much more sexually responsive, taste and smell better, can actually appreciate light foreplay not the mention the fact the the foreskin is a very erogenous zone in itself and adds quite a bit more to explore and play with.
And of course, there's the whole scarring thing. I don't really discriminate against cut guys, it's not like its their fault but the really prominent scars can be quite off-putting.
Also the inability to achieve orgasm through oral stimulation; but that might be getting a bit too graphic for this place.

[Guava Jelly]

186. The same goes for you

You would be thrilled to be circumcised if you were I must add.
As guy's we are pretty self-conscious about our little soldiers.All I can say is that if I hadn't been cropped and the other kids in Gym class were,I could have been ridiculed about it.
Kids can be cruel and look for any little difference to grasp on to.
I am so thankful that I was cropped.

As for the niche who prefers foreskin in the gay population. I am sure you are right.
Different things turn different people on. Have you seen two girls in a cup? :puke: or Japanese scat films..eeew.
As for the oral stimulation deal.The few time where i haven't been able to ejaculate were contributed to fatigue or to to much alcohol.

To each his bone..um I mean own.

[Eryemil]

187. You realize I could walk into a clinic tomorrow and have myself circumcised right?

"Kids can be cruel and look for any little difference to grasp on to."

Very true. In my case it was my sexuality.
And if I hadn't been gay it would have been something else. To grow up among other children is to endure some form of ridicule and you will most certainly not be spared from it so easily.
Not a very good reason to sexually cripple a man.

It's not a fringe fetish in the sense you imply. It is a sizable number of gay American males that prefer intact penises, quite interesting when the fact that there is not such a 'cut' niche in European porno is taken into account.

You attempts to compare the affinity to healthy genitals to an icky paraphilia is pretty hilarious though and more than a bit dishonest. It's like saying that a man that likes females with whole breasts is the same as a necrophile.

[Guava Jelly]

189. And I'm sorry for that

Kids can be jerks.

I know you can. I have a partially amputated right index finger that serves no function and I can have it removed as well.But I'm OK with it because I have had it for so long(Why spend the Money).
I still don't buy the Mutilation argument..Sorry..Never will

And I do want to apologize if it came off as men who prefer uncircumcised porn to be as freaky as guys who like watching girls defecate and consume poo in a cup.
It wasn't a good comparison.

As for dishonest.I would be dishonest if I came in this thread and praised uncircumcised penises when I truly think they are gross.
It's just me..Not everybody likes the same thing.
And Anyhoo I just like arguing about circumcision because I can talk about my Penis :P

[Eryemil]

190. There you go again with the silly comparisons

Serves no function? You really should read my really long post up there.

The foreskin is FAR from a vestigial organ. It is something we humans share with every other mammal species on Earth and which has survived in one way or another though countless of adaptations over millions of years.
Nature very much believes that mucosa (the stuff the glans is made of, it's not just skin, more akin to the inner eyelid and mouth) should be protected from the elements in order to better serve its purpose.

You really have NO clue just how different a circumcised and intact penis are. You're most likely envisioning it as the current state of your penis with a flap of skin over it and you wouldn't be farther from the truth.

[Guava Jelly]

191. Circumcise yourself than you can tell me how different it feels.

I still believe they are ugly.
And not required to enjoy a full sex life.
Also My underwear do a fine job of protecting my penis from the environment.
When i see a uncircumcised Penis it looks like an animals penis like a dogs.Now I know we are animals so it makes sense.
And it is superficial..But it is what it is.
We can go back and forth all day and I am happy that you are euphoric about having a hoodie still.
You should feel confident and happy with yourself.

[Eryemil]

192. What protects it from your underwear?

Have you ever wondered why the texture of your glans is so rough, and about the chalky discoloration of it when it reality it should resemble the inside of your mouth in both texture and colour?
Well I bet you haven't but I'll tell you anyways. It is due to buildup of keratin (Stuff your hair and nails is made of) around the parts previously covered by the foreskin. A callous more or less.
This layer of keratin also hardens and thickens with age, so you might be swinging to my side in a decade or so if you can still get it up.

If the dog comparison was meant to be offensive then its failed its purpose because it is exactly what the foreskin is; a modified sheath. The penis is an internal organ after all.
In our case this sheath fused to the shaft over time, leaving 1/3 of the penile skin to glide comfortably back and forth. (As the image in my big post shows)
The surface above the circumcision scar on a cut male is not actually conventional skin at all but internal mucosa. Think of it like our eyelids, there's the regular epidermis on the outside then a transition the the shiny red stuff which is the mucosa.

Here are some wikipedia images that better demonstrate the difference:

http://bayimg.com/fandDAABd http://bayimg.com/FAnDEaABD

Oh this is has been very fun. Like target practice, you've allowed me to better polish my argument.
The fact that you don't actually think about any of what I write is besides the point.

[Guava Jelly]

193. My penis is niether rough or chalky

It is beautiful and majestic and not slimy looking like a dogs.
I'll drop you a line if it petrifies.
You go ahead and polish your argument.
My argument is fine circumcised..
And I still think they are ugly

[Writer]

199. Dude, how many glans penii have you seen?

Take it from me - a wife of a Mexican with a GORGEOUS circumcised penis - it's all smooth and attractive skin.

Oh... and I had a lot of fun playing with it the other night. :9 He did, too.

[Guava Jelly]

204. A few.

Lucky Mr W. ;)
:hi:

[Eryemil]

206. A few hundred, at least

I've been sexually active since I was around 11yo (without counting the regular childhood experimentational years)
A friend of mine did the calculations. At a modest one partner per week average (I am now 19yo) it comes down to 400+. Sadly I can't really say whether the lack of variety as a young kid averages out in to more or less than 1 cock per week when the fact that I've very often had sex with maybe 3 people per week or so since.

I should have kept a logbook.

So, how many penises have YOU played with? Are you one of those Americans women that will insist to their dying word that their partners do not have a circumcision scar too?

In fact, you mention he's Mexican. If he has a more Spanish complexion (i.e White) he could very well not show a really dramatic scar. If he has the more common olive skin, chances are he also has a dark ring of scar tissue around the circumference of his todger. Along with severe color differences between the much darker shaft skin and the chalky pink of the glans and skin above the circumcision scar. Ethinic men, even those that look more or less white (me) have notably darker skin on their genitals. And unlike say, Southeast Asian men (where the glans is more darkly-colord on par with their outer skin tone) both black and native American men commonly have very shocking pink cockheads.

I know my cocks.

Since I don't imagine I'll ever see your husbands miraculous skinned pickle I can only speculate though.
Just know that the texture and coloration I described on my earlier post is more or less UNIVERSAL among circumcised males. Not to sound patronising but it doesn't seem likely you even know what I'm talking about.
"Smooth" can be applied to many things. A hairless span of skin for example. So yes, you could say the circumcised glans is fairly smooth, of course when compared to an intact one the difference is dramatic.

Here, take a look. Another picture courtesy of wikipedia.
http://tiny.cc/Lki8e

A fairly standard circumcised member by all acounts. Let me guide you through the particular quirks.
Right away you can spot the circumcision scar, not very prominent but still clearly noticeable.
There is also two more spots of scarring where the frenulum should have been. This is incidently the most sensitive part of a cut guy's anatomy, usually. Know why? The frenulum has the highest concentration of nerve endings on the penis, cut guys are just feeling the leftover sensation from that even if most of the nerve endings have beem amputated.
There is obvious keratinization of the glans itself. All the little cracks and valleys would most of the time, on an intact male, fully stretch out onto the moist, glass-like surface I showed in one of my earlier pictures. In cut guys however these cracks and uneveneness in texture is not actually a feature at all, but an error. Where in an intact guy the little wrinkles are just that, creased skin waiting to expand during an erection in cut guys it is solidified like that by layers upon layers of keratin. A true helmet-head for all intent and purposes.

Also take note of the hair high up on the shaft. It could be simply nature (it does occur often enough) or it could actually be that too much of the shaft skin was cut off during circumcision, forcing skin that should have been at the base of the penis/scrotum higher up the penile shaft.

[Writer]

207. My husband's dick is beautiful.

I see some moles, but no circumcision scar.

And he's definitely a more lightly complected Hispanic.

But who am I to question the Dick Expert? ;)

And by the way: That dick makes my tongue wiggle. :9

[Eryemil]

208. No circmcision scar eh?

So there is not a dark band of scar tissue (like in the picture) about 1/5 of the way below the glans right? Or even a drastic change in colour from the different kinds of tissue joined together through circumcision.

I'll take your word for it but I find it amusing that, with circumcision scarring being promiment on more or less 80% of cut guys that so many women end up joined the the ones with absolutely not scarring.

Maybe the scarring IS as repellent to them as it is to me. Who would have thought eh?

By the way, the proper tittle is Cockmaster, young apprentice.

[FedUpWithIt All]

195. I hate to disagree with you.

:hi: by the way.

But many of us who have had, eh hem, experience with uncut do not find them unattractive. In fact there is MORE to play with.

Really it matters little to me what foreskin state my partner is in, but it can have an affect on the partner. It HURTS men to hear that their penis is "disgusting", "gross", "unappealing". Men who are completely happy with their penis will undergo a circ. simply because they feel it will make them more acceptable in this country. That is unfortunate.

My boy is uncut. I think he and all of his bits are BEAUTIFUL.

Edited to add...he is uncut because it was inconceivable to me that i would put my precious baby through even the slightest risk for something cosmetic or socially acceptable. If HE does not like the look or feel when he is older he can change it. And we will always inform him of the differences in men so he will NEVER feel self conscience around other kids, for any reason.

[Guava Jelly]

203. I can't argue with personal experience.

And I know men are sensitive about their junk. Or they wouldn't feel the need to defend it so much.
I just have a problem with the mutilation argument.
I don't hold it against those who make the decision to not circumcise their children.
I am just happy that I was. And as much as a person who hasn't had the operation may be happy with the appearance of the soldier they possess. I am happy with mine.
Sure there are cases of bad circumcisions.I am happy that mine turned out as well as it did.
And if I ever reproduced and created a little me.I would have it done to him.
I'm sorry if I have came off like a dick.I didn't mean to.
People find different things beautiful as well as not so much beautiful.
:)

And Hi Fed..I hope all is well.It's nice to see you posting :hug:

[FedUpWithIt All]

220. All is very well.

:hug:

Hope you are too.